Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Tuttle

As the Supreme Court of California so cogently stated: “The rule against commingling ‘was adopted to provide a,gainst the probability in some cases, the *185possibility in many eases, and the danger in all eases that such commingling will result in the loss of clients ’ money. ’ ’ ’ Clark v. State Bar (1952), 39 Cal. 2d 161, 168, 246 P. 2d 1.

It has been the consistent practice of this court in recent years to impose a penalty of indefinite suspension or of disbarment in cases involving commingling of funds.*

Such is, in our opinion, necessary, in order to ensure that the interests of the public…