Petitioner attorney sought review of a judgment of respondent

Petitioner attorney sought review of a judgment of respondent, the State Bar Court (California), which recommended that petitioner be suspended for one year, with execution stayed, and that he be placed on two years probation upon ruling that petitioner violated various portions of the State Bar of California Rules of Professional Conduct and the California Business and Professions Code.

 

Overview: Caso relacionado con oficina virtual sos empleadores

 

 

Respondent state bar began disciplinary hearings against petitioner attorney for dealings with clients in which petitioner acquired pecuniary interests. After respondent recommended that petitioner be suspended for one year, with execution stayed, and that he be placed on probation for two years, petitioner sought review. The court ordered that petitioner be placed on suspension for five years, with execution stayed, and ordered probation for five years. The court held that petitioner violated Cal. Bar R., Prof. Conduct R. 5-101 in three separate transactions with his clients. Petitioner also violated Cal. Bar R., Prof. Conduct 6-101 by knowingly performing legal services without the requisite skill. Accordingly, upon its independent review of the record, the court concluded that the findings of respondent were fully substantiated by the evidence, that there was no violation of due process, and that each of petitioner's arguments lacked merit.

 

 

 

The court ordered petitioner attorneys' suspension for five years, stayed execution, and placed petitioner on probation for a period of five years. The court concluded that respondent state bar's decision to punish petitioner for misconduct would stand in light of the significant testimonial evidence presented. The court further held that respondent's proceedings did not violate any of petitioner's due process rights.

 

 

 

 

Petitioner corporate defendant initiated a proceeding in prohibition to prevent respondent Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) from giving effect to its order requiring the corporation to provide real party in interest personal injury plaintiff with a report and statements to satisfy interrogatories. The court considered the matter as a proceeding to inspect documents pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.

 

 

 

The plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action sought damages from the corporation for personal injuries she allegedly received in a fall on a stairway at one of the corporation's restaurants. In discovery, the plaintiff requested copies of all statements taken from employees of the corporation on the date of the accident, and all reports made and information gathered by the corporation. The superior court ordered the corporation to submit the documents for discovery. The corporation petitioned the court for writ of prohibition. The court issued a peremptory writ prohibiting the superior court from ordering production of the documents because the court found that they were privileged. The court held that the attorney-client privilege applied to the report and statements of the corporation's employees concerning the plaintiff's accident because the documents were sent, pursuant to the terms of the corporation's insurance, to its insurer. The court found no evidence to contradict the corporation's affidavit that the documents were obtained for the sole purpose of being transmitted as a communication to the attorney to assist in his defense against the plaintiff's claims.

 

 

 

The court issued the peremptory writ requested by the corporation and prohibited the superior court from ordering the corporation to produce the report and statements requested by the plaintiff.