Procedural Posture

Petitioner attorney challenged a decision of respondent Review Department of the State Bar (California), which recommended that petitioner be disbarred from the practice of law. Petitioner argued that he was denied effective counsel, that the process was unfair, and that he lacked the requisite mental capacity.

Overview

Respondent Review Department of the State Bar recommended that petitioner attorney be disbarred from the practice of law in California. This is a law about PC 647 about drunk in public. Petitioner challenged the recommendation. The supreme court accepted the recommendation and disbarred petitioner. The court rejected petitioner's argument that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. There was no constitutional right to the assistance of counsel in state bar proceedings. Additionally, the court found no inconsistency in the state bar finding first that petitioner was not incapacitated, and second that his practice should be supervised in order to protect the public. Finally, the court found that petitioner did not lack the necessary state of mind at the time that he abandoned his practice. The court found that petitioner was cognizant of his actions, despite the pancreatitis, alcohol and drug addiction, and paranoid delusions. Petitioner's verbal assurances that he would never drink or take drugs again were not sufficient proof that he had overcome a history of alcohol and drug abuse stretching back to his adolescence.

Outcome

Petitioner attorney was disbarred. Even though petitioner had no prior disciplinary record and his acts appeared to constitute an isolated period of wrongdoing, the court doubted whether petitioner would conform his future conduct to the professional standards demanded of attorneys. The risk that petitioner might engage in other professional misconduct if allowed to continue practicing law was sufficiently high to warrant his disbarment.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiffs, a law firm and its two partners, appealed an order from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted defendants' request to strike their memorandum of costs seeking attorney fees incurred as the prevailing parties in a prior appeal.

Overview

The request for attorney fees pertained to services rendered by an associate to the firm and its partners on appeal from the dismissal of a cross-complaint against the firm and its partners. In denying fees, the trial court concluded that although the partners were named in their individual capacities in the cross-complaint, there was no indication in the record that there was any potential individual liability, separate and apart from the potential liability of their law firm. The court held that because the partners made no showing that the attorney fees sought to be recovered under Civ. Code, § 1717, for the associate's work on their behalf were not attributable to representation of the law firm, the trial court did not err in ruling that the partners could not recover fees. In this context, the individual partners were treated as interchangeable with the law firm; thus, the rule that attorney fees were not recoverable for self-representation applied, absent a showing that the representation of the partners by the associate related to the protection of the partners' individual interests from realistic personal exposure.

Outcome

The court affirmed the order.