Petitioner attorney challenged the decision of the Review Department of the State Bar - timscotty/timscotty GitHub Wiki

Petitioner attorney challenged the decision of the Review Department of the State Bar (California), which unanimously recommended that petitioner be disbarred.

Overview: Caso relacionado con acoso prohibido

The state bar court and the Review Department of the State Bar recommended disbarment of petitioner attorney. The supreme court ordered disbarment, holding that petitioner violated court orders, knowingly made false representations to the court and clients, refused to obey a court order, knowingly wrote a court ordered check on an account with insufficient funds, willfully commingled, diverted, and misappropriated money from a client's estate, and committed acts involving moral turpitude and dishonesty. The court further found that the only mitigating factor was lack of prior disciplinary proceedings against petitioner; however, it found aggravating factors, including petitioner's demonstrated contempt for courts, the state bar and it procedures, and the legal system as a whole.

The court ordered that petitioner attorney be disbarred from the practice of law because of his myriad of professional conduct violations, including fraud on clients and the IRS, filing frivolous lawsuits, and contempt for the state bar disciplinary process.

HOLDINGS: [1]-In a case in which the question before the appellate court was whether the attorney-client privilege under Evid. Code, § 950 et seq., applies to intrafirm communications between attorneys concerning disputes with a current client, when that client later sues the firm for malpractice, the appellate court concluded that when an attorney representing a current client seeks legal advice from an in-house attorney concerning a dispute with the client, the privilege may apply to their confidential communications; [2]-The "fiduciary" and "current client" exceptions to the attorney-client privilege are not recognized under California law; [3]-As a matter of law, petitioners failed to establish preliminary facts showing an attorney-client relationship existed between a Chicago partner and one of the attorneys who was sued.

Petitioners' petition for writ of mandate was granted in part and denied in part, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.