Petitioner attorney sought review of a recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of respondent State Bar (California) that petitioner be suspended from law practice for two years on conditions of probation, which included actual suspension for two months with restitution to former clients. Petitioner was involved in four cases of alleged misconduct concerning failure to perform work after being retained and failure to return retainer money.
Overview: Información relacionada con Horas de trabajo
Petitioner attorney was involved in four matters of alleged misconduct. The matters involved failure to perform work after obtaining retainers and failure to return retainer money on demand. The Disciplinary Board of respondent State Bar of California recommended that petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for two years on conditions of probation that included actual suspension for two months with restitution to former clients. Petitioner sought review of respondent's recommendation. An attorney's willful failure to perform legal services for which he had been retained warranted disciplinary action and constituted a breach of good faith and fiduciary duty. The court imposed a more severe penalty than recommended. The court imposed an actual suspension of six months on petitioner including the suspension for a period of two years on conditions of probation. The court stated that normally it gave great weight to the disciplinary recommendation of respondent. The court found that there was a lack of candor in petitioner's testimony before the bar committee and that his misconduct in the matters involved justified a penalty in excess of respondent's recommendation.
The court imposed an actual suspension of six months on petitioner attorney including the suspension for a period of two years on conditions of probation recommended by respondent State Bar of California. The court found that there was a lack of candor in petitioner's testimony before the bar committee and that his misconduct in the four matters before the court warranted a penalty in excess of respondent's recommendation.
Appellant physician sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied a peremptory writ of mandate in a proceeding brought to review an action by respondent board of medical examiners that ordered the suspension of the physician's license.
The physician was convicted of furnishing narcotics to an addict, or to any person representing himself as such. The physician was placed on probation. The board filed an accusation against the physician for his criminal dereliction and ordered suspension of the physician's license. The physician applied to the superior court for a writ of mandate to compel the board to set aside its order. The superior court sustained the order and denied relief to the physician. The physician appealed. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment for the board and held that the board had authority to suspend the license of a physician who was found to be guilty of unprofessional conduct, and it was expressly provided by statute that conviction of any offense involving moral turpitude constituted unprofessional conduct, with the record of the conviction serving as conclusive evidence thereof, pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §2383.
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the board.