Hulland

Hulland v. State Bar

Good Law
105 Cal. Rptr. 152·1972 Cal. LEXIS 263·8 Cal. 3d 440·503 P.2d 608
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 7, 1972L.A. 29787California3,914 words

Opinion

Opinion

This is a proceeding under Business and Professions Code section 6083, subdivision (b) and rule 59(b) of the California Rules of Court to review a decision of the State Bar Disciplinary Board.

Local Administrative Committee Number 6 for Los Angeles County found that petitioner, Franklin Alfred Hulland, in violation of his oath and duties as an attorney, wilfully neglected to render the services for which he was retained and used a confession of judgment and substitution of attorneys adversely to the interest of his client. The committee recommended that petitioner be suspended from practice for 60 days but that suspension be stayed on condition that he comply with the State Bar Act and obey the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar for a two-year probationary period. The Disciplinary Board of the State Bar, modifying the committee’s findings of fact, concluded that petitioner violated his oath and duties as an attorney by wilfully failing to render the services for which he was retained, using a confession of judgment to the detriment of his client, and, in addition, improperly delegating functions to lay employees. The board voted to publicly reprove…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.