Gray

Gray v. State Bar

Good Law
1936 Cal. LEXIS 614·7 Cal. 2d 177·59 P.2d 1033
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 6, 1936S. F. 15063California2,699 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Waste, J.

On charges laid before The State Bar, such proceedings were had that the board of governors made a recommendation to this court that petitioner here be suspended from the practice of the law for a period of one year. The usual proceedings were ordered, and petitioner filed herein his petition that this court review the decision of the board. A writ of review was issued, and on the hearing, it appearing that the transaction which formed the basis of the charges preferred against petitioner, and which resulted in the recommendation by the board of governors that he be suspended, involved a party or parties who participated therein with petitioner, but who were not proceeded against and whose conduct in the matter had not been inquired into, it was ordered that this entire proceeding be remanded to the board of governors with directions to reopen the same, and by proper orders to bring before it for investigation any members of The State Bar who directly participated in the said transaction, or to take such further steps as might seem meet and proper. (1 Cal. (2d) 226 [ 33 Pac. (2d) 1016 ].)

The matter was thereupon reopened. The attorneys in question and other witnesses were…

Concurring Opinion

Curtis, J.

We concur in the conclusion reached in the foregoing opinion. The record before us shows that other members of The State Bar participated in the transaction out of which the present charge against petitioner arose. The whole matter was gone into by the board of governors of The State Bar with the result that all persons involved therein except the petitioner were exonerated from any wrongdoing in connection with said transaction. It would be most unjust and inequitable to penalize 1¡he petitioner under these circumstances. . For this reason, we have given our concurrence to the order dismissing the petition.

Thompson, J., and Shenk, J., dissented.

Rehearing denied. Shenk., J., and Thompson, J., voted for a rehearing.

Opinion

On charges laid before The State Bar, such proceedings were had that the board of governors made a recommendation to this court that petitioner here be suspended from the practice of the law for a period of one year. The usual proceedings were ordered, and petitioner filed herein his petition that this court review the decision of the board. A writ of review was issued, and on the hearing, it appearing that the transaction which formed the basis of the charges preferred against petitioner, and which resulted in the recommendation by the board of governors that he be suspended, involved a party or parties who participated therein with petitioner, but who were not proceeded against and whose conduct in the matter had not been inquired into, it was ordered that this entire proceeding be remanded to the board of governors with directions to reopen the same, and by proper orders to bring before it for investigation any members of The State Bar who directly participated in the said transaction, or to take such further steps as might seem meet and proper. ( 1 Cal.2d 226 [33 PaCal.2d 1016].)

The matter was thereupon reopened. The attorneys in question and other witnesses…

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.