Robert John Brady v. The State Bar of California

Brady appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and his request that a three-judge district court be convened, and dismissing his action for failure to state a claim for relief cognizable by the court. We affirm.

The district court properly refused to convene a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2281 . The Supreme Court has held that malapportionment of representation on a state bar governing body is not a violation of fourteenth amendment rights. Sullivan v. Alabama State Bar, 295 F.Supp. 1216 (M.D.Ala.), aff’d, 394 U.S. 812 , 89 S.Ct. 1486 , 22 L.Ed.2d 749 (1969). There is, thus, no substantial unsettled federal question on such malapportionment warranting a three-judge court. California Water Service Co. v. City of Redding, 304 U.S. 252 , 58 S.Ct. 865 , 82 L.Ed. 1323 (1938).

Further, even if the California State Bar Board of Governors were malapportioned, its acts would not for that reason be invalid, but would be valid as acts of a de facto authority. See Sullivan, supra, 295 F.Supp. at 1222 . In creating the California Pilot Program In Legal Specialization and in making a rule of professional conduct to further the…