When should a judge report an attorney?

Useful Rulings on Duty of Corrective Action

Recent Rulings on Duty of Corrective Action

RAPHAEL BARAT VS JHONNY WILFREDO OCHOAORTIZ

The California Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3(D)(2) requires judges to take corrective action whenever the judge has personal knowledge or concludes in a judicial decision that an attorney has committed misconduct or violated the Rules of Professional conduct. The Court admonishes Plaintiff’s counsel not to make unfounded accusations of such a serious nature. Should Plaintiff’s counsel persist in doing so, the Court will be forced to take more firm action in the future.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

OSCAR EUGENIO MARTINEZ VS GERALDO PINEDA LOPEZ

Should Plaintiff’s counsel persist in making unfounded and inflammatory accusations, the Court will be forced to take formal action, per California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3(D)(2): “Whenever a judge has personal knowledge . . . that a lawyer has . . . violated any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the judge shall take appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate authority.”

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

BOLADIAN VS NAUGLES CORP

Finally, per Canon 3D(2) of the California Code of Judicial Ethics and B&P Code §6086.7(a)(2), this Court is obligated to report Attorney Dickerson to the State Bar for his conduct leading to the need to vacate the 9/25/19 order. The clerk of the court is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to both the State Bar and Attorney Dickerson at his new address.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

PATRICIA ACEVEDO VS ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES EDUCATION & W

The California Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3(D)(2) requires judges to take corrective action whenever the judge has personal knowledge or concludes in a judicial decision that an attorney has committed misconduct or violated the Rules of Professional conduct.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2019

CURTIS JACKSON JR VS SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES INC ET AL

Referral to the California State Bar Association The California Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3(D)(2) requires judges to take corrective action whenever the judge has personal knowledge or concludes in a judicial decision that an attorney has committed misconduct or violated the Rules of Professional conduct. Based on this record, the Court cannot conclude that either attorney has committed misconduct or violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

JOHN LEROY HOWARD, M.D. VS MEIGHAN EDYTHE ELVIDA HOWARD

Code, § 6086.7.)” Gregori, at 308-309. The court went on to determine that disqualification was nevertheless not appropriate in that case: “The evidence before us does not warrant disqualification. There is no doubt that, as found by the trial court, Foley's acts "were the essence of unprofessionalism and poor judgment." However, it is one thing to say Foley's conduct was unprofessional and showed bad judgment and quite another to say, as the trial court did not, that it warrants his disqualification.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.