When should a judge report an attorney?

Useful Rulings on Duty of Corrective Action

Recent Rulings on Duty of Corrective Action

UNITED GRAND CORPORATION VS MALIBU HILLBILLIES LLC ET AL

Misconduct under Judicial Canon 3(D)(2): Mr. Staub in a supplemental filing encourages that Sanai should be reported to the State Bar for misconduct, as Sanai has repeatedly violated court orders, has misled the court, and has defamed several judicial officers in his opposition and exhibits. The Court agrees with Sanai that the allegations and the “relief” requested was not part of the moving papers, however, that request is taken under submission and the Court invites Mr.

  • Hearing

SUZANNE PATRICIA PORRAZZO VS MARYAN CECILIA BAKER

Paraphrasing canon 3D(2) of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, the trial court concluded that it had a duty to “‘take appropriate corrective action’” when it had “‘personal knowledge that a lawyer has violated any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct.’” Although we agree with those general principles, a court is limited to exercising this inherent authority only when the misconduct “will have a continuing effect on the judicial proceedings.”

  • Hearing

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB, AN INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE VS YANSY ESTEFANIA SAMOYOA PAREDES

Per California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3(D)(2), the Court issues this Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions (“OSC”) against Plaintiff and Deborah L. McClain (California State Bar #81034). The Court provides notice that it is considering the following sanctions: 1. Sanctions of $1,000 or less against Plaintiff and/or Deborah L. McClain (California State Bar #81034). 2. A referral to the California State Bar Association. 3. Dismissal of this case with prejudice.

  • Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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 load this page.