“Canon 3D(2) of the California Code of Judicial Ethics provides:
‘Whenever a judge has personal knowledge, or concludes in a judicial decision, that a lawyer has committed misconduct or 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.’
The advisory committee commentary accompanying canon 3D(2) instructs that California law imposes on judges mandatory reporting requirements to the State Bar regarding lawyer misconduct.” (Martinez v. O'Hara (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 853, 856-57.)
Appropriate corrective action could include direct communication with the judge or lawyer who has committed the violation, writing about the misconduct in a judicial decision, or other direct action, such as a confidential referral to a judicial or lawyer assistance program, or a report of the violation to the presiding judge, appropriate authority, or other agency or body. Judges should note that in addition to the action required by Canon 3D(2), California law imposes additional mandatory reporting requirements to the State Bar on judges regarding lawyer misconduct. See Business and Professions Code sections 6086.7 and 6086.8, subdivision (a), and California Rules of Court, rules 10.609 and 10.1017.
“Appropriate authority” means the authority with responsibility for initiation of the disciplinary process with respect to a violation to be reported.
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6086.8(a) provides that: Within 20 days after a judgment by a court of this state that a member of the State Bar of California is liable for any damages resulting in a judgment against the attorney in any civil action for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, or gross negligence committed in a professional capacity, the court which rendered the judgment shall report that fact in writing to the State Bar of California.
“Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6068 (b) provides that: it is the duty of an attorney to "maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers." Disrespectful statements made in court papers are grounds for attorney discipline and/or contempt. (See Ramirez v. State Bar (1980) 28 Cal.3d 402 (attorney suspended for brief falsely accusing appellate justices of acting illegally as a result of their alleged bias in favor of financially strong opposing party); In re Koven (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 262, 270-277 (attorney’s brief falsely accusing appellate court of "deliberate judicial dishonesty" resulted in contempt proceedings, monetary fine, and referral to the California State Bar).)” (Martinez v. O'Hara (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 853, 856.)
California Rules of Court, Rule 10.609. Notification to State Bar of attorney misconduct provides:
(See also, Knutson v. Foster (2018) 236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 473, 490 [holding that: “Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6086.8, subdivision (a) and California Code of Judicial Ethics canon 3D(2), the clerk of this court is directed to forward a copy of this opinion to the California State Bar and directly to Richard J. Foster upon issuance of the remittitur.”])
In Knutson “[a]fter a three-week trial, the jury found in favor of Dagny Knutson on her fraudulent concealment and intentional breach of fiduciary duty claims against her former attorney, Richard J. Foster, and awarded her economic and noneconomic damages. The trial court granted Foster's motion for a new trial on the grounds that Knutson did not prove Foster's conduct was the cause of Knutson's damages and that Knutson had failed to offer substantial evidence of her emotional distress damages.” (Id. at 473.)
raphael barat , Plaintiff, v. jhonny wilfredo ochoaortiz, et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC642976 Hearing Date: February 24, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: defendant’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Background Plaintiff Raphael Barat (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Defendant” or “Home Depot”) following a motor vehicle collision. Defendant Johnny Wilfredo O...
..ore. Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant on the theory that there is an agency relationship between Defendant and day laborers who congregate outside Home Depot stores. Defendant moves for summary judgment, arguing that it is not vicariously liable for Ochoaortiz’s negligence, if any, which Plaintiff opposes. The Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. LEGAL STANDARD “[T]...
CURTIS JACKSON, JR., by and through his Guardian Ad Litem CURTIS JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC603583 Hearing Date: February 21, 2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: 1. d’attaray’s Ex Parte application for order that leblanc is not entitled to act on plaintiff’s behalf 2. d’attaray’s ex parte application for an order requiring leblanc to transf...
..hat resolved. Before the Court approved the settlement, Jackson attempted to terminate LeBlanc’s representation and retained Mainak D’Attaray, Esq. (“D’Attaray”). On February 13, 2019, D’Attaray filed an ex parte application seeking an order that: (1) LeBlanc is not entitled to represent Plaintiff, (2) LeBlanc must transfer Plaintiff’s file to D’Attaray, and (3) LeBlanc’s pending motion to appoint...
PATRICIA ACEVEDO, Plaintiff, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES EDUCATION & WELFARE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC664297 Hearing Date: February 21, 2019 [Tentative] order RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BACKGROUND Plaintiff Patricia Acevedo (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she attended a bingo game at Defendants’ school and tripped on a mat on the floor of the gymnasium, caus...
..Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”...
oscar eugenio martinez , Plaintiff, v. geraldo pineda lopez, Defendant. Case No.: BC713597 Hearing Date: February 10, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel deposition Background Plaintiff Oscar Eugenio Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action following a motor vehicle collision with Defendant Geraldo Pineda Lopez (“Defendant”). Defendant moves to compel the depositions of Plaintiff, wh...
..iv. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (a).) Defendant has the right to take Plaintiff’s deposition and is entitled to take it without leave of court at any time. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.210, subd. (a).) DISCUSSION Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for November 20, 2019, which was Defendant’s fifth attempt to schedule Plaintiff’s deposition. At the request of Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendant cont...
This is a partnership dispute. In this motion, Defendants seek to set aside and vacate this Court’s terminating sanction. Defendants have new counsel who alleges that prior counsel was guilty of positive misconduct, justifying equitable relief.A. BackgroundOn 11/2/19, plaintiff’s counsel caused to be served upon defendants’ counsel Shawn Dickerson four sets of form interrogatories (one to each of...
..opposition to the motion.On 7/15/19, this Court held oral argument on plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication. Attorney Dickerson did not attend the hearing, nor did he file any opposition to the motion.On 8/19/19, this...
1-9 of 9 results
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.”
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Orange County, CA
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.
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.
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.