Client State Bar Complaint

(Based on The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Opinion No. 2012-185.)

An attorney is prohibited from seeking a client’s written or oral agreement not to file a State Bar complaint against that attorney. (Bus. and Prof. Code, § 6090.5; In re McCarthy (Review Dept. 2002) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 364; In re Brockway (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 944.)

“A member shall not be a party to or participate in offering or making an agreement which precludes the reporting of a violation” of the Rules of Professional Conduct. (Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 1-500(B).)

Legal Standard

“It is cause for suspension, disbarment, or other discipline for any licensee, whether as a party or as an attorney for a party, to agree or seek agreement, that: (1) The professional misconduct or the terms of a settlement of a claim for professional misconduct shall not be reported to the State Bar. (2) The plaintiff shall withdraw a disciplinary complaint or shall not cooperate with the investigation or prosecution conducted by the State Bar. (3) The record of any civil action for professional misconduct shall be sealed from review by the State Bar.” (Bus. and Prof. Code, § 6090.5(a).)

Disciplinary proceedings under the prior version of section 6090.5 were more lenient concerning offers to settle. (In Matter of Fonte (Review Dept. 1994) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 752.) Based upon legislative intent as reflected the 1996 amendment, the court concluded that section 6090.5 must be broadly interpreted as prohibiting attorneys from seeking to conceal from the State Bar unethical conduct through a written or oral client agreement. (In the Matter of Blum (Review Dept. 2002) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 403, 413.)

Useful Rulings on State Bar Complaints

Recent Rulings on State Bar Complaints

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

State Water Resources Control Bd. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1471 [internal citations and footnote omitted].) “[A]n irreparable injury is one for which either (1) its pecuniary value is not susceptible to monetary valuation, or (2) the item is so unique its loss deprives the possessor of intrinsic values not replaceable by money or in kind.” (Jessen v. Keystone Savings & Loan Assn. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 454, 457.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

CAS004001, as amended on June 16, 2015 by State Board Order WQ 2015-0075. 2. The peremptory writ further commands that Respondents shall reconsider the Permit in light of the decision of this Court dated April 18, 2019. 3. Nothing in this judgment or the writ shall limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in Respondents. 4. Petitioners shall recover their costs in this proceeding in the amount of $_____.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3). The hearings on the applications are continued to 7/19/19 to allow the applicants to provide supplemental information regarding the foregoing factors. The supplemental information should be submitted by 7/12/19. No appearance is required at the hearing set for 6/21/19.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

It does not bar receipt. None of these exhibits reflects use or disclosure of confidential information by Emanate outside of the context of the contemplated acquisition. Emanate is entitled to summary adjudication of Issue No. 32. The court determines that Issue No. 33, then, is moot. 2. Motion to Seal Legal Standard California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rules 2.550 and 2.551 govern records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS GOTHAM DEVELOPMENTS LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

The declaration lacks the requisite language for admissibility (ie: identification of the place of signing and/or a statement providing “under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California…” if signed outside of California.) To be admissible, a declaration made out-of-state for use in California must state that the statements were made under penalty of California law in material compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5. Kulshrestha v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, a motion to amend a pleading before trial must (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HAGOP TCHAKERIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency(2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 [“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”]; Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.”].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MED CAFE CORP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MOSTAFA KARIMBEIK, ET AL.

First Cause of Action: Breach of Written Contract To state a cause of action for breach of contract, Plaintiff must be able to establish “(1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HOMAYOUN LARIAN VS EDWARD CZUKER, ET AL.

“To state a claim for slander of title, a plaintiff must allege (1) a publication, (2) which is without privilege or justification, (3) which is false, and (4) which causes direct and immediate pecuniary loss.” (Schep v. Capital One, N.A. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1331, 1336.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ANNE SHOYKHET, ET AL. VS NATHALIE DUBOIS, ET AL.

Second, Plaintiffs’ allegations of conversion are internally contradictory, as they state that they did not consent to having their products given to noncelebrities, but they gave away their product to Defendant’s acquaintances; there are insufficient facts describing how products were “required to be given away.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARSHA A. JOHNSON VS BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSES

Again, Plaintiff fails to state what is posted with her license so it is unclear whether the Board is in compliance with its own Policy on Internet Discipline Document Retention. Accordingly, in that Plaintiff fails to set forth a claim upon which relief may be granted, Defendant Board of Registered Nursing’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED, with twenty (20) days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

KOUROSH IZADPANAHI VS MARIA ALMA YOLANDA IBARRA DABDOUB, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s statement that the owner’s passing canceled the agreement was not true, but he fails to state why Defendant could not have reasonably believed this statement to be true. (Compl. ¶¶ 54-55.) Plaintiff also fails to state how he relied on this statement in a manner that caused him damage. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently state a claim for negligent misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CHARLES PETERS

Plaintiffs shall provide legal authority allowing both the People of the State of California and the City of Beverly Hills to prosecute this action on or before July 31, 2020. Alternatively, Plaintiffs may elect to dismiss one Plaintiff from the action. Failure to provide such authority or dismiss one Plaintiff may result in the Court’s dismissal of one Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

NINA MARIE JOHNSON VS IAN PATTON, ET AL.

City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency(2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 [“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”]; Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.”].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LA LIVE PROPERTIES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS KA WAIKWAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Further, Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (b) states: “The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

RE: PET’N FOR ATTY FEES & COSTS, TERMINATION OF APPT

Verified declaration by petitioner to state (1) whether reunification with ward’s parents is viable; (2) whether it is in the ward’s best interest to return to his country of origin or last habitual residence and if not, the reason for not returning; (3) whether ward is married or unmarried; and, (4) and specify any state laws upon which you base the grounds for your petition and allegations supporting your findings. Items # 5 and 6 are incomplete. 3.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

CITY OF POMONA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL. VS HIGH SUPPLY, A BUSINESS ORGANIZATION, FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

High Supply, et al. (20PSCP00058) _____________________________________________ Plaintiffs City of Pomona’s and People of the State of California, by and through the City of Pomona’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiffs City of Pomona’s and People of the State of California, by and through the City of Pomona’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

To state a cause of action under Business & Professions Code § 17200, a plaintiff must allege (1) a business practice, (2) that is unfair, unlawful or fraudulent; and (3) an authorized remedy. Under the UCL, prevailing plaintiffs “are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution.” (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 179).

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

GRDSHP OF NICKOLAS P KRAUSE

Also, please include any state laws upon which you base the grounds for your petition and allegations supporting your findings. Note: Mam Interpreter is requested. DODIS MARLENY GARCIA VASQUEZ ABBY SULLIVAN ENGEN KEYLITA KIMBERLY GARCIA VASQUE ABBY SULLIVAN ENGEN

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

AMERICAN RECOVERY SERVICE INCORPORATED, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AS ASSIGNEE OF STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, A PUBLIC E VS QUINTANA CONSTRUCTION, INC.

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 17 TENTATIVE RULING AMERICAN RECOVERY SERVICE INCORPORATED, A CALIFRONIA CORPORATION AS ASSIGNEE OF STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, A PUBLIC ENTERPRISE FUND AND INDEPENDENT AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs. QUINTANA CONSTRUCTION, INC. Defendants. Case No.: 19STCV31574 Hearing Date: July 17, 2020 Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED in its entirety.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Given that Plaintiff has alleged the existence of a contract, a breach of that contract, and damage as a result of that breach, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for breach of contract.(Wall Street Network, Ltd., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1178.) Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer to the first and second causes of action are overruled. II.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC. VS THE KROGER CO., ET AL.

Factual Background Proposition 65 imposes warning requirements of the presence of certain chemicals identified by the State of California. The instant action arises out of allegations that Defendants distributed and sold sea-weed snacks which contained Cadmium, but which failed to include the required Proposition 65 warning.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Given that Plaintiff has alleged the existence of a contract, a breach of that contract, and damage as a result of that breach, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for breach of contract.(Wall Street Network, Ltd., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1178.) Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer to the first and second causes of action are overruled. II.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

PETITION OF PRABAHAR ARUL PANDIARAJ JOSEPH

Declaration to state need for reserve in excess of $2,000.00. If $10,000 reserve is needed, Ct will consider approving a preliminary distribution and approve 75% of fees requested. 7. Proposed order DANIELLE WILLIAMS SMITH STEPHEN SHARON LEE WILLIAMS Need appearances to report status.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF YVETTE DEROUEN FIGUEROA

Verified declaration by petitioner to state names, current addresses and relationships of all persons entitled to receive notice so court can confirm mailing. LR 7.112 3. Note: Accounting was filed 3/4/2020 as a response to this petition. No hearing date was set GARY RAGAN JIM G PRICE KATHLEEN M WETZEL JOEL A. HARRIS THE VIRGINIA RAGAN TRUST DATED

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.