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

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

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

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

On the other hand, the FACC and the Cross-Complainant's additional declarations state that the request is based upon the terms of the parties' agreement that provides for recovery of reasonable attorney fees. In such case, the Local Rule 3.214(a) applies and the Court orders the Cross-Complainant to revise and reduce the amount in accordance with the rule and the new compensatory damage. Clerk to give notice _____________________________ Dennis J. Landin, Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

GRDSHP OF SCOTT

Verified declaration by petitioner to specify any state laws upon which you base the grounds for your petition and allegations supporting your findings. 3. Proposed Order on Judicial Council Form GC-224 that contains specific, non- conclusory findings and the basis for each finding; factual basis must specifically state grounds of abuse, neglect and/or abandonment.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

HAI YING RUAN, ET AL. VS CUONG THOAI DIEP, ET AL.

On this basis, the Court agrees with Defendants’ assessment that the FAC needs to be amended to clearly state this a tort for aiding and abetting against the Moving Defendants.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RE: PET’N TO COMPEL TIMOTHY MARTINI TO ACCT; RPT ACTS COMPEL

Verified declaration by petitioner to state names, current addresses and relationships of all persons entitled to receive notice. LR 7.112 3. Proof of service in the manner provided in CCP § 415.10 (30 days personal service) or CCP § 415.30 (30 days proof of mailing with Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt) on each person claiming an interest in, or having title to or possession of, the property. PrC § 851(a)(2) KRISTEN GATES CHARLES B WOOD KRISTEN GATES CHARLES B.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST STATUS REPORT OF THE EXECUTOR'S ADMINISTRATION

Verified declaration by petitioner to state whether notice was given, or needed, to Dept. of Health Care Services as to predeceased spouse. PrC § 215, 9202(a); i.e., did predeceased spouse receive Medi-Cal benefits? 4. Compliance with CRC 7.250 regarding any acts taken under IAEA w/notice of proposed action. (Specifics needed including date was given and date action was taken) 5. Verified declaration by petitioner to include date of each receipt, and itemized expenses re: sale of real property.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TRUST INSTRUMENT & CONFIRMATION

Submit Order Fixing Residence Outside the State of California Form GC-090 Note: Pursuant to court’s order dated 8/1/2018, Petitioners previously moved the ward to Nevada and were ordered to transfer the guardianship to Nevada within four months of the move. ARMANI JARED PICKARD SUMMER C SELLECK DIANA LYNN PICKARD MATTHEW ALLEN PICKARD Need appearances Need appearances

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR COMPENSATION

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 2. Proof of mailing to conservatee or waiver by counsel. PrC § 1460 3. Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify payments to AT&T. It appears amounts paid are excessive for periods in which conservatee lived in a care facility. 4. Original financial account statement(s) as required by PrC § 2620(c) (2), (3) 5.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE YOUNG REVOCABLE TRUST

File a verified declaration to state names, current addresses and relationships of all persons entitled to receive notice. LR 7.112 3. Have a Judicial Council Form Notice of Hearing and copy of petition mailed to all persons entitled to receive notice and file a Proof of Service with court. 4. Submit a proposed Order Note: Letters of Temporary Guardianship issued to paternal aunt, Tanicia Currie, 8-5-19.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR APPT OF CONSERVATOR OF PERSON & ESTATE

File a declaration to state why termination of the guardianship is in the best interest of the minor 3. Proof of mailing petition and notice of hearing to all parties entitled to notice The Court is still waiting for: A. Response from guardian Note: Letters of guardianship issued to maternal grandmother Luz Salgado 3/12/2018 ALINNA CHAVEZ AMADOR CHAVES LUZ M.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CARRIEN QIAN HE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JAY MIN CHEN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges that on October 18, 2018, without authorization, Chen and Hung filed a new statement of information with the California Secretary of State, naming Hung a Director of Globalinks. Chen, in turn, seeks the involuntary dissolution of Globalinks and alleges that He has engaged in “brutal physical attacks” on Chen.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RE: PET’N FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION, NO WILL, IAEA

Verified declaration by petitioner to state names, current addresses and relationships of all persons entitled to receive notice. LR 7.112 4. Proof of mailing Judicial Council Form Notice of Hearing to all persons entitled to receive notice 5.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: 1ST & FNL RPT OF ADMNTR, PET’N FOR ITS SETTLEMENT, FNL DIST

File a verified declaration to state names, current addresses and relationships of all persons entitled to receive notice. LR 7.112 4. Have a Judicial Council Form Notice of Hearing and copy of petition mailed to all persons entitled to receive notice and file a Proof of Service with court. 5. Submit a proposed Order The Court is waiting for these items: Report of Atty. Randolph Stein Note: Petitioner is no longer temporary conservator. Court will revoke temporary letters issued 7-20-2020.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MARTIN BALMACEDA VS ZHICHENG LIU ET AL

To state a cause of action for negligent entrustment against Defendants, Plaintiff must prove that: (1) Liu negligently operated a vehicle owned by Defendants; (2) Defendants knew or should have known that Liu was incompetent or unfit to drive the vehicle; (3) Defendants permitted Liu to use the vehicle anyway; and (4) Liu’s incompetence or unfitness harmed Plaintiff. (Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 853, 863-864.) Defendants argue that they did not permit Liu to use the vehicle.

  • Hearing

CARLOS HALILI VS FCA US, LLC

Any Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the date the subject vehicle was purchased to the present. Any internal analysis and/or investigation regarding defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. This includes Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins. FCA is not required to do a search of emails.

  • Hearing

JEFFREY NATHAN PURVEY VS YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF BURBANK, CALIFORNIA

California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774, internal citations omitted.) “The court’s first determination, therefore, is whether the statute expressly allows the item, and whether it appears proper on its face. If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show them to be unnecessary or unreasonable.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131, internal citations omitted.)

  • Hearing

TRACEY BRAXTON VS CITY OF GARDENA, ET AL.

[t]he injured person was the owner of a vehicle involved in the accident and the vehicle was not insured as required by the financial responsibility laws of this state.” (Civ. Code, § 3333.4.) Defendants proffer evidence that Plaintiff alleges special damages in the amount of $19,590.24. (Declaration of Louis R. Dumont, Exhibit B.) Based upon this evidence, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s recovery will not exceed $19,590.24.

  • Hearing

MARIAN A ANDERSON VS SHERMAN OAKS HOSPITAL, ET AL.

DISCUSSION To state a claim, Plaintiff must be the real party in interest. (Code Civ. Proc., § 367.) On a claim for wrongful death of a decedent, the real party in interest is the decedent’s personal representative, or the decedent’s surviving spouse, registered domestic partner, children and issue of deceased children, or, if none, persons who would inherit the decedent’s property by intestate succession. (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.60.)

  • Hearing

CALIFORNIA DUI LAWYERS ASSN ET AL VS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF MOTO

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT CALIFORNIA DUI LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, et al., Defendants. CASE NO.: BC553552 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO TAX COSTS Date: December 2, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT PEDRO GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, et al., Defendants. CASE NO.: 20STCV17405 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO ANOTHER DISTRICT Date: December 2, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Roseian I, LLC; Park Avenue Asset Management, Inc.; Scott V.

  • Hearing

HAIM¿ AHRONI VS LISA¿ DIANE HARPER, ET AL.

DISCUSSION To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the elements set forth in the punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294. (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.) Per Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Any Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the date the subject vehicle was purchased to the present. Any internal analysis and/or investigation regarding defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. This includes Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins. GM is not required to do a search of emails.

  • Hearing

ESTATE OF DOROTHY E. BENFORD

The Petition suffers from the following defects that must be corrected: a) The Petition lacks sufficient facts to state the basis of the claim in terms that can be relied upon by the court to find “good cause” (Prob. Code, § 11704(b)(2)) to determine persons entitled to distribution. (Prob. Code, § 11700 [“The petition shall include a statement of the basis for the petitioner’s claim.”].)

  • Hearing

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 load this page.