Marsh v. State Bar

PRESTON, J.

This proceeding was instituted to review an order of the board of governors of The State Bar of California, adopting findings of the local administrative committee, and recommending to this court the. suspension of petitioner from the practice of the law for a period of three years.

Petitioner was admitted to practice in this state in May, 1917, and is now about 38 years old. Prom time to time his dilatory tactics have antagonized clients to such an extent that they have lodged complaints against him, but few of which, however, have proceeded to formal hearing.

About February 1, 1933, petitioner received at Los Angeles a letter from Mr. Chas. J. Soderbery, a resident of Coronado, asking him to accept employment to secure an annulment of the marriage of Mr. Soderbery’s minor son. An early termination of the marriage was desired because the obtainment of a school teaching position by the wife

[77]

depended upon her resuming her maiden name. On February 4th petitioner replied accepting the employment, naming a fee of $75 and $12 costs, 50 per cent thereof payable in advance, and stating that the “matter if started immediately could ordinarily be completed within approximately two weeks time”.

On February 7, 1933, Mr. Soderbery sent petitioner a check for $50 on account and gave him all necessary information to enable him to proceed with the annulment. However, during ensuing months, despite continuous demands, petitioner neglected and refused to perform his duties under said employment or to advise Mr. Soderbery as to the status of the matter, except that once, during the month of March, he called at Mr. Soderbery’s office and misrepresented to him that he. would at once prepare papers for taking the son’s deposition and that the reason the action had not then been begun was that the “bank holiday had closed the courts”. About May 17, 1933, Mr. Soderbery discharged petitioner, asked for a return of his money, and employed new counsel, who procured the annulment. Petitioner then neglected to return the $50. Repeated efforts to reach him were unavailing. Finally, on December 9, 1933, after this-proceeding had been instituted and set for hearing, petitioner visited Mr. Soderbery at Coronado, apologized to him and refunded said sum.