Libarian v. State Bar

THE COURT.

This proceeding was brought to review an order of the Board of Governors of The State Bar recommending that petitioner, M. (Manasse) Stephen Libarian, be suspended from the practice of the law in this state for a period of one year. In reaching its conclusion the board adopted the findings of the local administrative committee but rejected that committee’s recommendation of disbarment.

The charges against petitioner arose from his persistence in advertising. In July, 1941, a public reprimand was administered to him after he had given a “solemn promise” to stop advertising, but in 1942 continued investigation revealed more flagrant acts and further charges were filed which resulted in the imposition of a three-month period of suspension

[315]

(Libarian

v.

State

Bar,

21

Cal.2d 862 [136 P.2d 321]). The present proceeding was commenced in February, 1944. As ground for review petitioner asserts that the findings are not supported by the evidence and in any event are contrary to the weight of the evidence. An examination of the record shows that this assertion is unfounded. The findings are responsive to the charges made by an amended order to show cause, many material facts are admitted, and the challenged findings and conclusions have substantial evidentiary support.

Since July, 1943, petitioner has maintained a law office in his home at LaBrea Avenue and West Adams Boulevard, Los Angeles. On the west side of the building he erected a sign 17 x 17½ inches reading, “M. STEPHEN LIBARIAN LAWYER, ’ ’ and in front he erected a signpost with signs thereon reading respectively: 1. “INCOME TAX EXPERT” (size 34" x 10"); 2. “NOTARY” (size 34" x 6½); and 3. “OPEN 8 A.M.—9 P.M. ’ ’ (size 19" x 5"). Another sign read: ‘ ‘ FREE PARKING FOR M. STEPHEN LIBARIAN CLIENTS WHILE VISITING.”

The three signs on the signpost, the Board of Governors found, were “advertising signs.” Petitioner argues that they were not erected to procure legal business but merely to identify him and indicate, as any lawyer might, the three lines of work, law, income tax, and notary, while the parking sign was erected merely for the convenience of clients. He refers to alleged conversations and correspondence with officials of The State Bar relative to signs of permissible size and character, and claims that the signs erected were tacitly, if not expressly, within approved specifications. But this entire argument is presented upon matters which are not admitted by The State Bar, and which do not appear in the record. The evidence of record sufficiently supports the board’s classification of the signs as advertising signs.