Townsend v. State Bar
Before: Waste
WASTE, C. J.
The respondent State Bar of California has recommended to this court that petitioner be suspended from the practice of the law for a period of six months because of his alleged violation of the provisions of section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It appears that petitioner was admitted to practice in all the courts of this state on May 23, 1921. On September 30,
[620]
1930, he was suspended from the practice for a period of one year for a violation of subdivision 4 of section 287,
supra,
in that, being an attorney at law, he loaned his name to be used as attorney and counselor by other persons who were not licensed attorneys.
(Townsend
v.
State Bar,
210 Cal. 362 [291 Pac. 837].) The suspension terminated September 30, 1931. In 1932 the petitioner was a candidate for election to the Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles. In conformity with section 5 of the Direct Primary Law (Stats. 1913, p. 1379, and amendments thereto), petitioner on June 14, 1932, within a year of the termination of his suspension, filed his sworn declaration of candidacy wherein, as required, he described his “occupation for the past three years” as follows: “Practice of Law. I was admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor in all the courts of California, at a session of the District Court of Appeal, on the 23rd day of May, 1921, and have ever since been in active practice thereundér and thereby. ’ ’ Petitioner was not elected. Two years later he again announced his candidacy for the same office. In support thereof he filed his sworn declaration of candidacy on June 22,1934, within three years of the termination'of his suspension from the practice. This latter declaration is identical with the former one in its description of petitioner’s “occupation for the past three years”.
These sworn statements wherein petitioner described his occupation for the preceding three years as that of an attorney engaged in active practice of the law, when, in fact, he had been under suspension for a portion of the time, constitute the bases upon which this disciplinary proceeding is founded.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)