Kelson v. State Bar

California Supreme Court May 27, 1976 No. L.A. 30478Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner violated rules 2 and 3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by soliciting professional employment through lay intermediaries and reduced the recommended one-year suspension to six months due to mitigating factors.

Issues

Whether the petitioner violated rules 2 and 3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by soliciting professional employment.
Whether the State Bar may amend charges to include aiding and abetting the unauthorized practice of law without prior notice to the petitioner.
What is the appropriate disciplinary measure for the petitioner's conduct.

Disposition. modified

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“These actions clearly support the findings that petitioner attempted to solicit professional employment from Euolah Lopez in violation of rules 2 and 3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar.”

“It is a violation of procedural due process, however, for the State Bar to now attempt to amend its charges on the basis of either petitioner’s or TardifFs testimony before the local committee without having given petitioner notice”

“In view of these factors, particularly petitioner’s recognition of the wrongfulness of his actions, we are persuaded that a six-month period of actual suspension is adequate.”

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is a proceeding to review a recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar of California that petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for one year. Petitioner, who was admitted to practice in January 1966, has no prior record of discipline.

In a notice to show cause, petitioner was charged with attempting to solicit professional employment from Euolah Lopez, personally, as well as through the use of lay intermediaries. The local administrative

[4]

committee unanimously found that petitioner’s actions constituted a knowing and willful violation of rules 2 and 3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California

and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for one year. The board adopted both the committee’s findings of fact and its recommendation for discipline.

During the April-May 1972 time period when the events in question took place, petitioner employed David Tardiff, a disbarred attorney

(Tardiff v. State Bar

(1971) 3 Cal.3d 903 [92 Cal.Rptr. 301, 479 P.2d 661]), as his legal assistant. He also employed Doris Wilson, a former client and co-worker at a previous firm, as his regular investigator.

Petitioner first heard about the Lopez matter when Wilson called and asked if he would be interested in handling a personal injuiy case for Euolah Lopez’s two daughters who had been involved in an automobile accident. Petitioner told Wilson that he would accept the matter but made no effort to determine whether she knew the Lopezes personally or how she had become acquainted with the case. Shortly thereafter, petitioner attempted to contact Ms. Lopez but was unable to reach her and so instructed Tardiff to call her.

Tardiff contacted Ms. Lopez on April 21, 1972, and explained that he had heard that she wished to retain Mr. Kelson as legal counsel in her daughters’ personal injury case. Ms. Lopez stated, however, that she had made no firm decision about hiring an attorney because she wished to discuss the matter with her husband first.

Kelson v. State Bar

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief