Bar Assn. of S. F. v. Cantrell (1921) · DecisionDepot

Bar Assn. of S. F. v. Cantrell

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Aug 6, 1921 No. Civ. No. 3437.Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while an application to modify a judgment of suspension must follow formal procedures, the evidence presented by the petitioner was sufficient to warrant setting aside the suspension.

Issues

Whether a judgment of suspension of an attorney may be modified at a future time.
What procedural requirements must be followed to obtain a modification of a judgment of suspension.
Whether the evidence presented by the petitioner was sufficient to justify vacating the judgment of suspension.

Disposition. Judgment vacated

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“To obtain a modification of such judgment the same formal procedure should be followed.”

“The evidence which he has submitted is sufficient in our judgment to entitle him to have the suspension set aside.”

Synopsis

PROCEEDING for the modification'of a judgment of suspension of an attorney at law. Judgment vacated.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

STURTEVANT, J.

On the seventeenth day of June, 1921, the petitioner, Russell W. Cantrell, filed a petition in this court asking for a modification of a judgment rendered by this court on the fifth day of October, 1920 (49 Cal. App. 468, [193 Pac. 598]), which judgment ordered the suspension of the petitioner from his office as an attorney for the period of one year; on the same date he prepared a notice of motion directed to “Perry Evans, Esq., Attorney for Accusant,” and caused said papers to be served on said attorney on the same day. The notice stated that the motion would be made on the twenty-first day of June, 1921, etc. The petition was not verified.- No citation was issued or applied for. On the twenty-first day of June, 1921, at the time and place stated in the notice, the petitioner made his motion through his attorney and the attorney made an informal statement to the court regarding the matter, and offered to read a letter from the district attorney of San Francisco. At this point the court suggested that counsel was proceeding very informally and that the matter should be continued until the eleventh day of July, 1921, and that the matter should, at that time, be presented in accordance with settled rules of law. Thereafter the matter came on regularly for hearing on the day to which it had been continued. The Bar Association did not appear or make any answer and did not offer to participate. The petitioner thereupon called witnesses and tendered some testimony.

The proceedings for removal or suspension of an attorney at law are provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, section 289 et seq. The difference between a judgment of disbarment and one of suspension is a difference of degree only. The procedure is the same. To obtain a judgment, when the accusation is based on the information of a person or persons other than the court, the petition should be verified. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 290;

Matter of Hotchkiss,

58 Cal. 39, 41.) When a petition has been filed a citation should be taken out. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 292.)

[1]

Whether the judgment is a judgment of disbarment or a judgment of suspension the court has the right at any future time to modify

[760]

Bar Assn. of S. F. v. Cantrell

AI Brief

Synopsis

STURTEVANT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief