In Re Graves
THE COURT.
This proceeding was instituted to review the order of the Board of Governors of The State Bar of California recommending to this court the suspension of petitioner for a period of six months from the practice of
[58]
law in this state. A hearing in due form and upon legal notice of the charges preferred against petitioner was held before a local administrative committee of The State Bar, as provided by the State Bar Act (Stats. 1927, p. 38). This committee forwarded to the Bar Governors the evidence taken before it upon said hearing, together with the recommendation that the petitioner be disbarred from the [practice of law and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of this state. At a regular meeting of said Board of Governors held on the twenty-third day of November, 1928, upon the evidence submitted by said committee, and upon said recommendation, said Board of Governors made its order recommending the suspension of petitioner from the practice of law in this state for the period of six months.
The charges preferred against petitioner were as follows:
“That you caused to be filed an account as co-executor in an estate matter, in which account, you, said M. 0. Graves, claimed full executor’s fees for yourself and your co-executor, and also full fees allowed by law on account of the estate administrator to yourself, as attorney. The estate proceedings was entitled
The Estate of Stetson,
No. 78,805, on the records of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
“That you prepared the different accounts, and you knew at all times that an attorney could not charge a double fee as executor and attorney. That, after the account had been disallowed by the Court as attorney’s fees, you nevertheless retained the item of $743.45 which Judge Reeve had disallowed, and you never advised your co-executor—from whom you had received the money—that said item had been disallowed, nor did you advise the residuary legatee of such fact.
“That you deliberately and knowingly collected such fee as an attorney prior to the time when the account was settled and the item disallowed, and that you nevertheless failed to heed the Order of the Court, and wilfully and deliberately retained the money which you knew did not belong to you, and made no effort to return said money to either the co-executor or the residuary legatee who was entitled to it.
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)