Dahl v. State Bar

THE COURT.

Proceeding to renew an order of the board of governors of The State Bar of California recommending that petitioner be suspended from the practice of law in this state for a period of six' months.

The local administrative committee for the county of Los Angeles, after a hearing upon charges duly preferred against petitioner, found him guilty of violation of rule 3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of The State Bar of California, which provides among other things, that a member “shall not employ another to solicit or obtain, or remunerate another for soliciting or obtaining, professional employment for him; nor shall he directly or indirectly share with an unlicensed person compensation arising out of or incidental to professional employment”. Said committee recommended that petitioner be suspended from practice for such period as the board of governors should deem meet and proper in the premises. Petitioner failed to appear before said board and after a consideration of his case, they recommended a six months’ period of suspension. Petitioner thereupon instituted this proceeding to review such action.

The evidence is without conflict. It shows unquestionably a violation of said rule by petitioner and supports the findings in every respect. Petitioner, who is about sixty-two years of age, practiced law in Minnesota for many years, but was admitted to practice in this state only three years prior to this investigation. He represented some sixty cases filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court

[162]

in which he did not know the plaintiffs until they were brought to him by so-called adjusters and he accepted said cases on a contingent fee basis, usually twenty per cent to him and twenty per cent to the adjuster or one-third to each of them.

Citing his excellent record and reputation, petitioner pleads that he accepted said employment in good faith in the belief that he had made personal contracts with the various plaintiffs and he seeks to distinguish his conduct from that of other members of the bar disciplined for similar infractions

(Townsend

v.

The State Bar,