In Re Stafford

California Supreme Court Jan 29, 1930 No. Docket No. S.F. 13391.Published

Before: Langdon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner's unauthorized signing of a client's name to legal documents to secure personal funds warranted disbarment, regardless of any procedural irregularities before the administrative committee.

Issues

Whether the lack of a consistent quorum at administrative committee hearings invalidates a disbarment recommendation.
Whether the petitioner's unauthorized signing of a client's name to financial documents constitutes grounds for disbarment.

Disposition. Disbarment ordered.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the misconduct of the accused in relation to said transactions, irrespective of any misconduct in relation to the other transactions, justifies and necessitates a judgment of disbarment.”

“This court is not bound by the findings or recommendations made by the local administrative committee, nor their adoption by the Board of Governors, and will examine the record anew”

[739]

LANGDON, J.

This is a petition to review a decision of disbarment by the Board of Governors of The State Bar of California.

The record discloses that petitioner was charged with improper conduct in five distinct transactions, referred to in the proceedings as the Carl Smith transaction, the Hohenstein transaction, the Timbrell transaction, the Shewbridge transaction and the Prince transaction. Evidence was heard upon all of these charges, and the local administrative committee found against the petitioner upon each of these charges and recommended his disbarment. At the hearing before the Board of Governors, counsel for petitioner urged as an objection to the findings and recommendation of the said local administrative committee that a quorum of the members of the committee that joined in the report did not participate in all of the hearings of the committee. The Board of Governors found that no such objection was made by petitioner at the time of the hearings before the said committee or at any of them and that no injustice or prejudice was suffered by petitioner by reason of the irregularities mentioned. However, in deference to petitioner’s contention, the judgment of disbarment was based upon the findings with reference to the Hohenstein transaction and the Prince transaction, and it was found that upon the hearings with reference to these transactions a quorum consisting of the same members of said committee was present at and participated in all the hearings thereon and joined in the findings and report in relation thereto, and that the misconduct of the accused in relation to said transactions, irrespective of any misconduct in relation to the other transactions, justifies and necessitates a judgment of disbarment.

While the foregoing action of the Board of Governors satisfactorily disposes of the objection of petitioner, there is another reason why it is of no controlling force in this proceeding. This court is not bound by the findings or recommendations made by the local administrative committee, nor their adoption by the Board of Governors, and will examine the record anew to ascertain whether or not any charge has been proven against petitioner which merits disbarment.

We have carefully read the transcript of the testimony and find with reference to the Prince transaction that

In Re Stafford

AI Brief

LANGDON, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief