In Re Sadicoff

PRESTON, J.

On December 12, 1927, a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association addressed a letter to it, in which he complained of misconduct on the part of petitioners, while acting as attorneys for plaintiff, in a case pending in the Superior Court of that county, wherein he himself represented certain defendants. Under a stipulation that the matter should be heard and determined as though it had been initiated before The State Bar, said letter was treated as a complaint; answers thereto were filed

[556]

by petitioners and the case was assigned to Local Administrative Committee No. 4 of the county of Los Angeles, before whom the hearing was conducted.

Said Local Committee found that petitioners were guilty of violation of their duties as attorneys as defined by section 282, subdivision 6, of the Code of Civil Procedure; also that their acts and conduct as disclosed by the evidence involved moral turpitude and dishonesty within the meaning of section 287 of said code, and recommended their suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years. The Board of Governors thereafter duly approved the findings of said Local Committee, but modified its recommendation- to one that petitioners be suspended for a period of six months only. A review of such action is here sought by petitioners.

Their attack upon the constitutionality of the State Bar of California Act (Stats. 1927, p. 38) may be dismissed as this is no longer an open question

(State Bar of California

v.

Superior Court,

207 Cal. 323 [278 Pac. 432];

In re Jones, ante,

p. 240 [280 Pac. 964], and cases there cited).

The other assignments, which in reality amount to a claim that the evidence is insufficient to justify said recommendations of suspension or support the findings and action of the Board of Governors, with an added plea for leniency, we believe should also be disposed of briefly. In our opinion the record, despite some conflict in the evidence, furnishes full support and justification for the action taken.