Procedural Posture

Plaintiff attorney sought review of a judgment from the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (California), which reversed the trial court's denial of defendant clients' motion for relief under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) from the clients' untimely filing of a request for a trial de novo following a mandatory fee arbitration proceeding.

Overview

The clients invoked their right under California's Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6200 et seq., to compel arbitration of a legal fee dispute. 209. Itemized Wage Statements . Thereafter, the clients sought to appeal the award but failed to request a trial de novo within the 30-day period specified by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6203(b). The clients sought relief under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) from the untimely filing, which they contended was the result of their counsel's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The trial court denied relief, ruling that the MFAA's deadline for seeking a trial following arbitration was not amenable to § 473(b) relief. The court of appeal held to the contrary. The court, in reversing the appellate decision, ruled that § 473(b) could not relieve a party from the consequences of a failure to meet the 30-day deadline for seeking a trial following arbitration under the MFAA. In the absence of express statutory authorization, the time for taking an appeal could not be extended on grounds of misfortune, accident, surprise, or mistake. The court disapproved Simpson v. Williams, 192 Cal. App. 3d 285, 290-291, 238 Cal. Rptr. 566 (1987).

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and remanded with instructions to reinstate the trial court's judgment.

Procedural Posture

Petitioner attorney sought review of a recommendation of respondent Board of Governors of the State Bar (California) that the attorney be suspended from practice for two years. The attorney argued that he did not have a relationship with an unlicensed person in violation of Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3, that R. 3 violated the Fourteenth Amendment, and that he acted in good faith and was innocent of any intentional wrongdoing.

Overview

The attorney worked with a company that would find individuals who suffered injury from the negligence of another and offer to represent the injured person to collect damages from the negligent person. The attorney would prepare complaints and appear in court on behalf of the injured person. He was paid by the company. The attorney had no direct contact with the injured person. Upon review, the court followed the recommendation made by the board and ordered that the attorney be suspended from practice for two years. The court determined that the relationship with the company was a relationship with an unlicensed person in violation of R. 3 because the company was not a licensed attorney. The court found that R. 3 did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the classifications made in the rule were reasonable. The court concluded that the record did not show that the attorney possessed the good faith that he claimed because the attorney had not severed his relationship with the company.

Outcome

The court followed the recommendation made by the board and ordered that the attorney be suspended from practice as an attorney for two years.