₦airaland Forum

Procedural Posture

Petitioner attorney sought review of a recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of respondent, the State Bar of California, that he be disbarred. The petition for review consisted of a request to produce additional evidence concerning petitioner's mental state at the time of his misconduct and did not challenge the findings of the board.

Overview

The Disciplinary Board (board) of respondent, the State Bar of California, recommended that petitioner attorney be disbarred. Petitioner was charged with the violation of his oath and duties as an attorney, deceit, willfully violating various Rules of Professional Conduct then in effect, and acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption. Running poker will face a law PC 330 Illegal Gambling to persons playing. The local committee made findings after a hearing and recommended disbarment. The board made its own findings and recommended disbarment. Petitioner did not challenge respondent's findings, but requested to produce additional evidence regarding his mental state at the time of his misconduct. The court denied petitioner's request, and ordered that petitioner be disbarred from the practice of law and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys. The court held that petitioner did not meet his burden of demonstrating that respondent's findings were not supported by the evidence or that its recommendation was erroneous or unlawful. The court also held that petitioner's mental strain was not a mitigating factor where the goal was protection of the public and the legal profession.

Outcome

The court affirmed the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board (board) of respondent, the State Bar of California, and ordered that petitioner attorney be disbarred from the practice of law in California. Petitioner did not dispute the board's findings, and the court denied petitioner's request to produce additional evidence as to his mental status because his mental status was not a mitigating factor in the proceeding.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff attorney challenged a judgment from the Superior Court of Placer County, Super. Ct. No. SCV01722 (California) which dismissed plaintiff's action concerning releases in the ski industry and alleging violations of Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., and unfair competition Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.

Overview

Plaintiff attorney refused to sign a release form as a condition of the return of his ski equipment from defendant ski retailer. The form described the risks of skiing and released defendant from any liability for injury as a result of using the equipment. Plaintiff initiated an action against multiple defendant ski manufacturers on behalf of himself and all others in the state who owned or sought to rent or purchase ski bindings of various brands. The complaint alleged violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. and unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. The trial court granted defendants' motions of summary judgment and entered judgments of dismissal. Plaintiff contended on appeal that the sweeping use of releases in the ski industry was misleading to consumers, unreasonable and unconscionable. The court held that even assuming an inequality in bargaining power, there was no credible evidence that release agreements were a surprise to skiers. There was also no evidence that defendants concealed or misrepresented the release language in their forms. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court judgment of dismissal holding that it was not unconscionable for defendant ski equipment distributors and retailers to require and use releases as a condition for doing business with them and that plaintiff attorney failed to allege or present evidence to show conduct by which defendants mislead their customers or cause them to sign documents they do not comprehend.