Procedural Posture

Petitioner attorney challenged the recommendation of the State Bar Review Department (California), which recommended that petitioner be disbarred following his conviction in a federal court of various crimes arising from transactions involving a federally funded poverty program.

Overview

Petitioner attorney was convicted in federal court of various crimes arising from transactions involving a federally funded poverty program. The state bar review department recommended that petitioner be disbarred because petitioner's conduct involved moral turpitude and that petitioner had engaged in misconduct both before and after his admission to the bar. The law of the CF about health is HS 11377 Possession of Methamphetamine . Petitioner filed with the court a petition for review, conceding that the underlying misconduct involved moral turpitude, but argued that the bar failed to give proper consideration to evidence of mitigating circumstances and that its recommendation was too severe. The court adopted the bar's conclusion and disbarred petitioner. Standing alone, petitioner's crimes warranted disbarment. The court found that petitioner's claimed factors in mitigation were considered by the bar and that, considering the sustained nature and underlying acts involved in his misconduct, they did not warrant discipline less than that recommended. The court adhered to the principle that the primary purpose of discipline was the protection of the public, the profession, and the courts rather than punishment of the attorney.

Outcome

The court ordered that petitioner attorney be disbarred from the practice of law and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys because petitioner committed acts involving moral turpitude both before and after his admission to the bar and violated his oath and duties as an attorney.’


Procedural Posture

Plaintiff mortgagor challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County (California), which, in the mortgagor's cause of action against defendant title-holders to foreclose on a mortgage, held in favor of the title-holders.

Overview

The mortgagor sought for foreclose a mortgage given by the mortgagee to secure her promissory note. The mortgagor's complaint alleged that the title-holders had acquired title to the property secured by the mortgage, and that they had mortgaged the same property to yet another party, but that the title-holder's rights were subordinate to that of the mortgagor's. The title-holders answered, alleging that the notes described in the mortgagor's complaint had been paid and the mortgages were fully satisfied; that a portion of the lands described in the mortgages had been transferred by deed to the title-holders. The title-holders also filed a cross-complaint seeking to quiet their title against all claims of the mortgagor, and prayed for a decree that the notes and mortgages had been fully paid, satisfied, and discharged. The mortgagor contended that the findings were not sustained by the evidence. The court disagreed and affirmed. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to show not only ostensible but actual agency of the mortgagor's attorney when the attorney dealt on the mortgagor's behalf and committed the mortgagor to certain acts which vested title in the title-holders.

Outcome

The court affirmed the lower court's judgment for the title-holders. The title-holders were justified in believing that the attorney was the mortgagor's agent and possessed the authority to deliver the papers in his possession and accept payment of the mortgage for the mortgagor. There was no circumstance that should have put them on notice that the attorney might not be acting for the mortgagor in good faith.