# Finch v. State Bar

> California Supreme Court · January 8, 1981 · 28 Cal. 3d 659

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5452063

## Case

- **Full name:** WILLIAM U. FINCH v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 8, 1981
- **Citations:** 28 Cal. 3d 659
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Newman
- **Judges:** Newman
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5452063

## Opinion text

NEWMAN, J., Dissenting.
The majority opinion, I fear, may chill commendable efforts of the State Bar to foster settlement procedures.
A stipulation, even when comprehensive, is not designed to serve as “the record below.” It rather reflects a bargain acceptable to both sides. Absent a record below, to increase penalties seems to me to be a risky business. (See dis. opn. of Bird, C. J. in Giovanazzi v. State Bar (1980) 28 Cal.3d 465, 479 [ 169 Cal.Rptr. 581 , 619 P.2d 1005 ]: “[T]he economies made possible by the stipulation process could be lost if every attorney accused of misconduct felt impelled to insist on a formal evidentiary hearing on mitigating factors in anticipation of the prospect that this court might later decide to consider an increase in discipline.”)
Bird, C. J., concurred.
Petitioner’s application for a rehearing was denied February 11, 1981. Bird, C. J., was of the opinion that the application should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5452063. Public record. Not legal advice.