finding that 2 summary denial of a petition for review of a State Bar Court’s disciplinary recommendation was 3 on the merits
How later courts described this case
- finding that 2 summary denial of a petition for review of a State Bar Court’s disciplinary recommendation was 3 on the merits
- indicating that the California Supreme Court’s summary denial of a petition for review of a State Bar Court disciplinary recommendation amounts to a judicial determination on the merits
- “a valid choice-of-law clause . . . encompasses all 23 causes of action arising from or related to that agreement, regardless of how they 24 are characterized, including tortious breaches of duties emanating from the 25 agreement or the legal relationships it creates
- the State Bar is “placed within the judicial article of the California Constitution” and is “expressly acknowledged as an integral part of the judicial function”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOSK, J .
—I concur in the result.
I do so because I am of the view that the California Constitution’s grant to us of “plenary” power (In re Lacey (1938) 11 Cal.2d 699, 701 [ 81 P.2d 935 ]; see generally In re Attorney Discipline System (1998) 19 Cal.4th 582, 591-607 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 836 , 967 P.2d 49 ]) to regulate attorneys (see Cal. Const., art. VI, §§ 1, 9) displaces any contrary restraint that the state charter would otherwise impose in its requirement that our “[d]ecisions . . . that determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated” {id., art. VI, § 14).