# In Re Rose V

> California Supreme Court · March 6, 2000 · 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 298

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9527758

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re MASON HARRY ROSE v on Discipline
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 6, 2000
- **Citations:** 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 298; 22 Cal. 4th 430; 22 Cal. 430; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 2449; 993 P.2d 956; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1790; 2000 Cal. LEXIS 1562
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** George, Mosk, Kennard
- **Cited by:** 51 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/9527758

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that 2 summary denial of a petition for review of a State Bar Court’s disciplinary recommendation was 3 on the merits

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9527758. Public record. Not legal advice.