# Tonini v. State Bar

> California Supreme Court · May 15, 1956 · 46 Cal. 2d 491

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9536731

## Case

- **Full name:** EDWARD MILTON TONINI Et Al., Petitioners, v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 15, 1956
- **Citations:** 46 Cal. 2d 491; 297 P.2d 1; 1956 Cal. LEXIS 205
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Carter
- **Judges:** Carter
- **Cited by:** 5 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/9536731

## Opinion text

CARTER, J.
I dissent.
While I agree with the majority that the record discloses unprofessional conduct of a somewhat serious nature on the part of both petitioners, I am of the opinion that the discipline ordered is too severe. Taking into consideration the *498 age and professional experience of both petitioners and the nature of the unprofessional conduct on their part as disclosed by the record, it is my opinion that a suspension from practice for the period of one year would be more in harmony with the discipline imposed for similar conduct in other eases which have come before this court.
It should be obvious that a three-year suspension from practice of law is almost equivalent to disbarment, and I do not believe that such severe punishment should be imposed on young, inexperienced lawyers for the character of conduct disclosed by the record here.
For the foregoing reasons I would suspend petitioners from the practice of law for the period of one year.
Petitioners ’ application for a rehearing was denied June 6, 1956, and the time for commencement of their suspension was extended to commence August 15, 1956. Carter, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9536731. Public record. Not legal advice.