Opinion

Fitzsimmons v. State Bar

  • 34 Cal. 3d 327
  • 193 Cal. Rptr. 896
  • 667 P.2d 700
  • 1983 Cal. LEXIS 219
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Aug 18, 1983
Status
Published
Author
Richardson
On the bench
Bird
Cited by
15 cases

although afforded great measure of due process, disciplinary proceedings do not extend to attorneys the extent of due process afforded a criminal defendant because such proceedings are sui generis as opposed to purely criminal or purely civil

How later courts described this case

  • although afforded great measure of due process, disciplinary proceedings do not extend to attorneys the extent of due process afforded a criminal defendant because such proceedings are sui generis as opposed to purely criminal or purely civil
  • attorneys subject to disciplinary proceedings are not afforded all procedural safeguards which are extended to criminal defendants because such proceedings are sui generis as opposed to purely civil or criminal in character
  • Attorneys subject to disciplinary proceedings are not afforded all of the procedural safeguards which are extended to criminal defendants as they are sui generis as opposed to purely civil or criminal in character.

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

*334 RICHARDSON, J.

I respectfully dissent from the discipline imposed, and would adopt the recommendation of the State Bar, namely, 3 years’ suspension, stayed, and probation with enumerated conditions including actual suspension for 60 days.

Kaus, J., concurred.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.