# Libarian v. State Bar

> California Supreme Court · January 29, 1952 · 38 Cal. 2d 328

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550218

## Case

- **Full name:** MANASSEE STEPHEN LIBARIAN, Petitioner, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 29, 1952
- **Citations:** 38 Cal. 2d 328; 239 P.2d 865; 1952 Cal. LEXIS 176
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Carter
- **Judges:** Carter
- **Cited by:** 6 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/9550218

## Opinion text

CARTER, J.
I dissent.
I agree that the letter written by petitioner to Nadel’s attorney constituted a technical violation of section 523 of the Penal Code, and should not, therefore, have been sent. But, considering petitioner’s background and the fact that the letter was written to an attorney regarding a claim against bis client involving a small sum of money, advising that petitioner’s client would go to the district attorney and seek to institute a criminal prosecution against Nadel unless the claim ivas paid, I do not feel that the discipline recommended is justified, and that a reprimand would be more commensurate with the nature of the conduct shown by the record. Petitioner, no doubt, mistakenly believed that the end he sought to achieve justified the means employed, and since no fraud or bad faith on his part was shown, and no detriment was suffered by anyone as the result of his conduct, a suspension of six months from practice seems too severe.
I would, therefore, dispose of the proceeding with a reprimand.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550218. Public record. Not legal advice.