# Jackson v. State Bar

> California Supreme Court · February 28, 1979 · 23 Cal. 3d 509

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550859

## Case

- **Full name:** JOSEPH A. JACKSON, Petitioner, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 28, 1979
- **Citations:** 23 Cal. 3d 509; 153 Cal. Rptr. 24; 591 P.2d 47; 1979 Cal. LEXIS 212
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Richardson
- **Judges:** Richardson
- **Cited by:** 36 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/9550859

## Opinion text

RICHARDSON, J.
While the court routinely and quite properly speaks with one voice in State Bar disciplinary matters, I find that I am unable to join my colleagues in their disposition of this matter and respectfully dissent.
In my view petitioner’s conduct over a period of several years, as described in the findings of the local administrative committee and the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar, reveals a serious and habitual pattern of misconduct and a flagrant disregard of professional ethics and responsibilities. He was found in several instances to have commingled his client’s and his personal funds. In at least one instance he abandoned his client. He wilfully misappropriated the funds of three clients. Finally, he falsified accountings which were filed with the probate court in two separate estate matters. Individually, each of these offenses is very serious. In combination, they should require petitioner’s disbarment for the protection of the public.
The mitigating force of petitioner’s restitution of most of the misappropriated funds is lessened when it is observed that the restitution was made under the pressure of pending disciplinary proceedings. (In re Lyons (1975) 15 Cal.3d 322, 326 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 171 , 540 P.2d 11 ].) Repeated misuse or misappropriation of a client’s trust funds is grounds for disbarment in the absence of strong mitigating circumstances. (Oliver v. State Bar (1974) 12 Cal.3d 318, 321 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 639 , 525 P.2d 79 ]; Lyons, supra, at p. 326 .) Furthermore, an attorney who knowingly files false accountings with a probate court misleads the judge, the public and its officials, the personal representative, the beneficiaries, heirs, and creditors of the decedent. No circumstances can ever justify this grave misconduct.
I am unable to equate petitioner’s performance with the most minimal standards of professional conduct, and responsibility, and for the protection of the public believe that he should be disbarred.
Clark, J., concurred.
Petitioner’s application for a rehearing was denied April 26, 1979.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550859. Public record. Not legal advice.