nine-month delay after promising to return funds
How later courts described this case
- nine-month delay after promising to return funds
- attorney delayed 10 months in returning client funds despite repeated requests
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEWMAN, J.
I concur, but I would do more than merely “commend the adoption of a practice ... whereby the State Bar notifies complaining clients that their records are sought....” (See pt. II of the maj. opn., penultimate paragraph.)
The opinion in Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 55 ] persuades me that the Bar, to protect clients’ privacy rights, should restrain its officers and employees with more zeal than seems to be reflected in the many exceptions to the confidentiality provisions set forth in Nos. 220 and 221 of its Rules of Procedure. (See, e.g., rule 227 regarding “Cooperation with other agencies.”) Might it not be appropriate, perhaps, to experiment with privacy instructions comparable to those authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1?
Reynoso, J., concurred.
On August 25, 1982, the opinion was modified to read as printed above.