# Doyle v. State Bar

> California Supreme Court · August 5, 1982 · 32 Cal. 3d 12

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551600

## Case

- **Full name:** EUGENE W. DOYLE, Petitioner, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 5, 1982
- **Citations:** 32 Cal. 3d 12; 184 Cal. Rptr. 720; 648 P.2d 942; 1982 Cal. LEXIS 206
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Newman
- **Judges:** Newman
- **Cited by:** 30 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/9551600

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551600. Public record. Not legal advice.