# Pearlin v. State Bar

> California Supreme Court · October 1, 1941 · 18 Cal. 2d 682

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9553160

## Case

- **Full name:** PAUL PEARLIN, Petitioner, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 1, 1941
- **Citations:** 18 Cal. 2d 682; 117 P.2d 341; 1941 Cal. LEXIS 410
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Carter
- **Judges:** Carter
- **Cited by:** 3 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/9553160

## Opinion text

CARTER, J., Dissenting.
I dissent. While great weight should be given to the recommendation of the Board of Governors of The State Bar as to the discipline to be administered to the members of the bar who are found guilty of unprofessional conduct, it is obvious that the members of this court in reviewing a disciplinary proceeding are in substantially the same position as the Board of Governors with respect to the extent of the discipline to be administered, and in my opinion, the members of this court should exercise their independent judgment as to whether or not the discipline recommended by the Board of Governors is commensurate with the nature of the dereliction of the member of the bar in *685 each ease. At least, this has been the policy of this court in the past in cases of this character.
In the instant case, I am of the opinion that in view of the age and inexperience of petitioner, the smallness of the amount involved, the repayment of the money misappropriated by him, and the frank and open disclosure by him of his misconduct, the ends to be served by disciplinary measures would be served by suspension of petitioner’s right to practice law for a definite period rather than permanent disbarment.
While it may be impossible to arrive at a very high degree of uniformity in administering discipline in cases of this character, I believe that an attempt should be made to do so. A review <jf similar eases decided by this court where discipline has been administered convinces me that disbarment of this petitioner is clearly out of line with the discipline administered in such cases, and I am of the opinion that the suspension of petitioner from the practice of law for the period of two years is adequate punishment to be inflicted upon him for the misconduct committed by him which is the subject of this proceeding.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9553160. Public record. Not legal advice.