Opinion

Call v. State Bar

  • 45 Cal. 2d 104
  • 287 P.2d 761
  • 1955 Cal. LEXIS 299
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Sep 20, 1955
Status
Published
Author
Cartee
On the bench
Cartee
Cited by
13 cases
Authority
More cited than 5.9%

The opinion

CARTEE, J.

— I concur in the result reached by the court. I agree with the opinion insofar as it expresses the rule that negligence of an attorney is not a proper ground for disciplinary action. I do not, however, approve of the holding of the majority in the following cases cited in the opinion for the reasons stated in the concurring or dissenting opinions thereto. (See Trusty v. State Bar, 16 Cal.2d 550 [ 107 P.2d 10 ], dissenting opinion at p. 554; In re McKenna, 16 Cal.2d 610 [ 107 P.2d 258 ], dissenting opinion at p. 612; Stephens v. State Bar, 19 Cal.2d 580 [ 122 P.2d 549 ], concurring opinion at p. 584; Herron v. State Bar, 24 Cal.2d 53 [ 147 P.2d 543 ], dissenting opinion at p. 68; Clark v. State Bar, 39 Cal.2d 161 [ 246 P.2d 1 ], dissenting opinion at p. 175; Lowe v. State Bar, 40 Cal.2d 564 [ 254 P.2d 506 ], dissenting opinion at p. 571.) The holding of the majority in the case at bar appears to be in accord with the views expressed by me in my concurring and dissenting opinions in the above cited cases, with which view I am still in accord.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.