# Call v. State Bar

> California Supreme Court · September 20, 1955 · 45 Cal. 2d 104

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570142

## Case

- **Full name:** HARRISON W. CALL, Petitioner, v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 20, 1955
- **Citations:** 45 Cal. 2d 104; 287 P.2d 761; 1955 Cal. LEXIS 299
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cartee
- **Judges:** Cartee
- **Cited by:** 13 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/9570142

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570142. Public record. Not legal advice.