# Eschwig v. State Bar

> California Supreme Court · April 3, 1944 · 24 Cal. 2d 70

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790184

## Case

- **Full name:** CONSTANTINE FITZGERALD ESCHWIG, Petitioner, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 3, 1944
- **Citations:** 24 Cal. 2d 70; 147 P.2d 529; 1944 Cal. LEXIS 212
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Edmonds
- **Judges:** , Edmonds
- **Cited by:** 2 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/9790184

## Opinion text

EDMONDS, J.,
Dissenting. The only dereliction of professional duty charged to the petitioner in the findings of fact made by the local administrative committee and adopted by the Board of Governors is that he neglected his client’s business. This finding, considered in connection with the committee’s conclusions stated in the form of a “recommendation,” certainly does not show any conduct which justifies disciplinary action under the rules heretofore laid down by this court. (Stephens v. State Bar, 19 Cal.2d 580 [ 122 P.2d 549 ]; Trusty v. State Bar, 16 Cal.2d 550 [ 107 P.2d 10 ]; Waterman v. State Bar, 8 Cal.2d 17 [ 63 P.2d 1133 ]; Marsh v. State Bar, 2 Cal.2d 75 [ 39 P.2d 403 ]; Marsh v. State Bar, 210 Cal. 303 [ 291 P. 583 ].) Accordingly, in my opinion, the proceeding should be dismissed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790184. Public record. Not legal advice.