supreme court in one nine hundred ninety one as rule nine fifty four it states denial of a review of a decision of the state bar court is a final judicial determination on the merits and the recommendation of the state bar court will be filed as an order of the supreme court governmental bodies including the california supreme court in the state of california are required to abide by the us constitution and the rule of law where our country of laws not of men we are governed by laws not judicial  out the california supreme court created this problem of not you just the repeal of state bar court agency action former justice turner and browned both clearly and the eminently pointed out the california courts deficiencies in the rose dissents but their warnings were ignored if our constitution is to have any meaning it cannot be just regarded for the mere convenience of the court when doing so deprives member tourney's a precious constitutional rights under the first and fourteenth amendment to the us constitution and calibers the state bar california the us supreme court recognized that additional burden or inconvenience is hardly sufficient to justify and if you did you would be bound by rose is that right no it isn't a federal constitutional question yes and i'm arguing that under the rule of law there's a stablish california law and california procedural protections such as the california constitution article six section two and fourteen requiring an oral hearing and a reason written decision as well as california business in professions code sixty eighty seven requiring review of state bar court action by the supreme court of california that those are procedural protections which are state court cannot ignore without violating the fourteenth amendment right to due process those are state created protections which the state court cannot ignore because that's due process of law under the fourteenth amendment there's a long line of u supreme court cases beginning with the arizona grocery versus after consent to pekin senate they railroad that have upheld state procedural protections as part of the rule of law that a state court cannot permissibly ignore were deprived i had no access to the california supreme court the california supreme court has not accepted an attorney's petition for review in almost fifteen or sixteen years they retr routinely deny petitions for review petitions for review under their own operating practices and procedures are automatically put on the b list for automatic denom and i would remind the court we're here on a motion to dismiss and i would allege that no justice of the california supreme court even sees what's on the b list it's handled by staff memoranda in fact as justice brown stated in her opinion or her dissension rose all the petitions that they should accept before your attack the structure  well i think they should accept every attorney petition for review because it's the only real court that attorneys have and this is done in the state bar it's not a real  can i assume that that's why you were trying to hook the center the first amendment because if you don't hook it interest and we can talk about that but if you don't hook it into something if you just to is a pure due process argument you have two major problems one of them is that the california supreme court has already definitively told us what california law is and i don't know how we can ignore that we can argue or case law says we can and second of all with regard why you tagged a first amendment claim and that seems to me is is the only possibility here so then the quote problem with that is you have any case in which the first amendment has required that courts hear cases which is that the courts are required to or that states are required to permit court review of some class of case as opposed to not get in the way of access to courts when the courts would otherwise have authority to decide something well your honor i think my time is short but i would also argue under the equal protection clause all other licensed attorneys in this i mean all other licensed professionals all other license professionals in the state have access to a real court only attorneys are denied that opportunity under rule nine sixteen as a justice brown said attorneys are entitled to a hearing before we all court independent judiciary not an administrative agency which is beholden to the state bar the state bar court was created by the state bar and the state bar court is paid by the state bar the state bar is the prosecutor and moving party and all actions under  under the state bar act and putting due process aside i would say under equal protection either very strong equal protection argument attorneys are not getting judicial review what they're getting is a rubber stamp so alleged that in my motion and i mean in my complaint and as the court you know you well know that everything i lived in complaint has to be true and if you look at the supreme court's operating practices and procedures did have judicial review by the california supreme court the court tells us in very rose very clearly that it fully understands that it has to substantively review these petitions when it gets them and that it does so this court cannot presume just court said that they do decide these on the merits so the court has discretion to grant it in the sense of ordering for briefing and having oral argument that is certainly a discretionary activity but the california supreme court reviews these decisions and when it denies the petition for review as it tells us in in re rose that denial is a determination by the court on the merits of the petition so i would say it's more analogous to doesn't work any difference at all that rose was about that discipline discipline problem and this is about the arbitration of force and fraud and i think the language is a little different with her in the one instance you have a recommendation to the california supreme court in this it's not exactly a recommendation to the health and the language isn't a disarms recommendation is that right well that's correct your honor the court addresses that in footnote seven even very rows where they refer to the inactive enroll involuntary inactive proceedings which also happen in traditional discipline cases so it's not different the fundamental question is is the supreme court the only court that reviews these matters and that's the question that the court grappled with in rows and because it is these decisions are decisions on the merits and that this is exactly what in red rose was about i would also note your own are that there is no federal constitutional right to oral argument or to a reason written decision court federal courts and this seems you know kind of on the cusp i mean if if the only thing you had was sort of a sort of sort like system you're saying that's not what this is but i am saying that and i since there's a so why is one a recommendation the other one is a review of a decision because the involuntary an act of procedure was said this is discussed in the conway case at some length by the california supreme court the involuntary inactive procedure is set up for situations where the state bar acting as the supreme court's administrative arm needs to suspend someone's license immediately not wait until the process is over and this situation where there's a failure to pay a fee arbitration award is one where the legislature is deemed that that process gets triggered but there is still as the supreme court of california said in both conway and in re rose a right of immediate review by the california supreme court and in fact in conway the court does its job the the first is that she's incorrect when she says this the court is not taking any of these cases the latest one that i'm aware is in re silverton which is in two thousand and five where the court the neither the  attorneys petition but still took the case anyway to decide the issues and wrote a reasoned decision but more importantly miss your doesn't is misunderstanding the way the internal operating procedures work it's a bit like the way this court uses a rating system when it gets appeals and assigns weights to them the b list simply means that there's a staff recommendation that it be denied that the are pretty procedures clearly state that all of those memos and the briefs are provided to all of the judges where the justice excuse me and that it's only denied about the conference no justice asked to discuss the case so what's happening is staff is making a recommendation the recommendation goes to all of the justices and the justices can decide getting the briefs and the recommendation whether they think the case is worthy of more discussion or further briefing or whether they can decide on that basis that is no different than how most courts appellate courts handle of matters that come before them it is certainly not a constitutional violation nor does it in any way reflect that the court is not taking its job seriously as it itself recognized in rows and making substantive decisions on these on these cases what about the equal protection argument your honor in the least i think it's research this point the supreme court noted that since the founding of the republic licensing of lawyers has been left solely to the states licensing of lawyers is a judicial function it's fundamentally different than licensing of other professionals by the executive branch so when we're looking for the rational reason why lawyers are reviewed differently than doctors or plumbers or whoever else gets a license some of those people are are reviewed by the executive branch as a matter of a professional statutory licensing but that's not how lawyers work membership in the bar is a judicial function that's monitored and enforced by the california supreme court in its inherent exclusive authority so you know and that is true in every state in the union and has always been true that's certainly not an equal protection violation the fact that it's different isn't a complete explanation for why it is at least with regard to just chill involvement somewhat less rigorous and i gather that with regard to other the implication that the supreme court's review of these petitions is not direct usually evolvement it clearly is the lower courts are not involved because in california the supreme court is the licensing authority and the lower courts do not have jurisdiction to get involved in attorney dis matters so that is why review goes to the california supreme court after moving through the administrative process this is described in some detail in the in re tree discipline system where the court described and also the o'brien case that and again this is not in any way unique this is the way pretty much every state's bar works i ask one other question at what point to a surgeon your brief that she kind bring her facial charge now her facial claim now because that statute was passed a long time ago i must say that makes no sense to me you can't have explained why your argument is ready to still what are you now and i'm happy to explain that your honor that i think if you look at the action apartments  case in which has come up i believe in action apartments the court says this court says that the statue limitations applies generally to all constitutional claims well it says that and passing and in context there i can probably cite you know twenty five cases in this court in which we've decided facial challenges to old statues well let me explain why in this context i think this is important matters this court cannot under the record feldman dr reexamined her individual claim her suspension is not a subject that is properly before this court's jurisdiction right because the california supreme court decided that in this is not  that court so for her to be able to relabel her challenge a facial challenge but not actually talk about anything facial to talk about her facts or circumstances gets into the inextricably intertwined problem that we see in the believe that honestly i don't know that that matters because she still has her facial challenge this just isn't the right court to bring in her individual right to challenge the statute is a facial i'm sorry i said her facial challenge her individual right to challenge the regulation goes to her as a plight individual challenge i know but that has to do with the fact that this is a recall film in context but your argument what equally apply that was never a state court proceeding right well would it matters because i think that we're we're dealing with well established procedures where miss year did get out of good useful review and so if the court wants to look at the merits of those decisions despite what i think is a statue imitations issue and despite the fact that miss your cannot even describe her claim without discussing her own facts it's inner tripoli in its intertwined in extra intertwined tongue twister this morning with her individual claim and so under the record feldman doctrine attorney's do not check their constitutional rights at the door when they become members of the state bar and this includes the right to digicel review your own or ask the question whether the supreme court's review of  attorney petitions for review is discretionary absolutely it's discretionary and i would say that only the supreme court i saying at what evidence do you have this discussion nine point six gene a california rule of court nine point six the discretionary it gives four criteria to see if the court will consider attorneys petition for review basically it has to be something of statewide significance and justice brown  this in your dissent in rows if you don't happen to fall within one of those four parameters then you're out of luck and under the supreme court's operating practices and procedures which were distorted by provided to the justices for review a full conference so you structurally have in place a procedure that would protect your rights i am concerned about the fact that i think that maybe there been one or two cases in the last fifteen the petitions are provided to the justices for conference and i believe they you know review them in conference that is not what justice brown says in her dissent in rows they say we no longer consider these that the justice of the supreme court and she said that very clearly we issue pro forma orders we have to do the recommendation of the state bar court and out your honor brought out the distinction in this case which is a will her order of april nineteenth two thousand and thirteen which made my suspension effective may first two thousand and thirteen there was no further action required by the supreme court yet the supreme court is supposed to have exclusive jurisdiction over attorney petitions for review exclusive jurisdiction and discretionary jurisdiction are mutually exclusive concepts you cannot have them when the california supreme court is the only court the only court available for attorneys what makes attorneys different than other professionals is the state bar court infallible is that agency infallible that i do not get reviewed by another court under the state bar as operating practices and procedures i do not receive review i can't review a staff memo under the very timetable in my petition for review of this administrative case my case was denied eleven court days after i filed my petition for review that would be a court operating in time and they just don't just brown says that in her dissension rose and if you look at the operating practices and procedures suppose straight to the