Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-mc-80103/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-mc-80103-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Laurence David King
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE MATTER OF

LAURENCE DAVID KING

State Bar No 206423

 /

No Misc 10-80103 VRW

ORDER

On May 6, 2010, the court ordered Laurence David King to

show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Civ LR 11-8 for

having filed and maintained actions before this court when he was

not authorized to practice before it. Doc #1. 

Mr King responded to the order to show cause in writing

on May 21, 2010, Doc #2, and through counsel appeared before the

undersigned on May 27, 2010. Mr King declared that he has long

been aware of the requirements practice before this court and that

“to the best of [his] recollection [he] applied for and was granted

admission to practice in this District shortly after [his]

admission to the California State Bar in April 2000.” Doc #2 at 4

Case 3:10-mc-80103-VRW Document 4 Filed 06/01/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

¶3. Mr King explained that he attempted to locate the paperwork to

support his application and admission but was unable to do so. Id

at 5 ¶6. Mr King declared that he “believed honestly and in good

faith that [he] was a member in good standing of the Bar of this

Court.” Id at 6 ¶7. Mr King has been an active member in good

standing of the State Bar of California since April 15, 2000. Id

at 4 ¶4.

The court credits the declaration of Mr King. While Mr

King’s conduct in not maintaining a record of his admission may

have been negligent, it does not rise to the level of willfulness

necessary to impose sanctions under Civ LR 11-8. See Zambrano v

City of Tustin, 885 F2d 1473, 1483-1484 (9th Cir 1989). 

Accordingly, the court will not impose sanctions except require Mr

King to remit promptly to the clerk the fee for admission to the

bar of this court.

Good cause appearing, the order to show cause is hereby

DISCHARGED. The clerk is DIRECTED to process Mr King’s pending

application for admission to the bar of this court nunc pro tunc to

April 15, 2000. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:10-mc-80103-VRW Document 4 Filed 06/01/10 Page 2 of 2