Opinion ID: 1183708
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Continuance to Wednesday

Text: Vaughn claims his failure to appear for trial on Wednesday was justified because he arranged for the appearance of another attorney. (1) Such association of counsel is proper and need not be effected formally, but it also presupposes the duty of the attorney of record to prepare his associate for the proceedings. The continuance to Wednesday required the presence of counsel prepared to proceed to trial; Vaughn's associate was not. Thus, the question is not whether he willfully disobeyed an order of the court, having arranged for other counsel to appear (cf. Inniss v. Municipal Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 487, 491 [42 Cal. Rptr. 594, 399 P.2d 50] (contempt order annulled where the petitioner arranged for associate counsel to appear)), but rather whether he breached his duty to prepare associate counsel for the trial. (2a) The record warrants the conclusion that asserted urgency for the trip to Washington did not excuse petitioner's failure to take the simple steps necessary to assure his colleague's awareness of the status of the proceedings, enabling him to proceed in an informed manner.