Opinion ID: 1247192
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Hearing Before a Single Referee

Text: Petitioner next takes issue with the use of a single referee to preside over the hearing and decide the application, asserting  yet again with reference to proceedings under subdivision (b) of section 6007  that there is no justification for proceeding in this fashion, for depriving the charged attorney of an appeal to the Review Department of the State Bar Court, or for allowing the involuntary inactive enrollment order to take effect prior to our review. (7) (See fn. 7.) As before, we find no merit to this comparison or to the other aspects of petitioner's argument. [7] It suffices to note that while petitioner may have a right to a hearing before he is prevented from practicing law, he has no right to a particular forum or particular procedures, provided only that the matter is heard by an impartial arbiter under procedures that comport with due process.