Court Opinion

ID: 9787561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:19:37.316118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:57.622278
License: Public Domain

KENNARD, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree with the majority in holding Attorney Raul V. Aguilar in contempt of court, fining him $1,000, and referring him to the State Bar. Unlike the majority, however, I would not hold Attorney Allen J. Kent in contempt nor fine him $250.
The majority describes this court’s order of January 14, 2004, setting the case of Aguilar v. Lerner for oral argument on February 10, 2004, as “a sufficiently specific order directing counsel’s presence before this court at the designated time and place.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 390, italics added.) But Attorney Kent was not counsel of record for plaintiff Aguilar in that case. Kent’s employer, the law firm of Aguilar & Sebastinelli, was. Thus, after Kent’s departure from the firm, the latter had the responsibility of seeing to it that an attorney other than Kent would appear for the scheduled oral argument.
Once Kent left the law firm of Aguilar & Sebastinelli, he had no obligation to appear for oral argument before this court on behalf of Aguilar, his former employer and the plaintiff in Aguilar v. Lerner. Kent’s departure did not absolve him of the duty to remind Aguilar of the upcoming oral argument so Aguilar could assign another attorney to argue the case. Kent did so: The State Bar Court found that on February 5, 2004, five days before oral argument in this court in Aguilar v. Lerner, Kent had a closed-door meeting with Aguilar and informed him that he was leaving the law firm. Although Kent did not, in this meeting, specifically notify Aguilar he would not appear for the scheduled Supreme Court oral argument in Aguilar v. Lerner, Kent mentioned the oral argument date to Attorney William Henley, an associate in Aguilar’s law firm, the same day and Henley in turn informed Aguilar of it the same day. Moreover, there is no question Aguilar had actual knowledge of the date of the argument. This gave Aguilar adequate time to assign the matter to another attorney. He failed to do so. As a result, there was no appearance on behalf of Aguilar in Aguilar v. Lerner. But that was Aguilar’s fault, not Kent’s.
According to the majority, Kent “violated his responsibility to this court by failing to notify the court that he would not be appearing at oral argument” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 391) because he “personally had signed all documents filed in this court on behalf of appellant Aguilar and had informed the court that he would be presenting oral argument. . . .” (id. at p. 390). At an earlier time Kent did indeed tell this court he would argue on behalf of Aguilar in Aguilar v. Lerner, but that was when Kent was still employed by the law firm of Aguilar & Sebastinelli. To the latter, as attorney of record in Aguilar v. *396Lerner, fell the responsibility of informing this court either that an attorney other than Kent would argue the case or that no attorney would appear for Aguilar.
One additional point. Although under no legal duty to do so in this matter, as a matter of courtesy and consideration Kent should have telephoned the clerk of this court to explain that because he was no longer in the employ of the law firm of Aguilar & Sebastinelli, he would not be appearing for oral argument in the case of Aguilar v. Lerner. Kent insists that to have done so could have prejudiced his former client, Attorney Aguilar. But, as the State Bar Court found, doing so would not have breached any professional or ethical obligation to Aguilar.
For the reasons given above, I would not hold Kent in contempt of court.
Werdegar, J., and Brown, J., concurred.
The petition of Allen J. Kent for a rehearing was denied November 10, 2004. Kennard, J., Werdegar, J., and Brown, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.