Court Opinion

ID: 9620210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:39:52.310985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:29.602784
License: Public Domain

*1025MOSK, J.
I dissent. The majority opinion not only violates the intent of the Accountancy Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 5000 et seq.),1 as Justice George’s dissent points out, but it also violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 2(a) of the California Constitution.
On the first of these issues, the State Board of Accountancy (Board) in issuing regulations to effectuate the Accountancy Act (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 2, hereinafter Regulation 2) prohibits what the statute permits. That is, section 5052 allows nonlicensed persons to offer basic accounting services “in connection with bookkeeping operations.” Thus, such persons are authorized by law to perform accounting; it is axiomatic that those who perform accounting are accountants. Even People v. Hill (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 320, 325 [136 Cal.Rptr. 30], a case on which the majority rely, acknowledges that unlicensed persons perform accounting services.
In the face of specific statutory authorization, the Board has in Regulation 2 prohibited unlicensed persons to hold themselves out as accountants or as performing accounting services. The majority uphold this anomalous result by which a truthful representation specifically sanctioned by statute is labelled as misleading to the public. /
Indeed, the holding of the majority would render improper a representation by an unlicensed person couched in the specific words of section 5052. The majority hold that an unlicensed person must include an “express disclaimer stating that the ‘accounting’ services being offered do not require a state license.” Thus, such a person who advertises that he or she offers accounting services “in connection with bookkeeping operations,” the very language used in section 5052, would run afoul of Regulation 2, according to the majority. An incomprehensible result indeed.
Nor do I agree with the majority’s analysis of the purpose of section 5058. They attempt to circumvent application of the doctrine of ejusdem generis by holding that the purpose of the catchall phrase (“any other title or designation that is likely to be confused with ‘certified public accountant’ or ‘public accountant’ ”) in that provision was to prevent the use of “other terms” the Legislature “had not then identified as misleading ... or might become misleading in the future.” The Legislature could not have had “accountant” in mind as a misleading term not then identified, since that designation was in common use then, as it is now. If the Legislature had wanted to prohibit use of the term by unlicensed persons, it would have done so.
The majority fail to mention that every jurisdiction but one that has considered the issue before us has held, on either statutory or constitutional *1026grounds, that use of the term “accountant” or “accounting” by unlicensed persons is proper. (People v. Freedman (1960) 144 Colo. 438 [356 P.2d 899]; Florida Accountants Association v. Dandelake (Fla. 1957) 98 So.2d 323 [70 A.L.R.2d 425]; Comprehensive, etc. v. Maryland State Bd. (1979) 284 Md. 474 [397 A.2d 1019]; State v. Riedell (1924) 109 Okla. 35 [233 P. 684, 42 A.L.R. 765]; Burton v. Accountant’s Society of Virginia, Inc. (1973) 213 Va. 642 [194 S.E.2d 684]; Tom Welch Accounting Service v. Walby (1965) 29 Wis.2d 123 [138 N.W.2d 139].) Only a single intermediate appellate court in Texas has held to the contrary. (Fulcher v. Texas State Bd. of Public Acc. (Tex.Civ.App. 1978) 571 S.W.2d 366; Texas State Board of Public Accountancy v. Fulcher (Tex.Civ.App. 1974) 515 S.W.2d 95.)
I have serious doubts also whether the majority’s conclusion complies with the First Amendment of the federal Constitution or with the California Constitution. While Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Comm’n of Ill. (1990) 496 U.S. 91, 109-110 [110 L.Ed.2d 83, 100, 110 S.Ct. 2281, 2292-2293], does hold that some form of disclaimer may be required if commercial speech would be misleading without it, it also warns that the state has a “heavy burden of justifying a categorical prohibition against the dissemination of accurate factual information to the public.” (Ibid.; see also Anderson v. Department of Real Estate (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 696 [155 Cal.Rptr. 307].) As we point out above, the unadorned designations “accountant” and “accounting” are accurate as applied to unlicensed persons. The state’s interest in preventing misrepresentation can be met by prohibiting persons who are not certified public accountants or public accountants to advertise themselves as such, or to use terms that indicate they have been licensed by the state, rather than insisting upon an express disclaimer, as the majority gratuitously require.
Furthermore, Regulation 2 is itself of questionable validity. In 1948, at the time it was adopted, the Board consisted entirely of licensed accountants. (Stats. 1945, ch. 1353, § 2, p. 2530.) The membership of the Board was broadened in 1961 to include public members (Stats. 1961, ch. 1821, § 39, p. 3877); presently, it consists of 12 persons, 8 of them accounting professionals licensed by the state, and 4 public members. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 5000, 5001.) None of the members of the Board, according to amicus curiae, the Center for Public Interest Law, is an unlicensed person performing accounting work. Amicus curiae states that a large percentage of the accounting work available is of the type that is performed by both licensed and unlicensed accountants. The Board majority has an obvious pecuniary interest in preventing those without a license from advertising to the public that they are performing accounting services. Regulation 2 furthers that interest. The law has long looked with disfavor on rules adopted by a *1027regulatory body the majority of which consists of members of a profession with a pecuniary stake in restricting the rights of competitors. (State Board v. Thrift-D-Lux Cleaners (1953) 40 Cal.2d 436, 449 [254 P.2d 29]; Allen v. California Board of Barber Examiners (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1014, 1017 [102 Cal.Rptr. 368, 54 A.L.R.3d 910]; Bayside Timber Co. v. Board of Supervisors (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 1, 12-14 [97 Cal.Rptr. 431].)
One additional point needs to be made. Court opinions should not rely on public opinion polls to support their conclusions. Judicial integrity suffers when judges hold a finger up to see which way the wind is blowing. Indeed, I doubt that poll results—which are notoriously inaccurate—should be admitted in evidence. (There may be one exception, however: in change of venue motions in criminal cases, surveys are often used merely to reveal if the crime, the victim and the alleged perpetrator are generally known in the community in which the case is to be tried.)
I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

All further statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code.