Court Opinion

ID: 9633825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:01:26.782565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:58.476639
License: Public Domain

*584CARTER, J.,
concurring. — I concur in the judgment of disbarment, but in my opinion the judgment should be based upon the findings of the local administrative committee involving the conduct of petitioner in connection with his handling of the ease of Randolph Lowell v. Humboldt Malt & Brewing Company pending in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. In this proceeding the local administrative committee found the petitioner guilty of conduct involving moral turpitude and dishonesty within the meaning of section 6106 of The State Bar Act and recommended disbarment. The Board of Governors adopted the findings and recommendation of the local administrative committee in this proceeding and recommended to this court that petitioner be 'disbarred. In addition to the above-mentioned findings, said committee made the following comment with respect to petitioner:
“The committee feels that it should point out to the Board of Governors that the respondent (petitioner) in this case did not show any disposition whatsoever to cooperate with the committee in attempting to ascertain the truth of the charge set forth in the notice to show cause. His conduct on the stand was evasive. He either deliberately lied to the committee concerning his belief on questions of law, or displayed a gross ignorance of the knowledge of law. That he has demonstrated to the committee either that he is an accomplished liar or has an absolute incapacity to practice law. ’ ’
In view of the facts found by the local administrative committee with reference to petitioner’s conduct in connection with the Randolph Lowell case, and the conclusion reached by said committee that such conduct amounted to moral turpitude and dishonesty coupled with the above-quoted comment of the committee, which findings of fact and conclusion were adopted by the Board of Governors of The State Bar of California, I am persuaded that petitioner does not possess either the moral character or the legal ability requisite to a member of the legal profession of this state, and for this reason he should be disbarred.
But, I do not agree that petitioner should be'disciplined for his conduct in connection with the Alvin Douglas divorce proceeding as the local administrative committee found him not guilty of the matters charged in the complaint against him and recommended dismissal of the charges against him arising out of the Douglas case. The Board of Governors refused to *585approve the finding of the local administrative committee “that the delay in bringing said action and in obtaining said interlocutory decree was caused by the illness of the respondent (petitioner),’’ and also refused to adopt the conclusion and recommendation of the committee finding the petitioner not guilty and recommending dismissal of the charges against him. I agree with the conclusion reached by the local administrative committee in connection with the Douglas case, and in my opinion, petitioner should not be disciplined for his conduct in connection with this case.
The majority opinion is predicated upon the proposition that carelessness and negligence of a member of the bar in the handling of his client’s legal matters may be made the basis of a disciplinary proceeding against him. I do not agree with this theory, and in this connection I adhere to the views expressed by me in the dissenting opinions which I prepared in the eases of Trusty v. State Bar, 16 Cal. (2d) 550 [107 Pac. (2d) 10]; and In re McKenna, 16 Cal. (2d) 610 [107 Pac. (2d) 258].
In the case at bar there is no basis for the application of the so-called negligence theory as petitioner was not found guilty of mere negligent conduct, but of conduct involving moral turpitude and dishonesty. Such conduct amounts to moral delinquency which is not comprehended in any accepted definition of mere negligence.
For the reasons above stated with respect to petitioner’s conduct in connection with the Randolph Lowell case, I am of the opinion that petitioner should be disbarred.
HOUSER, J., concurred.