Court Opinion

ID: 9794970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:15:08.355319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:22:42.371801
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I dissent.
I cannot agree with the conclusion reached in the majority opinion for the reason that if the petitioner committed the acts related therein wilfully and designedly, he should be disbarred or severely disciplined, as such acts clearly eon*761stitute a fraud upon the court, and a member of the bar who would knowingly and designedly resort to such practices should be more severely disciplined than suspended from the practice of law for the period of three months or even for one year. On the other hand, if petitioner committed such acts because of ■ ignorance or incompetence, and without any intention or design to perpetrate a fraud on the court or the parties affected by his conduct, there is no provision of law under which he can be disciplined, as the State Bar Act does not authorize the infliction of discipline upon a member of the bar for ignorance or incompetence.
From my examination of the record in this case, I am forced to the conclusion that petitioner does not possess the legal learning and ability requisite to enable him to successfully continue in the practice of law in this state, but since there is no provision of law under which his license to practice can be revoked for incompetency or inefficiency, there is nothing this court can do to restrict his activity as a member of the bar of this state so long as he complies with the provisions of the State Bar Act and the rules of professional conduct promulgated by the Board of Governors of The State Bar of California and approved by this court.
Houser, J., concurred.