Court Opinion

ID: 9587898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:27:41.962423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:50.147596
License: Public Domain

RICHARDSON, J.,* Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the court’s opinion in every respect except one: the conclusion that a public reprimand will constitute sufficient discipline for the misconduct disclosed in that opinion. In my view, that conclusion is at odds with the court’s determination that petitioner was guilty of moral turpitude in his failure to discharge faithfully the duties he owed to his clients because of their conflicting interests. (See Galbraith v. The State Bar (1933) 218 Cal. 329 [23 P.2d 291]; Sheffield v. State Bar (1943) 22 Cal.2d 627 [140 P.2d 376] [three-month sus*426pensions for representing clients with conflicts of interest].) At the very least we should adopt the recommendation of the State Bar in this case that petitioner be suspended from practice for 30 days, with that suspension stayed and petitioner placed on supervisory probation for 1 year, in order to ensure that petitioner fulfills his promise to terminate his objectionable defense policy.

Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court sitting under assignment by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.