Court Opinion

ID: 9537467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:18:45.525109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:42.682286
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, J.,
Dissenting.—I agree with Justice Mosk. Especially does it seem unwise to exploit “the time and attention of the State Bar” when pecadillos occur in a setting where the judge or other adjudicator who is involved may easily dispose of the matter. Is it not appropriate, for instance, to proceed informally in the manner typically apt when an alleged “contempt,” even where admitted or proved, leads merely to private admonition?
*166With regard to “the time and attention. . .of this court,” here again we see exemplified the kind of State Bar case that in my view should be transferred pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 12. (Cf. cone. opn. in Bib’le v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1980) 26 Cal.3d 548, 556 [162 Cal.Rptr. 426, 606 P.2d 733].)
Petitioner’s application for a rehearing was denied June 19, 1980. Bird, C. J., and Mosk, J., were of the opinion that the application should be granted.