Court Opinion

ID: 9540797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:19:54.527564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:58.615381
License: Public Domain

KENNARD, J., Concurring.
As the majority explains, Attorney Ivan O. B. Morse sent out solicitations to homeowners offering to prepare homestead *214declarations for them. I agree with the majority that these solicitations were misleading and made Morse subject to discipline. I write separately to express my concern with certain language in the majority opinion that may be misconstrued in future cases.
As Justice Mosk notes in his dissenting opinion, “the majority opinion [(see maj. opn., ante, at p. 209)] contains more than a subtle suggestion that Morse is being severely punished for exercising [his] right [to litigate the meaning and validity of Business and Professions Code section 17537.6 (the statute he was found to have violated)]—and for having the temerity to seek review of his State Bar case in this court. . . .” (Dis. opn., post, at p. 215].) I agree with Justice Mosk that an attorney’s nonfrivolous exercise of the right to litigate an appeal is not a proper basis for punishment in State Bar proceedings.
Unlike Justice Mosk, however, who would have imposed more lenient terms of suspension and probation than the majority, I join the majority’s disposition because it is within the appropriate range of discipline for Morse’s conduct.