Court Opinion

ID: 9547761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:51:39.440882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:03.100129
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I dissent. In view of the fact that the trial court gave petitioner a “clean bill of health” on his conduct in the case of Lady v. Sunderland, I am disposed to accept its determination and vote for a dismissal of the disciplinary proceeding instituted by The State Bar against him. To hold otherwise would require us to give effect to a determination of The State Bar adverse to that of the superior court based upon the same factual situation. While it may be permissible for us to so decide, I am of the view that since the superior court is the tribunal created by the Constitution for the determination of issues of fact in judicial proceedings, its determination of such issues should be accepted by this court in preference to that of an administrative agency which is not invested with judicial power. The superior court in purging petitioner of contempt, in effect, determined that petitioner did not intend to deceive or mislead the court when he failed to disclose that he had destroyed the undated assignment. Since this is the only issue upon which the majority opinion predicates its conclusion that petitioner should be disciplined, I am compelled to dissent therefrom.
In my opinion the proceeding against the petitioner should be dismissed.
EDMONDS, J.
My associates state that the petitioner’s destruction of a document' and his subsequent failure to disclose such fact to the court justifies disciplinary action. The local administrative committee recommended that the petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for the period of one year, one member joining in the findings with the state*505ment that, in his opinion, “a greater measure of discipline is required.” The Board of Governors recommended suspension for three months. Considering all of the circumstances of the case, in my opinion that conclusion, although characterized as too severe by one of the eleven governors voting, goes as far on the side of leniency as the evidence warrants if any discipline is to be imposed.
Petitioner’s application for a modification of opinion was denied July 24, 1946.