Cannabis Sativa

How this document has been cited

Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6100.) Although the State Bar Act originally allowed any court to administer attorney discipline, "in 1951, the State Bar Act was amended to exclude superior courts and appellate courts from exercising such jurisdiction, leaving the Supreme Court as the sole judicial entity with jurisdiction over attorney discipline
- in Barry v. State Bar of California, 2013 and 6 similar citations
The administrative power it exercises is "alternative and cumulative" to the Supreme Court's authority to conduct disciplinary hearings
- in IN RE FINDING OF WELLS, 2012 and 4 similar citations
The legislature exercises, subject to the judicial power, regulatory authority over admission to the bar, causes for discipline and other professional requirements.
While lower courts once had jurisdiction over discipline matters, "[i] n 1951, the Legislature excluded [them] from exercising such jurisdiction by striking language from [Business and Professions Code] section 6100 [of the State Bar Act] which conferred jurisdiction upon the Courts of Appeal and the superior courts
- in Kay v. State Bar of California, 2011 and one similar citation
—should” or issue a specific order that limits counsel's "should not,” rather than “shall” or “must conduct in a deposition, including counsel's not” engage in various conduct. Whether the ability to consult with a client during the words" shall” or “should” in a statute are to be course of a deposition, an attorney is ethically construed as mandatory or directory required to comply …
"To allow attorneys to initiate superior court proceedings to circumvent or'shortcut'this function, especially at the investigatory stage, would tend to jeopardize the integrity of the process
- in California procedure and 2 similar citations
The Court also noted that if a subpoena is issued, the attorney under investigation may file a motion to quash with the disciplinary committee and once remedies available from the committee are exhausted, State Bar decisions related to disciplinary matters are reviewable directly in the California Supreme Court.
- in Due Process and one similar citation
—the State Bar, in the course of preliminary investigation to ascertain whether probable cause existed for issuance of formal disciplinary charages, subpoened a third party.
- in Modern California Discovery and one similar citation
The notice to show cause adequately pleaded State Bar Court jurisdiction, which was confirmed by evidence at the hearing (exh. 20) establishing the sole requisite fact, ie, respondent's membership in the State Bar
- in In the Matter of and one similar citation

Cited by

Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2018
Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 2011
Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 8th Div. 2009
158 Cal. App. 3d 497 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 1984
397 P. 3d 131 - Wash: Court of Appeals, 3rd Div. 2017
386 P. 3d 788 - Cal: Supreme Court 2017
218 Cal. App. 4th 1435 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 2013
Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 2012
Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2008
71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 207 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2008

Leave a Reply