attorney business

Appellant antiabortion demonstrators and respondent health clinic submitted briefs at the invitation of the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, for the court to reconsider its prior decision affirming the trial court's permanent injunction imposing time, place, and manner restrictions on appellants' demonstrations at respondent's location. The attorney business  is very important for business litigations.

 Appellant antiabortion demonstrators challenged a permanent injunction issued by the trial court, which imposed time, manner, and place restrictions on appellants' demonstrations in front of respondent health clinic. The court of appeals originally affirmed the trial court's judgment, then, following instructions from the United States Supreme Court in a related case, invited the parties to submit briefs so it could reconsider. The court affirmed the injunction again, holding that the injunction's restrictions on appellants' free speech were content-neutral, and were reasonable because appellants' actions threatened a significant level of harm to respondent's patients, even though appellants had not offered violence. The court held that appellants' actions unreasonably interfered with respondent's patients' constitutional right to privacy, which was afforded a greater level of protection under Cal. Const. art. I, § 1, than under U.S. Const. amend. I. The court reversed the award of attorney's fees against two appellants, because a default judgment had been issued against them and the attorney's fees award violated Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 580.

The court republished its prior decision, affirmed the permanent injunction imposing restrictions on appellant antiabortion demonstrators, because appellants' actions, although not threatening violence, did threaten a significant level of harm to respondent's patients. The court reversed the award of attorney's fees for respondent health clinic as to two appellants only, because a default judgment had been entered against them.

Respondent state bar association sought disbarment of petitioner attorney for professional misconduct involving the receipt of money.

The state bar association sought disbarment of the attorney for professional misconduct. The attorney improperly obtained money from an elderly man in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6067, 6068, and 6106, improperly obtained money from the family of a criminal defendant in violation of § 6106, improperly obtained a mink stole in violation of § 6106, and improperly kept funds collected on a judgment in violation of §§ 6067, 6068, and 6106. The court accepted the recommendation of the state bar association and ordered that the attorney be disbarred. The court noted that the burden was upon the attorney seeking a review of a recommendation of the state bar association to show its findings were not supported by the evidence or that its recommendation was erroneous or unlawful. The court also noted that restitution, particularly when made under pressure, was not a defense to charges of misappropriation.

The court accepted the recommendation of the state bar association and ordered that the attorney be disbarred.