Gray v. The State Bar

33 P.2d 1016, 1 Cal. 2d 226, 1934 Cal. LEXIS 353
California Supreme Court·Decided July 2, 1934·No. S. F. No. 15063·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

THE COURT.

It appearing that the transaction which formed the basis of the charges preferred against petitioner, and which resulted in a recommendation by the Board of Governors of The State Bar that he be suspended from practice of the law for a period of one year, involved a party or parties who participated therein with petitioner, but who were not proceeded against and whose conduct in the matter has not been inquired into, it is hereby ordered that this entire proceeding be remanded to the Board of Governors with directions to reopen the same, and by proper orders to bring before it for investigation any members of [227]*227The State Bar who directly participated in the said transaction, or take such further steps as may seem meet and proper.

Shenk, J., Waste, C. J., and Thompson, J., dissented.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gray v. The State Bar, 33 P.2d 1016, 1 Cal. 2d 226, 1934 Cal. LEXIS 353 (Cal. 1934).

33 P.2d 1016 (Gray v. The State Bar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Herrscher v. State Bar
49 P.2d 832 (California Supreme Court, 1935)