In Re Cate

California Court of Appeal

In Re Cate

201 P. 964, 54 Cal. App. 401, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 546

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 29, 1921

DocketCiv. No. 3660.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 201 P. 964 (In Re Cate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Cate, 201 P. 964, 54 Cal. App. 401, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 546 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Petitioner, an attorney at law, licensed to practice in the state of California, was disbarred by judgment entered in the superior court of the county of Los Angeles on the twenty-seventh day of May, 1918. The offenses of which he was found guilty were of the character described in subdivision 5 of section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He now applies for reinstatement, claiming that he is now and for a long time has been repentant for the wrongs committed by him and has lived an upright life since the time of his disbarment. The application is supported by the request of numerous persons who attest his good conduct and their confidence in his present good character.

Without depreciating the value of these testimonials and without intimating that petitioner may not be reinstated *402 at some future time, the court is satisfied that this petition should not be granted. The misconduct of the petitioner on account of which he has been disbarred was of a very serious nature. And we do not agree with the opinion of his friends that he has been sufficiently punished for his acts of wrongdoing, merely by being deprived of his license for a period of only three years.

The petition is denied.

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

THE COURT.

Petitioner, an attorney at law, licensed to practice in the state of California, was disbarred by judgment entered in the superior court of the county of Los Angeles on the twenty-seventh day of May, 1918. The offenses of which he was found guilty were of the character described in subdivision 5 of section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He now applies for reinstatement, claiming that he is now and for a long time has been repentant for the wrongs committed by him and has lived an upright life since the time of his disbarment. The application is supported by the request of numerous persons who attest his good conduct and their confidence in his present good character.

Without depreciating the value of these testimonials and without intimating that petitioner may not be reinstated *402 at some future time, the court is satisfied that this petition should not be granted. The misconduct of the petitioner on account of which he has been disbarred was of a very serious nature. And we do not agree with the opinion of his friends that he has been sufficiently punished for his acts of wrongdoing, merely by being deprived of his license for a period of only three years.

The petition is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 P. 964, 54 Cal. App. 401, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cate-calctapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack