In re Titus

California Supreme Court

In re Titus

767 P.2d 656, 47 Cal. 3d 1105, 255 Cal. Rptr. 389, 1989 Cal. LEXIS 13

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1989

DocketNo. S008362

StatusPublished

This text of 767 P.2d 656 (In re Titus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Titus, 767 P.2d 656, 47 Cal. 3d 1105, 255 Cal. Rptr. 389, 1989 Cal. LEXIS 13 (Cal. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

[1106]*1106Opinion

THE COURT.

Lewis Robert Titus, Jr., admitted to the State Bar in 1973, was arrested in May 1985 for carrying a concealed firearm (Pen. Code, § 12025, subd. (b)) and in June 1985 for carrying a loaded firearm (Pen. Code, § 12031) and reckless driving (Veh. Code, §23103). He pleaded guilty to those charges and was placed on probation. We referred the matter to the State Bar for a hearing, report, and recommendation on whether the facts and circumstances involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting the imposition of discipline and, if so found, as to the discipline to be imposed. Although the hearing panel recommended termination by admonition, the Review Department, concluding there was misconduct warranting discipline, recommended he be publicly reproved and ordered to take and pass the Professional Responsibility Examination.

Titus was granted relief from default and allowed to file late objections but he did not request oral argument. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 951(d).) He correctly notes a lack of evidence to support a finding that he pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed firearm in 1983; in context, however, the reference is clearly to the May 1985 incident and the error is de minimis.

This court, after reviewing the entire record and considering the facts and circumstances, has concluded the recommendation should be followed. Lewis Robert Titus, Jr., is publicly reproved and this opinion shall serve as such reproval. It is further ordered that he take and pass the Professional Responsibility Examination within one year of the effective date of this opinion. (See Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 891, fn. 8 [126 Cal.Rptr. 793, 544 P.2d 929].) This opinion is effective March 17, 1989.

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

[1106]*1106Opinion

THE COURT.

Lewis Robert Titus, Jr., admitted to the State Bar in 1973, was arrested in May 1985 for carrying a concealed firearm (Pen. Code, § 12025, subd. (b)) and in June 1985 for carrying a loaded firearm (Pen. Code, § 12031) and reckless driving (Veh. Code, §23103). He pleaded guilty to those charges and was placed on probation. We referred the matter to the State Bar for a hearing, report, and recommendation on whether the facts and circumstances involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting the imposition of discipline and, if so found, as to the discipline to be imposed. Although the hearing panel recommended termination by admonition, the Review Department, concluding there was misconduct warranting discipline, recommended he be publicly reproved and ordered to take and pass the Professional Responsibility Examination.

Titus was granted relief from default and allowed to file late objections but he did not request oral argument. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 951(d).) He correctly notes a lack of evidence to support a finding that he pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed firearm in 1983; in context, however, the reference is clearly to the May 1985 incident and the error is de minimis.

This court, after reviewing the entire record and considering the facts and circumstances, has concluded the recommendation should be followed. Lewis Robert Titus, Jr., is publicly reproved and this opinion shall serve as such reproval. It is further ordered that he take and pass the Professional Responsibility Examination within one year of the effective date of this opinion. (See Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 891, fn. 8 [126 Cal.Rptr. 793, 544 P.2d 929].) This opinion is effective March 17, 1989.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

767 P.2d 656, 47 Cal. 3d 1105, 255 Cal. Rptr. 389, 1989 Cal. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-titus-cal-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack