John Doe and Richard H. Foster v. The State Bar of California, Michael E. Wald and David L. Frey, Jr.
This text of 582 F.2d 25 (John Doe and Richard H. Foster v. The State Bar of California, Michael E. Wald and David L. Frey, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This appeal is from the judgment of the district court dismissing this action to en *26 join disciplinary proceedings of the State Bar of California against appellant John Doe. Appellants contend that the disciplinary proceedings violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
After a careful review of the record and the briefs of counsel, it is our opinion that the trial judge correctly concluded that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interfere with disciplinary proceedings of the State Bar of California for the reasons stated in his opinion. Doe v. State Bar of California, 415 F.Supp. 308 (N.D.Cal.1976). See also MacKay v. Nesbett, 412 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 960, 90 S.Ct. 435, 24 L.Ed.2d 425 (1969).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
582 F.2d 25, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-doe-and-richard-h-foster-v-the-state-bar-of-california-michael-e-ca9-1978.