John Doe and Richard H. Foster v. The State Bar of California, Michael E. Wald and David L. Frey, Jr.

582 F.2d 25, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8982
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 18, 1978·No. 76-2894·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

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

John Doe and Richard H. Foster v. The State Bar of California, Michael E. Wald and David L. Frey, Jr., 582 F.2d 25, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8982 (9th Cir. 1978).

582 F.2d 25 (John Doe and Richard H. Foster v. The State Bar of California, Michael E. Wald and David L. Frey, Jr.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Abing v. Evers
D. Hawaii, 2021
Whistleblower 14106-10W v. Commissioner
76 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 713 (U.S. Tax Court, 2011)
United States v. John Doe
655 F.2d 920 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)