Lupton v. The State Bar

California Supreme Court

Lupton v. The State Bar

217 Cal. 56

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 22, 1932

DocketS. F. No. 14805

StatusPublished

This text of 217 Cal. 56 (Lupton v. The State Bar) 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

Lupton v. The State Bar, 217 Cal. 56 (Cal. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Pursuant to a stipulation entered into between the petitioner and The State Bar of California, it is ordered that the order of this court, dated October 31, 1932, placing this matter on the calendar for hearing in San Francisco, on January 3, 1933, at 10 o’clock A. M., be and the same is hereby vacated and set aside.

It is further ordered that the petitioner, George W. Lupton, Jr., be and he is hereby publicly reprimanded for his participation in the transactions complained of before The State Bar of California, as being conduct violative of the principles, duties and ethics of a counselor-at-law, but that, pursuant to said stipulation, the recommendation of the Board of Governors of The State Bar of California to the court that petitioner be suspended from the practice of the law for a period of three months for his participation in said transactions be not approved.

This order is substituted in lieu of granting said recommendation and does constitute the public reprimand stipulated by the parties.

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

THE COURT.

Pursuant to a stipulation entered into between the petitioner and The State Bar of California, it is ordered that the order of this court, dated October 31, 1932, placing this matter on the calendar for hearing in San Francisco, on January 3, 1933, at 10 o’clock A. M., be and the same is hereby vacated and set aside.

It is further ordered that the petitioner, George W. Lupton, Jr., be and he is hereby publicly reprimanded for his participation in the transactions complained of before The State Bar of California, as being conduct violative of the principles, duties and ethics of a counselor-at-law, but that, pursuant to said stipulation, the recommendation of the Board of Governors of The State Bar of California to the court that petitioner be suspended from the practice of the law for a period of three months for his participation in said transactions be not approved.

This order is substituted in lieu of granting said recommendation and does constitute the public reprimand stipulated by the parties.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 Cal. 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lupton-v-the-state-bar-cal-1932.