Robert John Brady v. The State Bar of California

Ninth Circuit

Robert John Brady v. The State Bar of California

533 F.2d 502

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 2, 1976

Docket74-2361

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 533 F.2d 502 (Robert John Brady v. The State Bar of California) 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.

Bluebook

Robert John Brady v. The State Bar of California, 533 F.2d 502 (9th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Before DUNIWAY, KILKENNY and CHOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Brady appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and his request that a three-judge district court be convened, and dismissing his action for failure to state a claim for relief cognizable by the court. We affirm.

The district court properly refused to convene a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2281. The Supreme Court has held that malapportionment of representation on a state bar governing body is not a violation *503 of fourteenth amendment rights. Sullivan v. Alabama State Bar, 295 F.Supp. 1216 (M.D.Ala.), aff’d, 394 U.S. 812, 89 S.Ct. 1486, 22 L.Ed.2d 749 (1969). 1 There is, thus, no substantial unsettled federal question on such malapportionment warranting a three-judge court. California Water Service Co. v. City of Redding, 304 U.S. 252, 58 S.Ct. 865, 82 L.Ed. 1323 (1938).

Further, even if the California State Bar Board of Governors were malapportioned, its acts would not for that reason be invalid, but would be valid as acts of a de facto authority. See Sullivan, supra, 295 F.Supp. at 1222. In creating the California Pilot Program In Legal Specialization and in making a rule of professional conduct to further the program with the approval of the California Supreme Court, the Board acted in accordance with statutory authority. California Business and Professions Code §§ 6031, 6076, 6077.

Nothing in the order of the district court indicates that it refused to convene a three-judge court or dismissed the action on the doctrine of abstention. We see no relevance of appellant’s argument based on abstention to the issues here on appeal.

Nor do we find any merit in appellant’s remaining contentions. The court’s denial of a preliminary injunction was proper. Having failed to state any claim for relief, appellant had no basis for any injunctive relief. His attack on the Pilot Program and the rule of professional conduct as violating his rights under the first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution is precluded by Smith v. California, 336 F.2d 530 (9th Cir. 1964).

AFFIRMED.

1

. The lower courts are bound by summary dispositions of the Supreme Court. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344-45, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 2289-90, 45 L.Ed.2d 223, 236-37 (1975).

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

OPINION

Before DUNIWAY, KILKENNY and CHOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Brady appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and his request that a three-judge district court be convened, and dismissing his action for failure to state a claim for relief cognizable by the court. We affirm.

The district court properly refused to convene a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2281. The Supreme Court has held that malapportionment of representation on a state bar governing body is not a violation *503 of fourteenth amendment rights. Sullivan v. Alabama State Bar, 295 F.Supp. 1216 (M.D.Ala.), aff’d, 394 U.S. 812, 89 S.Ct. 1486, 22 L.Ed.2d 749 (1969). 1 There is, thus, no substantial unsettled federal question on such malapportionment warranting a three-judge court. California Water Service Co. v. City of Redding, 304 U.S. 252, 58 S.Ct. 865, 82 L.Ed. 1323 (1938).

Further, even if the California State Bar Board of Governors were malapportioned, its acts would not for that reason be invalid, but would be valid as acts of a de facto authority. See Sullivan, supra, 295 F.Supp. at 1222. In creating the California Pilot Program In Legal Specialization and in making a rule of professional conduct to further the program with the approval of the California Supreme Court, the Board acted in accordance with statutory authority. California Business and Professions Code §§ 6031, 6076, 6077.

Nothing in the order of the district court indicates that it refused to convene a three-judge court or dismissed the action on the doctrine of abstention. We see no relevance of appellant’s argument based on abstention to the issues here on appeal.

Nor do we find any merit in appellant’s remaining contentions. The court’s denial of a preliminary injunction was proper. Having failed to state any claim for relief, appellant had no basis for any injunctive relief. His attack on the Pilot Program and the rule of professional conduct as violating his rights under the first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution is precluded by Smith v. California, 336 F.2d 530 (9th Cir. 1964).

AFFIRMED.

1

. The lower courts are bound by summary dispositions of the Supreme Court. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344-45, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 2289-90, 45 L.Ed.2d 223, 236-37 (1975).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 F.2d 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-john-brady-v-the-state-bar-of-california-ca9-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack