Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hippard v. State Bar

California Supreme Court

Decided December 11, 1989No. S008378Published

1DissentPanelli, J.

I respectfully dissent. The majority relies upon petitioner’s failure to have made restitution for debts discharged in bankruptcy in finding him insufficiently rehabilitated to warrant reinstatement. I believe that our refusal to reinstate petitioner because he has not made restitution of those debts unconstitutionally contravenes federal bankruptcy law.

While giving weight both to disciplinary recommendations of the Review Department of the State Bar (review department) and factual findings of the *1099hearing panel in this case, when reviewing a petition for reinstatement, as in all State Bar…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Kelly v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Perez. v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Florida Board of Bar ExaminersSupreme Court of Florida · 1978
  4. Tardiff v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Hamilton v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API