Legal Opinion

Copren v. State Bar

California Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1944No. S. F. 16968, 17017PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Petitioner seeks a review by this court of two disciplinary proceedings instituted against him upon separate charges of misconduct as an attorney at law. The charges arose out of petitioner’s representation of his clients Mrs. Resella Connelly (case No. S. F. 16968) and Mrs. Lillie Routt (case No. 17017). The show cause orders recited that petitioner had violated his oath as an attorney and had committed acts involving moral turpitude, and that he had violated rule 9 of the State Bar Rules. It was found by the local committee that in both matters the alleged misconduct had been…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Werner v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Herron v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Petersen v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Hizar v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Copren v. State Bar of NevadaNevada Supreme Court · 1947
  2. In Re WrightNevada Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Farnham v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Baca v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  5. In Re Powell's EstateNevada Supreme Court · 1945

3 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