Legal Opinion

Hulland v. State Bar

California Supreme Court

Decided December 7, 1972No. L.A. 29787PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is a proceeding under Business and Professions Code section 6083, subdivision (b) and rule 59(b) of the California Rules of Court to review a decision of the State Bar Disciplinary Board.

Local Administrative Committee Number 6 for Los Angeles County found that petitioner, Franklin Alfred Hulland, in violation of his oath and duties as an attorney, 1 wilfully neglected to render the services for which he was retained and used a confession of judgment and substitution of attorneys adversely to the interest of his client. 2 The committee recommended that petitioner be…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc. of Ohio v. Frick Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Isrin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Simmons v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Atlas Credit Corp. v. EzrineNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
  5. Clancy v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Isbell v. County of SonomaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Kallen v. DelugCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  3. Hawk v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. McKittrickSupreme Court of Iowa · 2004
  5. Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell v. ValleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005

10 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