Anka v. Yeager (In re Anka)
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, P. J.
*1117It is axiomatic that an attorney must represent a client to the best of his or her ability. The attorney owes a duty to that client to present the case with vigor in a manner as favorable to the client as the rules of law and professional ethics permit. But besides being an advocate to advance the interest of the client, the attorney is also an officer of the court. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6067 ; Norton v. Hines (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 917, 922, 123 Cal.Rptr. 237.)
California Rules of Court, rule 9.7, pertaining to the oath required when an attorney is admitted to practice law, concludes with,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.California Supreme Court · 2005
- Norton v. HinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Davenport v. DavenportCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Caldwell v. Samuels JewelersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Herriott v. Herriott, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- (PS) Henreid v. HaynesDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2025
- (PS) Henreid v. HaynesDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2025
- Shenefield v. ShenefieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022