Legal Opinion

Hildebrand v. State Bar

California Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1950No. S. F. 18050PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Petitioners are attorneys, Hildebrand having been admitted to practice in 1925, Bills in 1923, and McLeod in 1935. By this proceeding they seek a review of the recommendation of the Board of Governors of The State Bar that they be disciplined for the violation of rule 2, section a (commonly known as the “solicitation” rule) and rule 3 (generally referred to as the “ambulance chasing” rule) of the Rules of Professional Conduct of The State Bar of California. (26 Cal.2d 32.) The disciplinary action arose out of petitioners’ representation of injured railroad men on claims against…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Herrscher v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Peck v. the State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Hildebrand v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Burke v. State Bar of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Ryan v. Pennsylvania RailroadAppellate Court of Illinois · 1932

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. ButtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Ex Rel. Virginia State BarSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. Gratton Earl Moore v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
  4. Black v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  5. McIntosh v. MillsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004

21 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