Legal Opinion · Dissent

Maltaman v. State Bar

California Supreme Court

Decided September 8, 1987No. S.F. 25098Published

1DissentLucas, C. J.

I dissent. In my view, the record, despite its various shortcomings, amply supports the State Bar’s unanimous recommendation that petitioner be disbarred.

I reject the majority’s conclusion that, in the Spang matter, there is insufficient evidence to establish that petitioner exerted undue influence in the preparation of the two holographic wills and the joint tenancy deed. It is well settled that undue influence may be established by circumstantial evidence. (Estate of Jamison (1953) 41 Cal.2d. 1, 8 [256 P.2d 984].) Indeed, in cases such as this one involving a holographic and unwitnessed…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Jamison v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Greenbaum v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Baranowski v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  4. In Re WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Bambic v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985

1 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