Golba v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FYBEL, Acting P. J.
INTRODUCTION
A fundamental principle of California law, enshrined in the State Bar Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6000 et seq.), is that no person may “practice law in California” unless that person is an active member of the State Bar. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6125 (section 6125).) As a corollary principle, no person may recover compensation for practicing law “in California” unless that person was a member of the State Bar or admitted pro hac vice at the time the services were performed, or the legal services fall within an exception. (Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Ketchum v. MosesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. DrexlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- People v. AvenaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Albert Zucker Sarah Mandelbaum, Weiss & Yourman Stull, Stull & Brody v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation Ray Irani Howard Collins, Walter KaufmannCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Winterrowd v. American General Annuity InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Nunez v. Nevell Grp., Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Dispatch & Tracking Solutions v. City of San Diego CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2016
- Elmassian v. FloresCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2021
- Elmassian v. FloresCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2021
- Nunez v. Nevell Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.