Legal Opinion

Black v. State Bar

California Supreme Court

Decided January 16, 1962No. S. F. No. 20814PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

After two hearings before a local administrative committee the Board of Bar Governors has found that petitioner misappropriated funds entrusted to his care by a client and wilfully commingled his own funds with those of a client. The board recommends that petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for three years.

Petitioner was retained in 1944 by the Friesleben Estate Company, a corporation organized in 1899 and dissolved in 1949. Sometime in mid-1944 petitioner was made a director, and in 1946 secretary-treasurer, of the corporation. In these capacities and as counsel,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Clark v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Sturr v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Hildebrand v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Bruns v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Brawner v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Bradpiece v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Hallinan v. Committee of Bar ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  3. In Re HesslerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
  4. Vaughn v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. KupecWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1998

26 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