Legal Opinion
Geibel v. State Bar
California Supreme Court
Decided June 23, 1938No. L. A. 16511; L. A. 16510; L. A. 16502PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
Petitioners seek a review of recommendations of The State Bar suspending them from practice. The Board of Governors recommended that Geibel be suspended for three years, and Morfoot and Shelley for one year. The charge against petitioners is that they aided and abetted two unlicensed persons, J. J. Driscoll and Anita Le Bourgeois, to practice law and aided and abetted said persons in the collection of fees for maintaining vexatious and malicious litigation. Each of petitioners had been admitted to practice for more than twenty-five years.
The amended order to show cause lists five…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Selling v. RadfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- People ex rel. Rogers v. GreenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1886
- In Re McCueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Yokozeki v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Canatella v. CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Gadda v. AshcroftCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Allied Compensation Insurance v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- In re BoschSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1945
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.