Petitioner attorney sought review from the recommendation of respondent Disciplinary Board of the State Bar (California), which suggested that petitioner be suspended from practice for two years upon condition of probation with no actual suspension, for violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§6068, 6103.

Petitioner attorney was retained by client to institute divorce proceedings and secure custody of his minor child. Petitioner and the attorney for the client's spouse both obtained orders for temporary custody from different judges. Petitioner secured a new order for custody from a third judge due to the unavailability of the first two judges. The Demand letter called petitioner to inform him that he had taken the child to Los Angeles and left his phone number. Petitioner had advised the client to take the child to Los Angeles to see a psychiatrist, but to wait until the orders had been straightened out. Petitioner appeared before the third judge and when, asked if he knew where the client and child were, petitioner failed to disclose the phone number. Respondent State Bar Disciplinary Board recommended suspension from practice for two years upon probation with no actual suspension for violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§6068, and 6103. The court concluded that the record failed to disclose misconduct regarding petitioner's advice to his client; however petitioner's nondisclosure of information to the trial judge called for public reprimand which consisted of the court's opinion.

The court reviewed the recommendation of respondent Disciplinary Board of the State Bar suggesting that petitioner be suspended from practice for two years upon probation with no actual suspension, and concluded that the record failed to disclose misconduct regarding petitioner's advice to his client; however petitioner's nondisclosure of information to the trial judge called for public reprimand which consisted of the court's opinion.

Appellant beneficiary sought review of orders from the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which charged a trust with past and ongoing attorney fees incurred on behalf of respondent former trustee in defending against the beneficiary's allegations of self-dealing and conflict of interest.

Eight attorneys from three major law firms comprised the former trustee's legal team. The beneficiary objected to the fee requests on the ground of excessive duplication. Both sides objected to the trial court's failure to specify how it arrived at the amount of the fees and costs and requested the trial court to provide reasons for its determination. The trial court declined to reconsider or further clarify its fee order. The court concluded that the record did not show that the trial court adequately considered the amount of fees reasonably incurred in representing the trustee and whether such fees were reasonably and prudently incurred for the benefit of the trust. A trial court presented with a Prob. Code, § 17200, petition to settle an account had a duty to inquire into the prudence of the trustee's administration. This duty included determining whether the trustee acted solely in the interest of the beneficiaries as required by Prob. Code, § 16002, subd. (a). The court stated that on remand, the trial court should further consider the issue of ongoing attorney fees and should allow the beneficiary to renew her request for limited discovery regarding fees.

The court reversed the fee orders and remanded with directions to the trial court to conduct additional proceedings to determine the amount of attorney fees the trustee was entitled to receive.