Petitioner attorney sought review of a decision from the Disciplinary Board of the State Board of California (board) recommending that petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for one year on conditions of probation, including actual suspension for the first month. The board's recommendation was based on findings that petitioner commingled and misappropriated a client's fund and deceived inquirers as to the existence of these funds.

Petitioner attorney was charged with violating Cal. Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 8-101, and was charged with the commission of acts involving moral turpitude or dishonesty under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106, after he commingled and misappropriated a client's funds. The Disciplinary Board of the State Bar of California (board) recommended that petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for one year on conditions of probation, including actual suspension for the first month. On review, the court ordered that petitioner be suspended from the practice of Business law attorney Los Angeles for one year upon the conditions prescribed by the board, except that petitioner was to have been actually suspended for the first three months of said one-year period. Petitioner did not present one factual argument attacking the board's finding contending only that he had made all representations based on the information submitted to him and relied on him and had no intent to deceive anyone. The fact that petitioner had a serious illness and major surgery at the time of his commingling and misappropriation of a client's funds was relevant to the imposition of penalty.

The court ordered petitioner attorney suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, but stayed the execution of that order, and placed petitioner on probation for the one-year period upon the conditions prescribed by the Disciplinary Board of the State Board of California, except that petitioner was actually suspended for the first three months of the one-year period.

Defendant partner appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County (California), which granted an accounting of partnership property and business.

The parties agreed to acquire land and to operate a saloon and cigar business. Plaintiff partner alleged that he was forcibly excluded from the business and that title to the land was placed in other parties' names. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that an accounting was necessary. The court held that the complaint was sufficient to aver a partnership. Although the partners had made no agreement regarding the division of losses, the court held that such a provision was implied under Cal. Civ. Code § 2404. The court held that the statute of frauds, Cal. Civ. Code § 1624(1), did not invalidate the parties' oral agreement to form a partnership to deal in real property. The court found no error in limiting cross-examination of a witness because counsel's attempt to impeach the witness by means of prior inconsistent statements did not conform to the procedure mandated by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2052.

The court affirmed the order granting an accounting.