Petitioner attorney brought a proceeding to review a recommendation from the Board of Governors that he be suspended from the practice of law for three years as mentioned in CACI 2021.
The attorney was convicted on four counts of grand theft. Based on those convictions, the court had had suspended the attorney from the practice of law and referred the matter to the state bar for a hearing, report, and recommendation as to the discipline to be imposed. The board submitted a recommendation that he be placed on probation for three years on the condition that he be suspended from practice for the first two years. The attorney argued that the board omitted findings by a local administrative committee that the attorney was completely rehabilitated and that the recommendation was too harsh. The court found the board actually set forth the evidence that was favorable to the attorney, and consideration of that evidence would be relevant to the discipline imposed. The court further found that the board initially recommended disbarment, but, on rehearing, reduced the penalty. Moreover, the crime that the attorney committed normally warranted disbarment in the absence of extenuating circumstances. The attorney failed to show the board's recommendation lacked support or was not just, so the court adopted the recommendation.
The court ordered that the attorney was to be suspended from the practice of law for three years and that he be placed on probation for three years on the conditions prescribed in the board's recommendations.
Petitioner contractor sought a writ of mandate directing respondent Contractors' State License Board (board) to set aside its order and decision revoking the contractor's license, to restore the license, and to dismiss a complaint and proceedings pending before the board. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) denied the peremptory writ of mandate. The contractor appealed.
The contractor sold siding on a "model house deal" whereby an owner was led to believe that his was the first house in the district upon which siding would be applied and that the house would be used for display purposes. The contractor's salesmen told the customer that he would receive a bonus from future sales of siding in that district, even though some customers never received a bonus. The customers were also led to believe that the prices that they were paying for the siding were substantially less than prevailing prices. A hearing officer found the contractor in violation of the business and professional code. The contractor argued that the hearing officer was biased. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment upholding the board's decision to revoke the license. The court held that even if the hearing officer was brusque, that did not entitle the contractor to the writ because there was substantial evidence to support the complaint. The court found that the contractor charged more for the siding than other contractors even though it claimed that its prices were lower, and it allowed its salesmen, who were not licensed, to receive money from the deals.
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which denied the writ of mandate requested by the contractor to have its license reinstated.