Appellant claimant sought review of an order of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County (California), that denied her application for payment out of the real estate recovery account of respondents, real estate commissioner and others, pursuant to CalBus& ProfCode § 10470 et seq.
Appellant claimant recovered a default judgment against a licensed real estate agent based upon allegations of fraudThe agent filed bankruptcy and appellant requested the bankruptcy court to determine the dischargeability of the debtThe bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the agent and discharged the debt. ada violations & the california unruh civil rights act The trial court relied on the discharge by the bankruptcy court and denied appellant’s application for payment out of the real estate recovery account pursuant to CalBus& ProfCode § 10470 et seqIn affirming, the court held that a discharge in bankruptcy voided any judgment at any time obtained to the extent that the judgment was a determination of the personal liability of the debtorTherefore, no final personal judgment against a real estate licensee existed and appellant was not entitled to recovery from respondents, real estate commissioner and others.
The judgment denying appellant claimant recovery from the real estate recovery fund was affirmed because appellant did not have a final personal judgment against a real estate licensee, where the final determination of appellant’s right to recover from the licensee was abrogated by a discharge in bankruptcyThe court held that appellant did not have a right to recover from respondents, real estate commissioner and others.
Petitioner attorney applied for review of an order of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California (board), which recommended suspension of the attorney for violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibiting advertising.
The attorney published in a daily newspaper for six months an advertisement that read, “Advice free, all cases, all courts.” The board found that he violated the prohibition against soliciting professional employment by advertisementThe board recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for three monthsThe attorney sought judicial reviewThe court held that the board had the power to suspend an attorney for the violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that were approved by the Supreme CourtThe rule was not discriminatory against the legal profession as a whole , a “hang-over” from the 16th and 17th century when social and economic conditions were differentThe court concluded that the rule against the solicitation of business by advertisement was a reasonable regulationThe ethics of the legal profession forbid that an attorney should advertise his talents or his skill, as a shopkeeper advertised his waresThe court noted that the only serious infraction of the rule was the insertion of the words “Advice free,” and that the board’s penalty for the infraction was too severe.
The court modified the board’s sanctionThe court reprimanded the attorney for soliciting clients through advertising in the newspaper.
