> >
Case Name | Wolf v. State Bar | |
---|---|---|
Date | 08/05/2008 | |
Note | [Unpublished] Appellant had three opportunities to be heard on the claim against him, but no substantive opposition was ever presented. Surely, the process here afforded appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard, in satisfaction of his due process rights. | |
Citation | B198608 | |
WCC Citation | WCC 34082008 CA |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO MERVYN HILLARD WOLF, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. The State Bar of California, Office of General Counsel, Marie M. Moffat, Lawrence C. Yee and Tracey L. McCormick for Defendant and Respondent. * * * * * * Appellant Mervyn Hillard Wolf appeals the denial of a petition for writ of mandate which he sought against respondent The State Bar of California. He also contends the evidence was insufficient to support the findings of the Client Security Fund Commission of The State Bar of California (CSF). The purpose of the fund is to relieve or mitigate pecuniary losses caused by the dishonest conduct of an active member of the State Bar.
Download full case here.
Download full case here.