Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortattorneydivorcenaturalization

tortattorney

Related Cases

Lindenbaum v. State Bar, 26 Cal.2d 565, 160 P.2d 9

Facts

Isidore Lindenbaum was charged with violating his oath and duties as an attorney, specifically regarding his conduct in a divorce case involving his client, Ross Lansing. After the divorce proceedings, Lindenbaum communicated with Alice Shelton Lansing, Ross's wife, implying threats to induce payment for his legal services. He later wrote to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, suggesting that Alice's past involvement in the divorce case could involve moral turpitude, which led to disciplinary proceedings against him.

Petitioner was charged with the violation of his oath and duties as an attorney and the commission of acts involving moral turpitude within the meaning of sections 6103 and 6106 of the Business and Professions Code, St.1939, p. 357.

Issue

Did Isidore Lindenbaum's actions constitute a violation of his professional duties and moral turpitude warranting a six-month suspension from the practice of law?

Rule

An attorney's conduct that involves threats or actions intended to extort payment for services can be classified as moral turpitude, violating the ethical standards expected of legal practitioners.

Analysis

The court analyzed Lindenbaum's conduct, particularly his threats made to Alice Shelton Lansing and his subsequent correspondence with the Bureau of Immigration. It found that his actions were not only unprofessional but also intended to intimidate and coerce payment, which constituted moral turpitude. The court emphasized that Lindenbaum's motives were punitive and retaliatory, further justifying the disciplinary action.

Conclusion

The court upheld the Board of Governors' recommendation for a six-month suspension, concluding that Lindenbaum's actions constituted a serious breach of professional conduct and moral turpitude.

Who won?

The State Bar prevailed in this case, as the court upheld the recommendation for suspension based on Lindenbaum's unethical conduct.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Palomo v. State Bar, 36 Cal.3d 785, 685 P.2d 1185, 205 Cal.Rptr. 834

Tax Authority, Inc. v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc., 187 N.J. 4, 898 A.2d 512

Aguinaga v. John Morrell & Co., 112 F.R.D. 671, 124 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2898, 112 Lab.Cas. P 11,310

Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, 45 Cal.4th 557, 198 P.3d 1109, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 700, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 981, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1190

U.S. v. Goldberger & Dubin, P.C., 935 F.2d 501, 67 A.F.T.R.2d 91-1166, 60 USLW 2001, 91-2 USTC P 50,315, 33 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 14