Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

attorneydivorce
attorneydivorce

Related Cases

In re Ryland, 985 So.2d 71, 2008-0273 (La. 6/6/08)
View Case »
McKibbins v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2013 WL 5550124
View Case »
Gilles v. Wiley, Malehorn & Sirota, 345 N.J.Super. 119, 783 A.2d 756
View Case »
Rodriguez v. Disner, 688 F.3d 645, 2012-2 Trade Cases P 78,006, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,142
View Case »
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell, 463 Pa. 472, 345 A.2d 616
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hinds v. State Bar of Cal., 19 Cal.2d 87, 119 P.2d 134

Facts

Miller K. F. Hinds was representing Sue S. Blankenship in a divorce action. During the proceedings, he prepared a quitclaim deed for property transfer, which was signed by Blankenship's husband. However, Hinds later altered the deed to include his daughter as a grantee without informing Blankenship. This alteration was done to secure his attorney's fees, and Blankenship only discovered the change during escrow negotiations for the property sale.

Miller K. F. Hinds was representing Sue S. Blankenship in a divorce action. During the proceedings, he prepared a quitclaim deed for property transfer, which was signed by Blankenship's husband. However, Hinds later altered the deed to include his daughter as a grantee without informing Blankenship.

Issue

Did Miller K. F. Hinds violate his professional duties by altering a deed without his client's knowledge or consent?

Did Miller K. F. Hinds violate his professional duties by altering a deed without his client's knowledge or consent?

Rule

An attorney has a duty of fidelity to their client and must not act in a manner that places their interests in conflict with those of their client.

An attorney has a duty of fidelity to their client and must not act in a manner that places their interests in conflict with those of their client.

Analysis

The court analyzed the facts surrounding Hinds' actions and determined that even if he believed he was acting in the best interest of his client, his alteration of the deed without her knowledge constituted a breach of his duty. The court found that Hinds' justification for his actions was insufficient and that he failed to uphold his responsibilities as an attorney.

The court analyzed the facts surrounding Hinds' actions and determined that even if he believed he was acting in the best interest of his client, his alteration of the deed without her knowledge constituted a breach of his duty.

Conclusion

The court concluded that Hinds' actions warranted disciplinary action, resulting in a six-month suspension from the practice of law.

The court concluded that Hinds' actions warranted disciplinary action, resulting in a six-month suspension from the practice of law.

Who won?

The State Bar of California prevailed in this case as the court upheld the disciplinary action against Hinds for his misconduct.

The State Bar of California prevailed in this case as the court upheld the disciplinary action against Hinds for his misconduct.

You must be