Bodisco v. State Bar of Cal.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1962 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 374 P.2d 803 Andrew BODISCO, Petitioner, v. The STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. S. F. 21009. |
Andrew Bodisco, San Francisco, in pro. per., and Archibald M. Mull, Jr., Sacramento, for petitioner.
Garrett H. Elmore, San Francisco, for respondent.
Petitioner, Andrew Bodisco, seeks a review of the recommendation of the Board of Governors of the State Bar that he be disbarred. Four members of the board voted against the recommendation on the ground that the discipline was too severe.
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Martin employed petitioner in July 1958 to bring an action against Safeway Stores, Inc., for personal injuries sustained by Mrs. Martin. In March 1959 petitioner orally negotiated a settlement agreement for $2,250 with Safeway's attorney. Petitioner testified to the effect that before entering into the agreement he discussed the settlement with the Martins and that they said, The Martins testified that they discussed the possibility of a settlement with him but that did not authorize him to settle for $2,250.
The Martins' daughter later wrote to petitioner stating in effect that she would not permit her parents to settle for less than $10,000. Her letter was not received by petitioner until a few days after the oral settlement agreement was entered into. Petitioner talked with one of the Martins, who told him that because of their daughter's views he should arrange a better settlement for them, and he replied that if it were necessary for him to do better he would see if he could.
After receiving the daughter's letter petitioner signed the Martins' names, without their consent, to a release which he had received from Safeway about the same time as the letter. He also had a legal secretary sign the document as a witness and notarize it. He returned the release to Safeway, and the action was dismissed with prejudice. A check for $2,250 payable to him and the Martins was sent to him, and he endorsed their names on the check without their consent.
Petitioner cashed the check, deposited $600 of the proceeds in an account designated 'Bodisco, Andrew, Special,' placed $1,400 in a commercial account in the names of 'Andrew and Karen Bodisco,' and retained the remaining $250 for his own use. The balances in the two accounts were later reduced until they totaled less than $1,500, the approximate amount to which the Martins would have been entitled under their contingent fee contract with petitioner if the settlement were valid. There was uncontradicted evidence that petitioner always had sufficient assets to meet a demand by the Martins for their share of the settlement.
Petitioner continued to urge the Martins to settle for an amount between $2,000 and $3,000. He represented to them that he was still negotiating with Safeway, and he did not tell them that he had received the money from Safeway until after they learned what had happened from another attorney they employed. Th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Koden
...In re Gladstone, 28 F.Supp. 858 (S.D.N.Y.1939); In re Brown, 101 Ariz. 178, 416 P.2d 975 (1966); Bodisco v. State Bar of California, 58 Cal. 2d 495, 374 P.2d 803, 24 Cal.Rptr. 835 (1962); In re Simpson, 47 Ill. 2d 562, 268 N.E.2d 20 (1971). In addition, the clear, convincing and unequivocal......
-
Hallinan v. Committee of Bar Examiners of State Bar
...315, 46 Cal.Rptr. 513, 405 P.2d 553; Linnick v. State Bar, 62 Cal.2d 17, 19, 41 Cal.Rptr. 1, 396 P.2d 33; Bodisco v. State Bar, 58 Cal.2d 495, 497, 24 Cal.Rptr. 835, 374 P.2d 803; Werner v. State Bar, 24 Cal.2d 611, 623, 150 P.2d 892.) The burden of showing that the findings are not support......
-
Russell v. Williams
...24 Cal.Rptr. 859 ... 58 Cal.2d 487, 374 P.2d 827 ... Dorothy RUSSELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, ... R. E ... Under the statutes of this state a fire insurance policy must specify the 'interest of the insured in property insured, if he is not ... ...
-
Charlton v. F. T. C.
...Martin, 67 N.Mex. 276, 354 P.2d 995, 998 (1960); "clearly established" and similar expressions, Bodisco v. State Bar of California, 58 Cal.2d 495, 24 Cal.Rptr. 835, 374 P.2d 803, 805 (1962); Gordon v. Clinkscales, 215 Ga. 843, 114 S.E.2d 15, 21 (1960); People v. Kerker, 315 Ill. 572, 146 N.......
-
How to Strike the Answer of a Non-participating Defendant
...in settlement negotiations without their client's consent. (Sampson v. State Bar (1974) 12 Cal.3d 70, 83; Bodisco v. State Bar (1962) 58 Cal.2d 495, 497.) Above all, an attorney shall not represent a client if she knows or reasonably should know that the representation will result in a viol......