 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mack v. State Bar of California10/5/2001
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
Affirmed.
Plaintiff Michael J. Mack appeals from the order dismissing his complaint against the State Bar of California after the court granted the State Bar's motion for judgment on the pleadings. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the order.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff and appellant Michael J. Mack (Mack) is an attorney licensed to practice law in California. In 1994, defendant and respondent the State Bar of California (State Bar) filed disciplinary charges against Mack. On January 20, 1995, Mack stipulated to the facts alleged in the State Bar's complaint and agreed to accept a private reproval as discipline for his misconduct. In exchange, the State Bar agreed to dismiss four of the five pending charges.
An attachment to the stipulation cautioned Mack that even though the reproval was private, it was still a matter of public record: "The parties understand that although this reproval is termed `private,' it arises in a public proceeding. Although the State Bar of California will not affirmatively provide any publicity to the disposition, the file, including the stipulation, any order approving it, in this case will remain public and will be available on any specific inquiry by a member of the public."
Stipulations must be approved by a judge of the State Bar court. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 135.) On February 27, 1995, a State Bar judge filed an order approving the stipulation, with certain minor modifications. The order stated that it constituted "a letter of PRIVATE reproval in the name of the State Bar of California to [Mack] pursuant to rule 270 . . . ." Stamped across the caption page of the order was the statement, "NOT FOR PUBLICATION."
On March 8, 1999, Mack learned that the State Bar was posting his disciplinary history on the State Bar's internet website. The web page bears the heading, "Member Records Online." It gives Mack's state bar number, confirms that he is an active member of the bar and notes that he "has a public record of discipline." The page goes on to state: "The following is a generic statement regarding discipline and not a description of this particular member's discipline. [Original underlining.] Discipline consists of one or more of the following: private reproval with public disclosure, public reproval with duties, discipline with actual suspension, disciplinary probation with no actual suspension, suspension for failure to pass the Professional Responsibility Examination and/or disbarrment." The viewer is then prompted to "click" an indicated spot to obtain definitions of those terms. The page concludes by stating that it is necessary to contact the State Bar directly, by phone or in writing, and pay a charge, in order to obtain "discipline information specific to this member, . . ."
Contending that this violated the stipulation's prohibition against affirmatively publicizing the discipline, Mack demanded that the State Bar delete the information from its website. The State Bar refused.
In July 1999, Mack filed a petition with the Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandate or prohibition. (Code Civ. Proc., ยงยง 1085, 1086, 1102, 1103; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 56.) The State Bar opposed the petition, contending that its website merely offered a far more efficient means of providing public access to the State Bar's public records of attorney discipline. The Supreme Court summarily denied the petition on September 1, 1999.
On December 13, 1999, Mack sued the State Bar for breach of the stipulation, seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. A photocopy of the disputed web page was atta
Page 1 2 3 4 California Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|