- 5 -
While employed at the Taylor firm, petitioner experienced
“problems” relating to the fact that he was a disbarred lawyer.
Counsel opposing the Taylor firm would draw attention to
petitioner’s disbarred status through court pleadings. For
example, opposing counsel had filed an ex parte motion to contest
a ruling requiring them to pay attorney’s fees to the Taylor
firm, asserting that they did not want to contribute to the
unauthorized practice of law. These and other manufacturers'
defense attorneys, working on behalf of large automotive
companies, made disparaging comments against petitioner and the
Taylor firm in retribution for the successes they were having
litigating lemon law matters.
In response to the “disparaging” comments and to “remove the
stigma attached” to the status of being disbarred, petitioner
reapplied for admission to the California Bar in 1989. He sat
for and passed the California bar exam for the second time. He
then waited for the Committee to complete their moral character
review.
In the course of this review, the Committee elicited
background information from petitioner, including his then-recent
activities at the Taylor firm. The Committee also contacted
attorneys who had opposed the Taylor firm in its attempt to find
information about petitioner’s reputation and moral character.
As a result of this investigation, several members of the lemon
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011