- 6 -
law defense bar came forward to make allegations against
petitioner. Based on petitioner’s history and those allegations,
the Committee challenged petitioner’s admission to the bar on
moral character grounds. Petitioner contested the Committee’s
determination in the California State Bar Court (Bar Court).
The legal costs in dispute are a result of petitioner’s
challenge to the Committee’s determination. The Bar Court
proceeding was similar to a civil trial, with petitioner having
the burden of proof. It was an evidentiary hearing overseen by a
referee, where witnesses testified and were cross-examined. Six
members of the manufacturing defense community testified against
petitioner. The referee did not issue an immediate ruling, but
took the matter under submission.
Meanwhile, as a result of the negative publicity the Taylor
firm had received relating to his employment, petitioner left the
firm at the end of August 1991. He continued his association
with the firm, however, as a part-time consultant through the end
of that year. Petitioner was forced to leave the Taylor firm
because it was “too high profile for a disbarred lawyer to be
running the firm, given all the negatives attached to it”.
In April 1992, the Bar Court referee ruled that petitioner,
in light of his past disbarments and the 6 attorneys testifying
against him, did not satisfy his burden and recommended that
petitioner be denied admission to the California Bar. Petitioner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011