Procedural Posture
Appellant teacher challenged the decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, which denied his request for a writ of mandate to compel respondent State Board of Education to set aside its decision and restore his life diplomas. Small business incorporation attorney in California.
Overview
Appellant teacher counseled a friend going through marital and financial difficulties and was experiencing severe emotional stress. For a one-week period, appellant and his friend engaged in a homosexual relationship. Respondent State Board of Education was advised of this relationship about a year later and revoked appellant's life diplomas. The lower court denied appellant's request for a writ of mandate compelling respondent to set aside its decision and restore his life diplomas. This court reversed the decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings. It found that disciplinary measures were only authorized for conduct that indicated an unfitness to teach and that there was no evidence to support the conclusion that appellant's conduct indicated his unfitness to teach. Respondent failed to show that appellant's conduct in any manner affected his performance as a teacher. Further, the diplomas were revoked three years after the incident, appellant's motives at the time of the incident involved neither dishonesty nor viciousness, and the emotional pressures on both appellant and his friend suggested the presence of extenuating circumstances.
Outcome
The judgment of the lower court denying the writ of mandate was reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. There was no evidence that appellant teacher's conduct indicated his unfitness to teach.
Procedural Posture
Appellant attorney sought review of a judgment by the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which denied appellant's motion to compel arbitration in a dispute with respondent client. respondent filed suit against appellant for conversion of client funds, which were entrusted to appellant in conjunction with a business dealing. Appellant had a standard engagement letter that contained a mandatory arbitration clause.
Overview
Respondent client filed suit against appellant attorney, claiming that appellant converted funds and breached a fiduciary duty. Appellant filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that his retainer agreement contained a mandatory arbitration clause. Respondent countered by arguing that the transaction that was the subject of the dispute was a business dealing and not legal representation, and therefore arbitration was not mandatory. The trial court denied appellant's motion to compel arbitration. The court affirmed, holding that the transaction between appellant and respondent was a business dealing and not legal representation, and therefore arbitration was unwarranted. The court stated that when an attorney entered into a business dealing with a client, the attorney was required to inform the client to seek the advice of an independent lawyer. Appellant failed to do this, and since there was a presumption that a business dealing between a lawyer and client was voidable, appellant failed to carry his burden that the transaction was proper. The court further stated that the arbitration clause was ambiguous, and any ambiguity was construed against appellant.
Outcome
The court affirmed the trial court's order denying arbitration in a dispute between appellant attorney and respondent client. The court stated that the arbitration clause in appellant's engagement letter did not apply because the transaction at issue was a business deal between appellant and respondent, and was not a legal representation. The court found that the arbitration clause only covered legal matters and did not include business dealings.