Alina E Mihaila – Alina Mihaila – CALIFORNIA BAR Complaint gone wrong!

OPINION’s MATTER – OPINION MATTER’s – LOS ANGLES OPINION

Alina Mihaila Job: SHE IS A COMPLAINT ANALYST AT CALIFORNIA BAR LOS ANGELES 

Here is the address for 1st amendment peaceful assembly. Save this page it will update with peaceful protest dates and times.

CLICK HERE for PEACEFULL ASSEMBLY NEAR  YOU, THIS LINK TAKES YOU TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT DOES PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY

We will be meeting near, not at this location, the address is given to allow you to know it so you can avoid it and meet near in a broader community passed protest and so that we don’t end up blocking their driveway and such….! (we will be updating the site with the exact meeting place and time which will not be the addree listed for their house. That address is to make sure we as protestors DO NOT SHOW UP IN FRONT OF THAT EXACT LOCATION BUT NEAR IT, we don’t want to be in front of anyones home! 

YOUR IP ADDRESS IS: 54.39.0.73 This is your computer Internet Protocol Address A locator that leads to your very machine!

THERE IS NO LAW THAT CAN PREVENT PEACEFUL PUBLIC ASSEMBLY THAT IS NON VIOLENT PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL BEHAVIOR NOT TO DISTURB THE PEACE OR BLOCK THOROUGHFAIR OR WALKWAYS AND NOT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

HOWEVER THERE IS THE 1ST AMENDMENT AND THIS IS A NEWSPAPER AND THIS IS MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST & CONCERN AND PUBLIC SAFETY AS ELDERLY NEED THEIR MONEY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ATTORNEY BACKED BY THE CALIFORNIA BAR DEFEND THEIR THEFT OF ELDERLY MONIES PAID FOR A TRUST NEVER RECIEVED TO THIS VERY DATE!

WE DO NOT CONDONE VIOLENCE OR PROPERTY DESTRUCTION

WE CONDONE ONLY PEACEFUL CONVEYANCE OF A UNHAPPINESS OF THIS GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL THROUGH THIS POST, PICKET SIGNS AND PROTESTORS PEACEFUL AT THE LAGUNA BEACH HOME

“Peaceful public assembly” is the constitutionally protected act of gathering with others in a public forum (e.g., streets, sidewalks, parks) to express views or petition the government without violence, threats, vandalism, or obstruction, and subject to content-neutral time, place, and manner rules.

• Use public fora (sidewalks/parks); don’t trespass on private property without consent.

• Don’t block entrances, driveways, or traffic; keep clear pedestrian access.

• Avoid violence, threats, harassment, or vandalism; no touching or intimidation.

• Follow local, content-neutral rules (permits for large marches, amplified sound limits, buffer/setback rules).

• Keep signs/handouts truthful to avoid defamation; avoid doxxing that facilitates targeted harassment.

• Record interactions and comply with lawful orders that meet the Ward standard.

“Peaceful public assembly” is the constitutionally protected act of persons gathering in traditional public fora (sidewalks, streets, parks) to express views or petition the government without violence, threats, vandalism, or obstruction, and subject only to content-neutral, narrowly tailored time-, place-, and manner rules that leave open ample alternative channels. See U.S. Const. amend. I; Cal. Const. art. I, §§ 2(a), 3(a); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937); Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963); Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989); Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969); Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003); Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988); Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 23 Cal. 3d 899 (1979), aff’d, 447 U.S. 74 (1980); In re Kay, 1 Cal. 3d 930 (1970).

Legal backbone (U.S. & California):

• U.S. Const. 1st Amend.: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”

• Cal. Const. art. I, § 2(a) & § 3(a): protects speech and the right to “assemble freely… and petition.”

• Core cases:

  • Assembly is a fundamental right: De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937).

  • Streets/parks are traditional public fora: Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939).

  • Peaceful protest can’t be punished as “breach of the peace”: Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963).

  • Permit systems ok if content-neutral/narrowly tailored: Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969); Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316 (2002).

  • Time/Place/Manner test: Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989); conduct limits like camping bans may apply: Clark v. CCNV, 468 U.S. 288 (1984).

  • Offensive speech in public forum is protected on matters of public concern: Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011).

  • Nonviolent boycott/advocacy protected: NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. 886 (1982).

  • Residential picketing can be limited: Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988).

  • No incitement/true threats: Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969); Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003).

  • California adds robust protections in some quasi-public spaces: Pruneyard v. Robins, 23 Cal.3d 899 (Cal. 1979), aff’d, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).

  • CA guidance on orderly conduct at meetings: In re Kay, 1 Cal.3d 930 (1970).

SO ENJOY OUR FREEDOMS BABY!

The right to “peacefully assemble” is a fundamental right, primarily under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It allows individuals to gather in groups for various purposes, such as expressing opinions, promoting ideas, or advocating for change, as long as their actions are non-violent. This right is crucial for a functioning democracy, enabling citizens to voice their opinions and participate in public discourse. 

First Amendment

ITS IS OUR FIRM OPINION that We believe Alina Mihaila has not done her work, is incompetant or siding with attorney and not doing her job. Like most of us who have filed a complaint at the CALIFORNIA BAR has like most people found out, NOT DONE HER JOB

Alina is incompetant and fails her fiduciary duty. she cannot read well or comprehend the filing whatsoever.  She was given a report of 2 lying attorney’s, one operating without a license in California and the other a female. both attorney’s lied and comitted fraud and never gave 2 elderly clients their Trust they paid for, this lady was told they lied and never produced a Trust. Fiduciary duty would include allowing the elderly  to contend the accuseds’ rebuttal as they were accused of lying as lawyers. yet Alina E Mihaila just believed the first reply by lawyers accused of lying. The other failure of her fiduciary duty that proves she is incompetant is she COULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED A TRUST AS PROOF THE CONTRACT WAS FULLFILLED AS THE ELDERLY CLIENTS STILL HAVE NONE!

Ever file with the California Bar? Did you get a response like they were competant and on your side? In our opinion they are a scam. Attorneys do have to pay a fee to the California Bar yearly https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Compliance-Records

they are not inclined to kill an attorney business by siding with your compalint, it goes against profits through yearly dues only an attorney of law still in business would need to pay. They have a history of siding with attorney’s and judges but not us the little guy getting abused!

george s. cardona (ex prosecutor, Santa Monica City Attorney, and current chief trial council at cal bar, seems to protect the injsutices at the cal bar as well (he sounds gay on his recording very beta just a loser nerd for sure)

Judge Mary Ann Murphy (click) and

attorney Thomas V. Girardi (click) are just a few well know issues Leaked Emails Expose Failures of State Bar to Discipline Attorneys (click) They have work to do to clean themselves up at the bar!

John C. Eastman (click), a member of the bar of the State of California and many’s opinion of corruption malfeasant operations over at the California Bar

here is the lying attorney’s story Thompson Von Tungeln with the 2 Lying Asians,

Jong Lee CLICK (a non attorney of california barred from practiciing in california but somehow work with these elderly client as Business Lawyer for LLC design  and Sonia Chan Lee (CLICK) to wrap up the trust side (an actual california attorney who stole from elderly and scammed them) click here

Honest Review of Thompson Von Tungeln – To Trust or Not to Trust

The California State Bar has a long standing history of failure so much so that they needed to “change” their interpetation click to be more transparent.  I DONT THINK THEY ARE KEEPING THEIR WORD AT TRYING HARDER TO STOP ATTORNEY SCUM FROM HARMING THEIR CLIENTS, NOT IN OUR HONEST OPINION!
The issues with the CAl Bar have gone to the Supreme Court Click these malfeasant issues with the Cal Bar and their apparent opinion to side aganst those who file against attorneys. In our opinion to protect attorney’s (who pay the bar yearly) from getting a disciplinary and lowering their reputation. Attorney’s are a dime a dozen not a niche career anymore. Many law office’s like Morgan & Morgan & Larry H Parker and ALL Huge firms in our opinion are pump and dumps where loser attorney’s with no names get their feet wet while Mr Morgan stays home and has his pawn lawyers do the heavy lifting! So once an attorney leaves the shelter of a Pump & Dump he/she is on their own. One fowl up before they get their first 5 star and its now a 1 star attorney. Imagine such a fierce shit life after law school??? Once that attorney gets his first 5 star review it only takes one bad review to turn that 5 star into a 2.5 star. simple percentage based math. So an attorney with 11 reviews all 5 star can be kicked down to 3.6 stars with just 4 bad reviews and being there are so many lawyers he will faile soon, then close him business and could have a need for a new career. Not all attorney’s have tons of clients, many are hungry all day!

one disciplinary though that would ruin you and prevent you as an attorney from ever finding work, you can’t go back to the pump and dumps they know you have been disciplined you cant work for youself that discplinary and bad subsequent reviews will kill your practice so your done and the bar can’t get a dollar from a dead practice of law it must thrive! for repeated yearly payments

Civil Harassment

In general, civil harassment is abuse, threats of abuse, stalking, sexual assault, or serious harassment by someone you have not dated and do NOT have a close family relationship with, like a neighbor, a roommate, or a friend (that you have never dated). It is also civil harassment if the abuse is from a family member that is not included in the list under domestic violence. So, for example, if the abuse is from an uncle or aunt, a niece or nephew, or a cousin, it is considered civil harassment and NOT domestic violence.
The civil harassment laws say “harassment” is:

• Unlawful violence, like assault or battery or stalking, OR
• A credible threat of violence, AND
• The violence or threats seriously scare, annoy, or harass someone and there is no valid reason for it.

“Credible threat of violence” means intentionally saying something or acting in a way that would make a reasonable person afraid for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family. A “credible threat of violence” includes following or stalking someone or making harassing calls or sending harassing messages (by phone, mail, or e-mail) over a period of time (even if it is a short time).

Read about the law in Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 .

Ion Popa left seven messages containing racist insults on the answering machine of the head federal prosecutor in D.C. — Eric Holder, who eventually became attorney general. He was convicted of telephone harassment, which banned all anonymous calls made “with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass.”

Doxing VS the First Amendment: U.S. and California Law

• We also have the True Threats Test – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition
• We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment 1st
• We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment
• We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test
• We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test
• We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment 1st
• Miller v. US, 230 F 486 at 489 The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
• Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 178 (1886) An unconstitutional “law ” is not a law; it confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no protection.
• Chief Justice John Marshall Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (1Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803) All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States
• State v. Sutton, 63 Min 147, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA630, AM ST 459 When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetuated, and no one is bound to obey it.
• Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442. “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
• Bell v. Hood, 71 F.Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. — So. Dist. CA. History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government.”
• SIMMONS v US, supra. “We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another”
• Sable Communications of California v. Federal Communications Commission (1989)
  When Congress acted to restrict this growing industry, Sable Communications filed suit in federal district court seeking an injunction against enforcement of the obscene and indecent portions of Section 223(b). The district court denied the injunction, upheld the obscenity portion, and struck down the indecency section of Section 223(b).
• United States Supreme Court Rosenfeld v. New Jersey (1972) it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. overly broad and violative of the First Amendment” State v. Rosenfeld 62 N.J. 594 (1973) 303 A.2d 889
• Miranda vs Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p. 491 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
• Cohen v. California (1971) 403 U.S. 15 (1971),  The Supreme Court established that the government generally cannot criminalize the display of profane words in public places. The     Court rejected a fighting words application to a young man who wore a leather jacket with the words “fuck the draft” on it in a public courthouse.

•  Held: Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
   make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. 
   Pp. 403 U. S. 22-26. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)1 Cal. App. 3d 94, 81 Cal. Rptr. 503, reversed.

  HARLAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACK, J., joined, and in which WHITE, J., joined in part, post, p. 403 U. S. 27.
  

• People v. Boomer (Mich. Ct. App.) (2002) “Allowing a prosecution where one utters ‘insulting’ language could possibly subject a vast percentage of the populace to a misdemeanor conviction,”
  
• A.V v St Paul 1992 Justices ruled as unconstitutional a St. Paul ordinance classifying as hate speechwords “that insult, or provoke violence, ‘on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.’ ”
• Karlan v. City of Cincinnati (1974) Police officers should not be considered “fighting words,” because police officers are trained to exercise a higher degree of constraint than the average citizen.
• Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997)
  speech on the Internetis entitled to the same high degree of First Amendment protection extended to the print media as opposed to the reduced level given the broadcast media.
• Bible Believers v. Wayne County (6th Cir.) (2015)
  The case stands for the principle that the First Amendment protects unpopular speech and that government officials should not sanction a heckler’s veto.
• Albert Krantz v. City of Fort Smith
  A 1998 decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the distribution and posting of flyers and leaflets. In this ruling informed by the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of expression.
• Lucas v. Arkansas (1974)416 U.S. 919 (1974)
  The single-sentence Supreme Court decision in Lucas v. Arkansas, 416 U.S. 919 (1974), vacated and remanded this case, along with Kelly v. Ohio, Rosen v. California, and Karlan v. City of Cincinnati, to a state court for further consideration in light of the Court’s opinion in Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974). Court remanded convictions after saying ordinance prohibiting fighting words violated First Amendment
• Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021) authorities asked him to stop on the basis that others had complained and that the college prohibited any such speech that “disturbs the peace and/or comfort of person(s).”
• Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974)  The U.S. Supreme Court in 1974 overturned a woman’s conviction for cursing at police. Lewis had overturned a New Orleans ordinance on the basis that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by being overbroad in its attempt to prohibit vulgar and offensive speech and “fighting words,” as recognized in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) and Gooding v. Wilson (1972).
• City of Houston v. Hill (1987)  In City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987), the Supreme Court found a city ordinance prohibiting verbal abuse of police officers to be unconstitutionally overbroad and a criminalization of protected speech.
  
  
• STATE of Nebraska, appellee, v. Darren J. DRAHOTA – Darren Drahota sent a couple of anonymous insulting emails to William Avery, Drahota’s former political science professor, who was running for the Nebraska Legislature at the time. (Avery was eventually elected and served two terms.) Drahota was convicted of disturbing the peace for sending those emails, but the conviction was reversed in 2010 by the Nebraska Supreme Court. (I have a soft spot in my heart for this case, because it was the first First Amendment case I ever argued in court.)
• STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. William James FRATZKE, Appellant –  William Fratzke was convicted of harassment “because he wrote a nasty letter to a state highway patrolman to protest a speeding ticket.” The Iowa Supreme Court (1989) reversed, on First Amendment grounds.
• State of Wisconsin v. Thomas G. Smith – Thomas Smith was convicted of disorderly conduct and “unlawful use of a computerized communication system” for leaving two vulgar, insulting comments on a police department’s Facebook page. A one-judge Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision (2014) reversed. (Note that such insults aren’t unprotected “fighting words” because they aren’t face-to-face and thus aren’t likely to lead to an immediate fight.)
• Commonwealth v. Bigelow – Harvey Bigelow sent two letters to Michael Costello, an elected town council member; both were insulting, and one was vulgar. Bigelow was convicted of criminal harassment, but the Massachusetts high court (2016) reversed: “Because these letters were directed at an elected political official and primarily discuss issues of public concern — Michael’s qualifications for and performance as a selectman — the letters fall within the category of constitutionally protected political speech at the core of the First Amendment.” And this was true even though the letters were sent to him at home.  the case law link was above, but you can actually read the newspaper article of his exact doings here
• People v. Powers, (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 158,166. (“We conclude that the recordings appellant left on the customer service line cannot constitute substantial evidence that appellant violated section 653m, subdivision (a) [California’s annoying phone calls law]. The messages are annoying rants concerning customer service. It is reasonable for someone to be annoyed by appellant’s language. But the vulgarities uttered cannot be described as obscene, especially in the context of a customer service line maintained to take complaints. Except in extreme cases, we doubt that a person whose job it is to receive consumer complaints has a right to privacy against unwanted intrusion.”) THE PEOPLE,  v. DAVID THOMAS POWERS  determined although they may be a little annoying they were NOT ILLEGAL!
• Ion Popa left seven messages containing racist insults on the answering machine of the head federal prosecutor in D.C. — Eric Holder, who eventually became attorney general. He was convicted of telephone harassment, which banned all anonymous calls made “with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass.”

Zamos v. Stroud

California Supreme Court, 2004
32 Cal.4th 958, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 54, 87 P.3d 802

The tort of malicious prosecution includes continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause. (This decision expands the tort, which previously was limited to commencing an action without probable cause.) Evidence to this effect is sufficient to defeat a special motion to strike a complaint for malicious prosecution.

The legal frame (U.S. + California)

• First Amendment (U.S.): Government can’t impose civil or criminal liability for speech except in narrow, well-defined categories (e.g., true threats, incitement, obscenity, defamation). Speech on matters of public concern in public forums gets the strongest protection. Congress.govLibrary of Congress Tile

• California Constitution, art. I, § 2(a): “Every person may freely speak, write and publish … A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.” California courts treat this clause as at least as protective as the federal First Amendment. JustiaCalifornia State University

California “harassment” and stalking statutes don’t reach protected speech

• Civil harassment (CCP § 527.6): “Course of conduct” requires 2+ acts and “Constitutionally protected activity is not included”; “harassment” must seriously alarm/annoy and “serve no legitimate purpose.” If the acts are protected speech, they cannot support an order. (The statute says this in black-and-white.)

• Stalking (Penal Code § 646.9): Also defines “course of conduct” and “credible threat” and again says constitutionally protected activity is not included.

What is “clear First Amendment-safe” literature?

Protected (examples)

• Opinions, criticism, and advocacy on matters of public concern (even harsh or offensive), said in public forums (streets/sidewalks/online) without targeting private homes or making threats. Snyder v. Phelps protected vile funeral-picket signs because they addressed public issues in a public place. Library of Congress Tile

• Speech without intent to threaten: The Supreme Court held you can’t criminalize speech as a “true threat” unless the speaker at least recklessly disregarded its threatening nature. This raised the bar for stalking/harassment prosecutions resting on words alone. (Counterman v. Colorado, 2023). Supreme Court

Not protected (examples)

• True threats/intimidation (Virginia v. Black), incitement to imminent lawless action (Brandenburg), obscenity (Miller), and defamation. After a final adjudication that statements are defamatory, courts may enjoin repeating them; before trial, broad speech gags are usually an unconstitutional prior restraint. Justia Law+1OyezFindlawJustia

• Targeted residential picketing, or broad buffer zones around clinics: content-neutral time, place, manner limits can be imposed, but they must be narrowly tailored; sweeping bans get struck down. (Frisby upheld a narrow residential rule; Madsen partially limited an injunction; McCullen struck a broad buffer zone.) Justia Law+1Library of Congress Tile

How “harassment” claims and injunctions collide with speech

• Courts repeatedly warn against prior restraints and speech-based “harassment” injunctions that are vague or overbroad. Evans v. Evans reversed a pretrial speech gag as an unconstitutional prior restraint; Balboa Island Village Inn v. Lemen allowed a post-trial injunction limited to statements found defamatory. JustiaFindlaw

• In protest contexts, courts allow narrow restraints aimed at unlawful conduct (trespass, threats, targeted home picketing) while leaving protected advocacy intact. (Huntingdon Life Sciences decisions illustrate drawing that line.) Findlaw

Anti-SLAPP: your fastest path to get a speech-based case tossed

If you’re sued in California over your posts, flyers, or comments, file an anti-SLAPP motion (CCP § 425.16). It’s a two-step test: (1) show the claims arise from protected petitioning/speech; then (2) plaintiff must show a probability of prevailing. If they can’t, the court strikes the claims and awards you fees. California courts instruct that § 425.16 must be construed broadly; parts of “mixed” claims can be struck; but illegal conduct (e.g., extortion) isn’t protected. FindlawJustia+1CourtListener

Somtimes principle of an argument upsets betas and losers that does not mean we have to care!

1. “Protected speech cannot be the ‘course of conduct.’”
   “Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of ‘course of conduct’” in both CCP § 527.6 and Pen. Code § 646.9. If petitioner’s evidence is your nonthreatening posts/flyers about a public issue, it cannot satisfy the statute. Ask the court to deny/dissolve any TRO and deny an order after hearing on that basis. FindlawLegInfo

2. “No threats, no imminence, no crime.”
   Under Counterman, the State must prove at least recklessness as to a statement’s threatening nature for “true threats.” Mere repeated criticism isn’t enough. Supreme Court

3. “Prior restraint is disfavored.”
   Pretrial orders banning speech are presumptively invalid. If the other side seeks an injunction restricting your speech before any finding of falsity or illegality, cite Evans (invalid prior restraint) and distinguish Balboa Island (post-trial, falsity adjudicated). JustiaFindlaw

4. “Public-issue advocacy is specially protected.”
   Like Snyder v. Phelps, speech on public issues said in a public forum is shielded from tort liability, even if highly offensive. Library of Congress Tile

5. “Time, place, manner” limits are narrow.
   If your opponent argues “harassment” based on where you spoke, courts allow only narrow content-neutral limits (e.g., targeted residential picketing, clinic access) and strike broad zones. Justia Law+1

6. Use Anti-SLAPP if they filed a civil complaint.
   Move under § 425.16, attach your posts/flyers, and argue prong one (protected activity). Then force them to prove actual merit (e.g., falsity and actual malice if they claim defamation on a public issue). Cite Equilon (broad construction) and Baral (strike protected parts). Justia+1

The Value of Telling the Truth – Speaking Upright

I. CORE RULE: PROTECTED SPEECH ≠ “COURSE OF CONDUCT”

Section 527.6 defines “harassment” as a “course of conduct” that seriously alarms/annoys and serves no legitimate purpose, but it expressly states: “Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of ‘course of conduct.’” (CCP § 527.6(b)(1).) The same carve-out appears in the stalking statute. (Pen. Code § 646.9(k).) If the petition relies on Zullo’s non-threatening flyers/posts about public issues, the petition fails as a matter of law.

II. NO “TRUE THREATS,” NO INJUNCTION

A speech-based restraining order requires more than repeated criticism. The First Amendment prohibits punishment of speech unless it is a true threat or otherwise unprotected; after Counterman, the speaker must have at least recklessly disregarded the threatening nature of the communication. (600 U.S. at 73–82.) Nothing in petitioner’s declarations meets that standard.

III. PRIOR RESTRAINT: PRETRIAL SPEECH GAGS ARE INVALID

Broad bans on speech before any adjudication of falsity or illegality are unconstitutional prior restraints. (Evans, 162 Cal.App.4th at 1169–1173.) Only narrow, post-trial injunctive relief limited to statements adjudicated false may issue. (Balboa Island, 40 Cal.4th at 1156–1161.)

IV. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200) / Secondary-Evidence Rule (Evid. Code § 1521): If the content of a writing (including digital posts; Evid. Code § 250) is offered for its truth, petitioner must lay the foundation or present the original/credible secondary evidence; partial, illegible images lacking context should be excluded or given no weight.

V. OPTIONAL NARROW RELIEF (ONLY IF THE COURT FINDS MISCONDUCT)

If the Court believes some conduct (not speech) crossed a line (e.g., trespass, targeted residential picketing), any order must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored time/place/manner relief. (Frisby v. Schultz (1988) 487 U.S. 474; McCullen v. Coakley (2014) 573 U.S. 464.) A broad ban on speaking, posting, or distributing literature would be unconstitutional.

Quick cite list (tables/points)

• Anti-SLAPP scope & mechanics: Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53; Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82; Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376; FilmOn.com (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133; Bonni (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995.

• Fees: CCP § 425.16(c)(1); Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122.

• First Amendment protection: Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562 U.S. 443; Counterman v. Colorado (2023) 600 U.S. 66; Milkovich (1990) 497 U.S. 1; Hepps (1986) 475 U.S. 767; New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254.

• Prior restraint: Evans v. Evans (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1157; Balboa Island (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1141.

• Harassment carve-out: CCP § 527.6(b)(1); Pen. Code § 646.9(k).

• Aiding/Conspiracy limits: Applied Equipment (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503.

• Authentication: Evid. Code §§ 1401, 403, 250, 1521; People v. Valdez (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1429; People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258.

• Statute: Penal Code §653m(a)–(e) (text incl. good-faith and return-call provisions). California.Public.Law

• Constitutionality & scope: People v. Hernandez, 231 Cal.App.3d 1376 (1991) (upholding (a) & (b), emphasizing narrow focus on intentional harassment). Justia

• Return-call pleading: People v. Lampasona, 71 Cal.App.3d 884 (1977) (old gap later addressed by §653m(d)). Justia

• First Amendment “true threats”: Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969); Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). Justia Law+1

• Public-concern/petitioning: Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. 886 (1982). Justia Law+1

• Demurrer standard: Penal Code §1004; see order explaining face-of-pleading rule. closeupsblog.com

Anti-SLAPP Law Cases – Case Law Summaries & Citings

How Anti-SLAPP Laws Protect Your Right to Free Speech

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Attorney Liability for Meritless Litigation Leading to Harm

Court tosses disbarred lawyer’s suit over newspaper article

California Supreme Court Confirms that the “anti-SLAPP” Statute Applies to Claims of Discrimination and Retaliation

Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment

Attorney Liability for Meritless Litigation Leading to Harm

Free Speech, the First Amendment, and Social Media

Code of Civil Procedure – Section 425.16 California’s Anti-SLAPP Law

Life is Chess!, or…. Is Chess Life?

The Eagle and The Crow – The Ignorant Crow vs The Ascending Eagle

Lawyers are not that special, a high IQ is not needed a mere 100-130 can become this shithole career, they come in at average IQ of 100 all the way to 130 Moderately gifted and that would be a top tier lawyer., but the most successful people on the planet HAVE NO DEGREE FROM A COLLEGE, yet high IQs with fast learning minds. The high aptitude of an inttellect wwith an IQ score of 168, like the authors is considered exceptionally high and falls within the “exceptionally gifted”

Intermittently, a lawyer should read the oath given upon admission to the practice of law. This will help remind the lawyer of his or her basic duties to clients and society. In California, the lawyer solemnly declares

“I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor at law to the best of my knowledge and ability. As an officer of the court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy, and integrity.”

Lawyers have always had a duty to be honest and truthful pursuant to general ethical principles, as well as the State Bar Act. The newest version of the Rules of Professional Conduct, effective November 1, 2018, provides more specific guidance to lawyers relative to this duty. Rules 1.2.1, 1.6, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3,7.1 through 7.5, and 8.4 are all implicated in this duty, as well as Business & Professions Code (“B&P”) sections 6068(d), 6106, and 6128, among others. This discussion will focus on the B&P Code sections, violations of which constitute cause for disbarment or other State Bar sanction, including but not limited to suspension, fines, and re-taking the Professional Responsibility examination.

What’s included in the CRPC?

These rules outline the ethical responsibilities and standards that attorneys must adhere to in their practice. Please note that rules and regulations can change, so it’s important to refer to the latest official sources I’ve linked prior for the most up-to-date information. 

Lawyers are required to be truthful not only in dealing with the court and parties in litigation, but also in transactional matters and document preparation. Violations by a lawyer of these requirements can result in not only liability in tort — to one’s own client as well as opposing parties and counsel — but also in State Bar discipline.

Here are the primary areas of interest for the rules: 

Rule 1.1 Competence (Rule 1.1 – Competence): Attorneys must provide competent representation to their clients, which includes maintaining the necessary legal knowledge and skill. 

Rule 1.2.1 Advising or Assisting the Violation of Law  In fact, rule 1.2.1(b)(1) explicitly provides that a lawyer “may…discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with the client.” 

Rule 1.3 Duty to client (Rule 1.3 – Diligence): Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing their clients. 

Rule 1.4 Duty of communication (Rule 1.4 – Communication): Attorneys must keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their case and promptly respond to their reasonable requests for information. 

Rules 1.5 Fees (Rule 1.5 – Fees): Attorneys must communicate their fees clearly and must not charge unreasonable fees. Contingent fee arrangements and fee-sharing arrangements are also governed by this rule. 

Rules 1.6 Confidentiality Of Information. Confidentiality (Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of information): Attorneys must maintain the confidentiality of client information, subject to certain exceptions. 

Rule 1.7 Conflicts of interest (Rule 1.7 – Conflict of interest: General rule): Attorneys must not represent a client if there is a concurrent conflict of interest. They also have to avoid situations that could lead to conflicts of interest. 

Rule 1.9 Duties to former clients (Rule 1.9 – Duties to former clients): Attorneys must avoid conflicts of interest that arise from their previous representation of clients. 

Rule 3.1(a) prohibits an attorney from bringing or continuing an action, conducting a defense, asserting a position in litigation, or taking an appeal, “without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person”; or from presenting a claim or defense in litigation “that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of the existing law.”
Rule 3.1(a) adds considerations of probable cause, harassment or malicious injury, and good faith to help an attorney determine the ethical contours of advocacy on behalf of a client. By its reference to probable cause and good faith, rule 3.1 reminds attorneys that they must always consider their duties to the justice system as well as their obligations to a client. Moreover, by its reference to harassment and malicious injury,
rule 3.1 emphasizes the importance of attorneys conforming their conduct with opposing parties and counsel within certain ethical limitations.[6]

Rule 3.3 Candor to the tribunal (Rule 3.3 – Candor toward the tribunal): Attorneys must be honest and forthright in their communications with courts and tribunals, including disclosing legal authority that is directly adverse to their client’s position.

Rule  3.3(a)(1) provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly “make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”

Rules 3.4  section c a lawyer shall NOT falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law; Duties to the legal system (Rule 3.4 – Fairness to opposing party and counsel): Attorneys must not obstruct access to evidence, engage in frivolous litigation, or make false statements of law or fact to a tribunal. 

Rule 4.1 prohibits a lawyer from making a false statement of fact or law to a third person
Rules 4.1 (a) make a false statement Truthfulness in statements to others (Rule 4.1 – Truthfulness in statements to others): Attorneys must not make false statements of material fact or law to third parties, which includes other lawyers, clients, and the general public. 

Rules 4.2 “No Contact” Rule Prohibiting Communication with a Represented Person Without that Person’s Lawyer’s Consent

Rules 4.3  Transactions With Persons Other Than Clients

Rules 7.1 (a) A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services.

Rules 7.3 A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment

Rules 7.4 A lawyer shall not state that the lawyer is a certified specialist in a particular field of law, unless: (1) the lawyer is currently certified as a specialist in that field.

Rule 8.3 requires attorneys to report any lawyer who commits a criminal act, engages in fraud, misappropriates funds or property, or engages in conduct involving “dishonesty”

Rule 8.4 – Misconduct – Cal. R. Prof’l. Cond. 8.4 

Rule 8.4.1 Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation

Rule 8.4.2 defines incivility as “significantly unprofessional conduct that is abusive or harassing and shall be determined on the basis of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the conduct.”

Bus. & Prof. Code § 6067 – Questions regarding the legal ethical “duty of competence” can arise when law firms outsource legal work to freelance/contract attorneys.  Section 6067 of the California Business & Professions Code recites the attorney’s oath “to faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney at law to the best of his knowledge and ability.” California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110 requires that an attorney perform legal services “competently,” which the Rule defines as “diligently to apply the learning and skill necessary to perform the member’s duties arising from employment or representation.”  Further, the discussion section of Rule 3-110 states, “The duties set forth in rule 3-110 include the duty to supervise the work of subordinate attorneys and non-attorney employees or agents.”

Bus. & Prof. Code § 6067. Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law to the best of his knowledge and ability. A certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license.

Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068 contains a long list of an attorney’s duties: “It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following: (d) to employ, for the purpose of meeting the causes confided to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. (Emphasis added.)

Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(a) (c) and (d) and the related rules discussed in this article provide guidance to assist attorneys in finding their way through difficult ethical decisions faced in the practice of law. The ethical restraint on unbridled advocacy also has the salubrious effect of making attorneys better advocates for their clients because it encourages creative thinking and “out-of-the-box” analysis that otherwise might be overlooked. It is important to remember that just because something can be done, it does not follow that it should. This is the basic truth of ethical zealous advocacy that all California attorneys are duty-bound to heed in their advocacy on behalf of their clients and as officers of the court.

Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(c) A second foundational duty is found in Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(c) which provides it is a duty of an attorney “to counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him or her legal or just except the defense of a person charged with a public offense.”[5] Again, an attorney may not counsel a client to file a civil claim or action unless the attorney independently believes that claim or action is legal or just. An examination of the related RPC is helpful in fleshing out and understanding this duty.

Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068 identifies several important duties to the justice system imposed on all California attorneys. In general, these duties require an attorney not only to consider their client’s directives and interests but also to undertake an independent ethical evaluation of their conduct or proposed course of action on behalf of a client to ensure it falls within the limits imposed on their advocacy by the applicable ethical laws and rules.

Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068 identifies several important duties to the justice system imposed on all California attorneys. In general, these duties require an attorney not only to consider their client’s directives and interests but also to undertake an independent ethical evaluation of their conduct or proposed course of action on behalf of a client to ensure it falls within the limits imposed on their advocacy by the applicable ethical laws and rules.

First, paragraph (a) of § 6068 provides that it is a duty of an attorney to “support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.”[4] This is a foundational attorney duty that seeks to ensure that any conduct or advocacy by an attorney on behalf of a client does not contravene the Constitution and laws of the federal government or California. While § 6068(a) seems to merely be a straightforward duty to obey the law, there is much more in view. This is evident when one examines the related RPC.

Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(d) states: “The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney, and whether the act is a felony or misdemeanor or not, constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension.” (Emphasis added.) “Moral turpitude” has been defined by the California Supreme Court as “anything done contrary to justice or honesty.” See Bryant v. State Bar of California (1942) 21 Cal.2d 285.

Bus. & Prof. Code § 6128 states: “Every attorney is guilty of a misdemeanor who either: Is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party.

 (a) Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in
unfair competition shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed
two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for each violation, which
shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in the name
of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, by
any district attorney, by any county counsel authorized by agreement
with the district attorney in actions involving violation of a
county ordinance, by any city attorney of a city, or city and county,
having a population in excess of 750,000, with the consent of the
district attorney, by a city prosecutor in any city having a
full-time city prosecutor, or, with the consent of the district
attorney, by a city attorney in any city and county, in any court of
competent jurisdiction.

Related Laws: CLRA, ARL, and FTC Act

There are a few other related statutes that California consumers should be aware of when deciding whether to file a UCL claim.

CLRA Claims

Unfair Competition Law claims are often accompanied by claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The CLRA is more limited than the UCL because the CLRA includes protections for specific actions by businesses, whereas the UCL applies broadly to business fraud. It may be in the best interests of a plaintiff to bring a claim under both statutes because the remedies are cumulative. Beyond that, only the CLRA allows for punitive damages to be imposed against the defendant. Additionally, the CLRA allows plaintiffs to recover attorney’s fees.

ARL Claims

It is also possible for California consumers to use the Unfair Competition Law to bring a private civil action against companies that violate California’s automatic renewal laws. This is significant because the California ARL does not allow for a private right of action, which means that consumers who are deceived into signing up for an auto-renewal subscription may still be able to sue for full restitution under the UCL.

Federal Laws

There are also federal laws, such as the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), that protect California consumers against business fraud and false advertising. One advantage for plaintiffs filing a UCL claim is that the state statute has broad consumer protections that go beyond the protections provided under federal law.

Keep in mind that defendants may argue that more lenient federal law should apply in a particular case instead of the stringent California state law. That’s why it is important to have a skilled Los Angeles false advertising attorney on your side throughout the case. source

ATTORNEY’S OBLIGATION TO SELF-REPORT

State Bar Act

The California State Bar Act is found within the Business & Professions Code at sections 6000 through 6243. 

The State Bar Act does a lot of essential things, including establishing and maintaining the State Bar itself. That said, it also contains important ethical mandates on topics like the unlawful practice of law, fee agreements, and advertising rules for lawyers. 

As an important aside, the State Bar Act covers some of the same topics as the CRPC, including advertising. That’s why it is absolutely critical for California legal professionals to be familiar with all of the statutory schemes regulating their practice and to get in the habit of consulting each set of rules before acting. 

What specifics are included in the California State Bar Act? 

The California State Bar Act is codified in the California Business and Professions Code, specifically in Title 4, Division 3. Some of the key aspects and functions governed by the California State Bar Act include: 

• Regulation: The Act grants the State Bar regulatory authority over the legal profession in California. This includes the establishment of rules of professional conduct that lawyers must follow, investigation of complaints against attorneys, and discipline for ethical violations. 
• Discipline: The Act provides the State Bar with the authority to investigate complaints of attorney misconduct and, if necessary, to take disciplinary actions against attorneys found to have violated ethical rules or engaged in unethical behavior. 
• Board of trustees: The Act establishes the Board of Trustees of the State Bar of California. This governing body is responsible for overseeing the State Bar’s operations, setting policy, and ensuring compliance with the law. 
• Consumer protection: One of the primary objectives of the State Bar is to protect the public from unethical or incompetent attorneys. The Act outlines how the State Bar fulfills this mission through regulation, investigation, and disciplinary actions. 
• Access to justice: The Act may include provisions related to promoting access to justice, diversity in the legal profession, and other matters that are relevant to the legal community and the public. 

Additional statutes

These other statutes tend to be highly specific, such as Civil Code Section 55.55, which regulates attorney fees and costs in construction-related accessibility claims. 

While listing these various statutes is beyond the scope of this article, legal professionals would be wise to review and keep a copy of the State Bar’s 294-page statutory anthology titled “Selected Statutes on Discipline and Duties of Licensees.” 

California rules of court 

Among other things, these rules do things like prescribe the oath an attorney must take in order to be admitted to the California Bar (and note, the language prescribed here is “in addition to” the oath language already provided in Business & Professions Code section 6067). 

The Rules of Court also set forth the procedures for attorney disciplinary hearings (Rules 9.10 – 9.23), define Certified Legal Specialists (Rule 9.35), and regulate pro hac vice appearances (Rule 9.40). 

Formal ethics opinions 

These are formal opinions issued by the State Bar’s Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct. They seek to answer some of the most pressing ethical issues of the day. 

Note that these opinions are not binding on any court. Nonetheless, they are often cited in California Appellate Court and California Supreme Court decisions and carry great weight with judges. 

In case this seems like a pretty straightforward way to research ethical issues, you’d best hold on to your hat. The bar associations of some California counties (specifically, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego) publish their own ethics opinions which can be useful when trying to navigate ethical dilemmas arising in any part of the state. 

Helpful resources 

It is, but fortunately, the California State Bar seems to recognize as much. The bar publishes some incredibly useful resources that consolidate many of the above sources into one place. Here are our favorites: 

• Publication 250. Among other things, Publication 250 includes the California Rules of Court, the State Bar Act, and other relevant statutes. Note that this resource is intended to be used in addition to the CRPC. 
• California Compendium on Professional Responsibility. This is a three-volume reference manual dealing solely with issues of ethics in California. It contains: 
• All of the state and county ethics opinions referenced above; 
• The Publication 250 Book; 
• The California Code of Judicial Conduct; and 
• A subject matter research index. This is particularly useful when the rules on a given topic (e.g., advertising) are found across multiple sources. 

Fortunately, this 514-page research compendium is also available online and serves as a great starting place for ethical research. 

The ethical rules for lawyers outlined in the California Rules of Professional Conduct are complex, scattered across multiple publications, and constantly evolving. Nonetheless, there’s almost nothing more important that you can do for your practice than to know and understand the rules and the various places they’re found. 

To make things easier for you the next time an ethical issue arises in your firm, feel free to bookmark the above links. You’ll be glad you did.  source

case law sources

1. See, e.g., Hawk v. Sup.Ct. (People) (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 108, 126.
2. In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1537.
3. See Rule of Professional Conduct, rule 1.0(a).
4. See also Bus. & Prof. Code § 6067, which sets for the attorney’s oath “to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law to the best of his knowledge and ability.”
5. The ethical limits in a criminal proceeding (or a proceeding that could result in incarceration, or involuntary commitment or confinement) are beyond the scope of this article and differ in important ways from the civil context. For instance, RPC rule 3.1(b) provides a lawyer for the defendant may defend the proceeding by requiring that every element of the case be established. This is not true in civil actions as discussed herein.
6. Attorneys would be well-served to remember that civility, courtesy, and cooperation with opposing parties and their counsel will not diminish the effectiveness of their ethical zealous advocacy.
7. See, e.g., Hawk v. Sup.Ct. (People) (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 108, 126.
8. In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1537.
9. See Rule of Professional Conduct, rule 1.0(a).
10. See also Bus. & Prof. Code § 6067, which sets for the attorney’s oath “to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law to the best of his knowledge and ability.”
11. The ethical limits in a criminal proceeding (or a proceeding that could result in incarceration, or involuntary commitment or confinement) are beyond the scope of this article and differ in important ways from the civil context. For instance, RPC rule 3.1(b) provides a lawyer for the defendant may defend the proceeding by requiring that every element of the case be established. This is not true in civil actions as discussed herein.
12. Attorneys would be well-served to remember that civility, courtesy, and cooperation with opposing parties and their counsel will not diminish the effectiveness of their ethical zealous advocacy.

• read more:
• The Attorney’s Sworn Oath
• “Civility” Oath Rule Adopted by Supreme Court
• Lawyers’ Obligation of Candor to Opposing Parties and Third Parties
• Code of Conduct for United States Judges
• Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Rights
• Other Topics
• California Supreme Court Rules: Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines Subject to Open Records Requests
• City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government  Employees
• Employer$ Beware: La $upreme Court Open$ Line for Direct Negligence Claim$ from Employee Action$​
• Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!
• New Supreme Court Ruling Makes it easier to Sue PROSECUTORS & POLICE
• ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Professional Responsibility in Client Representation – A Re-Evaluation

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Rule 1.1 – Competence (DA REPRESENTS THE STATE)

Rule 1.2 – Assisting in a Crime

Rule 3.1 – Meritorious Claims & Contentions

Rule 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Council

Model Rule 3.8 pt.2 – Special Duties of Prosecutors

Learn More: ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Model Rule 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others

Model Rule 4.4 – Respect for the Rights of Others

Model Rule 5.2 Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer

Model Rule 8.1 Bar Admission & Disciplinary Matters

Model Rule 8.2 – Judicial & Legal Officials

Model Rule 8.3 – Reporting Professional Misconduct

Model Rule 8.4 pt.1 – Lawyer Misconduct

ABA Formal Op. 493 pt.1 – Rule 8.4(g): Purpose, Scope & Application

Model Rule 8.4 pt.2 – Discrimination & Harassment

Attorney Ethics Rules – FOX 17 Know the Law

​

More In Depth

Rule 1.2.1 Advising or Assisting the Violation of Law 

• (a) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows* is criminal, fraudulent,* or a violation of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal.*
• (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may:
  1. (1) discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client; and
  2. (2) counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of a law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal.*

Comment

• [1] There is a critical distinction under this rule between presenting an analysis of legal aspects of questionable conduct and recommending the means by which a crime or fraud* might be committed with impunity. The fact that a client uses a lawyer’s advice in a course of action that is criminal or fraudulent* does not of itself make a lawyer a party to the course of action.
• [2] Paragraphs (a) and (b) apply whether or not the client’s conduct has already begun and is continuing. In complying with this rule, a lawyer shall not violate the lawyer’s duty under Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (a) to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and California or the duty of confidentiality as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e)(1) and rule 1.6. In some cases, the lawyer’s response is limited to the lawyer’s right and, where appropriate, duty to resign or withdraw in accordance with rules 1.13 and 1.16.
• [3] Paragraph (b) authorizes a lawyer to advise a client in good faith regarding the validity, scope, meaning or application of a law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal* or of the meaning placed upon it by governmental authorities, and of potential consequences to disobedience of the law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal* that the lawyer concludes in good faith to be invalid, as well as legal procedures that may be invoked to obtain a determination of invalidity.
• [4] Paragraph (b) also authorizes a lawyer to advise a client on the consequences of violating a law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal* that the client does not contend is unenforceable or unjust in itself, as a means of protesting a law or policy the client finds objectionable. For example, a lawyer may properly advise a client about the consequences of blocking the entrance to a public building as a means of protesting a law or policy the client believes* to be unjust or invalid.
• [5] If a lawyer comes to know* or reasonably should know* that a client expects assistance not permitted by these rules or other law or if the lawyer intends to act contrary to the client’s instructions, the lawyer must advise the client regarding the limitations on the lawyer’s conduct. (See rule 1.4(a)(4).)
• [6] Paragraph (b) permits a lawyer to advise a client regarding the validity, scope, and meaning of California laws that might conflict with federal or tribal law. In the event of such a conflict, the lawyer may assist a client in drafting or administering, or interpreting or complying with, California laws, including statutes, regulations, orders, and other state or local provisions, even if the client’s actions might violate the conflicting federal or tribal law. If California law conflicts with federal or tribal law, the lawyer must inform the client about related federal or tribal law and policy and under certain circumstances may also be required to provide legal advice to the client regarding the conflict (see rules 1.1 and 1.4).

In fact, rule 1.2.1(b)(1) explicitly provides that a lawyer “may…discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with the client.” 

comment [1] However, in providing counseling, an attorney must walk a fine line. As pointed out in comment [1] of rule 1.2.1, there is a critical distinction between presenting an analysis of questionable conduct and recommending how a crime or fraud might be committed with impunity. Thus, harmonizing the needs of the client with the integrity of the justice system is realized when an attorney acts within the ethical limits of advocacy outlined by law and the RPC.

Rule 1.2.1(a) and (b)(2) expands on the duty set forth in § 6068(a). It states that a lawyer “shall not counsel a client to engage or assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal, fraudulent, or a violation of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal” except that the lawyer may “counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of a law, rule or ruling of a tribunal.” By prohibiting a lawyers counseling or assisting a client in criminal, fraudulent or unlawful conduct, rule 1.2.1 emphasizes that an attorney’s advocacy must include independent considerations beyond the directives and goals of a client. Moreover, an attorney is not required to simply walk away from a client in such a situation but instead may assist the client to understand the valid scope, meaning and application of the law at issue. In fact, rule 1.2.1(b)(1) explicitly provides that a lawyer “may…discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with the client.” That is, the attorney can guide a client away from errant objectives through a better understanding of the law as well as help the client find a remedy that will serve their interests through valid and good faith application of law. Put another way, an attorney is authorized to counsel a client “off the ethical ledge” if they appear to have a criminal or fraudulent objective.

However, in providing counseling, an attorney must walk a fine line. As pointed out in comment [1] of rule 1.2.1, there is a critical distinction between presenting an analysis of questionable conduct and recommending how a crime or fraud might be committed with impunity. Thus, harmonizing the needs of the client with the integrity of the justice system is realized when an attorney acts within the ethical limits of advocacy outlined by law and the RPC. source

Cal. R. Prof’l. Cond. 3.4

A lawyer shall not:

• (a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence, including a witness, or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person* to do any such act;
• (b) suppress any evidence that the lawyer or the lawyer’s client has a legal obligation to reveal or to produce;
• (c) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;
• (d) directly or indirectly pay, offer to pay, or acquiesce in the payment of compensation to a witness contingent upon the content of the witness’s testimony or the outcome of the case. Except where prohibited by law, a lawyer may advance, guarantee, or acquiesce in the payment of:
  • (1) expenses reasonably* incurred by a witness in attending or testifying;
  • (2) reasonable* compensation to a witness for loss of time in attending or testifying; or
  • (3) a reasonable* fee for the professional services of an expert witness;
• (e) advise or directly or indirectly cause a person* to secrete himself or herself or to leave the jurisdiction of a tribunal* for the purpose of making that person* unavailable as a witness therein;
• (f) knowingly* disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal* except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists; or
• (g) in trial, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused.

Cal. R. Prof'l. Cond. 3.4

Rule 8.4.1 Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation

Rule 8.4 – Misconduct – Cal. R. Prof’l. Cond. 8.4 

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

• (a) violate these rules or the State Bar Act, knowingly* assist, solicit, or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
• (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
• (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,* deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation;
• (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
• (e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official, or to achieve results by means that violate these rules, the State Bar Act, or other law; or
• (f) knowingly* assist, solicit, or induce a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of an applicable code of judicial ethics or code of judicial conduct, or other law. For purposes of this rule, “judge” and “judicial officer” have the same meaning as in rule 3.5(c).

Cal. R. Prof'l. Cond. 8.4

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068

It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following:

• (a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.
• (b) To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.
• (c) To counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a person charged with a public offense.
• (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.
• (e)
  • (1) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.
  • (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an attorney may, but is not required to, reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a client to the extent that the attorney reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent a criminal act that the attorney reasonably believes is likely to result in death of, or substantial bodily harm to, an individual.
• (f) To advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he or she is charged.
• (g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or interest.
• (h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself or herself, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.
• (i) To cooperate and participate in any disciplinary investigation or other regulatory or disciplinary proceeding pending against himself or herself. However, this subdivision shall not be construed to deprive an attorney of any privilege guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or any other constitutional or statutory privileges. This subdivision shall not be construed to require an attorney to cooperate with a request that requires him or her to waive any constitutional or statutory privilege or to comply with a request for information or other matters within an unreasonable period of time in light of the time constraints of the attorney’s practice. Any exercise by an attorney of any constitutional or statutory privilege shall not be used against the attorney in a regulatory or disciplinary proceeding against him or her.
• (j) To comply with the requirements of Section 6002.1.
• (k) To comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary probation, including a probation imposed with the concurrence of the attorney.
• (l) To keep all agreements made in lieu of disciplinary prosecution with the State Bar.
• (m) To respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of clients and to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments in matters with regard to which the attorney has agreed to provide legal services.
• (n) To provide copies to the client of certain documents under time limits and as prescribed in a rule of professional conduct which the board shall adopt.
• (o) To report to the State Bar, in writing, within 30 days of the time the attorney has knowledge of any of the following:
  • (1) The filing of three or more lawsuits in a 12-month period against the attorney for malpractice or other wrongful conduct committed in a professional capacity.
  • (2) The entry of judgment against the attorney in a civil action for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, or gross negligence committed in a professional capacity.
  • (3) The imposition of judicial sanctions against the attorney, except for sanctions for failure to make discovery or monetary sanctions of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
  • (4) The bringing of an indictment or information charging a felony against the attorney.
  • (5) The conviction of the attorney, including any verdict of guilty, or plea of guilty or no contest, of a felony, or a misdemeanor committed in the course of the practice of law, or in a manner in which a client of the attorney was the victim, or a necessary element of which, as determined by the statutory or common law definition of the misdemeanor, involves improper conduct of an attorney, including dishonesty or other moral turpitude, or an attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a felony or a misdemeanor of that type.
  • (6) The imposition of discipline against the attorney by a professional or occupational disciplinary agency or licensing board, whether in California or elsewhere.
  • (7) Reversal of judgment in a proceeding based in whole or in part upon misconduct, grossly incompetent representation, or willful misrepresentation by an attorney.
  • (8) As used in this subdivision, “against the attorney” includes claims and proceedings against any firm of attorneys for the practice of law in which the attorney was a partner at the time of the conduct complained of and any law corporation in which the attorney was a shareholder at the time of the conduct complained of unless the matter has to the attorney’s knowledge already been reported by the law firm or corporation.
  • (9) The State Bar may develop a prescribed form for the making of reports required by this section, usage of which it may require by rule or regulation.
  • (10) This subdivision is only intended to provide that the failure to report as required herein may serve as a basis of discipline.

source

California Code, Business and Professions Code – BPC § 2246

read more:

The Attorney’s Sworn Oath

“Civility” Oath Rule Adopted by Supreme Court

Lawyers’ Obligation of Candor to Opposing Parties and Third Parties

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Rights

Other Topics

California Supreme Court Rules: Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines Subject to Open Records Requests

City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government  Employees

Employer$ Beware: La $upreme Court Open$ Line for Direct Negligence Claim$ from Employee Action$​

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!

New Supreme Court Ruling Makes it easier to Sue PROSECUTORS & POLICE​

ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Learn More about property and your rights below:

Property Rights and the Constitution – The General Nature of Property Rights

Landlord’s Right to Entry in California

Rule 1.1 – Competence (DA REPRESENTS THE STATE)

Rule 1.2 – Assisting in a Crime

Rule 3.1 – Meritorious Claims & Contentions

Rule 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Council

Model Rule 3.8 pt.2 – Special Duties of Prosecutors

Learn More: ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Model Rule 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others

Model Rule 4.4 – Respect for the Rights of Others

Model Rule 5.2 Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer

Model Rule 8.1 Bar Admission & Disciplinary Matters

Model Rule 8.2 – Judicial & Legal Officials

Model Rule 8.3 – Reporting Professional Misconduct

Model Rule 8.4 pt.1 – Lawyer Misconduct

ABA Formal Op. 493 pt.1 – Rule 8.4(g): Purpose, Scope & Application

Model Rule 8.4 pt.2 – Discrimination & Harassment

Attorney Ethics Rules – FOX 17 Know the Law