In re Ross (1990) 51 Cal.3d 451 , 273 Cal.Rptr. 1; 796 P.2d 457
In re JOHN MICHAEL ROSS on Suspension
(Opinion by The Court.)
COUNSEL
John Michael Ross, in pro. per., for Petitioner. [51 Cal.3d 452]
Diane C. Yu, Richard J. Zanassi, Colin P. Wong and William Davis for Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT.
John Michael Ross, admitted to practice in 1977, was convicted of two counts of criminal contempt under title 18 United States Codes section 401. His conviction is now final.
We referred the matter to the State Bar for a hearing, report, and recommendation on the question whether the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offenses involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline and, if so found, the nature and extent of the discipline to be imposed. The State Bar's report has now been filed. The State Bar Court concluded that Ross's acts did not involve moral turpitude, but did constitute other misconduct warranting discipline. The State Bar recommends that Ross be suspended for two years, that execution of the suspension be stayed, and that he be placed on probation for two years on conditions including six months' actual suspension. Ross filed timely objections to the State Bar's recommendation and report, but did not make a timely request for oral argument. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 951(d).)
[1] This court, after reviewing the entire record and considering all the facts and circumstances, has concluded that Ross's conduct constituted misconduct warranting discipline and that he should be disciplined in accordance with the State Bar's recommendation.
It is therefore ordered that John Michael Ross be suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period of two years, that execution of that suspension be stayed, and that he be placed on probation for two years on all the conditions, including six months' actual suspension, set forth in the amended decision of the State Bar Court in this matter dated November 28, 1989, and filed with the State Bar Court Clerk's Office on November 29, 1989. It is also ordered that Ross take and pass the Professional Responsibility Examination within one year after the effective date of this order. (See Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 891, fn. 8 [126 Cal.Rptr. 793, 544 P.2d 929].) It is further ordered that Ross comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court and that he perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 days, respectively, after the date of this order. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, ยง 6126, subd. (c).) This order is effective upon finality of this decision in this court. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 24(a).)
none
Date: | Citation: | Docket Number: | Category: | Status: |
Wed, 09/19/1990 | 51 Cal.3d 451 | S015264 | State Bar - Discipline | case closed |
1 | Ross, John (Petitioner) |
2 | State Bar Of California (Respondent) Represented by Office Of General Counsel - State Bar 1516 Ninth Street 1516 Ninth Street Ms-4 Sacramento, CA |
3 | State Bar Of California (Respondent) Represented by Office Of The State Bar Court 818 West Seventh St 818 West Seventh St Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA |
4 | State Bar Of California (Respondent) Represented by State Bar Court Of California 555 Franklin Street 555 Franklin Street San Francisco, CA |
Disposition | |
Sep 19 1990 | Memorandum opinion filed |
Dockets | |
Apr 27 1990 | Objections to the report & recommendation filed Ptr Ross |
May 29 1990 | Response by State Bar filed |
Jun 18 1990 | Reply to State Bar response filed Ptr Ross |
Jun 19 1990 | Response Requested State Bar Due: 7-3-90; +10 Days Petr's reply |
Jul 3 1990 | Filed letter from: State Bar in response to Court's request |
Sep 19 1990 | Memorandum opinion filed By the Court: 2 years suspension ordered & stayed, 2 years probation with 6 months actual suspension ordered, pass PRE,comply w/955 30/40 dDays effective upon finality of this decision. |
Sep 27 1990 | Rehearing Petition filed by: By Petnr |
Sep 28 1990 | Time extended to consider modification or rehearing Rehearing to 12-18-90. |
Nov 14 1990 | Rehearing denied |
Jan 23 1991 | Letter re Non-Compliance W/955 |
Jan 31 1991 | Referred to State Bar for report & recommendation Failure to file 955(C) Affidavit in 11-14-90 Order |
Jun 17 1991 | Received: Motion for Reconsideration & Vacation of Discipli- Nary Order [Referred to State Bar Court - L.A.] |
Jul 9 1991 | Filed: Ptr's motion for Reconsideration & Vacation of Disciplinary Order (per Jcg) |
Jul 25 1991 | Request Denied Motion for Reconsideration of Disciplinary Order. |
Jan 16 1992 | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Jan 17 1992 | Record of State Bar discipline filed Transmittal of State Bar Court Recommendation dated January 17, 1992 and Proposed Order of Disbarment. |
Feb 19 1992 | Petition for writ of review/certiorari filed Ptr Ross |
Mar 2 1992 | Response to Petition filed by State Bar |
Mar 16 1992 | Received: Ptr's "correction" to reply to Ans of State Bar |
Apr 3 1992 | Received letter from: Ptr Ross Re Client Terada |
Apr 8 1992 | Received: Ptr's "request for Notice of the Substantial public Question" |
Apr 16 1992 | Pet/writ Review Denied; Disbarred per recommendation Comply Rule 955 C&D respectively after date this order Is effective. Costs awarded. |
Aug 4 1993 | Petition for 918(a) rehearing of State Bar discipline filed Motion by Mr Ross to set aside the orders suspending and disbarring him from the practice of law in California. |
Aug 4 1993 | Filed: Supplement to motion to Set Aside Orders Etc. |
Aug 19 1993 | Request for rehearing of State Bar discipline denied The "motion to set aside orders suspending and disbarring, etc." is denied. |