Supreme Court of California Justia
Citation 51 Cal.3d 451
In re Ross

In re Ross (1990) 51 Cal.3d 451 , 273 Cal.Rptr. 1; 796 P.2d 457

[No. S015264. Supreme Court of California. September 19,1990.]

In re JOHN MICHAEL ROSS on Suspension

(Opinion by The Court.)


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.



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).)


Opinion Information
Date:Citation:Docket Number:Category:Status:
Wed, 09/19/199051 Cal.3d 451S015264State Bar - Disciplinecase closed

1Ross, John (Petitioner)
2State Bar Of California (Respondent)
Represented by Office Of General Counsel - State Bar
1516 Ninth Street
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA

3State 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

4State Bar Of California (Respondent)
Represented by State Bar Court Of California
555 Franklin Street
555 Franklin Street
San Francisco, CA

Sep 19 1990Memorandum opinion filed

Apr 27 1990Objections to the report & recommendation filed
Ptr Ross
May 29 1990Response by State Bar filed
Jun 18 1990Reply to State Bar response filed
Ptr Ross
Jun 19 1990Response Requested
State Bar Due: 7-3-90; +10 Days Petr's reply
Jul 3 1990Filed letter from:
State Bar in response to Court's request
Sep 19 1990Memorandum 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 1990Rehearing Petition filed by:
By Petnr
Sep 28 1990Time extended to consider modification or rehearing
Rehearing to 12-18-90.
Nov 14 1990Rehearing denied
Jan 23 1991Letter re Non-Compliance W/955
Jan 31 1991Referred to State Bar for report & recommendation
Failure to file 955(C) Affidavit in 11-14-90 Order
Jun 17 1991Received:
Motion for Reconsideration & Vacation of Discipli- Nary Order [Referred to State Bar Court - L.A.]
Jul 9 1991Filed:
Ptr's motion for Reconsideration & Vacation of Disciplinary Order (per Jcg)
Jul 25 1991Request Denied
Motion for Reconsideration of Disciplinary Order.
Jan 16 1992- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jan 17 1992Record of State Bar discipline filed
Transmittal of State Bar Court Recommendation dated January 17, 1992 and Proposed Order of Disbarment.
Feb 19 1992Petition for writ of review/certiorari filed
Ptr Ross
Mar 2 1992Response to Petition filed by State Bar
Mar 16 1992Received:
Ptr's "correction" to reply to Ans of State Bar
Apr 3 1992Received letter from:
Ptr Ross Re Client Terada
Apr 8 1992Received:
Ptr's "request for Notice of the Substantial public Question"
Apr 16 1992Pet/writ Review Denied; Disbarred per recommendation
Comply Rule 955 C&D respectively after date this order Is effective. Costs awarded.
Aug 4 1993Petition 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 1993Filed:
Supplement to motion to Set Aside Orders Etc.
Aug 19 1993Request for rehearing of State Bar discipline denied
The "motion to set aside orders suspending and disbarring, etc." is denied.