Attorney-at-Law

BAR EXAM?

In Uncategorized on 06/28/2023 at 16:31

Letting in testimony from the SO on a CDP as to the contents of the admin record, and more unusually to discuss the petitioners’ allegations of bad faith, shouldn’t give rise to a blogpost. After all, completeness of the admin record is the foundation stone of review where de novo is off the table.

But Kevin J. Mirch & Marie C. Mirch, Docket No. 16277-16L, filed 6/28/23, have a more unusual problem. Kev is a CA attorney, and wants an opinion from the State Bar of California before Judge Patrick J (“Scholar Pat”) Urda goes on with the trial.

On what points of law this opinion is to enlighten the parties is not stated, but as a docket search reveals Kev is representing both himself and Marie C, have we echoes of Gebman here?

For the Gebman story, see my blogpost “No Good Deed – Redux,” 9/18/17.

But Judge Scholar Pat is taking no chances.

“In an abundance of caution and over the Commissioner’s objection, the Court will stay proceedings for the Mirches to confer with the State Bar. After doing so, the Mirches will report back to the Court, and we will take appropriate action for the conclusion of this trial.” Order, at p. 1.

A reliable source informs me that Kev is no stranger to the State Bar.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.