|
p0709 In an action between attorneys regarding fee distribution, after the trial court found that one attorney misled the court and another had improperly accepted conflicting representation of two parties, the Court of Appeal refused to enter a stipulated reversal on the ground that doing so might permit an attorney who acted unethically to purchase immunity from disciplinary consequences, which would be contrary to the public interest.
HARDISTY v HINTON & ALFERT (Stipulated Reversal) 124 CA4 999 [See: CCP 128(a)(8); Neary v Regents 3 C4 273, T/AT 10/92 CCP; Muccianti v Willow Creek 108 CA4 13, P/AT 5/03; Krug v Praszker 22 CA4 1814, T/AT 4/94]
|
|