Petitioner attorney sought review of a decision of respondent Review Department of the California State Bar Court, which recommended the attorney’s disbarment from the practice of law in California. Peri Gilpin Net Worth
The attorney, who had only practiced law for a few years, acknowledged that he committed more than 30 acts of misconduct against more than 20 clients and misappropriated more than $ 20,000. He blamed his misconduct on alcoholism and drug addictions. Class action lawyers California stole client names from other attorneys’ answering services and misrepresented to the clients that he worked with the other attorney in order to collect unearned fees. He abandoned clients, failed to return unearned fees, and misappropriated settlements funds by forging clients’ names. After he was convicted of various crimes, including burglary and larceny, he was suspended from practicing law, pending disciplinary proceedings. The court adopted the recommendation to disbar him and denied his claim in mitigation. The court found that, in light of the intensity of his long-term addiction, the extent to which he abandoned himself, his clients, and the profession, and the substantial harm caused by his numerous and repeated acts of misconduct over several years, his evidence of recovery was insufficient. The court noted that the attorney’s misconduct started the year after he was admitted to the bar and continued for four years.
The court adopted the recommendation of disbarment, with the concomitant requirement of long-term evaluation to be reinstated to practice. Accordingly, the court ordered the attorney disbarred from the practice of law in California
Appellants, owner of property burdened by a restrictive covenant and seller of property benefitted by the covenant, and cross-appellant, buyer of property benefitted by the covenant, challenged the decision of the Superior Court of Inyo County (California), awarding cross-appellant punitive damages for breach of contract and fraud but denying them an injunction to enforce a covenant against appellant owner of the burdened property.
Cross-appellant buyer purchased property ostensibly benefitted by a restrictive covenant from appellant seller. The property had been subject to a lis pendens arising out of litigation between appellant seller and appellant owner of the restricted property. The lis pendens was withdrawn after the parties reached a settlement in which the covenant, which prohibited renting cabins or selling groceries or gas on the restricted property, was declared unenforceable. Appellants did not inform cross-appellant about the agreement to abandon the covenant but cross-appellant had actual knowledge of the lis pendens. Cross-appellant sued for fraud and sought an injunction enforcing the covenant. The trial court awarded cross-appellant punitive damages but refused to issue an injunction. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment of the trial court. The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the withdrawn lis pendens. The court held that Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 409.8 (repealed), which provided that the withdrawal of a lis pendens no longer afforded constructive or actual notice, applied to actions concerning priority under recording statutes but not to fraud actions.
The court reversed the trial court’s judgment awarding cross-appellant, buyer of property benefitted by a restrictive covenant, punitive damages for breach of contract and fraud against appellants, owner of property burdened by the covenant and seller of property benefitted by the covenant, but denying an injunction to enforce the covenant. The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of a lis pendens. top news on driverless cars