Because neither California's Compassionate Use Act nor its Medical Marijuana Program granted a right of convenient access to marijuana for medicinal use, municipal regulation of, and bans on, medical marijuana dispensaries could not operate to discriminate against persons with disabilities; -Plaintiffs' assertions that city ordinances regulating, and then banning medical marijuana dispensaries within the city's borders discriminated against persons with disabilities in violation of California's Disabled Persons Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act, the ADA, and the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 had no merit because there was no right to convenient access to medicinal marijuana; -The complaint did not state facts sufficient to support plaintiffs' claims for tortious interference with business relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.
Petitioner Lawyers business appealed from the recommendation of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California (board) that the attorney be suspended from the practice of law for 30 days.
The attorney challenged the board's recommendation to suspend him from the practice of law for 30 days. The attorney was charged with violating his oath and duties as an attorney as set forth in State Bar Act (Act) §§ 6067, 6068, 6103, and committing acts of moral turpitude and dishonesty within the meaning of § 6106 of the Act. The court held that the attorney's failure to file the interlocutory and final decrees of divorce on behalf of a client, after promising to do so, involved negligent inactivity and active misrepresentation to the client. Such inattention to duty which was accompanied by an element of deceit provided sufficient grounds for the attorney's suspension. The court rejected the attorney's argument that his actions constituted mere negligence. Gross carelessness was a violation of the attorney's oath to faithfully discharge the duties to the best of his knowledge and ability. The court also noted that the board was authorized to issue a sanction more severe than that recommended by the local bar committee. The court adopted the board's recommendation and suspended the attorney from the practice of law for 30 days.
The court adopted the recommendation of the board and ordered that the attorney be suspended from the practice of law for 30 days.