Villareal v. County of Fresno

Filing 126

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Court should not take action based on apparent unauthorized practice of law; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to send Fresno County Counsel Daniel Cederborg a copy of this order,signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/11/18. Show Cause Response due by 9/26/2018. (Copy of this order sent to Daniel Cederborg) (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ELAINE K. VILLAREAL, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Case No. 1:15-cv-01410-DAD-JDP (PC) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COURT SHOULD NOT TAKE ACTION BASED ON APPARENT UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW v. COUNTY OF FRESNO AND SHERIFF MARGARET MIMS, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND FRESNO COUNTY COUNSEL DANIEL CEDERBORG A COPY OF THIS ORDER Defendants. As a general matter, attorneys practicing in the Eastern District of California must be 17 members of the Bar of this Court and active members in good standing of the State Bar of 18 California. See Local Rule 180(a), (b); see also State Bar of California Rule 1-300 (prohibiting 19 unauthorized practice of law). Additionally, employers who are members of the State Bar of 20 California are prohibited from employing suspended or involuntarily inactive bar members to 21 engage in the practice of law, if the employer knows or reasonably should know about the 22 suspension or involuntary inactivation. See State Bar of California Rule 1-311(B) (“A member 23 shall not employ, associate professionally with, or aid a person the member knows or reasonably 24 should know is a disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member to. . . [a]ppear 25 on behalf of a client in any hearing or proceeding or before any judicial officer, arbitrator, 26 mediator, court, public agency, referee, magistrate, commissioner, or hearing officer. . . [or to 27 e]ngage in activities which constitute the practice of law.”). 28 1 Scott C. Hawkins has appeared in this case on behalf of Defendants. The attorney 1 2 directory of the State Bar of California appears to indicate that Mr. Hawkins was not authorized 3 to practice law in California during the one-month period from July 3, 2018, to August 3, 2018.1 4 During this period, Mr. Hawkins filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to 5 dismiss (ECF No. 118) and appeared at a hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6 119). The undersigned is concerned that an individual may have engaged in unauthorized 7 8 practice of law before this Court. By September 26, 2018, Fresno County Counsel Daniel 9 Cederborg and Mr. Hawkins shall show cause why this Court should not take action based on the 10 apparent unauthorized practice of law. The response to this order should address: (1) whether 11 Mr. Hawkins has engaged in unauthorized practice of law; (2) the measures employed by Fresno 12 County Counsel to prevent unauthorized practice of law by its employees; (3) whether the Court 13 should report this matter to the State Bar of California or other entity; and (4) whether the Court 14 should impose penalties. The Court will determine at a later point whether a hearing is 15 warranted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 16 1. Attorneys Daniel Cederborg and Scott Hawkins must submit separate, written 17 18 responses to this order in compliance with the directions above by September 26, 19 2018; and 20 \\\ 21 \\\ 22 \\\ 23 \\\ 24 25 26 27 28 1 See STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Attorney Search Bar No. 207236, (last visited Sep. 11, 2018) (stating, alongside the entry 7/3/2018, “Not Eligible To Practice Law in California” and “Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance”). Mr. Hawkins appears to have re-entered Active status on August 3, 2018; an entry alongside 8/3/2018 states “Active.” Id. 2 ` 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on Daniel Cederborg, ` 1 Fresno County Counsel, 2220 Tulare St, 5th Floor, Fresno, CA 93721. 2 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 11, 2018 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?