How to find a suitable attorney for employee

 

Petitioner attorney challenged an order of respondent Superior Court of Ventura County (California), ordering him to represent real parties in interest, county and indigent defendant in a paternity suit, and an order holding him in contempt.

 

Overview: How to find a suitable attorney for employee?

 

Petitioner attorney, whose practice was limited to personal injury cases, was held in contempt by respondent, the Superior Court of Ventura County, for refusing to represent real parties in interest, the county and an indigent defendant, without compensation. Petitioner argued that he was denied his right to equal protection of the law. On appeal, the court issued a writ ordering respondent to vacate its orders appointing petitioner as counsel and holding him in contempt. The court held that petitioner established the first prerequisite to a meritorious claim under the equal protection clause: a showing that the state adopted a classification that affected two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner. The right to pursue one's chosen profession was not a fundamental right, therefore, the court applied a rational relationship test to the trial court's appointment. Not all attorneys were required to participate in the pro bono work, and other groups such as grocers, were not required to provide food to the poor. Although the state had a legitimate function assisting the poor, that goal could not be accomplished at petitioner's expense.

 

 

 

The court issued a writ compelling respondent Superior Court of Ventura County (California), to vacate its orders appointing petitioner attorney as counsel for real parties in interest, the county and indigent defendant, and finding him in contempt of court. Respondent was to appoint qualified counsel willing to accept no fee, and if unable to do so, the trial court could not proceed unless the county or state paid reasonable compensation.

 

 

 

Plaintiff appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which dismissed plaintiff's complaint for libel and invasion of privacy filed against defendant, a former prosecutor of, and an authority on, certain highly publicized crimes.

 

 

 

Plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing his complaint for libel and invasion of privacy filed against defendant, a former prosecutor of, and an authority on, certain highly publicized crimes. Plaintiff contended that the cumulative impact of defendant's book implied that plaintiff was involved in a murder and associated with notorious criminals. The court could not reasonably conclude that plaintiff was defamed. The book neither expressly nor by fair implication charged plaintiff with killing or aiding a killing. The defamatory nature of the book as to plaintiff was so obscure as to be beyond the realm of reasonableness. Moreover, plaintiff failed to allege any special damages as required under Cal. Civ. Code § 45a if defamatory language was not libelous on its face. Balancing U.S. Const. amend. I rights against plaintiff's privacy rights, the court concluded that no cause of action for invasion of privacy was stated. The factors to be considered clearly weighed in favor of constitutional protection. The depth of intrusion was miniscule, and the publication of the book and plaintiff's identity did not affront any significant state interest. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

 

 

 

The court affirmed the judgment dismissing plaintiff's libel and invasion of privacy action filed against defendant former prosecutor of certain highly publicized crimes. The court concluded that defendant's book did not defame plaintiff and that a constitutional privilege clearly outweighed any miniscule invasion of privacy.