senior hearing in California

2016“Due process . . . requires only that there be ‘some evidence’ to support the findings made at the disciplinary hearing.” (Johnson, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 299 , quoting Hill, supra, 472 U.S. at p. 457 , and citing In re Estrada (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1688 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 506 ].) “Under this standard, prison disciplinary action will not be disturbed so long as ‘some evidence’ supports the action taken. [Citation.] ‘Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require examination of the *1095 entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of

2016“Due process . . . requires only that there be ‘some evidence’ to support the findings made at the disciplinary hearing.” (Johnson, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 299 , citing Hill, supra, 472 U.S. at p. 457 and In re Estrada (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1688 .) “Under this standard, prison disciplinary action will not be disturbed so long as ‘some evidence’ supports the action taken. [Citation.] ‘Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence.

2016“Due process . . . requires only that there be ‘some evidence’ to support the findings made at the disciplinary hearing.” (Johnson, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 299 , quoting Hill, supra, 472 U.S. at p. 457 , and citing In re Estrada (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1688 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 506 ].) “Under this standard, prison disciplinary action will not be disturbed so long as ‘some evidence’ supports the action taken. [Citation.] ‘Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require examination of the *1095 entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of

2016“Due process . . . requires only that there be ‘some evidence’ to support the findings made at the disciplinary hearing.” (Johnson, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 299 , quoting Hill, supra, 472 U.S. at p. 457 , and citing In re Estrada (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1688 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 506 ].) “Under this standard, prison disciplinary action will not be disturbed so long as ‘some evidence’ supports the action taken. [Citation.] ‘Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require examination of the *1095 entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of

2016“Due process . . . requires only that there be ‘some evidence’ to support the findings made at the disciplinary hearing.” (Johnson, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 299 , quoting Hill, supra, 472 U.S. at p. 457 , and citing In re Estrada (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1688 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 506 ].) “Under this standard, prison disciplinary action will not be disturbed so long as ‘some evidence’ supports the action taken. [Citation.] ‘Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require examination of the *1095 entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of

2016“Due process . . . requires only that there be ‘some evidence’ to support the findings made at the disciplinary hearing.” (Johnson, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 299 , citing Hill, supra, 472 U.S. at p. 457 and In re Estrada (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1688 .) “Under this standard, prison disciplinary action will not be disturbed so long as ‘some evidence’ supports the action taken. [Citation.] ‘Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence.

2014To be liable as an aider and abettor, the defendant must have acted “with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense.” (People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 560 , italics omitted.) As to each of the victims in counts 1 to 3, there was evidence that Junior aided and abetted Senior by facilitating his unauthorized practice of law.

2014To be liable as an aider and abettor, the defendant must have acted “with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense.” (People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 560 , italics omitted.) As to each of the victims in counts 1 to 3, there was evidence that Junior aided and abetted Senior by facilitating his unauthorized practice of law.

2014(Virgil, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 1263 .) Under Business and Professions Code section 6126, subdivision (b), any person who “has been suspended from membership from the State Bar . . . and thereafter practices or attempts to practice law, advertise or holds himself or herself out as practicing or otherwise entitled to practice law, is guilty of a crime. . . . .” The People’s theory as to Junior was that he aided and abetted Senior’s violation of this provision.

2014(Virgil, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 1263 .) Under Business and Professions Code section 6126, subdivision (b), any person who “has been suspended from membership from the State Bar . . . and thereafter practices or attempts to practice law, advertise or holds himself or herself out as practicing or otherwise entitled to practice law, is guilty of a crime. . . . .” The People’s theory as to Junior was that he aided and abetted Senior’s violation of this provision.

2016Regardless, we turn to an examination of section 3005(a) itself. 13 Alliance v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029, 1038-1039 ; accord, In re Espinoza (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 97, 104 [regarding regulations]; Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379 , 1386–1387 [we “accord[] significance, if possible, to every word, phrase, and sentence”].) Applying these interpretative rules here, we first note that, on the one hand, the plain meaning of section 3005(a) indicates that the behavior does not need to be one of disorder itself, but merely a behavior that “might lead

2016Regardless, we turn to an examination of section 3005(a) itself. 13 Alliance v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029, 1038-1039 ; accord, In re Espinoza (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 97, 104 [regarding regulations]; Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379 , 1386–1387 [we “accord[] significance, if possible, to every word, phrase, and sentence”].) Applying these interpretative rules here, we first note that, on the one hand, the plain meaning of section 3005(a) indicates that the behavior does not need to be one of disorder itself, but merely a behavior that “might lead

1969Co. (1942) 102 Utah 131 [ 128 P.2d 269 ] cert den. 319 U.S. 753 [ 87 L.Ed. 1707 , 63 S.Ct. 1162 ] ; 58 C.J.S., Mines and Minerals, § 69, p. 125.) A well-known California authority states that any labor will satisfy the law “if its tendency is to develop the claim as a mine.” (Ricketts, American Mining Law, Cal. Dept. of Natural Resources (1943) p. 282.) All reasonable doubt is to be resolved against forfeiture of the senior claim.

1969Co. (1942) 102 Utah 131 [ 128 P.2d 269 ] cert den. 319 U.S. 753 [ 87 L.Ed. 1707 , 63 S.Ct. 1162 ] ; 58 C.J.S., Mines and Minerals, § 69, p. 125.) A well-known California authority states that any labor will satisfy the law “if its tendency is to develop the claim as a mine.” (Ricketts, American Mining Law, Cal. Dept. of Natural Resources (1943) p. 282.) All reasonable doubt is to be resolved against forfeiture of the senior claim.

1969(Daly v. Wallace, supra, 234 Cal.App.2d at p. 692 .) If the required work was done, the claim-holder need not have paid for it.

1969Co. (1942) 102 Utah 131 [ 128 P.2d 269 ] cert den. 319 U.S. 753 [ 87 L.Ed. 1707 , 63 S.Ct. 1162 ] ; 58 C.J.S., Mines and Minerals, § 69, p. 125.) A well-known California authority states that any labor will satisfy the law “if its tendency is to develop the claim as a mine.” (Ricketts, American Mining Law, Cal. Dept. of Natural Resources (1943) p. 282.) All reasonable doubt is to be resolved against forfeiture of the senior claim.

1969Co. (1942) 102 Utah 131 [ 128 P.2d 269 ] cert den. 319 U.S. 753 [ 87 L.Ed. 1707 , 63 S.Ct. 1162 ] ; 58 C.J.S., Mines and Minerals, § 69, p. 125.) A well-known California authority states that any labor will satisfy the law “if its tendency is to develop the claim as a mine.” (Ricketts, American Mining Law, Cal. Dept. of Natural Resources (1943) p. 282.) All reasonable doubt is to be resolved against forfeiture of the senior claim.