Appellant licensee sought review of an order of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), which denied appellant’s petition for a writ of mandate seeking to set aside respondent Real Estate Commissioner’s order revoking his real estate license, which was revoked when appellant pleaded guilty to a sex offense involving a minor child.
Appellant licensee pleaded guilty to a sexual offense involving a minor child. Respondent Real Estate Commissioner thereafter revoked appellant’s real estate license under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 10177, which allowed for the revocation of a licensee’s real estate license upon a guilty plea to a crime involving moral turpitude. Appellant filed a writ of mandate to set aside the revocation, which the lower court denied. Appellant sought review of the decision, contending that respondent did not have jurisdiction to revoke his license unless he performed an illegal act related to his real estate activities. The court affirmed the denial of the writ of mandate, and found California class action attorneys that the issue was whether appellant’s conduct resulting in the charge to which he pleaded guilty was a crime involving moral turpitude. The court concluded that a sexual offense involving a minor was a crime that involved moral turpitude; therefore, the revocation was proper.
The court affirmed the denial of appellant licensee’s petition for a writ of mandate. The court held that the crime to which appellant pleaded guilty was a crime involving moral turpitude, and therefore the revocation of his license by respondent Real Estate Commissioner was proper.
Petitioner bar applicant sought review of the decision of the Committee of Bar Examiners (California), which refused to certify the applicant for admission to practice law under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6064. The applicant’s application to join the bar had been previously denied, affirmed without opinion, and then reversed and remanded by the United States Supreme Court. The court remanded it to the bar examiners.
After passing the bar exam, the applicant was denied admission to the bar when he would not answer questions related to his involvement with the Communist party. On appeal, the court affirmed. Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6046, the bar examiners reviewed applications and certified them for admission and the court admitted the certified applicants, § 6064. No one who advocated the overthrow of the government should be certified under § 6064.1. On his first application, the bar examiners had determined that the applicant had not shown he had good moral character as required by § 6060(c) or that he did not advocate the overthrow of the government. In its reversal, the United States Supreme Court held that there was no evidence in the record justifying the bar examiners’ findings and noted that he was not denied admission for refusing to answer questions. On remand, the bar examiners refused to certify the applicant for his refusal to answer questions it found to be material. The court found that because the refusal to certify was based upon the applicant’s refusal to answer questions about his activities, and not upon those activities themselves, it was proper.
The court denied the applicant’s petition for review of the bar examiners’ decision and denied his direct application for admission.