Sacramento, Calif., attorney Julie Wolff crossed the line not only with a "rambling and ranting" 202-page appellate brief, but also by referring to her client's developmentally disabled child as "more akin to broccoli."
And let's not forget the gratuitous attacks on the supposedly biased trial court judge, the unfair characterization of an expert witness' testimony or her attempt to misrepresent the holding of another appellate ruling.
"This is an appeal run amok," California's 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland wrote Friday. "Not only does the appeal lack merit, the opening brief is a textbook example of what an appellate brief should not be."
Justices George Nicholson and Ronald Robie concurred in both the ruling and in Scotland's decision to "send a copy of this opinion to the State Bar of California."
And that's not all . . . .
That's a not-so-subtle hint that the justices believe some form of discipline is warranted. They made it clear they also contemplated contempt proceedings for Wolff's disparagement of Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Peter Mering.Wolff, a solo practitioner who has practiced law in California since 1989, couldn't be reached for comment on Friday. But State Bar records show that the McGeorge School of Law graduate was publicly reproved for withdrawing without court approval from about 300 dependency cases where she was the attorney of record and subsequently failing to appear in court on 39 occasions.
State Bar officials said Wolff appealed the decision, which is now pending before the State Bar Court's review department.
Details here from The Recorder via Law.com. The Court's opinion is here. Ms. Wolff's State Bar page is here. (via Bashman)