Lew WARDEN, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
The STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Supreme Court of California.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
August 26, 1999.
Rehearing Denied October 20, 1999.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Lew Warden, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Mark D. Greenberg, Oakland, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
William H. Mellor III, Clint Bolick and Donna G. Matias, for Institute for Justice as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Stephen R. Barnett, Berkeley, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Diane C. Yu, Starr Babcock, Colin P. Wong, Lawrence C. Yee, San Francisco, Robert M. Sweet, Marina Del Rey, Marie Moffat; Cooper, White & Cooper, James M. Wagstaffe, Mark L. Tuft and Andrew I. Dilworth, San Francisco, for Defendants and Respondents.
Law Offices of Amitai Schwartz, Amitai Schwartz; Freidman, Ross & Hersh, Jeffrey S. Ross, San Francisco; Joel D. Schiff, Los Angeles; Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Berzon. & Rubin, Fred H. Altshuler, San Francisco; Littler, Mendelson and Richard J. Loftus, Jr., San Jose, for the Bar Association of San Francisco, Santa Clara County Bar Association and Beverly Hills Bar Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
Blanc, Williams, Johnston & Kronstadt, John A. Kronstadt; Sidley & Austin and Catherine Valerio Barrad, Los Angeles, for Los Angeles County Bar Association, San Diego County Bar Association, San Fernando Valley Bar Association, Orange County Bar Association, Sacramento Bar Association and Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
Supreme Court of California.
GEORGE, C.J.
In this proceeding, plaintiff Lew Warden, an attorney and member of the State Bar of California (State Bar or Bar), challenges the constitutional validity of this state's mandatory (or minimum) continuing legal education (MCLE) program, established pursuant to statute and court rule and administered by the State Bar. Among other claims, plaintiff contends that the current MCLE program violates his right to the equal protection of the laws, because a number...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
