Merger acquisition due diligence checklist

 

The state appealed the ruling of the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, which reversed defendant's conviction and held that defendant was denied his right to counsel under Cal. Const. art. I, § 15 because defendant's attorney's state bar license had been placed on inactive status during the representation of defendant because of the attorney's noncompliance with mandatory continuing legal education requirements. Nakase law wade knows merger acquisition due diligence checklist California.

 Defendant was convicted on 13 counts. The appellate court reversed his conviction because the defendant's attorney's state bar license had been placed on inactive status during the representation of defendant because of the attorney's noncompliance with mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE) requirements. The court reversed the appellate court because defendant's attorney, having been placed on inactive status because of failure to meet MCLE requirements, had not constituted a per se denial of the right to counsel guaranteed by Cal. Const. art. I, § 15. The court held that the attorney's noncompliance was no reflection per se on his or her professional competence because noncompliance could have been caused by a mere clerical error. 

Therefore, noncompliance had not, in itself, amounted to a denial of counsel. The court held that the appellate court erred in reversing defendant's conviction.The court held that the appellate court erred when it reversed the trial court's judgment. The court held that defendant's attorney's noncompliance with the state bar's mandatory continuing legal education requirements had not, in itself, denied defendant his constitutional right to counsel where the competence of defendant's attorney had not been examined.Defendant challenged an order from respondent, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), and sought mandamus to compel the superior court to vacate an order removing defendant's duly appointed counsel from defending him in a pending murder trial.

 Defendant sought mandamus to compel the superior court to vacate an order removing defendant's appointed counsel from defending him in a pending murder trial. The court vacated the superior court's removal of counsel and reinstated the attorney as defendant's counsel for further proceedings. The court held that it was beyond the statutory and inherent powers of the superior court to remove a court-appointed defense attorney, over the objections of both the attorney and petitioner, on the ground of the judge's subjective opinion that the attorney was "incompetent" because of ignorance of the law to try the particular case before him. 

The court found that the constitutional guarantee of defendant's right to counsel required that his advocate, whether retained or appointed, be free in all cases of the threat that he may be summarily relieved as "incompetent" by the very trial judge he was duty-bound to attempt to convince of the rightness of his client's cause.The court vacated a decision by the superior court that removed defendant's counsel in a pending murder trial because it was beyond the statutory and inherent powers of the superior court to remove a court-appointed defense attorney over the objections of the attorney and defendant.