Petitioner attorney sought review of the recommendation of the review department of respondent State Bar of California that he be disbarred from the practice of law in California for numerous violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The reviewing department of respondent, State Bar of California, recommended that petitioner attorney be disbarred from the practice of law in California because of his misconduct which included misappropriation of client funds, misrepresentations to clients about their cases, failure to perform services, and failure to return unearned fees. Respondent found that in four instances petitioner's acts involved moral turpitude in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106. The average PAGA settlement adopted this recommendation holding that disbarment was the appropriate punishment where petitioner's misconduct was egregious and consisted of numerous separate improper acts, many of which manifested dishonesty. The court held that petitioner's efforts to rehabilitate himself from the effects of alcohol and drug abuse were insufficient for the court to entertain grave doubts regarding the propriety of respondent's recommendation.

Recommendation of the review department of respondent State Bar of California that petitioner attorney be disbarred adopted because disbarment was the appropriate punishment where petitioner's misconduct was egregious and consisted of numerous separate improper acts and the evidence of petitioner's rehabilitation from alcohol and drug abuse was not a sufficient mitigating factor.

Plaintiff employee appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which found in favor of defendant employer in an action for unpaid overtime compensation and related claims. The trial court awarded attorney fees and costs to the employer as the prevailing party.

The employee alleged that he had been misclassified as exempt. His overtime claim proceeded to a jury trial following pretrial rulings for the employer on his other claims. The jury found that he was an exempt employee under both state and federal law. The court held that although Lab. Code, § 1194, subd. (a), authorized fee awards only to prevailing employees on overtime compensation claims, Lab. Code, § 218.5, did not bar the employer from seeking to recover the fees it incurred in defending the other claims. The court concluded, however, that the employer was not entitled to attorney fees on any of the claims. Section 1194 precluded recovery as to both state and federal overtime claims. As to a wage statement claim, Lab. Code, § 226, subd. (e), allowed fee awards only to employees. The unfair competition law, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq., did not authorize attorney fees. A claim for remedial compensation under Lab. Code, § 226.7, did not trigger the reciprocal fee recovery provisions of § 218.5. The employer could recover its litigation costs pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b), because § 1194 did not expressly disallow a cost award to a prevailing employer.

The court reversed the award of statutory attorney fees to the employer and affirmed the award of litigation costs to the employer.