(for reversal and remand without prejudice). I concur with my Brother Swainson that the State Bar Grievance Board’s order must be reversed because of variance between the complaint and the findings. I agree we must protect the attorney —defendant’s constitutional right to notice. But I also wish to express concern about a fair determination on the merits of complainant— Kush’s allegation that through the inattention of attorney-defendant the injured Kush lost the opportunity to realize an award on his insurance policy. I therefore would reverse and remand without prejudice.
State Bar Grievance Administrator v. Freid
Related Cases
- Kenneth Reiner and Frank A. Klaus, Jr., D/B/A Kaynar Company and Kaynar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. I. Leon Co., Inc.
- Lincoln Rochester Trust Company, as of the Estate of Frank M. Harroun v. George T. McGowan Collector of Internal Revenue
- Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.
- Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company, a Minnesota Corporation v. Maxwell M. Wright
- Ferrea v. Chabot