Khanna v. State Bar of Cal.
Filed 4/28/06 Khanna v. State Bar of Cal. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| PADAM KUMAR KHANNA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. | A112018 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG05222237) |
The Client Security Fund Commission of the State Bar of California (CSF) awarded Padam Kumar Khanna's former clients $31,000 in reimbursement for funds the CSF found he had misappropriated from them. Khanna petitioned for a writ of mandate to compel the CSF to stay execution of the award pending California Supreme Court review of disbarment proceedings against Khanna arising from the same alleged conduct. The trial court denied the petition, and we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
After a State Bar disciplinary trial, the State Bar court recommended that Khanna be disbarred for dishonestly inducing two former clients, Jagjit Singh Randhawa and Baljit Randhawa, to invest $31,000 in an entity known as â€
