Public censure for disparaging women on account of their physical attributes casts doubt on arbitrator's impartiality in cosmetic surgeon's malpractice case.
Cite as
2008 DJDAR 12084Published
Aug. 4, 2008Filing Date
Jul. 31, 2008RANDAL D. HAWORTH et al.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
Respondent;
SUSAN AMY OSSAKOW,
Real Party in Interest.
No. B204354
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. SC082441)
California Court of Appeal
Second Appellate District
Division Five
Filed July 31, 2008
ORDER MODIFYING
DISSENTING OPINION
[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
MOSK, J., Dissenting:
It is ordered that the dissenting opinion filed July 10, 2008, be modified as follows:
Delete the second full paragraph on page 10 of the dissenting opinion ("Lest one . . .) and in its place insert the following paragraph.
"Moreover, the trial court's position might well require disclosure by one who had decades earlier carried out or complied with the policies of a law firm or club that would not admit female lawyers or members. And it might cover those who did what Judge Gordon did but were never reported or disciplined."
MOSK, J.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424