Suit Against Google Leads To Civil Sanction And Discipline Recommendation

The California State Bar Court Review Department has proposed a one-year suspension with all but 30 days stayed with conditions based on findings that the attorney brought a frivolous case against Google.

As to count one, in May 2011, Zhang willfully failed to maintain such actions only as appear to her to be legal or just, proscribed by section 6068, subdivision (c). She violated section 6068, subdivision (c), by filing on behalf of herself and Booloon Inc. (a corporation formed by Zhang and her brother), a suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court that was without merit due to the same superior court’s dismissal of an earlier suit also brought by Zhang and Booloon, Inc., naming the same parties and alleging the same facts and same legal theories arising from the same transaction.

 The California Court of Appeals had affirmed the imposition of sanctions in the underlying litigation.

Zhang is an attorney. She claims to have developed “technology in language processing” that can be used for internet searches. Zhang licensed her technology to Booloon, a company she formed with her brother Hong Zhang. Google is a publicly traded corporation. Among Google’s services is a widely used search engine. Mote is an employee of Google.

The appeals court vacated the sanctions against the entity on due process grounds.

The review department found that a default was properly entered and rejected the attorney’s suggestion that, because she was pro se, sanction could not be imposed

Zhang also points to her conduct in the Booloon v. Google litigation at issue in this proceeding, that she sued as a party to the proceeding, not as counsel to a party. She contends also, without citation to apt authority, that neither section 6068, subdivision (c), nor section 6068, subdivision (o)(3), extends to conduct which she took in litigation she commenced as a party. Again, she is incorrect. First, as discussed ante, the limited evidence in this record shows that she was not only representing herself as a party, but was also representing a corporation, Booloon, Inc., which she formed with her brother. However, even if Zhang had represented only herself as a party, the language of neither statute is limited to an attorney’s actions taken only in representing clients. Both statutes would also apply to actions taken by a member of the State Bar in self-representation. Decisions are in accord (citations omitted).

(Mike Frisch)