California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Chula v. Superior Court In and For Orange County, 18 Cal.Rptr. 507, 368 P.2d 107, 57 Cal.2d 199, 97 A.L.R.2d 421 (Cal. 1962):
It is obvious that the disruption of judicial proceedings caused by the absence of an attorney occurs in the immediate view and presence of the court. The burden of excusing the obstruction must, of course, be placed upon the attorney. (Lyons v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.2d 755, 278 P.2d 681.) Where the attorney, although notified by the court to appear at a specific time, fails to do so and does not offer an excuse, all matters relevant to the determination of contempt happen in court. In those cases where the attorney seeks to excuse his conduct, the excuse ordinarily will be based on matters occurring out of court. However, the contingency that an attorney who is absent may later offer an excuse should not compel a judge, when instituting proceedings, to treat the conduct as indirect rather than direct contempt.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.