What is the test for obtaining relief under section 473, subdivision (b) of the California Civil Code of Civil Procedure, when the attorney is not at fault?

These descriptions assert the attorney was at fault. In part II.A of this opinion we addressed obtaining mandatory relief under section 473, subdivision (b) based on attorney error, which requires an attorney affidavit of fault, and concluded mandatory relief is not available in this case. Consequently, we consider whether discretionary relief based on the attorney's mistake or neglect is available. When a party seeks to invoke the provision for discretionary relief to address attorney error, the following principles apply: "'A party who seeks relief under section 473 on the basis of mistake or inadvertence of counsel must demonstrate that such mistake, inadvertence, or general neglect was excusable because the negligence of the attorney is imputed to his client and may not be offered by the latter as a basis for relief.' [Citation.]" (Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc., supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 258.) "'Conduct falling below the professional standard of care, such as failure to timely object or to properly advance an argument, is not therefore excusable. To hold otherwise would be to eliminate the express statutory requirement of excusability and effectively eviscerate the concept of attorney

Page 30