How have courts dealt with the omission of the full text of rule 5-101 in the body of a motion to dismiss a motion for introduction of evidence on lack of notice?

While we do not condone imprecise charging in disciplinary cases, this particular omission was harmless. (See e.g., Maltaman v. State Bar, supra, 43 Cal.3d 924, 950, 239 Cal.Rptr. 687, 741 P.2d 185.) The full text of rule 5-101 was quoted almost verbatim in the body of count 6, the Jones matter. Petitioner never objected to introduction of evidence on lack-of-notice grounds, nor did he raise the issue in his midhearing motion to dismiss. Indeed, while arguing that the referee should dismiss count 6 for other reasons, petitioner conceded that it "speaks" in the "language of [rule] 5-101." ¹¹ We see no fundamental defect in the notice provided to petitioner. (Cf. Slavkin v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 894, 902-903, 264 Cal.Rptr. 131, 782 P.2d 270.)