The trial court held a party’s attorney guilty of four counts of indirect contempt for obnoxious behavior (constantly interrupting, calling the opposition lawyer a liar, etc.) that cratered a mandatory settlement conference before a temporary judge.  This decision affirms the contempt order on only one of the four counts.  The last count (preventing the temporary judge from revealing what had occurred) was not mentioned in the affidavit commencing the contempt proceeding.  The other three counts were for essentially the same course of conduct during a single settlement conference and could not properly be charged as separate offenses.  In addition, the charging affidavit did not make it clear that three separate contempts were charged.  The opinion directs the clerk to forward a copy to the State Bar.