A report says the California State Bar doesn't protect the public from unethical attorneys. Wow. Someone deserves a gold star for figuring that out.
Problems with ethics in the justice system are common knowledge. As the old joke points out, 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
But perhaps some good will come of this little brouhaha. I do appreciate it that a disgruntled ex-employee of the State Bar has told the truth. If it weren't for disgruntled ex-employees, we'd know practically nothing about any organization.
But there seems to be absolutely NO ONE INSIDE THE SYSTEM interested in actually changing the system. I suspect this "whistle-blower" is just playing politics, and doesn't really want change in the system. He just wants power.
Ms. Howle’s cover letter to Governor Brown and the Legislature states,
“This report concludes that the State Bar
has not consistently fulfilled its mission to protect the public from
errant attorneys and lacks accountability related to its expenditures.
The State Bar has struggled historically to promptly resolve all the
complaints it receives, potentially delaying the timely discipline of
attorneys who engage in misconduct. A primary measurement of the
effectiveness of the State Bar’s discipline system is the number of
complaints it fails to resolve within six months of receipt, which it
refers to as its backlog. In 2010 the backlog reached 5,174 cases,
prompting the State Bar to take steps to quickly reduce it.
Although the State Bar succeeded in
decreasing the backlog by 66 percent within a year, it may have
compromised the severity of the discipline imposed on attorneys in favor
of speedier types of resolutions….Thus, to reduce its backlog, the
State Bar allowed some attorneys whom it otherwise might have
disciplined more severely—or even disbarred— to continue practicing law,
placing the public at risk.
Moreover, instead of focusing its
resources on improving its discipline system—such as engaging in
workforce planning to ensure it had sufficient staffing—it instead spent
$76.6 million to purchase and renovate a building in Los Angeles in
2012.”
KEY FINDINGS of the Bureau of State Auditor (BSA) audit:
“During our audit of the State Bar’s discipline system and its finances, we noted the following:
To reduce its 2010 excessive complaint
backlog of over 5,000 cases to just over 1,700 cases in 2011, the State
Bar frequently settled cases and may have been too lenient and allowed
some attorneys whom it otherwise might have disciplined more severely—or
even disbarred—to continue practicing law.
The years the State Bar focused its
efforts on decreasing its backlog, the State Bar settled over 1,500
cases—more than in any of the other four years in our audit period.
The level of discipline the State Bar
recommended as part of some of these settlements was inadequate—of the
27 cases the California Supreme Court returned to it for further
examination, the State Bar increased the level of discipline it
recommended in 21 cases, including five disbarments.
The information the State Bar submits to
the Legislature in its Annual Discipline Report is problematic—the State
Bar continues to report fewer cases than the law permits despite the
similar concern we raised in our 2009 audit.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The State Bar should adhere to its
quality control processes to ensure that the discipline it imposes on
attorneys is consistent, regardless of the size of the case‑processing
backlog, and it should take steps to prevent its management or staff
from circumventing those processes.
The BSA report may be read in its entirety HERE Nowhere in the report is any directive of what the State Bar needs to do to mitigate the damage to the public from its prior unethical conduct.
