Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Newsflash!? CA State Bar doesn't protect the public from bad attorneys

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.

CA State Auditor says State Bar has failed to protect the public from bad attorneys.

 On June 18th, California State Auditor Elaine Howle issued the report to the Legislature and Governor Brown entitled, “State Bar of California It Has Not Consistently Protected the Public Through Its Attorney Discipline Process and Lacks Accountability

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.