Showing posts with label California Bar Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California Bar Association. Show all posts
Sunday, June 19, 2016
California State Bar is failing in its duty to oversee lawyers' ethics
The California State Bar's dismal history shows why it should be broken up
Michael Hiltzik
LA Times
June 17, 2016
Let’s put this in terms that even an attorney with peerless loophole-seeking skills would consider straightforward: the California State Bar is a mess.
In recent years, the organization has been the target of withering state audits documenting misspent fees by the millions, overpaid executives, and inept management of its all-important duty of licensing lawyers and managing professional discipline.
Its reputation is at a low ebb among state legislators, who last month placed on hold the organization’s yearly authorization to collect annual fees because the measure didn’t go far enough to achieve reform.
The Bar’s dual role as licenser and ethics enforcer as well as trade organization pushing policy changes, critics say, leaves it hopelessly mired in a conflict of interest.
“You don’t delegate regulatory power to a special interest group,” says Robert Fellmeth, executive director of the University of San Diego’s Center for Public Interest Law and a frequent critic of the Bar. “To let them be the decision-makers is obscene.”
These issues seem to crop up every few years, but seldom with as much urgency as now. That’s because a 2015 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has put professional licensing bodies on notice that they could be guilty of antitrust violations if a majority of their members are participants in the business they regulate.
The California State Bar is governed by a 19-member board of trustees, 13 of whom are lawyers. You do the math.
The Court decision isn’t the only driver of potential change. “People can suffer irreparable harm from attorneys,” says Fellmeth, a lawyer. They can be deprived of their liberty by inadequate representation in criminal court or immigration cases..
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.
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.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
The State Bar of California 'is just further descending into a banana republic,' law professor says
The turmoil became public last month when the board of the State Bar of California fired its executive director, Joe Dunn, a former state senator from Orange County.
Dunn did not go quietly.
He hired high-profile Los Angeles lawyer Mark J. Geragos and filed a lawsuit charging the bar with "egregious improprieties."
Dunn's critics fired back by revealing that a confidential report commissioned by the board found Dunn had spent $5,600 for a party at a Los Angeles restaurant and that a former bar president had filed an expense account report for $1,000 at Tiffany & Co.
The acrimony threatens to further diminish the reputation of the bar, an arm of the California Supreme Court that oversees nearly 250,000 lawyers and is charged with rooting out corrupt attorneys and upholding high moral standards.
Some lawyers and lawmakers have long criticized the bar as bloated, political and lenient on errant lawyers. Upheaval in the 1990s almost led to the organization's demise, and there have been various efforts to make it less a trade organization and more a regulatory agency.
"The bar is just further descending into a banana republic," said Golden Gate University law professor Peter Keane, who tried unsuccessfully decades ago to overhaul the association. "It is totally dysfunctional and should be unraveled."
Funded largely by mandatory lawyers' dues, the bar is a public corporation that regulates, disciplines and licenses attorneys, subject to the approval of the state high court. Becoming a bar leader is considered a steppingstone to a judgeship and a way to enhance a resume or attract clients.
Dunn, a former trial lawyer hired four years ago, was earning $259,000 a year when he lost his job, overseeing 500 employees and an organization with a $138.6-milllion budget.
Shortly before Dunn was fired, he filed an anonymous "whistle-blower" complaint alleging, among other things, that a bar official was manipulating records to hide a huge backlog in untended complaints against lawyers. Dunn later identified himself as the whistle-blower and said he was fired in retaliation for the complaint.
The bar suggested in a prepared statement that Dunn knew he was going to be fired before filing the complaint, a charge Geragos called "totally untrue." The statement said Dunn was being investigated because of a complaint by a high-level executive — the same bar official Dunn had accused of misconduct.
The highly public fight is expected to cost the bar hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and could lead to efforts to restructure the organization. The Legislature must pass bills each year authorizing the bar to collect dues, and two governors have vetoed such bills, calling the bar wasteful, partisan and racked by "chronic disharmony."
"I think there are going to have to be major changes," said Arthur L. Margolis, who defends lawyers before the bar and advises other attorneys on legal ethics, "to protect whatever credibility" the bar has left.
Dunn's lawsuit alleged "ethical breaches, prosecutorial lapses and fiscal improprieties" within the bar.
He accused the bar of paying a private law firm $300,000 — with three law partners each billing $800 an hour — to investigate him even though a former judge had offered to do it for free. The purported hourly fee galled many lawyers, who must pay bar dues. Most earn far less than $800 an hour. The bar has refused to confirm the amount spent on the investigation.
The target of Dunn's wrath was Craig Holden, a partner at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, one of L.A.'s largest law firms, who became bar president in September in an uncontested election. Dunn, who reported to the bar's board, accused Holden of orchestrating his ouster, possibly because Holden wanted the job himself.
Holden, whose bar position is volunteer, said he laughed at that charge. The bar said Dunn's lawsuit was "baseless."
After Dunn filed his lawsuit, details of the outside law firm's confidential investigation into Dunn became public. People with access to the report shared its contents with The Times and two legal newspapers.
The investigation, ordered by the bar's trustees, found that Dunn had submitted an expense report for $5,600 for an event in July at 10e, a Los Angeles restaurant owned by Geragos. Geragos said the expense was for a going-away event for former bar President Luis Rodriguez, a Los Angeles deputy public defender whose one-year term ended in September...
Thursday, March 20, 2014
San Diego Democrats Vote to Endorse Carla Keehn for Superior Court Judge to replace Lisa Schall in June 2014 election
Challenger Carla Keehn, federal prosecutor
See also Education attorney Dan Shinoff steps up to support embattled judge Lisa Schall. See all posts re Carla Keehn.
See all posts re Judge Lisa Schall.
For the first time in recent memory, we have a challenger for San Diego Superior Court Judge who isn't a right-wing extremist. San Diego Democrats have endorsed Carla Keehn to replace Judge Lisa Schall.
I still think judges should be appointed, not elected. I'd like to see them chosen from a pool of qualified candidates by lottery. Judicial appointments are almost as political as elections (see second story below about Lisa Schall's rebuke for politicking for the governor who appointed her, George Deukmejian. But for now, it's nice to see a serious person challenging judges who ignore the law.
Judge Lisa Schall
San Diego Democrats Vote to Endorse Carla Keehn for Jurist Seat 20Question regarding the following story: would Judge Schall have continued to do favors for Governor Dukmejian if Mike Aguirre had not been present at the Southland Club political forum? Would any other lawyer have filed a complaint? Lawyers willing to speak truth to power are rare. The California Bar Association is basically a business group, dedicated to keeping the money flowing to its pockets from a well-oiled justice system. It does not seem to be much interested in promoting ethics in our legal system.
Posted on March 19, 2014
Katy's Exposure
The San Diego Democratic Party’s Central Committee met on the evening of March 18th in Kearny Mesa. According to Committee Chair Francine Busby, last night’s packed room was an unusual occurrence for their committee meetings. The crowd overwhelmingly voted “Aye” to endorse Carla Keehn as the best candidate for San Diego County Superior Court jurist seat 20. Committee member and Oceanside City Councilwoman, Esther Sanchez, spoke to delay the endorsement vote until April. She was one of only three or four ”Nay” votes heard.
The incumbent judge in seat 20 is Lisa Schall. Appointed to the bench 28 years ago by Governor Deukmejian, her ballot statement claims she is endorsed for the upcoming June 3rd election by ”All 125 judges of the San Diego Superior Court”. Her website claims endorsement of the statewide jurist organization, the “Alliance of California Judges”.
San Diego Superior Court Judge Paula Rosenstein was appointed to the bench by Governor Brown in late 2012. In February of this year, she and fellow sitting judge, David Rubin, caused Ms. Keehn to lose the election endorsement of Tom Homann LGBT Law Group by questionable means. Judge Rosenstein also spoke at the February Democratic Party’s meeting against a Keehn election endorsement. She did not attend last night’s meeting.
Loud cheers went out in the crowd when Keehn took the podium to speak before votes were cast last night. Seems the local Dems understand that by law, Thou Can Challenge a Sitting Judge!
Judge's Credibility Lacking
Los Angeles Times
September 28, 1986
As a judge of the San Diego Municipal Court, Lisa Guy-Schall from time to time is called upon to consider the credibility of witnesses. We can't help wondering how she would react to a witness who told the same kind of story she told last week when she was accused of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The trouble started when Guy-Schall showed up to speak on behalf of Gov. George Deukmejian at a candidates' forum sponsored by the Southland Club for Business and Professional Women. Attorney Michael Aguirre, a Democrat who is not known for his reluctance to enter a controversy, was at the meeting representing Deukmejian's opponent, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley.
Aguirre filed a complaint with the California Commission on Judicial Performance alleging that Guy-Schall's talk was a violation of judicial ethics guidelines that prohibit judges from endorsing or campaigning for candidates for non-judicial office.
Guy-Schall responded that she was unaware the meeting the Deukmejian campaign asked her to address was political. She said she never saw the flyer that clearly advertised the meeting as a political forum, and since she arrived late and spoke first she did not get the true sense of the meeting until Aguirre began to criticize her in his own speech.
Guy-Schall said her speech was not "a typical campaign talk," but rather addressed the progress of women in business and industry during the last four years.
" . . . Naturally, Governor Deukmejian came into it," she said.
It's hard to imagine a judge being quite so naive. We suspect--and hope--that were this a case in Municipal Court, Judge Guy-Schall would find witness Guy-Schall lacking credibility.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
California Grants Law License to Undocumented Immigrant
California Grants Law License to Undocumented Immigrant
ABC News radio
January 2, 2014
(SACRAMENTO, Calif.) -- California's highest court has granted a law license to a man who has been living in the U.S. illegally.
California's Supreme Court has ruled Sergio Garcia, an undocumented immigrant, will be admitted to the state bar after a law went into effect on Jan. 1, giving it the authority to grant exemptions.
Garcia was brought here by his parents as a child, worked his way through college and law school, passed California's bar exam, but hasn't been able to practice law because he's in the country illegally.
ABC News radio
January 2, 2014
(SACRAMENTO, Calif.) -- California's highest court has granted a law license to a man who has been living in the U.S. illegally.
California's Supreme Court has ruled Sergio Garcia, an undocumented immigrant, will be admitted to the state bar after a law went into effect on Jan. 1, giving it the authority to grant exemptions.
Garcia was brought here by his parents as a child, worked his way through college and law school, passed California's bar exam, but hasn't been able to practice law because he's in the country illegally.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
New Supreme Court case expands access rights, unlocks government data--including California Bar Association records
New Supreme Court case expands access rights, unlocks government data
Peter Scheer, Executive Director
First Amendment Coaltion
Dec. 2013 The First Amendment Coalition won a major victory last week in a test case about government transparency and public access to government data. I'm writing to share the good news and to use the occasion to ask you to make a year-end donation to FAC.
The California Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, established that no agency of government can exempt itself from the public's right to know. The State Bar—an arm of the judiciary that regulates lawyers—had argued that, since it is not covered by California's FOIA law, it has no obligation to make its records available for public review. The Court's answer: Sorry, but you do!
The Court said the Bar's records--specifically, Bar admissions data needed for academic research on affirmative action---are subject to a “common law” right of access. This right is not limited to records of official actions or records in court cases, but extends to any government records whose “disclosure would contribute significantly to public understanding of government activities,” the Court held.
This revived common law right of access could have a far-reaching impact, potentially providing an alternate remedy whenever state FOIA laws, for a variety of reasons, are of no avail.
But there's more . . .
The Court also held that government data can’t be withheld on privacy grounds as long as the data are “de-identified” by stripping out identifiers, controlling data cell sizes, and other steps that have become standard in professional research. The Court’s reasoning: There is no conflict between privacy rights and public access rights when the disclosed data can’t be linked to identifiable individuals.
This aspect of the Court's decision settles a central issue in debates over public access to, and use of, government data that pertain to private individuals---an issue that comes up in many contexts. The Court's holding is a powerful tool for unlocking government databases.
Our victory comes after a long battle with the State Bar—a battle that may drag on, unfortunately, if the Bar chooses to contest the procedures proposed by FAC and our co-plaintiff, UCLA Professor Richard Sander, for de-identifying the Bar's admissions data.
Peter Scheer, Executive Director
First Amendment Coaltion
Dec. 2013 The First Amendment Coalition won a major victory last week in a test case about government transparency and public access to government data. I'm writing to share the good news and to use the occasion to ask you to make a year-end donation to FAC.
The California Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, established that no agency of government can exempt itself from the public's right to know. The State Bar—an arm of the judiciary that regulates lawyers—had argued that, since it is not covered by California's FOIA law, it has no obligation to make its records available for public review. The Court's answer: Sorry, but you do!
The Court said the Bar's records--specifically, Bar admissions data needed for academic research on affirmative action---are subject to a “common law” right of access. This right is not limited to records of official actions or records in court cases, but extends to any government records whose “disclosure would contribute significantly to public understanding of government activities,” the Court held.
This revived common law right of access could have a far-reaching impact, potentially providing an alternate remedy whenever state FOIA laws, for a variety of reasons, are of no avail.
But there's more . . .
The Court also held that government data can’t be withheld on privacy grounds as long as the data are “de-identified” by stripping out identifiers, controlling data cell sizes, and other steps that have become standard in professional research. The Court’s reasoning: There is no conflict between privacy rights and public access rights when the disclosed data can’t be linked to identifiable individuals.
This aspect of the Court's decision settles a central issue in debates over public access to, and use of, government data that pertain to private individuals---an issue that comes up in many contexts. The Court's holding is a powerful tool for unlocking government databases.
Our victory comes after a long battle with the State Bar—a battle that may drag on, unfortunately, if the Bar chooses to contest the procedures proposed by FAC and our co-plaintiff, UCLA Professor Richard Sander, for de-identifying the Bar's admissions data.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Is the San Diego Bar Association using public property and public funds to maintain a private club for lawyers?
John W. Adkins
Open letter to the San Diego Public Law Library chief administrator:
Dear Mr. John Adkins, Director:
I strongly urge you to bring back the introductory legal classes for members of the public that were offered before the recent re-purposing of the San Diego Public Law Library.
Previously there were many classes giving an overview of the legal system and teaching citizens how to conduct lawsuits and appeal decisions.
A few years ago I took those classes, making it possible for me to defend my constitutional rights against a large law firm that wanted to shut down my public interest website. I won in the Court of Appeal in 2011, and I recently filed another appeal. [Here's the Leagle web page with the earlier decision.]
I suspect that the legal establishment in San Diego wants to limit poor litigants to those few who have been chosen for pro-bono representation because they allow business as usual to proceed in the legal community. Certainly the legal clinics offered by USD law students do not fill the void created by the canceled classes. It seems that local lawyers (and judges) want to make sure that people like me (who critique the local justice system) are prevented from protecting themselves in state and federal courts.
It appears that the the San Diego Bar Association has influenced the Public Law Library to help in this goal.
It is improper to sabotage and undermine the longstanding purpose of the Public Law Library. Please return the library to its former purpose of educating the public as well as educating attorneys.
Sincerely,
Maura Larkins
[Note: I sent a message to your staff using the "Request a class" page of the Public Law Library website on Nov. 27, 2013. I received no response. ]
See SDER web page on the San Diego County Public Law Library
See also: The profession's in crisis, but law schools don't care. They're steeped in a toxic, hyper-capitalist worldview
Friday, August 9, 2013
Those who passed the bar exam have failed to create a just legal system; it's time to let other experts practice law
“'This is the 50th anniversary of Gideon,' said Shapiro, referring to the landmark 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright Supreme Court decision requiring states to provide lawyers to criminal defendants who can’t afford one.
'If this continues, there won’t be anyone to hear Gideon’s trumpet,' she said.
"Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in that state, suggested the Gideon approach of publicly paid lawyers should be applied to some civil cases.
"He proposed that other changes, such as greater use of expert non-lawyers, should also be considered."
Deep Cuts To Court Funding Make CA Chief Justice “afraid to see the future”
San Francisco Appeal
August 9, 2013
The chief justices of California, Texas and New York and three federal judges deplored funding cuts and other roadblocks to public access to justice at an American Bar Association meeting in San Francisco Thursday.
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said she had reluctantly supported some increases in court fees as “desperate measures” in the face of deep funding cuts that have resulted in the closure of 40 courthouses and 77 courtrooms statewide.
“When it comes to keeping courts open, if these aren’t desperate measures, I’m afraid to see the future,” she said.
Cantil-Sakauye and the five other judges spoke at a session entitled “Are Courts Dying? The Decline of Open and Public Adjudication” on the first day of the ABA’s annual meeting at Moscone Center West.
About 8,000 lawyers and guests are attending the meeting, which continues through Tuesday.
The judges said public access to courts is impaired not only by funding cuts but also by the high cost of lawyers in civil cases and the so-called “outsourcing” of adjudication.
Examples of outsourcing, they said, are the use of private judges for those who can afford it and the use of mandatory, closed-door arbitration instead of open courts to resolve consumer disputes.
“There are reports that 75 percent of the people in our state can’t afford a lawyer” in civil cases, said Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson.
“There are people who have been denied their rights who will just give up,” he said.
U.S. District Judge Norma Shapiro of Philadelphia and retired U.S. District Judge Royal Furgeson of Dallas said funding cuts are hurting federal as well as state courts.
They said the current U.S. budget sequestration is resulting in reductions in federal public defenders, limits on auxiliary services such as probation supervision and delays in needed technology upgrades.
“This is the 50th anniversary of Gideon,” said Shapiro, referring to the landmark 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright Supreme Court decision requiring states to provide lawyers to criminal defendants who can’t afford one. “If this continues, there won’t be anyone to hear Gideon’s trumpet,” she said.
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in that state, suggested the Gideon approach of publicly paid lawyers should be applied to some civil cases. He proposed that other changes, such as greater use of expert non-lawyers, should also be considered...
"Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in that state, suggested the Gideon approach of publicly paid lawyers should be applied to some civil cases.
"He proposed that other changes, such as greater use of expert non-lawyers, should also be considered."
Deep Cuts To Court Funding Make CA Chief Justice “afraid to see the future”San Francisco Appeal
August 9, 2013
The chief justices of California, Texas and New York and three federal judges deplored funding cuts and other roadblocks to public access to justice at an American Bar Association meeting in San Francisco Thursday.
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said she had reluctantly supported some increases in court fees as “desperate measures” in the face of deep funding cuts that have resulted in the closure of 40 courthouses and 77 courtrooms statewide.
“When it comes to keeping courts open, if these aren’t desperate measures, I’m afraid to see the future,” she said.
Cantil-Sakauye and the five other judges spoke at a session entitled “Are Courts Dying? The Decline of Open and Public Adjudication” on the first day of the ABA’s annual meeting at Moscone Center West.
About 8,000 lawyers and guests are attending the meeting, which continues through Tuesday.
The judges said public access to courts is impaired not only by funding cuts but also by the high cost of lawyers in civil cases and the so-called “outsourcing” of adjudication.
Examples of outsourcing, they said, are the use of private judges for those who can afford it and the use of mandatory, closed-door arbitration instead of open courts to resolve consumer disputes.
“There are reports that 75 percent of the people in our state can’t afford a lawyer” in civil cases, said Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson.
“There are people who have been denied their rights who will just give up,” he said.
U.S. District Judge Norma Shapiro of Philadelphia and retired U.S. District Judge Royal Furgeson of Dallas said funding cuts are hurting federal as well as state courts.
They said the current U.S. budget sequestration is resulting in reductions in federal public defenders, limits on auxiliary services such as probation supervision and delays in needed technology upgrades.
“This is the 50th anniversary of Gideon,” said Shapiro, referring to the landmark 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright Supreme Court decision requiring states to provide lawyers to criminal defendants who can’t afford one. “If this continues, there won’t be anyone to hear Gideon’s trumpet,” she said.
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in that state, suggested the Gideon approach of publicly paid lawyers should be applied to some civil cases. He proposed that other changes, such as greater use of expert non-lawyers, should also be considered...
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Judge recommends disbarment for Del Norte DA
Judge recommends disbarment for Del Norte DA
By Amy Yarbrough
The California Bar Journal
Official Publication of the State Bar of California
May 2013
Noting that for 20 years he had “repeatedly violated his ethical and professional duties,” a State Bar Court hearing judge has recommended Del Norte County District Attorney Jon M. Alexander be stripped of his law license.
Alexander [bar # 129207], 64, was also placed on involuntary inactive status as a result of Judge Lucy Armendariz’s April 4 disbarment ruling.M Armendariz found Alexander culpable of communicating with a defendant without her attorney’s consent, withholding evidence from the defense and acts of moral turpitude. The disbarment does not go into effect until it is approved by the California Supreme Court.
It was the first time in recent memory that an elected district attorney was the subject of a disciplinary trial. According to published reports, Alexander was suspended without pay by the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors following the decision.
In her ruling, Armendariz wrote that Alexander’s misdeeds were aggravated by the fact he refused to acknowledge his wrongdoing, and that he had failed to uphold his duties as a district attorney.
“Respondent’s misconduct frustrated the administration of justice,” she wrote. “His abuse of his prosecutorial power has negatively impacted the reputation of the district attorney’s office and the public’s trust in the justice system.”
A controversial figure who overcame methamphetamine addiction and other personal struggles to win the district attorney election in 2010, Alexander had a string of State Bar disciplinary problems prior to the case that now threatens his law license. In 1996, he received a private reproval for failing to abide by agreements that were made in lieu of disciplinary prosecution, and for two misdemeanor convictions for driving with a suspended license. In 2003, he received a six-month actual suspension for failing to return unearned fees to a client and for the unauthorized practice of law while he was suspended for not paying his bar dues.
Alexander then received a 60-day actual suspension for misconduct in four matters, including failure to perform services competently, failure to communicate with clients, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and engaging in an ex parte communication with a judge in a criminal case in order to influence the sentence. He was still on probation for this disciplinary action in 2011, when the conduct that triggered the current case against him occurred.
In the current case, Alexander was initially charged with seven counts of misconduct in three matters, although Armendariz found him culpable in only three of the charged counts. She found that he had talked with a defendant privately in his office about her drug case, despite knowing that the woman had an attorney. During the conversation the defendant recanted statements she made at the time of her arrest, in which she implicated her co-defendant and admitted to Alexander that the drugs at issue in the case actually belonged to her. Alexander failed to tell the defense attorneys about the conversation and did not share the woman’s incriminating statement with her co-defendant’s lawyer until after he learned their conversation had been tape-recorded.
During Alexander’s misconduct trial, 31 witnesses testified on Alexander’s behalf, attesting to his good moral character and extensive community service, much of it to help others struggling with substance abuse problems. Although Armendariz said that testimony carried some weight, she noted that Alexander’s community service had already been considered a mitigating factor in his third State Bar discipline case.
“The court finds that these character witnesses represent a demonstration of respondent’s good character attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities. But they invariably dismissed respondent’s misconduct as either insignificant or not at all unethical,” she wrote. “Many did not comprehend its egregiousness.”
By Amy Yarbrough
The California Bar Journal
Official Publication of the State Bar of California
May 2013
Noting that for 20 years he had “repeatedly violated his ethical and professional duties,” a State Bar Court hearing judge has recommended Del Norte County District Attorney Jon M. Alexander be stripped of his law license.
Alexander [bar # 129207], 64, was also placed on involuntary inactive status as a result of Judge Lucy Armendariz’s April 4 disbarment ruling.M Armendariz found Alexander culpable of communicating with a defendant without her attorney’s consent, withholding evidence from the defense and acts of moral turpitude. The disbarment does not go into effect until it is approved by the California Supreme Court.
It was the first time in recent memory that an elected district attorney was the subject of a disciplinary trial. According to published reports, Alexander was suspended without pay by the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors following the decision.
In her ruling, Armendariz wrote that Alexander’s misdeeds were aggravated by the fact he refused to acknowledge his wrongdoing, and that he had failed to uphold his duties as a district attorney.
“Respondent’s misconduct frustrated the administration of justice,” she wrote. “His abuse of his prosecutorial power has negatively impacted the reputation of the district attorney’s office and the public’s trust in the justice system.”
A controversial figure who overcame methamphetamine addiction and other personal struggles to win the district attorney election in 2010, Alexander had a string of State Bar disciplinary problems prior to the case that now threatens his law license. In 1996, he received a private reproval for failing to abide by agreements that were made in lieu of disciplinary prosecution, and for two misdemeanor convictions for driving with a suspended license. In 2003, he received a six-month actual suspension for failing to return unearned fees to a client and for the unauthorized practice of law while he was suspended for not paying his bar dues.
Alexander then received a 60-day actual suspension for misconduct in four matters, including failure to perform services competently, failure to communicate with clients, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and engaging in an ex parte communication with a judge in a criminal case in order to influence the sentence. He was still on probation for this disciplinary action in 2011, when the conduct that triggered the current case against him occurred.
In the current case, Alexander was initially charged with seven counts of misconduct in three matters, although Armendariz found him culpable in only three of the charged counts. She found that he had talked with a defendant privately in his office about her drug case, despite knowing that the woman had an attorney. During the conversation the defendant recanted statements she made at the time of her arrest, in which she implicated her co-defendant and admitted to Alexander that the drugs at issue in the case actually belonged to her. Alexander failed to tell the defense attorneys about the conversation and did not share the woman’s incriminating statement with her co-defendant’s lawyer until after he learned their conversation had been tape-recorded.
During Alexander’s misconduct trial, 31 witnesses testified on Alexander’s behalf, attesting to his good moral character and extensive community service, much of it to help others struggling with substance abuse problems. Although Armendariz said that testimony carried some weight, she noted that Alexander’s community service had already been considered a mitigating factor in his third State Bar discipline case.
“The court finds that these character witnesses represent a demonstration of respondent’s good character attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities. But they invariably dismissed respondent’s misconduct as either insignificant or not at all unethical,” she wrote. “Many did not comprehend its egregiousness.”
Thursday, April 12, 2012
System Must Weed Out Unethical Lawyers Who Damage Profession's Reputation
Attorney Discipline: System Must Weed Out Unethical Lawyers Who Damage Profession's Reputation
Los Angeles Daily Journal
December 16, 2002
By James C. Turner and Suzanne M. Mishkin
This fall, HALT - An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform released its 2002 Lawyer Discipline Report Card, the first comprehensive evaluation of the nation's attorney discipline system in ten years. The Report Card points to persistent problems that have gone largely unremedied for over a quarter of a century.
In 1970, a blue ribbon panel led by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark conducted a groundbreaking review of the attorney discipline system, and found a "scandalous situation" that required "the immediate attention of the profession."
The Clark Committee itemized 36 defects in the disciplinary system, in particular, criticizing the practices of most disciplinary agencies, which "deliberately discourage any publication of information concerning their activities, believing that the public image of the profession is damaged by a disclosure that attorney misconduct exists."
In addition, this review found that a panel of lawyers, rather than judges or lay persons, controlled the disciplinary system, creating an institutional bias that grossly undermines the effectiveness of the entire disciplinary system.
Twenty-two years later, an American Bar Association commission, chaired by Dean Robert McKay of the New York University Law School, found that the public has a "growing mistrust of secret, self-regulated lawyer discipline."
Like the Clark Committee before it, the McKay Commission concluded that the practice of allowing bar officials to control state disciplinary systems creates the appearance of a gross conflict of interest, "regardless of the actual fairness and impartiality of the system."
Summing up the situation in 1992, the Commission criticized the entire country's lawyer discipline system as "too slow, too secret, too soft and too self-regulated."
While there has been some modest progress since these scathing indictments, sadly it has not been nearly enough to fix a badly broken system.
Just last month, Stanford University Legal Ethics Professor Deborah L. Rhode stated, "Bar disciplinary procedures are anything but user-friendly to the consumer, and most are more responsive to the profession's interests than the public's."
Similarly, judges, legal scholars, practicing attorneys and bar officials, who convened the National Conference on Professionalism at the University of South Carolina School of Law, broadly agreed that the current system of lawyer discipline has lost the public's confidence, and urged the profession to lead the way in demanding meaningful reforms.
HALT's Report Card is our effort to bring the deficiencies of the attorney discipline system to the attention of the profession and the public. The Report Card assesses the performance of disciplinary systems in all 50 states and the District of Columbia on six key factors: (1) adequacy of discipline imposed; (2) publicity and responsiveness; (3) openness of the process; (4) fairness of disciplinary procedures; (5) public participation; and (6) promptness.
The results expose an appalling pattern of toothless sanctions, unnecessary secrecy, biased procedures and endless delays.
More than 114,000 complaints were filed against lawyers in 2000, the most recent year for which the American Bar Association provides data. In that same year, the rate of formal discipline was less than 3.5 percent, and the rate of disbarment was less than one percent.
In California, 93 percent of investigated cases led to absolutely no disciplinary action. And this is not surprising given that California bar rules provide that a lawyer will only be disciplined if misconduct is proven by "clear and convincing evidence," a far more demanding standard of proof than the "preponderance of the evidence" test that applies in other civil proceedings.
In state after state, we found that most complaints are not even investigated or are dismissed on technicalities, while only a handful lead to more than a slap on the wrist in the form of a private admonition or a closed-door reprimand. With this tiny trickle of discipline, is it any wonder that a recent Columbia Law School survey found less than one-third of Americans think lawyers are even "somewhat" honest?
In most states, attorney discipline proceedings are secret, non-public hearings where a panel of lawyers sits as both judge and jury. In many states, even the person who filed the complaint does not have a right to attend.
In California, there is not even token layperson representation in disciplinary decisions - instead, only lawyers decide if and when to impose sanctions upon their colleagues.
In every jurisdiction except Oregon and Arizona, disciplinary bodies refuse to release an attorney's full disciplinary history. Officials in California will only inform consumers of whether an attorney has been publicly disciplined; records of all complaints, formal charges and informal discipline are kept under seal.
Consumers in many jurisdictions are forced into silence by gag rules that threaten fines or jail for talking about the complaint or its outcome. Even those without gag rules frequently try to restrain speech, asking complainants to keep their grievances confidential.
Justice delayed may be justice denied, but it is par for the course in attorney discipline cases. Even the state that earned our highest grade (Massachusetts with a B minus) failed to act promptly on complaints - taking an average of 681 days to issue formal charges and well over two years to impose discipline.
In Washington State, it took one victim thirteen years to get an incompetent lawyer suspended. Many states, like California, do not even keep a record of how promptly they respond to grievances.
These are national problems; of the fifty-one jurisdictions we evaluated, thirty-nine earned a C- or lower; and twenty-one of these received Ds or lower (Pennsylvania and North Carolina flunked outright). California earned a mediocre C.
Part of the problem is that lawyer discipline bodies are asked to perform conflicting missions.
For example, the mission statement for the District of Columbia disciplinary body requires it to fulfill "a dual function: to protect the public and the courts from unethical conduct by members of the D.C. Bar and to protect members of the D.C. Bar" (emphasis supplied).
A lawyer discipline system serving two conflicting masters is bound to prove ineffective.
To correct the nationwide pattern of laxity, secrecy, bias and delay that characterize this broken system, we believe four fundamental reforms are needed.
* Lawyer discipline cases should be heard by publicly controlled disciplinary panels where non-lawyers have at least a majority voice. Independent medical boards in many states offer a superior model for ensuring accountability. These medical boards, which are appointed by governors and state legislatures, rely on physicians to help them understand technical issues, but the doctors stay out of the decision-making process. Lawyers should, too.
* The discipline system must come out into the open. Private reprimands should be replaced with meaningful public discipline. Hearings should be open to the public. And complaints against lawyers and sanctions should be a matter of public record, available to every citizen.
* Disciplinary policies should more closely approximate the rules governing the civil justice system. Gag rules should be abolished. If the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that an attorney has violated the rules of professional conduct, the attorney should be sanctioned.
* The glacial pace of attorney discipline must come to an end. Imposing real deadlines - requiring a preliminary disciplinary hearing within ninety days, for example - would be a giant step toward jettisoning bureaucratic red tape and creating a system that actually brings justice to victims of misconduct.
By adopting these simple reforms, we can replace a system that is an abject failure with one that actually protects consumers and begins to restore public confidence in the legal profession.
After thirty years of ignored calls for reform, responsible lawyers who have a real commitment to professional responsibility need to mobilize and demand action to fix the attorney discipline mess.
All who practice law have a shared interest in creating a system that investigates promptly, deliberates openly, and weeds-out unethical or incompetent attorneys who damage the profession's reputation.
By addressing long-recognized failures in the current disciplinary system, we have an opportunity to create a structure that engenders consumer trust and respect, rather than alienation and resentment. After three decades of marginal reform, can we do less?
-------------
* James C. Turner is Executive Director and Suzanne M. Mishkin is Associate Counsel of HALT, Inc. - An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform.
Los Angeles Daily Journal
December 16, 2002
By James C. Turner and Suzanne M. Mishkin
This fall, HALT - An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform released its 2002 Lawyer Discipline Report Card, the first comprehensive evaluation of the nation's attorney discipline system in ten years. The Report Card points to persistent problems that have gone largely unremedied for over a quarter of a century.
In 1970, a blue ribbon panel led by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark conducted a groundbreaking review of the attorney discipline system, and found a "scandalous situation" that required "the immediate attention of the profession."
The Clark Committee itemized 36 defects in the disciplinary system, in particular, criticizing the practices of most disciplinary agencies, which "deliberately discourage any publication of information concerning their activities, believing that the public image of the profession is damaged by a disclosure that attorney misconduct exists."
In addition, this review found that a panel of lawyers, rather than judges or lay persons, controlled the disciplinary system, creating an institutional bias that grossly undermines the effectiveness of the entire disciplinary system.
Twenty-two years later, an American Bar Association commission, chaired by Dean Robert McKay of the New York University Law School, found that the public has a "growing mistrust of secret, self-regulated lawyer discipline."
Like the Clark Committee before it, the McKay Commission concluded that the practice of allowing bar officials to control state disciplinary systems creates the appearance of a gross conflict of interest, "regardless of the actual fairness and impartiality of the system."
Summing up the situation in 1992, the Commission criticized the entire country's lawyer discipline system as "too slow, too secret, too soft and too self-regulated."
While there has been some modest progress since these scathing indictments, sadly it has not been nearly enough to fix a badly broken system.
Just last month, Stanford University Legal Ethics Professor Deborah L. Rhode stated, "Bar disciplinary procedures are anything but user-friendly to the consumer, and most are more responsive to the profession's interests than the public's."
Similarly, judges, legal scholars, practicing attorneys and bar officials, who convened the National Conference on Professionalism at the University of South Carolina School of Law, broadly agreed that the current system of lawyer discipline has lost the public's confidence, and urged the profession to lead the way in demanding meaningful reforms.
HALT's Report Card is our effort to bring the deficiencies of the attorney discipline system to the attention of the profession and the public. The Report Card assesses the performance of disciplinary systems in all 50 states and the District of Columbia on six key factors: (1) adequacy of discipline imposed; (2) publicity and responsiveness; (3) openness of the process; (4) fairness of disciplinary procedures; (5) public participation; and (6) promptness.
The results expose an appalling pattern of toothless sanctions, unnecessary secrecy, biased procedures and endless delays.
More than 114,000 complaints were filed against lawyers in 2000, the most recent year for which the American Bar Association provides data. In that same year, the rate of formal discipline was less than 3.5 percent, and the rate of disbarment was less than one percent.
In California, 93 percent of investigated cases led to absolutely no disciplinary action. And this is not surprising given that California bar rules provide that a lawyer will only be disciplined if misconduct is proven by "clear and convincing evidence," a far more demanding standard of proof than the "preponderance of the evidence" test that applies in other civil proceedings.
In state after state, we found that most complaints are not even investigated or are dismissed on technicalities, while only a handful lead to more than a slap on the wrist in the form of a private admonition or a closed-door reprimand. With this tiny trickle of discipline, is it any wonder that a recent Columbia Law School survey found less than one-third of Americans think lawyers are even "somewhat" honest?
In most states, attorney discipline proceedings are secret, non-public hearings where a panel of lawyers sits as both judge and jury. In many states, even the person who filed the complaint does not have a right to attend.
In California, there is not even token layperson representation in disciplinary decisions - instead, only lawyers decide if and when to impose sanctions upon their colleagues.
In every jurisdiction except Oregon and Arizona, disciplinary bodies refuse to release an attorney's full disciplinary history. Officials in California will only inform consumers of whether an attorney has been publicly disciplined; records of all complaints, formal charges and informal discipline are kept under seal.
Consumers in many jurisdictions are forced into silence by gag rules that threaten fines or jail for talking about the complaint or its outcome. Even those without gag rules frequently try to restrain speech, asking complainants to keep their grievances confidential.
Justice delayed may be justice denied, but it is par for the course in attorney discipline cases. Even the state that earned our highest grade (Massachusetts with a B minus) failed to act promptly on complaints - taking an average of 681 days to issue formal charges and well over two years to impose discipline.
In Washington State, it took one victim thirteen years to get an incompetent lawyer suspended. Many states, like California, do not even keep a record of how promptly they respond to grievances.
These are national problems; of the fifty-one jurisdictions we evaluated, thirty-nine earned a C- or lower; and twenty-one of these received Ds or lower (Pennsylvania and North Carolina flunked outright). California earned a mediocre C.
Part of the problem is that lawyer discipline bodies are asked to perform conflicting missions.
For example, the mission statement for the District of Columbia disciplinary body requires it to fulfill "a dual function: to protect the public and the courts from unethical conduct by members of the D.C. Bar and to protect members of the D.C. Bar" (emphasis supplied).
A lawyer discipline system serving two conflicting masters is bound to prove ineffective.
To correct the nationwide pattern of laxity, secrecy, bias and delay that characterize this broken system, we believe four fundamental reforms are needed.
* Lawyer discipline cases should be heard by publicly controlled disciplinary panels where non-lawyers have at least a majority voice. Independent medical boards in many states offer a superior model for ensuring accountability. These medical boards, which are appointed by governors and state legislatures, rely on physicians to help them understand technical issues, but the doctors stay out of the decision-making process. Lawyers should, too.
* The discipline system must come out into the open. Private reprimands should be replaced with meaningful public discipline. Hearings should be open to the public. And complaints against lawyers and sanctions should be a matter of public record, available to every citizen.
* Disciplinary policies should more closely approximate the rules governing the civil justice system. Gag rules should be abolished. If the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that an attorney has violated the rules of professional conduct, the attorney should be sanctioned.
* The glacial pace of attorney discipline must come to an end. Imposing real deadlines - requiring a preliminary disciplinary hearing within ninety days, for example - would be a giant step toward jettisoning bureaucratic red tape and creating a system that actually brings justice to victims of misconduct.
By adopting these simple reforms, we can replace a system that is an abject failure with one that actually protects consumers and begins to restore public confidence in the legal profession.
After thirty years of ignored calls for reform, responsible lawyers who have a real commitment to professional responsibility need to mobilize and demand action to fix the attorney discipline mess.
All who practice law have a shared interest in creating a system that investigates promptly, deliberates openly, and weeds-out unethical or incompetent attorneys who damage the profession's reputation.
By addressing long-recognized failures in the current disciplinary system, we have an opportunity to create a structure that engenders consumer trust and respect, rather than alienation and resentment. After three decades of marginal reform, can we do less?
-------------
* James C. Turner is Executive Director and Suzanne M. Mishkin is Associate Counsel of HALT, Inc. - An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Supreme Court will hear disgraced journalist’s moral character case
It's perfectly obvious to most of us that Stephen Glass would fit seamlessly into many, perhaps most, law firms. Why is the State Bar Association pretending that respect for the truth is a requirement for a lawyer's license? It isn't. It absolutely isn't.
Supreme Court will hear disgraced journalist’s moral character case
By Nancy McCarthy
California Bar Journal
December 2011
For the first time in 11 years, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of a would-be lawyer denied admission to the State Bar because of moral character issues. The bar petitioned the court to consider the case of Stephen Glass, a disgraced former journalist who won national infamy for making up whole or parts of stories and now wants to practice law in California. Although the Committee of Bar Examiners (CBE) denied Glass admission on moral character grounds, it was overruled by both a State Bar Court hearing judge and a split review panel that said he should be admitted. The Supreme Court granted review last month on a petition from the CBE.
Stephen Glass
Glass
“Journalism and law share core fundamental principles ― those of common honesty and trust,” wrote bar attorney Rachel Grunberg in the petition seeking review. She added that Glass “literally shattered these basic values in the journalism profession, without redemption.” The Committee of Bar Examiners believes Glass “has not established the requisite showing of rehabilitation, given his past misdeeds that have lingered without redemption, to be certified as an attorney” in California, Grunberg wrote.
Glass was once described by Vanity Fair as “the most sought-after young reporter in the nation’s capital, producing knockout articles for magazines ranging from The New Republic to Rolling Stone.” The magazine went on to explain that Glass spun “a breathtaking web of deception that emerged as the most sustained fraud in modern journalism.” The New Republic fired him, finding fabricated material in 27 articles bearing Glass’ byline at the magazine.
It wasn’t until 11 years after “he was outted as a fraud,” Grunberg wrote, that Glass finally compiled a comprehensive list of all of his fabricated articles, totaling 42. He attended Georgetown law school while still working at TNR and authoring false articles, he took and passed the July 2000 New York bar exam, applied for a moral character determination there in 2002 but withdrew after learning his admission would likely be denied, published a book and appeared on 60 Minutes in 2003, and took and passed the California bar exam in 2009.
Glass argues that his current moral character makes him eligible to become an attorney and that he presented “overwhelming evidence” of his rehabilitation. Indeed, Martin Peretz, the editor of The New Republic, which printed the lion’s share of his fabrications, flew from Massachusetts to California to testify on Glass’ behalf before the State Bar Court. Glass said in a submission to the Supreme Court that he was forgiven by other editors as well, including Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone and Lewis Lapham of Harper’s.
Glass presented more than 20 witnesses who testified to his “good moral character,” apologized publicly for his actions, underwent therapy and performed extensive pro bono work. His misconduct ended when he was 25, he said, and his values have changed.
Grunberg dismissed virtually all his arguments and said true rehabilitation means an unblemished record ― something Glass cannot provide. She said he made misrepresentations to the New York bar when trying to win admission there, his pro bono work was part of his regular duties as a paralegal for a Los Angeles law firm, and his remorse came more than a decade late, only “when it suited him, and not when it was most needed by his victims.”
Further, the bar said Glass profited from his misdeeds, earning $190,000, less agent’s fees, from publication of The Fabulist, a fictionalized account of his lies. Glass said he used the profits for his legal fees and therapy, but the bar said the book proceeds were used “exclusively for his own personal benefit.” The concept of profiting from wrongdoing “appears inconsistent with the notion of moral rehabilitation,” Grunberg wrote, adding that Glass appeared to be “cashing in on his infamy.”
Arthur Margolis, Glass’ attorney, declined to comment. Glass works as a paralegal at Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley LLP in Los Angeles.
No date for oral arguments has been set, but Glass has 45 days from the date of the Nov. 16 court order to file a supplemental brief. The bar then has 15 days to file a reply.
Supreme Court will hear disgraced journalist’s moral character case
By Nancy McCarthy
California Bar Journal
December 2011
For the first time in 11 years, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of a would-be lawyer denied admission to the State Bar because of moral character issues. The bar petitioned the court to consider the case of Stephen Glass, a disgraced former journalist who won national infamy for making up whole or parts of stories and now wants to practice law in California. Although the Committee of Bar Examiners (CBE) denied Glass admission on moral character grounds, it was overruled by both a State Bar Court hearing judge and a split review panel that said he should be admitted. The Supreme Court granted review last month on a petition from the CBE.
Stephen Glass
Glass
“Journalism and law share core fundamental principles ― those of common honesty and trust,” wrote bar attorney Rachel Grunberg in the petition seeking review. She added that Glass “literally shattered these basic values in the journalism profession, without redemption.” The Committee of Bar Examiners believes Glass “has not established the requisite showing of rehabilitation, given his past misdeeds that have lingered without redemption, to be certified as an attorney” in California, Grunberg wrote.
Glass was once described by Vanity Fair as “the most sought-after young reporter in the nation’s capital, producing knockout articles for magazines ranging from The New Republic to Rolling Stone.” The magazine went on to explain that Glass spun “a breathtaking web of deception that emerged as the most sustained fraud in modern journalism.” The New Republic fired him, finding fabricated material in 27 articles bearing Glass’ byline at the magazine.
It wasn’t until 11 years after “he was outted as a fraud,” Grunberg wrote, that Glass finally compiled a comprehensive list of all of his fabricated articles, totaling 42. He attended Georgetown law school while still working at TNR and authoring false articles, he took and passed the July 2000 New York bar exam, applied for a moral character determination there in 2002 but withdrew after learning his admission would likely be denied, published a book and appeared on 60 Minutes in 2003, and took and passed the California bar exam in 2009.
Glass argues that his current moral character makes him eligible to become an attorney and that he presented “overwhelming evidence” of his rehabilitation. Indeed, Martin Peretz, the editor of The New Republic, which printed the lion’s share of his fabrications, flew from Massachusetts to California to testify on Glass’ behalf before the State Bar Court. Glass said in a submission to the Supreme Court that he was forgiven by other editors as well, including Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone and Lewis Lapham of Harper’s.
Glass presented more than 20 witnesses who testified to his “good moral character,” apologized publicly for his actions, underwent therapy and performed extensive pro bono work. His misconduct ended when he was 25, he said, and his values have changed.
Grunberg dismissed virtually all his arguments and said true rehabilitation means an unblemished record ― something Glass cannot provide. She said he made misrepresentations to the New York bar when trying to win admission there, his pro bono work was part of his regular duties as a paralegal for a Los Angeles law firm, and his remorse came more than a decade late, only “when it suited him, and not when it was most needed by his victims.”
Further, the bar said Glass profited from his misdeeds, earning $190,000, less agent’s fees, from publication of The Fabulist, a fictionalized account of his lies. Glass said he used the profits for his legal fees and therapy, but the bar said the book proceeds were used “exclusively for his own personal benefit.” The concept of profiting from wrongdoing “appears inconsistent with the notion of moral rehabilitation,” Grunberg wrote, adding that Glass appeared to be “cashing in on his infamy.”
Arthur Margolis, Glass’ attorney, declined to comment. Glass works as a paralegal at Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley LLP in Los Angeles.
No date for oral arguments has been set, but Glass has 45 days from the date of the Nov. 16 court order to file a supplemental brief. The bar then has 15 days to file a reply.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Did the executive director and the vice-president of the California State Bar divert funds to a sham charity?
Orange County Investigative News Agency "Voice of OC" Asked to Produce all Documents Submitted to the Internal Revenue Service Within the Past Three Years
by lesliebrodie Pro
08/09/2011
Orange County's Nonprofit Investigative News Agency "Voice of OC" has been served with a demand to produce all records it had submitted to the Internal Revenue Service within the past three years, The Leslie Brodie Report has learned.
The request followed shortly on the heels of a letter informing State Bar Executive Director Joe Dunn about the existence of convenient circumstances surrounding sham charity CaliforniaALL and his publication -- "Voice of OC."
More specifically, and according to a source, the fact that some individuals and entities involved in the creation of sham charity CaliforniaALL and the subsequent unlawful transfer of $780,000 from the Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL were also involved in assisting Mr. Dunn with the creation of "Voice of OC", has caused the source to entertain the thought that "Voice of OC" may have been a recipient, at least in part, of the $780,000 misappropriated from the State Bar of California.
CaliforniaALL, a 501(c)(3) charitable entity, was the brainchild of Ruthe Ashley (a Diversity Officer at CalPERS and Vice-President of the State Bar of California) and Peter Arth Jr., Chief of Staff to CPUC President Michael Peevey.
In its brief existence from 2008 to 2010, CaliforniaALL collected close to $2 million from utility companies (AT&T, PG&E, Verizon, Sempra), including a sub-rosa contribution of $769,247.00 from the State Bar of California Foundation (DBA California Bar Foundation.)
CaliforniaALL was abruptly dissolved in June of 2010...
by lesliebrodie Pro
08/09/2011
Orange County's Nonprofit Investigative News Agency "Voice of OC" has been served with a demand to produce all records it had submitted to the Internal Revenue Service within the past three years, The Leslie Brodie Report has learned.
The request followed shortly on the heels of a letter informing State Bar Executive Director Joe Dunn about the existence of convenient circumstances surrounding sham charity CaliforniaALL and his publication -- "Voice of OC."
More specifically, and according to a source, the fact that some individuals and entities involved in the creation of sham charity CaliforniaALL and the subsequent unlawful transfer of $780,000 from the Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL were also involved in assisting Mr. Dunn with the creation of "Voice of OC", has caused the source to entertain the thought that "Voice of OC" may have been a recipient, at least in part, of the $780,000 misappropriated from the State Bar of California.
CaliforniaALL, a 501(c)(3) charitable entity, was the brainchild of Ruthe Ashley (a Diversity Officer at CalPERS and Vice-President of the State Bar of California) and Peter Arth Jr., Chief of Staff to CPUC President Michael Peevey.
In its brief existence from 2008 to 2010, CaliforniaALL collected close to $2 million from utility companies (AT&T, PG&E, Verizon, Sempra), including a sub-rosa contribution of $769,247.00 from the State Bar of California Foundation (DBA California Bar Foundation.)
CaliforniaALL was abruptly dissolved in June of 2010...
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Prosecutor's courtroom snark returns to haunt him
Note: San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis is on the board of the California Bar Association, which may help to explain why the bar fails to act in cases where prosecutorial misconduct is found.
Voice of San Diego asks, "Who's 'Pretty Pathetic'?"
A San Diego prosecutor got in the face of a burglary suspect during a trial, suggesting that he's "pretty pathetic" and "pretty despicable." And there was more. "According to a state appeals court in San Diego, the prosecutor also questioned the defense lawyer's integrity, suggested the attorney had coached Higgins, and described a defense psychiatrist as a hired gun who had 'attacked a victim in a rape trial,'" the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
All this sounds more "Law & Order" (or "L.A. Law" for you old school types) than real life. An appeal court is not amused: it's thrown out the guilty verdict and ordered a new trial.
Prosecutor's courtroom snark returns to haunt him
Bob Egelko
January 19 2011
SF Gate
When burglary defendant Raymond Higgins testified that he had been distraught at the time of the alleged crime because of the death of a close friend, prosecutor Christopher Lawson asked him whether it wasn't "pretty pathetic if you're using the memory of a dead 17-year-old kid as an excuse."
After the judge ruled the question improper, Higgins said he'd also been feeling guilty about not attending the funeral of his sister, who had committed suicide. "You agree that's pretty despicable if you were using that as an excuse," Lawson told him.
According to a state appeals court in San Diego, the prosecutor also questioned the defense lawyer's integrity, suggested the attorney had coached Higgins, and described a defense psychiatrist as a hired gun who had "attacked a victim in a rape trial."
Lawson used his cross-examinations to make speeches and "engaged in a pattern of misconduct that rendered the trial fundamentally unfair," the Fourth District Court of Appeal said in a ruling Thursday that overturned Higgins' conviction and granted him a new trial. He has been serving a five-year prison sentence.
The ruling comes in the wake of a report in October by the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University asserting that prosecutors in the state are seldom punished for unethical courtroom conduct. The project said it found 707 cases from 1997 to 2009 in which courts had found misconduct by prosecutors, but only six prosecutors who were disciplined by the State Bar. The bar, in response, said it would take another look at some of those cases.
Lawson, a deputy district attorney in San Diego County, was unavailable for comment. Steve Walker, a spokesman for the office, said prosecutors were reviewing the ruling.
Higgins, a businessman and Naval Academy graduate with no previous criminal record, was charged with burglary and assault for breaking into a neighbor's house in San Diego with two handguns in May 2008.
The neighbor had asked Higgins to keep an eye on her teenage son, who had gotten in trouble...
Voice of San Diego asks, "Who's 'Pretty Pathetic'?"
A San Diego prosecutor got in the face of a burglary suspect during a trial, suggesting that he's "pretty pathetic" and "pretty despicable." And there was more. "According to a state appeals court in San Diego, the prosecutor also questioned the defense lawyer's integrity, suggested the attorney had coached Higgins, and described a defense psychiatrist as a hired gun who had 'attacked a victim in a rape trial,'" the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
All this sounds more "Law & Order" (or "L.A. Law" for you old school types) than real life. An appeal court is not amused: it's thrown out the guilty verdict and ordered a new trial.
Prosecutor's courtroom snark returns to haunt him
Bob Egelko
January 19 2011
SF Gate
When burglary defendant Raymond Higgins testified that he had been distraught at the time of the alleged crime because of the death of a close friend, prosecutor Christopher Lawson asked him whether it wasn't "pretty pathetic if you're using the memory of a dead 17-year-old kid as an excuse."
After the judge ruled the question improper, Higgins said he'd also been feeling guilty about not attending the funeral of his sister, who had committed suicide. "You agree that's pretty despicable if you were using that as an excuse," Lawson told him.
According to a state appeals court in San Diego, the prosecutor also questioned the defense lawyer's integrity, suggested the attorney had coached Higgins, and described a defense psychiatrist as a hired gun who had "attacked a victim in a rape trial."
Lawson used his cross-examinations to make speeches and "engaged in a pattern of misconduct that rendered the trial fundamentally unfair," the Fourth District Court of Appeal said in a ruling Thursday that overturned Higgins' conviction and granted him a new trial. He has been serving a five-year prison sentence.
The ruling comes in the wake of a report in October by the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University asserting that prosecutors in the state are seldom punished for unethical courtroom conduct. The project said it found 707 cases from 1997 to 2009 in which courts had found misconduct by prosecutors, but only six prosecutors who were disciplined by the State Bar. The bar, in response, said it would take another look at some of those cases.
Lawson, a deputy district attorney in San Diego County, was unavailable for comment. Steve Walker, a spokesman for the office, said prosecutors were reviewing the ruling.
Higgins, a businessman and Naval Academy graduate with no previous criminal record, was charged with burglary and assault for breaking into a neighbor's house in San Diego with two handguns in May 2008.
The neighbor had asked Higgins to keep an eye on her teenage son, who had gotten in trouble...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
I don't believe that fired bar executive Joe Dunn was particularly concerned about the backlog of complaints about lawyers--until he found himself about to be fired.
But what does the backlog matter when the complaints get handled so poorly anyway? Dishonesty in court cases is tolerated; the only thing that the Bar seems to act on is missing client funds. The Bar's priorities are twisted. Justice is priceless. If we don't have a just society, then a few bucks clawed-back from a bad lawyer aren't going to do us much good.
I'd like to see Mr. Craig Holden focus on justice for Californians rather than lawyers' dues. Lawyers have obligations to the people of the state, but they seem to care only about how much money comes their way.
How about engaging in a bit of genuine oversight, Mr. Craig Holden? Try to focus on the big picture.