boalt77

CHIEF JUDGE LIKES FRIENDS

Sat, 20 Oct 2012 23:21:50 -0400

Chief appoints familiar faces to trial court budget working group

Posted on October 16, 2012

It should come as no surprise that when a working group is formed (the Judicial Council and the AOC’s favorite sleight-of-hand gesture at addressing anything) that it would be the loyal soldiers of the Chief Justice that would be getting the nod to speak with one voice. Most of these loyalists have been in the judicial branch for less than 10 years themselves so they have an ideal point of reference to make recommendations and discuss the impact on a law that is 15 years old.

While we feel that such a group has no relevance at the discussion table because they lack a frame of reference, apparently our Chief Justice feels differently.

Of course, items that probably won’t come up for discussion are things like committing 1.8 billion dollars to one courthouse over the course of 35 years while two dozen other courthouses and well over 200 courtrooms are mothballed across the state.

Maybe they will not bring up how hundred thousand dollar embezzlements in the AOC go unprosecuted and how that might affect judicial branch efficiencies by sending a clear, unambiguous message that anything goes with the publics money.

Or maybe they will not bring up how centralization has brought us $2,000.00 light bulbs, $409.00 clock batteries and unlicensed contractors maintaining every courthouse from the Oregon border to the Mexican border. But they weren’t really unlicensed. A sham lawsuit wherein if they lose, they are innocent of the crime and if they win, they are guilty of committing numerous crimes proved that!

Or maybe they will not discuss how firing whistleblowers has brought them greater efficiencies because in getting rid of them, it gets rid of anyone pointing to the unresolved problems.

Or maybe they will not discuss the $ 26 million dollar assigned judges program that is paying Jack Halpin to sit as a twice retired, 20 year appointee to the Shasta bench while hundreds of other judges go without courtrooms and court staff across the state.

Then again, maybe they will not bring up how spending over a half a billion dollars on vaporware called CCMS under this ideally centralized management model where everyone speaks with one voice and indicated “they could not think of a better investment in the judicial branch than CCMS” led to greater courthouse efficiencies. Sacramento and San Diego are living proof examples of those greater efficiencies bought by CCMS. But V4 works! Really, it does!

We don’t know the full charge of this committee because it’s opaque to everyone but it does seem like the Guv is fulfilling a promise to form the committee to look at things. As long as his eyes are wide open to the train wreck that has been defined as centralization under undemocratic authoritative rule by a body that has usurped that authority, we trust that any report will be as meaningful as any other issued on the judicial branch and represent yet another couple hundred pages of dust in the wind. Hopefully, the legislature takes up trial court funding, bypassing the reckless judicial council that has better things to do than deliver justice.

THE ARM OOF THE SUPT CT OF CAL YES IN DEED

Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:19:33 -0400

The Leslie Brodie Report

« UPDATES: Jessica Tavares Asks NIGC to Curb Vampire Howard Dickstein; EIX Subject of Complaint to IRS; Justice Ming Chin Ensnared by Munger Tolles; Lance Armstrong Stripped of Tour de France Titles; David Pasternak of Bet Tzedek |DOJ’s Tony West, Ambassadors Bleich/Roos, WSGR’s Parnes, MoFo’s Brosnahan, Keker’s Young, MTO’s Olson, Piper’s Churchwell, Kamala Harris All Potential Actors In Embezzlement Scheme CaliforniaALL - OBAMA FOR AMERICA As Sonsini Asked To Probe »

Amid Allegations of Bribery Call for Supreme Court of California Justice Ming Chin to Resign

bylesliebrodie^Pro@03/09/2012 – 07.10:04

As the wide network of Asian Pacific Islanders (“API”) operatives allegedly involved in myriad financial schemes on behalf of utility companies and their law firms continue to grow, a new wrinkle was recently added as California Supreme Court Associate Justice Ming W. Chin’s tenure has been shaken by revelations of alleged bribery by Edison International (“EIX”), Southern California Edison (“SCE”), and the law firm which represents them — Munger Tolles & Olson (“MTO”).

Fred Rowley of Munger Tolles & Olson who allegedly served as the middleman and conduit of bribes in his capacity as director of CAUSE. Once caught, Rowley conspired with Justice Chin, MTO, SCE, and others to defraud and mislead the California Commission on Judicial Performance. According to MTO, Rowley is a member of the Los Angeles World Affairs Council and the Pacific Council on International Policy. He also serves on the boards of directors of CAUSE, a non-profit that promotes Asian-Americans in politics. (image: courtesy of MTO)

A source familiar with the situation, speaking on condition of anonymity, maintain that “overwhelming and undisputed” evidence shows that for a period of several years, both SCE and MTO poured large amounts of money into a questionable non-profit entity for which Justice Chin served as an official adviser, albeit secretly so.

The non-profit at issue is Pasadena-based Center for Asian-American United for Self Empowerment (“CAUSE”), which allegedly spends the money it collects for the purpose of voter-registration of API, as well as to lobby for furthering the appointments of APIs to various governmental positions.

While Justice Chin’s clandestine involvement with CAUSE began in approximately 2004, the source maintain the inquiry is focused on the years prior to the recent election by which Justice Chin was up for re-election, and during the time period one alleged wrongdoer - API Fred Rowley of MTO - served as the middleman and conduit of bribes in his capacity as director of CAUSE.

This, according to the source, creates not only the appearance of improprieties but actual misconduct as bestowing anything of value on a judicial officer by SEC and MTO to sponsor an entity which will register as many as APIs as possible who would, in turn, vote for the retention of Chin in the upcoming election, is prohibited.

As mentioned earlier, Justice Chin abruptly quit CAUSE in the midst of an inquiry by the California Commission on Judicial Performance subsequent to a complaint which alleged that Chin’s long-standing involvement with the entity — which caters exclusively to APIs — is prohibitive due to CAUSE’s invidious discrimination against those who are non-API. At that time, those were the only allegations lodged, and no mention was made of alleged improprieties by EIX, SCE, or MTO.

Following his abrupt departure, it is alleged that Justice Chin conspired with Fred Rowley, MTO, SCE, and others to defraud and mislead the California Commission on Judicial Performance as well as the public by creating the false impression that he was not an official adviser by causing the retroactive removal of his name from CAUSE’s web-site.

The reckless pursuit of easy money originating from utility companies by a handful of public servants who suppose to serve the public — rather than enrich themselves or their own racial groups — is slowly but surely destroying the reputation of California’s judicial branch and I call upon Justice Chin to resign, the source concluded.

This latest revelation brought to four the number of sham non-profit entities created at the urging of the California Public Utilities Commission which absorbed money from utility companies under highly suspicious circumstances, to wit, CaliforniaALL, CCPF, CAUSE, and CETF

ANOTHER IMBRED FOR THE STATE BAR COURT

Sat, 01 Sep 2012 14:40:41 -0400

DONALD F. MILES is a Judge of the State Bar Court of California, having been appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger to that position in 2006. A graduate of Stanford University (With Distinction, 1971) and Hastings College of the Law, University of California (Order of the Coif, 1974), he served as law clerk to Justice William P. Clark, Jr. of the California Supreme Court before entering private practice in 1975. He is a former Director of the San Francisco law firm of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk and Rabkin, where he chaired the Litigation Department and served as Firm Counsel; and he is a former partner of Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, where he had offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco. He has enjoyed an “av” peer review rating from Martindale-Hubbell since the mid-1980’s and was elected to the International Association of Defense Counsel in 1987.

Judge Miles is a frequent lecturer and educator. He has been an adjunct professor at Hastings College of the Law, teaching Evidence/Advocacy; and he has taught trial practice programs for Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB), NITA, Hastings Center for Trial and Appellate Advocacy, and the Federal Practice Program for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. He is now a frequent lecturer on the professional obligations of attorneys.

He is also the author of numerous publications, including Laying a Foundation to Introduce Evidence (Preparing and Using Evidence at Trial), CEB Action Guide, 2010 (previous editions issued biannually from 1989 to 2008); chapters on “Evidence Overview” and “Trial Exhibits” in California Trial Practice: Civil Procedure During Trial, CEB, 1995 (with annual updates issued 1995-2010); and the chapter on “Defending With Independent Counsel for Insured,” in California Liability Insurance Practice: Claims & Litigation, CEB, 1991 (with annual updates issued 1992-2010).

Judge Miles is a former member of the California Legislature’s Joint Committee on Tort Law and served as a member of the California State Bar’s Attorney Civility Task Force.

WARE AND JAMS there is no god

Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:02:27 -0400

Effective Saturday, September 1, District Judge Claudia Wilken becomes Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, replacing retiring District Judge James Ware as chief.

By statute, United States district chief judges are selected based on a combination of age, seniority and experience and may serve in the post for a maximum of 7 years. 28 U.S.C. § 136. By application of this statute, Judge Wilken is the next district judge eligible to serve as chief upon Judge Ware’s retirement.

Judge Ware has been a United States district judge since 1990 and has served as chief since January 1, 2011. Before becoming a federal judge, Judge Ware practiced law in Palo Alto, California and served for two years as a judge of the Superior Court in Santa Clara County.

According to Chief Judge Ware, “Providing leadership to the Court in my capacity as Chief Judge has been an extremely rewarding part of my judicial career. I wish to thank and commend my colleagues, my staff and the talented and diverse employees of the Clerk’s Office, the Probation Office, the Pretrial Services Office and the Public Defender as well as the Marshals Service, the United States Attorney and the bar of this Court. It is good to know that the Court is in such good hands as I prepare to pass the leadership of the Court to Judge Wilken.”

Upon leaving the bench, Judge Ware plans to join JAMS in San Francisco beginning September 4th, 2012. Judge Ware’s remaining cases will be randomly assigned to other judges.

For case assignment purposes, Judge Wilken will remain in the Oakland Division of the Court. All cases now pending before Judge Wilken will therefore be unaffected by her change in status.

About becoming Chief Judge, Judge Wilken notes: “I am honored and excited to have the opportunity to serve this outstanding federal court in this new capacity. I look forward to working with my colleagues and our court staff to maintain and improve the services the court offers to the public even in the face of the significant budget constraints facing the United States Courts.”

CRIMINAL AT CAL SUPT CT AND BACKER OF STATE BAR

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 23:54:54 -0400

Allegations of greed, betrayal , and breaches of trust of the most sacred kind were leveled against a California justice in conjunction with financial contributions made by various law firms and financial institutions to an entity headed by the justice’s spouse.

Specifically, in a lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court, prominent Marina Del Rey-based legal expert Dan Dydzak alleges that California Supreme Court Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar obstructed justice by participating in a scheme to boost the financial well-being of an entity (the Institute on Aging or “IOA”) headed by her husband, David Werdegar.

(L-R) Dr. David Werdegar of IOA; California Supreme Court Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar; Matthew Werdegar of Keker & Van Nest Where Straw Man Jon Streeter Serves as the President of the State Bar of California.

The suit avers that Justice Werdegar failed to inform interested parties of the fact that entities such as brokerhouse Charles Schwab and law firm Morrison & Foerster, for example, are major donors to the IOA, totaling tens of thousands of dollars.

Dydzak alleges that he sustained legal injury due to his role in suing Charles Schwab on behalf of a client — a former paramour of Charles Schwab co-founder, Hugo Quackenbush — and subsequent retaliation by various entities that sought to silence him (and his client), including the now-defunct law firm of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin which previously represented Charles Schwab.

According to Dydzak, once his allegations of retaliation by Howard Rice and others were presented for adjudication before Justice Werdegar, she had an absolute duty to either obtain a waiver from Dydzak or recuse herself because of Charles Schwab’s financial donations to IOA, neither of which she did.

Dydzak further alleges that Werdegar’s failure to take these steps stemmed from a civil conspiracy entered into by the various parties, and specifically Charles Schwab and David Werdegar, by which Justice Werdegar would rule against Dydzak, ipso facto preventing him from further developing the case against Charles Schwab because this would have exposed Charles Schwab’s various alleged unlawful activities while at the same time enriching her husband David Werdegar financially — and, by extension, enriching her as well.

Shortly before Dydzak filed his lawsuit, David Werdegar abruptly resigned from his post as the CEO of IOA.

The Institute on Aging is a San Francisco-based senior care facility. It started as part of Mount Zion hospital (a client of Howard Rice) , and metamorphosed into its current format.

The overwhelming majority of IOA funding is provided by the City and County of San Francisco, which has a contractual relationship with IOA, and by donations by primarily Jewish foundations, such as Lisa and Matthew Chanoff, the Rose and Eugene Kleiner Family Foundation, the Koret Foundation, Bernard and Barbro Osher, and the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund.

JUDY JONHSON FORME STATE BAR OFFICAL

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 23:48:07 -0400

2010 Johnson left the State Bar of California in disgrace after a prolonged embezzlement of close to $800,000 by employee Sharon Pearl was discovered, and after California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed State Bar related legislation as a result.

Johnson was recently also the subject of a complaint to the IRS for alleged noncompliance with various laws and regulations. The complaint alleges CCPF and Johnson defrauded and mislead the public by intentionally omitting various data from CCPF’s web-site. Specifically, data concerting financial transactions between CCPF and an entity known as Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety (“CARS”). In addition, the complaint also point to various alleged inconsistencies in the reporting of grants from CCPF to CARS.

Ms. Judy Johnson, who after 2 Governors’ vetoes and endless scandals (including financials) was ousted as executive-director of the State Bar of California. Johnson was part of sham entity CaliforniaALL and also secretly headed CCPF for the past 8-9 years. During this period, she used her “clout” as the head of the agency to arrange for “cy pres” from class action settlements, as well as fines and settlements imposed by the CPUC on utility companies, totaling close to $30 million to be funneled to CCPF, which then forwarded those funds to various other non-profits, and mostly questionable ACORN-like entities located in South Los Angeles. As mentioned previously, vexatious and strange movements of money from CCPF to Michael Shames’ UCAN — entity presently subject of grand-jury investigation in San Diego. See complaint against CCPF to IRSHERE

CARS is a non-profit entity located in Sacramento, California. It was established and is headed by Rosemary Shahan. In addition to heading her own non-profit entity (CARS), Shahan also serves as an “adviser” to CCPF. See http://consumerfdn.org/advisors.php

According to sources familiar with the situation, CCPF professes and declares that it lists on its website all the grants it has issued and all the corresponding grantees going back to 2001. When visiting CCPF’s website, one is given the option to search by year or the name of the grantee. A search for grants funneled to CARS yields only 2 results – a grant in 2006 in the amount of $60,000, and another in 2009 in the amount of $7,400.

One can also visit http://consumerfdn.org/granteesList.php for a list of all the grantees. (See also here .)

Each of the above search options yields the same result – to wit, only 2 grants are listed that were made to CARS. Unfortunately, however, this allegedly is not the case, as CCPF’s own tax returns provide otherwise. For example, page 28 of CCPF’s IRS Form 990 for 2004 lists a $60,000 grant.

This misrepresentation is allegedly the fruit of an unlawful conspiracy between Judy Johnson and Rosemary Shahan, and is very troubling on its face. This is particularly true given that Ms. Shahan, who serves as an adviser to CCPF, and presumably is familiar with the content of the website, should have alerted CCPF that the information presented is inaccurate and false, by omission and otherwise.

In addition, sources allege that various inconsistencies were discovered in connection with two types of grants from CCPF to CARS: the first is the Consumer Auto Advertising Fund (“CAAF”) grant and the second is the Bank of America (“BA1″) grant.

In 2004, CARS reported to the IRS revenues from all sources in the amount of $91,009. (See page 28 of CARS 2004 IRS 990 return.) By comparison, CCPF reported that it had funneled to CARS $60,000 from the CAAF grant, and $61,215 from the BA1 grant.

Also in 2004, CCPF reported a leftover “payable” of $61,212 from the BA1 grant which it holds in reserve for future payment to CARS.

In 2005, CARS reported to the IRS revenues from ALL SOURCES in the amount of only $58,212. (See CARS 2005 IRS 990 returns.)

By comparison, in 2005 CCPF reported funneling $60,000 to CARS out of the CAAF grant. This, according to the sources, already raises a red flag as it shows that CARS under-reported its revenues for 2005 by the difference of $1,788. (See here on page 22.)

Most importantly, however, in 2005 CCPF also reported an additional $48,970 distributed to CARS from the BA1 fund, leaving only $12,242 in reserve as “payable.” (See entry on page 22.)

Unfortunately, the sources maintain, no corresponding reference to the $48,970 was found on CARS’ 2005 tax returns.

CaliforniaALL

During the period that Douglas Winthrop, Holly Fujie of Buchalter Nemer, Annette Carnegie of Morrison & Foerster, and ex-CPUC Commissioner Geoffrey Brown were serving as board members for the California Bar Foundation, a highly unusual financial transaction took place in which approximately $780,000 was quietly transferred, causing the California Bar Foundation to end the year in the red.

Upon further examination, it was discovered that the money had been transferred to a newly-created Section 501(c)(3) non-profit entity (headed by a friend of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakayue — Ruthe Catolico Ashley) known as CaliforniaALL.

Mr. Geoffrey Brown, professor of law at JFK School of Law. Between 2001 to 2007 served as Commissioner with the CPUC. From 2006 to 2009 Brown serve as director with the State Bar of California Foundation (DBA “California Bar Foundation”). In 2008, California Bar Foundation quietly transferred $769,247.00 to sham entity CaliforniaALL — which also obtained additional 1.5 Million from utility companies. In reaction to complainant’s request for an inquiry to the State Bar of California Board of Governors, Brown immediately, as though bitten by a snake, threatened to file legal action even though the communication with the BOG was absolutely privileged and justified, and only made mention of Brown in passing. Brown is still under extreme scrutiny in matters relating Judy Johnson’s CCPF and the saga known as “Bribing Pat.” (image:courtesy photo)

Ruthe Catolico Ashley came up with the idea to create CaliforniaALL during a meeting with Sarah Redfield and Peter Arth, Jr. (the assistant to CPUC President Michael Peevey).

After CaliforniaALL came into existence, Ms. Ashley, after a simulated search, was selected to serve as CaliforniaALL’s executive director.

Redfield – a visiting professor at McGeorge School of Law and a member of the State Bar of California Committee of Access to Justice — was chosen to serve as the “interim executive director” for CaliforniaALL, and later also allegedly served as a consultant to CaliforniaALL. For her services, Ms. Redfield was paid for the year of 2008 close to $160,000 as an “independent contractor.” Even though CaliforniaALL was housed pro bono at the law offices of DLA Piper in Sacramento, there is an entry on CaliforniaALL’s tax return for close to $16,000 for “occupancy.”

Papers were filed with both state and federal agencies to allow CaliforniaALL to operate as a tax exempt entity. Victor Miramontes listed himself as Chairman of the Board. Serving as CaliforniaALL’s legal counsel was Susan Mac Cormac of Morrison & Foerster.

In its brief existence from 2008 to 2010, donations to CaliforniaALL came primarily from utility companies (including AT&T, Sempra Energy, Verizon, and PG&E). In its brief existence from 2008 to 2010, CaliforniaALL collected close to $2 million, including an unlawful and unusually large sub rosa contribution of $780,000 from the State Bar of California Foundation (DBA California Bar Foundation) in 2008.

CaliforniaALL was abruptly dissolved in July 2010.

According to Redfield’s resume, between 2008 and 2009 she had “launched” CaliforniaALL, participated in RFP, and “launched” the Saturday Academy of Law at U. C. Irvine.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Instead, as most transactions involving CaliforniaALL, the California Bar Foundation and the State Bar of California, it is imbued with fraud and egregious acts dishonesty and deception as even documents obtained from the Santa Ana Unified School District make no mention of Sarah Redfield in connection with the Saturday Academy of Law at UC Irvine.

Redfield’s resume, below, alleges she had “launched” CaliforniaALL, participated in RFP, and “launched” the Saturday Academy of Law at U. C. Irvine.

Similarly, CaliforniaALL’s own publication indicates that with CaliforniaALL’s grant funds, U.C. Irvine developed and implemented the Saturday Academy of Law, and that by 2009 CaliforniaALL’s mission was visibly at work through the program. See below.

Specifically, the Saturday Academy of Law has been in existence for many years, and is part of the University of California Irvine’s Center for Educational Partnerships (CFEP), which has many programs to benefit the community, such as “UCI Saturdays with Sciences,” “Saturday Academy in Mathematics,” and the like.

For example, as part of a field trip to law firms, the photo below was taken in 2005 when the UCISAL group visited the law offices of Sheppard Mullin.

In 2007, UCISAL paid a visit to Allen Matkins. (See below.) We have intentionally blurred the photo to maintain the students’ privacy. Seated on the right is Robert Hamilton. On the far right is Karina Hamilton, a former Allen Matkins associate, wife of Robert Hamilton, and Director of UCISAL.

Please double-click on the photo for full view.

In fact, UCI’s own literature gives no credit to CaliforniaALL. (See below.)

Additionally, claims by Sarah E. Redfield to the effect that she was part of both the CURRICULUM COMMITTEE and OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE are also false, fraudulent, and were otherwise spun from whole cloth.

While Professor Redfield was part of the Oversight Committee, she was not part of the Curriculum Committee. In fact, the sources maintain that close examination of SAL Curriculum shows that it was similar to the curriculum in the years before CaliforniaALL was even established, with emphasis on exceptions to the First Amendment such as time, place, and manner.

See below, misleading claims by Professor Sarah E. Redfield, which falsely mention Curriculum Committee :

State Bar of California Board of Governors member Gwen Moore of GEM Communications. Both Moore and her mentor — Kamala Harris’ former paramour Willie Brown — were the target of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Bribery and Special Interest (BRISPEC) sting operation known as Shrimpscam. On the right is Willie Brown’s “Mentee” Derek Anthony West (AKA Tony West) Previously of Morrison & Foerster. Presently Acting Associate Attorney General, the third highest official at the United States Department of Justice. West’s sister-in-law — Willie Brown’s former paramour — is California attorney general who was also part of CaliforniaALL. As previously reported, Morrison & Foerster partners Voice of OC’s James Brosnahan (who represented El Paso Corp during California Energy Crisis), Susan Mac Cormac, Raj Chatterjee, as well as former partners Tony West, Annette Carnegie, Lori Schechter and Dian Grueneich are all under extreme scrutiny by TLR/YR with respect to the unsettling events surrounding CaliforniaALL in connection with former CPUC Commissioner Geoffrey Brown of California Bar Foundation, State Bar of California Executive Director - Voice of OC’s Joe Dunn - who investigated the California Energy Crisis, Voice of OC’s Martha Escutia who also investigated the California Energy Crisis, and Voice of OC’s Thomas Girardi / Pierce O’Donnell who litigated matters relating to the California Energy Crisis opposing James Brosnahan (Image: courtesy photos)

To date, data collected shows that CaliforniaALL (which was supposed to forward most of those funds) transferred between $300,000 to $400,000 to the UCI Foundation (where Joe Dunn serves as trustee), spent an unknown amount to honor Gwen Moore at a lavish dinner held at a luxury hotel in Sacramento, paid for other incidental expenses such as salaries, and subsequent to moving out from the offices of DLA Piper to a more modest location , paid for a UPS Store mail box slot in Citrus Heights.

Between 2001 and 2007, Geoffrey Brown served as a Commissioner with the CPUC. From 2006 to 2009, Brown served as a director of the State Bar of California Foundation. In 2008, California Bar Foundation quietly transferred $769,247.00 to CaliforniaALL. CaliforniaALL never acknowledged receipt of the $769,247.00 from the Cal Bar Foundation in any of its publications, although it did acknowledge the transfer on its IRS tax returns. Likewise, California Bar Foundation never acknowledged the largest grant it ever bestowed in its newsroom, the California Bar Journal, or similar publications; it did, however, recognize the transfer on its IRS returns, and in a 2 by 2 inch blurb in its annual report.

See below Cal Bar Foundation newsroom which makes no mention of the subrosa transfer of funds.

In 2008, serving as President of the Foundation was Mario Camara. A joint letter published and signed by Camara and Hatamiya also made no mention of the hush-hush transfer. Wasn’t Mr. Camara proud of it, just like he was proud of other money which went to support “pipelines?” After all, CaliforniaALL was also intended to support “pipelines”. See below:

Below an image taken from CaliforniaALL own newsletter which alludes to the fact that the State Bar of California is a “Founding Partner” of CaliforniaALL. Stingy with credit and despite the transfer of close to $780,000 from the California Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL, only utility companies are listed as “Founding Funders.” See below:

Serving on the board of directors of CaliforniaALL (which was in a partnership relationship with the State Bar of California) were State Bar employee Patricia Lee, Kamala Harris, CPUC Commissioner Timothy Simon, as well as Judy Johnson, whom California Governor Jerry Brown — cousin of Geoffrey Brown — appointed to a judgeship in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. See below:

ANOTHER STATE BAR SCAM

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:03:00 -0400

Home » California State Bar Court Lacks Fundamental Knowledge of Loan Modifications

California State Bar Court Lacks Fundamental Knowledge of Loan Modifications

When it comes to the subject of getting one’s mortgage modified, very few actual “experts” exist. This undoubtedly seems an unlikely truth to many people, which only serves to further illustrate my point.

There are millions of homeowners who have experience dealing with their own loans and respective servicers, but as any true expert in the subject would readily tell you, there’s nothing consistent about the process of getting a loan modified. Not only do things change over time and between servicers, but the fact is, every single loan modification is a snowflake… there are no two that are exactly alike.

There are precious few in government who would claim to have studied the subject, and a small group who have been involved in helping thousands of homeowners through the process over the last four years. And even these individuals are often missing key perspective or current information.

I do understand why this is the case, and it’s truly a fascinating dynamic, but it doesn’t change the fact that today it is inexcusable for anyone in policy, regulatory or leadership positions to lack even rudimentary knowledge of something that is so significantly impacting the lives of millions of American families.

Inexcusable, and yet my research and extensive experience establishes that without question, this is far too often the case and the result is both tragic and costly to us all.

The area that seems to be least understood centers around the question of whether homeowners applying for a loan modification require the assistance of an attorney. The obvious answer would seem to be that it’s up to the individual homeowner, but in California at least, the state’s legislature and bar association is involved.

On numerous occasions over the last year, I’ve had the opportunity to see the California Bar Association’s inexperience related to loan modifications up close, and now that lack of knowledge is threatening to cause even more harm to the people of California than it already has. I’ve seen state bar prosecutors and even state bar judges that know almost nothing about the subject of loan modifications, and yet they are charged with regulating the legal profession as related to lawyers providing loan modification services.

What could possibly go wrong?

In point of fact, the State Bar’s so-called interpretation of a California law incredibly may soon prevent homeowners from hiring a lawyer to assist with a loan modification even if they want one.

There have no doubt been a hundred thousand homeowners in California alone who have engaged the services of an attorney in order to get their loan modified, and perhaps more than that, but you won’t hear from them or ever know who they are. They never told a soul that they were having trouble paying their mortgage, and they certainly didn’t tell anyone when a lawyer succeeded in getting their loan modified. But that doesn’t mean they’re not out there, in fact they’re quite likely your neighbors.

I know this to be true, as I’ve personally communicated with literally thousands of them over the last four years, and I continue to do so on a daily basis today.

I should mention that I have also communicated regularly with hundreds of attorneys involved in foreclosure defense, bankruptcy and loan modifications during that same time frame and today, and this past year I’ve had the opportunity to see how servicers handle loan modifications and how elected representatives in several state legislatures think about the topic.

California’s Response to Scams…

In October of 2009, California’s governor signed into law a bill known as SB 94. The new law precluded attorneys and Department of Real Estate (“DRE”) licensees from charging advance fees when providing loan modification services. The impetus for the bill was obvious… distressed homeowners at risk of losing homes to foreclosure were getting ripped off by companies claiming to be able to save their homes.

That much was clear, but not much else. In a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, and recognizing that there was no all-encompassing solution available, politicians responded with a bill making advance fees illegal, and in truth they did a good job… SB 94 as written was actually very well crafted.

You could say that it hasn’t worked in the sense that scammers haven’t stopped scamming, but while that’s certainly true, it doesn’t mean that the law hasn’t accomplished anything. For example, I’ve recently learned that there are many loan modification companies marketing services in every state but California, and that is a direct result of SB 94.

The problems associated with SB 94 haven’t been the result of the bill’s actual design, but rather from its implementation under the purview of the California State Bar Association.

Here’s how the advance fee prohibition was described in the legislative notes from the April 1, 2009 hearing held by the Chair of the Senate Committee on Banking, Finance and Insurance, Senator Ron Calderon, who sponsored the bill.

“This prohibition is intended to prevent persons from charging borrowers an up-front fee, providing limited services that fail to help the borrower, and leaving the borrower worse off than before he or she engaged the services of a loan modification consultant.”

I can’t think of anyone that would even try to make a credible case that those aren’t all laudable objectives.

To accomplish SB 94’s intended purpose, the legislation’s operative language was used verbatim to apply both to DRE licensees and attorneys. In other words, the following section is duplicated word-for-word when applying to lawyers or DRE licensees.

“… it shall be unlawful for any person who negotiates, attempts to negotiate, arranges, attempts to arrange, or otherwise offers to perform a mortgage loan modification or other form of mortgage loan forbearance for a fee or other compensation paid by the borrower, to do any of the following:

Claim, demand, charge, collect, or receive any compensation until after the person has fully performed each and every service the person contracted to perform or represented that he or she would perform.

(You can find that language in Business & Professions Code Section 10085.6, which applies to DRE licensees, and California Civil Code Section 2944.7 (1), which applies to attorneys licensed to practice law in California. And it’s important to note that it is IDENTICAL LANGUAGE in both places.)

However, as applied to DRE licensees, SB 94 went a step further by amending B&P 10026, to specifically and exclusively prohibit real estate and mortgage professionals from breaking up the services related to a loan modification.

10026. The term “advance fee” as used in this part is a fee, regardless of the form, claimed, demanded, charged, received, or collected by a licensee from a principal before fully completing each and every service the licensee contracted to perform, or represented would be performed. Neither an advance fee nor the services to be performed shall be separated or divided into components for the purpose of avoiding the application of this section.

The applicable sections of California’s Business and Professions Code are found in Division 4 of the code, which applies ONLY to real estate licensees and NOT to attorneys. And, B&P Code Section 100116 defines “licensee” as “a person, whether broker or salesman, licensed under any of the provisions of this part.”

The last sentence in B&P 10026 makes clear that a DRE licensee offering to provide loan modification services, is not permitted to view those services as individual components, rather they must view the loan modification as a single service and therefore cannot be paid until that service has been completed.

The drafters of SB 94, however, chose not to limit attorneys in that way, as there is no corresponding language in the legislation that seeks to do so.

Obviously, the drafters of the bill were aware of this issue because they prohibited DRE licensees from breaking up services or fees into component parts. The legislative committee chose not to include language that would prohibit lawyers from doing the same.

Therefore, it would seem obvious that a lawyer can, under SB 94, be paid AFTER he or she has “fully performed each and every service the person contracted to perform,” regardless of whether at the “end of the process” or not.

For example, under SB 94 a lawyer could contract to deliver services A, B, C & D… and only once those services were fully completed to the client’s satisfaction… could the lawyer be paid for the those services as agreed, within established ethical boundaries of unconscionable fees, et al. After that, the lawyer could contract to provide services E, F, G & H… and only after those services were fully completed, could he or she receive payment as agreed.

No Advance Fees…

No one in California, or anywhere else in the country for that matter, is talking about advance fees anymore. The FTC’s MARS Rule, which is the governing law in all states but California, allows a lawyer to accept money into his or her trust account and deduct funds as work is completed. And that makes sense… do the work… then get paid for the work. It’s a way of practicing law that’s gone on for a hundred years, or perhaps even longer.

The intent of SB 94 was to prevent homeowners from paying for services in advance and then not receiving them, so by only accepting payment for services that have been fully completed, it seems clear that a lawyer practicing in such a way would be in compliance with the law.

In point of fact, that is the methodology that lawyers have been working under since SB 94 became law, and the California State Bar has been more than aware of that fact. Over the last two years, State Bar investigators have reviewed at least dozens of retainer agreements showing the breaking up of loan modification services and fees without comment.

In addition, literally hundreds of lawyers have contacted the State Bar asking for clarification on this point and yet for more than two years the State Bar declined to publish any sort of specific guidance in response… until this past fall when things inside the State Bar obviously changed.

Now, the State Bar in California is saying that lawyers should do the work… but not get paid until whenever the end of the process is… which is just like saying… work for months and hope someone pays you in a year… it’s never going to happen, no lawyer would ever agree to do it. It effectively prevents a homeowner from hiring a lawyer if trying to save a home by getting a loan modified.

Of course, the State Bar SAYS it’s not trying to stop homeowners from hiring lawyers in this situation, but it’s obviously not true… that’s precisely what they are trying to do. In fact, I’ve heard state bar prosecutors, judges and other executives opine that they didn’t believe that lawyers should be providing loan modification services to homeowners.

The California State Bar has formed an opinion based on almost no knowledge of the subject, that will harm hundreds of thousands of homeowners and increase the state’s budget deficit in the years ahead.

Only in California…

The California State Bar Association is unique in that it is the only state bar in the country that functions as both a regulatory agency and a trade association. California is the only state in the nation with independent judges dedicated to ruling on attorney discipline cases.

In reality, the State Bar has been under pressure by members of the state legislature for the past 25 years, with the accusations revolving around the State Bar being too lenient when disciplining attorneys. But one need only look back to the November 2010 issue of the California Bar Journal to get a good solid feel for what’s been going on.

State Bar Task Force Moves to Address Legislative Criticism

A State Bar Board of Governors task force took steps last month to respond to legislative criticism that the bar may not be meeting its public protection mission.

“The legislature perceived that the bar was putting the interests of lawyers ahead of the interests of the public,” said bar President Bill Hebert, chair of the Task Force on Governance in the Public Interest.

Hebert went on to cite examples in which lawmakers were discerning a bias in favor of attorneys at the expense of the public. To give you an idea of what went on, here are two of the examples her cited:

A Find Legal Help feature on the website that didn’t allow for searching by practice.

Opposition to a bill prohibiting attorneys from receiving upfront fees for loan modification services.

I think everyone would have to agree that is a very clear example of pressure by the state legislature. But, examples in which lawmakers discern a bias in favor of attorneys at the expense of the public,” and the first on the list is, “A Find Legal Help feature on the website that didn’t allow for searching by practice.” That was seen as evidence of bias towards attorneys.

And then further down the list, “Opposition to a bill prohibiting attorneys from receiving upfront fees for loan modification services.”

That item I found fascinating because the California State Bar supported SB 94. In fact, during the summer of 2009, I was shocked that the State Bar would take the position they were taking, and now I know why they ultimately did… intense legislative pressure. The California State Bar was harshly criticized by the state legislature for having a particular stance on a piece of legislation… and so they changed their minds and supported the bill.

Herbert was also quoted in the article as saying…

“We can either take steps as the bar’s board of governors to retain control of the State Bar as an arm of the Supreme Court or the legislature is going to make those decisions for us.”

So, the State Bar was actually threatened by the legislature to either support SB 94, or risk being stripped of its authority as a disciplinary agency. That is wrong to the point of being scandalous. If your vote can be mandated then you have no vote at all, right? This is a judicial branch of government being coerced by the legislative branch. This is why the U.S. Constitution describes the separation of powers.

I had always wondered why the State Bar was taking their position on this issue. Why would any bar association want to prevent a consumer from being able to hire a lawyer if that consumer wanted to do so? Now I know the answer to that question.

Back in 2009, I started posing this question to numerous attorneys around the state and they all said that it’s because, in this specific instance, there’s a public protection component… in other words, the State Bar is doing what they’re doing to protect the public from being scammed. But, here we are more than two years later and this argument simply doesn’t hold water, as they say.

According to the State Bar, in 2011 there were 2,500 cases considered for formal charges… the percentage that had anything to do with loan modifications represents fewer than 3 percent of that total. As you’ll see described in greater detail just below, during the more than two years since SB 94 became law, only 69 attorneys have been found deserving of some sort of discipline… and of those, only 18 have been disbarred.

Now, I am not saying that’s good news, by any means, but in a state with over 200,000 lawyers and two million homeowners in foreclosure or seriously delinquent, 69 lawyers being disciplined and 18 being disbarred does not seem to me to be an epidemic, nor does it seem adequate basis for supporting a law that you believe prevents homeowners from hiring attorneys to assist them in getting their loans modified in order to save their homes.

And it’s important to remember that no one is saying that lawyers should be paid in advance. What is at issue is whether a lawyer can be paid AFTER he or she has completed the work that he or she has contracted to complete. The law created by SB 94 says nothing about the lawyer having to wait until “the end of the process” to be paid. The law says nothing about a lawyer not be able to break up the services related to a loan modification into component parts… only a DRE licensee is prohibited from doing that.

So, now we can see that the State Bar wasn’t originally supporting SB 94. Only after the state legislature characterized the Bar’s opposition as being evidence that the Bar was “putting the interests of lawyers ahead of the interests of the public,” did the State Bar support the bill.

I recently spoke with an attorney who was a member of the California State Bar’s Board of Governors in 2009, as SB 94 was being introduced and the State Bar’s support was being coerced… I mean… requested. He remembers the issue quite clearly as he was among those that opposed the bill as applied to lawyers. His reasoning was identical to my own back then: It wasn’t necessary… ripping off a homeowner for thousands of dollars was already illegal.

That thinking proved to be true, by the way. NONE of the 18 lawyers disbarred having to do with foreclosure avoidance were found to be violating SB 94. The existing laws were apparently more than adequate for prosecuting bad guys.

If the State Bar or anyone else wants to protect consumers from being ripped off, the answer is to tell homeowners where they can go for legitimate assistance. People only get scammed when they don’t know where to turn for legitimate… so they look online and get ripped off. Of course, the standard line just keeps being repeated in that regard: Call your bank directly or call a HUD counselor. And if either of those things worked, we wouldn’t be talking about this now.

In September of 2011, at the State Bar’s annual meeting, Suzan Anderson, the State Bar’s “supervisor and special prosecutor of the Special Team on Loan Modification Fraud,” appeared as a speaker at 8:00 AM on the first day to tell the lawyers in attendance that the State Bar would now be interpreting SB 94 to mean that a lawyer providing loan modification services could not be paid until “the end of the process,” although what that exactly means remains unclear.

It’s no secret that Suzan’s appearance was a reaction to members of the state legislature putting pressure on State Bar Executive Director Joseph Dunn to “clean up the backlog of attorney discipline investigations by year’s end.”

Dunn brought in Jayne Kim as the new interim OCTC, which stands for Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, and “THE RECORDER,” a leading news magazine for the legal profession, reported the story here: Zero Hour for the State Bar.The January 6, 2012 article begins as follows…

“Jayne Kim’s mandate was clear.

Cut the California State Bar’s backlog of attorney discipline investigations. To zero. And do it in four months.

Legislators in Sacramento were hounding the Bar about the backlog. State Bar Executive Director Joseph Dunn recruited Kim from the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles to get results on the long-standing problem.”

That was the beginning of the State Bar’s rush to close out the hundreds of cases in the backlog of investigations. It was also when the State Bar started using SB 94 as a ‘hammer’ with which to pressure lawyers into accepting a settlement without the need for any sort of trial or hearing, which would require a significant amount of time that the State Bar simply did not have.

The State Bar’s marching orders were clear and widely known… they were to ‘clean up the Bar’s backlog,’ in a hurry… and Jayne Kim was seen as the right prosecutor for the job. Also from the January 6, 2012 article in THE RECORDER…

“But it’s difficult to get a clear picture of just what she’s achieved.

The Bar says the backlog is now at zero, but won’t provide a breakdown of how many of the resolved investigations actually led to disciplinary charges.

The Bar’s been faulted in the past for lack of clarity in reporting its backlog numbers. In one recent report, the Bureau of State Audits said the annual discipline reports needed to be more informative. The same report dinged the Bar for skewing results — because of a change in methodology, for example, the Bar reported that the time it takes to close investigations had decreased between 2004 and 2007, when in fact the average investigation time had increased by 34 days.

Kim gave a bigger-picture take on her office’s productivity last year: The Bar fielded close to 20,000 inquiries from the public in 2011, she said, and about 5,000 of those were deemed worthy of investigation. Of those, about half were dropped and the other half put up for consideration of formal charges.”

Those numbers are helpful when compared with the number of lawyers accused of some type of violation related to loan modifications. According to the State Bar, they have “pursued disciplinary charges related to loan modification services involving about 153 attorneys.”

Of those, only 69 have been disciplined in some way, which includes anything from being required to attend an ethics class to a temporary suspension.

Since 2009, 18 attorneys in California have been disbarred related to providing loan modification services.

While I would agree that any number of scammers is too many, those numbers simply do not justify an attempt to stop lawyers from representing homeowners trying to get their mortgages modified.

(On my podcast with David Cameron Carr, a former State Bar prosecutor (for 12 years) who is now an Ethics and Bar Defense lawyer practicing in San Diego, he describes what has been happening at the State Bar in very candid terms.)

The Basis for the State Bar’s “Interpretation”

The State Bar claims that its interpretation of SB 94 is based on the words “each and every,” which are found both in California Civil Code 2944.7 and B&P Code 10085.6, as follows…

Claim, demand, charge, collect, or receive any compensation until after the person has fully performed each and every service the person contracted to perform or represented that he or she would perform.

I don’t want to appear overly critical here, but basing anything on the idiom or phrase, “each and every” is just not a well thought out position.

For one thing, as mentioned earlier, the language in 2944.7, which applies to attorneys, is IDENTICAL to the language found in B&P Code 10085.6, which applies to DRE licensees. So, if “each and every” was intended to prevent someone from breaking up loan modification fees or services up into component parts, then why would the legislative committee have gone the step further and amended B&P Code 10026 to read…

Neither an advance fee nor the services to be performed shall be separated or divided into components for the purpose of avoiding the application of this section.

In other words, if B&P Code 10085.6 use of the words “each and every” already prohibited the breaking up of fees and services into component parts, then B&P Code 10026 is entirely redundant and wholly unnecessary.

The other problem with relying on “each and every” as the basis for the State Bar’s interpretation is that the use of “each and every” alone leaves an incomplete statement. For example, it could say that you cannot be paid until you’ve completed each and every service involved in obtaining a loan modification. It doesn’t say that, but it could have been written that way.

Or, it could say that a lawyer cannot be paid until he or she has completed each and every service required prior to the borrower being approved for a trial modification, and once again, it simply wasn’t written that way, but it certainly could have been.

Or, how about each and every service the client asks you to complete? Or, each and every service deemed necessary by the servicer?

The idiom or phrase, “each and every” is merely used for emphasis. In this instance one might just as easily have used “every” by itself, or even “all,” for example.

… until after the person has fully performed ALL of the services the person contracted to perform or represented that he or she would perform.

This “each and every” argument is nothing more than a transparent attempt to find words that can be argued support the State Bar’s forgone conclusion as to what the law should say… but simply does not say.

The State Bar used the same sort of logic when, shortly after SB 94 was signed by the governor in October 2009, it published its interpretation of the new law as it pertained to the use of trust accounts, which it said were not allowed under SB 94.

Consider the use of the word “compensation.” Money placed into a client trust account is without question, not considered compensation… it is the client’s money, and lawyers get in trouble all the time for misappropriating these funds held in trust.

Claim, demand, charge, collect, or receive any compensation until after the person has fully performed each and every service the person contracted to perform or represented that he or she would perform.

The State Bar justified its interpretation that disallowed the use of client trust accounts by stating that it relied on the word “receive.” One might reasonably ask the question, “receive what,” because “receive compensation” would seem to allow lawyers to accept a client’s funds into their client trust account and deduct them as earned.

More lawyers are disbarred or seriously disciplined as a result of trust account violations than anything else, and that’s because the money in trust is not the lawyer’s money. Unless we’re talking about SB 94 and a loan modification in which case the State Bar chooses to focus on the word “receive?”

It’s also worth noting that in the other 49 states, the FTC’s Mortgage Assistance Relief Services, or MARS for short, governs lawyers and loan modification services, and it requires the use of client trust accounts. Only in California do we prohibit the use of trust accounts and only when a lawyer is assisting a homeowner with a loan modification.

The State Bar’s Response…

In response to my articles and podcasts on this subject, the State Bar has recently gone even further by attempting to scare homeowners who are considering hiring a lawyer related to their loan modification by planting a story in the LA Daily News. Here’s a link to my article covering the press release driven story, which does provide the Daily News story in its entirety: A New Low for the California State Bar, but to give you the flavor of what the article says, here are opening sentences from that Daily News story:

“Paulette Breen sensed something was wrong when her home loan modification made her mortgage payments more expensive.

Suspecting fraud, the Van Nuys resident hired a lawyer to sort things out.

That only made things worse.”

Please note that the woman whose story is featured obtained her loan modification on her own, without legal counsel, and only hired a lawyer when she was unhappy with the outcome she had been able to obtain on her own, and yet the story goes on to talk about SB 94 restrictions on advance fees, which had NOTHING to do with what happened in her case.

Two Things Are Now Clear…

There are two things that have recently become clear to and at a minimum they should make all lawyers feel insulted and all homeowners nothing short of enraged.

The first is that the State Bar now clearly intends to succumb to pressure by the legislature by stopping lawyers from being able to assist homeowners related to loan modifications and even further, with their mortgages in general.
And the second is that I have personal knowledge of the State Bar’s level of knowledge and understanding of the subject and it is rudimentary at best… in fact, it borders on total ignorance.

Last fall I was asked to testify at a State Bar hearing as an “expert witness,” and after being questioned by the prosecutor for almost an hour, and the court certifying me as an “expert” on subjects such as loan modifications and the foreclosure crisis, I went on to testify, but I could tell from looking at the faces of the judge, the prosecutor and even the defense attorney, that I was teaching more than testifying. I got the distinct impression that many of the things that I was saying, they had never heard before.

Many lawyers have told me that State Bar prosecutors made clear that the State Bar’s interpretation of SB 94, doesn’t allow a lawyer to break up loan modification services into components and be paid as the work is finished. The prosecutors have stated that lawyers “were not permitted to be paid until the end of the process.”

When asked to define exactly when the “end of the process” actually was, however, no one at the State Bar really knows. Was it when the trial modification was denied for the first time, because that only signifies the first appeal, or was it when a permanent modification was granted, because that’s really dependent on the borrower making his or her trial payments on time? Or how about when the servicer dual tracks a borrower and ends up unexpectedly foreclosing and selling the home right in the middle of the loan modification process?

On more than one occasion State Bar prosecutors have replied that they didn’t think banks were even doing trial modifications anymore.

Anyone familiar with the process of getting a loan modified already cringed at this reply coming from a State Bar prosecutor, because it is undeniable evidence that he knows nothing about the subject and yet is prosecuting lawyers for violating SB 94. There are no two ways around that conclusion, as trial modifications are inseparable to the subject of loan modifications or payment terms under SB 94.

Similarly, State Bar judges have also made statements that are more than troubling. More than one has said that in his opinion lawyers should not be allowed to provide loan modification services, or that lawyers should not be able to be paid until the end, although again, a definition of “the end” never seems to be offered.

One judge was quoted as having said…

“All I know is what is put in front of me and I just think lawyers should just stop taking on loan modifications.”

Everyone reading this needs to understand something here: The State Bar has NEVER put the controversial issues inherent to SB 94 on trial, so the judge making that statement has never had the benefit of hearing testimony or reviewing evidence related to the topic on which he opined during this settlement conference.

The judge’s views, therefore, were not well founded, rather it’s clear that they could only have formed as a result of some extremely limited experience, or more likely they’d been influenced by State Bar prosecutors, which constitutes a real life example of the blind leading the blind.

Now, let me be blunt… I am not really criticizing State Bar judges or prosecutors. I understand that they know so little about loan modifications that they don’t even realize the damage their views could cause. I testified in front of Judge Platel last fall and I found him to be absolutely wonderful in every way. I think he was fair, intelligent and caring… I would have a very hard time believing it, were someone to tell me he ever did anything improper.

But, I also know from my day in his court, that he doesn’t know nearly enough about what’s going on in real life in California as related to loan modifications, and how badly hundreds of thousands of homeowners need help. The State Bar may be politically motivated at times, but I still have to believe that if they knew more, they’d change their current position. And, of course, maybe not… maybe I’m be naive.

Although legitimate and ethical lawyers have helped a hundred thousand or more homeowners get loans modified in California, it’s not something homeowners ever talk about publicly, as I said. And the attorneys that help them either can’t talk about it… or they don’t want to, for fear of the State Bar’s wrath. So, how would anyone who isn’t directly involved, come to know any of the details.

SB 94 Never on Trial…

As I mentioned, the State Bar has never put its so-called interpretation of SB 94 on trial, and I believe the reasons for this are more than evident.

First of all, they’ve never needed to, as the threat of prosecution has caused attorneys to accept relatively minor discipline rather than take the risk and assume the financial burden of a trial. And for another, the State Bar knows that their interpretation of SB 94 is very likely not going to prevail at trial…. or, in plain language, they know it’s quite possible, if not probable, that they’ll lose.

I say this for one reason: SB 94 simply does not say what the State Bar wants it to say.

And here are a few clips from the law library on how laws are to be interpreted… by what they say…

“The starting point for any issue of statutory interpretation… is the language of the statute itself.” United States v. Bly¸510 F.3d 453, 460 (4th cir. 2007). “We have stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statue what it says there. When the words of a statute are unambiguous, then this first canon is also the last: ‘judiciary inquiry is complete.’” Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 (1992) (quoting Rubin v. United States, 449 I.S. 424, 430 (1981).

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the plain meaning rule, stating that if the language of a statute or regulation has a plain and ordinary meaning, courts need look no further and should apply the regulation as it is written.” Id. In most cases, a textual reading will be dispositive. United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989). “absent some obvious repugnance to the statute, the… regulation implementing [TILA] should be accepted by the courts.” Anderson Bros. Ford v. Valencia, 452 U.S. 205, 219 (1981).

The State Bar certainly knows that their own prosecutors and even their judges don’t know much about the subject. So, it’s difficult for me to imagine that a prosecutor who, knowing that he knows little about a topic would relish the thought of trying a case against a defense attorney with extensive knowledge of the subject matter.

The problem facing the State Bar and lawyers involved in helping homeowners with loan modifications today, is that the Bar’s “cleaning up of the backlog” continues to sweep legitimate and ethical lawyers into its net, and these lawyers are less likely to back down and accept the State Bar’s settlement of minor discipline. In at least two cases, the lawyers being strong-armed by the Bar have told me they want and will have their day in court.

Several State Bar insiders have told me that this situation has made the State Bar “angry.” In fact, one of my sources described the Bar as having become “irrationally angry,” and feeling like they’re being “backed into a corner.”

And the only reason for the State Bar to be angry is because they’re scared… they have put themselves into a terrible position in many ways, and I don’t care what they do or don’t do… I won’t stop screaming until my right to hire an attorney is assured.

I personally speak with and receive emails from thousands of homeowners at risk of foreclosure each month, and have been for over three years. As such I’ve had a front row seat for the unfolding of the foreclosure crisis like no other.

I can state unequivocally that servicer abuses are as commonplace as ever, and that the majority of homeowners require a significant amount of assistance if they are to get their loans modified. And we should all understand that if homeowners cannot find legitimate assistance, they will find illegitimate assistance, which means they’ll get ripped off for thousands of dollars all over the state on a daily basis, which is what is happening today.

In Conclusion… the State Bar’s Agenda Must Not be Allowed to Prevail…

I believe that there should be no question about the following…

The California State Bar’s so-called interpretation of SB 94 is wrong and moreover they know it’s wrong, but they are under extreme pressure from the banking committees in the state legislature and left alone they will ultimately make it impossible for California homeowners to hire a lawyer when at risk of foreclosure.
I also know that the unintended consequences of SB 94 are causing great harm to at least tens of thousands of California homeowners annually, and if the State Bar prevails, the damage to our state, to say nothing of the damage to individual families, will be incalculable.

My goal is simply to make sure that California homeowners who want to hire a lawyer to help them get their loan modified are able to do so… and to the extent possible, without fear of being scammed.

The California State Bar must be forced to design a more thoughtful answer to the problem of scammers than attempting to effectively eliminate legitimate attorneys who can provide assistance to California’s homeowners during this unprecedented crisis.

Three years ago there were those that would say that homeowners didn’t need a lawyer to get their loan modified. They were wrong and back then I would reply that in fact many do. But today, three years later, I have watched 4,000 homeowners attempt to get through the process on their own, and I’ve received over 30,000 emails from homeowners all over the country… and the FACT is… it’s just not something most people can do on their own.

Telling homeowners they didn’t need a lawyer… that they could just call their bank directly or contact a HUD counselor was at best misleading… but more accurately, it was a LIE.

The well documented abuses by servicers are every bit as prevalent today as they ever were. While it’s true that some servicers have gotten better at dealing with the loan modification process… many homeowners have gotten worse. Now more than ever we will need our lawyers to get through this crisis with the minimal amount of collateral damage.

If you have a contrary opinion on this issue that is based on some individual past experience, I strongly urge you to realize that were the State Bar to stop its intimidation of legitimate and ethical lawyers from helping homeowners, there would be thousands that would help. The scammers wouldn’t no longer be able to survive and it’s highly likely that your own experience would have gone differently.

If we ignore this issue, then very soon California homeowners will literally be on their own, there won’t be any legitimate lawyers left willing to help them get their loans modified. Litigation will increase as will bankruptcy filings, eventually bringing our courts to a standstill as they are in Florida.

Your state assembly representative and state senator needs to hear from you on this issue. You should care a great deal that you have access to legal counsel, should you decide you want or need it… no matter what… always and forever. No government agency or special interest group should be allowed to take that away from an American citizen… EVER.

so the octc are quasi military police?

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:10:14 -0400

On Aug. 6, the Chevron refinery fire in Richmond billowed clouds of black smoke that could be seen across the bay. The next day, Richmond attorney Nick Haney arrived at his storefront office at 8 a.m. to discover a long line of prospective clients waiting. After giving some thought to whether he wanted to get involved, Haney decided he’d take on some clients if they had what he considered provable harm. He added some staff and put two handwritten signs in his storefront window saying “Chevron Fire Claims Here.” By Aug. 8, Haney’s window displayed a printed sign saying “Chevron Claims Filed Here,” and the line of people seeking Haney’s services had gotten so long that his assistants had moved out to the sidewalk to speed up the intake process, “asking hopeful claimants to show proof they had seen a doctor,” according to the Aug. 9 San Francisco Chronicle. Accompanying that Chronicle article, on the front page above the fold, was a picture of the line in front of Haney’s office.

Later that day, the State Bar showed up.

While Haney attended to business in his Bolinas office, State Bar investigators from the Office of Trial Counsel, wearing identifying windbreakers, descended on the Macdonald Avenue corner that houses Haney’s storefront. They went into the crowd lined up in front and handed out a flier on State Bar letterhead that said “Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Enforcement,” and was headed “IMPORTANT NOTICE.” The notice ended like this:

“If you need a lawyer, consult the beginning of the ‘Attorney’ listings in the yellow pages for the names of State Bar certified lawyer referral services … You may call the State Bar of California toll-free … to obtain names of certified lawyer referral services or to report lawyer solicitation.”

The investigators refused to speak with the press to explain their presence. So when they then physically entered Haney’s office, it appeared at least on one news report that evening, KTVU, that the State Bar had “raided” Haney. Haney told me later that at least a couple of clients asked him for their papers back, thinking that he was being investigated by the bar.

There is certainly an appropriate role for State Bar investigators at the scenes of disasters or in the halls of nearby hospitals. As the bar’s flier itself states, California ethics rules “prohibit lawyers or others on behalf of the lawyer from:

• Soliciting clients at an accident scene, at a hospital, or on the way to a hospital.

• Soliciting clients who, because of their emotional, physical or mental state, are unable to exercise reasonable judgement [sic].”

State Bar ethics standards 1-400(3) and (4) say almost the exact same thing.

OTC has long sent out investigators to disaster scenes, according to State Bar deputy executive director Robert Hawley. Hawley asserts that there are no specific protocols, guidelines or limitations on the investigators’ responsibilities beyond “educating the public,” and notes that the investigators most often learn of disasters from media coverage. Although no particular person orders them into the field or gives them specific instructions, Hawley says the investigators who respond are the “most senior” people, implying that these folks know how to handle such situations.

But they don’t know, at least in this case. The investigators didn’t go to the disaster scene, but to the environs of the law office pictured in the newspaper. Although the Chronicle clearly stated that Haney’s assistants were out on the sidewalk getting information from prospective clients, the investigators directly contacted the people in line. By going inside Haney’s storefront with TV cameras rolling — and by refusing to explain their presence or purpose to the press — they not only interfered with Haney’s attorney-client relationships, but gave the appearance, at least to some, of a mini-invasion. And that may have had a chilling effect on those seeking counsel, resulting in the collateral (albeit unintended) consequence of driving some people to participate in Chevron’s own claims process rather than hiring their own lawyer.

Hawley says investigators “always ask for permission” when entering a hospital or “community center.” But when asked whether they needed permission to hand out fliers to Haney’s potential clients or even to enter his office, he said “no.” When asked whether Haney’s storefront qualified as an accident “scene,” he argued that the term should be interpreted broadly, and that investigators should report to any “sites where solicitation was taking place.” But while there were indications of “runners” for other lawyers handing out fliers across the street, the crowd in front of Haney’s office was soliciting his services, not the other way around. When asked why the investigators failed to understand this, Hawley, who had touted their experience, noted that they are not lawyers.

How would the Office of Trial Counsel have responded? I don’t know. I attempted first to communicate with chief trial counsel Jayne Kim or her special adviser, former San Mateo County district attorney James Fox, but got a call back from Hawley that he would be my “contact person.”

Putting a sign in a storefront window that says “Chevron Claims Filed Here” is not unlawful advertising, and doesn’t even fall within the definition of “solicitation” (Cal. Rule of Prof’l conduct 1-400(B)), much less an unlawful solicitation. Perhaps caution flags about Haney were raised at OTC because he’s a solo practitioner with two offices and a Richmond storefront; he seemed to be signing up a high volume of clients; and his website sets forth 16 different kinds of injury cases he handles, from wrongful death to dog bites. But none of those matters warrant discipline, nor do they — or should they — allow trial counsel investigators to apply any different standards to Haney than they would to a 1,000-lawyer downtown San Francisco firm.

For his part, Haney told KPIX-TV reporter Joe Vazquez that he was glad the investigators had responded to shoo away those handing out fliers for other lawyers; that may be unlawful solicitation. But he remains nonplussed at their affirmative acts involving him and his prospective clients. He has consistently insisted that in his 30 years of practice he has “never solicited a client” and never would. And there is no evidence that he did that here.

The investigators’ actions are coupled with a cone of silence and opacity that has long surrounded OTC. Although they claim they protect lawyers under investigation, sometimes it seems they’re just protecting themselves. Haney, upset and concerned when he learned that the investigators had been inside his office, called the bar and eventually got a call back from one of the investigators who had been at the scene. “Am I being investigated by the bar?” he asked. “I can’t tell you that,” said the investigator. When I asked Hawley the same thing, I got the same response: “We can’t comment on specific investigations.”

Maybe OTC lawyers need to develop some guidelines for these situations. At the least, it seems that they owe Nick Haney a phone call to tell him he’s in the clear.

Richard Zitrin is a professor at UC-Hastings and of counsel to San Francisco’s Carlson, Calladine & Peterson. He is the lead author of three books on legal ethics, including The Moral Compass of the

to big to go after by octc?

Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:38:36 -0400

McGuire Woods: Violated Ethics Laws, Won’t Get Fees in BAR/BRI [Amanda Royal] BAR/BRI may be paying $49 million to law students who overpaid for test materials, but it won’t be paying the lawyers at Los Angeles-based McGuire Woods (free reg. req.) who secured the class action settlement. McGuire Woods lost its latest round of appeals when U.S. District Judge Manuel Real ruled earlier this month that the firm violated ethics laws and denied its $12 million in attorneys fees. McGuire Woods had offered incentive payments to some, but not all, of the named plaintiffs in the class action against BAR/BRI, Ryan Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., No. 05cv3222 (C.D. Calif.). Another plaintiff’s firm had objected to the fees, arguing that the class representative had no reason to push for a higher settlement once their incentive payments capped out. That created a conflict of interest for McGuire Woods, they argued, who ended up representing two sets of plaintiffs with opposing interests. Judges at the Ninth Circuit agreed with that reasoning last April, and tossed the case back to Real. The Los Angeles-based firm can still file a motion for reconsideration with Real or appeal again to the Ninth Circuit.

PROOF THAT OCTC AT STATE BAR WILL NOT PROSECUTE DAs

Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:53:37 -0400

T POakland Prosecutor Back on the Job After AG Declines to File Charges By Cynthia FosterContactAll Articles The Recorder August 3, 2012 SAN FRANCISCO — An Alameda County prosecutor is back on the job after state authorities declined to file criminal charges over allegations she ordered the jailhouse recording of a murder defendant and defense expert witness.

OCTC does not need criminal or civil liability to prove up their cases at state bar court (especially in remeke or mcelroy courtrooms). OCTC stop the madness see SANTA CLARA LAW REPORT re DA misdeeds (criminal in nature).

OCTC OF STATE BAR A SLEEP AT THE WHEEL WHEN IT COMES TO DAs

Sun, 05 Aug 2012 21:36:15 -0400

SAN JOSE — On the campaign trail in Santa Clara County in 2010, Jeffrey Rosen fashioned himself as the district attorney candidate who cared about ethics, the one who would restore trust in the 180-lawyer office after a series of well-publicized missteps going back more than a decade.

Seen in that light, allegations of discovery misconduct against prosecutor Troy Benson — allegations backed by two courts who have reviewed them — could be a chance for Rosen to underscore his campaign promise.

Instead, Rosen is keeping quiet, for now, saying he’ll decide on any discipline after Benson’s State Bar trial in October.

A year and a half into his term as district attorney, Rosen is getting favorable marks for his efforts to reform the office. But it can be tricky walking the line between showing his prosecutors he has their backs and showing voters he can effectively command the highest ethical behavior from his employees.

In the few instances of alleged misconduct presented to Rosen, he’s responded in three different ways: He yanked one prosecutor off a case, vociferously defended another, and, in Benson’s case, punted.

Rosen is keenly aware that his actions in these cases are being watched closely.

“There are a small number of situations involving a very small number of people who have fallen short of the most ethical practices of prosecution,” Rosen said. “I need to correct them, and sometimes that involves disciplining them, and if I don’t discipline them, then it’s just words. It’s just bullshit.”

Prosecutorial misconduct goes all but unpunished in California, a report released two years ago by the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University School of Law found. In their analysis of state and federal appellate court rulings from 1997 to 2009, the researchers, led by law professor Kathleen “Cookie” Ridolfi, found that the State Bar publicly disciplined only 1 percent of the prosecutors judges found to have committed some form of misconduct.

Six Santa Clara County prosecutors were named in the report, including Ben Field, whose State Bar discipline case for Brady violations ended in a four-year suspension.

Former DA Dolores Carr was quick to stand behind line prosecutors like Field accused of misconduct, Ridolfi said.

“In my experience, Dolores Carr did as much or more to protect prosecutors accused of wrongdoing as anyone I’ve seen in that office,” she said.

When Rosen challenged Carr for the DA job, Ridolfi said she was skeptical. A career prosecutor, Rosen has been at the district attorney’s office since 1995.

“I heard Jeff’s promises, and I tried to listen to them, but I certainly would not put my eggs in any prosecutorial basket without them first earning my trust,” she said.

But in his short time leading the office, Ridolfi said, Rosen has made his mark, rapidly changing the reputation of the office and turning it into a model in California.

“He makes his decisions with integrity,” Ridolfi said. “If it means a prosecutor in his office needs to be criticized, he’ll do it. If it’s unfair criticism, he defends them.”

Benson’s the exception. But supporters and critics of the accused prosecutor point out that his situation is complicated by his looming trial date and the fact that behind the actions he took back in 2006 lies a systemic failure to identify and hand over an entire category of potentially exculpatory material as required by Brady v. Maryland.

‘JUSTICE, JUSTICE, SHALL YOU PURSUE’

So far, Rosen has done a lot that satisfies traditional critics of the DA’s office. Unlike many district attorneys in California, he supports scaling back the state’s Three Strikes law and has determined that 60-some three-strikers in Santa Clara County merit shorter terms or release from prison, according to the San Jose Mercury News. He has taken over making charging decisions on officer-involved shootings and issues comprehensive reports on each incident, rather than bringing them to a grand jury — a victory, some say, over secrecy and lack of transparency. And he has taken up with renewed vigor a plan to revamp the protocols for eyewitness identification law enforcement agencies in the county use.

Rosen said his office and law enforcement agencies in the county are open to reform, thanks in part to Silicon Valley’s culture of rapid technological updates.

“There’s such a strong influence from the high-tech industry and all these companies and businesses that have been started here,” Rosen said. “They’re very used to trial and error, and I think that openness to data and science pervades this county and has been absorbed into law enforcement here and in our DA’s office.”

On top of his policy changes, Rosen is also literally remaking the office — he went on a hiring spree, making 34 new hires since he became DA.

Rosen, who studied moral philosophy as a college student and who idolized Harry Truman as a young man (“The buck stops here,” he likes to say, quoting the idiom Truman popularized), comes off a little like the star student in ethics class. Sitting in his suit behind an impeccable desk — not a pile of paper in sight — Rosen points to various words he has framed on his walls, whether it’s a poem by Rudyard Kipling or Deuteronomy 16:20: “Justice, justice, shall you pursue.”

Rosen said he came into office not wanting to simply win convictions, but to get just results. And while prosecutorial misconduct gets all the attention, he said, lazy prosecutors are just as big of a problem. He’s bird-dogging both in his office. “If you’re thinking about cutting corners,” he said, “don’t.”

Among the things Ridolfi and others cite as evidence of the progress Rosen has made on ethics and minimizing wrongful convictions is his revival of a conviction integrity unit and putting veteran prosecutor David Angel — who’s counted among top management — in charge of it.

Angel, who ran a similar unit that was disbanded during Carr’s term, responds to allegations of factual innocence. He spearheads policy decisions that Rosen hopes will cut back on wrongful convictions. Angel also supervises the law and motion team, which handles allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.

Molly O’Neal, acting public defender, said the lines of communication between her office and Rosen’s are open. She’s also optimistic about the changes Rosen is making.

“He campaigned on an ethics platform, and he’s really done a lot within his own office to expose prosecutors who were problematic for him in terms of ethics,” she said.

O’Neal said the way to do that was in not turning a blind eye to problem prosecutors, as well as training new prosecutors on their ethical obligations.

She acknowledges the challenge Rosen faces, particularly with disciplining prosecutors: “You don’t want to create a witch-hunt atmosphere so prosecutors act on their cases based on fear rather than what’s the right thing to do.”

J.J. Kapp, a supervisor in the public defender’s office, said one way Rosen’s made an impact is by promoting people to supervisory positions “that are people like him — honest prosecutors, ethical.”

In terms of discovery fights, Kapp said, there may still be some trickling down that needs to happen.

“I think overall it’s a positive picture, and it doesn’t just happen in a year.”

Dallas Sacher, head of the Sixth District Appellate Program, said not enough time has passed for Rosen’s influence to be observable in cases now on appeal.

But “looking from afar,” he said, “it seems to me the guy’s been true to his word.”

He pointed to the fact that Rosen pulled deputy district attorney Daniel Carr (no relation to the former DA) off of a gang murder case a little more than a year ago after Carr released evidence 26 days before trial — potentially short of his Brady obligation.

“I thought that was a proper way to teach his employees that they were supposed to be forthright in the discovery process,” Sacher said.

Rosen wouldn’t say whether the reassigning of that case constituted a punishment of Carr.

“What I can say is that given the allegations in that case and Judge [Griffin] Bonini’s findings in that case, what was best for that case was to have another prosecutor handling it.”

But it was a very different story when defense lawyers accused prosecutor Vicki Gemetti of misconduct during trial last month in a high-profile San Jose priest-beating case. Defense attorneys for Will Lynch, who was accused of attacking the priest he said molested him as a child, filed a motion for a mistrial, arguing that Gemetti withheld evidence, lied about it, and suborned perjury from her key witness, the priest.

According to the Mercury News, Gemetti had told jurors in her opening statement that she didn’t know how the priest would testify on the question of whether he molested Lynch — that he might not be truthful.

In its motion, the defense contended that she suborned perjury by calling a witness she believed might lie.

The defense lawyers also contended Gemetti committed misconduct because they’d asked her repeatedly in discovery requests how the priest would testify, and she had said she did not know. They claimed that Gemetti had interviewed the priest in his lawyer’s presence, and that he told her twice that he hadn’t molested Lynch and would testify that he hadn’t under oath.

Eugene Harris, a defense attorney for Lynch with Geragos & Geragos in Los Angeles, texted Gemetti the night before he filed the misconduct motion for a mistrial, urging her to talk to her supervisor about dismissing the case. “Don’t want to get you in trouble,” he texted. “You know that. … Please talk to ur boss and get rid of this case. I don’t want to have to do this.”

The next morning, according to Gemetti’s declaration, Harris, with mistrial motion in hand but not yet filed, told her he’d received several emails from lawyers who wanted to report her to the State Bar. In chambers, he suggested Gemetti might need to get her own lawyer, given her alleged misconduct.

In its opposition to the mistrial motion, the DA’s office argued that the defense had advanced a novel legal theory that failed to show Gemetti had done anything but uphold the law “with the utmost candor and professionalism.” The DA’s office said Judge David Cena explicitly found on the record in chambers that she did not commit misconduct.

Harris — who lost the motion but won the trial — maintains that Gemetti’s actions were “extraordinarily unethical.”

“Not only is it a major Brady violation, this is exactly what prosecutors are not supposed to do. I think it was just an example of a prosecutor playing games.”

Rosen stands by Gemetti wholeheartedly.

“It was completely without merit, and we aggressively defended her in court,” he said. In his comments to the press after the jury returned a defense verdict, Rosen said, he praised her hard work and integrity in the case.

Rosen says he will only stand up for prosecutors who have done nothing wrong. “When those briefs and papers are filed, the name’s Jeff Rosen on that pleading, and it wouldn’t be filed saying the prosecutor did everything right if I didn’t think that.”

the brief on benson

A Santa Clara County deputy district attorney for 16 years, Troy Benson’s professional life went south in a case in which he won a conviction against a man accused of molesting his 7-year-old granddaughter.

The defense had learned post-conviction that there was a videotape of the victim’s medical exam, which had never been turned over — though Benson had produced photographs from the exam. The ensuing investigation uncovered that medical exams of alleged sexual assault victims have been routinely videotaped since 1991, and that many more of them hadn’t been routinely turned over to the defense as potentially exculpatory evidence.

After a 13-day evidentiary hearing over the course of 10 months, Santa Clara County Judge Andrea Bryan found in January 2010 that Benson had failed to turn over certain evidence to the defense — then lied to the court about it — calling his misconduct “grossly shocking and outrageous.” The Sixth District Court of Appeal agreed last September.

Benson’s attorney in the State Bar case, Jonathan Arons, says Benson discovered the sexual assault video and quickly informed the court, and he’s been punished ever since. On top of that, the public defender’s office knew about the existence of the sexual assault videos just as early as the district attorney’s office, he asserts.

“If they knew about it, why isn’t there some hue and cry about the way the public defender’s office has handled those cases in the past?” Arons said. “I think that the State Bar is missing the point.

Arons describes his client as the victim of overzealous State Bar lawyers eager to show that — despite the Innocence Project’s 2010 findings on prosecutorial misconduct — they’re tough on prosecutors.

“The truth is very different from what’s been portrayed, especially about Troy,” he said.

“It is unfortunate that he is the one who’s being called to task for whatever failings there may have been in the office for some years about how they address a host of things.”

Benson sympathizers frame his State Bar trial as an opportunity to blow up the thin “he said-he said” evidence that led Bryan to find misconduct. Prosecutors, public defenders and judges might be called to testify.

Asked about what he’ll do if the State Bar concludes Benson committed misconduct, Rosen said he’ll take “appropriate action.”

Asked if he has already reviewed Benson’s conduct, Rosen sat silent, thinking, for 13 seconds. He had, he said, but it was a personnel matter he couldn’t talk about.

Kate Moser is a freelance writer.

JUST DONT CALL HER A NAPPY HEADED HOE OR U WILL GET DISBARRED

Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:47:27 -0400

Paso attorney faces suspension Nick Wilson A Paso Robles attorney faces a suspension of his license for the second time in recent years after a July 2 ruling by a judge in the State Bar Court of California that he improperly collected a fee from a client in 2008. Adam Ranald Fairbairn was charged with obtaining an allegedly illegal $10,000 fee in a probate case and for failure to refund the money. State bar court Judge Pat McElroy also found him culpable of an act of moral turpitude, meaning he did something dishonest or corrupt by professional standards. The state bar court, which recommended a two-year suspension of Fairbairn’s license, operates separately from criminal or civil court. Its role is to protect the public and maintain professional standards for attorneys. Fairbairn had a previous nine-month suspension of his license and a criminal conviction related to his firing of a gun at two men who tried to repossess his truck in 2006. He told The Tribune that he plans to remedy his latest case and resume his career. “This isn’t my first rodeo,” Fairbairn said. “It seems like I’m a moving target. … I plan to fix this and practice again.” Under California law, lawyers for executors of wills are supposed to obtain a court order for the payment of fees for services and Fairbairn never did so, McElroy wrote in her decision filed July 2. Fairbairn engaged in “a scheme” with the executor of an estate to violate probate statutes and obtain a $10,000 fee from a beneficiary, which he refused to return, McElroy ruled. Fairbairn was hired by Paula Fisk, the executor of her aunt Marilyn June Neal’s estate. Neal died in August 2007. According to McElroy, Fisk wanted some of Neal’s mineral rights because she had been Neal’s primary caretaker. Neal’s two children were named as her beneficiaries of the estate. In a February 2008 letter, Fairbairn demanded $10,000 each from Neal’s children — Bruce Brymer and Lynette Potter — for the executor and attorney’s fees associated with administration of the estate. The letter also spelled out that if they couldn’t pay, then one-third of their interest in the mineral rights of Neal’s estate would go to Fisk. Brymer paid Fairbairn the money in March 2008, taking investment funds from his 401(k) plan. But Potter told Fairbairn she couldn’t make the payment and signed over one-third of her mineral rights to Fisk. Fisk later learned that Fairbairn was in County Jail from the 2006 shooting incident and sought to be dismissed from the ongoing probate. A judge granted the dismissal, causing her one-third mineral rights to be voided. In her ruling earlier this month, McElroy recommended a two-year suspension of Fairbairn’s license and additional conditions that he must meet to practice again, including repayment of the client’s money plus 10 percent interest from March 14, 2008, to the present. The judge took into consideration Fairbairn’s prior record regarding the shooting incident, for which he was convicted criminally in San Luis Obispo Superior Court of three counts: felony assault with a firearm, discharging a firearm with gross negligence and misdemeanor brandishing a firearm. The California Supreme Court can impose an order regarding Fairbairn’s latest case if he doesn’t file a notice for review of the state bar court ruling within 30 days, according to California state bar spokeswoman Laura Ernde. In his defense, Fairbairn cited numerous references of good character, including statements from his doctor and a correctional officer. Former Paso Robles City Councilman Jim Heggarty said that Fairbairn helped get a scholarship foundation started and was a “pillar of the community.”

IS HE ANOTHER (WARE) GOT UR BACK CAL STATE BAR?

Fri, 03 Aug 2012 09:43:45 -0400

President Obama Nominates Jesus Bernal to Central District Court

By a MetNews Staff Writer

President Obama yesterday nominated Jesus G. Bernal, directing attorney of the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Bernal, 48, has been a deputy federal public defender in the district since 1996. He worked in the Los Angeles office until 2006, when he took up his present position in Riverside.

He is also a former secretary of the Riverside County Bar Association.

He began his legal career as a law clerk to then-Judge David V. Kenyon of the Central District from 1989 to 1991. He was admitted to the State Bar in 1990, and after completing his clerkship worked for almost five years as a litigation associate at the law firm of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe LLP in Los Angeles, focusing primarily on complex civil litigation.

He graduated from Yale University in 1986 and Stanford Law School in 1989

IS HE ANOTHER (WARE) GOT UR BACK CAL STATE BAR?

Fri, 03 Aug 2012 09:31:06 -0400

President Obama Nominates Jesus Bernal to Central District Court

By a MetNews Staff Writer

President Obama yesterday nominated Jesus G. Bernal, directing attorney of the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Bernal, 48, has been a deputy federal public defender in the district since 1996. He worked in the Los Angeles office until 2006, when he took up his present position in Riverside.

He is also a former secretary of the Riverside County Bar Association.

He graduated from Yale University in 1986 and Stanford Law School in 1989

Attorney Calls Shenanigans on Ethics Commission, Wins Appeal - Ethics - U.S. Sixth Circuit

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:57:55 -0400

Attorney Calls Shenanigans on Ethics Commission, Wins Appeal - Ethics - U.S. Sixth Circuit:

CAL STATE BAR WATCH OUT!

ONLY HISTORY OF CAL STATE BAR CONFIRM LIERS I.E. REMEKE

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:24:29 -0400

legislation written by Senate President Pro Tem John Burton which changed the appointment process for three judges, transferring the appointing authority from the Supreme Court to elected officials and eliminating the position of one non-lawyer judge. Discounting fears that the new process might politicize the bar bench, the Supreme Court upheld the legislation and ruled that it retains the ultimate authority over attorney discipline. Obrien said the new appointees are individuals of high integrity and have allayed his concern about politics. But he remains worried, he said, that “the appointing authorities may either reappoint or withhold reappointment based upon the nature of the rulings.” And, he added, there is a possibility “we won’t be so fortunate in future appointments.” The new judges insist politics won’t enter into their deliberations. Robert Talcott, named to the bar court by Gov. Davis, said he originally disagreed with the Burton legislation and did not think it would be upheld. But, he joked, “now that I’ve been appointed, I’m fully in favor of it.” In a more serious vein, he acknowledged the perception that politics might play a role in the appointment process, but said the professionalism and integrity of the new judges help mute that concern. Paul Bacigalupo, named to the bar court by Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, and Jodi Remke, appointed by the Senate Rules Committee, both offered assurances that they won’t be swayed by politics in their rulings. “I believe I was appointed based on merit, experience and my commitment to the administration of justice,” Bacigalupo said. “I don’t think it’s a legitimate worry,” Remke added. “I’m not concerned I would be swayed by outside forces.” Talcott, who served on the bar board of governors with Obrien and sat on the first selection committee for new judges, said the court is exactly what the board originally hoped for: “a highly professional discipline process that is fair to all of those who are affected by it or participate in it.” Talcott, who has a long record of public service as well as private practice, said he considers serving as a bar court judge “probably the single most important job in the overall judiciary in the sense that it really is a public protection position.” Bacigalupo, who came from private practice as a litigator specializing in employment, construction and business litigation, also has extensive experience as a judge pro tem, mediator, arbitrator and a hearing and settlement officer throughout Los Angeles County. “This is a fascinating opportunity to serve the bar and the community,” he said. “It has been my ambition.” Remke acknowledged hearing concerns about the State Bar while working as a staff attorney for the Senate Judiciary Committee, but was not involved in any legislation affecting the bar. Instead, she said, she was interested in attorney discipline and the public’s perception about lawyers. Since joining the court two months ago, she has been impressed that the bar has tried to address legislative concerns dealing with funding, operations and streamlining. She and the other judges also said they are impressed with the professionalism of the bar’s prosecutors and the court staff, as well as with how seriously all parties seem to view disciplinary proceedings. Remke said the staff is extremely streamlined now and as the court’s caseload grows, staffing levels may have to be re-examined. Talcott said he quickly noticed that about half the attorneys appearing before the bar court represent themselves and suggested they could benefit from outside counsel. Because disciplinary charges have such a serious potential result - disbarment, suspension and the loss of a lawyer’s ability to pursue a livelihood — Talcott suggested the creation of a group of volunteer attorneys to support those representing themselves. He acknowledged that a small number of lawyers represent respondents, but said economic issues often prevent those facing disciplinary charges from paying legal fees. “I think in a truly fair system, if the Office of Trial Counsel is fully staffed, is full time and has investigators, it should be equally balanced on the other side,” Talcott said. “The respondents just don’t know where to begin.” R

IN 2010, CAL LEG GOT THE STATE BAR TO ADDRESS OCTC AND ITS INCOMPENDENCE THAT HAD BE GOING ON FOR 10 YEARS THANKS TO REMEME MCELROY, OCTC STEEDMAN, BATCHELOR, DENNINGS, RAMERZE AND THE RETIRE ASS ON THE REVIEW DEPT WHO WAS SERVING IN THAT CAPACITY UNAUTHORIZED.

COWARDS CAL SUPT CT? DUH!

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:21:42 -0400

Metropolitan News-Enterprise Monday, June 25, 2012 High Court Sends Discipline Cases Back to State Bar By a MetNews Staff Writer The California Supreme Court has returned 24 attorney discipline cases to the State Bar for a second look in an order that suggests the proposed discipline was too lenient, the State Bar said Friday. In an order issued Thursday, the State Bar explained in a release, the high court sent the cases back for reconsideration “The above-entitled matters are returned to the State Bar for further consideration “in light of the applicable attorney discipline standards,” citing n re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 89-94; and In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205, 220. The Silverton case involved Ronald Silverton, a former Los Angeles attorney who ran unsuccessfully for the State Bar Board of Governors and the Los Angeles Superior Court. A persistent critic of the disciplinary process, he was disbarred in 1975, reinstated in 1992, and ultimately disbarred again for entering into unconscionable agreements with personal injury clients that allowed him to negotiate lien settlements with medical providers and keep the money, in addition to his contingency fees in the personal injury cases. The State Bar Court found that suspension would be adequate discipline in the latter case, but the Supreme Court disagreed and ordered a second disbarment. State Bar Executive Director Joe Dunn commented in a release Friday: “We take the Supreme Court’s citation of the Silverton case very seriously. It is a reminder that our State Bar discipline system must demand the highest professional standards of California attorneys.” Dunn added:: “The Court’s action, while unanticipated, is consistent with the efforts already underway at the State Bar to tighten the professional standards governing California attorneys. The return of these cases gives us an opportunity to further advance this goal.” The State Bar noted that the cases sent back for review predated new policies by current Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim. “Early in her term as Acting CTC, Kim began requiring management approval of proposed discipline to ensure consistency, adherence to the discipline standards and maximum public protection,” the State Bar noted. “Previous practice did not so rigorously require this.” Copyright 2012, Metropolitan News Company

Through a Glass Darkly – The State Bar’s Lack of Transparency On Loan Mod Lawyers - Mandelman Matters

Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:16:20 -0400

Through a Glass Darkly – The State Bar’s Lack of Transparency On Loan Mod Lawyers - Mandelman Matters:

WHAT I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO DOESN’T TRUST THE CAL STATE BAR?

THERE IS A GOD WARE TO RETIRE

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:19:34 -0400

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_20834017/two-bay-area-federal-judge-nominees-named?source=inthenews

At 64yrs he retires. Why? Check out the blogs on the internet re Ware. This guy is a stanfur law graduate and what a lunatic. His next job hiding from the public view. Guess what WARE I am right behind you watching whatelse you may screw up as a legal professional.

LUNATIC BEHAVIOR BY CAL STATE BAR

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:01:00 -0400

CAL STATE BAR WHATS ILLEGALS TO BE LAWYERS. What about the federal law which prohibits hiring an “illegal”? Anyone who hires an illegal i.e. a non lawyer, is guilty of that offense. But the California Supreme Court is to be given a deference if it allows “illegals” to be eligible to be hired in violation of federal law. The bar states that he can do pro bono or act as an independent contractor. So we can assume that he will be in front of HOME DEPO soliciting clients? Pro Bono? Let me see Mr or Mrs. pro bono client, we have an attorney who is in violation of federal law in being here do you want his services? Better yet, a real (criminal) criminal defense lawyer representing criminal defendants a match made in heaven. What we have here (and sorry to say) is another example of state bar lunatic behavior that the supt ct will put its rubber stamp too. By the way I am a second generation Mexican-American, no not a Latino, Chicano or Chulo

boalt77

CHIEF JUDGE LIKES FRIENDS

Chief appoints familiar faces to trial court budget working group

THE ARM OOF THE SUPT CT OF CAL YES IN DEED

Amid Allegations of Bribery Call for Supreme Court of California Justice Ming Chin to Resign

ANOTHER IMBRED FOR THE STATE BAR COURT

WARE AND JAMS there is no god

CRIMINAL AT CAL SUPT CT AND BACKER OF STATE BAR

JUDY JONHSON FORME STATE BAR OFFICAL

ANOTHER STATE BAR SCAM

California State Bar Court Lacks Fundamental Knowledge of Loan Modifications

California’s Response to Scams…

No Advance Fees…

Only in California…

The Basis for the State Bar’s “Interpretation”

The State Bar’s Response…

Two Things Are Now Clear…

SB 94 Never on Trial…

In Conclusion… the State Bar’s Agenda Must Not be Allowed to Prevail…

so the octc are quasi military police?

to big to go after by octc?

PROOF THAT OCTC AT STATE BAR WILL NOT PROSECUTE DAs

OCTC OF STATE BAR A SLEEP AT THE WHEEL WHEN IT COMES TO DAs

‘JUSTICE, JUSTICE, SHALL YOU PURSUE’

the brief on benson

JUST DONT CALL HER A NAPPY HEADED HOE OR U WILL GET DISBARRED

IS HE ANOTHER (WARE) GOT UR BACK CAL STATE BAR?

IS HE ANOTHER (WARE) GOT UR BACK CAL STATE BAR?

Attorney Calls Shenanigans on Ethics Commission, Wins Appeal - Ethics - U.S. Sixth Circuit

ONLY HISTORY OF CAL STATE BAR CONFIRM LIERS I.E. REMEKE

COWARDS CAL SUPT CT? DUH!

Through a Glass Darkly – The State Bar’s Lack of Transparency On Loan Mod Lawyers - Mandelman Matters

THERE IS A GOD WARE TO RETIRE

LUNATIC BEHAVIOR BY CAL STATE BAR