This week, the Los Angeles Business Journal reported that the State Bar has selected a new contractor to clean up a multi-million-dollar, malfunctioning internal computer system after dumping the original contractor for “seriously flawed” work.
This week, too, the Los Angeles Daily Journal reported on new suits being filed relating to the messy departure of Joe Dunn, the state’s former executive director – a continuation of charges and counter-charges of malfeasance and corruption that have rattled the organization for months.
THEY EXIST TO PROTECT LAWYERS FROM THEIR VICTIMS!
HERE'S SHITBAG AVENATTI'S BAR RECORD AS OF 5-22-2019 AFTER BEING INDICTED ON 45 COUNTS
Attorney Licensee Profile
Michael John Avenatti #206929
License Status: Active
Address: Michael Avenatti, Esq., 10000 Santa Monica Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90067
County: Los Angeles County
Phone Number: Not Available
Fax Number: Not Available
Email: Not Available
Law School: George Washington Univ LS; Washington DC
License Status, Disciplinary and Administrative History
Below you will find all changes of license status due to both non-disciplinary administrative matters and disciplinary actions.
Date | License Status | Discipline | Administrative Action |
Present | Active | ||
6/1/2000 | Admitted to The State Bar of California |
CLA Sections: | None |
California Lawyers Association (CLA) is an independent organization and is not part of The State Bar of California.
|
Michael Avenatti Charged with Stealing Money from Stormy Daniels
2:11
Disgraced television lawyer Michael Avenatti was charged Wednesday for defrauding his former client, pornographic actress Stormy Daniels.
Federal prosecutors in New York City said Avenatti used a doctored document to divert about $300,000 that Daniels was supposed to get from a book deal, then used the money for personal and business expenses. Only half of that money was paid back, according to prosecutors. While Daniels isn’t named in the court filing, the details of the case make it clear that she is the client involved in the case.
Shortly after the charges were announced, Avenatti took to social media to deny any wrongdoing.
“No monies relating to Ms. Daniels were ever misappropriated or mishandled. She received millions of dollars worth of legal services and we spent huge sums in expenses. She directly paid only $100.00 for all that she received. I look forward to a jury hearing the evidence,” he tweeted. He has since locked his Twitter account.
Avenatti was previously charged in New York and Los Angeles with trying to extort money from Nike and stealing millions of dollars from clients. He has denied all the allegations.
Attorney Licensee Profile
Michael John Avenatti #206929
License Status: Active
Address: Eagan Avenatti LLP, 520 Newport Center Dr Ste 1400,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
County: Orange County
Phone Number: (949) 706-7000
Fax Number: (949) 706-7050
Email: mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com
Law School: George Washington Univ LS; Washington DC
License Status, Disciplinary and Administrative
History
Below you will find all changes of license
status due to both non-disciplinary administrative matters and disciplinary
actions.
Date
|
License Status
|
Discipline
|
Administrative Action
|
Present
|
Active
|
||
6/1/2000
|
Admitted
to The State Bar of California
|
||
None
|
|||
California Lawyers Association (CLA) is an
independent organization and is not part of The State Bar of California.
|
Additional Information:
Avenatti indicted on 36 charges of tax dodging,
perjury, theft from clients
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-avenatti-indicted-fraud-theft-charges-20190411-story.html
APR 11, 2019 | 11:50 AM
A federal
grand jury has indicted Los Angeles lawyer Michael Avenatti on 36 counts
of fraud, perjury, tax dodging, embezzlement and other financial crimes.
In a sweeping
expansion of the criminal charges against Michael Avenatti, a federal grand
jury has indicted the Los Angeles lawyer on 36 counts of fraud, perjury,
failure to pay taxes, embezzlement and other financial crimes.
Avenatti stole
millions of dollars from five clients and used a tangled web of shell companies
and bank accounts to cover up the theft, the Santa Ana grand jury alleged in an
indictment that prosecutors made public Thursday.
One of the
clients, Geoffrey Ernest Johnson, was a mentally ill paraplegic on disability
who won a $4-million settlement of a suit against Los Angeles County. The money
was wired to Avenatti in January 2015, but he hid it from Johnson for years,
according to the indictment.
In 2017,
Avenatti received $2.75 million in proceeds from another client’s legal
settlement, but concealed that too, the indictment says. The next day, he put
$2.5 million of that money into the purchase of a private jet for Passport 420,
LLC, a company he effectively owned, according to prosecutors.
At the time,
Avenatti and his businesses owed millions of dollars in back taxes, the
government claimed, and his Newport Beach law firm, Eagan Avenatti, was weeks
from bankruptcy.
Federal agents
seized the Honda HA-420 jet at Santa Barbara Airport on Wednesday under a
court-approved warrant that remains under seal, said Thom Mrozek, a spokesman
for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles.
“Michael
Avenatti allegedly stole from his clients, and he stole from the IRS,” said
Ryan L. Korner, the chief of Internal Revenue Service criminal investigations
in Los Angeles. “The money was used to fuel a lavish lifestyle that had no
limits, including making mortgage payments on a multimillion-dollar home in
Laguna Beach and purchasing a private plane.”
The breadth of
Avenatti’s alleged crimes is clear in the maximum sentence he would face if
convicted on all counts: 335 years in prison.
In a separate
federal case in New York, Avenatti faces up to 47 more years if convicted on
charges of trying to extort more than $20 million from Nike, the sportswear
giant. An indictment in that case is expected soon.
Avenatti, who
is free on a $300,000 bond, tweeted Thursday morning that he’d made many
powerful enemies over the last two decades.
“I am entitled
to a FULL presumption of innocence and am confident that justice will be done
once ALL of the facts are known,” he wrote.
His lawyer,
John Littrell, said the indictment proves nothing.
“We intend to
fully investigate the charges and provide Mr. Avenatti the robust defense he
deserves,” Littrell said.
U.S. Atty.
Nick Hanna said Avenatti’s wide variety of alleged crimes were all linked to
one another. Avenatti would use money embezzled from clients to “string along”
other victims to whom he owed money — all in an effort to keep his “financial
house of cards from collapsing,” the U.S. attorney said.
Nick Hanna,
U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, announced Michael
Avenatti's indictment. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
“Mr. Avenatti
received money on behalf of clients and simply took the money to finance his
businesses and his personal expenses,” Hanna said Thursday at a Los Angeles
news conference.
The twin
criminal cases have put Avenatti’s legal career in jeopardy just a year after
he rocketed to fame as the hard-charging and telegenic attorney for adult-film
actress Stormy Daniels in her battle to nullify a nondisclosure agreement with
President Trump.
He lost both
of her lawsuits, and Daniels
now owes the president nearly $300,000 in legal fees, more than double the
$130,000 in hush money that Trump paid her to keep quiet about their alleged
2006 affair.
MAR 27, 2019 | 3:00 AM
In the
California case, Avenatti was initially charged with just bank and wire fraud,
now eclipsed by a wide array of other alleged crimes. Prosecutors said he
submitted phony tax returns and financial statements to Peoples Bank of
Mississippi to secure more than $4.1 million in business loans.
He was also
accused of embezzling from another client’s settlement of $1.6 million. After
the money was wired to one of his bank accounts, Avenatti denied receiving it
even after he’d spent it all on personal expenses, prosecutors said.
On the day of
his arrest, federal agents executed search warrants at Avenatti’s Century City
apartment, his Echo Park law office and the Yorba Linda home of Judy Regnier,
the office manager at Eagan Avenatti, according to the U.S. attorney’s office.
The exact
amount of Avenatti’s alleged embezzlement from the five clients is unclear,
because clients typically must use a portion of their settlement funds to pay
their lawyers’ fees and expenses.
Under State
Bar of California rules of professional conduct, a lawyer must promptly notify
a client of the receipt of any funds they are entrusted to hold for the client
and turn over the money at the client’s request.
In the Johnson
theft, the indictment alleges, Avenatti received $4 million from Los Angeles
County to settle the paraplegic’s suit over his treatment at the Twin Towers
Correctional Facility. Johnson, who was suicidal, jumped twice from an upper
floor of the jail, injuring himself so badly the second time that he can never
walk again, according to the suit.
After getting
the $4 million, the indictment says, Avenatti did not tell Johnson the money
had arrived. He soon funneled most of the money through multiple bank accounts.
It landed in the accounts of GB Autosport, LLC, which managed Avenatti’s
race-car team, and Global Baristas U.S., his troubled Seattle coffee company,
according to the indictment.
Michael
Avenatti advertises his coffee business on his race-car uniform. (Hoch Zwei /
Corbis / Getty Images)
In just over
five months, Avenatti had spent the entire $4 million, but never told Johnson,
the grand jury alleged. Instead, over the next four years, he paid Johnson a
total of $124,000 in installments ranging from $1,000 to $1,900 and made some
rent payments at Johnson’s assisted living facility.
He falsely
told Johnson the payments were “advances” on a county settlement payment that
had not yet arrived, according to the grand jury.
In November
2018, Johnson asked Avenatti to send information on the settlement to the
Social Security Administration so it could gauge his eligibility for disability
payments.
“Knowing full
well that the requested information could lead to inquiries that could reveal”
the embezzlement, Avenatti ignored Johnson’s request, causing the government to
cut off his disability payments two months ago, according to prosecutors.
When Johnson
tried to buy a house with his anticipated payout from the county, the deal fell
out of escrow because Avenatti had “pilfered” the money, Hanna said.
A few days
before his arrest last month, Avenatti was questioned by a creditor in court on
his handling of Johnson’s money. He then falsely told Johnson that he needed to
sign some papers to get the settlement money, the indictment says. Avenatti
also got Johnson to sign a statement saying he was satisfied with Avenatti’s
representation, the grand jury alleged.
Avenatti
posted Johnson’s statement on Twitter on Thursday. “Any claim that any monies
due clients were mishandled is bogus nonsense,” he wrote.
Avenatti’s
alleged tax crimes were both personal and business. Prosecutors say he did not
file personal income tax returns in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 — years when,
according to the IRS, he deposited millions of dollars in his personal bank
accounts.
Avenatti
failed to file tax returns for both of his law practices, Eagan Avenatti and
Avenatti & Associates, in 2015, 2016 and 2017, the government charged.
The grand jury
also accused Avenatti of lying to the IRS about his pocketing of nearly $2.4
million in taxes withheld from the paychecks of employees of Global Baristas
U.S., which operated Tully’s coffee stores in Washington and California.
Prosecutors
say Michael Avenatti withheld nearly $2.4 million from the paychecks of
employees at his coffee business for payroll taxes, but failed to send the
money to the government. (Ted S. Warren / Associated Press)
When the IRS
started garnishing the company’s bank accounts, the indictment says, Avenatti
ordered employees to deposit the stores’ cash and credit-card receipts in new
accounts under a new corporate name. In an email instructing a credit-card
processing firm to switch accounts, Avenatti wrote, “we need this done ASAP.”
A federal
indictment echoes allegations by Jason Frank, above, that Michael Avenatti hid
millions of dollars in Eagan Avenatti assets from creditors and the court that
oversaw the law firm's bankruptcy. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
Avenatti was
also charged with concealing Eagan Avenatti assets from the federal court that
oversaw its bankruptcy in 2017 and 2018. Echoing allegations by
Avenatti’s former law partner Jason Frank, the grand
jury accused Avenatti of signing multiple false court statements, under penalty
of perjury, hiding substantial revenue from Frank, the IRS and other creditors.
The indictment
accuses Avenatti of lying during his June 2017 testimony in the bankruptcy
case. He responded “no” when he was asked whether Eagan Avenatti had received
legal fees when it was representing ticket holders who sued the NFL over
seating snafus at the 2011 Super Bowl in Texas.
In fact, the
indictment says, Avenatti “well knew” that the firm had received nearly $1.4
million on May 17, 2017.
As the U.S.
attorney was announcing the indictment, Avenatti was testifying a few blocks
away in a civil suit by Frank, who is trying to collect a $4.85-million
personal judgment against him. The hearing was cut short when Avenatti invoked
his 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.
Michael
Avenatti Has More Trouble Lurking. Here's His Latest Legal Issue.
Source: AP
Photo/Richard Vogel)
Creepy Porn Lawyer Michael Avenatti has allegedly embezzled almost $2
million. The money was awarded to one of his clients, Alexis Gardner, to settle
her suit against her ex boyfriend, NBA-player Hassan Whiteside. Instead of
turning over the money, Avenatti allegedly blew the money on a private jet,
the New York Post reported.
Whiteside wire transferred $2.75 million of the $3 million settlement to
Avenatti. Although Avenatti was entitled to $1 million of the settlement, he
never handed off the remaining amount, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Avenatti allegedly took $2.5 million and bought a private jet.
“We
entered into a mutually agreed upon settlement more than two years ago
following the end of our relationship; a settlement that reflected Alexis’
investment of time and support over a number of years as Hassan pursued a
career in the NBA,” Whiteside and Gardner told the Los Angeles Times in
a statement released by his agent.
“It is unfortunate that something that was meant to be kept private
between us is now being publicly reported. We have both moved on amicably and
wish nothing but the best for each other.”
But here's the thing: this isn't the only time Avenatti
has embezzled money.
Another client, Geoffrey Ernest Johnson, was a mentally ill paraplegic man
on disability. He won a $4million settlement but Avenatti allegedly gave him a
whopping $124,000.
And it's said that Avenatti embezzled about $4 million from makeup artist
and YouTube star Michelle Phan.
From the Times:
Avenatti is also charged
with dodging taxes, bank fraud, perjury and bankruptcy fraud. In a separate
federal case in New York, he is accused of extortion and conspiracy in his
alleged shakedown of Nike, the sportswear giant.
If convicted on all charges on both coasts, he faces a
maximum penalty of 382 years in prison. Avenatti denies wrongdoing.
According to the Times, Avenatti took to Twitter to say
he hopes the NBA commission looks into the reason Whtieside had to pay the
settlement in the first place.
Naturally, Avenatti locked his Twitter account so that only approved
followers can see his comments.
The
California State Bar/The Model Problem
https://attorneybusters.com/the-california-state-bar/
(Mother Black Widow & Babies)
The State Bar of California is touted as being the
model and mother for other bars across the country, and there lies the problem
in its “Motherly Model” form.
Once you strip away the
pretentious titles used to describe the various self- elected positions, Office
of Chief Trial Counsel, Board of Governors, etc., it is just a club with forced
membership and dues.
The State of California by law,
requires all attorneys practicing law in the state to be members of the
California State Bar.
The State Bar of California, then in return for
the favor of forced membership and dues, is required to act as the
“administrative arm” of the California Supreme Court.
And what is supposed to be the
chief purpose of administration? To administrate a Self-Disciplinary program of
its member attorneys.
What this has led to in its “Model” form is a smoke screen to
frustrate individuals that have a problem with an attorney, and to keep
attorneys out of harm’s way from the general public.
A general public that has many
valid reasons to be ticked off at them.
The State Bar of California has important
sounding titles for their fellow attorney members that discipline each other.
They call themselves judges (not judges elected by the public),
and governors (not elected by the public), and court committees (not the public
court), and appointees to the court (not the public court, but their own
internal court).
For the purpose of discussion,
lets call the State Bar of California, “The Club”.
“The Club” has proud names for “member only services” that are used to
help discipline themselves, such as, “The Ethics
Hotline”.
On the surface, this sounds fine
and noble, however, once the fog lifts, you realize a more accurate title would
be, “Ethics, I Don’t Think I Have Any, Can You Tell
Me What They Are?” or “Ethics, Not Lately, I Think I’m In Trouble”.
But, the titles would be too long
and they wouldn’t sound as good.
Plus, some of us of lesser
intelligence that need protection from ourselves (according to the attorneys)
might actually catch on to their secret “members only” code names.
Let’s look at the Ethics Hotline. This is a toll free number “FOR ATTORNEYS ONLY” that an attorney
can call to see if either something they did, or plan to do, could get them a
warning letter from “The Club”.
The “Ethics Hotline” is courteous as to provide for
attorneys that do not wish to use their own names, the ability to use
“pseudonyms” (an “alias” for us simple folk). The “Ethics Hotline” will even arrange a call back
appointment (for the attorneys to call back) when they don’t want to leave
their number.
This is not a joke!!
“The Club” is working to provide their members the first level of defense
when they are pursued by a client. “The Club” will tell the attorney what things they can cite to deter “The Club” from “getting” them if they do have
a complaint filed against them.
“The Club” (State Bar if you have forgotten) of course says this is how its
members are better disciplined by knowing what ethics are.
However, Attorney Busters.com believes that
if an attorney hasn’t figured out what ethics are by the time they take their
state bar exam, they simply don’t want to know.
There are several CD’s available
concerning what you should look for in an attorney and what to do if you’ve got
a problem with one.
In order to post a complaint
about a bad experience you or a friend has had with a bar association go to the
Cobweb.
*
Hackers
Expose Attorney Corruption At State Bar
Hackers Expose Attorney Corruption At
State Bar
8/31/2017
State Bar Leader Bites the Dust After Cover- Up
Russia, Clinton Emails, Isis and now California's State Bar.
Hackers may truly be responsible for changing the world and many Silicon Valley
Hackers are now turning to clean up California's Courts.
Confidential State
Bar communications indicate that dating
back to 2014, State Bar employees and
contractors; Braulio Munoz, Gregory Dresser, Sherrie Mc Letchie , Lori
Wallerstein and James Towery, willfully
engaged in misconduct at the State Bar that
compromised the private and confidential
records of private citizens who filed complaints against attorneys,
including the social security numbers and home addresses of individuals who attempted to complaint about
unethical lawyers.
Rindskopf, the Bar's latest leader to flee the rapidly
deteriorating lawyer watchdog agency, is reportedly aware the Bar released the private social security numbers,
home addresses , IRS information, credit card and banking records of private
citizens who sought to address bad attorneys, and that the State Bar never
notified these individuals of the release.
Emails and notes
obtained by members of Silicon Valley's most elite hackers show that Rindskopf
has told those closest to her that she is leaving the State Bar after only two
years, before a hurricane of investigations
results in indictments and criminal
charges for many past and present employees, lawyers and judges.
Some of the records leaked to the press from Anonymous
indicate that the Bar repeatedly covered up attorney misconduct and
ignored clear and convincing evidence that showed
former Chief Trial Counsel James Towery threw Joe Dunn under the bus
when Dunn refused Towery's request to cease investigating lawyers in Santa Clara County, where Towery was
appointed as a judge following his
departure from the Bar.
State Bar Compliant files also show that the state's legal
system has become outright corrupt , as it has allowed large law firms and
individual lawyers off the disclosure hook, while judges award these same
unethical firms and lawyers millions in sanctions and fees awards every year.
The records obtained also show that James Towery failed to
make lawful disclosures himself, while working at the State Bar, and while
acting as a judge in Santa Clara County.
Towery's former law firm , Hoge and Fenton, is
reported to have essentially bought the employment position for their
partner , which in return promised
"protection " for Hoge Fenton lawyers, and lawyers inside the Santa
Clara County prosecutor's office, where Towery's wife was employed. Additionally problematic was the fact
that Towery and his wife, Karen Sinunu
Towery saw to it that millions of State
Bar grants went to fund questionable non profits and programs associated with
Santa Clara County University's law programs.
Bar communications also show that Rindskopf is extremely
worried about Hayward v. Superior court. Rindskopf privately admitted, the Bar
clearly first ignored a complaint against Nancy Perkovich before the Hayward
case was decided, and is now scrambling to discipline Perkovich, who is facing
a civil suit for driving one divorce case to incur over $3,000,000 in fees
where Perkovich did nothing for the millions she charged in attorney fees and
costs.
The Hayward case indicates that orders made by attorneys
acting as private judges could mean the voiding of orders in thousands of
California divorce cases, but also the voiding of the orders that were related
to the formation of Facebook, which
could be problematic for Facebook shareholders all over the world.
The Hayward case could additionally entangle
attorneys who acted as private judges, or minor's counsel, in divorce
and large complex civil litigation matters, where lawyers like; Perkovich, Richmond, Hales, Cox,
Crawford, Nat Hales, , Robert
Blevans, Richard Roggia, Brad Baugh,
Valerie Houghton, Tom Tuttle,
Seastrom and Hammon have been known to be making millions off creating
misery of divorce litigants as these
unscrupulous lawyers have made billions of California divorce, probate and
custody cases.
For employees, shareholders and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg
and Sheryl Sandberg, the issues in Santa Clara County family courts may be far
more important then they once believed.
State Bar memos indicate that Jim Towery pressured employees to bury complaints that would have
shown fraud and outright criminal
conduct that could land , now judge,
James Towery, right in jail based on his involvement in Mark Zuckerberg's lawsuit with the
Winklevosses, that ultimately got Facebook anchored in California.
The use of Facebook in legal matters has become an
increasing matter of public interest. In family courts judges are using
Facebook to hold mothers and fathers in contempt of court after they are
stalked on Facebook by their ex spouse and
on (www.dailybusinessreview.com/id=1202796261138/Judges-Facebook-Friendship-With-Attorney-Doesnt-Require-Recusal-Court-Rules) , August 23, 2017, a Florida's
Supreme Court just ruled that a Judge "friending " a lawyer on
Facebook does not require recusal from cases where that lawyer appears before
her. Many litigants now believe that makes Facebook fair game to stalk judges
and lawyers for information to use against them when filling complaints and
reporting judge crimes.
California's State Bar misusing personal information of
private people who file complaints against unethical lawyers must be addressed
urgently by the state's legislature.
State Bar records, obtained by a core group of elite Hackers in
Silicon Valley, show that judges in Santa Clara, Sacramento and Contra Costa
and Orange Counties regularly refused discipline attorney misconduct over the past
30 years, as Canon 3 of California's Judicial Code of Ethics makes mandatory, and the judicial failures have now
seeped into the state's attorney discipline agencies, in a manner that allows
corruption to flourish in the state's courts.
Members of the Public
who filed complaints against an attorney and provided the Bar with
records, or information, that contained social security numbers, bank account numbers or IRS information, are advised to contact :
caljohnqpublic@gmail.com to see if your personal information is in the records
the Bar has carelessly disseminated to the public when handling complaints about attorney misconduct.
The California
State Bar's dismal history shows why it should be broken up
Assemblyman
Mark Stone (D-Scotts Valley), confronts the defeat May 31 of his bill to reform
the California State Bar, which legislators thought did not go far enough. (AP)
Let's put this
in terms that even an attorney with peerless loophole-seeking skills would
consider straightforward: the California State Bar is a mess.
In recent
years, the organization has been the target of withering state audits
documenting misspent fees by the millions, overpaid executives, and
inept management of its all-important duty of licensing lawyers
and managing professional discipline. Its reputation is at a low ebb among
state legislators, who last month placed on hold the organization's yearly authorization to
collect annual fees because the measure didn't go far enough to achieve reform.
The Bar's
dual role as licenser and ethics enforcer as well as trade
organization pushing policy changes, critics say, leaves it
hopelessly mired in a conflict of interest.
"You
don't delegate regulatory power to a special interest group," says Robert
Fellmeth, executive director of the University of San Diego's Center for Public
Interest Law and a frequent critic of the Bar. "To let them be the
decision-makers is obscene."
The Bar should have only
one purpose—to rid the profession of bad apples.
DENNIS H.
MANGERS, NON-ATTORNEY BOARD MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA BAR
These issues seem to crop up every few years, but seldom with as
much urgency as now. That's because a 2015 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court
has put professional licensing bodies on notice that they could be guilty of antitrust violations if a majority
of their members are participants in the business they regulate.
The California State Bar is governed by a 19-member board of
trustees, 13 of whom are lawyers. You do the math.
The Court decision isn't the only driver of potential change.
"People can suffer irreparable harm from attorneys," says Fellmeth, a
lawyer. They can be deprived of their liberty by inadequate representation in
criminal court or immigration cases.
But the Supreme Court ruling sharpens the argument for splitting
the Bar in two — into a trade association with voluntary membership, and a
government body controlled by non-lawyers and responsible for professional
licensing and discipline, much as medical professional standards are overseen
by the Medical Board of California and political advocacy is left to the
independent California Medical Association.
A measure passed by the State Assembly in June 2 would place the "deunification" of the
Bar firmly on the front burner. The bill would create a commission to
reconsider the Bar's governing structure and report back to the legislature by
April. The bill also would restructure the Bar board as a 13-member body
with at least seven non-lawyer members — an effort to comply with the
Supreme Court's 2015 ruling.
Deunification is "the only real solution to the state bar's
chronic dysfunction," says Dennis H. Mangers, a non-attorney Bar
trustee who has submitted just such a proposal to the
legislature. "The Bar should have only one purpose — to rid the
profession of bad apples."
That function often takes a back seat to the policy and social
purposes that make the Bar resemble more a professional club than a regulator,
according to critics. In legislative testimony last April, Fellmeth observed
that the Bar sponsors 30 different programs offering professional services to
its members, often at a group discount, including financial advice, insurance,
consumer products and software. "No other occupational licensing agency
offers any of these goods and services to its licensees," he said.
The Bar tends to hold itself exempt from state rules applied to
other state agencies on grounds that it's an arm of the State Supreme
Court; critics say it still regularly violates the Bagley-Keene Open
Meeting Act, which requires at least 10 days public notice of any meetings
and forbids members to discuss business with each other except in an open
forum, despite a measure passed last year bringing it under Bagley-Keene's
jurisdiction.
Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, the former dean of McGeorge School of Law who took over as
executive director of the Bar last September, T described
herself as "agnostic" on deunification. The organization hasn't taken
a formal position.
But Parker argues that "as officers of the
court, lawyers have responsibility for the good features of our
rule-of-law system." Their duties include "making sure the legal
system is functioning well" along with "educating and informing the
public and the legislature on technical issues in the law."
Breaking up the Bar, she says, could hamper programs to improve
access to the courts for underprivileged clients, since these are funded from
mandatory fee revenue that might not flow from a voluntary organization with a
smaller membership. Still, she acknowledged that all these functions might be
accomplished via "a different set of structural arrangements"
than the present.
The California State Bar cut its disciplinary backlog in 2011 by
lightening penalties, but the backlog of cases has been creeping back up.
In the mid-1980s, the legislature imposed an enforcement monitor
for the organization. Fellmeth, who served in that role for five years,
found that clients were systematically discouraged from pursuing
complaints. For example, the Bar had established a toll-free hotline, but
hadn't listed the number anywhere "a consumer might logically look to find
it."
State Auditor Elaine M. Howle has been turning up the heat. In a
report last year, she ripped into the disciplinary system, especially the Bar's ham-handed management of a
crippling backlog of nearly 5,200 cases in 2010: it reduced the backlog by
two-thirds the following year mostly by settling cases hastily with light
penalties. (Backlogged cases are those in which no action has been taken for
six months or more.)
Some had to be reexamined; of 27 settlements rejected by the State
Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of lawyer discipline, 21 had to be
renegotiated with harsher punishments, including five disbarments. About 10% of
the attorneys who were allowed to continue practicing after the settlements
faced new complaints subsequently, and 28 were eventually disbarred.
Howle found that the Bar was squandering resources that
should have been spent on hiring more enforcement staff. In 2012, the
organization spent $76.6 million to buy and refurbish a Los Angeles office
building to supplement its San Francisco headquarters — about twice what
it spent on discipline that year.
Meanwhile, the case backlog was creeping back up — from 1,742 in
2011 to 2,174 in 2014. Bar officials say the backlog was reduced by about 24%
last year, but they warn that further reductions will require as many as 48
more lawyers and investigators, in addition to the 118 employed at the end of
last year.
The Bar's structure as a combined trade association and
enforcement body dates from 1927 and isn't unique. But their day may
be passing, says Ted Schnayer, an expert on Bar governance at the University of
Arizona.
"I want to clear up any perception of a profession being
permitted to regulate itself," says Mangers, a former state legislator who
will be leaving the board this summer. "Most attorneys never have a
blemish, but the bad ones are beyond your imagination."
Keep up to date with Michael Hiltzik. Follow @hiltzikm on Twitter, see his Facebook page, or email michael.hiltzik@latimes.com.
The California State Bar Has No Clue What It’s Doing
California has a plan to help the people who failed the bar exam... and
obviously it makes no sense.
May
24, 2018 a
California just
posted its worst bar exam passage rate in 70 years, and somehow that’s not the
dumbest news we have about them this week. As California continues its
draconian, trade restricting bar grading policy — despite the pleas of academics, common sense, and a
comprehensive scientific study — and pawn
off the blame for its own market manipulation on “students must be getting
dumber” nonsense, it turns out the California Bar is truly the dumbest of them
all.
An essay on Medium,
penned by a graduate who unfortunately failed the February exam,
unleashes a hilarious broadside against the
tinpot bureaucracy behind the exam. To set the scene, those who didn’t pass the
exam were notified on May 18 with the following message of encouragement:
In order to help improve performance on the bar exam, we
recently launched the Productive Mindset Intervention Program. Through this
program and ongoing study, we hope to better understand the downward trend of
bar exam pass rates.
The Productive Mindset Intervention Program will be available to
applicants beginning with the July 2018 Bar Exam. This program is a partnership
with researchers at Stanford University, the University of Southern California,
and Indiana University. The program is designed to improve exam performance
across the board.
But, as the
essayist learned, while this graduate-focused initiative sounds wonderful, it’s
also run by the California State Bar, so….
Well, gee. This program sounds really great! You may be
wondering, as I was, “How do I sign up?” The answer is: You can’t! Haha!
No, seriously. You can no longer sign up for the program that,
according to the Executive Director of the State Bar of California on May 18th,
had just been “recently launched” for the July 2018 exam. I found this out by
calling the Los Angeles Office of Admissions and asking for information on how
to enroll in the program. I was told that the deadline for enrollment was May
14th, 2018. Some might find that an odd date to choose, as it is four days
before the Bar Exam results were released. Meaning that anyone who had failed
the February administration and would be registering for the July exam had
missed the enrollment deadline for a program designed to improve their
performance in July.
Yes, the California
Bar used their failure notifications to pimp a program that they knew none of
those graduates could enroll in. Let that sink in. Because the author of this
essay has let it sink in and remains… perplexed:
Much angrier now, I demanded to have the names of the persons in
charge of running the “Productive Mindset Intervention Program,” and for their
contact information. If you’re reading this and you’re wearing a hat, I would
advise holding onto it before proceeding on and reading the response I
received. The words that stumbled out of the man on the other line’s mouth were
“no one has been appointed for that yet.”
No one. Has been appointed. For that. Yet.
In a sense, this is the perfect metaphor for the California Bar
— there’s literally no one minding the wheel. When the law school deans rolled
into the California Supreme Court with empirical data and asked that body to
exercise a little of its theoretical oversight authority to fix the problem,
the Court rolled over like we should have always expected.
That’s exactly the
sort of service you expect from a test that brings in roughly $12,040,000 every
year in fees! And they’d have even more if they could find a way to charge for
this Productive Mindset Intervention Program… but that would require getting
people enrolled first.
Check out the full essay for a thorough rundown of
everything these people have done to screw over young lawyers — often along
racial and gender lines — for years. And it’ll probably keep doing this for
years to come.
Because no one is
running this show.
California State Bar Accused of Fraud and
Corruption by Former Bar CEO
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/california-state-bar-accused-of-fraud-and-corruption-by-former-bar-ceo/
The attorneys in
California are almost all members of the State Bar. The Bar has ethics panels
to see if each attorney is working within the oath they took to become an
attorney. Now we find those running the California State Bar fire
whistleblowers—even those running the organization. We also know that the
statistics kept by the California State Bar are as accurate and honest as a
document from the Obama White House.
“Dunn claims he was targeted
after he discovered that the bar’s chief trial counsel, Jayne Kim, removed 269
backlogged cases from official reports released to the public in order to make
her office appear more productive.
Jay, the newly named defendant, is the former principal attorney to the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.
“Consistent with her historical pattern of interfering with state bar affairs without any constitutional, statutory, or other authority,” Dunn claims, Jay met with certain members of the bar’s board of trustees to urge Dunn’s termination by spreading “blatantly false information” about him.”
Jay, the newly named defendant, is the former principal attorney to the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.
“Consistent with her historical pattern of interfering with state bar affairs without any constitutional, statutory, or other authority,” Dunn claims, Jay met with certain members of the bar’s board of trustees to urge Dunn’s termination by spreading “blatantly false information” about him.”
Some of this appears to
be criminal. When will the Attorney General shut down this criminal enterprise?
The people of California deserve better—instead we get the California State
Bar, important people that protect themselves from the law.
Dunn Adds Fuel to Case Against CA State Bar
By KATHERINE PROCTOR,
Courthouse News, 5/5/15
LOS ANGELES (CN) –
Former state Sen. Joseph Dunn amended his whistleblower lawsuit to name a new
defendant, Beth Jay, in his claim that the State Bar of California fired him as
its executive director for exposing “serious ethical breaches, prosecutorial lapses,
and fiscal improprieties.”
Dunn claims he was targeted after he discovered that the bar’s chief trial counsel, Jayne Kim, removed 269 backlogged cases from official reports released to the public in order to make her office appear more productive.
Jay, the newly named defendant, is the former principal attorney to the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.
“Consistent with her historical pattern of interfering with state bar affairs without any constitutional, statutory, or other authority,” Dunn claims, Jay met with certain members of the bar’s board of trustees to urge Dunn’s termination by spreading “blatantly false information” about him.
Dunn alleges that Jay met repeatedly with Kim, Craig Holden (the bar’s newly installed president, who is also named as a defendant) and Jim Fox to set into motion plans for Dunn’s termination. The meetings “culminated in Kim filing a frivolous and unsubstantiated grievance against Sen. Dunn,” the amended complaint states.
The former Democratic state senator also claims that Jay was directly involved in and copied on the grievance, which he was never given the opportunity to review or to answer.
“Beth Jay’s involvement played a substantial role in the ultimate decision to terminate Sen. Dunn,” the amended complaint states.
In addition, Dunn accuses Holden of engaging in a “campaign to derail the sale of the state bar’s San Francisco headquarters.”
“Specifically, it has been learned that Holden has a plan to lien the San Francisco property, falsely claiming urgent needs to make property improvement and repairs, that is in effect nothing more than a poison pill plan to scuttle any sale of the property which could have led to the state bar realizing millions of dollars in equity which could be used to defray membership costs and to support its core functions,” Dunn claims.
In November, the State Bar of California issued a statement that called Dunn’s lawsuit “baseless.”
Both sides will be heard on Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court.
In a telephone interview, Holden said that Dunn’s “eleventh-hour” filing of the amended complaint was an effort to derail the hearing.
Dunn is represented by Mark Geragos in Los Angeles.
Dunn claims he was targeted after he discovered that the bar’s chief trial counsel, Jayne Kim, removed 269 backlogged cases from official reports released to the public in order to make her office appear more productive.
Jay, the newly named defendant, is the former principal attorney to the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.
“Consistent with her historical pattern of interfering with state bar affairs without any constitutional, statutory, or other authority,” Dunn claims, Jay met with certain members of the bar’s board of trustees to urge Dunn’s termination by spreading “blatantly false information” about him.
Dunn alleges that Jay met repeatedly with Kim, Craig Holden (the bar’s newly installed president, who is also named as a defendant) and Jim Fox to set into motion plans for Dunn’s termination. The meetings “culminated in Kim filing a frivolous and unsubstantiated grievance against Sen. Dunn,” the amended complaint states.
The former Democratic state senator also claims that Jay was directly involved in and copied on the grievance, which he was never given the opportunity to review or to answer.
“Beth Jay’s involvement played a substantial role in the ultimate decision to terminate Sen. Dunn,” the amended complaint states.
In addition, Dunn accuses Holden of engaging in a “campaign to derail the sale of the state bar’s San Francisco headquarters.”
“Specifically, it has been learned that Holden has a plan to lien the San Francisco property, falsely claiming urgent needs to make property improvement and repairs, that is in effect nothing more than a poison pill plan to scuttle any sale of the property which could have led to the state bar realizing millions of dollars in equity which could be used to defray membership costs and to support its core functions,” Dunn claims.
In November, the State Bar of California issued a statement that called Dunn’s lawsuit “baseless.”
Both sides will be heard on Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court.
In a telephone interview, Holden said that Dunn’s “eleventh-hour” filing of the amended complaint was an effort to derail the hearing.
Dunn is represented by Mark Geragos in Los Angeles.
STATE BAR BURNS
DOCUMENTS TO COVER UP ATTORNEY CORRUPTION AND JUDGE CRIMES
State Bar Cursed - Still Covering Up for James Towery
Ironically, as can be seen in the Bar's own email noted
above , James Towery, former Chief Trial
Counsel of the State Bar was among the victims of the Bar's reckless handling of private and confidential
information. Towery appears to be the only victim who was directly called by
the Bar. Other victims have had their personal information released by the Bar,
as early as 2015, but have never been contacted or informed their private
information had been compromised.
Several victims claim to have experienced fraud and identity
theft ever since providing personal and confidential information to the Bar
when complaining about attorney misconduct.
In addition to compromising private and confidential information of persons and businesses
victimized by bad lawyers. The State Bar
also appears to have released internal emails that show employees of the
Bar attempted to commit fraud on the
State Auditor , Elaine Howle during a 2015 audit.
Since James Towery was Chief Trail Counsel at the Bar from
2010 -2011, policies and procedures appear to have been in place that
allowed lawyers to continue to harm the
public. As far back as 2010 , the Bar
has reportedly hired thugs to stalk,
harass and intimidate people who have filed complaints against California
lawyers
Employees and lawyers at the Bar are additionally aware of millions of dollars bad
lawyers have stolen through trust account abuse, which the Bar never
investigated or prosecuted. Bar staff are also reported to have pressured prosecutors in Santa Clara,
Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento and Orange County to ignore judge and lawyer
crimes, in return for immunity from investigations of DA offices.
The Bar also appears to have tried to conceal that James
Towery never lawfully reported his financial interests on his form 700. One Bar
employee reports the Bar's top brass told employees not to worry about Towery's
failure to lawfully disclose as he acted in the Bar's most powerful position,
and where he was later appointed to the Santa Clara County bench by Governor
Brown in 2011.
bench by Governor
Brown in 2011.
State Bar disaster continues as California politicians ponder fate
It’s been painfully evident for years, if not
decades, that the State Bar – the quasi-public organization that licenses
lawyers and is supposed regulate their conduct – is an institutional disaster
zone.
Multiple reports by outside auditors about its
managerial shortcomings, regulatory backlogs and financial irregularities, very
public exchanges of charges and countercharges by State Bar officials, and
dueling lawsuits all attest to the mess.
Five
years ago, the Legislature ordered the State Bar to create a “Public Interest
Task Force” to delve into its problems and recommend reforms.
It took four years just for the panel to be
convened – itself a testament to the State Bar’s innate dysfunction. This week,
however, its conclusions emerged, along with a minority
report that says the draft is too weak, ducking the mandate to recommend
“meaningful solutions.”
By its own words, the majority didn’t offer
concrete reforms because it didn’t want to interject itself in an intense,
backroom debate in the Capitol over the State Bar’s fate.
When the State Bar sought its usual bill
authorizing it to charge lawyers “dues” to cover its expenses, the Assembly
rebelled and made dues contingent on a series of reforms – including, oddly
enough, creating another commission to study its operations and recommend
changes.
However, the bill stalled in the Senate
Judiciary Committee, in part because Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye didn’t
like its provisions. The Supreme Court wields the ultimate authority on
disciplining lawyers. And the bill remains in limbo as the Legislature begins
the last month of its biennial session.
Both factions of the task force agree “that
significant changes are needed” to make the State Bar an effective agency.
However, the majority just suggests alternatives
for possible change while the minority focuses on what should be obvious to
anyone: The organization’s dysfunction stems directly from its dual functions
as a regulatory agency charged with protecting the public from incompetent or
venal attorneys and as a trade association that promotes lawyers’ professional
and economic interests.
“We conclude that the only answer to the Bar’s
persistent dysfunction is to de-couple its regulatory and professional
association functions,” the minority says.
The State Bar’s structural and operational
maladies are not only well documented, but continue even as legislators and
others ponder its future.
This week, the Los Angeles Business Journal
reported that the State Bar has selected a new contractor to clean up a
multi-million-dollar, malfunctioning internal computer system after dumping the
original contractor for “seriously flawed” work.
This week, too, the Los Angeles Daily Journal
reported on new suits being filed relating to the messy departure of Joe Dunn,
the state’s former executive director – a continuation of charges and
countercharges of malfeasance and corruption that have rattled the organization
for months.
The time for more study is long past. The time for
action, leading to the de-coupling of the State Bar’s incompatible functions
and other structural reforms, is now.
No comments:
Post a Comment