The National Law Journal's L.A. Legal Pad

Calif. bar proposes new rule cracking down on resignations

A disciplinary committee of the State Bar of California is proposing a new rule that would require attorneys to face perjury charges if, in voluntarily resigning, they fail to state any criminal charges or convictions against them.

The new rule, drafted by the State Bar's committee on regulations, admissions and discipline, goes before the public for comment on July 10.

The proposal comes after an attorney in La Mesa, Calif., was alleged to have failed to report a guilty plea in his submission to voluntarily resign from the State Bar. On Feb. 14, the attorney, John E. Grasberger, pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography.

He effectively resigned on May 18, according to the State Bar's Web site.

Scott Drexel, chief trial counsel at the State Bar, said attorneys who face charges, or are convicted, are required to notify the State Bar when seeking resignation.

"Mr. Grasberger, to the best of my knowledge, did not notify us that criminal charges were filed against him," Drexel said.

Grasberger's lawyer, Gene Iredale, of the Law Offices of Eugene G. Iredale in San Diego, said his client, 61, who has not practiced law full time in eight years, originally submitted a letter of resignation to the State Bar on Jan. 31, before charges were brought against him. The State Bar sent back a voluntary resignation form, which Grasberger completed on Feb. 8, he said.

"What we wanted to do was to resign as soon as possible, as easily as possible, with as little administrative hassle for the State Bar and as little pain for Mr. Grasberger," he said. "It's not fair to him that they're making a deal out of this. He didn't try to do anything inappropriate." Drexel conceded that a "bureaucratic mistake" might have contributed to the errors in Grasberger's resignation request. He said his office knew that Grasberger had been charged but that the officials at the State Bar who accepted his resignation did not. Under the impression that he had not been charged with a crime, the California Supreme Court approved his resignation.

Still, Drexel said, Grasberger should have known to acknowledge criminal charges against him in his resignation.

In the past year, he said, the State Bar has requested that the California Supreme Court vacate orders accepting the resignations of at least five attorneys. The new rule, if approved, would require lawyers to state under penalty of perjury that no criminal charges are pending against them or that they have not been convicted of any crime, he said.

"A person who voluntarily resigns without charges pending is entitled to hold out to the world that they resigned in good standing and there is no cloud on their record as an attorney; whereas, somebody who resigns under the pressure or under the cloud of a disciplinary complaint or criminal proceeding against him should not be in that position to hold out to others that there is no cloud over their legal career," Drexel said.

-- Amanda Bronstad

Proposed amendments to California professional conduct rules draw fire

LOS ANGELES — Lawyers in California are objecting to three proposed amendments to the state's rules of professional conduct, two of which would carve out exceptions for prosecutors.

The most controversial amendment would prohibit lawyers from talking, without consent, to anybody in a case who is represented by another lawyer in that matter. Current rules limit those prohibitions to include parties in the case.

Under the proposal, government lawyers, who have argued that the rule would curtail their ability to interview potential witnesses during an investigation, are exempt from the rule.

"That's what's become controversial," said John W. Amberg, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Bryan Cave and advisor to the State Bar of California's Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, which is reviewing the proposed amendments. "What some of the criminal defense bar are saying is, 'Why are you creating an exemption for the prosecutors? Why can't they live by the same rules?'" Another amendment would exempt government lawyers from a rule that prohibits lawyers from threatening criminal, disciplinary or administrative action in an effort to obtain an advantage in a civil case. Government lawyers have contended that such a restriction would threaten their ability to plea bargain and negotiate settlements in civil cases, Amberg said.

The third rule would prohibit nonrefundable retainer agreements with clients.

Eliminating nonrefundable retainer agreements would increase the chance for conflicts of interest, particularly if lawyers are retained for a brief period, said Gary Lincenberg, president of the Los Angeles County Chapter of the Federal Bar Association and co-chairman of the American Bar Association's Southern California Regional White Collar Crime Committee and a partner at Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks & Lincenberg.

"Why should I waste my time talking to somebody if there's not a minimum amount of work I'm going to get from this case?" he said.

The Rules Revision Committee of the State Bar of California began revising the rules about four years ago. Since 2006, the State Bar has proposed 32 amended rules. The State Bar's board of governors must adopt changes to the rules, which the California Supreme Court then must approve.

The deadline for public comment on the three controversial amendments, along with 10 others, is this Friday.

-- Amanda Bronstad

Calif. bar proposes posting misconduct charges online

Getting the details on attorneys accused of misconduct may become much easier if a controversial proposal by the State Bar of California wins approval.

The California bar association is considering a plan to post charges of misconduct against attorneys — prior to an adjudication — on its Web site in order to give the public easier access to the information.

While the bar association asserts that it is simply making information already available to the public easier to obtain, opponents argue that posting misconduct charges before a court decision will have a prejudicial impact on attorneys.

Read the full story by The National Law Journal

Also: "Misconduct charges may be posted online," California Bar Journal

State bar will have its third woman president next year, but who?

Three female members of the California Bar Association board of governors are running to become president of the state bar, the California Bar Journal reported.

Next year's president will be the third woman* to hold the post and be a resident in Southern California.

The candidates are:

• Holly J. Fujie (Los Angeles)
• Danni R. Murphy of Santa Ana
• Maria Carmen Ramirez (Ventura)

Fujie is a shareholder at Buchalter Nemer, focusing on general and complex litigation with an emphasis on insurance and surety-related litigation. She's on the board of governors of the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles and the Board of Directors of Bet Tzedek, the Federal Bar Association and the Boalt Hall Alumni Association. She's on the advisory board of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles. She's advised the White House and California's U.S. Senators on federal judicial appointments since 1992.

Murphy is an assistant public defender in Orange County and supervises branch offices in Laguna Niguel and Newport Beach, according to the state bar journal. She was the president of the   Orange County Bar Association in 2001.

Ramirez has been a legal aid attorney since 1975, working in Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. She is the community planning director for a Ventura advocacy agency   that works on economic and environmental justice, according to the bar journal. She was the president of the Ventura County Bar Association in 1998.

*The first female president was Margaret Marrow in 1993 and the second was Karen Nobumoto in 2001, according to the state bar journal.

Malpractice insurance proposal approved by state bar

The State Bar Board of Governors voted 16-4 to require lawyers without malpractice insurance to share that information with their clients and the state bar, the Metropolitan News-Enterprise reported.

The proposed rule, which now goes to the California Supreme Court, includes some changes from the original version.

Attorney disclosure is not required if it is not reasonably foreseeable that the legal representation will exceed four hours, when it was previously disclosed to the client or when the legal services are being done in an emergency to prevent prejudice to a client, MetNews reported.

Two out of five passed bar exam in Feb.

Two out of five applicants passed February's state bar exam, the highest since 2005 but historically relatively low, The Recorder reported.

Just over half of the first time test takers passed. A third of repeat test takers passed.

February pass rates have been lower than July test pass rates for decades, The Recorder reported. This is because many people who fail in July, retake the test in February, and because less people overall take the exam in February, the Metropolitan News-Enterprise reported.

California Bar Press Release

State Bar raids Montebello company for alleged legal services without law license

The State Bar of California and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office shut down a Montebello company accused of providing immigration legal services without a law license.

The raid of RZ Services took place on Monday and the company's owner Romina Aida Zadorian was arrested and charged with 46 counts of grand theft, four of forgery and one of identity theft, according to a state bar press release.

A petition by the State Bar alleges that Zadorian is not a licensed California attorney or a duly bonded immigration consultant, yet she provided a variety of immigration related legal services.

The raid took place after the State Bar got an interim order under a January 2006 law (Business and Professions Code Section 6126.3) which allows a judge to grant the bar jurisdiction of a law practice if its being illegally run and other will be harmed if it continues to run.

State bar passes rule to keep bad lawyers accountable

California lawyers facing discipline charges by the State Bar Court will have to first admit their guilt or plead no contest to pending charges before resigning, The Recorder reported.

The idea is to keep bad lawyers accountable, preventing them from fighting discipline charges for years only to resign when they're about to be suspended or disbarred.

The new rule was passed by the State Bar Board of Governors on Friday, but aren't official until the California Supreme Court approves them.

ABA brings controversial topics to annual meeting in L.A.

The American Bar Association is bringing controversial topics to their midyear meeting in Los Angeles Feb. 6-12 at the Hyatt Regency Century Plaza Hotel.

Among them are the EPA's challenge to California's climate change waiver, the rule of law in an increasingly multicultural society, legal remedies to subprime lending criss and a rule that would require law school to show they are graduating students who can pass the bar exam.

Schools would need to demonstrate that 75% of graduates passed the exam or that their pass rate was comparable to other local law schools if the latter rule is approved, The National Law Journal reports.

The ABA's House of Delegates will consider and vote on the matter on Feb. 11 at the James L. Knight Center on the hotel's 3rd floor. They'll also be voting on policy recommendations on immigration detention standards, state redistricting and legal safeguards for assisted reproductive technology at the meeting.

David Yellen, dean of Loyola University Chicago School of Law and a member of the standards review committee of the ABA's legal education section, said it was "pretty likely" that the change would be approved.

The change will exacerbate the problem of decreasing minority enrollment in law schools, Eddie Koen Jr., national chairman of the Black Law Students Association, told the NLJ.

Bar committee amends malpractice proposal

An amended proposal requiring attorneys to tell clients if they don't carry malpractice insurance was passed by a California Bar committee last Thursday, The Recorder reported.

The proposal requires lawyers the disclosure in writing when it's reasonably foreseeable that they'll be represented for more than four hours and exempting legal services in an emergency and government lawyers or in-house counsel - except when they do outside work for others.

The state bar's Committee on Regulation, Admissions and Discipline met in Los Angeles, passing the proposal 4-3. If the Board of Governors approve it, there would be 90 days for public comment.

Read the full story here