GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE I WANT
TO THANK WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD
AND BEGIN TODAY'S, UH, STATE BAR
OVERSIGHT HEARING. I WANT TO
THANK EVERYONE FOR JOINING US
THIS AFTERNOON TO FOCUS ON THE
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA AND HOW
THE AGENCY CAN REBUILD THE
PUBLIC'S TRUST IN THE WAKE OF
RECENT SCANDALS FOR AS LONG AS
I'VE SERVED ON THIS COMMITTEE
THE STATE BAR HAS PRESENTED THE
LEGISLATURE WAS SERIOUS ISSUES
THAT HAVE NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED
. AND IN THE PAST 10 YEARS, THE
LEGISLATURE HAS SEEN THE STATE
BAR DO THE FOLLOWING
UNCEREMONIOUSLY TERMINATED
FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR
IMPROPERLY USING BAR RESOURCES
SECURE LOANS FOR BUILDING
IMPROVEMENTS USING FUTURE MEMBER
DUES AS COLLATERAL. FIGHT THE
LEGISLATORS, LEGISLATURES
ATTEMPTS TO SPLIT REGULATORY AND
ADVOCACY FUNCTIONS OF THE
ORGANIZATION ERRONEOUSLY
RELEASED BAR EXAM SUBJECTS TO
THE PUBLIC CONSISTENTLY BE
UNABLE TO CLARIFY AND JUSTIFY
ITS BUDGET BUDGETING PRACTICES
TO THE LEGISLATURE. INCREASED
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION BY 45%
AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, GROWN ITS
BACKLOG OF DISCIPLINE MATTERS
DESPITE A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
IN LICENSING REVENUE,
LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES AND
COMPLAINTS INTO THESE MATTERS
HAVE FREQUENTLY BEEN MET WITH
COMMENTS THAT IT'S A NEW BAR.
STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE
MISTAKES ARE NO LONGER HERE. AND
THE COMMITTEE HAS, UH, CERTAINLY
LISTEN TO THOSE EXPLANATIONS,
BUT NONETHELESS, SUCH HOPE AND
OPTIMISM WERE DASHED WHEN IT
CAME TO LIGHT. THE PROMINENT
TRIAL ATTORNEY, TOM GIRARDI, HAD
INAPPROPRIATELY USED HIS
CONNECTIONS TO STATE BAR LEADERS
TO AVOID DISCIPLINE FOR
CORRUPTION, INCLUDING EMBEZZLING
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM HIS
CLIENTS. IN FACT, AS WE LEARNED
FROM A RECENT INVESTIGATION,
DECADES OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST MR
GIRARDI WENT UNHEEDED BY THE
STATE BAR WHILE STATE BAR
EMPLOYEES WERE TAKING GIFTS,
FREE TRAVEL AND MONEY FROM MR
GIRARDI. THIS CORRUPTION WHICH
HAS BEEN METICULOUSLY BEEN
BROUGHT TO LIGHT BY MAJOR MEDIA
OUTLETS. AND THE STATE BAR ZONE
OUTSIDE INVESTIGATOR HAS ONCE
AGAIN SHATTERED PUBLIC TRUST IN
THE AGENCY. WHICH BRINGS US TO
TODAY'S HEARING. AS A
LEGISLATIVE POLICY COMMITTEES
CHARGED WITH OVERSEEING THE
STATE BAR. WE LOOK TO ACCOMPLISH
SEVERAL GOALS THIS AFTERNOON.
FIRST, WE MUST UNDERSTAND HOW
THE STATE BAR PERMITTED
CORRUPTION TO INFECT ITS
DISCIPLINE SYSTEM AND TAINT HIGH
LEVEL EMPLOYEES. SECOND WE'RE
GOING TO HEAR WHAT STEPS THE
STATE BAR IS TAKING TO REMEDY
THE DISCIPLINE SYSTEM TO ENSURE
THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. AND
FINALLY, WE WILL STUDY POTENTIAL
REFORMS TO THE STATE BAR OF
CALIFORNIA TO ENSURE THE AGENCY
ACTS AS AN EFFECTIVE REGULATOR
THAT ALL CALIFORNIANS CAN TRUST.
IT'S MY HOPE THAT BY THE END OF
THIS HEARING, BOTH COMMITTEES
WILL HAVE A ROAD MAP FOR
REFORMING THE STATE BAR THAT
MAYBE POTENTIALLY INCLUDED IN
THE 2023 ANNUAL FEE. BILL SB 2
TO 1. I'D LIKE TO THANK MY
COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR
PARTICIPATION TODAY AND NOW
INVITE MY COUNTERPART, SENATOR
TOM UMBERG TO ALSO MAKE HIS
OPENING COMMENTS. HMM THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. CHAIRMAN SHINE. THANK
YOU FOR OPENING YOUR HOUSE TO
THIS HEARING. UH WE APPRECIATE
THE COOPERATION THE
COLLABORATIVE NISSAN ON THIS
ISSUE THAT IS OF CONCERN TO BOTH
HOUSES OF LEGISLATURE. UM,
SUPREME COURT. HAS PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE STATE BAR
THEIR PRIMARY REGULATORY POWER
OVER ATTORNEYS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE DOCTRINE OF
SEPARATION OF POWERS. ATTORNEYS
ARE OFFICERS OF THE COURT. STATE
BAR OF CALIFORNIA IS PART OF THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH. IT FUNCTIONS AS
THE ADMINISTRATIVE ARM OF THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT REGARD
TO ADMISSION TO PRACTICE LAW IN
THE DISCIPLINE OF THOSE LICENSED
TO PRACTICE LAW. STATE BARS.
MOST BASIC FUNCTION IS TO
PROTECT CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS.
WHO RECEIVED LEGAL SERVICES. AND
IN FACT THAT'S WHERE WE SHARE
RESPONSIBILITY. WE SHARE
RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE THAT'S
ALSO LEGISLATURES ROLE IS TO
PROTECT CALIFORNIA'S CONSUMERS.
AND THUS, UH, HERE WE ARE TODAY.
HERE WE ARE TODAY BECAUSE WE'RE
CONCERNED. ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
WE COLLECTIVELY ARE DOING WHAT'S
NECESSARY TO PROTECT
CALIFORNIA'S CONSUMERS. THIS
ISSUE AS YOU MENTIONED CHAIRMAN
SHINE THE ISSUE OF DISCIPLINE
TYPICALLY WAS OF CONCERN TO VERY
FEW CALIFORNIA'S 0.001% WERE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINE. BASICALLY, THOSE
ATTORNEYS WHO ARE BEING
DISCIPLINED OR NOT BEING
DISCIPLINED. UH THAT HAS NOW
CHANGED. UM BECAUSE OF THE
GIRARDI SCANDAL AND OTHER UM,
ATTENDANT ISSUES CONSIDERING
DISCIPLINE. MAYBE IT'S THANKFUL
TO THE HOUSEWIVES OF BEVERLY
HILLS THAT THIS ISSUE NOW HAS
NOT JUST BECOME OF CONCERN TO A
VERY SMALL SEGMENT OF
CALIFORNIA'S POPULATION NOW WHEN
IT'S ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE
NEWSPAPER NOW WHEN IT'S ON
TELEVISION NOW WANT TO BECOMES
THE SUBJECT OF THE BEVERLY HILLS
HOUSEWIVES OF BEVERLY HILLS. UM
CALIFORNIANS ARE ASKING ALL OF
US. WHAT ARE YOU DOING? WHAT ARE
YOU DOING TO PROTECT
CALIFORNIA'S CONSUMERS? UH AS
WAS MENTIONED BY CHAIRMAN SHINE,
UM REPORTS HAVE UM COME TO
EVERYONE'S ATTENTION. AS TO, UH
TOM GIRARDI IN THE STATE BAR AND
THAT RELATIONSHIP. WE UH IN IN
THE WAKE OF THE ISSUES
SURROUNDING MR GIRARDI AND HIS
SPOUSE, UM, STATE BUYER HIRED AN
OUTSIDE LAW FIRM TO CONDUCT
INVESTIGATION TO EXAMINE HOW THE
BAR HANDLED COMPLAINTS FILED
AGAINST NOW DISBARRED ATTORNEY
GIRARDI WHERE THE PROCESS WAS
AFFECTED BY MR GIRARDI'S
CONNECTIONS TO THE STATE BAR. I
REALIZED THAT THAT WE'RE LOOKING
BACKWARD LOOKING BACKWARDS,
THOUGH, IN ORDER TO CREATE THE
REFORMS THAT NECESSARY SO THIS
DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. I ALSO
RECOGNIZE THAT YOU KNOW, FOR
EXAMPLE, CHAIR DURAN IS DOING
EVERYTHING WITHIN HIS POWER. TO
RECTIFY THAT. AND I RECOGNIZE
THAT THE STATE BAR IS NOW
COGNIZANT OF THE ISSUES THAT
BASICALLY, CALIFORNIANS IN THE
LEGISLATURE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
. IT'S CLEAR IN MY MIND, AT
LEAST THAT REFORMS ARE NEEDED
OUR GOAL TODAY, ALONG WITH
ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS
TO GAIN A COMPREHENSIVE
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT LED TO THE
FAILURE OF THE BAR AND ITS
DISCIPLINE PROCESS AS IT RELATES
TO TOM GIRARDI AND I SUSPECT
OTHERS AND HOW TO PREVENT
SOMETHING LIKE THAT FROM
HAPPENING AGAIN. TODAY WE'RE
GOING TO HEAR FROM THREE
DIFFERENT PANELS. THE FIRST
PANEL ADDRESSES THE HARM THAT
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FACE WHEN
MISCONDUCT, ATTORNEYS UH, IS
ALLOWED TO CONTINUE. THE SECOND
PANEL WILL HEAR FROM THE STATE
BAR ABOUT WHAT IT'S DOING TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE
GIRARDI SCANDAL, AND THE LAST
PANEL WILL ADDRESS VARIOUS
PROPOSALS FOR REFORM. LET ME
TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU, MR
CHAIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIR UH, OUR FIRST PANEL TODAY
WILL FOCUS ON HOW THE GIRARDI
SCANDAL CAME TO BE IN THE
IMPACT. ON ORDINARY PEOPLE WHEN
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT IS PERMITTED
TO CONTINUE UNCHECKED, WE HAVE
TWO WITNESSES WHO WILL BE GIVEN
10 MINUTES EACH. AARON MAY A
PARTNER AT HALPERN, MAY, IBARRA
AND GOLDBERG AND THEN GILLIAN
SINGLED OUT A FORMER GERARDI
CASE CLIENT SO WE WILL BEGIN
WITH AARON MAY.
AFTERNOON SENATORS AND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. I APPRECIATE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE
TODAY. MY NAME IS AARON MAY GIVE
YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND
ABOUT ME. I'M CURRENTLY A
PARTNER AT THE HELPER AND MAY
IBARRA ALBERG LAW FIRM, WHICH IS
A PARTICULAR LAW FIRM IN LOS
ANGELES. I MAY GRADUATED
STANFORD LAW SCHOOL AFTER LAW
SCHOOL, I CLERKED FOR TWO
FEDERAL JUDGES IN CALIFORNIA AND
THEN WENT ON TO PRACTICE AT
MUNGER, TOLLES AND OLSON AS A
LITIGATION ASSOCIATE, WHERE I
WORKED ON INTERNAL
INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER MATTERS
. FROM THERE. I WENT TO THE U. S
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WHERE I
WAS IN THE MAJOR FRAUD SECTION
FOR APPROXIMATELY SEVEN YEARS.
AND IN THAT ROLE I RAN GRAND
JURY INVESTIGATIONS AND WORK
CLOSELY WITH THE F B I D E A. I.
R S AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.
IN CONDUCTING MY INVESTIGATIONS.
IN 2014. I FOUNDED MY CURRENT
LAW FIRM WITH SOME OF MY
PARTNERS, AND WE NOW HAVE FOUR
FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS AT
OUR FIRM AND ONE OF THE MAIN
THINGS WE DO IS WE CONDUCT
INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS, AND WE
DO THAT FOR SOME OF THE LARGEST
INSTITUTIONS IN CALIF. PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE. IN SEPTEMBER 2021.
THE STATE BAR BOARD OF TRUSTEES
HIRED ME AND MY FIRM TO CONDUCT
AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF
THE STATE BAR. AS BACKDROP. AND
I THINK MOST OF YOU ALL KNOW
OVER GIRARDI'S LEGAL CAREER,
THERE WERE CLOSE TO 205
COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST HIM AND
OVER THE VAST MAJORITY OF THAT
TIME PERIOD. THERE WAS NO PUBLIC
DISCIPLINE METED OUT AGAINST
THEM EXCEPT IN 2 22,021 WHEN HE
WAS DISBARRED. THE STATE BAR
INITIALLY HIRED ELISE LAZAR,
FORMER STATE BAR PROSECUTOR TO
ANALYZE THE GIRARDI FILES TO
DETERMINE IF THE REASON THERE
WAS NO PUBLIC DISCIPLINE OVER
THE YEARS WAS BECAUSE OF
GIRARDI'S IMPROPER INFLUENCE. OR
CONNECTIONS TO THE BAR. MS LAZAR
REVIEWED 130 FILES. AND WHILE
SHE FOUND ISSUES WITH HOW THOSE
CASES WERE HANDLED HE WAS UNABLE
TO SEE ANY UNDUE INFLUENCE FROM
HER REVIEWS OF THE FILES ALONE.
THAT'S WHERE ME AND MY FIRM CAME
IN. WE WERE HIRED TO LOOK
OUTSIDE THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE
FILES. TO DIG INTO THE EVIDENCE
TO SEE WHETHER THERE WERE
INFLUENCE AND CORRUPTION
INVOLVED IN THE HANDLING OF, UM
ST BARTH HANDLING OF GIRARDI
COMPLAINTS. IN PARTICULAR I
MANDATE WAS TO INVESTIGATE
WHETHER THE STATE BARS HANDLING
PAST DISCIPLINE COMPLAINTS
AGAINST TOM GIRARDI WAS EFFECTED
BY GIRARDI'S CONNECTIONS TO OR
INFLUENCE AT THE STATE BAR. AND
IDENTIFYING ACTIONS BY ANYONE
WITH TIES TO THE STATE BAR THAT
MAY CONSTITUTE MALFEASANCE AND
HOW DISCIPLINE COMPLAINTS
AGAINST GIRARDI WERE HANDLED. TO
BE CLEAR. WE WERE NOT LOOKING AT
WHETHER GIRARDI ACTUALLY
VIOLATED ANY ETHICAL RULES OR
LAWS OR STOLE ANY MONEY. OUR
FOCUS WAS ON THE BARS HANDLING
OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST GIRARDI.
UM, THE PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH
TO CONDUCT. OUR INVESTIGATION
HAD MULTIPLE STAGES. THE FIRST
WAS COLLECTING DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE. WE COLLECTED
APPROXIMATELY A MILLION
DOCUMENTS, MOST OF THEM FROM THE
STATE BAR ITSELF. WE ALSO WERE
ABLE TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS FROM
THE GIRARDI KEYS LAW FIRM AND
FROM OTHER SOURCES AS WELL. WE
THEN WENT ABOUT AND CONDUCTED 74
INTERVIEWS OF INDIVIDUALS. UM
THOSE INTERVIEWS INCLUDED
CURRENT AND FORMER STATE BAR
EMPLOYEES. BOARD MEMBERS AND
OFFICERS. WE ALSO INTERVIEWED
FORMER GIRARDI, KEYS, ATTORNEYS
AND EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS OTHERS
THAT WERE INVOLVED WITH GIRARDI
AND THE GIRARDI COMPLAINTS. WE
DID HAVE SUBPOENA POWER. AND SO
SOME WITNESSES REFUSED TO MEET
WITH US VOLUNTARILY, BUT WE WERE
ABLE TO COMPEL, UH, THOSE WHO
REFUSED TO MEET VOLUNTARILY TO
MEET WITH US UNDER, UM, COURT
ORDERS. TWO WITNESSES INVOKED
THEIR FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
WHEN WE QUESTIONED THEM AND
REFUSED TO ANSWER, INCLUDING TOM
GIRARDI HIMSELF. WE PREPARED A
DETAILED 94 PAGE REPORT, WHICH
WE DELIVERED TO THE STATE BAR
BOARD OF TRUSTEES IN FEBRUARY.
AND I WILL DO MY BEST TO TRY TO
SUMMARIZE WHAT WE FOUND. AND I'M
HAPPY TO GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON
ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE. UM
THE FIRST MAJOR FINDING THAT WE
HAD WAS THAT GIRARDI MAINTAINED
AN EXTENSIVE NETWORK OF
CONNECTIONS AT ALL LEVELS OF THE
STATE BAR. AS ONE WITNESS TOLD
US IT WAS LIKE GIRARDI WAS A
PART OF THE FABRIC AT THE STATE
BAR. GIRARDI CULTIVATED
CONTACTS. ON THE BOARD AND THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE AND
THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL
COUNSEL, BOTH AT MANAGERIAL
LEVELS AND IN LINE PROSECUTOR
AND INVESTIGATOR LEVELS. HIS
TIES SPANNED DECADES, AND THEY
APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN
INTENTIONALLY CULTIVATED. WE
FOUND EVIDENCE THAT GIRARDI WAS
INVOLVED IN THE APPOINTMENT OF
AT LEAST ONE STATE, OUR COURT
JUDGE AND THE ATTEMPTED
APPOINTMENT OF THE CHIEF TRIAL
COUNSEL. WE FOUND THAT AT LEAST
NINE FORMER STATE BAR EMPLOYEES
OR BOARD MEMBERS HAD CONNECTIONS
TO OR ACCEPTED ITEMS OF VALUE,
TRAVEL OR MEALS OR OTHER ITEMS
FROM GIRARDI WHILE THEY WERE
WORKING AT THE STATE BAR OR ON
THE STATE BAR COURT OR ON THE
BOARD. IN PARTICULAR, FORMER
STATE BAR EMPLOYEE TOM LEIGHTON
, ALONG WITH HIS WIFE RECEIVED
GIFTS AND PAYMENTS ESTIMATED TO
BE AT OVER A MILLION DOLLARS IN
VALUE FROM GIRARDI AND FROM
GIRARDI'S FIRM. MUCH OF THAT,
WHILE LAYTON WAS EMPLOYED AT THE
STATE BAR. THIS INCLUDED
APPROXIMATELY $600,000 IN CASH.
AT LEAST LUXURY CARS FREE REIGN
OF A GIRARDI KEYS. CREDIT CARD,
UH, TRAVEL ON PRIVATE JETS AND
OTHERWISE AND OTHER BENEFITS.
TOM GIRARDI WITH GODFATHER TO MR
LAYTON'S DAUGHTER AND ALSO
EMPLOYED TWO OF MR LAYTON'S
CHILDREN, WHILE TOM GIRARDI
START WHILE TOM LEIGHTON WAS
EMPLOYED BY THE STATE BAR. WE
ALSO FOUND THAT HIGH LEVEL
EXECUTIVES, INCLUDING FORMER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JOE DON, AND
FORMER BOARD PRESIDENT LUIZ
RODRIGUEZ ACCEPTED REID'S UNDER
ARDIS PRIVATE PLANE WHILE IN
THEIR ROLE THAT WAS APART.
MULTIPLE OTHER EMPLOYEES
ACCEPTED TICKETS TO CONCERTS AND
SPORTING EVENTS WHILE EMPLOYED
AT THE STATE BAR AND MANY
INDIVIDUALS AT ALL LEVELS
ATTENDED LAVISH DINNERS AND
PARTIES THROWN BY GIRARDI. UM IN
ADDITION TO LATENT HAVING
CHILDREN EMPLOYED BY MAJORITIES
FIRM, ANOTHER INVESTIGATOR ALSO
HAD A DAUGHTER, WHO WAS UNDER
GIRARDI CASES EMPLOYEE WHILE THE
INVESTIGATOR WAS EMPLOYED AT THE
STATE BAR. IN ADDITION TO RD
WOULD OFFER TO ASSIST STATE BAR
EMPLOYEES WITH JUDICIAL
APPOINTMENTS AND OTHER CAREER
ADVANCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES. AND
WHILE WE DID FIND THESE
HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS, IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE DID
NOT FIND ANY CURRENT CONNECTIONS
BETWEEN GIRARDI AND ANY CURRENT
STATE BAR EMPLOYEES, JUDGES OR
IMPORTANT. UM. WE ALSO FOUND
THAT COMPLAINTS AGAINST GIRARDI
WERE IN SOME INSTANCES CLOSED BY
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD CONNECTIONS
TO OR ADD, RECEIVED ITEMS OF
VALUE FROM GIRARDI. IN
PARTICULAR AS IT RELATES TO CASE
HANDLING. WE FOUND THAT TWO
FORMER OC TC EMPLOYEES MURRAY
GREENBERG AND JOHN NEWTON HAD
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AT THE
TIME THEY WORKED ON GIRARDI
CASE. AS A RESULT OF THEIR
CONNECTIONS TO GIRARDI. THE
GIRARDI CASES THEY WORKED ON
WERE CLOSED WITHOUT PUBLIC
DISCIPLINE AND SOME UNDER
QUESTIONABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. WE
CONCLUDED THAT THESE EMPLOYEES
CONFLICTS TAINTED THE
DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS THEY
MADE ON BEHALF OF THE STATE BAR
AND THAT THE GIRARDI CASES THEY
WORKED ON WERE IMPROPERLY
HANDLED AS A RESULT. WE ALSO
FOUND THAT FORMER EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR JOSEPH DUNN TERMINATED
TWO SENIOR ATTORNEYS IN THE
OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
DURING THE SAME TIME PERIOD WHEN
THOSE ATTORNEYS WERE ADVOCATING
FOR SERIOUS CHANGES TO BE
BROUGHT AGAINST GIRARDI.
IMPENDING STATE BAR CASES. THIS
WAS AN UNPRECEDENTED MOVE AS THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DID
NOT TYPICALLY INTERFERE OR
INVOLVE ITSELF IN THE MANAGEMENT
OR OPERATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF
CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL. ONE OF
THESE EMPLOYEES WITH ADVOCATING
FOR THE STATE BAR TO RECONSIDER
THE DECISION BY, UH ANOTHER BY
AN OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO NOT
FURTHER DISCIPLINE. GIRARDI AND
THE OTHER EMPLOYEE HAD
RECOMMENDED A COMPLETE AGAINST
ALREADY GO FORWARD WITH PUBLIC
DISCIPLINE WITH FILING OF A
COMPLAINT. IN ADDITION, WE FOUND
THAT BOTH THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE AND THE OFFICE
OF GENERAL COUNSEL HAD RECEIVED
REPORTS ABOUT GIRARDI'S
INFLUENCE AT THE STATE BAR AND
CONNECTIONS TO LEIGHTON AND
OTHERS, BUT FAILED TO
INVESTIGATE THE COMPLAINTS IN
2013 AND 2014. REPORTS CAME INTO
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE.
THAT LAYTON HAD TIES TO GIRARDI
AND WAS ASSISTING GIRARDI. NO
INVESTIGATIONS WERE CONDUCTED
AND THE MATTERS WERE CLOSED. THE
DECISION TO DO SO WAS ENDORSED
BY BOB HOLLY, WHO WAS THEN THE
DIRECT DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AT THE TIME. SEPARATELY OR
POTENTIALLY RELATED LEE BOB
HOLLY ALSO CLOSED THE GIRARDI
INVESTIGATION BY GHOST RIDING
THE MEMORANDUM ADVOCATING
CLOSURE. PURSUANT TO STATE BAR
RULE. 22 01 WHENEVER THE O. C T
C HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IT
WAS SUPPOSED TO REFER OUT FOR
DISCIPLINE. ANY CASES TO AN
INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO
HANDLE WE DISCOVERED THAT HALLE
HAD BEEN GHOSTWRITING CASES. AND
DRAFTING MEMORANDUMS FOR OUTSIDE
COUNSEL. AND THEN AT LEAST IN
ONE INSTANCE, MAYBE MORE PASSED
OFF THE WORK PRODUCT. OF THE
INDEPENDENT COUNT, UM, PASSED
OFF THIS WORK PRODUCT AS IF IT
WERE FROM THE WORK PRODUCT OF
THE INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE COUNSEL
, AND THIS INCLUDED GERARDI
CASE. UM. THOSE ARE THE MAJOR
FINDINGS OF OUR INVESTIGATION
AND REPORT. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A
VERY HIGH LEVEL, AND I'M WELCOME
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANY
SENATORS OR ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
HAVE FOR ME. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, UH, MR. MAY WE APPRECIATE
YOUR REPORT. OUR SECOND WITNESS
IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME.
I'M BEING ADVISED. OKAY UM AND
SO, MR MAY MAYBE I'D ASK YOU IF
YOU COULD TO SPEND A FEW MINUTES
TO MAYBE LET US KNOW SHE WAS THE
SECOND WITNESS WAS A FORMER
GIRARDI CLIENT. AND MS SINGLE
DOW, PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH AND
SO SHE WAS GONNA GENERATE. THE
GENERAL SUBSTANCE OF HER
TESTIMONY WAS GOING TO BE THAT
THE FIRM USED TRICKS AND NON
COMMUNICATION TO DEFRAUD HER OUT
OF A SETTLEMENT FOR MEDICAL
EXPENSES THAT SHE DESPERATELY
NEEDED IT. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE
FOR YOU, MAYBE TO GO INTO AT
LEAST A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL
ABOUT WAYS THAT SOME OF THESE
CLIENTS THEY EFFECT ON SOME OF
THESE GIRARDI CLIENTS. UM THANK
YOU, CHAIRMAN. THAT YOU KNOW,
TOO, BECAUSE THAT WAS A BIT
OUTSIDE THE FOCUS OF MY
INVESTIGATION. WE WERE FOCUSED
ON THE IMPACT OF GIRARDI'S
CONNECTIONS AT THE STATE BAR WE
DID NOT DIG INTO ANY OF THE CASE
FILES AND THE CONDUCT THAT
GIRARDI WAS ALLEGEDLY DOING WITH
RESPECT TO HIS CLIENTS. UM AND
SO THE ONLY INSIGHTS I HAVE FROM
THAT ARE FROM READING THE CASE
FILES WHICH, UM I UNDERSTAND. I
AM NOT PERMITTED UNDER LAW TO
DISCUSS UNDER THE BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS CODES, SO I DON'T
HAVE A SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON
THAT THAT I'M FREE TO
COMMUNICATE. OKAY OKAY, WE
THAT'S THAT'S UNDERSTOOD. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, MISTER.
MAY I TURNED TO THE PANEL AND
SEE IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS
FOR MR MAY. MR AMBERG. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR MAY
FOR BOTH YOUR TESTIMONY AND VERY
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT, UM, THERE
WAS A BACKGROUND PAPER THAT WAS
PREPARED FOR THIS HEARING. I'M
WONDERING IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO
REVIEW IT. I HAVE NOT. ALRIGHT
WELL, WE'LL PROVIDE IT TO YOU.
AND THEN, UM, I REALIZED THIS IS
PRO BONO ACTIVITY AT THIS POINT
, UM, BUT I PERSONALLY WOULD BE
INTERESTED IN YOUR REACTION TO
SOME OF THE PROPOSALS AT THE
END. UNDERSTOOD AND HAPPY TO BE
LOOKED AT THAT AND GIVE YOU ANY
COMMENTARY I CAN PROVIDE. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ANY
OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? MR SALIH. THANK YOU,
MR MAY JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
YOU LOOKED AT SOME OF THE WAYS
THAT MR JAR, UH, INFLUENCED
DECISION MAKERS. DID YOU ALSO
LOOK AT POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS?
THAT WAS NOT A FOCUS OF OUR
INVESTIGATION. WE ARE AWARE THAT
HE DID MAKE POLITICAL
CONTRIBUTIONS, INCLUDING TO SOME
OF THE LEGISLATURES WHO HAD
APPOINTMENT POWER. CONNECTED TO
STATE BAR POSITIONS. OKAY AND
REMIND ME AGAIN. WHAT WAS THE
SCOPE? THE SCOPE OF THE
INVESTIGATION WAS TO LOOK AT
YOUR PARTY'S INFLUENCE AT THE
STATE BAR AND WHETHER HIS
CONNECTIONS INFLUENCED THE
OUTCOME OF ANY COMPLAINTS THAT
WERE MADE AGAINST HIM. OKAY. AND
THEN THAT SCOPE YOU S¼ POLITICAL
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THOSE NOT AT
THE STATE BAR WOULD HAVE BEEN
OUTSIDE YOUR SCOPE. SO WE WERE
AWARE THAT HE DID MAKE POLITICAL
CONTRIBUTIONS TO PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES AND CANDIDATES AT ALL
LEVELS OF POLITICS AND THAT HE
HAD CLOSE TIES TO THE GOVERNORS
TO, UH THE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
SENATORS AT BOTH THE LOCAL STATE
AND NATIONAL LEVEL, AND THAT IT
IS UNDERSTOOD THAT HE COULD GET
IN CONTACT WITH POLITICAL
REPRESENTATIVES WITH A SIMPLE
PHONE CALL AT ALMOST ANY LEVEL
AS HIGH AS THE PRESIDENT. AND
EVERYWHERE IN BETWEEN, DIDN'T HE
ALSO MAKE POLITICAL
CONTRIBUTIONS TO DIRECTOR JOE
DONE? THAT'S CORRECT. WE DID SEE
IN CONNECTION WITH OUR
INVESTIGATION THAT HE DID MAKE
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO
SENATOR JOE DONE. UM, AND I
BELIEVE IT WAS THE TWO DIFFERENT
CAMPAIGNS OF SENATOR JOE DONE.
WHILE HE WAS. RUNNING FOR
SANDRA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE. UH,
MISS REYES. THANK YOU IN THE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION THAT WAS
PROVIDED TO US THAT I KNOW IT'S
GOING TO BE PROVIDED TO YOU.
THERE'S MENTION OF OVER 150
COMPLAINTS AGAINST GIRARDI
BEFORE 2021. UM AND I UNDERSTAND
THAT MOST OF THOSE WERE NOT
INVESTIGATED WERE ANY OF THOSE
INVESTIGATED. WELL, I THINK IT
IS. I THINK THE ANSWER WOULD BE
YES. THAT. FOR EVERY TIME I
COME, AND THERE'S A PROCESS FOR
THE FILING OF A COMPLAINT
COMPLAINT COMES IN, UM IT GOES
INTO INTAKE AT WHICH POINT
DECISION IS MADE, WHETHER TO
CLOSED THE CASE AT INTAKE OR
PASS IT ALONG FOR INVESTIGATION
. THE INVESTIGATION TEAM, THEN
DECIDE THAT FOR DOING THEIR
INVESTIGATION, WHETHER TO FILE
UM A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE
ATTORNEY, OR IN THIS CASE, MR
GIRARDI, SO THERE WERE
DEFINITELY WERE CASES THAT MADE
IT PAST INTAKE INTO THE
INVESTIGATIVE STAGE. BUT UM. BUT
I DON'T. I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF
THOSE MADE IT PAST THE
INVESTIGATIVE STAGE INTO THE
FILING OF A PUBLIC COMPLAINT.
UH, EXCEPT IN 2021. THANK YOU
AND I REALLY WOULD BE INTERESTED
, AS WAS NOTED EARLIER IN YOUR
INPUT ON THE SUGGESTIONS AND
WHAT WE CAN DO BETTER TO PROTECT
THE PUBLIC IN THE FUTURE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? SEEN NONE. WE WILL
TURN THIS PORTION OVER TO
SENATOR AMBERG, SENATOR HAMBURG.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. WE'RE NOW
GOING TO TURN TO THANK YOU. MR
MAY I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR
PARTICIPATION AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO ANY INPUT YOU MIGHT
HAVE CONSIDERING THE PROPOSALS.
ALRIGHT WE'LL TURN NOW TO THE
SECOND PANEL. UH WE'RE GOING TO
HEAR FROM A PANEL OF WITNESSES
FROM THE STATE BAR MR RUBEN
DURAN, JORGE CARDONA AND LEO
WILSON.
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE
TODAY. UM UNLESS YOU HAVE A
DIFFERENT ORDER, WE WOULD GO
AHEAD AND START WITH CHILDREN.
MAKE SURE MY MIC IS ACTIVATED.
GOOD AFTERNOON. HAMBURG CHAIR
MAIENSCHEIN MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEES. INDEED, UH, A LONG
TIME COMING TO THIS DAY, AND I
THANK YOU FOR ARRANGING THE
JOINT HEARING. I THANK YOU FOR
TAKING THE TIME TO CONSIDER THE
VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES OF PUBLIC
PROTECTION THAT IT REPRESENTED
IN THE WORK OF YOUR STAFF
BEATING UP TO THIS DAY. AND FOR
EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO TRULY TO
PROTECT CONSUMERS IN CALIFORNIA
, I THINK AS OUR CONVERSATION,
AND I HOPE THAT IS INDEED A
CONVERSATION. AS OUR
CONVERSATION ENSUES. YOU WILL
FIND THAT THE PEOPLE ARE GOING
TO SPEAK TO YOU ON BEHALF OF THE
STATE BAR TODAY SHARE YOUR YOUR
OUTRAGE. SHARE YOUR YOUR
CONCERNS. UM AND I THINK SHARE
THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE HERE, WHICH
IS TO REFORM THIS DISSIMILARITY
DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM TO BETTER
PROTECT UH, CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS
JUST BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION AS
AS CHAIR HAMBURG SAID. MY NAME
IS RUBEN DURAN. I'M A PARTNER IN
THE LAW. FIRM OF BEST BEST IN
KRIEGER. MY PRACTICES, PRIMARILY
PUBLIC AGENCY BASED. I SERVE AS
A CITY ATTORNEY IN ONTARIO AND
FONTANA. I LIVE IN THE CITY OF
ONTARIO. AND I'VE GOT 25 YEARS
PRACTICING ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC
AGENCIES. LET ME JUST START BY
SAYING THAT WHAT HAPPENED AND
WHAT YOU HEARD FROM MR MAY WAS
WRONG. AND WE MUST DO EVERYTHING
IN OUR COLLECTIVE POWER TO
ENSURE THAT NOTHING LIKE IT WILL
EVER HAPPEN AGAIN. THE BOARD OF
THE STATE BAR IS NOT THE SAME
BOARD THAT WAS IN PLACE IN THE
GIRARDI HEYDAY, AND WE ARE NOT
THE SAME ORGANIZATION. AND I
UNDERSTAND CHAIRMAN MAN SHINES,
UM PERHAPS FRUSTRATION AND
HEARING THAT MESSAGE OVER AND
OVER AGAIN, BUT THE FACT REMAINS
THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE IN
CHARGE BACK THEN. ARE NO LONGER
IN CHARGE TODAY. SOME OF THEM
WERE TERMINATED AS A RESULT OF
THE ACTIVITY THAT MR MAY
UNCOVERED AND REPORTED TO US AND
REPORTED TO YOU. AND THAT'S THE
BEGINNING OF A PATH FORWARD.
INDEED FIVE YEARS AGO, THE
LEGISLATURE INITIATED THE STATE
BARS TRANSITION TO A PURELY
REGULATORY AGENCY. THIS MOVE
SIGNIFICANTLY ACCELERATED REFORM
EFFORTS THAT BEGAN IN 2014 2015.
WITH THE TERMINATION OF THOSE
PEOPLE JUST MENTIONED TODAY WE
WILL OUTLINE MANY OF THE CHANGES
WE HAVE MADE AND ARE MAKING IN
OUR ONGOING EFFORTS TO REFORM
THE STATE BAR. AND WE DO WANT TO
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR HELPING US
TO GET HERE. THROUGH DIALOGUE
AUDITS AND YES, INDEED THROUGH
PRESSURE. YOU HAVE HELPED TO
ACCELERATE CHANGES THAT WERE IN
SOME INSTANCES ALREADY IN THE
WORKS AND IN ALL ALONG CASES IN
ALL CASES LONG OVERDUE. SPEAKING
PERSONALLY, I'D LIKE TO THANK
YOU. CHAIR HAMBURG FOR THE MANY
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD
OVER THE MONTHS AND FEELS LIKE
YEARS, BUT CERTAINLY I THINK
IT'S JUST A NUMBER OF MONTHS
SINCE I STEPPED INTO THIS
POSITION. I APPRECIATE THE WORK
THAT YOU AND YOUR STAFF DUE TO
PROTECT CALIFORNIANS. THE
FINDINGS AND MR MAYS REPORTS
SPOTLIGHT AND AREA OF THE STATE
BAR WHERE A LACKS CULTURE AND
THE ABSENCE OF SAFEGUARDS PAVE
THE WAY FOR UNDUE INFLUENCE AND
CORRUPTION IN WAYS THAT ARE
INDEED SHOCKING NOW. REPORTS
REVEALED SYSTEMIC ORGANIZATIONAL
DYSFUNCTION THAT PERSISTED FOR
MANY YEARS AND THROUGH MANY
CHANGES IN LEADERSHIP AT THE BAR
BOARD LEVEL AND AT THE STAFF
LEVEL. AGAIN. NONE OF THOSE
PEOPLE ARE HERE TODAY. WE MAKE
NO EXCUSES FOR WHAT IS
DOCUMENTED IN THE REPORTS, AND
WE'VE APOLOGIZED TO THE PUBLIC
AND TO OUR STAKEHOLDERS FOR
THESE PAST LAPSES. WE RECOGNIZE
THE NEED TO DO THE HARD WORK TO
IMPLEMENT CHANGES IN POLICIES,
PRACTICES AND CULTURE AT THE
STATE BAR. TO ENSURE THAT
FAILINGS OF THIS KIND ON EITHER
IN ORGANIZATIONAL OR AN
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL CAN NEVER
HAPPEN AGAIN. SO WHAT
SPECIFICALLY HAVE WE LEARNED?
FIRST AND FOREMOST, I THINK
TRANSPARENCY IS CENTRAL TO
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REBUILDING
TRUST. THE RELEASE OF THE
INFORMATION FROM THE GIRARDI
COMPLAINTS IN NOVEMBER RESULTED
FROM THE STATE BARS, NEW
LEADERSHIP, REVISITING BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONS, CODE 6086.1.
AND LEANING INTO TRANSPARENCY,
AS OPPOSED TO AVOIDING IT.
ULTIMATELY THAT RESULTED IN
OFFICIALLY NOTICING THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE CHANGE POSITION OF
THE STATE BAR IN THE L A TIMES
LITIGATION, LITIGATING THE
PUBLIC RECORDS, ACT ISSUES AND
RECENT NOTICE TO THE COURT OF A
SETTLEMENT IN PRINCIPLE. ON THAT
MATTER. BUT THE BOARD AND THE
STAFF MUST BE HELD TO THE UTMOST
ETHICAL STANDARDS AT THE SAME
TIME. TO THAT END, WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
PROTOCOLS AND IMPROVEMENTS ON
THE BOARD ITSELF. WE HAVE
REQUIRED CONFLICT OF INTEREST
TRAINING TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
, AND THAT TRAINING HAS BEEN
COMPLETED. WE ARE ALSO GETTING
TRAINING ON FILING AND OUR
STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST
TO FORM 700 SO THAT THE PUBLIC
IS FULLY AWARE OF THOSE
FINANCIAL INTERESTS THAT WE HAVE
THAT MIGHT COME TO BEAR AND
DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE AT THE
POLICY LEVEL. UM AND INDEED WHEN
WE ARE REQUIRED TO RECUSE
OURSELVES FROM ANY CONSIDERATION
OF THOSE ISSUES. WE HAVE ALSO
ROLLED OUT CONFLICTS TRAINING TO
THE STAFF OF THE OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL AS WELL AS
FORM 700 TRAINING AND THAT
TRAINING WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE
F P P C TO A TEST GROUP
COMPRISED OF KEY POSITIONS
WITHIN THE STATE BAR. AGAIN FROM
TOP TO BOTTOM WE'RE LOOKING AT.
WHERE ARE THE PRESSURE POINTS?
WHERE THE ISSUE WHERE THE PLACES
WHERE UNDUE INFLUENCE COULD BE
BROUGHT TO BEAR. AND HOW DO WE
STOP IT FROM HAPPENING? THERE
HAS BEEN A MORE ACTIVE ROLE BY
THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL
COUNSEL AND REMINDING BOARD
MEMBERS AND BEING PROACTIVE
ABOUT DISCUSSIONS ABOUT
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH US
TODAY IN THE AUDIENCES ARE NEWLY
HIRED GENERAL COUNSEL MISALIGNED
OFTEN SHE CAME TO THE STATE BAR
FROM L. A CARE HEALTH PLAN, THE
LARGEST PUBLIC HEALTH CARE
AGENCY IN THE COUNTRY IN THEIR
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL. WE
RECOGNIZE THAT PERCEIVED
CONFLICTS ARE AS PROBLEMATIC AS
ACTUAL ONES. AND WHEN THE FULL,
THE FULL BOARD LEARNED OF A
FORMER BOARD MEMBERS INVOLVEMENT
10 YEARS AGO AND INVESTIGATING A
GIRARDI COMPLAINT HE ADVANCED
HIS PLANNED RESIGNATION FROM THE
BOARD. AND THE BOARD IMMEDIATELY
DIRECTED AN APPROPRIATE
INVESTIGATION BY EXTERNAL
COUNSEL. EFFECTIVELY OVERSEEING
THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL
COUNSEL IS BOTH A TOP PRIORITY
AND A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT AMONG
THE BOARD AND OUR STAFF. WE HAVE
STARTED BY MAKING THE FULL BOARD
THE REGULATION AND DISCIPLINE
COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD,
ESSENTIALLY SITTING AS A
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE THE BOARD
NOW RECEIVED WHAT WE CALL
PERFORMANCE DASH BAR DASH BOARD
OF KEY INDICATORS AT EVERY ONE
OF OUR PUBLIC MEETINGS. MR
CARDONA HAS AND HIS STAFF HAVE
DEVELOPED A VERY USEFUL
INTERACTIVE DASHBOARD THAT ANY
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AND
TRUSTEES CAN GO ON TO LOOK AT
THE STATISTICS AND THE DATA AND
THERE'S ALWAYS A LOT OF
CONVERSATION ABOUT THE BACKLOG.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE CAN WE AND
YOU AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
CAN DO A DEEP DIVE ON ON THE, UH
THE CASES THAT ARE BEING HANDLED
BROAD, BROAD BRUSHSTROKES, OF
COURSE, NO DETAILS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL CASES. BUT THAT IS AN
IMPORTANT PART OF ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR US AND FOR MR CARDONA'S
OFFICE. WE ARE DOING THINGS LIKE
TRACKING ISSUES, INCLUDING
NUMBERS OF ATTORNEYS WITH
MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS, WHICH, OF
COURSE, AS WE LEARNED WITH MR
GERAGHTY SOME 200 COMPLAINTS
OVER A LONG CAREER. SOMETHING
LIKE THAT CERTAINLY SHOULD NEVER
BE ABLE TO HAPPEN AGAIN. AND IT
SHOULDN'T BE ANYWHERE NEAR 200,
RIGHT. IF THERE ARE 15
COMPLAINTS, THAT'S A PROBLEM, IF
THERE BUT OR MORE, IT'S
CERTAINLY A PROBLEM.
ADDITIONALLY THE BOARD HAS
APPOINTED WHAT ARE KNOWN AS
DISCIPLINE LIAISONS TO TRUSTEES
, WHOSE MAIN ONE OF THEIR MAIN
FOCUS IS TO INTERACT WITH MR
CARDONA AND HIS LEADERSHIP ON A
REGULAR BASIS TO CHECK IN ON THE
METRICS TO, UM, ADVANCE
DISCUSSION OF POLICIES, EFFORTS
THAT ARE GOING TO MAKE THEIR WAY
THROUGH THE COMMITTEES AND
THROUGH THE BORDER TRUSTEES FOR
ULTIMATE ACTION AND SOMETIMES
FOR, UM FOR RECOMMENDATION TO
THE LEGISLATURE AND THE SUPREME
COURT. BUT WHAT MORE IS NEEDED?
THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION OF A
DEDICATED DISCIPLINE MONITOR TO
PERFORM SOMETHING LIKE AN
INSPECTOR GENERAL FUNCTION.
INDEED THERE WAS A PRESENTATION
FROM SEVERAL EXPERTS AT. THE
LAST MEETING BEFORE THIS LAST
MEETING, SO TWO MEETINGS AGO,
AND THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE
ONGOING. WE CONTINUE TO
STRENGTHEN OUR CONFLICT OF
INTEREST POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
, MOST RECENTLY WITH SEVERAL
ACTIONS TAKEN AT OUR BOARD
MEETING LAST WEEK, AND WE
RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR STABLE
AND ALEX INADEQUATE FUNDING
SOURCE. TO MAKE THE CHANGES TO
THE DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM THAT ARE
REQUIRED TO REFORM THIS AGENCY.
WE STAND READY TO PARTNER WITH
YOU ON ADDITIONAL REFORMS. AS
WELL AS TO TACKLE THE SERIOUS
ACCESS TO LEGAL SERVICES AND THE
DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION
WORK. THAT IS ALSO A PART OF OUR
STATUTORY MISSION. BEFORE I TURN
THE MICROPHONE OVER TO MR
CARDONA. I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE
THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS AT HOT
COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY AND
GOVERNANCE. THEY ARE TWO OF THEM
ARE HERE WITH US TODAY IN THE
AUDIENCE. UM PRESTI, MELANIE
SHELBY. TRUSTEE, HIGHLAND CHEN.
TRUSTEE ARNIE ARNIE SO WELL, IT
WILL BE HERE WITH US SHORTLY. UM
AND WITH YOUR PERMISSION, MR
CHAIR TO BE A PART OF THE THAT
THIRD PANEL THAT WE'RE GOING TO
TALK ABOUT. UM THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES AS AS YOU MAY KNOW, AND
IS REFLECTED IN YOUR IN YOUR
WRITTEN MATERIAL IS 13 MEMBERS
PUBLIC AND OR NON ATTORNEY AND
ATTORNEY. UNDER THE CURRENT
STRUCTURE, THERE ARE SUPPOSED TO
BE SEVEN ATTORNEY MEMBERS AND
SIX PUBLIC MEMBERS, PUBLIC
MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE
GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE.
THE ATTORNEY MEMBERS APPOINTED
BY THE LEGISLATURE AND BY THE
SUPREME COURT. WE ARE TWO
MEMBERS SHY AT THE MOMENT, BUT
WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVING
THE APPOINTING. AUTHORITIES
OFFER SOME WHAT HAVE WHAT I HOPE
WILL BE CONTINUED. EXCELLENT.
TRUSTEES WITH A DIVERSE
BACKGROUND, LEGAL AND NON LEGAL
IN CALIFORNIA, AND ALSO
DIVERSITY IN THE STATE. BY WAY
OF PRACTICES, UM AND GEOGRAPHY.
VICE CHAIR BRANDON STALLINGS,
WHO IS HERE WITH US IS, UH, A,
UM, PRACTICING ATTORNEY IN THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN
CURRENT COUNTY. UM ONE OF OUR
BOARD MEMBERS. IS THAT ELECTED
MAYOR. EXCUSE ME. THEY ELECTED
TREASURER OF SAN FRANCISCO JOSE
CISNEROS. I HAVE USED MY TIME
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO ANSWERING
QUESTIONS AND IT CONTINUED
CONVERSATION. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR CARDONA.
THANKS I'M JORGE CARDONA. I'M
THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL. I WAS
APPOINTED IN OCTOBER OF 2021 BY
THE BOARD. AND THEN CONFIRMED BY
THE SENATE IN LATE JUNE OF 2022.
WHEN I CAME ON BOARD, THE ISSUES
RELATING TO GIRARDI WERE ALREADY
FRONT AND CENTER. UM AND AT MY
CONFIRMATION HEARING, I
COMMITTED TO TRYING TO DO
EVERYTHING WE COULD TO REFORM Ó
CTC AND TRY AND MAKE SURE THAT
WE PUT IT IN THE BEST POSITION
TO ASSURE THAT NOTHING LIKE THAT
EVER HAPPENED AGAIN. SINCE THEN,
OF COURSE, WE'VE HAD THE RELEASE
OF THE REDACTED VERSIONS OF THE
MAY AND LAZAR REPORTS. WHICH
WERE PREPARED AT THE BARS
REQUEST, EXAMINE IN DETAIL THE
FAILINGS AND EVEN MORE
HIGHLIGHT. UM, THE FAILINGS THAT
OCCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH
HANDLING THE CASES AGAINST
GIRARDI. AS I THINK WE ALL
RECOGNIZE THOSE ARE THINGS THAT
SHOULDN'T HAPPEN. THERE ARE
THINGS THAT CAN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
AND WE'VE BEGUN AND ARE TRYING
TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAKE
SURE THAT THEY DON'T HAPPEN
AGAIN. WE'VE MADE A NUMBER OF
CHANGES IN OUR POLICIES. OVER
TIME SINCE I STARTED WE'RE STILL
DOING THAT. BUT IT'S WORTH A
MILLION. LAZAR REPORTS MAKE
CLEAR CHANGES IN POLICIES ISN'T
ENOUGH. WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT
THOSE POLICIES ARE UNDERSTOOD
AND FOLLOWED BY ALL OF OUR
STAFF. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
THERE ARE PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO
MAKE THIS AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE.
AND TO ENSURE THAT INDIVIDUALS
ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IF THEY
DON'T FOLLOW THOSE POLICIES. AND
WE ALSO NEED TO ENSURE THAT WE
HAVE INCENTIVES IN PLACE FOR THE
HANDLING OF CASES. THAT ARE
CONSISTENT WITH OUR GOALS. IN
PARTICULAR. WE NEED TO MOVE AWAY
FROM INCENTIVES THAT ENCOURAGE I
CLOSING CASES. AND MOVE TOWARDS
INCENTIVES THAT ENCOURAGE PEOPLE
TO IDENTIFY AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE THOSE CASES THAT POSE
SIGNIFICANT RISKS. AND THEN
DEVOTE THE MAJORITY OF OUR
RESOURCES TO INVESTIGATING
HANDLING AND DISCIPLINING THE
ATTORNEYS WHO POSED THOSE RISKS.
WE'RE TRYING TO DO ALL THAT. AND
SO, WITH ALL OF THAT IN MIND,
HERE ARE SOME SPECIFIC THINGS
THAT WE'VE DONE TO TRY AND
ADDRESS SOME OF THE SPECIFIC
THINGS THAT WE LEARNED. FROM THE
MAY REPORT, THE LAZAR REPORT AND
ALSO THE PRIOR APRIL 22 REPORT
OF THE STATE AUDITOR. THAT ALSO
LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF ISSUES
ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH THE
GIRARDI MATTERS. THE FIRST. THE
MAY REPORT FOUND THAT PART OF
THE REASON WHY STATE BAR
INSIDERS UM, FAILED
APPROPRIATELY TO DISCLOSE GIFTS
FROM AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH
GIRARDI. I MEAN HANDLED CASES,
DESPITE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
OBVIOUS CONFLICTS. WAS THE STATE
BARS, HISTORICAL LACK AND I'M
QUOTING FROM THE REPORT
HISTORICAL LACK. OF ROBUST
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST POLICIES
AND RELATED POLICIES REGULATING,
FOR EXAMPLE, THE RECEIVING OF
GIFTS FROM ATTORNEYS. AND LITTLE
OR NO FORMAL TRAINING ON
CONFLICTS ISSUES FOR STATE BAR
STAFF. SO EFFECTIVE JUNE 1ST OF
LAST YEAR. OH CTC FOR OUR
EMPLOYEES. PUT IN PLACE, A NEW
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY AND
ACCOMPANYING PROCEDURES
REGARDING BOTH CONFLICTS AND
GIFTS. WITH RESPECT TO CONFLICTS
. THE POLICY PROVIDES DETAILED
OUTLINES OF WHAT CAN CONSTITUTE
THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF
CONFLICTS. FINANCIAL PERSONAL
POTENTIAL ACTUAL. AND REQUIRES
ATTORNEYS AND INVESTIGATORS THE
ONES WHO MAKE THE DISCRETIONARY
DECISIONS IN OUR CASES. TO
PERFORM AND DOCUMENT CONFLICT
CHECKS BOTH WHEN THEY GET CASES
ASSIGNED TO THEM. AND PRIOR TO
TAKING ANY ACTION TO CLOSE A
CASE. THESE DOCUMENTED CONFLICT
CHECKS APPEAR IN OUR CASE
MANAGEMENT DATABASE, AND WE CAN
RUN REPORTS TO IDENTIFY CASES IN
WHICH CONFLICT CHECKS WERE NOT
DONE, AS REQUIRED. WITH RESPECT
TO GIFTS. THE NEW POLICY
IMPLEMENTS WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A
BLANKET PROHIBITION. I KNOW CTC
ATTORNEYS OR INVESTIGATORS
RECEIVING OR ACCEPTING. DIRECTLY
OR INDIRECTLY, ANY GIFT OR THING
OF VALUE FROM ANY CALIFORNIA
LICENSED ATTORNEY. UNLESS
THERE'S A PRE DISCLOSED PERSONAL
RELATIONSHIP THAT WOULD ALREADY
ENSURE THAT THEY'RE CONFLICTED
OFF OF ANY MATTER INVOLVING THAT
ATTORNEY. THE POLICY ALSO
REQUIRES ANNUAL TRAINING FOR ALL
STAFF ON THESE POLICIES. WE
WORKED WITH THE OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL, AND WE JUST
PROVIDED THAT TRAINING TO ALL
STAFF IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR.
SECOND THE MAN WAS OUR REPORTS
NOTED DISTURBING PATTERN. OF
INSTANCES IN WHICH INDIVIDUALS
WOULD SUBMIT COMPLAINTS ALLEGING
GIRARDI'S FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY
THEM SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS THAT
THEY SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED. THEN
ONCE YOU'RE ALREADY LEARNED OF
THE COMPLAINT, HE WOULD PAY THE
AMOUNT DUE. THE COMPLAINANT
WOULD THEN WITHDRAW THEIR
COMPLAINT AND CTC THEN BASED
SIMPLY ON THE WITHDRAWAL WITHOUT
ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION. I
WOULD CLOSE THE COMPLAINT.
AGAIN. THIS SHOULDN'T HAVE
HAPPENED. IN FEBRUARY OF THIS
YEAR OF FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR.
OH, CTC IMPLEMENTED A NEW
POLICY. MAKING CLEAR THAT A
COMPLAINING WITNESS IS
WITHDRAWAL OF THEIR COMPLAINT.
WHETHER BECAUSE THEY REACHED A
RESOLUTION WITH THE ATTORNEY AT
ISSUE OR FOR OTHER REASONS IS
NOT ALONE A BASIS FOR CLOSING A
COMPLAINT. INSTEAD IF WE CAN
PROCEED WITHOUT THE
COMPLAINANT'S ASSISTANCE, IN
OTHER WORDS, IF WE THINK WE CAN
DO IT WITHOUT THEIR HELP WEEK.
PROCEED AND WE CONTINUE WITH THE
INVESTIGATION OF THOSE
COMPLAINTS. TO IMPLEMENT THIS.
WE IMPLEMENTED NEW CLOSING CODES
IN OUR CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO
MAKE CLEAR THAT CLOSURES IN
THESE INSTANCES CAN'T BE BASED
JUST ON THE WITHDRAWAL. BUT HAVE
TO BE BASED ON AN ASSESSMENT OF
THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
IN THE ABSENCE OF INFORMATION
FROM THE COMPLAINANT. WE
CONDUCTED A RANDOM SAMPLE OF
CASES CLOSED WITH THESE NEW
CLOTHES TO BE ENSURED THAT THEY
WERE BEING CLOSED CORRECTLY. AND
THOSE AUDIT RESULTS WERE
SUBMITTED TO THE STATE AUDITOR
AS PART OF OUR REPORT ON
COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR APRIL 22
RECOMMENDATION. I'M THIRD THE
MAN, LAZAR REPORTS NOTED
NUMEROUS INSTANCES. I MEAN,
WHICH O C T C STAFF APPEARED TO
BE CLOSING OR USING NON PUBLIC
MEASURES TO RESOLVE INDIVIDUAL
COMPLAINTS AGAINST GIRARDI
WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF OTHER
PENDING COMPLAINTS. OR OF PRIOR
SIMILAR CLOSED COMPLAINTS.
FAILURES TO IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS
PATTERNS OF PRIOR COMPLAINTS.
WAS ALSO NOTED IN THE STATE
AUDITORS APRIL 20 TO 2022 REPORT
TO ADDRESS THIS IN FEBRUARY OF
2022 WE PUT IN PLACE A NEW
POLICY. MAKING CLEARER FOR
EVERYBODY THAT THE LAWYERS
PATTERN OF PRIOR CLOSED
COMPLAINTS. NEEDS TO BE
CONSIDERED IN MAKING
INVESTIGATIVE DECISIONS. IN
OCTOBER OF 2022. WE ISSUED A NEW
POLICY SETTING OUT CLEAR
CRITERIA. TO LIMIT THE USE OF
NON PUBLIC RESOLUTIONS OF
DISCIPLINARY MATTERS. REQUIRING
CONSIDERATION OF BOTH THE
SERIOUSNESS OF THE CURRENTLY
ALLEGED CONDUCT. AND THE
ATTORNEYS PRIOR HISTORY OF
COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE. IN
NOVEMBER, 2022 WORKING WITH
STAFF FROM THE STATE BARS,
MISSION ADVANCEMENT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY DIVISION. WE
PROVIDED OUR STAFF WITH AN
INTERACTIVE DASHBOARD THAT
ALLOWS THEM TO SEARCH AND
IDENTIFY. BOTH OPEN AND
PREVIOUSLY CLOSED COMPLAINTS FOR
PARTICULAR ATTORNEY GROUPED BY
GENERAL CATEGORY. TO MAKE IT
EASIER TO IDENTIFY PATTERN. IN
MAY OF 20. THIS YEAR, WE ADOPTED
NEW PROCEDURES REGARDING CASES
INVOLVING REPEATERS. THAT IS
ATTORNEYS WHO ARE COMPLAINT IS
FILED WITH US, AND WE LEARNED
THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE A
PREVIOUSLY CLOSED COMPLAINT
WITHIN 90 DAYS OR A CURRENTLY
OPEN COMPLAINT. THIS IS NEW
POLICY ENSURES THAT PRIOR AND
PENDING CASES ARE CONSIDERED AND
THAT THE TEAM HANDLING ANY
CURRENT COMPLAINT OR ANY PRIOR
COMPLAINT ARE AWARE OF EACH
OTHER. SO WE'RE NOT SILO OWING
INFORMATION. ACROSS DIFFERENT
ATTORNEYS. WE'VE ALSO
IMPLEMENTED A NEW FLAG IN OUR
CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, FOR
WHICH CASES IN WHICH ARE
RESPONDED IS IDENTIFIED AS
HAVING 15 OR MORE COMPLAINTS.
EITHER CLOSED OR PENDING OVER
THE LAST FIVE YEARS. CASES THAT
ARE FLAGGED AS 15 PLUS
RESPONDENT RECEIVE INCREASED
SCRUTINY PRIOR TO CLOSURE.
INCLUDING REQUIRED CONSIDERATION
OF THE RESPONDENTS PRIOR
COMPLAINT HISTORY. AND ANY
PATTERNS DEMONSTRATED BY THAT
HISTORY. SO IN ADDITION TO THESE
NEW POLICIES, PROCEDURES WE'VE
TAKEN A NUMBER OF OTHER STEPS TO
TRY TO ENSURE THAT NOTHING LIKE
GIRARDI HAPPENS AGAIN. WE'VE
PROVIDED MANDATORY TRAINING FOR
ALL OUR ATTORNEYS AND
INVESTIGATORS ON INVESTIGATING
CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT MATTERS.
WE'VE ENCOURAGED THE USE OF
FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS. IF WE HAVE
TO CONTRACT OUTSIDE WITH THEM.
WE DO. AND WE'VE ACTUALLY HIRED
ONE FULL TIME FORENSIC
ACCOUNTANT TO HANDLE AND CONSULT
ON COMPLICATED FINANCIAL
INVESTIGATIONS. WE'RE IN THE
MIDST OF A REORGANIZATION THAT
I'LL DISCUSS IN A MOMENT, AND
IT'S PART OF THAT. WE'RE HOPING
TO ADD A SECOND FORENSIC
ACCOUNTANT TO ADDRESS THESE
TYPES OF CASES. EFFECTIVE IN
AUGUST OF LAST YEAR, WE
IMPLEMENTED A PILOT PROJECT. UM
IN ACCORD WITH THE STATE
AUDITORS, APRIL 2022
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT IMPOSE
HEIGHTENED PROCEDURES.
INVESTIGATING BOTH BANK
REPORTABLE ACTIONS. INSTANCES
WERE A BANK NOTIFIES US THAT
THERE'S BEEN AN INSUFFICIENT
FUNDS TRANSFER, UM IN A CLIENT
TRUST ACCOUNT AND OTHER
COMPLAINTS INVOLVING CLIENT
TRUST ACCOUNTS. PART OF OUR
REGARDING IZATION. BASED ON THE
DATA FROM THE PILOT PROJECT. WE
PLAN ON MAKING THIS PILOT TEAM
PERMANENT. SO THOSE ARE ALL
EXAMPLES OF THINGS WE'VE DONE
AND OBVIOUSLY I HAVE ONE MINUTE
LEFT. I'M TOLD SO I'LL TALK A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE'RE
DOING IN THE FUTURE, AND
HOPEFULLY YOU'LL GIVE ME 30 OR
40 SECONDS MORE. UM WE'RE IN THE
MIDST OF A SUBSTANTIAL
REORGANIZATION. WE ARE TRYING IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM BOTH THE AUDITOR AND THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE. TO
DIFFERENTIATE CASES
APPROPRIATELY SO THAT WE CAN
ASSIGN THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF
RESOURCES TO THEM. WE'RE KEEPING
SOME SPECIALIST TEAMS. WE'RE
MOVING TO A HORIZONTAL HANDLING
OF SOME CASES, AND WE'RE GOING
TO RETAIN VERTICAL HANDLING OF
OTHERS. WE'RE ALSO IN THE
PROCESS OF TRYING TO IMPLEMENT A
PROGRAM TO ALLOW PRE
INVESTIGATION DIVERSION. FOR
CERTAIN RESPONDENTS WITH LIMITED
HISTORIES OF COMPLAINTS AND
FAIRLY MINOR VIOLATIONS. WITH
THE DUAL GOAL OF DECREASING ARE
CURRENTLY GROWING INVENTORY OF
CASES, WHILE ALSO PROVIDING
PREVENTIVE RESOURCES TO
ATTORNEYS TO AVOID FUTURE
COMPLAINTS. WE ALSO SUBMITTED
LAST YEAR PROPOSED NEW CASE
PROCESSING STANDARDS AND WITH
THE REORGANIZATION THAT WE'RE
PUTTING IN PLACE AND EFFORTS TO
STREAMLINE OUR HANDLING OF
CASES. WE HOPE TO SOON BE IN A
POSITION TO WORK WITH YOU ON THE
WORKLOAD ANALYSIS THAT WILL BE
NECESSARY TO ASSIGN STAFFING
LEVELS AND FIGURE OUT THE
APPROPRIATE STAFFING LEVELS FOR
WHATEVER NEW CASE PROCESSING
STANDARDS ARE ADOPTED. UM, SO
THAT'S BASICALLY A BRIEF
OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE'VE DONE AND
WHERE WE'RE GOING IN THE HOPES
OF MAKING Ó CTC BOTH MORE
EFFICIENT AND MORE EFFECTIVE IN
ADDRESSING ATTORNEYS WHO VIOLATE
THE RULES. AND WITH THAT, I'LL
TURN IT OVER TO LEO WILSON.
THANK YOU, MR CARDONA, MISS
WILSON WILSON, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE STATE BAR. I WAS
IN THE ROLE FROM 2017 TO 2020. I
LEFT FOR ABOUT 18 MONTHS AND I
CAME BACK IN 2021, AND I'M GONNA
TAKE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
VANTAGE POINT HERE BECAUSE, OF
COURSE, AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. I
DO NOT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY OR
AUTHORITY. FOR THE OVERSIGHT OF
DISCIPLINE CASE PROCESSING. UM
BUT WHAT I DO HAVE IS A
RESPONSIBILITY TO SUPPORT THE
BOARD AND ITS EFFORTS TO OVERSEE
THE DISCIPLINE SYSTEM AND TO
SUPPORT GEORGE IN HIS WORK AND
MAKING SURE THAT THE OPPOSITE
THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL IS
SUFFICIENTLY RESOURCED, BUT ALSO
THAT THE CULTURE OF THE
ORGANIZATION OVERALL SUPPORTS
THE KIND OF CHANGE THAT WE'VE
ALL BEEN THAT'S BROUGHT US HERE
TODAY, AS HAS BEEN CITED A
NUMBER OF TIMES, AARON MAY
IDENTIFIED A VERY LAX CULTURE,
MORAL CULTURE AT THE STATE BAR.
AND CULTURE IS NOT SOMETHING
THAT YOU CAN CHANGE WITH A LIST
OF TACTICAL TWO DUIS. IF ANY OF
YOU HAVE DONE CULTURE WORK, YOU
KNOW THAT, BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY
FOUNDATIONAL TO ENSURING THAT
THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. AND SO
BOTH OUR BOARD CHAIR AND GEORGE
TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF POLICY
INITIATIVES IN THIS AREA. BUT
WE'VE ALSO DONE SOME OTHER WORK,
INCLUDING DEVELOPING AND ROLLING
OUT ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES,
WORKING WITH OUR STAFF ABOUT HOW
EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US FROM
THOSE IN THE MAIL ROOM TO THOSE
AT THE TOP OF THE WORK CHART ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR HOLDING ONE
ANOTHER ACCOUNTABLE TO THE
VALUES AND FOR OUR CULTURE. I
THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.
IT'S CRITICAL TO ANSWERING THAT
QUESTION OF HOW CAN WE ENSURE
THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. WE'VE
ALSO RECENTLY IMPLEMENTED A
CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE TO SERVE AS THE
INVESTIGATOR GATE OF ENTITY FOR
ANY WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINTS YOU
HEARD FROM AARON MAY THIS
MORNING ABOUT HOW WE HAD GOOD
EMPLOYEES IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF CHILD COUNCIL TRYING TO DO
THE RIGHT THING VIS A VIS
GIRARDI. WHO ENDED UP BEING
TERMINATED. THERE WAS NO
MEANINGFUL AVENUE FOR THOSE
INDIVIDUALS TO VOICE THEIR
CONCERNS OUTSIDE OF THE
ORGANIZATION. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY
NOT THE CASE TODAY. WE ALSO HAVE
AN ANONYMOUS EMPLOYEE INBOX.
IT'S A SYSTEM CALLED INCOGNITO.
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT TO ANY OF
YOU. IT'S AN ONLINE SYSTEM. BUT
ANY CONCERNS THAT COME IN
REGARDING OUR DISCIPLINE SYSTEM
ARE SENT DIRECTLY TO THOSE
DISCIPLINE LIAISONS AT THE BOARD
CHAIR REFERENCE. SO AGAIN, IT'S
NOT GOING INTO A BLACK HOLE.
THERE IS VISIBILITY TO ANY
CONCERNS THAT ARE RAISED BY
STAFF AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND I
THINK THAT'S SOMETHING REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT I WANT TO GET
ACROSS. I ALSO WANT TO TAKE A
COUPLE OF MOMENTS TO TALK ABOUT
SOME THINGS THAT I THINK ARE
IMPORTANT SOME OF WHICH STEM
DIRECTLY FROM THE GIRARDI MATTER
, BUT AGAIN NOT DIRECTLY RELATED
TO DISCIPLINE CASE PROCESSING.
THE FIRST IS OUR WORK TO ADDRESS
RACIAL DISPARITIES IN THE
DISCIPLINE SYSTEM. IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US TO
REMEMBER THIS WORK NOW, AS WE
ARE TALKING POTENTIALLY ABOUT
GETTING TOUGHER ON CRIME IN
RESPONSE TO GIRARDI, I THINK
THERE IS AN OBVIOUS AND
NECESSARY REACTION THAT WE NEED
TO DO A BETTER JOB OF
INVESTIGATING AND PROSECUTING
THIS CONDO. ACT. HOWEVER AT THE
SAME TIME WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT
WE DO NOT EXACERBATE EXISTING
DISPARITIES IN OUR SYSTEM AS A
REMINDER IN 2018 19, THE STATE
BAR BECAME THE FIRST LICENSING
AGENCY OF ITS KIND TO STUDY
RACIAL DISPARITIES IN
DISCIPLINE. WHAT WE FOUND IS YES
, BLACKMAIL ATTORNEYS TWICE AS
LIKELY TO BE DISCIPLINED AS
THEIR WHITE MALE COUNTERPARTS.
WE FOUND THAT THE DRIVERS FOR
THAT DISPARITY HAVE TO DO
PRIMARILY WITH TWO FACTORS.
DESPERATE NUMBERS OF COMPLAINTS
AND THE LACK OF REPRESENTATION
IN THE DISCIPLINE SYSTEM. ON THE
COMPLAINT SIDE, ONE OF THE KEY
FACTORS DRIVING COMPLAINTS
AGAINST BLACKMAIL ATTORNEYS ARE
REPORTABLE ACTIONS FROM BANKS.
AND THIS TAKES US TO ANOTHER
INITIATIVE I WANT TO DISCUSS,
BUT THE REPORTABLE ACTION FROM
BANK THAT'S A CLIENT TRUST
ACCOUNT ISSUE. SO THAT'S A VERY
IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THIS
DISPARITY THAT THE BAR IS NOW
ADDRESSING SQUARELY, UM, ON THE
REPRESENTATION FRONT, UH,
BLACKMAIL ATTORNEYS AT LEAST
LIKELY TO BE REPRESENTED IN OUR
DISCIPLINE SYSTEM. SO SOMETHING
FOR US ALL TO CONSIDER. RIGHT
NOW. THERE IS NO APPOINTED
COUNSEL IN THAT SYSTEM BASED ON
INCOME. UM AND THIS CERTAINLY
MAYBE AN EFFORT THAT THE
LEGISLATURE IS INTERESTED IN
PARTNERING WITH US ON BUT MOVING
ON TO CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNTS. I
MENTIONED THAT THERE IS A
SIGNIFICANT VARIANCE IN WHO
RECEIVES A BANK REPORTABLE
ACTION ON A CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT
MATTER. THAT GIRARDI? UM
SITUATION CERTAINLY HIGHLIGHTED
OUR LACK OF OVERSIGHT AS AN
ORGANIZATION ON CLIENT TRUST
ACCOUNTS. SOME OF YOU MAY BE
AWARE THAT FOR DECADES NOW
ATTORNEYS HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO
REPORT INFORMATION ON THERE.
I'IL TO ACCOUNTS. THOSE ARE THE
POOLED TRUST ACCOUNTS. MULTIPLE
CLIENTS THAT REPORTING HAS
REALLY STEMMED FROM A DESIRE TO
MANAGE THE INTEREST RATES BEING
LEVIED ON THOSE ACCOUNTS BECAUSE
THE INTEREST OF FUNDS ARE TURNED
AROUND TO, UH, PROVIDE RESOURCES
TO LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS
IN THIS STATE TO THE TUNE OF 60
OR $70 MILLION, BUT THAT WAS THE
REASON WHY WE WERE COLLECTING
INFORMATION ON TWO ACCOUNTS AND
JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OVER
ABOUT 30 YEARS WE RECEIVED
INFORMATION ON 40,000 IOTA
ACCOUNTS DURING THAT PROCESS.
PURSUANT TO THE WORK THAT THE
BOARD DID IN RESPONSE TO GIRARDI
, THE STATE BAR INITIATED THE
CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT PROTECTION
PROGRAM, OR C TAP, WHICH FOR THE
FIRST TIME REQUIRES ATTORNEYS TO
REPORT NOT ONLY ON THEIR IOTA
ACCOUNTS, BUT ON THEIR
INDIVIDUAL CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNTS
AS WELL. THIS IS NOW A RULE THAT
IF THIS IS NOT COMPLIED WITH
WILL MAKE AN ATTORNEY SUBJECT TO
DISCIPLINE THE REPORTING PERIOD
ON THIS JUST CLOSED. I'M VERY
HAPPY TO REPORT WE HAD 94%
COMPLIANCE OVER 204,000
ATTORNEYS REPORTING AND WHAT WE
LEARNED IS WE HAVE ABOUT 87,000
ATTORNEYS WITH IOTA IOTA OR
SITA'S IN THIS STATE. YOU HAVE
$30 BILLION ON DEPOSIT IN THESE
ACCOUNTS, VERY LITTLE EXPOSURE
TO THIS OR OVERSIGHT. THERE'S
FOUR PRACTICE AREAS VERY UP FOR
THESE TRUST ACCOUNTS. WE FIND
THEM PREDOMINANTLY IN THESE FOUR
PRACTICE AREAS. UM WE ARE AT THE
BEGINNING OF BEING ABLE TO
EFFECTIVELY REGULATE AND OVERSEE
THIS AREA BECAUSE WE RECEIVE
PARALLEL INFORMATION OR
CORRESPONDING INFORMATION FROM
BANKS. ONLY WITH RESPECT. I'LL
TWO ACCOUNTS SO OBVIOUSLY WHAT
THE STATE BAR ULTIMATELY WANTS
TO BE ABLE TO DO IS MATCH
INFORMATION AND ATTORNEY HAS
REPORTED. WITH INFORMATION A
BANK HAS REPORTED. AND YOU WANT
TO SEE A 1 TO 1 MATCH RIGHT NOW
ON THE AISLE TWO SIDE WE DON'T
HAVE THAT WE HAVE ABOUT 19,000
MISMATCHES. THAT MEANS A BANK
HAS REPORTED THAT THE ATTORNEY
HAS NOT REPORTED. THIS IS THE
FIRST FLAG FOR THE STATE BAR TO
PROACTIVELY REACH OUT TO AN
ATTORNEY AND SAY, HEY, A BANK
HAS REPORTED. YOU HAVE AN
ACCOUNT. DO YOU WANT TO CORRECT
YOUR REPORTING TO THE STATE BAR
AND THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING,
AND I TIE THIS BACK TO THE
FARKAS STUDY BECAUSE THIS IS
WHAT WE ARE DOING OUTSIDE OF THE
DISCIPLINE PROCESS. WE ARE
WORKING TO SUPPORT ATTORNEYS AND
BEING COMPLIANT. WE'RE GIVING
YOU OPPORTUNITIES TO REPORT YOUR
INFORMATION TO THE STATE BAR. WE
ARE PROVIDING A TREMENDOUS
NUMBER OF TOOLS TO LEARN HOW TO
PROPERLY MANAGE YOUR CLIENT
TRUST ACCOUNTS. AND IT IS ONLY
AN EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WILL
CASES BE REFERRED TO THE OFFICE
OF THE CHIEF CHILD COUNCIL, BUT
THEY WILL BE REFERRED SO AGAIN.
THIS IS ANOTHER EFFORT THAT WE
WOULD LOVE TO PARTNER WITH ALL
OF YOU ON AS I MENTIONED, WE
ONLY GET BANK DATA ON THE AISLE
TWO SIDE. UH WE WOULD VERY MUCH
LIKE TO GET BANK DATA ON THE
INDIVIDUAL CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT
SIDE AS WELL. MOVING ON TO
ANOTHER INITIATIVE. I KNOW AS
SENATOR AMBERG IN PARTICULAR,
VERY IMPORTANT TO YOU. THE
MANDATORY REPORTING FOR
ATTORNEYS JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT
THE FACT THAT THE BUT THE BOARD
JUST THIS LAST WEEK DID VOTE TO
SEND TWO VERSIONS OF A MANDATORY
REPORTING RULE TO THE SUPREME
COURT, AND I THINK IT'S BEEN
RIGHTFULLY NOTED THAT IN THE
PAST, THE STATE BAR HAS TAKEN UP
THIS ISSUE. AND NOT HAD THE
WHEREWITHAL TO ADVANCE A RULE.
THIS TIME THE BOARD DID
SOMETHING DIFFERENT, AND I THINK
THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT HOW THE STATE BAR HAS
CHANGED. IT'S NOT THAT WE DIDN'T
RECEIVE SCORES OF OPPOSITION
FROM LAWYERS TO THIS RULE, BUT
YOU DO HAVE A DIFFERENT BOARD IN
A DIFFERENT STATE BAR AND TWO
VERSIONS OF THAT RULE ARE BEING
SENT FORWARD TO THE SUPREME
COURT. THE LAST THING I WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT. THAT SORT OF IS AN
UNDERPINNING THAT'S IMPORTANT
CONTEXT FOR ANY DISCUSSION WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE ABOUT NEXT STEPS
IS OUR FINANCIAL INTEGRITY. UM
IT'S BEEN REFERENCED CERTAINLY
IN THE BACKGROUND PAPER, MANY
MISSTEPS IN THE PAST, I DO WANT
TO HIGHLIGHT THAT JUST THIS THIS
YEAR, THE STATE AUDITOR RELEASED
A REPORT AFTER HAVING REVIEWED
OUR FINANCIALS EXTENSIVELY. AND
INDICATED THAT THE STATE BAR
NEEDED A FEE INCREASE A FAIRLY
SIGNIFICANT FEE INCREASE. AND IT
IS BOTH THAT RECOGNITION OF THE
NEED OF FEE INCREASE BUT PERHAPS
EVEN MORE THAT CLEAN BILL OF
FINANCIAL HEALTH, SO TO SPEAK,
THAT THE STATE AUDITOR GAVE US
THAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT HERE. I
THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO EXPECT
AND DEMAND THAT OF US, AND I
JUST WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT WE
TAKE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES QUITE
SERIOUSLY IN THIS REGARD. ALSO
ON A FINANCIAL NOTE AT THE BOARD
AT ITS MEETING LAST WEEK, ALSO
APPROVED THE SALE OF OUR
BUILDING IN SAN FRANCISCO. THIS
IS ANOTHER SORT OF EFFORT THAT
HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR YEARS
. THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE BEEN
ENGAGING WITH US. CERTAINLY STOP
WE'VE HEARD. WHY DO YOU OWN A
BUILDING IN SAN FRANCISCO? AND
WHY ARE YOU A LANDLORD AT THE
STATE BAR HAS FINALLY TAKEN
ACTION AND MOVED TO SELL THAT
BUILDING AND I EXPECT THAT THE
BOARD WILL RECEIVE A PURCHASE
AGREEMENT TO FORMALLY AUTHORIZED
AT ITS MEETING IN JULY, SO DOING
OUR PART TO ENSURE THE FISCAL
INTEGRITY OF THE ORGANIZATION
AND WE CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH YOU TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ARE ADEQUATELY RESOURCED
GOING FORWARD TO DO THE GOOD
WORK THAT I KNOW THAT YOU EXPECT
OF US. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MISS WILSON. APPRECIATE THAT.
ALRIGHT. QUESTIONS COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? YES.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SALLY. THANK
YOU, MR SENATE CHAIR. UM I
APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION AND
THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE MANY
CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE, BUT
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS NOT
SIMPLY A POLICY FAILURE. THERE
WAS CRIMINAL CONDUCT. COMMITTED
HERE. UM WHAT CHARGES HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT AGAINST ANY FORMER STATE
BAR EMPLOYEES. MR DURAN. MR
CARDONA, I WILL ANSWER THAT IN
THE WAY THAT I CAN WHILE
REMAINING WITHIN CONFIDENTIALITY
REQUIREMENTS. UM SO UH OH. CTC
BECAUSE VIRTUALLY EVERYBODY
IDENTIFIED IN THE MAY REPORT,
UM, WAS EITHER A WAS A FORMER
EMPLOYEE OF OAK TCO. CTC WOULD
BE CONFLICTED OFF OF THAT, SO
ANY DISCIPLINARY MATTERS WOULD
BE REFERRED OUT TO THE SPECIAL
DISCIPLINARY TRIAL COUNSEL,
WHICH IS THE ENTITY THAT HANDLES
CONFLICT CASES WHEN WE HAVE A
CONFLICT IN TERMS OF CRIMINAL
REFERRALS THAT WOULD BE DONE BY
THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL.
UM AND I WILL LOOK BACK TO SEE
IF I CAN SAY ANYTHING ABOUT
THAT. SURE COME ON, YOU MAY COME
FORWARD TO SPEAK OF THE
MICROPHONE. YOU CAN SPEAK FROM
THE MICROPHONE RIGHT THERE IN
FRONT OF YOU. IF YOU LIKE.
IDENTIFY YOURSELF. YES I LEANED
. UPTON CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY
YES, WE CAN COUNSEL FOR THE
STATE BAR. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TODAY.
AND, UM, I WANTED TO ASSURE BOTH
THE JUDICIAL AND ASSEMBLY. UM
COMMITTEES THAT APPROPRIATE
REFERRAL REFERRALS HAVE BEEN
MADE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. WE MADE
REFERRALS TO LOS ANGELES
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. WE
ALSO MADE REFERRALS TO F PPC.
AND AS SOME OF YOU MAY BE AWARE
WE WERE ALSO COLLABORATING WITH
THE FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE MAY
REPORT. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE
ANYTHING PUBLIC THAT YOU CAN, UM
ACKNOWLEDGED TODAY?
UNFORTUNATELY I'M NOT IN THE
POSITION TO SAY MORE NOT TO
INTERFERE WITH ANY INVESTIGATIVE
ACTIVITIES OF OUR, YOU KNOW, LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. RIGHT OKAY
. I APPRECIATE THAT, AND I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THAT'S MADE
PUBLIC THAT THOSE CRIMINAL
REFERRALS ARE MADE PUBLIC
BECAUSE, UM, PART OF FIXING THE
WRONGS IS HAVING ACCOUNTABILITY
AND JUSTICE. AND WHEN I LOOK AT
FORMER EMPLOYEES RECEIVING
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
, UH, EMPLOYMENT FOR CHILDREN UM
, LAVISH LUNCHES. POLITICAL
CONTRIBUTIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR
FAVORITISM. UM ACTS OR OMISSIONS
IS CRIMINAL. AND UM, I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THEY BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE. UM FOR FUTURE
DETERRENCE AS WELL. SO I
APPRECIATE THAT. AND I THANK
YOU. UM AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND MR
CARDONA THAT THERE ARE
DISCIPLINARY THE DISCIPLINE
ACTION AGAINST MR DUNN IS ACTIVE
. AND YOU'RE SAYING YOUR OFFICE
WOULD NOT BE THE ONE HANDLING
THAT? YES THERE IS AN ACT THERE
WAS. I AM NOT AWARE OF THE
CURRENT STATUS OF THAT BECAUSE
WE'RE RECUSED FROM IT, BUT THAT
IS BEING HANDLED BY THE SPECIAL
DISCIPLINARY TRIAL COUNSEL,
WHICH AGAIN IS THE BODY THAT
HANDLES CASES WERE CONFLICTED
OFF OF WERE CONFLICTED BECAUSE
OBVIOUSLY HE WAS A FORMER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BAR.
YEAH I SEE THAT HE'S STILL
LICENSED TO PRACTICE AND
AFFILIATED WITH THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE. SO UM, SO
WITH THAT SAID, I APPRECIATE THE
EFFORTS. I THINK POLICY CHANGES
ARE IMPORTANT. I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THERE ISN'T ALSO AN
OVERCORRECTION WHERE WE'RE GOING
AFTER ATTORNEYS FOR UM YOU KNOW
, MISTAKES OR OTHER THINGS TO
LOOK LIKE WE'RE BEING
AGGRESSIVE, BECAUSE I DON'T
THINK THAT WOULD BE FAIR EITHER.
SO I THINK GETTING IT RIGHT IS
IMPORTANT. AND I TRUST MR
CARDONA. YOU'LL DO THAT. UM I
AGREE WITH THAT. I MEAN, PART OF
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO
DIFFERENTIATE THE PEOPLE. WE
SHOULD BE. BASICALLY BRINGING
THE HAMMER DOWN ON FROM PEOPLE
WHO ARE JUST MAKING MISTAKES AND
SHOULDN'T BE THE SUBJECT OF
DISCIPLINE. THAT'S ONE OF THE
REASONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
TRYING TO PUT IN PLACE SOME MORE
FORMAL DIVERSIONARY PROGRAM.
SOME OF THE NON PUBLIC
RESOLUTION MEASURES THAT WERE
ADDRESSED IN THE STATE AUDIT
REPORT. ACTUALLY A FORM OF
DIVERSION, AND THAT WILL DO AN
INVESTIGATION AND DECIDE BASED
ON ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEONE MAY
HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG, BUT
IT MAY HAVE BEEN A FIRST OFFENSE
SO THAT WILL ONLY GIVE THEM A
WARNING. BUT WE NEED TO TIGHTEN
THAT UP TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
ONLY USING THAT IN APPROPRIATE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND NOT USING IT
IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE SOMEONE
LIKE GIRARDI AS THE YARD, AS THE
REPORT INDICATES. GIRARDI
RECEIVED A NUMBER OF THOSE KIND
OF QUASI DIVERSIONARY.
RESOLUTIONS OVER THE SPAN OF
THAT TIME PERIOD. YOU KNOW,
MAYBE THE FIRST TIME THAT'S
APPROPRIATE, BUT AT SOME POINT,
IT'S GOT TO BE CALLED OFF AND WE
HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION TO GO
FORWARD INVESTIGATOR IN CHARGE.
THANK YOU, MR CARDONA. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. THANK YOU
UNDERSTAND, MR CARDONA, YOU
ACTUALLY HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE?
QUOTE. PUTTING THE HAMMER DOWN
IS THAT CORRECT? UM YES. BEFORE
I TOOK THIS JOB IMMEDIATELY
BEFORE I WAS WITH THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN SANTA
MONICA. MR ALLEN THERE UM, BUT
BEFORE THAT, I WORKED FOR ABOUT
20 YEARS AS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR
SPECIALIZING IN FINANCIAL FRAUD
CASES. THANK YOU, MS DICKSON.
THANK YOU. CHAIR MR SENATOR.
CHAIR. UM COUPLE OF QUESTIONS,
ACTUALLY, CONCURRENT WITH MR
SALIH. I THINK I TOOK NOTES HERE
THAT 205 COMPLAINTS WERE FILED
AGAINST MR GIRARDI DURING THIS
PARTICULAR PERIOD OF TIME.
DURING THAT PARTICULAR PERIOD OF
TIME WHERE THERE ARE HOW MANY
OTHER COMPLAINTS AGAINST LAWYERS
WERE FILED. AND HOW WERE THEY
DRESSED AND YOUR NORMAL PROCESS
THAT YOU'RE WORKING TO IMPROVE.
JUST DESCRIBE WHAT HAS BEEN
GOING ON THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
IF YOU WOULD PLEASE. IN ANY
GIVEN YEAR WE RECEIVE BETWEEN.
THESE ARE ESTIMATES BETWEEN 14
AND 17,000 COMPLAINTS. AGAINST
LAWYERS. UM I THINK SOMEONE
EARLIER MENTIONED THE THREE
STAGES OF THE PROCESS WE GO
THROUGH. MR MAY MENTIONED THAT
GENERALLY ALL OF THE COMPLAINTS
COME INTO OUR INTAKE UNIT, WHICH
IS A GROUP OF ATTORNEYS WHO
REVIEWED THE COMPLAINTS AND
MAKING ESSENTIALLY AN INITIAL
ASSESSMENT. AS TO WHETHER THE
COMPLAINT STATES A VIOLATION
THAT WE COULD PROCEED ON, IN
OTHER WORDS, WHETHER THE
COMPLAINT IS SUFFICIENT ON ITS
FACE TO SUGGEST THAT THERE'S A
DISCIPLINARY ACTION. UM IF THEY
DO, THEN IT'S FORWARDED ON FOR
INVESTIGATION. UM EVERY YEAR
ROUGHLY BETWEEN 40 50% OF
COMPLAINTS ARE FORWARDED ON. I
SHOULDN'T SAY THAT. I THINK IT'S
BETWEEN 35 AND 55% OF COMPLAINTS
ARE FORWARDED ON UM, THAT'S
GONNA VERY HIGHLY DEPENDING ON
THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINTS IN
THE INVESTIGATIVE PHASE. WE DO
INFORMATION GATHERING. UM WE CAN
ISSUE SUBPOENAS WE CAN INTERVIEW
WITNESSES. UM WE ALSO ARE
REQUIRED TO ADVISE THE ATTORNEY
OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THEM
AND GET THEIR RESPONSE TO THOSE.
WE THEN REVIEW ALL THAT
INFORMATION AND MAKE A DECISION
AS TO WHETHER THE CASE WARRANTS
MOVING FORWARD TO CHARGING UM,
EVERY YEAR WE MOVE FORWARD. UM
ROUGHLY, I THINK IT'S BETWEEN
THREE AND 5% OF THE COMPLAINTS
THAT COME IN, MOVE FORWARD TO
CHARGING. I MEAN, THAT'S THE
STAGE WHERE WE WILL PUT TOGETHER
THE CHARGING DOCUMENT AND
ULTIMATELY, IF A DECISION IS
MADE FILE IT WITH THE STATE BAR
COURT TO PROCEED TO SEEK
DISCIPLINE. SO IN THAT PROCESS,
YOU'RE STILL GOING TO BE
IMPROVING AS A RESULT OF THE
GIRARDI EXPERIENCE OR SOME
PROCEDURE PROCESSES AND
PROCEDURES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
BE LOOKING AT, AS YOU'VE
DESCRIBED UM SO IT'S AT AT
14,000. SO WITH THE 200 AGAINST
MR GIRARDI DID THAT STAND OUT TO
ANYBODY WAS ANYONE. ONE OF ONE
OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WAS
IDENTIFIED WAS THAT THERE WERE A
WHOLE HOST OF DIFFERENT
ATTORNEYS HANDLING THOSE
COMPLAINTS. AND AS THE LAZAR AND
MAY REPORTS BOTH SUGGESTED THERE
WERE INSTANCES IN WHICH
ATTORNEYS OR INVESTIGATORS WOULD
RECEIVE COMPLAINTS AND JUST
HANDLE THEM WITHOUT LOOKING AT
THE OTHER COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE
BEEN FILED AGAINST MR GIRARDI.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE TRIED TO
DO IS PUT IN PLACE PROCEDURES
AND PRACTICES TO ENSURE THAT
DOESN'T OCCUR. SO THAT SOMEONE
LIKE MR GIRARDI, WHO HAS A
HISTORY OF PRIOR COMPLAINTS IS
FLAGGED AND IDENTIFIED AS
SOMEONE FOR WHOM ARE ATTORNEYS
AND INVESTIGATORS SHOULD BE
LOOKING NOT JUST AT THE SINGLE
COMPLAINT BEFORE THEM. BUT AT
THE PATTERN OF COMPLAINTS THAT
HAVE OCCURRED OVER TIME LOOKING
AT THAT TO SEE WHETHER THERE IS
ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION
WARRANTED WHETHER, FOR EXAMPLE,
WE'VE ISSUED A WARNING LETTER IN
THE PAST AND SO SHOULDN'T NOW
AND SHOULD INSTEAD TAKE THIS
SERIOUSLY MOVE FORWARD TO
INVESTIGATION, IN OTHER WORDS,
WERE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
IDENTIFY PEOPLE LIKE THAT. WHO
THEIR PATTERN OF COMPLAINTS
SUGGESTS THEY DO POSE A
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM FOR
HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY. SO THAT I
GUESS I'M REALLY SURPRISED TO
HEAR THAT THAT AGE COMPLAINT WAS
LOOKED AT UNILATERALLY AND
SINGULARLY AND NOT IN THE
CONTEXT OF A PRIOR RECORD. NOT
NOT ALWAYS. IN OTHER WORDS.
THERE WERE INSTANCES IN WHICH
SOME PEOPLE LOOKED AT. YOU KNOW,
TWO OR THREE COMPLAINTS, AND TO
BE FAIR, THERE WERE INSTANCES IN
WHICH PEOPLE LOOKED AT TWO OR
THREE COMPLAINTS AND SAID WE
SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. AND FOR
WHATEVER REASON, THEY THERE WAS
A DECISION NOT TO MOVE FORWARD.
INTERESTING ALSO INSTANCES IN
WHICH IT WAS CLEAR THAT PEOPLE
WERE JUST LOOKING AT THE
COMPLAINT ALONE WITHOUT LOOKING
AT THE OVERALL PATTERN. WELL
THANK YOU. IT SEEMS LIKE A
DATABASE SYSTEM COULD CLEAN AND
CLEAR THAT UP PRETTY SIMPLY PART
THAT'S WE NOW HAVE IN PLACE.
THAT'S OUR CASE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM NOW, WHICH IS NOW UM, AND
ELECTRONIC CASE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM, SO IT'S MUCH EASIER TO
SEE THOSE TYPES OF PATTERNS. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. SO MANY MEMBER DIXON
CHAIRMAN SHINE. THANK YOU HAVE A
FEW QUESTIONS, BUT ACTUALLY,
THAT RAISED ONE WITH ME. YOU
SAID THEY WERE COMING IN ONE OR
TWO AT A TIME. THE COMPLAINTS
AGAINST MR GIRARDI, BUT THEY
THEY DID COME IN 100 AND 50
TIMES. YES SO THAT WAS OVER A
SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME. SO
THERE WERE OCCASIONS AND TO BE
FAIR. THERE WERE OCCASIONS WHEN
YOU KNOW THERE WERE SIX OR SEVEN
OR EIGHT COMPLAINTS IN CTC AT A
GIVEN TIME. UM AND YET, FOR
WHATEVER REASON, AS I MENTIONED
, THERE WERE INSTANCES WHERE
THOSE WERE HANDLED DISTINCTLY AS
OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT THEM
ALTOGETHER. SO YOU TALKED ABOUT
A NEW CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, SO
LET'S LET'S HYPOTHETICALLY SAY
150 CAME. LIKE AT WHAT POINT
WOULD SOMETHING BE TRIGGERED?
REVELATIONS WHEN GREATER
OPENNESS IN DEEPLY BY THE AT ONE
POINT WITH SOMETHING BE
TRIGGERED. WE'VE JUST GOT TO 150
. SO IN IN AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER, WE'VE JUST PUT IN PLACE
A NEW POLICY TO FLAG ANY
INDIVIDUAL WHO, IF SO, IF WE GET
A COMPLAINT TODAY, WE HAVE A NEW
PROCEDURE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO
LOOK AT THAT PERSON'S HISTORY.
AND IF THEY ARE 15 OR MORE PRIOR
COMPLAINTS OVER THE LAST FIVE
YEARS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE
FLAGGED. OKAY OKAY, SO THERE'S A
POLICY IN PLACE. UM AND I WOULD
. MAYBE THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF A
SEGUE INTO THE NEXT PART OF OUR
DISCUSSION. BUT COULD YOU TALK A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE
FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES WERE TO
CLIENTS OF MR GIRARDI? UM YES.
UM YOU KNOW, THE CASE THAT
BROUGHT THIS TO THE FOREFRONT
WAS A CASE IN CHICAGO. THE
BOEING CASE INVOLVING THE CRASH
OF THE BOEING 7 37 FLIGHT. UM
WHAT BROUGHT THIS TO A HEAD WAS
THE FACT THAT GIRARDI WAS UNABLE
TO PAY $2 MILLION IN OVERDUE
SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS TO A NUMBER
OF CLIENTS IN THAT CASE? UM
THERE'S INFORMATION SUGGESTING
THAT THERE WERE SIMILAR NON
PAYMENTS OF SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS
IN IN SOME SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS
TO OTHERS. I CAN'T TALK ABOUT
SPECIFICS OF THOSE CASES BECAUSE
OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY
REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT'S BEEN
REPORTED IN THE PRESS. IF YOU
LOOK AT THE L. A TIMES ARTICLE,
THERE WAS REFERENCE TO A NUMBER
OF THE VICTIMS. WHO HAD LOST
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF
SETTLEMENTS THAT SHOULD HAVE
BEEN PAID MUCH EARLIER BUT
WEREN'T AND WERE THEN LOST AS A
RESULT OF THE BANKRUPTCY. SO IF
WE JUST TALK ABOUT THE ONES THAT
HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY IDENTIFIED IN
THOSE TIMES ARTICLES, UH YOU
KNOW WHICH I'VE READ. I ASSUME
MOST OF MY COLLEAGUES UP HERE OF
RED AS WELL. WHAT'S BEING DONE?
WHAT ARE THEIR OPTIONS TO BE
COMPENSATED? WHAT'S HAPPENING TO
THOSE VICTIMS? SO UM, YOU KNOW
THERE IS I MEAN, I'LL FIRST
OUTSIDE OF OUR SYSTEM. THERE'S
OBVIOUSLY THE BANKRUPTCY AND THE
BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE IS TRYING TO
ADDRESS CLAIMS BY MANY OF THOSE
VICTIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE.
THAT'S ONE THING. FOR OUR PART,
THERE'S A WE ALSO HAVE THE
CLIENT SECURITY FUND. UM THAT'S
NOT SOMETHING THAT'S WITHIN MY
PURVIEW. BUT PERHAPS MS WILSON
CAN TALK ABOUT THE CLIENT
SECURITY FUND AND HOW IT GOES
ABOUT TRYING TO COMPENSATE
VICTIMS WHO HAVE SUFFERED LOSSES
AT THE HANDS OF ATTORNEYS. YEAH,
I'M SORRY. I WAS BEEPING OVER
HERE IS TRYING TO EMAIL THE HEAD
OF THE CLIENT SECURITY FUND TEAM
TO ASK EXACTLY HOW MANY VICTIMS
WE'VE PAID OUT. UM AND HOW MUCH
BUT WE DID EXPEDITE PAYMENT TO
GIRARDI VICTIMS, AND I BELIEVE
WE PAID OUT ABOUT 3 TO 4
MILLION. AH AND THERE IS A CAP
OF PER PAY CAP OF $100,000 SO IT
WILL GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT FOR
WHAT WE'VE DONE. OKAY UM, AND
THEN WALK, MISS WILSON. WHAT
IMPACT MOVING TO KIND OF THE
DISPARITY ISSUE ON ENFORCEMENT.
WHAT? WHAT IMPACT HAS THE BARS
POLICIES HAD ON DISPARITY ON
ATTORNEY THE ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
SYSTEM WITHIN FROM THE TIME OF
THE ORIGINAL STUDY. SO THEY
STUDY WAS CONDUCTED IN 2019, AND
I BELIEVE THE BOARD MOVED TO
ADOPT ONE OF THE PRIMARY
REMEDIATION STEPS, WHICH IS
ARCHIVING COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE
UM, CLOSED WITH NO ACTION
ARCHIVING THOSE COMPLAINTS AFTER
FIVE YEARS, I BELIEVE THAT THE
BOARD IMPLEMENTED THAT STEP IN
2020. WE HAVE NOT LOOKED
OFFICIALLY AT, UH AT WHAT THE
IMPACT HAS BEEN OF ARCHIVING THE
UNOFFICIAL MEANING NOT, UM, SORT
OF EVIDENCE BASED DATA IS THAT
WE HAVE IMPROVED IN OUR
STATISTICAL OUTCOMES. THE FORMAL
STUDY, UM TO ASSESS WHERE WE ARE
VIS A VIS THE 20. 19 FINDINGS IS
SLATED AND FUNDED TO OCCUR IN
2024. SO FIVE YEARS LATER. SO
ANECDOTALLY, IT LOOKS POSITIVE.
BUT I CAN'T SAY THAT THAT'S
EVIDENCE BASED AT THIS POINT.
THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN SHINE, UM A
FEW QUESTIONS. IN TERMS OF THE
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, BOTH THE
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT WHO
WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE
AND ENFORCEMENT TODAY. DO YOU
MEAN THE FORM 700 FINANCIAL
DISCLOSURES. UM THAT'S OUR HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT WORKING
WITH THE OFFICE OF GENERAL
COUNSEL, SO IF THAT IS NOT
ACCOMPLISHED, WHO DO WE LOOK TO
ASK WHY THAT WASN'T DONE. IN THE
PAST. NO TODAY TODAY TODAY, SO
I'LL I SHOULD TURN THAT OVER TO
OUR OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL,
MS DAVINCI AND AGAIN. OKAY? THE
REASON I ASKED THAT QUESTION IS
THAT WAS FINDING THAT THERE WAS
BASICALLY LITTLE ATTENTION PAID
TO FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, AND TO
THE EXTENT THAT FOLKS MADE
DISCLOSURES THEY WERE WHOLLY
INADEQUATE. I WOULD SAY THAT THE
RESPONSIBILITY WOULD BE JOINTLY
WITH BETWEEN HUMAN RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT AND OFFICE OF GENERAL
COUNSEL WERE ACTUALLY JUST
RECENTLY IMPLEMENTING AUDIT, UM
SORT OF ACTIVITIES THAT WILL BE
PARTNERING WITH A JAR TO KIND OF
REVIEW. HOW MANY INDIVIDUALS
HAVE FILED? DID THEY FILE
APPROPRIATELY? THEIR F PPC
ACTUALLY HAS SOME GUIDELINES
AROUND HOW TO DO THAT. SO WE ARE
INTENDING TO FULLY IMPLEMENT
THOSE UM, AND IF MY MEMORY
SERVES ME CORRECT. THE ANNUAL
FORM 700 PERIOD WAS UPON US NOT
TOO LONG AGO, AND WE HAD A HIGH
RATE OF COMPLIANCE. I BELIEVE IT
WAS 98% OF OUR STATE EMPLOYEES
AND FILERS THAT HAVE FILED THE
FORM 700. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO
BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WAS
FILED TO ENSURE TO CONDUCT SOME
AUDIT ACTIVITIES AROUND THAT.
OKAY SO WHO WOULD THAT BE? IN
OTHER WORDS, A YEAR FROM NOW,
WHEN WE'RE STILL FACING THESE
ISSUES, WHO DO WE ASK TO COME
TESTIFY? IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR
TO FOR SOMEONE TO TESTIFY AND
STAFF COMPLETION OF THE FOUR
FORM 700. I THINK THAT IS ME TO
MAKE SURE THAT THEY'VE ACTUALLY
DONE IT. THIS IS ANOTHER AREA
THAT WE'VE AUTOMATED. WE'RE
USING A SYSTEM THAT MAYBE SOME
OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH. ONLY
THIS YEAR DID WE AUTOMATE THAT
FACILITATES AUDITING? UM NOT
JUST OF COMPLIANCE, WHICH IS THE
PART THAT I THINK I AM.
PARTICULARLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
OPPOSITE GENERAL COUNSEL,
TALKING ABOUT SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW
OUR PEOPLE COMPLYING WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS AND ACTUALLY DOING
IT CORRECTLY, WHICH IS A WHOLE
ANOTHER LEVEL. RIGHT AND SO FOR
ACCOUNTABILITY PURPOSES, UM,
YOU'VE JUST IDENTIFIED TWO
ISSUES. ONE IS COMPLIANCE 98% OF
COMPLIANCE. THOSE 2% THAT
HAVEN'T COMPLIED, SO THAT WOULD
BE YOU. MISS WILSON WOULD BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT
FOLKS ACTUALLY FILE THE FORM IS
THAT RIGHT? IN TERMS OF THE
SUBSTANCE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE TO
MAKE SURE THAT THEY UM PROVIDE
THE REQUISITE MATERIAL. I THINK
IT WAS THE ONE PERSON YOU KNOW,
FIRST OF ALL UNDER THE RULES
THAT APPLY TO THE FORM 700
DISCLOSURE, THE LIABILITY AND
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF REALLY
LIES WITH THE FILERS. AND SO IF
WE, WE WOULD WE WOULD CONDUCT AN
AUDIT AND IDENTIFY, UM, AREAS
THAT WOULD NEED TO BE REFERRED
TO F. PPC PPC IS THE COMMISSION
THAT IS CHARGED WITH THE
OVERSIGHT OF THE FORM 700
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. SO WE
PROBABLY CONDUCT SOME AUDIT
ACTIVITIES AND REPORT AND REFER
WHAT ANY FORM 700 FILERS THAT
MAY HAVE MISSED A BEAT OR SHOULD
BE REFERRED WHO WOULD BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE AUDIT? THE
AUDIT COMPLIANCE. SO CURRENT
PLAN IS TO WORK WITH OUR HR
STAFF TO CONDUCT THAT AUDIT. AND
WHO WOULD THAT BE? YOU KNOW, I
DON'T HAVE THE NAME OF THE
INDIVIDUAL HANDY, BUT THERE ARE
, UM IT WOULD BE UNDER STEVE
MASER TEAM. UM AND THEY ALL
REPORTEDLY A WILSON. SO IF WE
COULD GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT
WILL BE HAPPY TO GET THE NAMES
AND KIND OF PROVIDE YOU WITH, UM
THE ACTUAL INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL
BE CONDUCTING THOSE ONE OF THE
CHALLENGES JUST ACCOUNTABILITY,
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING ABOUT
SURE. AND WHAT IS THE PENALTY
FOR NOT COMPLYING? SO THERE ARE
FINANCIAL PENALTIES THAT UH,
EXTEND TO FAILURE TO REPORT
FINANCIAL INTEREST ON YOUR FORM
700. THERE'S ALSO SANCTIONS THAT
IF PPC MAY IMPOSE AGAINST THE
THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE NOT
FILED A REPORTED AND THERE ARE
ALSO EMPLOYMENT RELATED
SANCTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES IN
THE LAST YEAR, THERE BEEN ANY
CONSEQUENCES TO ANYONE AT THE
STATE BAR FOR NOT FILING OR FOR
NOT FOLLOWING UM, BASICALLY WITH
ADEQUATE COMPLIANCE. NO NOT THAT
I'M BUT THE AUDIT FUNCTION HAS
NOT BEEN DONE YET. I ALSO WANT
TO CLARIFY THAT THE 2% THAT I'M
REFERRING TO THOSE ARE
INDIVIDUALS THAT MAY STILL BE ON
LEAVE AND MAY NOT HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO FILE THE FORM 700
BECAUSE THEY'RE ON PROTECTED
LEAVES. ALRIGHT WELL, WE'LL COME
BACK AGAIN. SO IN TERMS OF
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, SAME
QUESTIONS CONCERNING CONFLICTS
OF INTEREST. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR ENSURING THAT THERE'S
ADEQUATE COMPLIANCE WITH
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. OKAY SO
AGAIN, THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
RULES AS YOU KNOW, THEY KIND OF
EXTENDED AND THE INDIVIDUALS ARE
RESPONSIBLE ON ENSURING THAT
THEY COMPLY WITH THE RULES. NOW
WE AS AN ORGANIZATION IN THE
PANEL SPOKE ABOUT THIS EARLIER
HAVE PUT IN APPROPRIATE
SAFEGUARDS. WE'RE GOING TO BE
DOING AN EXTENSIVE TRAINING
AROUND THAT. I THINK WE'RE GOING
TO ROLL OUT A SURVEY OF, UM YOU
KNOW? TO ENSURE THAT THE
INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE TRAINED
UNDERSTANDS THE SUBJECT MATTER,
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS A
WAY TO POLICE IT BY, UM JUST
JUST WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION,
FROM THE EXCEPTION OF TRYING TO
EDUCATE INDIVIDUALS BE MORE
PROACTIVE. YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE
, AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING WITH
FLAGS, CERTAIN ITEMS THAT MAY
HAVE POST CONFLICTS WITH THE
BOARD MEMBERS. WE SPOKE TO THEM.
WE HAD RECUSALS AT THE BOARD
MINK, SO IT'S REALLY CHANGING
THE CULTURE, UH AND REALLY
LEANING INTO THOSE REQUIREMENTS
THAT AND EDUCATING AROUND THOSE
, SO WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR
OVERALL EDUCATION? COMPLIANCE
ENFORCEMENT IS THE ONE PERSON
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE
THINGS AGAIN. ENFORCEMENT
WOULDN'T BE NECESSARILY WITH US
BECAUSE I THINK YOU KNOW IF
PARTICULARLY AFTER PURSUING THE
LEGISLATION TO UH, INCLUDE THE
STATE BAR AS PART OF THE
POLITICAL REFORM ACT THAT WOULD
BE F PPC. BUT THE OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL I COULD SAY
MYSELF ALONG IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
LEAH AND WILL WILL BE ROLLING
OUT THE TRAINING PROGRAM FOR THE
STATE BAR. UM AS A WHOLE. OKAY
SO IF THERE'S A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST THAT'S DISCOVERED THE
NEXT YEAR, WE WOULD COME AND ASK
YOU THAT QUESTION. I MEAN, WHAT
HAPPENED? I MEAN, WE WILL TRY TO
ANSWER TO THE BEST OF OUR
KNOWLEDGE AGAIN. WE CAN'T. WE
CAN'T CONTROL EVERYTHING. BUT WE
COULD TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'VE DONE
AND HOW WE TRY TO PREVENT
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
AND TAKE YOUR POINT. YOU CAN'T
CONTROL EVERYTHING, BUT WHAT YOU
CAN DO IS YOU CAN HAVE LINES OF
AUTHORITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
CERTAIN AREAS. AND SO THAT'S
WHAT I'M ASKING ABOUT. IS THAT
THOSE LINES OF AUTHORITY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY UM ALRIGHT, MR
SHERIFF, IF I MAY JUST TO ADD
ONE PERSPECTIVE FROM A TRUSTEE,
THERE'S ALSO MORAL MORAL
AUTHORITY RIGHT AND LEADERSHIP
AT THE BOARD LEVEL, AND IT
REALLY DOES REQUIRE WHOEVER
SITTING IN THE CHAIRS SPOT TO
LEAD BY EXAMPLE TO CHECK IN WITH
YOUR COLLEAGUES. OKAY WE'VE GOT
WE'VE GOT A DEADLINE COMING UP.
HAVE YOU FILLED OUT YOUR FORM?
700 DID YOU TALK TO THE OFFICE
OF GENERAL COUNSEL? IF YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS AND THE REFERENCE TO
THE BOARD MEETING LAST WEEK WAS
, I THINK, ILLUSTRATIVE OF
BASICALLY TURNING A PAGE BECAUSE
IT WAS A VERY FORMAL PROCESS
THAT THE OFFICE OF GENERAL
COUNSEL WENT THROUGH IN
PREPARING BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE
MEETING TO FLAG A CONFLICT. I
MYSELF RECUSED MYSELF BECAUSE
THERE WAS AN ISSUE THAT WOULD
AFFECT MY LAW FIRM AND SO AGAIN.
IT'S ONE OF THESE THINGS WHERE
AH, IT'S A CHANGE RIGHT AND IT'S
AND IT'S A CHANGE THAT'S GOING
TO PERHAPS TAKE SOME TIME TO
TAKE HOLD. BUT BETWEEN AND AMONG
THE THREE DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAT
WE TALKED ABOUT HERE AND NOW, UM
, MAYBE WE DO HAVE TO FORMALIZE
OR INSTITUTIONALIZED, SOME
REPORTING STRUCTURE OR SOME
ACCOUNTABILITY OUTSIDE OF THE F
PPC, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY UNDER
THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT. IT'S
THE INDIVIDUAL FILER, AT LEAST
FOR LOCAL ELECTIVES WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE TO THE PPC AND WHO
COULD FACE INVESTIGATION AND
CHARGES. I WILL ALSO GEORGIA LET
ME START WITH THE MACRO AND
YOU'LL GO TO THE TO THE MICRO. I
DO WANT TO CLARIFY IN TERMS OF
EM EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITY TO
IDENTIFY THEIR CONFLICTS WITH
ATTORNEYS. THIS IS VIS A VIS THE
DISCIPLINE SYSTEM. WE ARE
REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY ALL OF OUR
CONFLICTS. THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC
POLICY OUTLINING WHO YOU
IDENTIFY. THERE IS AN ONLINE
SYSTEM FOR THAT WE ARE ABLE TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT STOP,
UM, GO IN AND IDENTIFY THEIR
CONFLICTS. AND IF THEY HAVE
NONE, THEY HAVE TO AFFIRMATIVELY
SO CERTIFIED. THAT IS AUDITED
AND REVIEWED IN O. C. T. C THERE
IS AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF
CONFLICT CHECKING WHICH GEORGE
CAN DESCRIBE. AND THAT
ADDITIONAL LEVEL IS THAT ANY
INVESTIGATOR OR ATTORNEY WHEN
THEY ARE ASSIGNED A CASE HAS TO
IN OUR CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
AND TO REFORM IN WHICH THEY
ANSWER A SERIES OF QUESTIONS TO
REVEAL WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE
IDENTIFIED A CONFLICT. THEY THEN
HAVE TO DO THAT SAME THING
BEFORE THEY CLOSED THE CASE, BUT
WITHIN O C T C. I WOULD BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT
EMPLOYEES ARE COMPLYING WITH
THAT. BUT THE FORMS HAVE BEEN
ENTERED AND WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE
. IF SOMEONE HAS HANDLED THE
CASE WHEN IN FACT THEY HAVE A
CONFLICT THAT THEY DIDN'T
DISCLOSE. ALL RIGHT. OKAY I'M
GONNA I'M GONNA TURN YES. YOU
WANTED TO FINISH TIME IN AND SAY
SIMILAR PROCESSES EXIST FOR THE
CONFLICTS COUNSEL TO THE 22 1
PROGRAM AND ALSO WITHIN YOU KNOW
OTHER FUNCTIONS LIKE THE
COMPLAINTS REVIEW UNIT, SO THE
SIMILAR SIMILAR TYPE OF RECORD
KEEPING WOULD BE WITHIN OUR I
HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT
BUT I KNOW THAT OTHER PANEL
MEMBERS OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE OF QUESTIONS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S DIXON AND THE
MAJORITY LEADER RAISE GÓMEZ SO
JUST REMEMBER DIXON. THANK YOU
JUST TO FOLLOW UP. SORRY LIKE
TAPPING AHEAD. LET ME GO TO TWO.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PAPIN FIRST AND
THEN MAJORITY LEADER AND THEN
BACK TO, UM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
DIXON. SORRY ABOUT THAT. DIANE'S
IS ANOTHER. RIGHT SO, UH, I WANT
TO FOCUS ON THE MEMBERSHIP
ITSELF. AND UM, HAVE YOU TAKEN
ANY STEPS WITH RESPECT TO THE
INTRICACIES. AND THE
REQUIREMENTS THAT RELATE TO THE
TRUST ACCOUNTS AND THE VARIOUS
TRUST ACCOUNTS TO EDUCATE THE
MEMBERSHIP TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE, AND THAT
COMPLIANCE IS EASY, BECAUSE
ULTIMATELY IT LESSENS THE LOAD
ON YOU. SO I JUST WONDER WHAT
STEPS HAVE YOU TAKEN AND IN
PARTICULAR, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED
, UM MAKING PART OF THE
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION? I
KNOW WE HAVE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE
PRACTICE OF LAW IS ONE OF THE
CATEGORIES THAT ONE MUST FULFILL
. I'M JUST WONDERING, HAVE YOU
THOUGHT ABOUT PERHAPS, UH, THE
ACTUAL YOU KNOW, PRACTICING LAW
IS A BUSINESS AND A LOT OF WAYS
AND I'M NOT SURE EVERY ATTORNEY
IS PARTICULARLY UM SUCCESSFUL AT
IT. SO I'M JUST WONDERING, HAVE
YOU THOUGHT ABOUT BOTH WITH
RESPECT TO THE TRUST ACCOUNTS
AND ANYTHING YOU GOT TO DO WITH
THE BANK AS WELL AS ANYTHING
THAT DEALS WITH THE FINANCES AND
HOW ONE REALLY RUNS THEIR
PRACTICE, SO ANY IDEAS. YES I
THINK YOU'RE REALLY GETTING
RIGHT AT THE HEART OF THE CLIENT
TRUST ACCOUNT PROTECTION
PROGRAM, SO WHEN IT WAS ROLLED
OUT, IT WAS ROLLED OUT WITH A
REVISED AND UPDATED HANDBOOK ON
CLIENT TRUST. ACCOUNTING THERE'S
A TOOLKIT COMING OUT. THAT IS A
STEP BY STEP INSTRUCTIONS. IT'S
INTENDED FOR AN ATTORNEY TO DO
WITH, UM SORT OF SIDE BY SIDE ON
THE SCREEN OR OR BY HAND WITH
THEIR ACTUAL TRUST ACCOUNT
LEDGER TO TEACH THEM HOW TO DO
IT. UH WE HAVE NEW EMC. ELLIE
THAT WE'VE ROLLED OUT. THAT'S
FREE. WE'VE DONE A HOST OF LIVE
SESSIONS, BOTH DIRECTLY AND
THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
ON LOCAL BAR, SO WE'VE MADE A
SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN
TRAINING AND SUPPORT. WE'VE ALSO
HAVE A STAFF TEAM THAT'S
ANSWERED. I WOULD GUESS HERE
WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS
BUT UP TO 3000 INDIVIDUAL
INQUIRIES ABOUT HOW TO GET IT
RIGHT, SO WE'RE PROVIDING A LOT
OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND
SUPPORT. THE INTENTION IS NOT TO
DO A GOTCHA GAME WITH ATTORNEYS
HERE. UM AND TO YOUR QUESTION
ABOUT M C L E REQUIREMENTS. THIS
IS A HOT TOPIC IN TERMS OF
WHETHER THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
OR NOT THE STATE BAR SHOULD
FURTHER SPECIFY WHAT KINDS OF
ATTORNEYS ARE REQUIRED TO DO,
WHICH I THINK IS WHAT YOU'RE
SUGGESTING. I THINK WE
UNDERSTAFFED SO I THINK THAT'S
ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE AND WE
NEED TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.
YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT MANY
ATTORNEYS OR MEMBERS AS I THINK
YOU'RE REFERRING TO YOU I DON'T
NECESSARILY WELCOME THAT IDEA,
BUT WE DO INTEND TO BRING
FORWARD PROPOSALS TO THE BOARD
AT PRECISELY THE ISSUE YOU
RAISED BECAUSE I THINK IT IS
TIME FOR MANDATORY TRAINING IN
CERTAIN AREAS. CERTAINLY IF YOU
ARE A CERTAIN TYPE OF
PRACTITIONER ALREADY. THANK YOU
. SO MANY MEMBERS HAPPENED.
MAJORITY LEADER RAISE GÓMEZ.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. I GOT TO
TELL YOU. IT'S FRUSTRATING. JUST
HEARING THE QUESTIONS FROM
SENATOR AMBERG. ASKING THE
QUESTION WHO'S RESPONSIBLE?
WHO'S RESPONSIBLE, AND THE
QUESTION WAS REPEATED SO MANY
TIMES AND TO NOT HAVE SOMEBODY
SAY I AM RESPONSIBLE. THAT'S
FRIGHTENING. IF WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE TRUST OF THE PUBLIC,
THE TRUST OF THE ATTORNEYS AS
WELL. I MEAN, WE'RE LICENSED BY
Y'ALL. AND IF WE CAN'T TRUST THE
ORGANIZATION THAT LICENSES US,
THEN HOW CAN THE PUBLIC BE
EXPECTED TO TRUST YOU AS WELL?
THERE'S VERY FRUSTRATING. JUST
HEARING THAT INTERACTION. IN ONE
OF OUR SUBCOMMITTEES, DOCTOR,
SHIRLEY WEBER CAME TO TESTIFY.
AND I REPEAT THIS STORY BECAUSE
IT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SHOULD BE
DOING. IT WAS IT WAS A BUDGET
SUBCOMMITTEE, AND DR WEBBER SAID
IN THAT COMMITTEE HEARING. THAT
ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT SHE
DID WHEN SHE CAME IN, AS THE
SECRETARY OF STATE IS TO FIND
OUT WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT
AND SHE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO SAY
TO SOMEBODY. IF SOMETHING WENT
WRONG. SHE KNEW EXACTLY WHO SHE
WAS GOING TO. SHE WASN'T GOING
TO SAY WONDER WHO MIGHT BE. SHE
KNEW WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE, AND
THERE WERE A LOT OF AREAS WHERE
SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHO WAS
RESPONSIBLE WITHIN A VERY SHORT
PERIOD OF TIME. SHE KNEW EXACTLY
WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE. NOT TO BE
ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF
THE CHAIRS TO WHO IS ULTIMATELY
RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH OF THESE
THINGS IS IT'S FRUSTRATING. IT'S
FRIGHTENING. IT'S EMBARRASSING,
QUITE FRANKLY. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT PEOPLE'S MONEY WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT. IF WE'RE
ATTORNEYS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
ATTORNEYS LICENSES AND I ALSO AS
WAS MENTIONED BY COLLEAGUE. I
DON'T WANT US TO GO TRY TO
COMPENSATE BY GOING COMPLETELY
THE OPPOSITE WAY. AND NOW
EVERYBODY'S GETTING DINGED ON
THIS. UH EARLIER. ALSO, THERE
WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THAT. WE
FINALLY HAVE A ROBUST CONFLICT
OF INTEREST. UM, POLICY ABOUT
RECEIVING GIFTS. I SAY WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT COMMON SENSE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHARACTER.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INTEGRITY IF
WE DON'T KNOW, AND I'M SURE THAT
WOULDN'T DONE AND THE OTHERS
WERE RECEIVING THE THIS MONEY
THERE WERE OTHERS AROUND WHO
KNEW THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING.
AND YET NOBODY SPOKE ABOUT THIS.
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THESE
COMPLAINTS THAT ARE BEING FILED
. THEY'RE NOT BEING
INVESTIGATED. THERE HAS THE FACT
THAT THIS HAPPENED FOR ME. THIS
WAS AN ACTIVE COVER UP. THIS
WASN'T JUST A MISTAKE, AND WE
DIDN'T WHICH NOBODY KNEW WHAT
WAS HAPPENING. THIS WAS AN
ACTIVE COVER UP. THAT IS OF
SERIOUS CONCERN. I KNOW THAT
THERE IS AND I MADE A NOTE WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY. WHAT'S
HAPPENING WITH JUSTICE CLARENCE
THOMAS AND HIS WIFE. THE FACT
THAT MONEY IS GOING TO PEOPLE
AND WE'RE NOT BEING TOLD ABOUT
IT. IT HAS TO DO WITH CHARACTER.
IF SOMEBODY IS ALLOWING THIS TO
HAPPEN, IT IS A PROBLEM. IT IS A
PROBLEM OF GREAT CONCERN IS
WHERE DOES THE BUCK STOP? WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH OF THESE
THINGS, MAKING SURE THE 700 FORM
IS FILLED OUT BY EVERY SINGLE
PERSON AND TO HEAR THE RESPONSE
THAT THEY MAY BE ON ACTIVE. UM
LEAVE. IT'S NOT ME. THEY MAY BE
EITHER THEY ARE OR THEY AREN'T
EVEN IF IT'S 2% BY BY THE
RESPONSE. IT TELLS ME THAT USED
TO BE A WHOLE LOT MORE THAT HAD
NOT TURNED IN THEIR 700 FORM.
BUT EVEN IF IT'S 2% OKAY, THEN
JUST SMALL NUMBER. LET'S FIND
OUT. WHY DIDN'T YOU FILL IT OUT?
UM, YOU'VE GOT UNTIL CLOSE OF
THIS DAY TO TAKE CARE OF IT. BUT
EVEN WITH THAT THERE WASN'T A
RESPONSE THAT TOLD US THAT IT'S
LIKE HERE WE ARE AFTER THIS MAY
REPORT WE KNOW WHAT A SERIOUS
PROBLEM WE HAVE. AND YET WE
STILL HAVE. SOME PEOPLE HAVEN'T
FILLED IT OUT AND WHETHER OR NOT
THERE'S A CONFLICT OR THERE
ISN'T WE STILL DON'T KNOW. THERE
WAS A COMMENT ALSO THAT THERE OF
AND I, IT'S THE BOARD. I BELIEVE
IT WAS. IT WAS ON THE BOARD.
THERE'S NO ONE THERE WHO HAS A
CURRENT RELATIONSHIP. WITH
GIRARDI OR ANY, UH, JUDGE THAT
IS RELATED. I THINK IT'S
SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID ABOUT
THAT. IS IT? IS IT JUST THE
BOARD? WHAT ABOUT STAFF? DO WE
STILL HAVE STAFF? THAT IS,
SOMEHOW THAT SOMEHOW HAS THIS
RELATIONSHIP WITH WITH GIRARDI.
MAY I RESPOND, MR CHAIR, MR.
CHAIR AARON MAZE INVESTIGATION,
UH, CONCLUDED FOR US THAT THERE
IS NO ONE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED BY
THE STATE BAR. UH, ESSENTIALLY
WITH WHAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED
MEMBER GÓMEZ REYES AND I
UNDERSTAND FROM THE BOARD. WHAT
NO NO. ONE ON THE STAFF, EITHER
IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL
COUNSEL OR OR ON OUR NANO C T C
STAFF. WONDERFUL. THAT'S. MY
NOTES DIDN'T DRIFT LIKE THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AGAIN. I GO
BACK TO THE AMOUNT OF MONEY.
THAT WAS SPENT. OVER HALF A
MILLION DOLLARS ON JUST THE ONE
PERSON AND THE FACT THAT NOBODY
HAD SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT. AND
I APPRECIATE, UM. CHAIRMAN DURAN
THAT YOU'RE NEW. AND YOU CAME IN
AFTER THIS. AND UM, I. SO NONE
OF THE FAULT FALLS ON YOU. UM
THAT ISN'T TRUE OF EVERYBODY.
AND THAT IS OF GREAT CONCERN. UM
BUT I GO BACK TO MY FIRST
COMMENT. AND THAT IS THAT THE
QUESTIONS COULD NOT BE ANSWERED.
BECAUSE I AM ASSUMING THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S ULTIMATELY
RESPONSIBLE AND IF THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR CANNOT POINT TO SOMEONE
AND SAY NO, FOR THAT QUESTION
HERE IS THE PERSON OR FOR
COUNSEL TO SAY, WELL, IT MAY BE
UNDER THIS PARTICULAR PERSON.
I'M NOT TRYING TO BELIEVE ME.
I'M SPEAKING OUT OF FRUSTRATION
AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE IT
SHOULDN'T BE THIS WAY. IT
SHOULDN'T BE THIS WAY. WE HAVE
SOMEONE WHO'S RESPONSIBLE, AND
THAT PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO
SAY YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE NOW FOR
THAT WE ARE WE ARE EVER ASKED
ABOUT 700 FORMS. I NEED YOU TO
GIVE ME A REPORT. THERE HAS TO
BE A CHANGE. AND YOU'RE RIGHT.
IT'S DIFFICULT TO MAKE A CULTURE
CHANGE. SOMEBODY'S GOT TO MAKE
IT AND DIFFICULTIES. IT IS IF IT
DOESN'T HAPPEN. BY ONE PERSON.
IT WILL HAPPEN BY SOMEBODY ELSE
. IT HAS TO BE DONE, AND IT
CAN'T BE DONE IN FIVE YEARS. IT
HAS TO BE DONE NOW, UM I HAVE NO
QUESTION JUST WANTED TO VOICE MY
ABSOLUTE FRUSTRATION.
SPECIFICALLY WITH THIS EXCHANGE.
ABOUT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE, WHO'S
RESPONSIBLE WHO IS ULTIMATELY
RESPONSIBLE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
AND GETTING NOTHING. COUNCIL YOU
DID SAY AT ONE POINT YOU WERE
THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE ON ONE OF
THE QUESTIONS, AND I APPRECIATE
THAT. WE NEED TO TAKE MORE
RESPONSIBILITY AND MAYBE TAKE A
LESSON FROM DOCTOR SHIRLEY
WEBER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MAJORITY LEADER. SOME REMEMBER
DIXON, DID YOU QUESTION JUST A
FOLLOW UP TO ALL OF THIS? JUST
TO KIND OF CLARIFY MY
FRUSTRATION, MY ASTONISHMENT
ABOUT THE LACK OF PEOPLE
UNDERSTANDING. LET ME FOCUS ON
THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR A
MOMENT. MY UNDERSTANDING AND
READING THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
IS THAT MR MILLER WAS A LAW
PARTNER. MR GIRARDI, IS THAT
CORRECT? SO FOR ISSUE NUMBER ONE
CONFLICT ISSUE NUMBER QUESTION
NUMBER TWO. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF
THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS AND
UNDERSTANDING THE I'M SURE I
CALL BOARDS WHETHER IT'S A BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OR BOARD OF
GOVERNORS OR BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
THERE'S AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
REPORT AT EVERY BOARD MEETING
THAT GIVE US A REPORT OF THE IN
THIS CASE AND YOUR CASE. THAT IN
THE PAST AND YOUR PREDECESSOR,
THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST
LAWYERS THE NUMBER OF FILING
MISS FILINGS WAS THAT DONE UNDER
THE I GUESS CURRENT. I DON'T
KNOW IF THE WHOLE THE ENTIRE
BOARD HAS CHANGED OVER OUR THEIR
CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF
GOVERNORS THAT ARE STILL ON
SERVING OUT THEIR TERM THAT
WE'RE DURING THIS PERIOD OF
TIME. IF I MAY MR CHAIR AND GO
AHEAD, SO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
13 MEMBERS ALL NOW APPOINTED AS
I MENTIONED BY THE VARIOUS
APPOINTING AUTHORITIES, WE DO
HAVE TWO OF OUR MEMBERS WHO WERE
SUBSEQUENTLY APPOINTED BY THE
SUPREME COURT, HAVING BEEN I
BELIEVE ELECTED UNDER THAT PRIOR
AND I STAND TO BE CORRECTED. IF
I'VE MISTAKEN, MR BRATTON AND MR
STALLINGS UM, BUT BUT OTHERWISE
THAT THAT ELECTION ERA PROCESSES
IS GONE, OKAY. SO UNDER THE NEW
PROCEDURES, WHICH I HOPE HAVE
BEEN IMPLEMENTED, YEAH. I MEAN,
JUST ON THE BASIS OF THE L A
TIMES COVERAGE OF THIS. YOU KNEW
THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS TO
FIX, BUT I WOULD THINK IT WOULD
BE FUNDAMENTAL IN TERMS OF THE
BYLAWS OF THE ORGANIZATION OR
OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. THAT
THESE KINDS OF STAFF OPERATING
STATISTICS DATA PERFORMANCE DATA
WOULD BE ROUTINELY. EVERY
MEETING REPORTED TO THE BOARD.
SO KNOWING THAT, UH, FORMER LAW
PARTNER OR CURRENT LAW PARTNER
OF MR GIRARDI WAS, UH, ON THE
BOARD. AT THE SAME TIME. THESE
COMPLAINTS WERE FILED. WERE
THERE RED FLAGS. YES I MEAN,
THERE'S CERTAINLY SHOULD HAVE
BEEN, UM AND I THINK, MR MR MAYS
REPORT TELLS US THAT THEY JUST
THEY JUST WEREN'T RAISED WELL
ENOUGH IN THE WAY THAT YOU'VE
DESCRIBED CERTAINLY THAT IF THAT
WERE THE CASE TODAY, MOST
CERTAINLY RED FLAGS WOULD BE
RAISED AND, UH, BECAUSE IT JUST
LEADS TO WHAT? MY COLLEAGUE TO
MY RIGHT IT WAS WAS SAYING THAT
THERE HAS TO BE ACCOUNTABILITY,
PROCESS AND PROCEDURES. AND
MAYBE THERE IS A CULTURAL YEAH,
INTIMIDATION FACTOR THAT THE
STAFF DID NOT WANT TO CHALLENGE
OR SURFACE RED FLAG BEHAVIOR
ACTIVITIES THAT MEMBERS OF THE
BOARD OF GOVERNORS TRUSTEES WERE
PERFORMING. I MEAN, WE MY
RECOMMENDATION IS SO IT CAN WE
CAN ALLAY A LOT OF THIS
FRUSTRATION IS GOING FORWARD. IT
SHOULDN'T TAKE LEGISLATIVE
ACTION TO SAY. GET THIS HOUSE IN
ORDER QUICKLY BECAUSE THERE'S
BEEN AS MR ASTLEY WAS SAYING,
POTENTIALLY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
THAT WAS GOING ON BETWEEN MR
DUNN AND THE ORGANIZATION OF MR
GERARD. IT'S IT IS A COVER UP.
AS MY COLLEAGUE SAID. I MEAN, UM
ARE WE EVEN GOING TO GET TO THIS
? HOW DO WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO
REMEDY THE COVER UP AS WELL AS
GOING FORWARD UNDER NEW
MANAGEMENT? THAT'S GREAT. I DO
WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. JUST
WE'RE ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS
ELECTED. WHETHER ELECTED OR
APPOINTED. IN MANY CASES, WE ARE
FAMILIAR WITH FORM SEVEN
HUNDREDS. WE ALL DO IT. WHY IS
THIS SO HARD TO ADMINISTER AND
REPORT ON AND TABULATE? UH FOUR
OF 700? I MEAN ON LOCAL CITY
PLANNING COMMISSIONS, EVERYBODY
FILL OUT FORM SEVEN HUNDREDS.
IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, SO I
JUST HOPE JUST FOLLOW UP ON
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S RAISED COMMENT
THAT WE COULD GET THAT MINOR
PROCEDURE. THAT'S A VERY
COMMONPLACE PROCEDURE WITH
ANYONE SERVING IN A PUBLIC ROLE
TO GET THAT SITUATION CLEARED
UP, OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LET ME ASK THE PANEL WHO WOULD
LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT? I THINK
I WOULD LIKE TO, BECAUSE I'M
SORRY IF I MISREPRESENTED
SOMETHING, OR I AGREE THAT
EXCHANGE WAS CONFUSING. I DO SEE
MYSELF AS ACCOUNTABLE FOR
COMPLETION OF THE FORM 700. AND
FOR COMPLETION OF WHAT WE CALL
THE 22 01 CONFLICT CHECKS.
THERE'S TWO PROCESSES INTERNALLY
. ONE IS THAT FORM 700 THAT
YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH ONE IS
INTERNAL TO THE STATE BAR. THIS
IS IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, MY FAMILY MEMBER
WHO IS A LAWYER, I HAVE TO
IDENTIFY THAT THAT I AM
RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. I DO NOT
THE WAY THE STATE BAR STRUCTURED
. I DO NOT SUPERVISE THE CHIEF
TRIAL COUNSEL. THE CHIEF TRIAL
COUNSEL HAS INDICATED THAT HE
HAS ESTABLISHED HIS OWN INTERNAL
POLICY FOR AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL
OF CONFLICT IDENTIFICATION WHEN
IT CASES OPENED, AND WHEN IT'S
CLOSED, HE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR
MAKING SURE THAT HIS STAFF
COMPLY WITH THAT, IN ALL
INSTANCES IF A STAFF MEMBER
FAILS TO COMPLY, AND OBVIOUSLY
WE HAVE TO PROVIDE DUE PROCESS
BUT THERE ARE REMEDIES THAT
INCLUDE EMPLOYMENT RELATED
REMEDIES, AND IN THAT INSTANCE
WHETHER IT'S AN OCTAVE STAFF
MEMBER, OR SOMEONE ELSE IN THIS
DEEP, ARE I WORKING WITH THE
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL WOULD
DEAL WITH, UM IF ACTUACION OF
THOSE PERSONNEL REMEDIES, SO I
WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. I
AM PERFECTLY WILLING AND THINK
IT'S APPROPRIATE TO TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY. NOT TRYING NOT
TO. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE HEARING
IS WE DO WORK WELL AS A TEAM,
AND IT IS A COMPLEX ORGANIZATION
AND THE LEADERSHIP LEADERSHIP
STRUCTURE OF THE ORGANIZATION IS
COMPLICATED. YOU HAVE THE THREE
REPORTS TO THE BOARD HERE.
SPEAKING TO YOU, AND WE WORKED
TOGETHER, AND I THINK WE WORKED
TOGETHER WELL, BUT SOMETIMES YOU
MIGHT SEE US STUMBLING A BIT AS
YOU DID EARLIER, BUT I DO WANT
TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I TAKE THE
RESPONSIBILITY ON WILLINGLY AND
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DID YOU
FURTHER RESPOND, MR DURAN? I
WOULD LET MR CARDONA GO, MR
CHAIR, JUST GOING TO RESPOND TO
YOUR QUESTION ABOUT KIND OF
ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE BOARD AND
REPORTING TO THEM ON CASES. THAT
IS SOMETHING WE DO. YOU HEARD MR
DURAN REFERRED TO THE
DISCIPLINARY LIAISONS WHO ARE
TWO BOARD MEMBERS WHO ARE
APPOINTED AS LIAISONS TO THE
DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM TO O. C T. C
I MEET WITH THEM ON A REGULARLY
REGULAR BASIS TO KEEP THEM
ADVISED OF OUR CASELOADS HOW
THOSE CASELOADS ARE WORKING. UM
AND THEN WE DO DO REPORTS TO THE
BOARD AS A WHOLE, UM, ON OUR
METRICS AND STATISTICS, AND HOW
OUR CASES ARE BEING HANDLED.
SOME OF THAT IS OCCASIONALLY IN
CLOSED SESSION WHERE WE DISCUSS
PARTICULAR CASES. UM AND THEN IN
OPEN SESSION, THE BROADER VIEW
OF HOW THE SYSTEM IS WORKING.
IT'S JUST ONE FOLLOW UP.
QUESTION TO THAT. SO DO YOU
ANTICIPATE A CULTURAL PROBLEM?
IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS
MR MILLER. AH! AND HE'S OF A LAW
PARTNER. MR GIRARDI. HOW WOULD
YOU DEAL WITH THAT? I WOULD HAVE
NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, BECAUSE
IT'S MISS WILSON HAS INDICATED.
I DON'T ANSWER TO THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE
BAR. I ANSWER DIRECTLY TO THE
BOARD. UM AND I WOULD GO TO
BOARD MEMBERS WHO WERE NOT THAT
CONFLICTED BOARD MEMBER AND
REPORT WHATEVER I SAW. UM YOU
ALSO HEARD REFERENCE TO THE NEW
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM THAT'S
BEEN PUT IN PLACE THAT PRECISELY
TO ADDRESS THAT TYPE OF
SITUATION TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE
AN OUTSIDE AVENUE TO ALLOW
EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE BAR TO
REPORT CONDUCT BY HIRES UP WHO
THEY MIGHT NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE
REPORTING TO THOSE HIGHER UPS.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING NEW THAT WAS
JUST APPROVED BY THE BOARD. IN
RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE MAY
REPORT, BUT I THINK THAT'S A
VERY IMPORTANT THING TO ENSURE,
FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE EXAMPLES
THAT THEY MAY REPORT CITED WAS
AN INSTANCE WHERE THERE WERE OH
CTC EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
RECOMMENDING ACTION AGAINST
GIRARDI. BUT THEY WERE OVERRULED
AND ULTIMATELY FIRED. UM YOU
KNOW, THAT COULDN'T HAPPEN NOW,
IF THAT HAPPENED, A COMPLAINT
COULD BE MADE TO THIS OUTSIDE
AGENCY TO INVESTIGATE WHAT WOULD
BE A TRADITIONAL WHISTLEBLOWER
OR WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION
COMPLAINT. THEY WERE FIRED BY MR
DUNN, IF I'VE READ YES,
ACCORDING TO A REPORT AND DID
THE BOARD KNOW OF THAT? AH I
ASSUME THAT THE BOARD HAD TO
HAVE KNOWN ABBOTT SINCE THE
ACTION WAS TAKEN. UM AND IT
WASN'T CONCEALED ACTION. BUT
AGAIN, I WASN'T THERE. I DON'T
KNOW PRECISELY. WHO KNEW WHAT?
OKAY ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
REMEMBER DIXON, I JUST HAVE TWO
QUESTIONS. AND IF NO ONE ELSE
HAS QUESTIONS WILL TURN TO THE
NEXT PANEL. UM, IN THE MAY
REPORT. THERE WAS AN ISSUE
RAISED CONSIDERING ACTING
DIRECTOR ROBERT HAWLEY. YOU MAY
RECALL THAT THAT THAT THE ACTING
DIRECTOR REFERENCED THE CASES
THAT HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO
OUTSIDE COUNSEL BECAUSE THERE
WAS A CONFLICT THAT DIRECTOR
HOLLY ACTUALLY GHOST WROTE THE
REPORT. DO YOU DO YOU RECALL? I
SEE HEADS SHAKING IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE, AND SO I DON'T KNOW
HOW MANY TIMES THAT HAPPENED. UM
BUT WHAT'S GOING ON TODAY TO
LOOK OR RE LOOK AT THE CASES
WHERE MR HAWLEY REFERRED THINGS
TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL KIND OF AND
THEN ACTUALLY WROTE THE REPORT.
SO THE MAY REPORT RECOMMENDED
THAT THE BAR ENGAGED IN AN
INVESTIGATION OF THAT CONDUCT TO
DETERMINE HOW MANY THERE WERE
AND HOW FAR IT WENT. THAT
INVESTIGATION IS ONGOING.
THERE'S BEEN AN OUTSIDE FIRM
RETAINED BY THE BAR TO CONDUCT
THAT INVESTIGATION. WE DON'T YET
HAVE THE RESULTS OF THAT, BUT
IT'S UNDERWAY. WHEN DO YOU
EXPECT THE RESULTS? AH THAT
RETENTION WAS DONE BY OUR OFFICE
OF GENERAL COUNSEL. SO LAST
WHAT? 10? IT'S AN INITIAL STAGES
AND, AS YOU KNOW, THE BAR IS
ALSO FACING FISCAL CHALLENGES
AND RETAINING HIS JOURNAL
COUNCIL IS EXPENSIVE. SO WE ARE
BEGINNING THE PROCESS AND, UM AS
OF NOW, I DON'T HAVE TIME FRAME
FOR THE REVIEW. DO YOU HAVE ANY
EXPECTATION? YOU THINKING A YEAR
? TWO YEARS? THREE YEARS? I
ACTUALLY DON'T BECAUSE WE JUST
ENGAGED THE COUNCIL AND WE HAVE
NOT DEVELOPED INVESTIGATIVE
PLANS. HOWEVER TO THE EXTENT
POSSIBLE WOULD BE HAPPY TO KEEP
YOUR LEGISLATIVE STAFF APPRISED
OF THE TIMING. I DON'T WANT TO
KNOW THE TERMS OF THE
ENGAGEMENT. BUT BUT WAS THERE
ANY TIMEFRAME PUT ON IT AT ALL?
IT'S NOT CUSTOMARY TO INCLUDE
TIME FRIENDS AND MY EXPERIENCE
WITH THESE TYPES OF
INVESTIGATIONS, PARTICULARLY
WHEN THE INVESTIGATOR HASN'T HAD
A CHANCE TO REVEAL THE RECORDS
AND DEVELOPMENT INVESTIGATIVE
PLAN. AND SO IT WOULD BE UNFAIR
TO ASK OF THAT, BUT IT WILL BE
REVIEWED EXPEDITIOUSLY AND AGAIN
WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE
FISCAL, UM, THE FISCAL
CONSTRAINTS THAT THE
ORGANIZATION IS FACING NOW. CAN
YOU GIVE US A REPORT IN SIX
MONTHS AS TO WHEN YOU THINK THAT
REPORT WILL BE COMPLETE? YES WE
CAN GIVE YOU ALRIGHT UPDATE
WITHIN 61 OF THE THINGS WE WOULD
LIKE TO SEE THAT REPORT. TO THE
EXTENT YOU NEED TO REDACT
MATERIAL. WE'D LIKE TO SEE THAT
REPORT WHEN THAT REPORT IS
COMPLETE. IS THAT OKAY? CAN
RAISE THAT ISSUE WITH THE BOARD
AND DISCUSS AND IF THERE IS
APPROPRIATE DECISION MADE BY THE
BOARD, WE CAN CERTAINLY RESPOND
BACK TO THAT. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. IF YOU COULD LET US KNOW
THAT, TOO, UM IN SIX MONTHS.
OKAY ALRIGHT. UM LAST QUESTION
IS, IS IT THIS WE HAVE WE IN THE
LEGISLATURE HAVE BASICALLY BEEN
ACCUSED OF OVERSTEPPING OUR
BOUNDS. THERE'S A CLEAR
SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUE HERE
BECAUSE WE'RE ACTUALLY ASKING
QUESTIONS OF THE STATE BAR. THE
STATE BAR IS A FUNCTION OF THE
JUDICIARY. UM ULTIMATELY
RESPONSIBLE TO THE SUPREME COURT
. I OBVIOUSLY WE THINK WE HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY HERE, AND THAT'S
WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS HEARING
AND I'M VERY GRATEFUL FOR YOU
AND COOPERATING. I THINK QUITE,
UM QUITE AS EXPEDITIOUSLY TO OUR
INQUIRIES IN AND IN CONNECTION
TO THIS HEARING. BUT WHAT IS THE
SUPREME COURT SUGGESTED IN TERMS
OF REFORMS? IF ANYTHING, I DON'T
KNOW. I THINK YOU'VE SEEN
PUBLICLY THE SUPREME COURT DO A
NUMBER OF THINGS. IT'S ISSUED
ORDERS DIRECTING US TO UPDATE
THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
POLICIES THAT APPLY TO THE BOARD
, AS WELL AS TO STATE BAR COURT
JUDGES. MOST RECENTLY ISSUED AN
ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE PARK
COURT TO CHANGE A PRACTICE. UM
REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF
SUSPENSION ATTORNEYS REQUIRED TO
NOTIFY THEIR SUSPENSION STATUS
OF THEIR CLIENTS, SO THEY'VE
TAKEN INDIVIDUAL ACTION IN THAT
DIRECTION. WE'VE ALSO HAD
CONVERSATION. THIS IS AT THE
STAFF LEVEL. NOT WITH THE
JUSTICES, BUT ABOUT THIS ISSUE
OF OVERSIGHT OF THE DISCIPLINE
SYSTEM AND SPECIFICALLY
DISCIPLINE MONITOR OR I G TYPE
OF POSITION. UM WE BOARD
LEADERSHIP AND MYSELF. THE
GENERAL COUNSEL, MR CARDONA WILL
BE MEETING WITH THE CHIEF
JUSTICE IN JUNE. THIS WILL BE
OUR OPPORTUNITY TO TALK VERY
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT SOME OF THE
REFORMS OUTLINED IN YOUR
BACKGROUND PAPER AS WELL AS
OTHERS THAT THAT WE'VE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT INTERNALLY SO
WE'VE GOTTEN FORMAL DIRECTIVES
VIA ORDERS FROM THE COURT AND
THEN MORE INFORMAL CONVERSATIONS
ABOUT THE NEED TO ADD,
POTENTIALLY ENHANCE THE VISIBLE
AND DIRECT OVERSIGHT OVER THE
DISCIPLINE SYSTEM ALREADY, THANK
YOU, MISS WILSON. ALRIGHT,
SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS WE CAN TURN TO THE NEXT
PANEL. UM THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO OUR
CONTINUING CONVERSATION. UH, OH,
CHEERS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. CHAIR HAMBURG. WE
WILL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT PANEL,
UM, RUNNING A LITTLE BIT BEHIND
, SO WE KIND OF TRY TO MAKE SURE
WE TRY TO KEEP THIS AS CONCISE
AS AS WE CAN. UH THIS IS ON
PROPOSALS FOR REFORM. WE'VE
INVITED A NUMBER OF ETHICS
EXPERTS AND OTHERS TO WEIGH IN.
AND THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO
DISCUSS PROPOSALS FOR REFORM TO
THE STATE BAR AND ITS DISCIPLINE
SYSTEM, AS NOTED IN THE
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT, MORE THAN A
HALF DOZEN SIGNIFICANT REFORMS
MAY MAKE THE STATE BAR MORE
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC. THEY
INCLUDE REVISING THE
DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, ELIMINATING
THE BAR STATUS AS A NON PROFIT
CORPORATION AND MODIFYING
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES. THESE
REFORMS ARE DESIGNED TO MAKE THE
STATE BAR MORE ACCOUNTABLE TO
THE SUPREME COURT. THE PUBLIC
AND THE LEGISLATURE ARE FIRST
PANELIST WILL BE PROFESSOR SCOTT
CUMMINGS TO DISCUSS THE LEGAL
ETHICS THAT SHOULD GUIDE REFORMS
. THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM ANITA LEE
OF THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE ABOUT THEIR RECENT
FINDINGS ABOUT THE BARS
DISCIPLINE SYSTEM AND HOW THE
STATE BARS ANNUAL BUDGETARY
REQUESTS CAN BE INCORPORATED
INTO THE ANNUAL STATE BUDGET
PROCESS. AND THEN FINALLY, WE'LL
HEAR FROM CURRENT BOARD OF
TRUSTEE MEMBERS WHO ARE FOCUSED
ON REFORMS TO THE STATE BAR.
ARNIE SAL, MELANIE SHELBY AND
HALEN. CHEN SO, PROFESSOR
CUMMINGS WELCOME AND YOU MAY
BEGIN. THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR
ME? OKAY. YES. THANK YOU. SO I'D
LIKE TO START BY JUST THANKING
THE ASSEMBLY AND THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS FOR
CONVENING THIS IMPORTANT HEARING
AND FOR PERMITTING ME TO SHARE
THESE REMARKS ON STRENGTHENING
OVERSIGHT FOR THE CALIFORNIA
STATE BAR. I HAVE SPENT THE LAST
20 YEARS STUDYING AND TEACHING
LEGAL ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL
REGULATION AS A PROFESSOR AT THE
U. C L. A SCHOOL OF LONG WHERE I
HOLD A CHAIR AND LEGAL ETHICS.
AND IN THE FOUNDING FACULTY
DIRECTOR OF THE U. C L. A
PROGRAM ON LEGAL ETHICS IN THE
PROFESSION. I'M ALSO A PROUD
MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
BAR. SO IN THESE ROLES I HAVE
REVIEWED AND WRITTEN ABOUT BAR
REGULATION AND DISCIPLINARY
PROCESSES NATIONWIDE AND I
FOLLOWED THE TOMS ARE ALREADY
MATTER CLOSELY WOULD LIKE TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE GREAT
PRIVILEGE OF BEING HERE TODAY TO
SHARE SOME INSIGHTS FROM
RESEARCH ON THE DISCIPLINARY
SYSTEM AND DISCUSS IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATE BAR. I
THINK MY BOTTOM LINE TAKE IS
THAT WHILE IT IS CERTAINLY
DISTRESSING THAT CALIFORNIA NOW
HOLDS THE DUBIOUS DISTINCTION OF
BEING A LEADING SYMBOL OF OUR
DYSFUNCTION. THE STATE BAR HAS
THE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY IN
COMBINATION WITH ITS STATE
LEGISLATIVE PARTNERS TO EMERGE
FROM THIS SCANDAL AS AN
INNOVATOR IN REGULATION THAT
INSTITUTES EVIDENCE BASED
REFORMS THAT STRENGTHEN
OVERSIGHT AND PUBLIC PROTECTION
. THIS HEARING IS CLEARLY A STEP
IN THAT DIRECTION IN THE BAR
LEADERS HAVE ALREADY INDICATED
THAT THEY'RE MOVING IN THAT
TRACK. IN THIS REGARD. I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO START BY
SAYING THAT, ALTHOUGH THE
GERARDI CASE IS STANDING IN THE
SPECIFIC DETAILS OF CORRUPTION,
THE BROADER REGULATORY WEAKNESS
IS THAT IT HAS REVEALED LACK OF
TRANSPARENCY ON BAR POLICY AND
PRACTICE OVER BROAD
INVESTIGATIVE DISCRETION OVER
RELIANCE ON NONPUBLIC MEASURES
AND LACK OF LACK OF EQUITY AND
THE ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE SYSTEM.
ARE FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO
STUDIES THE BAR. ONE CONSISTENT
THEME FROM THESE STUDIES IS THAT
IS THAT THE BAR AND THE BAR'S
REPUTATION ARE IN FACT HARM
DEEPLY BY THE LACK OF
TRANSPARENCY BAR DISCIPLINE.
THIS PROBLEM IS NOT NEW IN 1992
, AND MAYBE A COMMISSION FOUND
THAT QUOTE, SECRECY AND
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS. IS THE
SINGLE GREATEST SOURCE OF PUBLIC
DISTRUST IN THE BAR AND THE
REASON THAT QUOTE PROMINENT
LAWYERS AND LAW FIRMS ROUTINELY
EVADE DISCIPLINE IN A SIMILAR
VEIN AT 2012 STUDY FOUND THAT
ONLY ONE THIRD OF THE PUBLIC
SURVEYED BELIEVED THAT THE BAR
DID A GOOD JOB DISCIPLINING
LAWYERS INSTEAD PRODUCING
RESULTS THAT WERE VIEWED AS
QUOTE TOO SLOW TO SECRETS AND
TOO SOFT. I COMMEND THE BAR FOR
TAKING IMPORTANT STEPS SINCE THE
GIRARDI'S REVELATIONS TOWARD
GREATER OPENNESS AND DEEPLY
VALUE THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE
BY THE BACKGROUND PAPER, THE
REPORT OF THE BOARD CHAIR AND
CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL INDICATE
THAT CRUCIAL POLICY CHANGES ARE
ALREADY BEING DEVELOPED AND
IMPLEMENTED. THEY NICELY TRACK
MANY OF THE PROPOSALS MADE IN
THE NATIONAL RESEARCH ON
DISCIPLINE AND SPECIFIC REVIEWS
OF THE CALIFORNIA PROCESS THAT I
WANT TO SHARE HERE. THEREFORE,
THE IDEAS THAT I OFFER WILL
HOPEFULLY BE A COMPLIMENT TO
SOME OF WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY
HEARD AND ENDORSEMENT OF THE
EXCELLENT WORK ALREADY DONE AND
PERHAPS FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR
ADDITIONAL DIRECTIONS. THE FIRST
IDEA THAT I WOULD SHARE IS THAT
COMPLAINTS SHOULD BE EASIER TO
FILE. ALTHOUGH THERE WERE THERE
WERE ROUGHLY 16,000 COMPLAINTS
FILED LAST YEAR IN THE
CALIFORNIA STATE BAR SYSTEM, AND
WE KNOW OVER 200 AGAINST
SORORITY. MOST RESEARCH SUGGESTS
THAT THERE ARE FAR MORE
INSTANCES OF REPORTABLE LAWYER
MISCONDUCT THAT DOES NOT GET
REPORTED BECAUSE OF CLIENT
IGNORANCE OR INTIMIDATION. MORE
SYSTEMATIC PUBLIC EDUCATION IS
NEEDED TO INFORM CONSUMERS ABOUT
DISCIPLINARY STANDARDS AND
PROCESSES. MOST PEOPLE DON'T
KNOW WHEN VIOLATIONS HAVE
OCCURRED AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT
THEM. INFORMATION POSTED ON BAR
WEBSITES HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE
GROSSLY INADEQUATE. SECOND
LAWYERS SHOULD HAVE TO REPORT ON
OTHER LAWYER MISCONDUCT IN THE
GERARDI CASE. IT ULTIMATELY TOOK
CO COUNSEL SUING GIRARDI FOR HIS
FIRM'S FINANCIAL HOUSE OF CARDS
TO COLLAPSE. OF COURSE, IT'S
IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHETHER
MANDATORY LAWYER REPORTING UNDER
THE CURRENT AVIATOR MODEL RULE,
8.3 STANDARD VERSIONS OF WHICH
ARE CURRENTLY BEING DEBATED IN
CALIFORNIA. WOULD HAVE MADE A
DIFFERENCE AND UNFAIR TO DOUBT
MISCONDUCT EARLIER, BUT WE DO
KNOW THAT LAWYER REPORTS LIKE
THOSE OF JUDGES TEND TO CARRY
MORE WEIGHT IN THE DISCIPLINARY
PROCESS. THAT THIRD POINT THAT I
WOULD RAISE IS ONE THAT MR
CARDONA ALREADY ADDRESSED TO
SOME DEGREE, WHICH IS THAT WHICH
IS THAT THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF
BAR COMPLAINTS SHOULD BE
REVISITED. IN CALIFORNIA. AS IN
MOST STATES, COMPLAINTS ARE
CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL THERE IS A
FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE, AND
THERE ARE GOOD REASONS FOR THIS
CONFIDENTIALITY IS NEEDED TO
SAFEGUARD THE INTEGRITY OF
INVESTIGATIONS AND TO ENSURE
THAT LAWYERS ARE NOT HARMED BY
FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS. HOWEVER
THE PROBLEM REVEALED BY THE
GERARDI CASE DOCUMENTED IN THE
BAY AND STATE AUDITOR REPORTS IS
THAT MOST CASES ARE CLOSED
BEFORE THE TRIAL COUNSEL
REFERRAL STAGE. WHICH MEANS THAT
MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS MAY
ACCUMULATE OVER THE COURSE OF
YEARS WITHOUT EVER REACHING THE
PUBLIC VIEW. MR CARDONA
INDICATED THAT THE BAR IS
DEVELOPING PRACTICES AND
TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL HELP
ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM, INCLUDING
THE PROPOSAL TO APPOINT A
SPECIAL COUNSEL TO REVIEW
ATTORNEYS WITH MORE THAN WITH
MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS PENDING AND
I AND I VERY MUCH APPLAUD THIS
MOVE. MORE COULD BE DONE TO
PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH
INFORMATION ABOUT DISMISSED
COMPLAINTS. SOME STATES DO IN
FACT, HAVE SO CALLED SUNSHINE
REQUIREMENTS THAT REQUIRE
RELEASING ALL COMPLAINTS
INFORMATION AFTER THEIR
DISMISSAL, AND RESEARCHERS OF
THESE REQUIREMENTS HAVE FOUND
THAT THEY DO NOT PRODUCE ANY
NEGATIVE EFFECTS IN TERMS OF
FILING RATES OR LAWYER
CONSEQUENCES. AS THE BACKGROUND
PAPER AND THE BAR LEADERS THAT
HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN HAVE HAVE
MADE CLEAR THE POLICY AND
PRACTICES AROUND NONPUBLIC
MEASURES MUST ALSO BE MADE MORE
TRANSPARENT. IN THIS REGARD.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO JUST EMPHASIZE
THAT IN CALIFORNIA, ROUGHLY 85%
OF CASES ARE CLOSED BEFORE THE
FILING STAGES WHEN CHARGES ARE
BROUGHT TO THE STATE BAR COURT.
AND MANY OF THESE CASES EVEN
THOUGH THEY ARE DISMISSED.
LAWYERS ARE IN FACT ISSUED
WARNING LETTERS, WHICH WE'VE
HEARD ABOUT WHICH INDICATE THAT
A LAWYER HAS IN FACT VIOLATED
DISCIPLINARY RULES, THE ONE
DEEMED TO BE MINIMAL IN NATURE.
2020 2022 DISCIPLINE REPORT
FOUND THAT THERE ARE ROUGHLY 600
WARNING LETTERS ISSUED PER YEAR.
MAKING IT THE BY FAR THE MOST
FREQUENTLY USED FORM OF BAR
DISCIPLINE. THE STATE AUDIT
FOUND THAT SOME OF THESE LETTERS
THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED
IN THE FIRST PLACE AS SOMETHING
THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S BEEN
ALREADY ADDRESSED. AN ADDITIONAL
ISSUE IS THAT EVEN WHEN WARNING
LETTERS MAY BE APPROPRIATE,
THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE THAT
THE LETTERS ACTUALLY PREVENT
FUTURE LAWYER MISCONDUCT. TO THE
CONTRARY, THERE IS SIGNIFICANT
EVIDENCE OF LAWYER RECIDIVISM
AFTER RECEIVING SUCH WARNING
LETTERS. AND WE DON'T KNOW THAT.
IN FACT, THESE LETTERS ADDRESS
US ABOUT THE MINOR CONCERNS THAT
THEY'RE TARGETED UP. SO THE
LESSON FROM THE RESEARCH IS THAT
ALTHOUGH THESE WARNING LETTER
LETTERS CAN BE A HELPFUL TOOL IN
A SMALL NUMBER OF CASES, THEY
SHOULD BE USED WITH GREAT
RESTRAINT. BUT THE RESEARCH
SUGGESTS THAT PRIVATE REPRIMANDS
A REPUTE. APPROVALS IN CONTRAST,
REALLY SHOULD BE ELIMINATED.
THERE ARE CASES THAT BY THESE
ARE CASES, THESE PRIVATE
REPRIMAND CASES OR REPROVAL
CASES IN CALIFORNIA THAT, BY
DEFINITION HAVE RESULTED IN A
FINDING OF SIGNIFICANT LAWYER
MISCONDUCT. BUT THERE'S NO
MECHANISM FOR THE PUBLIC TO FIND
OUT. THESE CASES ARE RELATIVELY
SMALL IN NUMBER IN CALIFORNIA. I
THINK THERE'S STRATEGIC SAR
ROUGHLY 20 PER YEAR AND THERE
ARE INSUFFICIENT POLICY
JUSTIFICATIONS FOR KEEPING THEM
FROM PUBLIC VIEW. THERE ARE
SIMILAR CONCERNS AGAIN, AS MR
CARDONA INDICATED, WITH
SETTLEMENTS THAT RESULT IN
DIVERSION IN LIEU OF DISCIPLINE
AGAIN, MORE TRANSPARENCY IS
CRITICAL HERE. THE LEADING
NATIONAL STUDY FROM 2018 FOUND
THAT THERE'S LITTLE EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE THAT DIVERSION
AGREEMENTS ARE APPROPRIATELY
ENTERED INTO IN THE FIRST PLACE,
AND VIRTUALLY NO EVIDENCE OF
WHETHER THEY WORKED TO PUT
LAWYERS ON THE RIGHT PATH. ONCE
THERE IN THE PROGRAMS BECAUSE
MANY OF THESE AGREEMENTS DO NOT
HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED AGAIN. THEY
RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT LAWYER
MISCONDUCT BEING TRAPPED INSIDE
THE SYSTEM AND THESE
TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS ARE
CONNECTED TO EQUITY CONCERNS. WE
DON'T KNOW WHICH LAWYERS ARE
RECEIVING DIVERSION IF THEY ARE
FOUR ELITE, BETTER RESOURCED,
ABLE TO GAIN DEALS LESS WELL OFF
LAWYERS CANNOT, WHICH LEADS TO
THE NEXT IDEA. WHICH IS THAT
SANCTIONS SHOULD BE SCALABLE
ACCORDING TO CLEAR POLICY AND
PROCEDURES, SOMETHING AGAIN AT
THE BAR IS ALREADY SEEMING TO
MOVE FORWARD. AS I SUGGESTED
RESEARCH ON DISCIPLINE IN OTHER
STATES HAS SHOWN THAT LAWYER
RECIDIVISM AFTER LOW LEVEL
SANCTIONS IS A SIGNIFICANT
ONGOING PROBLEM. IT OFTEN TAKES
MULTIPLE PRIVATE REPRIMANDS FOR
A LAWYER TO RECEIVE A PUBLIC ONE
AND SEVERAL PUBLIC REPRIMANDS
BEFORE THERE'S MORE SERIOUS
SANCTIONS LIKE SUSPENSION. THE
PROBLEM IS THAT WHEN THE
STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING
INCREASING DISCIPLINE OR NOT
CLEAR IT GIVES TOO MUCH
DISCRETION TO BAR COUNCIL IN
COURTS TO PERMIT PROBLEMATIC
LAWYERS TO AVOID PUBLIC SCRUTINY
. OTHER STATES HAVE EXPERIMENTED
WITH MORE TRANSPARENT RULES IN
THIS REGARD. WASHINGTON AND
CONNECTICUT, FOR EXAMPLE, HAD
INSTITUTED SOMETHING LIKE A
THREE STRIKES RULE REQUIRING
MORE SERIOUS DISCIPLINE UNDER
CLEAR GUIDELINES, WHEN LAWYERS
RECEIVED THREE REPRIMANDS WITHIN
FIVE YEARS. STOP BEING MORE
FLEXIBLE BUT STILL CLEAR IS IN
ORDER. FINALLY INFORMATION ABOUT
SANCTIONED LAWYERS SHOULD BE
EASIER TO ACCESS AND
DISCIPLINARY STATISTICS. MORE
FINE GRAINED AGAIN. IT SOUNDS
LIKE THERE ARE IMPORTANT
INNOVATIONS IN THE WORKS HERE.
THIS IS GREAT BECAUSE CURRENTLY
THE BAR WEBSITE FOR ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINE IS NOT EASY TO USE,
PARTICULARLY FOR UNSOPHISTICATED
, UH, PEOPLE TO SEE BOTTOM LINE
RESULTS. THERE ARE SOME HELPFUL
IDEAS IN THIS SORT OF BETA
TESTING STAGE OUT THERE, SUCH AS
USER FRIENDLY APPS THAT PROVIDE
CLEAR CODES OR AGGREGATE SCORES
THAT INDICATE BOYER RISK BASED
ON DISCIPLINARY RECORD. I WAS
PLEASED TO HEAR FROM CHAIRED
AROUND THAT THE BAR IS
DEVELOPING AN EASY TO USE
DASHBOARD THAT PERHAPS COULD
FACILITATE THIS TYPE OF
INFORMATION SHARING. I WAS ALSO
HAPPY TO HEAR THAT THE BAR IS
AGGRESSIVELY COLLECTING MORE
DATA. THIS IS ESSENTIAL. TO
ASSESSING THE FAIRNESS AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SYSTEM
GOING FORWARD RIGHT NOW, THE
AGGREGATE DATA ABOUT CASES AND
OUTCOME THAT IS REPORTED IN
ANNUAL DISCIPLINE REPORTS ONLY.
TELL PART OF THE STORY. WE KNOW
THAT DISCIPLINE IS NOT METED OUT
EQUALLY REVIEW BY CALIFORNIA IN
2001 SHOWED THAT ALTHOUGH SOLO
PRACTITIONERS ARE ROUGHLY A
QUARTER OF CALIFORNIA LAWYERS
THEY WERE SUBJECT TO ALMOST
THREE QUARTERS OF DISCIPLINARY
ACTIONS. SOME MORE RECENT
STUDIES, MISS WILSON REFERRED TO
AS HIGHLIGHTED RACE DISPARITIES
. GETTING GOOD DATA TAKES
RESOURCES BUT FOR THE SYSTEM TO
ADDRESS ISSUES OF EQUITY AND
ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION ABOUT
DISCIPLINE IN RELATION TO
DEMOGRAPHICS AND PRACTICE SITES
IS REALLY NECESSARY ON A YEAR TO
YEAR BASIS, SO IN CONCLUSION, I
JUST WANT TO UNDERSCORE WHAT
OTHERS HAVE SAID THAT THE
PROBLEMS REVEALED BY THE GIRARDI
SCANDAL ARE AT BOTTOM PROBLEMS
OF THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF
WEALTH AND POWER. THAT INFLUENCE
GAINS ITS SCOPE TO THE FULLEST
DEGREE WHEN ALLOWED TO FESTER
UNDER THE CLOAK OF SECRECY AGAIN
, I COMMEND WITH THE BARS
LEADERSHIP HAS DONE TO PROVIDE A
FULL ACCOUNTING OF WHAT'S
HAPPENED IN THE IMPORTANT STEPS
TOWARD REBUILDING TRUST TO
CEMENT AND DEEPEN THESE CHANGES
. I THINK IT'S CRUCIAL THAT THEY
BE DONE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH AND
RESPONSIVE TO THE PUBLIC. AND
THE BAR'S LEGISLATIVE PARTNERS
SO THAT THERE ARE APPROPRIATE
CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THE
SYSTEM TO REDUCE THE RISK OF
FUTURE CATASTROPHIC FAILURES AND
HARM THE PUBLIC. LEAVE THIS
CONVERSATION WITH HOPE THAT OUT
OF CRISIS WILL COME IN DURING
CHANGE, AND THANK YOU ALL AGAIN
FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS
ISSUE AND ALLOWING ME TO
PARTICIPATE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. PROFESSOR CUMMINGS. NEXT
WE WILL TURN TO ANITA LEE FROM
THE L A. L MISS LEE. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, ANITA LEE WITH
THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
REALLY APPRECIATE YOU HAVING US
HERE TODAY BEFORE WE HIT THE
MEAT OF OUR COMMENTS. WE STOOD
THAT WE THOUGHT WE'D START BY
PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT OF
CONTEXT OF OUR ROLE HERE TODAY.
UM SO WE ACTUALLY WORK FOR YOU
ALL WE SERVE AS THE EYES AND
EARS FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO
ENSURE THAT LEGISLATIVE POLICY
IS BEING AN ENACTED IN BOTH IN
AN EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE
MANNER. WE DO THAT IN VARIOUS
WAYS. ONE OF THOSE WAYS IS
THROUGH OUR BUDGET WORK ANNUALLY
. OUR ANALYSIS OUR TESTIMONY AND
HEARINGS, ETCETERA, BUT ANOTHER
WAY IS ALSO THROUGH EITHER
STATUTORILY REQUIRED OR SELF
INITIATED TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE
INTEREST. UM AND SO RELATED TO
THE STATE BAR IN THE PAST FIVE
YEARS, WE'VE ACTUALLY CONDUCTED
Tð. STATUTORY REQUIRED REPORTS
ON THE STATE BAR AT THE JOINT
REQUEST OF BOTH COMMITTEES. THE
FIRST REPORT WAS IN 2019 AND WAS
AN EXAMINATION OF THE STATE BARS
REQUEST FOR A FEE INCREASE IN
2020, THEN THE SECOND REPORT WAS
SUBMITTED EARLIER THIS YEAR AND
WAS AN ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE
BARS, PROPOSED CASELOAD,
PROCESSING STANDARDS AND
STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES
PROCESSED BY THE OFFICE OF CHIEF
TRIAL COUNSELOR O. C. T. C. AND
SO OUR COMMENTS TODAY REALLY
STEM FROM OUR EXPERIENCES AND
COMPLETING THOSE TWO REPORTS.
BOTH OF THE REPORTS. WE
INDICATED THAT INCREASED
LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COULD BE
BENEFICIAL TO ENSURE THAT THE
FEE REVENUES WERE PROVIDED AND
USED IN A MANNER THAT WAS
CONSISTENT WITH LEGISLATIVE
EXPECTATIONS FOR STATE BAR
OPERATIONS. AND SO IN LINE WITH
THAT, WE SUGGESTED THAT THE
LEGISLATURE MIGHT WANT TO
CONSIDER WHAT LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT
IT WANTED TO EXERCISE OVER STATE
BAR PROCESSES AND FUNDING. UM
AND ONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES THAT
WE GAVE WAS TO CONSIDER,
INCLUDING THE STATE BAR AS PART
OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS AND
SO COMMITTEE STAFF THAT IT COULD
BE HELPFUL IF WE SPENT A LITTLE
BIT OF TIME WALKING THE
COMMITTEE'S THROUGH HOW THAT
WOULD INCREASE LEGISLATIVE
OVERSIGHT. AND SO I'M GOING TO
SPEND SOME OF MY COMMENTS
RELATED TO THAT. UM IN BRINGING
THE STATE BAR INTO THE ANNUAL
STATE PROJECT STATE BUDGET
PROCESS, IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE
TREATED SIMILARLY AS MANY OTHER
STATE LICENSING DEPARTMENTS SO,
FOR EXAMPLE, THE STATE BAR WOULD
STILL BE SUBJECT TO THE
OVERSIGHT AND JURISDICTION OF
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES. IT
STILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SET
THE LEVELS CHANGE STATUTE TO
REFLECT POLICY DECISIONS,
REQUIRE REPORTING AND CONDUCT
OVERSIGHT HEARINGS. IT WOULD BE
VERY SIMILAR TO THE ROLE THAT
THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
COMMITTEES HAVE OVER OTHER STATE
LICENSING. UM DEPARTMENTS AND
THOSE COMMITTEES ROUTINELY
CONDUCTS SUNSET HEARINGS, SET
FEE LEVELS AND ENGAGE IN OTHER
POLICY MAKING DECISIONS. BUT
BRINGING THE STATE BAR INTO THE
ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS MEANS THAT
THE LEGISLATURE IS MORE EQUIPPED
TO EVALUATE THE FUNDING REQUESTS
, AS WELL AS TO MONITOR THE USE
OF THE FUNDS IN A MANNER THAT'S
SIMILAR TO OTHER STATE
DEPARTMENTS. THIS ALLOWS FOR
GREATER OVERSIGHT OF THE
TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE
REQUESTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE
IS SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION
THAT'S PROVIDED TO COMPARE THEM
TO KIND OF THE STATEWIDE
POLICIES AND ALSO WHAT OTHER
DEPARTMENTS ARE DOING AND ALSO
TO IDENTIFY AREAS WHERE
PARTICULAR LEGISLATIVE INTEREST
MIGHT BE MERITED. SO THERE
REALLY FIVE KIND OF KEY BENEFITS
THAT WE THINK LEGISLATIVE
OVERSIGHT WOULD BE IMPROVED. AND
SO I'LL WALK THROUGH THOSE FIVE.
SO THE FIRST IS SINCE THE STATE
BAR IS NOT PART OF THE ANNUAL
BUDGET PROCESS, IT HAS
FLEXIBILITY IN ITS BUDGET
PRACTICES AND IN THE INFORMATION
THAT IT SUBMITS TO THE
LEGISLATURE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE,
THE STATE BAR OPERATES ON THE
CALENDAR SYSTEM RATHER THAN ON
THE STATE'S FISCAL YEAR AND THE
LEVEL OF DOCUMENTATION AND
JUSTIFICATION AND THE MANNER IN
WHICH IT SUBMITTED. IS ACTUALLY
NOT THE SAME AS ANY OTHER STATE
DEPARTMENTS. AND SO THIS CAN
MAKE IT CHALLENGING TO ASSESS
THE STATE BARS REQUESTS WITHOUT
FIRST SPENDING KIND OF
SIGNIFICANT TIME, MAKING SURE
THAT ALL OF THE PARTIES ARE
EFFECTIVELY SPEAKING THE SAME
LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE USING THE
SAME KEY TERMS IN THE SAME WAY
THAT WE'RE AWARE OF HOW THINGS
ARE DOCUMENTED AND CALCULATED,
BUT ALSO THEN TO JUST HOW WE
REQUEST THE INFORMATION THAT WE
NEED TO ASSESS THOSE PROPOSALS.
UM SO SECOND, WHILE YOU KNOW THE
POLICY COMMITTEES WOULD RETAIN
THEIR JURISDICTION, THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE WOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO
EXAMINE AND MONITOR WHETHER OR
NOT POLICY DECISIONS. UM ARE
WERE BEING IMPLEMENTED AND
FUNDING WAS USED EFFICIENTLY AND
EFFECTIVELY TO IMPLEMENT THOSE
POLICY DECISIONS. AND SO
PARTICULAR CONCERN. IN RECENT
YEARS, THE STATE BAR HAS BEEN
ABLE TO MAKE MAJOR POLICY
DECISIONS WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE
INPUT OR APPROVAL. EXAMPLES OF
THAT INCLUDE THE PURCHASE OF THE
L. A BUILDING STARTING OF IT
PROJECTS AS WELL AS IN CERTAIN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,
POTENTIALLY AGREEING TO POLICIES
THAT WOULD HAVE LONGER TERM
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS. AND SO THE
CHALLENGE WITH THAT IS IF UM, IT
WOULD PUT THE LEGISLATURE IN A
DIFFICULT SITUATION IF THOSE
COSTS COULD NOT BE AFFORDED
WITHOUT A FEE INCREASE SO
BRINGING THE STATE BAR INTO THE
ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS REALLY
PROVIDES THE LEGISLATURE WITH AN
OPPORTUNITY TO IDENTIFY SOME OF
THOSE EXPENDITURES BEFORE THEY
OCCUR. BUT IT ALSO PROVIDES AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO PRIVATE SOME OF
THOSE, UM OR TO LIMIT OR HOW,
WHEN THEY ARE ENGAGED IN SO, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE LEGISLATURE CAN PUT
CONDITIONS THAT NEED TO BE MET
BEFORE CERTAIN PROJECTS MOVE
FORWARD THIRD, INCLUDING THE
STATE BAR IN THE ANNUAL STATE
BUDGET PROCESS CAN HELP ENSURE
THAT THE STATE BARS DECISIONS
ARE CONSISTENT WITH STATEWIDE
POLICIES AND THAT THEY'RE
TREATED SIMILARLY TO OTHER STATE
DEPARTMENTS. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IN
2019, WE FOUND THAT THE SALARY
INCREASES FOR STATE BAR
REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES WERE
ACTUALLY CONSISTENT WITH
SIMILARLY SITUATED STATE
EMPLOYEES. BUT WE ALSO FOUND
THAT THE STATE BAR WAS ACTUALLY
REQUESTING TO PROVIDE MORE
GENEROUS RETIREMENT BENEFITS
THAN THE STATE PROVIDED TO ITS
EMPLOYEES. WE ALSO IDENTIFIED
FOR THE LEGISLATURE THAT THE
STATE BARS REQUEST TO COVER FIVE
YEARS OF BUILDING AND IT COSTS
IN A SINGLE ASSESSMENT AS WELL
AS A REQUEST TO ADJUST THE
ANNUAL RENEWAL FEE AND THE
DISCIPLINARY FEE ANNUALLY TO
ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION WAS
ACTUALLY INCONSISTENT WITH
STATEWIDE POLICIES AND RAISED
SOME OTHER CONCERNS. FOURTH
INCLUSION IN THE ANNUAL BUDGET
PROCESS COULD REQUIRE THAT THE
STATE BAR PROVIDE MORE THOROUGH
JUSTIFICATION BEFORE CHANGES TO
OPERATIONS OCCUR OR BEFORE
DECISIONS ARE MADE. SINCE THE
STATE BAR IS GENERALLY ABLE TO
USE THEIR FUNDING BASED ON THEIR
PRIORITIES WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE
APPROVAL. UM IT CAN RESULT IN
CHANGES BEING MADE RAPIDLY
WITHOUT NECESSARILY THOROUGHLY
EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF THOSE
CHANGES OR JUSTIFYING THEM OR
CONSULTING WITH THE LEGISLATURE
ON THEM. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, UM IN
2019, BOTH OUR OFFICE AND THE
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE FOUND THAT IT WOULD BE
PREMATURE TO PROVIDE THE STATE
BAR. WITH A FULL COMPLEMENT OF
ADDITIONAL LOCKED STAFF THAT THE
STATE BAR WAS REQUESTING, AND
THIS WAS BECAUSE VARIOUS
OPERATIONAL CHANGES HAD JUST
BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND THE IMPACT
OF THOSE CHANGES WERE UNKNOWN.
AND SO SUBSEQUENTLY IN 2021. THE
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED THAT
ONE OF THOSE RECENTLY
IMPLEMENTED CHANGES SPECIFICALLY
CHANGING TRIAL TEAMS FROM TEAMS
THAT SPECIALIZED IN CERTAIN CASE
TYPES, TOO GENERALIST TEAMS THAT
HANDLED ALL CASE TYPES ACTUALLY
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED CASE
PROCESSING EFFICIENCY. FIFTH WE
WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE BUDGET
FRAMEWORK INCLUDES SOME BUILT IN
TOOLS THAT CAN BE USED FOR
ONGOING OVERSIGHT DURING THE
YEAR. FOR EXAMPLE, FUNDING CAN
BE LIMITED BY PROVISIONAL
LANGUAGE OR BY LINE ITEM BUDGETS
, SCHEDULES TO BE USED FOR
PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR TO INSIST
ON PARTICULAR CONDITIONS BEING
MET BEFORE THE FUNDING CAN BE
ACTUALLY ACCESSED AND USED. THE
BUDGET ALSO INCLUDES
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
WHEN FUNDING CAN BE SHIFTED TO
BE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES AND
LAYS OUT THE CONDITIONS FOR
WHICH THOSE SHIFTS CAN OCCUR.
AND SO THIS EFFECTIVELY PROVIDES
THE LEGISLATURE WITH MORE TOOLS
TO MONITOR ANY UNEXPECTED COSTS
THAT ARE EMERGING AS WELL AS TO
ENSURE THAT FUNDING IS USED
CONSISTENT WITH LEGISLATIVE, UM
EXPECTATIONS AND PRIORITIES. TO
THE EXTENT THE LEGISLATURE DOES
NOT INCLUDE THE STATE BAR AND
THE ANNUAL STATE BUDGET PROCESS
. WE NOTE THAT THERE ARE OTHER
WAYS LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COULD
BE, UM, INCREASED THAT ACHIEVES
SOME OF THOSE BENEFITS THAT I
TALKED ABOUT, AND I'M JUST GOING
TO BRIEFLY HIGHLIGHT FOUR OF
THOSE IN THE LAST FEW MINUTES OF
MY COMMENTS. SO ONE OPTION IS
THAT THE LEGISLATURE COULD
CONSIDER CHANGING THE EXISTING
FEE STRUCTURE TO INSTEAD
APPROVED A SEPARATE FEES FOR
PARTICULAR PURPOSES, AND THAT
WOULD ENSURE THAT THAT FUNDING
WAS USED FOR THOSE LEGISLATIVELY
DESIRED PURPOSES. A SECOND
OPTION IS TO SPECIFICALLY
REQUIRE THE STATE BAR TO SEEK
LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL BEFORE
ENGAGING IN CERTAIN EXPENDITURE
. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF BEFORE
BEGINNING AN IT PROJECT THAT
POTENTIALLY HAS COSTS THAT
EXCEED A CERTAIN THRESHOLD OR
OTHER POLICIES THAT WOULD HAVE
LONGER TERM FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
. OPTION IS FOR THE LEGISLATURE
TO INCORPORATE EMPLOYEE
COMPENSATION GUIDELINES. THAT
MUST BE FOLLOWED IN ORDER TO
INFORM STATE BAR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING. AND THEN THE FOURTH
AND FINAL OPTION IS FOR
COMPREHENSIVE AND THOROUGH
PERFORMANCE AND OUTCOME MEASURES
TO ENABLE LEGISLATIVE MONITORING
OF HOW FUNDING WAS USED, BUT
ALSO TO HELP EVALUATE WHETHER
LEGISLATIVE EXPECTATIONS WERE
MET WHETHER ADDITIONAL POLICY
CHANGES ARE NEEDED AND WHAT
FUTURE FUNDING LEVELS WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE. SO WE'LL CONCLUDE
OUR COMMENTS THERE AND ARE HAPPY
TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. MISS LEE WILL TAKE
ALL THE QUESTIONS AT THE END.
NEXT WE'LL GO TO ARNIE SAOUL. A
MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE STATE BAR. OH, PLEASE
COME FORWARD HAVE JUST BEEN
INFORMED. WELL GONNA TAKE ALL
THREE AT ONE TIME. SO ALSO
MELANIE SHELBY AND HALEN, CHAD,
ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE STATE BAR, SO
WELCOME TO THE THREE OF YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR. AMBERG
CHAIR MAIENSCHEIN, MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY
JUDICIARY COMMITTEES. MY NAME IS
ARNIE SO WELL, AND I'M A PUBLIC
NON LAWYER APPOINTEE OF THE
STATE SENATE TO THE STATE BAR
BOARD OF TRUSTEES. MY DAY JOB I
RUN NEXT GEN POLICY AND EQUITY
AND JUSTICE FOCUSED, NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION. AND PRIOR TO
JOINING NEXT. GEN I SPENT ALMOST
TWO DECADES IN THIS BUILDING AS
THE POLICY DIRECTOR FOR FIVE
SPEAKERS. UM I WAS APPOINTED TO
THE STATE BAR ABOUT TWO YEARS
AGO AND CURRENTLY SERVES AS THE
CHAIR OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
ADDITIONALLY ALONG WITH TRUSTEES
SHELBY AND CHEN, I SERVE ON THE
BOARDS THREE MEMBER AT HOT
COMMISSION ON OVERSIGHT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY REFORMS. I JUST
WANT TO THANK THE CHAIRS OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE STAFF FOR HOLDING
THIS JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING AND
ENGAGING WITH THE BOARD, OUR
STAFF AND OTHER EXPERTS TO THE
EXAM IN THE STATE BAR,
OPERATIONAL ETHICAL AND
GOVERNANCE ISSUES IN LIGHT OF
GIRARDI, AS WELL AS OTHER
PERSISTENT SHORTCOMINGS. ONE
WELL, NO ENTITY LIKES TO BE
HAULED IN FRONT OF THE
LEGISLATURE FOR PUBLIC SCRUTINY
. I TRULY APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THE
COMMITMENT OF THE BOARD TO
PUBLIC PROTECTION AND THE WORK
OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE.
HONESTLY, UH, READING THE LITANY
OF THE BARS, PAST PROBLEMS AND
FAILURES, AS OUTLINED IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS STILL SHOCKS
ME. EVEN THOUGH I HAVE LIVED
WITH THEM FOR TWO YEARS. THE
HEART. THEY'RE HARD TO STOMACH
AND THEY HUNT EVERY MEMBER OF
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. OUR
HISTORY IS DEEPLY TROUBLING,
TROUBLING AND ISSUES HAVE IN OUR
ISSUES HAVE BEEN MANY THE MAY
REPORT UNEARTHED DEEP FISSURES
OF CORRUPTION THAT ARE
DIAMETRICALLY AT ODDS WITH THE
BOARD'S MISSION OF PUBLIC
PROTECTION. AND ALTHOUGH IT
REALLY DOESN'T MATTER, THE
CURRENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES
INHERITED MANY OF THESE ISSUES
TOOK PROACTIVE ACTIONS TO
UNCOVER MANY OTHERS AND UNDER
PRIOR LEADERSHIP WAS PROVIDED
ADVICE AND SELF INFLICTED OTHER
WOUNDS. NEVERTHELESS I SAY TO
YOU WE OWN OUR FAILINGS TO YOU,
OUR STAKEHOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC.
SO WE MUST OWN ARE FLAWED
HISTORY. OUR FUTURE DOES NOT
HAVE TO BE DEFINED BY IT. AND
THE CURRENT BOARD AND THEIR SIX
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HERE TODAY
ARE UNITED AND UNWAVERING IN OUR
COMMITMENT TO RIGHT THESE WRONGS
CHANGE OUR CULTURE, RESTORE YOUR
TRUST AND UNDER EQUIVALENTLY
HERE TO OUR MISSION OF PUBLIC
PROTECTION TO THAT END, HERE'S
WHAT WE'VE DONE, AND HERE'S WHAT
WE'RE DOING. AND SOME OF SOME OF
THIS YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD. LAST
DECEMBER, WE ESTABLISHED A
SPECIAL COMMITTEE, THE THREE
MEMBER AD HOC COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
REFORMS. THIS COMMITTEE IS
CHARGED WITH MAKING
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FULL
BOARD ON STRUCTURAL AND OTHER
REFORMS TO IMPROVE OVERSIGHT,
TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND
DISCIPLINE SYSTEM AND RECOMMEND
DEFINITIVE ACTIONS TO RESPOND TO
THE MAJOR REPORT FINDINGS ABOUT
UNDUE INFLUENCE. WE HELD OUR
FIRST MEETING IN LATE DECEMBER A
COUPLE OF WEEKS AFTER OUR
FORMATION AND HAVE BEEN MEETING
ROUGHLY ONCE EVERY THREE WEEKS
EVER SINCE. MANY MANY HOURS OF
STAFF AND MORE TIME HAVE GONE
INTO THIS WORK AND OVER THE
COURSE OF NUMEROUS COMMITTEE
MEETINGS AND BOARD MEETINGS, WE
HAVE CONSIDERED A LONG LIST OF
REFORM PROPOSALS. AS A MATTER OF
FACT, MANY OF THE REFORM
PROPOSALS THAT THE AD HOC
COMMITTEE HAS DELIBERATED AND
RECOMMENDED TO THE FULL BOARD.
MERE RECOMMENDATIONS DELINEATED.
IN YOUR COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. LAST
WEEK, THE FULL BOARD ADOPTED A
COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF AD HOC
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
SPECIFICALLY EXPLORE THE
CREATION OF AN INSPECTOR GENERAL
INCREASED CONFLICT OF INTEREST
POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR
BOARD MEMBERS. AND STAFF
INITIATE CONVERSATIONS AFTER
ABOUT BECOMING A PART OF THE
STATE BUDGET PROCESS, IMPROVE
THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
PROCESS OFFER STATUTORY CHANGES
TO CLARIFY PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND
TRANSPARENCY RESPONSIBILITIES,
ESTABLISHED A TWO YEAR TERM FOR
THE BOARD CHAIR AND ADVANCE
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS TO THE SUPREME
COURT. MY AD HOC COMMITTEE
COLLEAGUES WILL COMMENT IN MORE
DETAIL ON THESE RECOMMENDATIONS
. BUT WE HAVE NOT CONCLUDED OUR
WORK AND THERE ARE STILL A LOT
MORE THAT WE PLANNED ON
EVALUATING AND MOVING FORWARD.
JUST ON THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
CONCEPT. CLEARLY THE BOARD
BELIEVES THAT THE OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL SHOULD BE
RETAINED AT THE STATE BAR.
HOWEVER THE COMMITTEE
DELIBERATED WHETHER THE BOARD
HAD SUFFICIENT INSIGHT INTO AN
OVERSIGHT OF THE DISCIPLINE
SYSTEM. AND AS PART OF OUR
DELIBERATIONS WE HEARD FROM THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE
CALIFORNIA PRISON SYSTEM, AS
WELL AS THE HEAD OF THE OFFICE
OF ETHICS, COMPLIANCE AND AUDIT
SERVICES AT THE U. C OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT. WE CONCLUDED THAT
THE BOARD SHOULD ESTABLISH AN
INDEPENDENT INSPECTOR GENERAL
RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING,
AUDITING AND MAKING
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE VARIOUS
INVESTIGATIVE AND PROSECUTORIAL
PROSECUTORIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE
BAR. INDEPENDENCE IS A CRITICAL
ASPECT OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
AND GIVEN THE VARIOUS APPOINTING
AUTHORITIES TO THE BOARD, I
BELIEVE, AND I'M NOT SPEAKING ON
BEHALF OF THE FULL BOARD. THAT
IT SHOULD NOT REPORT TO A SINGLE
ENTITY. IT SHOULD BE A PANEL. I
LOOK FORWARD TO DISCUSSING, UH,
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORTING
STRUCTURE. UH THAT WILL, UH, AN
INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORTING
STRUCTURE THAT WOULD GENERATE
THE TRUST AND COMPETENCE OF THIS
OF THE LEGISLATURE, UM, AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. I KNOW WE'VE
BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE AND WE'RE
RUNNING OVER TIME, BUT IN THE
AFRICAN AMERICAN CHURCH
TRADITION, I AM COMING TO MY
CLOTHES. BUT AS THE BOARD'S
FINANCE CHAIR I MUST COMMIT. I
MUST COMMENT ON OUR FISCAL
SITUATION. SIMPLY PUT WE ARE WE
ARE IN DIRE BUDGET STRAITS. WE
HAVE IMPLEMENTED A HIRING FREEZE
FOR GONE MUCH NEEDED I T
UPGRADES MET HER LABOR CONTRACT
REQUIREMENTS RAISED FEES VOTED
TO SELL THE SAN FRANCISCO
BUILDING AND STILL FIND
OURSELVES WITH A DEFICIT LOOMING
AND UNABLE TO FUND THE
FUNDAMENTALS NECESSARY TO
IMPROVE OUR DISCIPLINE SYSTEM
AND IMPLEMENT OTHER IMPORTANT
FUNDAMENTAL PROGRAMS. I THINK WE
CAN ALL AGREE THAT SIMPLY
THROWING ONE MORE MONEY AT THE
AT THE BOARD WITHOUT
CORRESPONDING REFORMS OR
INSTITUTING REFORMS WITHOUT
CORRESPONDING MEANS TO THE MEANS
TO FUND THE FUNDAMENTALS IS NOT
A PRUDENT WAY TO PROCEED. LET'S
WORK TOGETHER. TO ESTABLISH THE
REQUISITE POLICY AND OPERATIONAL
REFORMS NEEDED BUT ALSO TO
DETERMINE THE RESOURCE LEVELS
REQUIRED TO CONDUCT THE
FUNDAMENTAL BUSINESS OF THE
STATE BAR. WE STAND READY TO
HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. WHEN THE
IMPORTANT LESSONS I LEARNED FOR
MY TENURE HERE IN THE STATE
CAPITAL. UM, AND THERE WERE MANY
IS THAT THE MOST MEANINGFUL AND
IMPACTFUL POLICY MAKING OCCURS
WHEN KEY STAKEHOLDERS ARE AT THE
TABLE, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY
THANKS AGAIN TO THE CHAIR. THE
CHAIRS, MEMBERS AND STAFF
ALLOWING THE BOARD AND ITS STAFF
TO BE AT THE TABLE TODAY. UM WE
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING TOGETHER
THE INSTITUTE THE REFORMS
NECESSARY TO IMPROVE OVERSIGHT
OF OUR DISCIPLINE SYSTEM AND
RESTORE THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
OF THIS BODY IN THE STATE BAR
BORDER TRUSTEES, UM, AS I SAT IN
THE AUDIENCE JUST VERY QUICKLY
LISTENING TO THE LINE OF
QUESTIONING FROM CHAIR HAMBURG
AND OTHER MEMBERS ON ISSUES OF
FOLLOW UP AND ACCOUNTABILITY. I
COULDN'T HELP BUT UM, I THINK
AND I THINK I HAVE THIS CORRECT
THAT THE CPUC UNDER STATE LAWS
REQUIRED TO REPORT ANNUALLY TO
THE LEGISLATURE AND A JOINT
PUBLIC HEARING. IT SEEMS LIKE
THAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE WAY
TO ENSURE THAT YOU'RE GETTING
THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE
FOLLOW UP THAT YOU NEED. UM AND
FINALLY, I WOULD JUST ALSO JUST
LIKE TO THANK PROTEIN ATKINS OR
POINTING ME AND GREG NOLL TO THE
STATE BAR AND BELIEVING THAT OUR
SKILL SETS COULD BE OF VALUE IN
HELPING TO INITIATE REFORMS AND
DELIVER ON THE BAR ON THE BARS.
MISSION OF PUBLIC PROTECTION AND
I'M NOW HAND IT OVER TO MY
COLLEAGUE, HALEN CHEN. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIRS AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEES. MY NAME IS
HIGHLAND CHEN. I AM A MEMBER OF
THE STATE BAR BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
I WAS APPOINTED BY THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT. UM AS
HAS BEEN MENTIONED, I'M ONE OF
THE THREE MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY REFORM. I'M ALSO
ONE OF THE DISCIPLINE LIAISON.
SO YOU'VE HEARD THAT TERM
MENTIONED A BUNCH OF TIMES TODAY
. UM, WE HAVE TO DISCIPLINE
LIAISONS THAT OVERSEE AND
MONITOR THE WORK OF THE OFFICE
OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL. UM ONE
OF THOSE MEMBERS IS HERE TODAY
IN THE AUDIENCE. HE ARRIVED A
LITTLE BIT LATE, BUT MARK TONY,
ONE OF OUR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
IS OUT HERE. UM IN THE AUDIENCE.
HE'S ONE OF THE DISCIPLINE
LIAISONS TO THE OFFICE OF CHIEF
TRIAL COUNSEL. I TOGETHER WITH
GREG NOLL AND ONE OF THE TWO
DISCIPLINE LIAISONS TO THE RULE.
22 01 PROGRAM. THIS SPECIAL, UH
, DISCIPLINARY TRIAL COUNSEL,
WHICH IS THE CONFLICTS COUNCIL
WHEN CASES ARE CONFLICTED OUT OF
THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE
AND GET SENT TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL
. THOSE GO TO THIS WHAT WE CALL
THE S DTC OR RULE 22 1 PROGRAM.
I'M ONE OF THE DISCIPLINE
LIAISONS, AND I WANT TO MENTION
BRIEFLY SOME OF THE REFORMS THAT
WE ARE UNDERTAKING WITH THAT
PROGRAM. UM I HAVE TO AGREE WITH
SO MANY OF THE COMMENTS MADE
TODAY WE THE FEELINGS OF THE
STATE BAR HAS SHATTERED PUBLIC
TRUST. I TAKE THAT VERY
SERIOUSLY. I TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY
AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD IN MY
DAY JOB I AM THE CO MANAGING
PARTNER OF MUNGER, TOLLES AND
OLSON, 200 MEMBER LAW FIRM BASED
IN LOS ANGELES. WE TAKE
INTEGRITY AND ETHICS OF THE
HIGHEST ORDER VERY SERIOUSLY. WE
UNDERSTAND IT'S GOING TO TAKE
TIME TO REBUILD PUBLIC TRUST,
AND WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK TOGETHER
WITH THE LEGISLATURE TO DO SO.
AS PROFESSOR CUMMINGS MENTIONED
, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT REFORMS
ARE RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF
THE PUBLIC. WE ARE HERE TO MAKE
SURE WE PROTECT THE PUBLIC. AND
WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THE INSIGHTS
THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE. I
TOOK A LOOK AT THAT REPORT ON
THE SP 2 11 CASE PROCESSING
STANDARDS. WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR
THE INSIGHTS PROVIDED BY THE
STATE AUDITOR REPORT AND IN THE
BACKGROUND PAPER FOR THIS
OVERSIGHT HEARING. WE AS A
COMMITTEE ARE GOING TO TAKE ALL
OF THOSE TO HEART AND CONTINUE
TO RECOMMEND REFORMS TO THE FULL
BOARD. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE
HEARD TODAY IS THIS IDEA THAT
THERE'S BEEN A COVER UP? AND
ABSOLUTELY. HOW COULD THERE NOT
HAVE BEEN FOR THAT CONDUCT TO
HAVE GONE ON FOR SO LONG? WE
FAILED. AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT
THE BOARD HAS APPROVED A NEW
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM
ADMINISTERED NOT BY US NOT BY
THE STATE BAR. BUT BY THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE. SO THAT WHEN PEOPLE SEE
SOMETHING GOING ON, THAT'S WRONG
. THEY HAVE SOMEONE OUTSIDE THE
STATE BAR TO REPORT IT TO WHO
CAN INVESTIGATE AND ADDRESS IT.
ANOTHER THING THAT WE HEARD
ABOUT IS STRENGTHENING CONFLICT
OF INTEREST POLICIES AND THE
QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR AMBERG
AND FROM ASSEMBLY MAJORITY
LEADER GÓMEZ RAISE. THEY REALLY
SPOKE TO THE NEED FOR MORE WORK
. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER
THE QUESTION OF WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE, WHO IN THE
ORGANIZATION IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR
FORM. 700 WHO IN THE
ORGANIZATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
STRENGTHENING CONFLICT OF
INTEREST POLICIES. WE WILL MAKE
SURE WE HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE
DOING IN. THE LAST THING I WILL
MENTION IS ON THE 22 01 PROGRAM,
THE SPECIAL DISCIPLINARY TRIAL
COUNSEL. THAT'S THE OUTSIDE
COUNT CONFLICTS COUNCIL. WE'RE
TAKING STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEIR CONFLICTS POLICIES ALIGN
WITH THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
THAT THE OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL
COUNSEL IS PUTTING IN PLACE.
MOST RECENTLY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY
DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL
ADMINISTRATOR ISSUED POLICY
DIRECTIVES TO ENSURE THAT
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WERE BEING
CHECKED ON WHEN CASES GET SENT
OUT TO THESE SPECIAL DEPUTY
TRIAL COUNSEL AND THEY'RE
WORKING ON CLEANING UP THE DATA
AND TO ADDRESS THE ERRORS THAT
WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE STATE
AUDITOR'S REPORT. WE TAKE THESE
REFORMS VERY SERIOUSLY. THEY
MATTER TO ME AS A BOARD MEMBER
AS AN ATTORNEY AND AS THE LEADER
OF MUNGER, TOLLES AND OLSON, WE
REALLY WELCOME FURTHER INPUT AND
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING TOGETHER
WITH THE LEGISLATURE ON THESE
IMPORTANT REFORMS, AND WITH
THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO
MICHELLE BE GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS MELANIE SHELVEY. AND I
AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. I HAVE SPENT
THE LAST 25 YEARS AS A SERIAL
ENTREPRENEURS, SMALL BUSINESS
ADVOCATE AND A CORPORATE
EXECUTIVE. AND I COME TO YOU
TODAY AS A GUBERNATORIAL
APPOINTEE IN DECEMBER OF 2020. I
WAS APPOINTED WITH TRUSTY MARK
TONY. PUBLIC TRUST IS IMPORTANT
TO ME. OFTENTIMES AS I SIT IN
OUR STATE BOARD MEETINGS, I'M
ALWAYS THE ONE THAT TALKS ABOUT
OPTICS, NARRATIVE AND
RELATIONSHIPS. AND SO WE ARE
HERE TODAY. I THINK ARNIE
STARTED OUT THE COMMENTS WITH
UNRAVEL RING UNITED AND
COMMITTED AND WE ARE UNWAVERING
UNITED AND COMMITTED TO GETTING
IT RIGHT. ONE OF THE NEWEST
THINGS THAT I WANT TO BRING TO
YOU. I ALSO CHAIR THE AUDIT
COMMITTEE. ONE OF THE NEWER
ROLES IN RELATION TO REFORM THAT
WE DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO TALK
ABOUT, AND I'M PULLING UP. MY
PHONE HERE IS IF YOU GO TO THE
WEBSITE OF THE STATE BAR RIGHT
THERE IN THE BANNER TALKS ABOUT
THE PUBLIC TRUST LIAISON, AND SO
OF COURSE, THAT IS THAT COW BAR
CA.GOV. BUT THAT ROLE BECOMES
VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT IS
THE PUBLIC'S OPPORTUNITY. TO
INTERACT WITH AN INDIVIDUAL WHO
HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO STEER
THEM THROUGH CONFLICTS AND
CHALLENGES AND BE PROACTIVE AND
INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL AND
CONFIDENTIAL AND WHAT IS SO
WONDERFUL ABOUT THE GENTLEMAN
WHO WAS IN THIS ROLE IS THAT HE
HAS SPENT OVER 15 YEARS. I
BELIEVE, COLLECTIVELY AT THE
STATE BAR FROM ANSWERING THE
PHONES TO WORKING IN, OH CTC, SO
HE HAS A REALLY TRUE COMPLEMENT
OF THE ORGANIZATION AND REALLY
BEING ABLE TO STEER PEOPLE IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THE OTHER
PIECE THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT.
AND MY COLLEAGUE, TRUSTEE CHIN
ACCOUNTABILITY, YOU KNOW,
RESPECTFULLY MEMBER RAISE TALKED
ABOUT WHO WAS ACCOUNTABLE. WE
ARE ACCOUNTABLE AS THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES. I MEAN, THE BUCK TRULY
STOPS WITH US. AND SO I
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT
WERE MADE TODAY. IN TERMS OF YOU
KNOW WHO WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE, BUT
IT'S THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
ACCOUNTABILITY. ALL THREE OF THE
LEADERS AT THE STATE BAR REPORT
DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES. AND SO WE HAVE TO
FIGURE THAT OUT. SO I ACCEPT
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT ON
BEHALF OF OUR COLLEAGUES TODAY
IN THE INABILITY OF ANSWERING
THAT QUESTION QUICKLY, YOU KNOW,
IT'S INTERESTING. YOU'VE HEARD
FROM THE LA YOU'VE HEARD FROM MR
CUMMINGS. WE WANT TO BE A PART
OF THE STATE BUDGET PROCESS AT
ACTUALLY LAST WEEK IN OUR
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES THAT ARE
AT OUR BOARD MEETING THAT WAS
SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND
TALKED ABOUT, AND SO WE
ABSOLUTELY WELCOME THAT AND
APPRECIATE THE L. A S REPORT.
THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO
UNDERSCORE IN THE INTEREST OF
TIME IS, UM, WE NEED HELP.
RELATIONSHIPS REQUIRE HELP. A.
WE NEED TO GET IT RIGHT BE. WE
NEED TO RESTORE PUBLIC TRUST.
BUT THE OTHER PIECES THIS WITH
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
, YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND THAT
THEY ARE ESSENTIAL AND THERE IS
NO FLEXIBILITY IN EITHER AREA.
WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE
TO BE COMMITTED TO OUR CORE
MISSION BECAUSE THAT IS CRITICAL
TO REBUILDING TRUST. BUT WE NEED
YOUR HELP. WE NEED YOUR HELP TO
GET IT RIGHT AND MAKE IT HAPPEN.
AND HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? HOW DO
WE GET YOUR HELP AS IT RELATES
TO AN INSPECTOR GENERAL POSITION
AS IT RELATES TO THE CLIENT. THE
CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNTING
PROTECTION PROGRAM, HOW IT
RELATES TO REDUCING RACIAL
DISPARITIES. IT'S THROUGH A
FUNDING INCREASE. THAT'S HOW WE
NEED YOUR HELP, AND IT WOULD BE
WONDERFUL TO BE ABLE TO, UM THIS
FUNDING INCREASE WOULD ALLOW US
TO ADDRESS THE NEED OF FUNDING
STABILITY AND THEN
PREDICTABILITY, WHICH IS WHAT
THE L A O TALKED ABOUT, AS IT
RELATES TO US BEING ENGAGED IN
THE FUNDING PROCESS. ALSO WE
NEED YOUR HELP AS IT RELATES TO
MOVING FORWARD WHILE HOLDING THE
STATE BAR ACCOUNTABILITY
ACCOUNTABLE. EXCUSE ME TO FULLY
ADDRESSING PAST CHALLENGES. I
FEEL LIKE I'VE JUST KIND OF RUN
THROUGH EVERYTHING IN THE
INTEREST OF TIME. BUT I HOPE THE
MESSAGE IS CLEAR IS THAT WE COME
HERE AND PARTNERSHIP. YOU KNOW,
WE HAVE AN INCREDIBLE BOARD. I
WAS BROUGHT TO THE ORGANIZATION
TO, UM REALLY SHARE. I'VE HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT ON A
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF BOARDS AND
I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I FEEL
HONORED AND PRIVILEGED TO SERVE
WITH THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SITTING
HERE WITH ME AND WITH THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE BEHIND ME IN THIS ROOM
BECAUSE WE ARE COMMITTED TO
GETTING IT RIGHT. AND SO WE WANT
TO THANK YOU TODAY FOR YOUR
TIME. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THANK
YOU TO THE STAFFS OF BOTH, UM
THE JUDICIARY STAFFS ON BOTH
SIDES BECAUSE YOU ALL HAVE KEPT
THE DOOR OPEN. IN TERMS OF
MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE
TRANSPARENT AND THAT WE ARE
ACCOUNTABLE AND THAT WE GET IT
RIGHT. AND SO I WANT TO THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. UM I WILL JUST
MAKE A QUICK OBSERVATION. THE
THREE OF YOU WERE PARTICULARLY
REFRESHING. SO I WANT I REALLY
DO. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY. THAT
WAS REFRESHING. IT'S REALLY THE
WORD I'M GOING TO USE. SO
THANKS. AND I ALSO TOO I THINK I
MISPRONOUNCED YOUR LAST NAME, MR
SOIL. THEY GET IT RIGHT YET. I'M
MAIENSCHEIN. SO I GET A LITTLE
LEEWAY BECAUSE I'VE ALWAYS HEARD
MY NAME IS PRONOUNCED, BUT ALL
RIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT. UH THANK
YOU FOR TESTING. I ALSO KNOW
I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK
WITH MR NOEL IN MY PAST, LIFE
WORK, AND, UH, HIS EXCELLENT
TOO, SO I'M REALLY PLEASED TO
HEAR THAT YOU THAT HE'S ALSO
WORKING ON THIS AND THE WORK.
YOU'RE DOING THE A S OFFICE.
THANK YOU. UM DO YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? I KNOW WE'RE RUNNING
AROUND, MR NELLA. UM SEEMS TO ME
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. IS REALLY
KEY AND EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE. AH AH! AH,
AND I'D AGREE WITH THE COMMENT.
THESE ARE REFRESHING COMMENTS
FROM PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY VERY SELF
RESPONSIBLE. SO WE'VE GOT SORT
OF THREE CLASSIFICATIONS OF
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES. WE HAVE ATTORNEYS WHO
ARE SUPPORTED BY APPOINTED BY
THE SUPREME COURT. TWO ATTORNEYS
APPOINTED BY THE LEGISLATURE. UM
AND, UH, THE REPORT INDICATES,
UH, SIX UH, PUBLIC MEMBERS
DIDN'T SAY WHO APPOINTS THEM OR
WHO SELECTS THEM. SO, BUT MY
QUESTION IS NUMBER ONE. FROM
WHERE DOES THE SUPREME COURT?
UH, GET CANDIDATES FOR THEM TOO?
AH SUGGESTION APPOINT TO THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES. AND THEY'RE
PROBABLY LARGELY FROM LARGER
FIRMS AS MR CHAN IS, BUT ARE
THEIR SOLE PRACTITIONERS AMONG
THAT GROUP. AND NUMBER TWO FROM
WHERE DOES THE LEGISLATURE
GATHER ITS CANDIDATES FOR ITS
APPOINTMENTS? UH HUH. AND THE
THIRD IS FROM WHERE DO THE
PUBLIC MEMBERS COME? DO THEY
APPLY? UH AND WHO APPOINTS THEM
? AND WHAT'S THE, UH, SORT OF
PROCEDURE AND RATIONALE FOR
APPOINTING FOR APPOINTING THEM?
IF I MAY SURE, MISS CHEN. I
THINK I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION
AS IT RELATES TO, UH, SUPREME
COURT NOMINEES, AND THERE IS A
COMMITTEE THAT THAT'S THEM AND
MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
SUPREME COURT ON FOLKS WHO APPLY
OR WHO ARE NOMINATED, UM THERE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, UH,
THE SUPREME COURT DOES STRIVE TO
HAVE A DIVERSITY OF VIEWS AND
BACKGROUNDS REPRESENTED AMONGST
THE APPOINTEES. AS CHAIR DURAN
MENTIONED WE CURRENTLY DO HAVE A
SOLO PRACTITIONER, ATTORNEY
SUPREME COURT APPOINTEE ON THE
BOARD RIGHT NOW, MR MARK BRATTON
. WE HAVE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS,
UM, SO IT'S NOT ACCURATE TO SAY
THAT IT'S ALL BIG FIRM LAWYERS.
I BELIEVE I'M ONE OF I BELIEVE I
MAY BE THE ONLY BIG BIG FIRM
LAWYER UM AND SO THERE ARE A
DIVERSITY OF VIEWS THEIR
GOVERNMENT LAWYERS. UH WE DO.
THE STATE BAR DOES PROVIDE A
MATRIX TO THE BOARD THAT SHOWS
THE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. UH
THE EXPERTISE. THE TYPES OF LAW
PRACTICES THAT THE VARIOUS, UH
CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS HAVE, AND
THAT'S TO ENSURE THAT THE
SUPREME COURT CAN MAKE SURE
THEIR APPOINTMENTS REFLECTED
DIVERSITY OF BACKGROUNDS AND
VIEWPOINTS. I WAS INTERESTINGLY
ENOUGH. I WAS A APPROACHED BY
ONE OF YOUR FORMER COLLEAGUES,
UH, SENATOR HOLLY MITCHELL. I
NEVER EVEN KNEW THE STATE PAR
EXISTED HAD NO INTEREST IN
COMING TO THE STATE BAR AND WAS
IN THROUGH THROUGH HER
RECOMMENDATION FOUND MYSELF IN
CONVERSATION WITH THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE. AND QUITE HONESTLY, I
SHARE THIS STORY, SO I'M NOT. I
DON'T THINK I'M SPEAKING OUT OF
TURN. I SAID, ABSOLUTELY NOT. I
DON'T THINK THAT I'M DULY TASK
FOR THAT. BUT IT HAS BEEN, YOU
KNOW, I SHARED THAT I'VE SPENT A
CAREER FIXING BUILDING AND
CONNECTING AND IT HAS BEEN AN
ABSOLUTE ACTUAL PLEASURE. AN
ABSOLUTE PLEASURE TO BE ABLE TO
BRING THOSE SKILL SETS TO BEAR.
UM I ALSO SERVE MY COLLEAGUES
FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ARE
MARK TONY, WHO IS THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE UTILITY
RATEPAYER NETWORK. AND THEN
ALSO, UM JOSE CISNEROS, WHO
SERVES HIS DAY JOB AS THE
TREASURER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO. CURRENTLY
THERE IS A VACANCY AS IT RELATES
TO A GUBERNATORIAL APPOINTEE.
THE OTHER PIECE THAT I WOULD
ADD, ADD MR NEIL. OH IS THAT I
ALSO SERVE AS THE APPOINTMENT
ONE OF TWO APPOINTMENT LIAISONS
AND SO THE SAME DIVERSITY THAT
WE ENSURE TO NOW REFLECT ON THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES IS WHAT WE AIM
FOR, AS IT RELATES TO THE
COMMISSION'S IN THE SUB ENTITY
APPOINTMENTS THAT WE MAKE, AND I
BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT 14 TO 16 AND
SO MY COLLEAGUE BEHIND ME. NICE
CHAIR OF THE BOARD, MR BRANDON
STALLINGS. WHO IS FROM THE
CENTRAL VALLEY, AND I AM FROM
HERE IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,
SACRAMENTO. TO BE EXACT. WE HAVE
THE HONOR TO MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS GO THROUGH THE
APPLICATIONS AND WE LOOK FOR
GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY. WE LOOK
FOR ETHNIC DIVERSITY ORIENTATION
, PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY, UM,
SOCIO ECONOMIC DIVERSITY BECAUSE
THOSE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT
PARTICULAR AS A PERSON WHO WAS
THERE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, SO THANK YOU. SO WHO
DOES APPOINT THE PUBLIC MEMBERS
? YOU MENTIONED THREE FROM THE
GOVERNOR. GOVERNOR APPOINTS FOUR
AND THEN I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MY
COLLEAGUE. THE BOTH THE SENATE
AND THE ASSEMBLY EACH HAVE HAVE
ONE AS WELL. 111 YOU KNOW,
PUBLIC PUBLIC MEMBER EACH THAT
GETS APPOINTED AND I'LL JUST
I'LL JUST COMMENT TO YOU, MR
YELLOW THAT, UM AH! I WORK FOR
PROTEIN. ATKINS WHEN SHE WAS ON
HER STAFF WHEN SHE WAS WAS THE
SPEAKER, UH, IN RELATIVELY SHORT
ORDER, I DID NOT SIMILAR TO
MELANIE. UH COME LOOKING FOR
THIS. UH SHE CAME LOOKING FOR
ME. UH, AND, UM, IT'S HARD TO
SAY NO TO THE PRO TEM WHEN SHE
SHE ASKED YOU TO DO SOMETHING.
AND WHAT ARE THE TERM LIMITS?
FOUR YEARS. AH! ONE I'M SORRY,
SIR. WHEN I'M SORRY, I
APOLOGIZE. 14 YEAR TERM 14 YEAR
TERM AND THAT'S UM THAT'S ALL
YOU CAN BE REAPPOINTED. OUR
COLLEAGUE, MR. CISNEROS WAS
RECENTLY REAPPOINTED. AH
SEQUENTIALLY OR DO YOU HAVE TO
GO OFF THE BOARD FOR A PERIOD OF
TIME CAN BE SEQUENTIALLY. AND IS
THERE A LIMIT OF TERMS? THAT I'M
UNCERTAIN. THERE IS FOR SUPREME
COURT APPOINTEES. I BELIEVE
THERE IS A LIMIT OF TWO TERMS.
BUT WE CAN GET THAT ANSWERED FOR
YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS. COMMENTS SENATOR
AMBERG DID YOU HAVE? THANK YOU,
CHAIRMAN CHINA JUST JUST A
COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND A
QUESTION. UM FIRST WITH RESPECT
TO TWO FEES, UM AND THIS IS A
QUESTION TO SUMMON THE AUDIENCE
AS WELL. UM UH, CHAIR DURING
LIVE HAD A NUMBER OF
CONVERSATIONS AS WELL AS OTHERS
CONCERNING INCREASING THE BAR
DUES. THE BILL THIS YEAR IS IN
MY HANDS. UH, I DON'T BELIEVE
THAT THERE'S A MEMBER OF THE
LEGISLATURE WHO IS INTERESTED IN
INCREASING BAR FEES. UM THAT
DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S FOREVER. IT
MEANS THAT BOTH AS TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC, AS WELL AS TWO
MEMBERS OF THE PROFESSION. THERE
IS A CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE AS A
CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE, EVEN
WITHIN THE PROFESSION, AND SO WE
NEED TO AS A MEMBER OF THE
PROFESSION. WE NEED TO CORRECT
THAT NUMBER ONE NUMBER TWO. THE
QUESTION IS THAT THIS IS A
UNIQUE ORGANIZATIONS STATE BAR.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OTHER
ORGANIZATION THAT EXISTS LIKE
THIS IN THE STATE, BECAUSE AS
I'VE INDICATED BEFORE. THERE ARE
DUAL. YOU RESPOND TO THE
PROFESSION. YOU RESPOND TO THE
SUPREME COURT. UM IN ADDITION TO
THE LEGISLATURE OF THE SUPREME
COURT CAN ALSO AUTHORIZED FEES
AND ADDITIONAL FEES. I'M
WONDERING IF THERE'S BEEN MADE A
REQUEST TO THE SUPREME COURT TO
INCREASE DUES. I DON'T KNOW.
PERHAPS CHAIR DURAN OR MISS
WILSON MIGHT KNOW. I THINK YOU
HAVE TO APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
THERE'S BEEN NO FORMAL REQUEST.
NO BUT THROUGH THE STAFF STAFF
LEVEL COMMUNICATION, WE HAVE
DISCUSSED THE IDEA OF A SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. AS YOU KNOW, IN THE
PAST WHEN THAT'S OCCURRED.
THAT'S WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS
NOT AUTHORIZED IFFY AT ALL. SO I
THINK THIS WOULD BE A FAIRLY
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE WE
MIGHT GET THE BASE FEE BUT THEN
SEEK A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FROM
THE COURT. BUT THERE HAVE BEEN
STAFF LEVEL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT I
ASSUME YOU'RE NOT ADVOCATING
THAT WE NOT AUTHORIZE ANY FEES
IN ORDER TO LET THE SUPREME
COURT DECIDED WHAT THAT SHOULD
BE JUST NOTING THAT THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT'S COME UP IS THE
UNIQUENESS OF THE POTENTIAL
CIRCUMSTANCE. ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT,
UM SO LET ME ALSO CONCLUDE BY
THANKING ALL OF YOU. I THINK
IT'S WONDERFUL THAT WE HAVE
PUBLIC MEMBERS HERE WHO CAN GIVE
US A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON
OUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND HOW
WE'RE VIEWED BY THE GENERAL
PUBLIC AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF THE
PROFESSION. UM I WANT TO ALSO
THANK THE STAFF STAFF MEMBER
AMANDA MADSEN ON THE SENATE SIDE
AND I KNOW THAT YOUR STAFF ALSO
JEREMY AND SHINE, ALISON
MERRILEES AND OTHERS, UM, HAVE
DEVOTED TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF
TIME AND ATTENTION TO THIS
HEARING. I'M GRATEFUL FOR YOUR
PARTICIPATION. UM AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING
CONVERSATIONS. I'LL TAKE YOUR
SUGGESTION THAT WE DO THIS ON A
PERIODIC BASIS. I KNOW THE STATE
BAR WOULD REALLY ENJOY THAT. SO
ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU
IS ADJOURNED. I APOLOGIZE BEFORE
WE ADJOURN. WE DO WANT TO OPEN
IT UP. WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON
THE AGENDA, SO I APOLOGIZE.
YEAH, THIS APPROACH. YOU WERE SO
PATIENT. I COULD NEVER FORGIVE
MYSELF. IF I THANK YOU. I DID
DRIVE HOURS TO DO IT. SO I'M
BENJAMIN COHEN. I'M A DISABILITY
RIGHTS ATTORNEY FROM MOUNTAIN
VÚI. AND YOU HEARD THE AND JUST
ADDRESSED THE REQUEST FOR
FUNDING. I THINK THAT RESIDUAL
BOONDOGGLES ASIDE, THEY PROBABLY
DO NEED MORE FUNDING, BUT IT
SHOULD BE CONDITIONAL. THERE'S A
LOT OF ISSUES THAT NEED
STATUTORY OVERSIGHT IN AS A
CONDITION OF GETTING THAT
FUNDING, REAPPROVED INCREASED OR
WHATNOT. ONE I PARTICULARLY
WANTED TO ADDRESS IS TESTING
ACCOMMODATIONS. THEY WILL TELL
YOU THAT THEY ARE ADDRESSING IT
THAT THEY HAVE A REAL REVISION
INITIATIVE IN PROGRESS OUT FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT. BUT THAT IS
BELIED BY, UH TWO PROBLEMS. ONE
THE WORLD'S REVISION INITIATIVE
, EVEN ITS CURRENT FORM DOES NOT
ADDRESS MOST OF THE PROBLEMS
SUCH AS RESPONSE TIMES AND
DEADLINES TO SEEK APPEAL. THAT
PROVIDE PROCEDURAL EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY, EVEN WHEN ALL THE
ACCOMMODATIONS ARE GRANTED,
AMONG OTHER PROCEDURAL ISSUES
THAT I BELIEVE CURRENTLY VIOLATE
THE A, D, A. AND, UH THE OTHER
PROBLEM IS THAT EVEN THAT WAS A
RESPONSE OF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE
FROM ABOUT. I THINK 78
ORGANIZATIONS OR GROUPS OR
COALITIONS OF PUBLIC COMMENT
OPPOSING THE INITIAL, UH,
GENESIS OF THE RULES REVISION
INITIATIVE OF ADMISSION STAFF
TRYING TO USE THAT AS A PRETEXT
FOR THINGS THAT WOULD REDUCE
THEIR WORKLOAD, AND THE ORIGINAL
VERSION HAD ACTUALLY MADE THE
WORK WORLD REVISION THE WORLD
EVEN MORE DISCRIMINATORY. AH
IT'S ALSO, UH, UNDERMINED BY THE
FACT THAT AS THIS REVISION IS
BEING DONE, THE STATE PARK IS IN
THE NINTH CIRCUIT. UH
CHALLENGING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE A, D, A
AND SAYING THAT IT DOES NOT
REQUIRE ANY PROCEDURES. AS TO,
UH, TIMELINES. FOR GRANTED,
MAKING A DECISION ON A REQUEST.
HOW MUCH EXPLANATION MUST BE
GIVEN ABOUT THE REASONS FOR
DENIAL. HOW WHAT PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS ARE IN PLACE TO
RECEIVE REQUESTS. UH HUH. AND
UH, HOW THE REQUEST DECISION
MAKING SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED
INTERNALLY, WHICH WHICH A BELIEF
ABOUT THE IDEAS REALLY REFLECTED
IN THE CURRENT RULES AND IN THE
CONTINUING DEFECTS IN THE RULES
THAT ARE OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
RIGHT NOW, AND I HOPE THAT THERE
WILL BE STATUTORY DIRECTIVES
SUCH AS CODIFYING SOME OF THE
PROCEDURAL REFORMS INTO THE
FEMALE OR THE STATE BAR ACTOR.
HOWEVER THAT SHOULD BE DONE AND
BY CLARIFYING THAT CALIFORNIA
CIVIL RIGHTS LAW APPLIES TO ALL
PUBLIC ENTITIES, INCLUDING THE
ANDREW APT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU
ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
WISH TO SPEAK? MARCUS
REPRESENTING THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION POLICY CENTER AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL
OF LAW. I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO
JUST LETTING PROFESSOR FILM WITH
NO THAT I WASN'T ALLOWED TO MAKE
PUBLIC COMMENT. UM I WILL
HIGHLIGHT SEVERAL OF OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE
STATE BARS PROTECTION OF THE
PUBLIC TO NOW AND THEN PROVIDE
FURTHER COMMENTS WRITTEN
COMMENTS TO THE COMMITTEE. WE
RECOMMEND THAT THE BAR PUTS IN
PLACE INTERIM REMEDIES FOR CASES
THAT WILL LIKELY TAKE 90 DAYS OR
MORE TO COMPLETE. SUCH REMEDIES
SHOULD INCLUDE REQUIRING AN
ACCOUNTANT TO HANDLE MONETARY
FUNDS CONNECTED TO QUESTIONABLE
SPENDING AND CONCEALMENT OF
CLIENT FUNDS. IN THE GERARDI
CASE, THIS WOULD HAVE MEANT
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
GOING TO INTENDED BENEFICIARIES
RATHER THAN TO COUNSEL. OTHER
REMEDIES COULD INCLUDE THE
ASSIGNMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT
COUNSEL IF THE SUBJECT MATTER IS
COMPLEX AND COMPETENCE AS AN
ISSUE, THERE'S A MYRIAD OF OTHER
POSSIBLE REMEDIES THAT MAY SWAY
AGE, CONTINUING HARM FROM
NEGLIGENT PRACTICE. WHILE THE
BARS INVESTIGATIONS UNDERWAY. WE
RECOMMEND IDENTIFYING ALL
COUNCIL WITH MULTIPLE SERIOUS
COMPLAINTS. THESE REPEAT
OFFENDERS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO A
COORDINATED WHOLESALE INQUIRY.
BASED ON EARLIER TESTIMONY
TODAY, IT APPEARS THAT THESE
EFFORTS ARE ALREADY UNDERWAY AT
THE STATE BAR. THE LEGISLATURE
HAS RIGHTLY BLAMED THE STATE BAR
FOR MANY FAILURES. HOWEVER IT'S
PROVIDES IT UNLESS THEY PROVIDE
ADEQUATE RESOURCES. WE CAN
EXPECT MUCH IMPROVEMENT. WHEN
PROFESSOR FELL, METH SERVED AS A
DISCIPLINE MONITOR. THE ANNUAL
FEE FOR ATTORNEYS WAS
APPROXIMATELY $410. 30 YEARS
LATER, IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE
SAME MIRROR INFLATION WOULD
BRING THAT TO $900. WHETHER IT'S
THROUGH A LICENSE FEE OR GENERAL
FUND. WE HAVE NO OPINION AS LONG
AS THE INCREASE IS EARMARKED FOR
ENHANCED DISCIPLINE, AND
FINALLY, WE SUPPORT THE
RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS BROUGHT
UP TODAY. BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
HAPPEN. SHE ASKED A QUESTION
ABOUT THE L. E S. WE THINK THAT
ATTORNEY SHOULD BE ACQUIRED TO
HAVE CREDITS IN THEIR AREA OF
PRACTICE. SO FAMILY A LOT.
ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE CREDITS AND
FAMILY LAW BANKRUPTCY, ETCETERA
. SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUE
CONVERSATIONS. THANK THANK YOU.
AND PLEASE LET MY FRIEND
PROFESSOR FILM WITH NO, I DID
NOT SCREW UP PUBLIC COMMENTS, SO
I DON'T HAVE TO HEAR FROM HIM
WITH THAT. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH
TO SPEAK. SEEN NONE. NOW I THINK
WE'RE SAFE. UH, MR CHAIRMAN ON
BEHALF OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY
AND THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY IN
CONCLUDING TODAY'S MEETING.
THANK YOU ALL FOR ATTENDING.