The Leslie Brodie Report

On december 15, 2010, Mr. Jerome Falk -- acting as a Special Deputy Trial Counsel on behalf of the People of the State of California -- sent the following letter detailing the outcome of his investigation into attorneys' misconduct in the litigation against Dole Food Company.

The letter was sent to Baker, Keener & Nahra's Robert Baker who represents Mr. Lack in the various proceedings.

* Materials for this article were obtained from Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia of GLBTQ, Michael Nava for Judge, La Bloga, and a blog titled "Ninglun Floating Life".

"Michael Angel Nava, born September 16, 1954 in Stockton, California, is an attorney and writer. He is a third-generation Californian of Mexican descent. He was born and raised in Sacramento." http://tinyurl.com/michaelnava

"Michael Nava is the second of six children in what he calls a “tragically unhappy” Chicano family. He was the son of a man with whom his mother, then married, had had an affair, and though he was given his stepfather’s last name, he knew from an early age that his mother was not married to his father, who in effect abandoned him. Molested by a family member at age eleven and realizing his gayness at age twelve, Nava knew that he had to escape his mother’s religiosity and his stepfather’s physical abuse." (From "Ninglun Floating Life")

"Nava grew up in a predominantly working-class Mexican neighborhood in Sacramento, California called Gardenland. In an essay of the same title, he wrote about his neighborhood: “The best way to think of Gardenland is not as an American suburb at all, but rather as a Mexican village, transported perhaps from Guanajuato, where my grandmother's family originated, and set down lock, stock and chicken coop in the middle of California. Nava, a precocious child, was constantly reading." (From Wikipedia)

Mr. Michael Nava, began writing what would become his first novel – "The Little Death" (La petite mort-- A French metaphor for orgasm) while studying for the bar exam. The novel "Goldenboy" followed soon thereafter. Nava's novels feature Henry Rios -- a gay Latino criminal defense lawyer who practices in Los Angeles. According to Nava: "Judicial attorneys and law clerks can have a huge influence in shaping the direction of the law, but there are very few attorneys of color in those positions because they are mostly filled through the Old Boys Network. We need to establish our own network."(Photo:courtesy)

"Nava began his legal career as a trial lawyer in the City Attorney's Office where he prosecuted criminal cases and did approximately 50 jury trials. He was an associate at the appellate boutique firm of Horvitz & Levy before becoming a judicial staff attorney; since 2004 he has been a judicial attorney for Justice Carlos R. Moreno." (From Wikipedia)

Justice Carlos Moreno, is due to leave the court by March of 2011. According to the San Jose Mercury News, Moreno would urge Governor Brown to replace him with a Latino: "If he asks for my opinion, I think he should do whatever he can that a Latino replaces me on the court".(Photo:Courtesy)

In addition, Nava is an advocate for diversity in the legal profession and the judiciary. From 2007 to 2009, he was a member of State Bar of California’s Council on Access and Fairness, who advises the State Bar’s Board of Governor on matters relating to diversity in the legal profession. He put forth the case for judicial diversity in a 2009 law review article, “A Servant of All: Humility, Humanity and Judicial Diversity", published by the Golden Gate University Law Review.

Michael Nava recently ran for a judicial position in San Francisco. The following was stated on Nava for judge's web site:
"Michael is also involved in the community as an active parishioner at Most Holy Redeemer and was a member of the board of directors of the GLBT Historical Society. In October 2008, just before Proposition 8 banned same-sex marriage, Justice Moreno married Michael and his partner, George Herzog."

According to the Legal Pad, a blog published by the Recorder, Nava’s husband, George Herzog, loaned the campaign $50,000.
http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/10/ulmers-got-the-cash-navas-got-the-chinese-surname.html

On "La Bloga" ( http://tinyurl.com/labloga1 ),the following was posted:
"Michael Nava isn't qualified to be a judge. In my view, he also lacks integrity. Like Nava, I am also a judicial staff attorney, openly gay, and a Democrat. Consider this: On the Chinese language ballot, he translated his name as "Fairness and Justice Lee," a blatant attempt to misrepresent his identity. If you are okay with that, vote for Nava. Nothing I could say could convince you otherwise. Maybe I’m being paranoid: what do you think? Do you think this Chinese name come from a place of truth or clever marketing.?"

Mr. David Cameron Carr -- an expert in the area of legal ethics and the current President of the California-based Association of Discipline Defense Counsel -- has publicly criticized the State Bar of California, Howard Rice's Jerome Falk, as well as Thomas Girardi and Howard Miller, over the handling of disciplinary proceedings concerning misconduct by Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack in the litigation against Dole Food Company.

Mr David Cameron Carr, believes that "all lawyers must understand the rules of legal ethics, not only to fulfill their responsibilities to society and to the justice system, but to protect themselves."
(Photo credit: www.123people.com )

In a shocking move, Mr. Carr -– a former California State Bar prosecutor –- offered a stinging rebuke to Jerome Falk's decision not to pursue any discipline against Girardi and Lack despite the clear findings of misconduct on their part by the Ninth Circuit.

Previously, in a rare action, the Ninth Circuit suspended Walter Lack and Paul Triana of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack for 6 months, and reprimanded Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese, while imposing close to $400,000 in monetary sanctions.

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit found that the misconduct by Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi involved "the persistent use of known falsehoods," and that the "false representations" were made "knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly."

Carr, writing on his blog http://www.ethics-lawyer.com/kafkaesq/ in an entry labeled "It is Good to Be King," wrote as follows on January 21, 2011:

"It’s hard to escape the troubling thought that, had Mr. Girardi and Mr. Lack been different lawyers with no connection to the State Bar like Howard Miller, the process and perhaps even the result would have been much different."

Mr. Carr offered legal analysis, referring to “Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068(d) (codifying lawyer’s duty not ‘to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.’). As a matter of law, this, most assuredly, would warrant the imposition of discipline in California." Mr. Carr continued, noting that "the lack of intent to mislead the court doesn’t seem to matter for culpability purposes in State Bar Court."

In his conclusion, Carr stated:

"As a discipline defender, I am not inclined to second guess a decision not to prosecute a discipline case. And I don’t know all the facts that went into Mr. Falk’s exercise of discretion; he isn’t talking and neither is the State Bar. But I do know, now as ever, it is good to be king. Or at least very close to one. Very very good."

According to confidental sources , Mr. Carr should be commended for his courage in speaking up, as well as his intellectual honesty and integrity – the defining traits of a good lawyer.

One confidential source believe, however, that some of Mr. Carr’s comments regarding "intent" are superfluous as Walter Lack had stipulated that his misconduct was “intentional.”

See http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434690835

Irrespective of the manner in which the word is spelled – e.g., “Honor” (U.S.) or “Honour” (U.K.), it refers to the evaluation of a person's social status as judged by that individual's community.

For reasons unbeknownst to us, many bestowed honor on the former president of the State Bar of California -- Ms. Holly Fujie. Other than self-promoting herself and the law firm of Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger, we are hard pressed in pointing to any meaningful achievements or lasting contribution to the community on the part of Ms. Fujie.

Similarly, many in the community wish to bestow honor on Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese. The list include individuals as well as institutions.

Loyola Law School bestowed much deserve honor on Mr. Girardi for his contribution to the school through the years. Specifically, Mr. Girardi was instrumental in financing a state of the art advocacy center at the school. http://www.lls.edu/about/campus/girardi.html

Including offering financial support to maintain ongoing programs such as a "Journalist Law School." http://www.lls.edu/cjp/jls/

In all sincerity, we can not point to one specific lawyer or law-firm which contributed back to the community as much as Mr. Thomas Girardi and the firm of Girardi & Keese.

As such, to pay much deserve tribute to Mr. Girardi, in 2005 Loyola Law School honored Mr. Girardi at the Beverly Hills Hotel in Beverly Hills, California. Present were Senator Jospeh Dunn, Justice Carlos Moreno, and many other dignitaries from the legal community.

However, what started as an honest tradition to honor "Champions of Justice" quickly denigrated to honor those who are close friends of Thomas Girardi.

In 2007, by mere happenstance, Loyola chose to honor Mr. Thomas Nolan of Skadden Arps who was representing Girardi (together with Diane Karpman) in the matter of In Re Girardi.

A year later -- Walter Lack's counsel in the matter of In Re Girardi-- Mr. Robert Baker was honored at the Beverly Hills Hotel.

For reasons unbeknownst to us, in 2010 no person was honored as a "Champion of Justice" by the Loyola School of Law.

In the last installment concerning Mike Nisperos, it was concluded that ill-serving the community is a common theme with a Nisperos, quite common. http://tinyurl.com/crackorcocaine

Subsequent to Nisperos' employment with the State Bar of California, he was criminally prosecuted for attempting to board an airplane while carrying a dangerous weapon.

Nisperos, back at his home in Oakland, sought a judgeship in the Alameda County Superior Court. In election related documents, Nisperos listed Mr. Thomas Girardi, his "mentor emeritus", as a supporter.

Additionally, endorsing Nisperos' election to the bench was a "Judicial Officer" listed as the: "Hon. Diane Karpman (Former State Bar Court Judge)"

According to multiple sources, Nisperos, once again, ill served the community by using the title "judge" in conjunction with Ms. Karpman.

By the same token, by allowing Nisperos to make such use, Ms. Karpman ill served the community as well.

Kerr & Wagstaffe's partner, Ms. Jacqueline Scott Corley, will soon exit the firm.

Corley, the only female partner at an otherwise male dominated law firm, is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard School of Law. While at Harvard, she served as an editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review alongside President Obama.

Prior to joining the firm as a non-equity partner in September of 2009, Corley served as the principal attorney in the chamber of Hon Charles R. Breyer.

While at Kerr & Wagstaffe, Corley succsesfully defended a Massachusetts lawyer -- Mr. Cristobal Bonifaz -- in an action filed by Chevron for malicious prosecution.

Pending background checks by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service, Jacqueline Scott Corley will be sworn in as a United States Magistrate Judge.

According to confidential sources, a cease and desist demand has been delivered to Ms. Beth Jay -- who in addition to serving as Ronald George's principal attorney -- also serves as a liaison between the California Supreme Court and the State Bar of California.

Beth Jay, according to the Recorder, is known as "the "Winston Wolf" of the California Supreme Court who does her work behind the scenes". Please see: http://tinyurl.com/bethjaythefixer

Specifically, Ms. Beth Jay was conveyed the following: "By meeting with James Towery during meetings that are closed to the public, you create the appearance that both you and former Chief Justice George, as well as James Towery, unlawfully attempt to manipulate proceedings, engage in ex parte communications, and otherwise violate the due process rights of countless individuals."

In addition, Beth Jay was asked to produce records of all meetings she attended with anyone from the Office of Chief Trial Counsel going back to the year 2000.

Beth Jay was also asked if she ever discussed with anyone at the State Bar Mr. Thomas Girardi and/or any attorney misconduct that took place in the Dole litigation as well as if she "ever personally receive any benefit from Mr. Girardi (ie, flying to attend a meeting in San Francisco or Los "Angeles on Mr. Girardi's private airplane)?"

Anonymous sources in California maintain that the query concerning Mr. Girardi's private airplane is part of a larger investigation into the relationship between Thomas Girardi and Ronald George as well as the relationship between Thomas Girardi and Mike Nisperos.

According to the sources, the dates and names of all passengers are easily ascertained as they would be included in the captain's log pursuant to federaly mandated regulations and procedures.

Judicial Council

Friday August 26, 2006 8:45 a.m., San Francisco, California.

The Judicial Council of the State of California held a meeting at the Administration Office of the Courts(AOC).

A partial list of members present include Chief Justice Ronald George, Justice Marvin Baxter, Rex Heinke, and Thomas Girardi. Absent was member Joseph Dunn.

During a similar meeting held on Friday April 27, 2007; Judicial Council members Thomas Girardi and Joseph Dunn were both absent.

The Voice of OC

In September of 2009, Mr. Joseph Dunn (AKA Joe Dunn) launched "The Voice of OC" -- an online publication design to investigate and report about corruption in Orange County.

Thomas Girardi as well as Joe Dunn serve as members of The Voice of OC's Board of Directors

Executive Director, State Bar of California

According to the LegalPad, on Septermber 20, 2010 State Bar President Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese announced that the board of governors of the State Bar of California chose Joe Dunn “after a nationwide search,” and that he’ll start sometime after the State Bar annual convention in Monterey.

*TLR urges the readers to exercise caution and not jump to conclusions regarding misconduct by Sean SeLegue. The Court of Appeal decision is predicated on how circumstances "appear" rather than real and actual bias on the part of Howard Rice's Sean SeLegue.

California’s First District Court of Appeal recently ruled that the failure of attorney Sean SeLegue of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin to disclose at the time of an arbitration (in which he served as arbitrator) that he generally defended attorneys and law firms in cases involving professional responsibility, and that he was actively representing a firm in a case before the California Supreme Court in a dispute over legal fees, created sufficient doubt as to SeLegue's impartiality in his role as an arbitrator.

In a decision issued on October 12, 2010 in Benjamin, Weill & Mazer v. Kors (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 126, Presiding Justice Anthony Kline expressed concern that the lack of full disclosure on the part of SeLegue, coupled with his business relationships with large law firms, might create unease regarding the possibility that SeLegue's impartiality may be compromised by economic considerations in wishing to maintain a stream of "steady customers" – a reference to the law firms SeLegue normally represents in fee disputes.

Sean SeLegue, director of Howard Rice’s litigation department and the firm's Attorney Liability and Appellate Practice Groups. According to SeLegue's profile, "Attorneys who face charges of misconduct – whether in a civil case for malpractice or malicious prosecution, in a disciplinary investigation by the State Bar or in a motion to disqualify – often turn to Mr. SeLegue and his colleagues in the Attorney Liability Group." Recently, SeLegue as well as Jerome Falk, Shaudy Danaye-Elmi, and Noah Rosenthal represented Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss in their bid to rescind a prior settlement agreement the Winklevosses had entered into with Facebook. (Photo: Courtesy of Facebook)

Specifically, after a fee dispute erupted between Benjamin, Weill & Mazer and Dr. Kors, a firm client, the matter was referred to the Bar Association of San Francisco for mandatory arbitration. The arbitration panel, which included Sean SeLegue, issued a ruling in favor of the firm and against Dr. Kors.

A Superior Court judge adopted the ruling and issued a judgment against Kors, who promptly appealed.

In a written opinion, Kline found that SeLegue failure to inform the parties that he regularly represents law firms in fee disputes against clients and SeLegue’s involvement in such a case created "a doubt that the arbitrator would be able to be impartial.”

Specifically, the Court wrote:

"Kors is not seeking disclosure of all matters that might make her prefer a different arbitrator or asking us to depart from the standard of an objective person. Her contention is simply that an objective person could reasonably question the impartiality of an arbitrator in a dispute over legal fees who, at the time of the arbitration, was engaged generally in the defense of attorneys and law firms in cases involving professional responsibility and was actively representing a law firm in a case before the California Supreme Court involving a dispute over legal fees."
…
“For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that upon his appointment SeLegue had a duty to timely disclose to the parties the nature of his legal practice, including the fact that he was then representing a law firm engaged in a fee dispute with a former client.”

According to SeLegue, "The reason people agree to binding arbitration in the first place is it's cheaper, quicker, and more private. It's only fair to enforce it," he stated to the Civil Justice Blog.

The appellate court decision made no mention of the fact that Sean SeLegue and Noah Rosenthal of Howard Rice, as well as Diane Karpman and JoAnne Earls Robbins of Karpman & Associates, are all members of the Association of Discipline Defense Counsel.

According to the Association of Discipline Defense Counsel's website, SeLegue practice area include: State Bar Defense, Ethics Advice, Expert Testimony, Civil Litigation Defense, Disqualification Motions, Appeals. JoAnne Earls Robbins's practice area include: State Bar Discipline and Ethics Consultations.

Click here to view a copy of the decision:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A125732.PDF

According to the front page of today's Daily Mail, a biblical "Arkstorm" is about to hit California --walls of water 10ft high, rain falling in feet instead of inches, and nine million people’s homes flooded during a hurricane-like megastorm that could last more than month.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347725/Walls-water-10ft-high-month-long-megastorm--California-told-prepare-Biblical-ARkStorm.html

What a strange headline, I wondered while dialing the phone and searching for clues on the online edition of the Los Angeles Times. Not much there as far as bible, ark, Noah, or storm. Those who I spoke to were also clueless and assured me that nothing is out of the ordinary in California.

At least according to the Daily Mail, an Arkstorm -- so named after the boat Noah used to escape the flood in the Bible -- The capped-up 'A' and 'R' stand for 'atmospheric river'.

The every-other-century event last happened in 1861 and left the central valley of California impassable.

Dear Mr. Hawley:

1. Your reply gravitates toward the ethics complaint I filed against Towery, Miller, Falk, and Winthrop; whereas the main issue and my request was how the BOG/RAD independently review any improprieties relating to the selection of Mr. Falk as a special prosecutor, and if necessary, to take appropriate actions which may include, but are not limited to, re-opening and reassigning the investigation of attorney misconduct in the Dole litigation to an unbiased and uninvolved special prosecutor to examine from scratch such misconduct in accordance with Rule 2603.

Jerome Falk was not, could not be, and is not an objective prosecutor. There is a strong appearance of impropriety for the following reasons:

A) The State Bar of California (properly so) disqualified itself from any involvement in the matter.

Douglas Winthrop of Howard Rice is an officer of the State Bar of California. As such, by extension, Douglas Winthrop and the entire firm of Howard Rice are also disqualified --including Jerome Falk -- pursuant to the imputed disqualification doctrine.

B) Additionally, and independent of the above, the former president of the State Bar of California, Mr. Howard Miller, was the individual who installed Mr. Winthrop as an officer of the State Bar of California, and served alongside Mr. Winthrop on the Board of the Foundation. As such, there is a strong appearance of the existence of a close personal relationship between Miller and Winthrop.

Both Mr. Winthrop and Mr. Falk work at the San Francisco office of Howard Rice and very frequently litigate cases together (very effectively, I might add). Any argument that an ethical wall was built between the two is irrelevant and will be rejected by the CSC sitting in equity.

C) Moreover, based on the totality of the circumstances, there is an appearance of improprieties which include, but not limited to, the following:

--The Ninth Circuit's unequivocal language in the matter of In re Girardi;
--The outcome of Jerome Falk's investigation;
--The fact that Howard Miller served as President of the Bar;
--The fact that Girardi was and is a close friend of many State Bar employees, including Tom Layton, Mike Nisperos, Executive Director Joe Dunn (in addition to Girardi's friendship with CJ Ronald George);
--The fact that Howard Miller was the one who hired James Towery; and,
-- A recent working relationship between Jerome Falk and Girardi's counsel, Tom Nolan of Skadden Arps. (Please note that I am currently looking into the business relationship between Skadden Arps and Howard Rice. Once I obtain the necessary information, I will update you.)

2. In your communication dated January 13, 2011, you noted that the confidential ethics complaint I advanced was referred to you in accordance with Rule 2201 of the State Bar Rules of Procedures.

Were you mistaken in citing Rule 2201? I have read Rule 2201 and it does not mention any direct involvement of the Deputy Executive Director. As such, it was improper for the Intake Unit/OCTC to forward the complaint to you. I am sure there are many competent individuals in the Intake Unit/OCTC (other, of course, than Mr. Towery) who can review the complaint and decide if and to which outside counsel it will be assigned in accordance with Rule 2201.

In your reply, you were not clear whether the RAD/BOG will review my request to independently examine the circumstances relating to this matter. As such, I reiterate my request -- I am asking the RAD/BOG to independently review any improprieties relating to the selection of Mr. Falk to serve as a special prosecutor, and to take all necessary and appropriate actions which may include, but are not limited to, re-opening and reassigning the investigation of attorney misconduct in the Dole litigation in accordance with Rule 2603.

3. You also mentioned that you will discuss the ethics complaint with the RAD. Please note that Mr. Alec Chang, a member of the RAD Committee, is also a shareholder with Skadden Arps, a firm which represented Mr. Girardi in the matter of In re Girardi. Which further create an appearance of impropriety.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

For more about Thomas Girardi, please visit:

http://bit.ly/xY2k5q

The Intake Unit of the State Bar's Office of Chief Trial Counsel
confirmed to me that they received your complaint form re-signed by you
December 31, 2010. They have referred it to me in accordance with the
procedures of Rule 2201, Rules of Procedure that govern the process. I
have sent you a letter acknowledging receipt of your complaint and
enclosing a copy of Rule 2201. I will consult with the Chair of the
Board Committee on Regulation, Admissions and Discipline Oversight (RAD)
on the issues defined by Rule 2201. Please continue to direct
communications on this subject to me. I will provide you with the
information to which you are entitled. Thanks. RAH

Robert Hawley
Deputy Executive Director
State Bar of California

Enclosed below is a letter which was sent by the complainant to the State Bar of California's point of contact -- Mr. Robert Hawley.

The author of the letter had asked us to keep his identity private.

Dear Mr. Hawley:

1. UPS records show that the envelope was delivered to the State
Bar office in Los Angeles, and was signed for by A. Daniels. Please
let me know if the State Bar contends otherwise.

2. Please advise if you have a response concerning the request to
Mr. Towery to reopen and reassign the case to a different outside
attorney.

3. Will the Board of Governors act and establish a task force?
Please advise if the request met all the necessary formalities to at
least be considered by the Board or if I need to submit a more formal
request.

4. Additionally, I am giving you a head's up that I would like to
examine the entire file concerning this matter and inspect the
complete file that Mr. Towery forwarded to Mr. Falk, as well as the
complete file (including all memoranda) prepared by Mr. Falk.

5. If the State Bar or its representative are in receipt of any
correspondence from Diane Karpman, Pam Philips, Sean SeLegue, or Tom
Nolan (or anyone else for that matter) arguing that it was proper to
assign the case to Howard Rice and that the firm should not have been
imputedly disqualified, I ask that such memos be forwarded to me.

6. Please feel free to forward all information that is pertinent to
these matters. I also request that you keep me updated on any
developments.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For important updates, including communication from Jerome Falk,  please see @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/12/08/jerome-b-falk-of-howard-rice-state-bar-of-california-special-prosecutor-in-ninth-circuit-matter-of-in-re-girardi-adjudicated-by-n-randy-smith-mar-12275371/

AND @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/12/13/ninth-circuit-court-of-appeal-matter-of-in-re-thomas-girardi-adjudicated-by-marsha-berzon-n-rabdy-smith-william-fletcher-jerome-falk-howard-rice--12300044/

 

Much to our collective chagrin, we must once again visit the Sexist/Racist Kerr & Wagstaffe, as it continues to mistreat and abuse Mr. Daniel Zaheer.

As the reader may recall, it took many months before Zaheer's photo was posted on K & W's web-site. Once it was posted, we immidietly ceased our coverage of the subject and, in fact, quietly called off various planned events.

However, unlike Mr. Thomas Nolan who is always a gentlman;
James Wagstaffe is not. As a rule, Waggery is always present.

As such, in a recent visit to the firm's website, we were not surprised to discover that K&W does not consider Daniel Zaheer to be an "Associate" of the firm.

The other three assoicates, all young white females, are classifieds as "associates"; while Zaheer is not classified as such. An attorney, but not an associate.

By visiting the firm's web-site at:

http://www.kerrwagstaffe.com/attorneys/index.html

One will observe that the title of either Partner or Associate appears under the name of each attorney in the firm. For example, Mr. Sawyer is listed as a Partner, and the term “Associate” appears under the names of Dawn Marie Melton, Kelly Corcoran, and Maria Radwick.

Yet, a blank appears under the name of Daniel Zaheer.

Similarly, each individual page also describes the role of each attorney in the firm with an accompanying title. For eample, Maria Radwick's individual page described her as an associate. Zaheer's does not.

Moreover, and most convincing is the description itself which speaks volume. Maria Radwick is described as "an assoicaite with Kerr & Wagstaffe." Whereas the term Associate does not appear in Zaheer's profile.

In a previously published story, we mentioned Blawger Ken Lammers and his view of the associates at kerr & Wagstaffe.

Lammers stated: "they're intimidating as all get out. I'm not sure I'd want to pit my poor besotted mind against any of them in a BS philosophy/political discussion at a party, much less face them in litigation."

Based on Zaheer's impressive credentials, Lammers may wish to express a similar opinion about Daniel Zaheer. Yet, should Lammers, in his haste, preforms such an act, he will need a reminder that Zaheer is not an associate.

Zaheer is a victim of a typical manifistation of Kerr & Wagstaffe's racists tendnecies; and the clear message it wishes to send the public-- Daniel Zaheer is not part of us.

California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno has announded today that he will step down from the bench at the end of Febrauary, 2011.

In a statment to the press, Moreno, 62, stated that "the time was ripe" for him to "seek a new direction."

Additionaly, Moreno, in a written statment stated:

"It has been a truly unique honor and privilege to have served the people of California as a judge for over 24 years and, together with my great colleagues on the court, to have played a modest role in shaping California jurisprudence."

According to San Jose Mercury News Moreno said he would urge California Governor Jerry Brown to replace him with a Latino.

"If he asks for my opinion, I think he should do whatever he can that a Latino replaces me on the court"

TLR's confidential sources in California maintain potential replacemnts include Michael Nava, Judy Johnson, and Martin Jenkins.

Amid all the scandals involving the State Bar of California, it's not every day that we encounter, for a change, a piece of good news. But Wednesday just so happened to be one.

Attorney Stephen Yagman was disbarred following his criminal conviction for tax evasion and bankruptcy fraud by a federal court.

According to the California Bar Journal:

"Yagman transferred his Venice Beach home into his girlfriend’s name, hid money by depositing his income in her bank account and declared bankruptcy in New York without disclosing his California assets."

Additionally, the Journal reports "Yagman deposited hundreds of thousands of dollars into various bank and brokerage accounts in his girlfriend's name to disguise his personal assets including approximately $776,000 that was transferred to him by relatives."

During Yagman's trial for bankruptcy fraud, Assistant U.S. Atty. Beong-Soo Kim told jurors "Hours after he filed for bankruptcy, he spent $2,000 on shoes and clothing on Madison Avenue, and he went out to a $260 dinner."

According to TLR's State Bar Insider (SBI), Yagman's disbarment is well deserved.

SBI recalls a case involving police misconduct in which police shot and killed 5 Latinos at a McDonald's parking lot. Yagman, who represented five of the heirs in a civil rights suit, engaged in the grotesque practice of "double dipping". SBI stated: "Yagman not only collected $360,000 in attorney's fees, but also appropriated 45% of the judgment pursuant to a contingency fee agreement. Each of the five plaintiffs was presented with a $810 check."

Yagamn, who filed hundreds of cases against the Los Angeles Police Department, referred to the late chief Daryl Gates as "the personification of evil." Replying, Gates stated: "What can I say? He’s been playing the system for a long, long time. He is a real bad man, a disgrace to the bar."

Just as Californians manage to put behind them the embarrassing mistreatment of quadriplegic Sarah Granda by the State Bar of California, Gayle Murphy, Judy Johnson and Dean Barbieri – which necessitated direct intervention of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, now comes a new scandal to stir up the firestorm again.

William G. Wells, a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corp, was admitted to the practice of law in California in 1959. He practiced for approximately 35 years without discipline. Unfortunately, Wells's career has recently come to a screeching halt.

According to Wells, while he was recovering from a serious stroke, an attorney in his office conspired with the office's legal secretary to transfer ownership of a parcel of land located in Corona, California and owned by Wells to the secretary.

The secretary maintained that the property was a retirement gift from Wells, and that it was hers to keep.

Wells, one upset lawyer, turned to the judicial system to vindicate his rights. Years of litigation ensued, and the secretary was ultimately declared the rightful owner of the Corona parcel.

Later, the secratary complained to the State Bar against Wells, alleging that had he misused the court system in pursuing his claims against her. In turn, the State Bar charged Wells with various acts of misconduct.

Wells, who is legally deaf, ended up in the courtroom of Judge Patrice McElroy after Presiding judge JoAnn Remke issued an order disqualifying Judge Richard A. Platel.

A settlement conference was held in front of Judge Platel. Notwithstanding Judge Platel's disqualification from "any further involvement" in Wells' case, Judge Platel took the bench to serve as the settlement conference judge. Wells did not and could not object to Judge Platel serving only as the settlement conference judge, pursuant to C.C.P. § 107.4(a)(6). However, Wells stated that he did not consent to any waiver of Judge Platel's disqualification and that he did not waive any objection to Judge Platel's involvement in his case.

Apparently, despite a direct order from the presiding judge Remke disqualifying Richard Platel, Judge McElroy attempted to force on Wells a non-existent agreement that had allegedly been entered into during the settlement confrence:

Photo:courtesy of Bar Journal

THE COURT (McElroy): Okay. My understanding is there was an agreement at the end of the settlement conference, that the parties reached an agreement on all issues, including findings of facts and conclusions of law and a proposed degree of discipline.

MS. MEYERS: That's my understanding, your Honor.

MR. WELLS: Well, that's not correct.

THE COURT: Well, my understanding is the specific terms of the agreement between the parties was explicitly placed on the record. Do the parties agree with that?

MR. WELLS: It was not concluded.

MS. MEYERS: That's my - that's my understanding.

MR. WELLS: Well, I don't know where you get your understanding, but it was not concluded. And this-

THE COURT: It's my understanding it was, and as a result, I'm going to vacate the trial dates. Mr. Wells?

MR. WELLS: I'd like the ruling on my motions.

THE COURT: Your motions are moot.

When Wells inquired how Judge McElroy had developed her understanding of the outcome of the settlement conference which had concluded the previous afternoon, Judge McElroy disclosed that she had spoken to Judge Platel, the judge who had been disqualified from hearing Wells's matter.

MR. WELLS: Well, your Honor is saying that, based on somebody's communication to you, that something was put on the record?

THE COURT: No. This - this - it is on the record.

MR. WELLS: You have it?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WELLS: You have a transcript of the verdict?

THE COURT: I don't need a transcript.

MR. WELLS: What do you have?

THE COURT: The disk.

MR. WELLS: Well, you don't hear my agreement to it.

THE COURT: And my understanding is, having talked to Judge Platel, that there was -

MR. WELLS: Well-

THE COURT: - an agreement on all the issues, and it was placed on the record.

MR. WELLS: Well, that is not accurate.

Judge McElroy ultimately refused to take any evidence or allow Wells to be heard on the issue of whether a settlement had been reached during the earlier settlement conference:

THE COURT: What is the State Bar's position on this matter?

MS. MEYERS: The State Bar's position is the same as your Honor's position. We believe there was a settlement reached in good faith. It was put on the record, and we believe Mr. Wells should be bound by the settlement reached.

THE COURT: Okay. And Mr. Wells, you will be bound by it.

MR. WELLS: Well, you've already ruled, I guess, right?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WELLS: Well, I haven't even filed my motion, and you still ruled.

THE COURT: Well, I'm going to have - issue an order approving the stipulation as to findings of facts.

MR. WELLS: Without even hearing from me, right?

THE COURT: No. I'm going to file an order approving the stipulation.

At the conclusion of the conference, Judge McElroy ordered that the case was settled and vacated the trial date.

Later, over Wells's objections, Judge Platel sua sponte issued an "Order Approving Stipulation re: Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition."

Wells moved for reconsideration of Judge Platel's order, which Judge Platel denied. Next, Wells filed a petition with the Review Department to set aside Judge Platel's order.

The Review Department ruled that Judge Platel had no authority to make binding adjudications at the settlement conference, or any time, due to his disqualification from Wells's case.

Wells then moved for an order disqualifying Judge McElroy based on her ex parte conversations with Judge Platel about what had occurred during the settlement conference.

Judge McElroy filed a verified answer to Wells's motion, declining to recuse herself. Specifically, Judge McElroy stated, "The Court has carefully reviewed respondent's motion to disqualify and the declaration in support thereof, and the court denies each and every allegation of bias, prejudice or other impropriety made against her by respondent.” Judge McElroy ordered: "it is HEREBY ORDERED that respondent's motion is referred to Judge Lucy Armendariz for such further action as she deems appropriate." The order was signed: "Pat McElroy, Judge of the State Bar Court."

Ms. Lucy Armendariz, a 1997 graduate of Hastings College of the Law. She was appointed to serve as judge in 2007. Prior to her appointment, she was chief of staff to California State Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero; worked as an attorney with the law firm Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe; and as an ombudsman with the California's women's prisons. At the age of 10, Lucy Armendariz was removed from her parents' custody and entered California's crowded foster-care system. According to U.C. Hastings' Magazine, in 2006, Armendariz was appointed to the state's Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care by California Chief Justice Ronald George. The commission's report, issued in 2008, outlined the need to make foster children's welfare a top priority. (Photo: courtesy of California Leadership)

Judge Armendariz denied Wells's motion to disqualify Judge McElroy. Judge Armendariz wrote:

"Based on the documents filed by each party, including the declarations of both parties, the court rejects respondent's contention that Judge McElroy has or will exhibit bias in her handling of respondent's matter. As such, respondent has failed to show sufficient cause to warrant the recusal of Judge McElroy."

Later on, Judge McElroy, without explanation, issued an order recusing herself from Wells' case. Judge McElroy did not state any grounds for her action. Nonetheless, the State Bar has asserted that Judge McElroy's orders are valid and enforceable.

To be continued.

In the legal dispute between MGA (Bratz Dolls) and Mattel (Barbie Dolls), it is estimated that MGA’s legal cost to date are close to $200 million, meaning that to date MGA has paid $200 million to various law firms to defend the action advanced by Mattel for copyright infringement.

According to Mattel, Bratz Dolls were designed by a former Mattel employee (Carter Bryant) before he jumped ship to MGA. Mattel sought $2 billion in damages, and according to Bob Eckert, Mattel's CEO, pursues the case "as a matter of principle."

Representing El Segundo, California-based Mattel was John Quinn of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

Defendant Carter Bryant was represented by Keker & Van Nest's John Keker. Los Angeles-based MGA and founder/CEO Isaac Larian were initially represented by O'Melveny & Myers. However, in 2007 a dispute erupted when O'Melveny insisted that partner Daniel Petrocelli serve as lead counsel in the case.

Mr. Larian was not thrilled about Petrocelli and fired O'Melveny altogether. O'Melveny immediately demanded payment of $10 million it claims MGA and Mr. Larian owe the firm in unpaid and outstanding legal fees.

With a looming 2008 trial date, no counsel, and a threat from O'Melveny that if he does not pay he will be sued, Mr. Larian went knocking on the door of Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese.

Specifically, according to an article published in The Recorder, in October 2007 MGA and Isaac Larian asked Girardi to look into the fees it had paid to O'Melveny.

According to the article, Girardi stated, "When O'Melveny couldn't get Petrocelli in the lead chair it wanted off the case. We are taking a look at the massively large fees that happened with the O'Melveny representation. On first blush, it seems like an awful lot of money for what has been accomplished. I think the client has strong reason to have great concern."

At approximately the same time, Girardi's friend -- Thomas Nolan of Skadden Arps -- was chosen to serve as counsel for MGA and Mr. Larian instead of O’Melveny.

As reported in The Recorder, "We decided to put it all under one roof," stated Mr. Larian, "and we decided to go with Skadden and Tom Nolan."

Thomas Nolan, who served as Girardi's counsel (along with Diane Karpman) in the matter of In Re Girardi, is a well-known and respected attorney. According to Mr. Girardi, Thomas Nolan "is like "Wayne Gretsky" - he doesn't look any bigger, tougher or faster, but the next thing you know he's scored four goals. And he's always a gentleman."

A six-week trial was conducted in the courtroom of federal judge Stephen Larson. On July 17, 2008 , the jury returned a verdict for Mattel. More specifically, the jury found that both MGA and Isaac Larian had interfered with Mattel's contractual relationship with Bryant, who had been under the control of Mattel during the time he designed the Bratz Dolls.

Following the verdict, preparations were made for the second stage of the trial to set damages, which were estimated to be approximately $500 million. At the conclusion of that stage, the jury awarded $100 million to Mattel. In addition, Judge Larson issued a draconian injunction against MGA, ipso facto dissolving it.

Following the trial, Thomas Nolan quickly arranged for Howard Rice's Jerome Falk and Douglas Winthrop to join the legal team and file an immediate emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Ninth Circuit subsequently reversed the entire judgment and sent the matter back to District Court where it was assigned to a different judge.

Judge Larson – the initial trial judge who had taken a harsh view of GMA and Mr. Larian had left the bench to commence his employment with Girardi & Keese.

Wayne Gretsky is a master strategist and always a gentleman.
Wayne Gretzky is a former professional ice hockey player.