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

Bar associations across U.S. bulk up pro bono efforts in foreclosure cases

Lawyers across the country are doing their share to help homeowners facing foreclosures stemming from the subprime mortgage crisis. From Massachusetts to California, bar associations have formed task forces and organized pro bono projects offering services such as hotlines and free consultations regarding foreclosures, an issue many lawyers say could only get worse.

The San Diego County Bar Association has teamed up with a local non-profit organization, the Housing Opportunities Collaborative, to offer free legal services during monthly clinics for homeowners. More than 70 attorneys have participated in training sessions and then volunteered in the clinics, said Heather Rosing, the bar association's president. The lawyers provide free consultation and help refer residents depending on whether they need a bankruptcy or a litigation attorney or an expert in another area, said Rosing, an attorney in San Diego's Klinedinst.

Read the full NLJ story here

Calif. gov's sweeping vetoes upsets plaintiffs bar

On Tuesday, the last day on which he could sign or veto legislation for the year, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed more than 100 bills, including several that would have benefited the state's plaintiffs' bar.

Key among them was Assembly Bill 1945, which would have required health insurance plans to get regulatory approval before rescinding, canceling or cutting back on individual policies. The bill added that a "willful violation" of such provisions would result in a crime.

In a veto message, the governor said the bill would increase costs and lacked several provisions he had proposed to the legislature.

"This bill was written by the attorneys that stand to benefit from its provisions," he said. "In rushing to protect a right to litigate, the proponents failed to consider the real consumer protections that are needed."

John Sullivan, president of the Civil Justice Association of California, a tort reform group in Sacramento, praised the governor's decision. Given the language of the bill, "all these cases would have ended up in court," he said, even if a health service provider had made a simple mistake.

Don Ernst, president of the Consumer Attorneys of California, and a partner at Ernst & Mattison in San Luis Obispo, Calif., said the bill has support from numerous medical associations and Republicans.

"Governor Schwarzenegger is making lawyers the scapegoat for his failure to protect consumers," Ernst said. "AB 1945 unequivocally banned health insurance companies from wrongly rescinding the insurance of honest consumers."

The governor also vetoed Senate Bill 1113, which would have allowed expert witness fees to be granted to plaintiffs in successful public interest cases, such as those alleging discrimination. In a veto message, the governor said: "Broadening already substantial awards could encourage more unfounded litigation and exponentially increase liability in potentially unjustifiable situations. During a year where the economy is struggling to get back on its feet, the effects could be devastating."

Another bill, Assembly Bill 437, would have allowed the legislature to reject the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 127 S. Ct. 2162 (2007), which said race or gender discrimination suits over equal pay should be filed no later than 180 days after an employer made the decision on which the claims are based.

The bill "would create uncertainty regarding the accrual of the statute of limitation for wage discrimination," the governor wrote in a veto message. "This uncertainty will undoubtedly lead to unnecessary litigation."

The governor also vetoed some bills that would have loosened the protections of arbitration.

On judicial appointments, Schwarzenegger vetoed Assembly Bill 2095, which would have required him to divulge to the public the names of individuals who evaluate or select judicial applicants for him. (see story in The Recorder) In his veto message, the governor said the bill would have "a chilling effect upon people willing to provide candid information, and would subject individuals to political lobbying from various sources."

-- Amanda Bronstad

L.A. bar opposes controversial resolution to pay mediators who work with local courts

The board of the Los Angeles County Bar Association recently voted to oppose a controversial resolution to pay mediators who have been providing free services to the local courts.

The resolution, put forward by the Beverly Hills Bar Association, would change a section of the state's Code of Civil Procedure to require the parties in a lawsuit to pay for a mediator. Current law states that mediators should be paid out of the state's budget, but those funds have long deteriorated. As a result, most mediators provide the first three hours of their services for free.

The Conference of Delegates of California State Bar Associations, which is made up of geographical state bars throughout the state, is anticipated to take up the resolution at its annual meeting this weekend in Monterey, Calif. If supported, the resolution could go before the state legislature.

Charles Parselle, a member of the resolutions committee at the Beverly Hills Bar Association, who has been pushing for the change for years, said this is the first time the resolution has come before the conference.

"There's nothing to prevent people from choosing a private mediator and paying them at the present time. But an enormous number of cases simply get sent out and mediators essentially pay for the first three hours," he said. "This proposal says that instead of this three-hour freebie, it's much better to put mediators on the same footing as everybody else and let them charge for services."

He noted that the resolution would not apply in cases in which the parties have been subject to a court order for mediation.

But last week, by a 21-4 vote, the board of the Los Angeles County Bar Association opposed the idea, mostly because "this is a critical piece of what supports the administration of justice in the L.A. county courts," said Clark Brown, general counsel of the Los Angeles County Bar Association.

Without providing some free services, the courts would experience a backlog of cases, he said.

He also noted that several other lawyers, such as those who serve as judges pro tem, volunteer their time without requesting to be paid.

"If someone doesn't want to provide three hours free, they don't have to," Brown said. "But right now, the court needs that support."

-- Amanda Bronstad

Calif. bar fights to block access to bar exam data

Bar exam data, such as race and test scores, that are being requested by a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) should not be released to the public, according to the State Bar of California in court papers filed on Monday before the California Supreme Court.

The papers are in response to a recent petition filed by Richard Sander, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law, who, along with former State Bar governor Joe Hicks and the California First Amendment Coalition, want the State Bar to hand over data, but not the names, of bar applicants. For the past two years, Sander has been on a quest to obtain the data in an effort to bolster a controversial study he authored claiming that affirmative action might be the cause of high bar failure rates among black students who were academically unprepared for some of the nation's top law schools.

The State Bar's Committee of Bar Examiners has refused his request, arguing that the data should not be released to the public because applicants believed the information would remain confidential and only be used in connection with the bar exam.

Similar arguments appear in Monday's court papers filed by the State Bar, which is being represented by Michael von Loewenfeldt, a partner at Kerr & Wagstaffe in San Francisco. The State Bar added that the data, which include race, law school attended and bar exam scores from 1972 to 1997, would require extensive staff and resources to compile since the information doesn't already exist in the requested format. Further, the data do not constitute court documents that are open to the public.

State and federal law "clearly recognizes a distinction between official records of court proceedings, which are subject to public inspection, and other types of documents or information that happen to be within the possession of the judicial branch, which are not," the State Bar said in court papers.

James Chadwick, a partner in the Menlo Park, Calif., office of Los Angeles-based Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, who represents Sander, did not return a call for comment.

-- Amanda Bronstad

Previous posting:

"UCLA professor seeks bar exam data from state Supreme Court," Aug. 8, 2008

 

Reed Smith's Jim Martin elected president of L.A. Bar Foundation

Reed Smith attorney Jim Martin was elected the next president of the Los Angeles County Bar Foundation, the charitable arm of the bar association.

Martin, who's focused on appellate law for three decades, is a fellow and director in the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers and a member and former president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers.

The current president of the foundation is Steptoe & Johnson's Katessa Charles Davis.

Complaints surface over bar exam disrupted by earthquake

Complaints are beginning to roll in about last week's earthquake disrupting the first day of the California bar exam after hundreds of test takers in a room close to the epicenter were promised an extra five minutes.

On July 29, a magnitude 5.4 earthquake struck the Los Angeles area at about 20 minutes before noon. No major damage or injuries were reported.

Thousands of people taking the California bar exam were wrapping up essays during the final minutes of the morning session when the earthquake rattled rooms, some of which were close to the epicenter about 30 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Steve Mitchell, an Orange, Calif., resident, was in the smaller half of a ballroom at the Ontario Convention Center with hundreds of other test takers when he began to feel rumbling. The tables shook, people screamed, the lights swayed and some ceiling tiles fell, hitting a guy behind him. He got down on his knees, prepared to get under the table.

Later, during the lunch break, he heard that the people in another part of the ballroom were told they would get an extra five minutes to take the exam.

"Our smaller room didn't get any kind of announcement," he said.

"If we lost anywhere from two to five minutes, that's potentially five to 10 points you could get on the test," he added. "If I were a person who did not pass, and it was by five points, and I was in a room that got a five-minute disruption from the earthquake, I would definitely protest it. I would definitely make it an issue."

Cori Jones, a student at the University of La Verne College of Law, was in the half of the ballroom that was promised the five minutes.

"The proctor did announce in our room that we would get an extra five minutes to finish the exam," Jones wrote in an email to The National Law Journal. "However, promptly at the three hour mark he called time. I asked the two gentlemen sitting next to me if we had gotten any extra time by their watches and they said no."

But Jones said the exams should not be graded differently, adding that "there has been a lot of hype and complaining about the situation."

Rick Harris, a claims specialist in Portland, Maine, said he had just finished his exam in a basement room of the Anaheim Convention Center when the earthquake hit. He heard crashing and saw people screaming or jumping under their desks.

He said he had no complaints, since he was finished with his test. But he felt bad for others who were struggling with the exam amid rumbling and lights swaying overhead.

He heard that others in the Ontario Convention Center had been promised an extra five minutes but didn't get it. "If I was taking the exam in Ontario and needed the extra five minutes, I would be upset," he said.

Gayle Murphy, senior executive of admissions at the State Bar of California, admitted that "people might not appreciate the fact they didn't get an extra five minutes."

She said she had not received letters or complaints so far but anticipated several to arrive after the test results come out in November. "We know what happened obviously, and we'll take that into account when we do an evaluation of the exam," she said.

-- Amanda Bronstad

After getting elected, state bar investigates if new board member is eligible for job

Business attorney Michael Tenenbaum beat out his two opponents for a seat on the state bar's Board of Governors. But he may not have been eligible for the seat.

A committee is being put together to investigate allegations that Tenenbaum's principal office isn't located in the District 6, a requirement to be eligible for the seat under the State Bar Act, the Metropolitan News-Enterprise reported.

The district includes Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. Tenenbaum beat Redlands attorney Bryan Hartnell by a little over 100 votes, MetNews reported.

Holly Fujie elected president of State Bar of California

Los Angeles attorney Holly J. Fujie was elected president of the State Bar of California.

Fujie, a partner at Buchalter Nemer, is the third woman* to hold the post in 81 years.

The election was the first time that all the candidates for state bar president were female, according to The Recorder.

Fujie beat Orange County assistant public defender Danni R. Murphy and Maria Carmen Ramirez, the community planning director for a Ventura advocacy agency that works on economic and environmental justice issues.

One of Fujie's focuses will be getting more young attorneys' involved with the state bar.

She'll be sworn in California Chief Judge Ronald George on Sept. 27.

*The first female president was Margaret Marrow in 1993 and the second was Karen Nobumoto in 2001.

Press release: "Holly Fujie elected 84th State Bar President," 

L.A. attorney James Aguirre elected to State Bar Board of Governors

Attorney James Aguirre was elected to the State Bar Board of Governors, the Metropolitan News-Enterprise reported.

Aguirre is the lead attorney at Richardson and Fair's Los Angeles office and house counsel to the Automobile Club of Southern California.

He won one of the two open seats in Los Angeles County, defeating Century City solo practitioner Marty O'Toole and James Li, who heads his own firm in Diamond Bar.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela Davis ran unopposed to win the other open seat.

Before joining Richardson and Fair in 1990, Aguirre was assistant general counsel to the L.A. Community College District, the first managing attorney at United Auto Workers Legal Services Plan and a poverty attorney at the Legal Aid Society of Pasadena.

Calif. bar proposes new rule cracking down on resignations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Amanda Bronstad