REVEALED 2007: State Bar BOG Member Jeffrey Bleich, Judge William Fletcher, Robert Scott Wylie and Morrison & Foerster’s James Brosnahan – Through a Proxy Annette Carnegie (TLR Note: Much Like Keker and Nolan, Brosnahan also Prefers a Minority Proxy)
Please see @:
►http://lesliebrodie.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/revealed-2007-state-bar-bog-member-jeffrey-bleich-judge-will
The Great Dissents of the “Lone Dissenter”: Justice Jesse W. Carter’s Twenty Tumultuous Years on the California Supreme Court Available for free @
www.cap-press.com/pdf/2064.pdf
Ninth Circuit’s Judge William Fletcher, David Oppenheimer , Joseph Grodin, Golden Gate University, Susan Rutberg and Barbara Babcock in The Great Dissents of the “Lone Dissenter” while Ninth Circuit’s William Fletcher Ruling on Matter of “Bribing Pat”
Please see @:
►http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/ninth-circuits-judge-william-fletcher-david-o
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Matter of In Re Girardi (Adjudicated by Marsha Berzon, N. Rabdy Smith, William Fletcher)and State Bar of California Special Prosecutor Jerome Falk of Howard Rice — Legal Counsel to Girardi & Keese — Complainant Reply.
Letter from Jerome Falk to Complainant, please see Here. Complainant relpy, below:
Dear Mr. Falk:
Thank you for replying to my letter of November 13th, 2011 This will serve as a reply.
In your letter dated December 7, 2011, you attempt again to defraud and mislead in your attempt to avoid responsibility for your repugnant and deceitful actions taken in connection with your actions as a special prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar of California against two of your and your firm’s clients — Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack (and by operation of law, Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack), as part of a scheme to exploit your authority for financial gain.
By analogy, rather than acknowledging that you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you seek to bamboozle the unwary by stating that it wasn’t actually your hand in the cookie jar but, rather, only your fingers, and in any event it wasn’t a jar but, rather, a plastic container which you contend doesn’t qualify as a jar. Therefore, you devote an entire paragraph proclaiming, “Your allegations are false.” You conclude by placing me on “notice” that my allegations are “false.”
The contents of your communication are unethical in the extreme, as well as entirely frivolous factually, legally, and by operation of law, to wit:
You claim, “In fact, I wasn’t aware of it” (referring to the fact that you and your firm had represented Girardi & Keese and ELL). While you acknowledge your firm (Howard Rice) did represent Girardi & Keese and ELL from 2006 to 2008 , you assert that you were not aware of this representation. Simply put, your assertion is false; it is simply implausible that for two entire years you were unaware that your firm represented such celebrity/famous/notorious attorneys such as Thomas Girardi, Walter Lack, and Pierce O’Donnell.
This is particularly true since you are a member of Howard Rice’s “attorney liability” group, which consists of between 7-9 attorneys (including your colleagues Sean SeLegue, Pamela Phillips, and Steve Mayer), and the subject matter of the litigation was a suit advanced against Girardi & Keese, ELL, and O’Donnell for legal malpractice in connection with alleged attorney misconduct in the litigation involving El Paso Natural Gas/Sempra Energy, a series of cases which received significant publicity.
I am also hard-pressed to believe that you were unaware of the estimated $250,000 retainer Girardi & Keese and ELL paid to your firm (money which paid your and your colleagues’ salaries), and that no one ever discussed this matter with you for purposes of addressing legal strategy or legal issues in person or during meetings.
Most importantly, in your letter to Robert Baker you acknowledge that you had interviewed Walter Lack. Again, you ask me to believe that Walter Lack did not mention the fact that Howard Rice represented him and his firm only one year prior to your meeting.
The fact that Walter Lack did not speak up during the interview with you is just too convenient, and is further circumstantial evidence that you and he both knew of the prior representation, and chose to nevertheless further continue with the conspiracy to obstruct justice for financial gain, to the detriment of the public and the proper administration of justice.
Mr. Jerome Falk of Howard Rice, an appellate specialist with a mercurial personality. In 2008, during an interview with a legal publication, Mr. Falk stated while describing some opposing counsel, "I would do anything to squash them. So those cases don’t settle. You just want to rip their throats out.” After visiting Vietnam, Mr. Falk joined East meets West, an organization dedicated to improving the lives of children in Vietnam. (Photo:courtesy of Vietnam, East meets West)
Your claim that Ethan Schulman took the file with him when he left Howard Rice is also suspect, as I am confident that records of transactions were and remain on Howard Rice’s computer system, including the computerized conflict check system.
Moreover, the fact that Mr. Schulman has left the firm is immaterial. Courts have held that even where the attorneys in a firm who had been primarily responsible for the representation of a client had left the law firm, there was a rebuttable presumption that they had shared client confidences with lawyers remaining with the law firm. See generally Elan Transdermal Ltd. v. Cygnus Therapeutic Systems (N.D. Cal. 1992) 809 F.Supp. 1383.
Similarly, your alleged present recollection is immaterial. See generally Civil Service Com. v. Superior Court (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 70, 79), particularly given the rule that creates a presumption that lawyers in the same firm will confer on their cases and exchange confidences.
Even if I were to accept that you and your firm did not represent Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi, and only represented the firms of Girardi & Keese and ELL (which I do not), your absurd argument still fails.
The findings of grave misconduct by the Ninth Circuit in the matter of In Re Girardi, as well as the sanctions imposed, were directed not just at Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi , but also at their law firms — your and your firm’s clients, Girardi & Keese and ELL. In fact, both Girardi & Keese and ELL were considered to have been “respondents” and were represented by counsel Robert Baker, Diane Karpman, and your MGA and Gennetech confederate — Thomas Nolan of Skadden Arps.
Since you concede that Girardi & Keese and ELL were clients of your firm, and the Ninth Circuit made findings against Girardi & Keese and ELL, it was improper for you to accept the appointment at issue. This is especially true given fiduciary duties you owe Girardi & Keese and ELL — including the duties of loyalty and confidentiality — as well as the requirement that you obtain a waiver from a client in instances in which you may take a position adverse to them.
This last prong is a bit unusual when applied to the present facts, as it differs from the usual scenario wherein an attorney has a financial incentive to be adverse to a former client. Here, and as the facts clearly provide, you had a financial incentive to not prosecute, as well as an additional incentive to not prosecute since such would have exposed you to professional discipline.
Lastly, even though plaintiff Robert Copple only named the firms and not the partners as defendants, Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack are still considered to have been your and Howard Rice’s clients by operation of law. For example If anyone would ask Howard Rice to disclose communications with Girardi & Keese regarding the suit and the representation, Howard Rice would certainly assert the attorney-client privilege.
Likewise, if Howard Rice were asked to disclose communications between itself and Thomas Girardi relating to the litigation, Howard Rice would, again, assert the attorney-client privilege with respect to Thomas Girardi; similarly, both Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi would do the same. As such, it is disingenuous for you to attempt to argue that these individuals were not clients of you and your firm.
Thank you for your time. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
►http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/12/13/ninth-circuit-court-of-appeal-matter-of-in-re-thomas-girardi-ad
@leslie j’avoue ne pas tout comprendre. Peux-tu synthétiser stp ? merci
Pamela Phillips, Sean SeLegue, Douglas Winthrop and Jerome Falk of Howard Rice Candy Falk & Rabkin Under Extreme Scrutiny as New Evidence of Alleged Conflict of Interest Discovered
Contending that Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk, acting as Special Prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar of California, repeatedly sought to subvert justice in examining attorney misconduct in the litigation against Dole Food Company, sources close to the complainant claim a new and recent discovery shows “Smoking Gun” evidence of ethical misconduct.
Jerome Falk, Douglas Winthrop, Sean SeLegue, and Pamela Phillips of Howard Rice Canady Falk & Rabkin. In 2008, during an interview with a legal publication, Mr. Falk stated while describing some opposing counsel, “I would do anything to squash them. So those cases don’t settle. You just want to rip their throats out.” He recently dominated the news in his representation of Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss in their quest to rescind a prior settlement with Facebook.
Earlier this year Jerome falk was accused of grave misconduct as a result of his decision to exonerate Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and Walter Lack of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack for misconduct the two committed while litigating a case against Dole Food Company before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
During the Ninth Circuit proceedings, and after the case against Dole was dismissed, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued an order to show cause why attorneys Walter Lack, Paul Triana, and Sean Topp of Engstrom, along with Howard Miller and Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese, should not be disbarred or suspended from practicing before the Ninth Circuit. In addition, Judge Kozinski ordered the appointments of Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Wallace Tashima as special master and Rory Little as prosecutor in those special disciplinary proceedings known as the matter of In Re Girardi.
Subsequently, in late 2010, a Ninth Circuit panel comprised of Judges William Fletcher , Marsha Berzon, and Randy Smith found that Lack and Girardi had committed grave misconduct, and ordered them to report their misconduct to the State Bar of California. The State Bar of California declared a conflict in the matter because Howard Miller, a partner of Girardi & Keese, served as President of the State Bar; accordingly, the Bar appointed an outside attorney, Jerome Falk of Howard Rice Candy Falk & Rabkin, to look into the matter.
Judge William Fletcher, a member of the Ninth Circuit panel that adjudicated the matter of In re Girardi, 08-80090, rejected the lenient recommendations of Rory Little. He stated: “with any competent lawyer if you’re omitting part of a document, that is not accidental. That is intentional.” The court adjudicated that the grave misconduct by Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi included “the persistent use of known falsehoods,” and that the “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation.
In his capacity as special prosecutor, and after reviewing the Ninth Circuit file, Falk chose to not file any disciplinary accusations against Walter Lack, stating that he believed Lack’s misconduct was not intentional. See copy of letter from Jerome Falk to Walter Lack ►http://tinyurl.com/3s2tjxz.
Once Falk’s decision was made public, a finger was pointed at him, and he was accused of having been influenced by pecuniary considerations due to the fact that Howard Rice and Skadden Arps (specifically, Falk and partner Douglas Winthrop) often litigate cases together as a team, such as in the cases of MGA vs. Mattel, Genentech and others. In addition, allegations were made that it was improper to select the firm of Howard Rice for this appointment because Douglas Winthrop, the firm’s managing partner, served as an officer of the State Bar of California. Specifically, Winthrop serves as President of a foundation maintained by the State Bar of California. See ►http://tinyurl.com/42t7zkj.
Additionally, and as part of the inquiry, Sean SeLegue and Pamela Phillips were asked to identify “[a]ny and all other factors or facts that would cause a reasonable person to entertain doubts as to the impartiality of Howard Rice and its members in the proceedings at issue, including the disclosure of relationships between members of the firm and others.” See ►http://tinyurl.com/3eotzfs.
The State Bar of California Board of Governors’ RAD Committee conducted its own investigation and retained special counsel to investigate this matter. The special master recommended that the matter be closed because there was no showing that Falk and Winthrop engaged in any misconduct; the RAD Committee adopted this recommendation. See ►http://tinyurl.com/3s82ac4 and ►http://tinyurl.com/3rjqm3v.
According to the sources, the newly discovered "Smoking Gun” evidence relates to the fact that starting in 2005, the law firm of Howard Rice Candy Falk & Rabkin represented both Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack in a class action advanced by plaintiff Robert Copple.
As such, the sources maintain, Jerome Falk and Howard Rice were under a duty to reject the appointment, and to otherwise disclose the fact that Walter Lack, Thomas Girardi, Girardi & Keese, and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack were clients of the firm.
To view the case of Copple vs. Astrella, please visit : ►http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20061271442FSupp2d829_11197.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2.