Thank you for the prompt reply.
1. As far as Mr. Raoul Kennedy’s relationship with Skadden Arps,
thank you for the information and obviously I stand corrected. My
recollection was that up until the end of 2014 Mr. Kennedy was a
“partner” (and not “of counsel”) at Skadden and that is where I was
looking for his name — under the heading of partners. Incidentally,
I have also noticed a similar sudden change in the status of Mr. Alec
Chang from “partner” to that of “of counsel”, which I am sure is also
the result of Skadden’s good faith business needs.
2. In order to better analyze the potential conflict — and while
keeping in mind that it is perfectly OK for judges to assume the role
of plaintiff and for there to be minimal resulting interruptions to
the firm which chose to assume the representation as far as conflicts
of interest and disqualifications — I ask that you send me a copy of
the complaint and all other pleadings, as well as a list of the
members of the class and those who chose to opt-out.
As far as the statute you mentioned, as applied to the facts at hand
it is not on point. The crux of the statute is that the fact that a
justice is represented by counsel shall not be the sole basis for a
judicial determination of disqualification of a justice in unrelated
actions. In essence, the fact that Justice Vance Raye, for example,
is represented by Skadden/Kennedy shall not be the SOLE basis for
request for judicial disqualification in unrelated actions. First,
this statute does not pass the common sense test because what you are
advocating is that if Skadden/Kennedy is representing Justice Vance
Raye in a personal injury matter against a restaurant, for example, I
will be prohibited from seeking to disqualify Raye in this case —
that does not make sense. Second, this statute applies only to ONE
justice, and in the case at hand Mr. Kennedy represents (as of now and
assuming none chose to opt out) the entire qualified panel of justices
of the Third District. Third, and most importantly, per the statute,
the representation must be the “sole” basis. Here, the
representations of Skadden/ Kennedy is NOT the sole basis. Rather,
there is an additional basis for the disqualification — which is the
fact that Skadden itself is also a DEFENDANT in the “unrelated
action,” and as was previously mentioned, as of February 15, Raoul
Kennedy himself (as well as Chang, Nolan, and various Skadden clients whom Skadden colluded with Girardi & Keese and who benefited from unlawfully retaliating against me) will be named in the upcoming federal action. For purposes of full disclosure, please note that I did not conduct any further legal research in analyzing the statute and my position is based only on what you forwarded to me as anattachment.
As such, if there is a case that you want me to read to
in support of Skadden’s contention, please forward it to me.
Otherwise, I will seek to disqualify any and all judicial officers who
are clients of your firm.
In fact, my position is that under the circumstances your firm and its
clients — each on its own accord — had a duty to make a disclosure
of such relationship. I am enclosing for your convenience a “comment” written for the “California Judges Association” which clearly states that there are other consideration other than 811.9 that must be taken into consideration.
Note also that also as a taxpayer and resident of California I already
have concerns over this litigation relating mainly to the fact that
the venue chosen to represent a Second District Court of Appeal
Justice was his own, and the fact that a determination was made that
the rule of necessity applies to Judge Elihu Berle whereas the
Judicial Council could have chosen a judge which was not part of the
class i.e. a recently appointed judge or a retired judge, such as
Leslie Nichols who retired prior to 2008.
3. In connection with Mr. Chang, I have also noticed that he no longer practices out of any of Skadden’s offices in California and is
otherwise listed as practicing out of New York. At your earliest, I
will appreciate if you provide me with the date — for purposes of
SOL/tolling of SOL — that Mr. Chang allegedly left California for New
4. Please note that hence forth, with the exception of pro-per
parties (i.e. MoFo, Girardi & Keese, KVN, MTO, Arnold & Porter) any
and all other attorneys with paying clients (i.e. Zellerbach, Kapor,
UC, Yolo DA, Friedman), will no longer be ccd on this topic in order
to prevent the spending of unnecessary legal fees by their clients.