Tuesday, December 18, 2007

kanBARoo Court. 18A Installment. The State Bar's Pre-Trial Statement & My Letter to the Court

A bonus accruing from the Hearing Department's abruptly vacating all the trial dates is that I received a premature copy of the State Bar's Pre-Trial Statement. Here is the State Bar's official view the charges, incorporating, as expected, all the ambiguities of the notice of disciplinary charges and expressing its oblique theory of strict ethical liability.

In this matter, Respondent is alleged to have formed a partnership with a non-attorney to form and operate a personal injury practice. After doing so, the non-attorney, Jae Bum Kim, and a number of employees he hired, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, by, among other things, signing up clients and negotiating settlements with little or no supervision from Respondent.

Respondent is alleged to have created the environment in the office in which the staff engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Then, he is alleged to have, among other things, failed to notify the clients of the receipt of settlement funds, failed to maintain client funds in a CTA, failed to respond to the clients, caused or permitted settlement checks to be endorsed and negotiated without the client's knowledge or consent, failed to pay medical liens, and failed to release client files.


An irony is that the prosecutrix's recent attempt at fraud on the court was assisted by clerks, for whose conduct the Presiding Judge has ultimate supervisory responsibility. My cover letter to Judge Honn, conveying the news of the prosecutrix's deceit, reflects this irony:
Attn: Judge Honn
Dear Judge Honn:
My case began with a conspiracy of clerks, who among numerous other deceits, filtered from my mail any inculpating correspondence . It appears that you too are victim of a conspiracy involving clerks.
I am communicating ex parte out of dire necessity. DTC Lawrence, colluding with at least one court clerk, has inter-meddled with the court records to cause the rejection or other deflection of filings. The documents enclosed have been mailed for filing and served in proper fashion. If they suffer the fate of my opposition to motion to enter default (December 12, 2007 order), I know of no other way than direct communication to bring the problem to the court's attention.
Yours truly,
Stephen R. Diamond

No comments: