64th Installment. The Philip E. Kay Calumny

kanBARoo court began with a case (mine) illustrating the State Bar's legal incompetence; today we begin to look at a case where the State Bar takes incompetence to its culmination in a discipline proceeding to disbar a lawyer because he is too competent. The 129-page Notice of Disciplinary Charges delves into the bowels of the trial process to reinforce biased judges' control by disbarring an attorney with demonstrated ability to persuade juries, despite these judges' best efforts to shield Kay's giant corporate opponents, which include Ralphs Grocery Stores and the international law firm Baker & McKenzie.

The Notice of Dislciplinary Charges summarizes the charges at paragraph 375:

By repeatedly making speaking objections, gratuitous comments, asking the identical or near identical question to questions that had been asked and/or objections sustained to, and arguing in front of the Gober I, Gober II, and Marsicz juries during the evidentiary phase of the trial; by repeating making motions in front of these juries, including motions for mistrial and a motion for a directed verdict, despite the courts' warnings and orders and sustaining of motions to strike and objections; by repeatedly making improper and false accusations against counsels and the courts; by repeatedly suggesting, implying, and directly stating to juries that there was other evidence of misconduct that he were prevented from presenting to these juries; that his clients were being denied a fair hearing; that the evidence of the opposing parties' misconduct was being improperly suppressed or hidden from the juries, in violation of court orders not to disclose information; by repeatedly being rude and unprofessional to the courts and opposing counsels, by repeatedly violating his duties as an officer of the court to act professionally and respectfully to the court, opposing counsels, and other parties; and by his repeated failure to abide by the court's orders and ruling, and assist in the pursuit of the court proceedings, respondent Kay wilfully committed an act or acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption.

Ordinary courtroom tactics! Ever since a juvenile Sonia Sotomayor learned law by watching Perry Mason on TV, everyone has known that attorneys don't obey every judicial command or abide by every provision of the law of evidence. Any nonprofessional recalls how at the end of a strong line of inquiry, Perry or D.A. Burger would ask an improper question, only to withdraw it immediately. Like playing pinball, a trial lawyer must play close to the edge of losing by tilt. Unlike pinball, legal rule boundaries aren't mechanically fixed; they vary from court to court, for one reason because judges will hesitate to invoke their terrible contempt powers while they themselves commit misconduct. A pinball player hasn't tilted unless he forfeits; an attorney in open court hasn't culpably violated a court order unless held in contempt. The State Bar has become the instrument of biased judges seeking vindication proven unjustified by their reluctance to hold Philip Kay in contempt of court.


This Installment begins a series on the Philip E. Kay State Bar Matter. The following subinstallments will discuss the threat to all lawyers of the State Bar's ability to bring moral-turpitude charges for common trial tactics; the State Bar's fee-splitting charges; the significance of belated charging (7-year investigation of a matter based on public record); and more.

kanBARoo Court. 53rd Installment. State Bar v. Equal Protection of the Law

When the State Bar disciplines an attorney for violating court rules and orders restricting filings and in-court statements, the State Bar regulates speech, and restraints on speech must not exceed First and Fourteenth Amendment limits. Alleging violation of attorney free-speech rights is the reflexive reaction to State Bar interference in speech regulation, an approach that hasn't won and won't, but to the State Bar's delight, the same facts elicit the same self-defeating reflex from respondents.

The First Amendment-based Canatella line of cases confuses some California State Bar Court respondents, as the minor victory in Canatella v. State of California (9th Cir. 2002) 304 F.3d 843 ("Canatella 1") obscures the egregiousness of Canatella v. Stovitz (N.D. Cal. 2005) 365 F.Supp.2d 1064 ("Canatella 2"). Canatella 1 seduces attorneys to repeat instead of learn from the Canatella 2 mistakes. Canatella 1 found that the Younger abstention doctrine, which protects ongoing state proceedings from federal court interference, did not compel case dismissal, since Canatella filed before the State Bar served him a case-initiating Notice of Disciplinary Charges. Canatella 1 also held the case, seeking prospective relief, wasn't subject to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which applies to cases seeking review of state-court decisions. Canatella's case ripened before the State Bar acted, when a new violation put the previously disciplined but unrepentant Canatella on a collision course with the State Bar. Canatella skillfully maneuvered around the restrictions of Younger abstention, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, ripeness, and mootness, to find a way to federal court. But his narrow procedural victory allowed a hearing due only to special circumstances, and the holding is usable by few respondents. Having decided these procedural preliminaries, the Ninth Circuit ordered the Northern California District Court to try the case. The district court rejected Canatella's petition on the merits.

Canatella 1 established a narrow procedural point significantly increasing the State Bar respondents' degrees of freedom, but Canatella 1, contrary to the impression of some, is far from the most important prorespondent disciplinary result obtained in federal court. That honor belongs to Standing Committee on Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of CA v. Yagman (9th Cir. 1995) 55 F.3d 1430. Yagman had publicly stated that a district court judicial officer, Judge Keller, was dishonest, had a "penchant for sanctioning Jews," and was "drunk on the bench." The Ninth Circuit dismissed the disciplinary action against respondent Yagman, holding "lawyers' statements unrelated to a matter pending before the court may be sanctioned only if they pose a clear and present danger to the administration of justice." (Yagman, supra, at p. 1443.) Yagman not only set a strong affirmative precedent but helped limit a U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly impaired attorneys' free-speech rights. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada (1991) 501 U.S. 1030 held that in ongoing or pending litigation, the standard of "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" can impose a standard weaker than clear and present danger for restraining attorney speech. Yagman clarifies that "when lawyers speak out on matters unconnected to a pending case, there is no direct and immediate impact on the fair trial rights of litigants." (Yagman, supra.)

Two mistakes, two First Amendment reflexes, confuse respondents who duplicate Canatella 2's mistakes. The first is the concept that an attorney has personal free-speech rights in court representing litigants. This mistaken reasoning has confused attorneys so they argued the First Amendment protects filing frivolous motions. The leading cases' rhetoric fosters the view that attorneys have some personal free-speech rights in the courtroom, but it leads naught. The standing aphorism is that "attorneys and other trial participants do not lose their constitutional rights at the courthouse door.” (Levine v. U.S. District Ct. for the C. Dist. of Cal. (9th Cir. 1985) 764 F.2d 590, 595.) The Canatella 2 court puts the Levine holding in perspective: "The United States Supreme Court has held that 'in the courtroom itself, during a judicial proceeding, whatever right to "free speech" an attorney has is extremely circumscribed.'" (Canatella 2, supra, at p. 1071, citing Gentile.) Gentile remained a problem for Canatella and remains problematic for other State Bar respondents who assert free speech rights during pending procedures. Exuberance about attorney free-speech rights typically ignores distinctions between the attorneys' personal rights and their clients' rights. When courts announce that rights don't stop at the courthouse door, they impliedly speak of the represented parties' rights, not their attorney's personal rights. But the distinction is unstated, the Gentile court appearing to have in mind the attorney's personal rights when the court described their slenderness in an ongoing case. Systematic confusion between the two rights bearers diminishes litigants' First Amendment right to petition for redress. The concurring opinion in another Ninth Circuit case captures the real state of the law on attorney free speech rights:

I believe [Sacher v. United States (1952) 343 U.S. 1] and Gentile are potentially misleading: although they discuss the in court First Amendment rights of lawyers, in fact those rights do not have any independent substance. In the courtroom, during a judicial proceeding, an attorney's "First Amendment" rights depend exclusively on his client's trial rights. The attorney may speak only to the extent that his client's rights allow him to speak.” [Citation.] (Zal v. Steppe (9th Cir. 1992) 968 F.2d 924, 931 (conc. opn. of Trott, J.).)

Gentile's practical import is that in 1991 it had already foreclosed opposing disbarment for frivolous filings because they are believed expressive. Even though the specific speech involved in Gentile was highly public speech, the holding enveloped filings too, since it dealt generally with attorney speech relating to a pending case.

More important than the distracting confusions about an attorney's personal free-speech rights in court is the second type of mistake in opposing the State Bar's speech restraints: the persistent failure to distinguish State Bar discipline from contempt actions in California courts of record. Repeating Canatella's mistakes means, foremost, failing to distinguish State Bar discipline for violations of orders and rules from their imposition by the courts. Just as no one questions the legality of sanctions imposed for frivolous motions, more severe sanctions imposed for contempt are ordinarily valid, but the penalties should be invalidated when authorized under State Bar law rather than the court's contempt powers, the State Bar's threat qualitatively more onerous than a contempt. When attorneys test an order's validity by refusing to obey, they assume the risk they will pay a fine or even spend days in jail, whereas no attorney would test a contempt order risking State Bar discipline; the highly subjective exception for reasonable good-faith justification only dents the risk. State Bar intervention in court affairs by disciplining disobedient attorneys, consequently, impugns California's public policy allowing parties to challenge orders by conduct.

American Civil Liberties Union v. The Florida Bar (11th Cir. 1993) 999 F.2d 1486 shows how the intervention of State Bar disciplinary machinery chills advocacy much more than the threat of a contempt citation. Florida attorney Schack was running for judge, but the language of the Bar rules, which the State Bar had previously applied to limit judicial candidates' speech, cast doubt on whether exposing an opponent's corrupt practices violated rules about maintaining the dignity of office even before its attainment. Yet the State Bar refused Schack's request for an advisory opinion. Complains the Eleventh Circuit, "Thus, with two weeks remaining until the election, Schack was faced with the choice of risking possible disciplinary action by the Bar [and a related agency], or self-censoring his proposed campaign speech, despite his belief that this speech was protected under the First Amendment." (Id., at p. 1489.) Civil penalties as might apply to non-lawyers are not so paralyzing.

The argument that State Bar intervention in speech regulation singles out attorneys for harsher treatment is an equal-protection argument, rather than a free-speech argument. Lawyers and their clients are deprived of the equal protection of the law when litigants are permitted to invalidate orders by contesting a contempt citation, or violate rules and risk only monetary sanction, while the State Bar's much harsher penalties effectively compel automatic attorney compliance with all court orders. This argument's chances are better than the failed free speech arguments; Gentile's four-justice dissent shows that judges can scorn unfair and unnecessary laws exclusively targeting attorneys:

At the very least, our cases recognize that disciplinary rules governing the legal profession cannot punish activity protected by the First Amendment, and that First Amendment protection survives even when the attorney violates a disciplinary rule he swore to obey when admitted to the practice of law. [Citations.] We have not in recent years accepted our colleagues' apparent theory that the practice of law brings with it comprehensive restrictions, or that we will defer to professional bodies when those restrictions impinge upon first Amendment freedoms. And none of the justifications put forward by respondent suffice to sanction abandonment of our normal First Amendment principles in the case of speech by an attorney regarding pending cases. (Gentile, supra, at p. 1054 (lead & dis. opn. of Kennedy, J.).)

State Bar-imposed speech restraints, even when unobjectionable in themselves, should be invalidated, since superimposed on the laws governing nonattorney litigants, they amount to a comprehensively restrictive regime impinging the fundamental right to the law's equal protection.

kanBARoo Court. 41st Installment. Defying Court Orders

What do journalists and lawyers have in common? Members of both professions have had to suffer time in jail for disobeying court orders, journalists to protect their sources, lawyers for zealously pursuing the interests of their clients. If unjust laws deserve breaking, oppressive court orders sometimes deserve the contempt they get. Notwithstanding this democratic axiom, the California State Bar may discipline an attorney and even disbar him for disobeying a court order, and the State Bar has passionately pursued these prerogatives. (See, for example, In the Matter of Respondent X, A Member of the State Bar (1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 592.)

While not the equal of the Dred Scott court, the U.S. Supreme Court made an infamous decision affirming a duty to obey court orders, no matter how invalid, in Walker v. City of Birmingham. In its effort to suppress the civil rights movement, the Alabama courts restrained the rights of protesters to assemble peacefully during the public-accommodations sit-in movement. While no justices would dispute that the Alabama injunction was invalid on First Amendment grounds, the Supreme Court held in a 5 to 4 decision that convictions for violating the order must stand. According to the majority Alabama had the right to prohibit collateral attack on all orders issued by the state courts. (See Walker v. City of Birmingham (1967) 388 U.S. 307.)

Three dissenting opinions, each signed by all at least three dissenting justices, eloquently criticized the majority opinion and memorialized disobedience's constructive role. As Justice Brennan stated:

The vitality of First Amendment protections has... been deemed to rest in large measure upon the ability of the individual to take his chances and express himself in the face of such restraints, armed with the ability to challenge those restraints if the State seeks to penalize that expression… [R]emember the stern lesson history taught courts, in the context of the labor injunction, that the ex parte injunction represents the most devastating of restraints on constitutionally protected activities. (Walker v. City of Birmingham, supra, 388 U.S. at pp. 345-346 [Dissent, J. Brennan].)

In California one has the right to test any court order by disobeying it and then proving its invalidity in the ensuing contempt trial. Hence, no wrong has been proven against a respondent until the violator is found guilty of contempt of court. But the State Bar Court construes the statutory terms to mandate discipline without a contempt proceeding in California's constitutional courts. Under Business and Professions Code section 6103:

A willful disobedience or violation of an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of his profession, which he ought in good faith to do or forbear … constitute causes for disbarment or suspension.

The State Bar construes the statute to give the State Bar jurisdiction based on the Bar's view of whether the attorney "ought in good faith to do or forbear" as ordered. The State Bar's interpretation is wrong for two reasons: (1) similar provisions do not apply until the courts have tried the matter; and (2) disciplining untried acts of disobedience to court orders is against California public policy. For the first, Commission of a felony warrants disbarment but usually only after actual conviction. The State Bar does not presume to try the felony itself. For the second:

In this state a person affected by an injunctive order has available to him two alternative methods by which he may challenge the validity of such order on the ground that it was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction. He may consider it a more prudent course to comply with the order while seeking a judicial declaration as to its jurisdictional validity. [Citation.] On the other hand, he may conclude that the exigencies of the situation or the magnitude of the rights involved render immediate action worth the cost of peril. In the latter event, such a person . . . may disobey the order and raise his jurisdictional contentions when he is sought to be punished . . . . (In re Berry (1968) 68 Cal.2d 137, 148-149).

The State Bar respondent accused of violating a court order can prove the order was invalid, although even that much was denied by the dissent in Respondent X, supra. Proof in the State Bar Court is not beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a contempt trial. Unlike a serious contempt trial, no jury of one's peers finds guilt. Rather, guilt is always decided by a single sub-constitutional judge. The absence of contempt charges, moreover, usually means the Superior Court judge did not think the disobedience sufficiently odious.

Lawyers often have the best reasons for disobeying court orders. The State Bar wields a double standard, by which the State Bar enforces court orders against lawyers with stringency greater than as applies to other citizens, ironically depriving lawyers of the law's equal protection for professional judgments central to advocacy. State-Bar respondents should challenge Business and Professions Code section 6103's unconstitutional application, which allows discipline without an underlying contempt proceeding. Better, the Legislature should repeal the entire statute. The courts have terrible contempt powers, sufficing to enforce court orders, violation not proving unfitness to practice.

kanBARoo Court. 30A Installment. Collateral Estoppel as a Tool of Judicial Bias in the Richard Fine Matter

Although Richard I. Fine’s supposedly corrupt motive for filing motions deemed frivolous formed the crux of the State Bar's case against him, the State Bar Court also made a strained attempt to allege dishonesty, lending a comic aspect to its account. A dispute arose over an apparent Freudian slip by a Superior Court judge in his statement of refusal to disqualify one Commissioner Mitchell, when that Superior Court judge, hearing Fine's motion to disqualify, contradicted himself. The judge wrote that Fine's objections were unfounded and also wrote that Commissioner Mitchell had been "not impartial.” Later, the Superior Court judge announced he had not intended the negation. Judge Honn concluded that Fine had lied to the Court of Appeal about the contents of the Superior Court judge's opinion, when Fine insisted the opinion was actually self-contradictory.

Judge Honn claimed the Superior Court judge had clearly made a “typographical error.” The characterization is curiously inaccurate, and it reveals how Judge Honn wears his bias on his sleeve. This is a most strange "typographical error," a term that "includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger, but excludes errors of ignorance." (Wikipedia.) If the Superior Court judge successfully maintained his mistake was clerical in nature, he is entitled to correct it sua sponte, but the source of his mistake, if it was a mistake, looks to be his confusing the meaning of "partial" and "impartial," not a clerk typing the wrong alpha-numeric. Small gestures, such as mislabeling one contender's errors, are often key to detecting judicial bias. Although respondent Fine was entitled to a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof, Judge Honn tilted the playing field in the opposite direction, when he used a euphemism for the supposed error.

The Bar Court determined that Fine misrepresented the Superior Court judge’s opinion, treating Fine's disagreement with a judge as though it were dishonesty. No doubt the disagreement was serious, as Fine challenged the judge on characterizing judicial intent. But Fine was entitled to challenge the judge’s characterization, and entitled to treat the document as meaning what it literally said. The State Bar Court's finding by clear and convincing that the judge had made a typographical error expresses genuine absurdity, besides absurd pettiness.

But wait! Did the court even have to evaluate the evidence? In evaluating the typographical error matter, the Bar Court claimed to have conducted an independent evaluation, but in supporting many of its conclusions, the court applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to Fine's contempt conviction. A contempt conviction is essentially a criminal matter, and while the applicable standard of proof is more than adequate, other problems should have deterred using the contempt conviction to effect issue preclusion. California courts do apply collateral estoppel liberally, having abrogated the traditional requirement of mutuality, but liberality in the formal requirements must be balanced by greater exercise of judgment. When applying collateral estoppel, California law requires that the courts address whether the specific application of the doctrine serves the interest of justice. (People v. Taylor (1974) 12 Cal.3d 686, 695.) Collateral estoppel based on criminal judgments is controversial in jurisprudence and requires particular scrutiny.

Two considerations should have led the court to decline to collaterally estop Fine: incomplete finality of judgment and differential motive to defend. Collateral estoppel requires finality in the collaterally applied judgment, but criminal judgments necessarily lack a civil judgment’s degree of finality, because they are subject to collateral attack for reasons intrinsic to the case. Reasonably, if you suffer a criminal conviction, it may be reversed, if say, witnesses condemned you by committing perjury, whereas, in a civil case, you must attack the perjury in the case itself. Fine's allegations of de facto bribery of Superior Court Judges amounts to an allegation of intrinsic and extrinsic fraud, which warrants collateral attack, since Fine's conviction is only as strong as his underlying civil case against the County is weak. Since Fine was still contesting the civil action, the contempt conviction lacked the requisite finality. The other implicated criterion, equal incentive to defend, requires that Fine have the same motivation to litigate the contempt conviction as the disbarment. Unlike disbarment, contempt is not inherently ignominious. Disbarment, moreover, is a more serious penalty than spending three days in the local jail. Fine lacked the same motivation to defend the contempt action as the disbarment, and the contempt conviction, consequently, was not probative for his disbarment case.

The court offered no analysis of whether applying collateral estoppel to the contempt conviction served the interest of justice. The court would then have to consider Fine’s contentions. The State Bar Court’s disregard for respondent argument is damning in general but expressly unlawful when the court applies collateral estoppel.

kanBARoo Court. 29th Installment. Why was the Arkansas Disbarment of Bill Clinton Unethical and Unlawful?

One event demolished the State Bar establishment’s effective reliance on disbarment as a mark of Cain, to anchor coercive power: the 5-year disbarment of a sitting U.S. President, when the Arkansas Supreme Court disciplined then-President Bill Clinton, after a majority of the U.S. Senate failed to convict, and not a single Democratic Senator voted for conviction. The outcomes implied that one may be ethically qualified for the United States Presidency, yet lack the morals to practice law in Arkansas, a conclusion that the cynical and the idealistic both must reject. Either the U.S. Senate or the State of Arkansas’s State Bar Court equivalent was out of touch with American morals, and it wasn’t the Senate. Clinton's approval rating soon rose to an unprecedented 73%.

Clinton was disbarred based on a federal district court's order citing Clinton for contempt in the Jennifer Flowers proceeding. The allegedly contumacious conduct consisted of false statements Clinton provided in deposition, violating the court's discovery order. The court focused on two false statements: that Clinton had never been alone with Monica Lewinsky and that he had never had sexual relations with her. The Arkansas Supreme Court, through its Bar-apparatus, invoked Arkansas professional practice rules 8.4(c) and 8.4(d), which make it professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice

For one living and litigating under the California Constitution, which declares privacy on par with life and liberty in its inalienability, requiring under the Federal Rules that a litigant inform on his sexual partners seems barbaric. Without a direct showing of relevance to the present lawsuit, a federal plaintiff can force exposure of the most personal information. While a court should assign some culpability for the generalized offense of lying in court, it should also consider the altered ethical context, depending on the personal decision the respondent actually faced. Bar Rules typically distinguish different grades of unethical conduct, and the Arkansas rules offer this discussion of moral turpitude:

Comment [2] (Moral turpitude)
Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of offenses carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction was drawn in terms of offenses involving "moral turpitude." That concept can be construed to include offenses concerning some matters of personal morality, such as adultery and comparable offenses, that have no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law. Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.

There are other relevant measures of ethical magnitude, however, such as between breach of basic moral rule (malum in se) and breach of administrative regulation (malum prohibitum). Both malum in se and malum prohibitum infractions have some ethical relevance, but only malum in se violations are usually taken to indicate turpitude, because malum prohibitum infractions reflect only the single trait of law abidingness. While the rule against lying in sworn proceedings is malum in se in form, the underlying obligation to allow routine discovery of one’s sexual partners is malum prohibitum. There is no moral inevitability today for judicial access to all information potentially relevant to civil litigation; no moral inevitability today to afford civil litigants easy intrusion into an opponent’s sexual relationships; no moral inevitability today about holding the threat of future judicial inquest over every unconventional private act a person performs. California privacy law proves the absence of such moral inevitability. Lying to protect personal information from an ethically dubious intrusion is malum in se, insofar as it involves lying, and malum prohibitum, insofar as it involves a failure to comply with the discovery order requiring disclosure. The Arkansas Supreme Court Bar arm didn't consider the ethical dimension in sufficient depth, because it responded with the bureaucratic reflex and moralistic rigidity typical of the State Bar establishment, using the single amorphous concept of moral turpitude to erase distinctions.

The ethical crudeness of the Clinton disbarment decision, however, was not its main failing. The Arkansas Supreme Court should have been subject to federal preemption. It exceeded its jurisdiction in disciplining a President for his conduct as a Federal office-holder. The states have no jurisdiction to control the exercise of Presidential power or of the President's performance of his duties.

The court might have agreed, as it created the impression of imposing the sanction for conduct it observed during the Flowers proceeding, involving personal rather than Presidential conduct. Clinton’s grand jury testimony during the Special Prosecutor’s investigation of his Presidential conduct impeached his Flowers testimony, said the court, but the same logic allows that the Flowers testimony impeached Clinton’s statements to the Starr grand jury. While the district court judge wrote that she directly observed the contumacious conduct, she was mistaken in her evidentiary characterization. She actually observed only a conflict between two testimonial acts. The judge observed or was entitled to take judicial notice of a conflict between Clinton's testimony in his Flowers deposition and his testimony before the Kenneth Starr grand jury, indicating that in one of the two instances of testimony, Clinton was lying, leaving the question a mixed State and federal law question, pre-empted by federal law. The Arkansas court was not entitled to disbar Clinton.