Gary Zerman is a practicing attorney in California, who has taken on as his mission creating real judicial accountability through the removal of judicial immunity.  He is Legal Counsel for Jail4Judges (see http://www.jail4judges.org).

Prior to his involvement with Jail4Judges, he identified the need for judicial accountability; when he met Ron Branson, Founder of Jail4Judges, it was a fit for them both.  Gary Zerman often hosts the radio call-in program on http://www.CrusadeRadio.Com where he speaks to this topic.  His theories are described herein, as he was working to set up CURBB (Citizens United to Reform Bench & Bar).  Although CURBB did not become a formal organization, Gary is continuing his work now with Ron Branson.

See also, Zerman Response, which shows further the quality thinking and concise identification by Gary of the issues regarding our judiciary.

CITIZENS UNITED TO REFORM BENCH & BAR - CURBB

What is Curbb?  Curbb is a non-profit citizens' organization that seeks to reform and improve the legal system by returning the legal system to the public, the people - YOU.  CURBB seeks to make the legal system again accountable to the public that it supposes to serve - YOU.

CURBB was founded by two attorneys, each who independently came to the conclusion that the legal system for some time has been causing more controversy than it is resolving; a system that also is much too inefficient and much too costly.  The founding attorneys also concluded that for the most part they could not practice law as honest attorneys.  And the other side of that coin?  That those attorneys who cut the corners, who lied and cheated, largely were/are the ones that were/are prospering.

If honest attorneys can not navigate through our current legal system - ask yourself what chance to YOU, the ordinary citizen have at getting justice?

Why CURBB?  Because it is an indisputable conclusion that the legal system is now generally perceived by the public as unfair and unworkable.  (See 12-11-93 LA Times p. A3 article "Confidence in Court System Dips" and 12-11-93 Daily Journal front page article "Californians see Unfairness in Court System").  Note:  We do not have those articles posted to this net site.

Because even the attorneys really are not happy with our legal system.  (See 3-4-92 P.3 Daily Journal article "Fax Poll Finds Attorneys Aren't Happy With Work" which reported that over 50% of responding attorneys "said they were either 'so unhappy I'd change careers," or 'unhappy, but inert'" and "that fully 73% of them don't want their babies growing up to be lawyers").  Note:  We do not have that article posted to this net site.

But as Edmund Burke stated "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."  As will be shown below, it is clear, not only that too many good attorneys and too many good judges have done NOTHING, but that bad attorneys and bad judges simply have had their way.  Fortunately, some attorneys are doing something about it!  (See 10-14-93 Daily Journal article "Lawyers are Starting to Air Dirty Linen" and "The Betrayed Profession:  Lawyering at the End of the Twentieth Century (1994) by Sol M. Linowitz, Charles Scribner's Sons).  Note:  We do not have that article posted to this net site.  For the book, go to Suggested Reading page.

Because it is an indisputable conclusion that the Commission on Judicial Performance and the California State Bar, our state agencies responsible for investigating and disciplining, respectively judges and attorneys - simply are not doing their jobs.  In fact, the proof is clear that rather than protecting the public from miscreant judges and attorneys, the Commission and the Bar largely are NOT doing anything about it.  Worse yet in several cases these agencies have protected the miscreants.

Why Curbb?  Because it is YOUR legal system.  Because it is YOUR government.  Because it is YOUR Commission and YOUR State Bar.  Because it is YOUR tax dollars that pay the salaries of YOUR judges and YOUR Commission staff and it is YOUR government that gives the offices to judges and the licenses to attorneys to practice law.

Because, very simply it is YOUR basic right to have an honest legal system.  Because YOU deserve and should tolerate nothing less than an honest legal system.  Because, very simply YOU can demand that YOU have an honest legal system.

Who is CURBB?  As mentioned above CURBB was founded by two attorneys.  However the only way that CURBB can be successful is that concerned citizens - the public, the people - YOU recognize just how grave the problems are in YOUR legal system, and then assume the task, with CURBB (and other citizen groups) to take back and reform YOUR legal system.

Again as will be shown below, it is clear that the Commission and State Bar for the most part have ignored their respective task of disciplining miscreant judges and attorneys; in fact they in large measure protect and serve the miscreants.  Concerned citizens - YOU must take up this task of reform.  Otherwise, we only deserve the legal system, the government - that we let happen.

How will CURBB work?  CURBB intends to research and identify the gravest problems confronting YOUR legal system and then seek public commentary on those problems.  The major problem?  Judges and attorneys controlling YOUR legal system - particularly the investigation and discipline of themselves.  CURBB wants to change this situation and wants to return the legal system to the public, the people - YOU.

CURBB will also monitor the activities of the Judiciary, the Commission and the State Bar and collect data on their failures to do their duties, which will be reported to the public - YOU.  CURBB also intends to propose, sponsor and enact public initiatives that will confront and solve these problems and return the legal system back to the public - back to honesty, integrity and justice.

CURBB is desirous of working with the Legislature, but frankly is skeptical, if not cynical, because of its past failures to even recognize the problems, much less their solutions.  In fact, in large measure its actions have created many of the problems by giving such extreme latitude and privilege to the judiciary, the Commission and the State Bar.  The Legislature has time after time, enacted severely compromised reform that has bowed to the wishes of the bench and bar, which has only worsened the problems and delayed real reform.

When does CURBB start?  Now!  In fact CURBB has already taken its first steps.  CURBB is presently seeking concerned citizens to join.  CURBB's only requirements are that YOU be concerned about the dire state that YOUR legal system is in and that YOU are willing to take up the task and challenge of reform.  Honest judges, attorneys and legislators will also be welcome.  CURBB seeks those who can volunteer their time, services, supplies and monetary donations.  CURBB has already done considerable research and collected voluminous data on some of the problems now facing our legal system.  (See examples below).  CURBB in the very near future plans to sponsor a radio program entitled "LAWTALK" - which will be the court of public opinion on YOUR legal system.  "LAWTALK" will be a weekly (Thursdays at 7:00 p.m.) 1-hour show on KIEV, 870 AM that discusses the problems in YOUR legal system and seeks public commentary - YOUR'S - on solutions.

Our current legal system has erected a privileged class of judges and attorneys, who for themselves and the wealthy and well connected, very often manipulate our legal system to their own improper ends.  Our current legal system in large measure no longer is concerned with the legal issues confronting average citizens - YOU and largely no longer serves the community, the public interest - YOU.  And where concerned, the legal system comes at way too much cost and at way too much effort.  The time to reform our current legal system is now!  The time to work for a better, open and fair legal system is now!

The Commission on Judicial Performance.  The Commission presently consists of nine members: 5 (the majority) are judges appointed by the Supreme Court; 2 are lawyers appointed by the State Bar; and only 2 lay - public (appointed by the governor, approved by a Senate majority).  Clearly, the deck is stacked against the public interest - stacked against YOU.

Each year the commission publishes what appears at first blush, to be an impressive annual report that exclaims that its "primary duty is to investigate charges of willful misconduct in office [committed by judges]..."  However a closer second look, readily shows that the Commission not only fails to investigate most of those charges, but also fails to hand down virtually any meaningful discipline on those judges that have in fact committed willful misconduct.  (Call the Commission at (415) 557-2503 and request a copy of its annual report).

First, it should be noted that judges have immunity for all acts they commit while on the bench. (See Miracles v. Watch (1991) U.S. and the incredible Stump v. Sparkman (1978) 435 U.S. 349.  Also see the 3-30-92 P. 7 Daily Journal article "Taking the Hard Knocks of Judicial Immunity").  Note:  These cited cases are included on this web site under Cases of Judicial Misconduct and the referenced article is found on Newspaper/Magazine page, under Judicial Misconduct page.

Second, that complaints, the investigation of them, and most of the discipline action taken against judges are confidential and conducted in almost total secrecy.  The public simply does not know what happens and is intentionally kept in the dark. See the August 16, 1994 P. A3 LA Times article "Panel to Probe Actions of Federal Circuit [9th] Judge" which reports in pertinent part that:

"In a highly unusual move... a special committee [will] investigate charges that [a] federal judge [Andrew Hauk - 81]... is unable to discharge his duties because of  'a mental disability.  [Who] "has long been criticized by numerous attorneys... women's and minority organizations for... intemperate and unpredictable courtroom behavior."  [The article further reports about one judge of that circuit since 1961, stating he] "could remember no instance in his tenure when a judge in the nine-state circuit was publicly disciplined, with the exception of Nevada federal Judge Harry Claiborne, who was impeached by the U.S. Senate in 1986 after being convicted on income tax evasion charges in 1984."

(See also the following articles:  8-25-94 Daily Journal P. 6 "In Defense of the Indefensible Judge Hauk" and 8-31-93 Daily Journal front page "Circuit Slams Hauk, Takes Him Off Case - Panel is Troubled by 'Pro-Police Bias' in Brutality Case - Similar Problems Recently").  Note:  Neither of these articles is currently found on this web site.

A review of the Commission's annual reports from 1989-93 - its own statistics show - that of the near 1000 complaints made each year against judges to the Commission, each year about 88% are simply "closed" after a cursory initial review.  Eight-eight percent?

Are we supposed to believe that eight-eight percent of the people complaining have nothing better to do than waste their time by complaining about nothing?  Or supposed to believe that these people are making up bogus charges?  Eight-eight percent - that statistic simply defies common sense.  Moreover, the statistics for those years than go to show that, action of any sort, is taken only about ___# judges.  From the average of about 1000 yearly complaints, that means that "action" is taken only in about ___% of complaints.

A look at the Commission shows why nothing is done against miscreant judges.  A P. 140 article in the November issue of California Lawyer entitled "When Lawyers Accuse Judges" states:

"The case [Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1998) 45 Cal.3d 519] provides a good example of the difficult process of investigating and prosecuting charges of judicial misconduct, especially the role lawyers who have witnessed misconduct can play."

A December 17, 1993 Page 6 Daily Journal article entitled "Judges Can't Judge Themselves - Council on Judicial Performance is Rigged to Protect Judiciary" by Peter G. Keane (chief attorney of the San Francisco public defender's office and professor at Hastings College of the law and at Golden Gate University Law School) seems to tell all.  That article in part states:

"...Because of its history, its structure and the way it operates, the commission lacks any credibility.  [P]... The commission's mandate is to insure public confidence in the courts by exposing judicial misconduct and removing corrupt, dishonest and grossly incompetent judges... The commission had dismally failed to carry out that mission... [P]  The California judiciary is a close connected network of people intensely loyal and empathetic to each other as members of the same unique club... [P]  Since commission meetings are cloaked in such deep secrecy, of course, we really don't know how the members deliberate and what sort of factors they consider.  But the system is so custom-designed for all sorts of shenanigans, like "just the right phone calls" by judges who are both friends of the judge under investigation and friends of the commission members, that it give the present process a strange odor...{P}  As with its secret proceedings, California's judge dominated commission is an exception among the other states in the nation...[P]  Suspiciously unique among the agencies elemental power to make rules for its own operation.  That power is vested in the Judicial Council, which itself consists of 15 judges, four lawyers, two legislators and no members of the public...[P]  This is an ethical sham that has resulted in a judicial "fix" of the entire process.  It cynically and blatantly stacks the entire system against honest and straightforward disciplining of judicial misconduct.  [P] It is time to let some fresh air and sunshine into the shadowy odorous back room of California's judicial misconduct investigations."

In fact, the problem has become so grave that the legislature can no longer ignore it and has castigated the Commission in recent hearings.  Example:

"You [the Commission - addressing Victoria Henley, Director-Chief Counsel] kind of exist.  You don't do much... [P]  The whole notion that the Commission on Judicial Performance ensures accountability in the judiciary is almost laughable because they don't."  (State Senator Calderon's comments from a 3-17-93 front page Daily Journal article "Massive Reform is Proposed on Judicial Probes").

"At one point Calderon implied McDonald's restaurant workers were subjected to more oversight than the commission provided over judges."  (4-19-94 Daily Journal front page article "Judicial Panel Draws Fire at Budget Hearing").  Note:  Neither referenced article is contained on this web site.

The problem is so grave that even the attorney general jumped on the bandwagon.  A June 9, 1994 P. A3 LA Times article "Judges Flout Law on Closed Disciplinary Hearings, Lungren Says" (Note:  This article is contained within this web site.) reports about Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren sending a June 7, 1994 letter to State Senator Alfred Alquist, who was holding further hearings on the Commission.  Lungren's letter in part states:

"... this entire activity [current system of secret judicial discipline in this state] is cloaked with confidentiality... [and] has some troubling aspects.  ...[P] The California Constitution of course currently provides for open formal proceedings in some cases.  In 1988, the voters of this state enacted Proposition 92 (SCA 8).  In that measure they unequivocally spoke in favor of open judicial disciplinary hearings in these cases if the charges involved "moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption."  (Cal. Const., art VI, S 18(f)(c)).  That constitutional command has proven to be illusory.  Despite a number of previous Commission on Judicial Performance determinations to conduct open judicial disciplinary hearings under this constitutional criteria, an open hearing has yet to be conducted in this state some six years later.  The answer as to why this has happened is not available to the public; it is found in sealed filings of the secret litigation that has kept these hearings closed.  Judges charged with acts of judicial misconduct found by the commission to involve moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, and facing such open hearings, have in each case sought and received some form of secret writ relief from other courts of record in this state.  This complete frustration of these constitutional provisions concerning open hearings accompanied by the use of secret judicial proceedings, raises the troubling questions regarding the functioning of California's judicial disciplinary procedures.  It also raises a disturbing appearance of impropriety:  the specter of judges throughout this state exercising their extraordinary writ jurisdiction in sealed proceedings to intervene and mandate secrecy in disciplinary proceedings involving their judicial brethren."

But where has the attorney general been?  Well his office actually REPRESENTS the Commission - when in those very, very few instances that formal charges are brought against a judge.  The attorney general therefore clearly has been well aware of these "troubling questions", "secret writs" and the Commission's "frustration of the constitution" for quite some time.  But what has his office done?  Nothing!  Because on June 16, 1993 the attorney general was sent a letter from a California attorney that told him of the above problems at the Commission and asked him to investigate the Commission.  Nothing.

Lungren was then sent further letters from that California attorney making that SAME request on July 9, 1993, June 16 and 24, 1994 and July 8, 1994.  Still nothing!

Why has there been no investigation?  Why is there NOW still no investigation?  Why have those who have issued "secret writs" and "frustrated the constitution" not been brought to justice?  Where has the attorney general been?

Attached to Atty. Gen. Lungren's above letter, was a May 18, 1994 letter from Colusa County District Attorney John Poyner to the California District Attorney's Association pleading for reform.  In pertinent part District Attorney Poyner's letter states:

"The purpose of this letter is to let you know, and hopefully will convey, my strong support for S.C.A. 44. [P] I have twice in the last eight years had to deal with the Commission on Judicial Performance.  The experience that I now have convinces me that I would rather put up with the worst Judge in the state than deal with the cut throat, cloak and dagger, political bullshit that is the result of the closed nature of the entire process. [P] Because of the rules on discovery and confidentiality a Judge is made aware of who the complaining parties and witnesses are and can use such information as a sword with no recourse readily available.  [P]  In the last case I was involved with, the only Superior Court Judge was charged with some 36 or so counts of misconduct and all but a few were sustained.  He committed suicide before the full Commission's findings were released.  Consequently, the public never knew how rotten this Judge really was, and to this day I am precluded from discussing details of the case...[P].  I urge the Board to support S.C.A. 44."

Well has the Commission learned anything from the above criticism?  From the above hearings? Clearly NO.

Note:  Page 8 of the received fax containing this document is missing.  We skip verbatim to Page 9.

by the people - June of this year.  There the Commission held a public hearing on charges made against Cocoran Municipal Court Judge Glenda K. Doan.  (See the following articles:  07-13-94 LA Times P. A3 "Judge Faces Misconduct Hearing"; 08-12-94 Daily Journal P. 5 "High Court Denies Bid to Close Judge's Disciplinary Hearing"; 08-17-94 LA Times P. A3 "hearing on Judge's Misconduct Begins"; and 08-23-94 Daily News P. 7-News "Misconduct hearing ends for state judge".

However, any thought that the Commission was now "getting it" and was now actually doing its duty, is readily dashed when one looks at the Commission's 1990 annual report at P. 18, where it tells that earlier Judge Doan was brought up on charges for improperly intervening in two (2) separate cases to help friends; and then when responding to the Commission about the charges, the Commission determined her "response was false."  In other words, Judge Doan lied to the Commission. The Commission's action?

"Judge Doan ultimately recognized the impropriety of her actions and assured the Commission that they would not be repeated."

The Commission discipline for her initial misconduct?  And her then lying to cover it up?  A mere public reproval..

But there is more.  Judge Doan was the subject of earlier charges of misconduct just the year before in 1989.  Found guilty there, Judge Doan, like before, was given a mere public reproval.  (See Commission's 1989 annual report at P18, Pt. 3).

The above mentioned public hearing, shows not only that Judge Doan was wrong again - for the third time - but that, clearly so was the Commission.  It is clear that the Commission failed to do its duty twice before - not once, but twice.  With 3-strikes now the mantra, maybe Judge Doan now will be out?  But is that what we want, is that what it takes, a judicial standard on par with one that we hold criminal felons to?

It is equally clear that the commission's holding of th public hearing on Judge Doan's most recent misconduct is simply another PR ploy bowing to the immediate legislative criticism and press spotlighting of it and Judge Doan is offered as a sacrificial lamb.  (See 10-04-94 Daily Journal front page article "Fighting Back - Three Disciplined Judges Challenge Performance Commission".)  Or alternatively, she has become so unfit and such an embarrassment, that even the Commission can no longer ignore her.  (See 08-25-94 Daily Journal article above "In Defense of the Indefensible Judge Hauk").

Then there is the matter of Judge Kaminsky.  The following appears in the Commission's 1992 Annual Report at Page 11, Point 3:

"The commission publicly reproved Judge Craig S. Kaminsky of the San Bernardino County Superior Court for the conduct set forth below:

In the course of a commission investigation concerning his off-bench conduct, Judge Kaminsky was asked by the Commission to supply certain videotapes.  The judge agreed to supply the tapes, but before doing so, he deliberately overtaped them.  When asked by the commission about the altered videotapes, the judge repeatedly denied the deliberate overtaping.  When presented with the evidence, the judge repeatedly denied the deliberate overtaping.  When presented with the evidence to the contrary, the judge ultimately admitted his misrepresentations.

Judge Kaminsky's actions constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute."

Misrepresentations?  In fact what Judge Kaminsky did was lie.  And he lied to cover up his unsuccessful attempt to destroy evidence - the videotapes - apparently of other misconduct he had committed.  The Commission calls that egregious dishonest misconduct - misrepresent-ations!  Judge Kaminsky has shown that he is nothing but a common criminal.  He should have been punished like one.  Instead, essentially nothing was done to him, except a mere slap on the wrist - a mere public reproval.

Actions constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice?  That statement should be given an award for the best understatement of the year.  Again, Judge Kaminsky lied and destroyed evidence while he was being investigated for other alleged misconduct.  What Judge Kaminsky did was the antithesis of what a judge is supposed to be.  Again, Judge Kaminsky committed acts of a common criminal and acts of mural turpitude.  He should have been punished like a common criminal; he should have been removed from the bench.  Instead, nothing was done except a mere public reproval.

Why has he been given special treatment?  Is this the type of person YOU want sitting as a judge in YOUR courts?

Proposition 190.

The California State Bar.  It is sad, but true, that the same deplorable condition documented above that exists at the Commission, also exists at the State Bar.  Not surprisingly, like the Commission, complaints brought to the Bar about attorney misconduct are handled in strict confidence and the public is kept in the dark.  (See 01-28-94 Daily Journal P. 9 article, "Bar is Urged to Make Public Complaints About Lawyers").

Statistics from annual reports.

On September 20, 1991, special Discipline Monitor (who was appointed in 1987 by the legislature in one of a series of reform bills) of the State Bar - Professor Robert Fellmeth, from the Center for Public Interest Law, University of San Diego, issued his "FINAL REPORT" which was reported the following day in the LA Times, P. A25 article, "State Bar Steps Up Disciplining of Lawyers."  Professor Fellmeth was quoted in the article stating that further reforms are still needed to quell a "state of crisis" in attorney misconduct in California.  (For a copy of the "FINAL REPORT" call the Center (619) 260-4806 or the State Bar (213) 765-1000/(415) 561-8287/(916) 444-2762).  Professor Fellmeth's "FINAL REPORT" had these further criticisms:

"The Bar must search for ways to deter attorney deceit, particularly in the practice of civil law.  The level of attorney dishonesty in representations to the court, in promises to clients, in dealings with adverse counsel... is embarrassing to anyone with a measure of intellectual pride. Regrettably, in large city practice, ... misleading behavior is not deterred by the courts adequately, and can even be rewarded by the system.

"Part of the problem has to do with the lack of certain sanctions for deceit.  And part of it has to do with an adversary system which has gone awry... the ethic has been distorted to justify deceit on a grand and institutionalized scale.  It has reached the stage where any trier of fact is going to have difficulty in ferreting out the truth from two persons each bound and determined to mislead as much as possible.

"What is needed are some bounds, some clear and defined limits.  The Bar should consider examining with special care and with a fresh eye some of the underlying ground rules of civil representation.  It is possible to develop new rules of behavior supervening adversary representation, and restoring a measure of honor to a profession which is in a current state of well-deserved dishonor." (at page 20).

"In 1986, The State Bar had initiated a statewide toll-free "hotline" number... to facilitate consumer complaint receipt, but had not listed it in telephone books, either in the California State Government section or in any other location a consumer might logically find it.  (Footnote omitted)...

"In 1991, the situation is substantially different, although serious deficiencies remain.  For example, the State Bar has for four years expressed its intent to public its toll-free number at least in the state government section of the telephone directories.  At present, however, the State Bar listing is still regrettably absent from most of the major telephone directories of the state - and this is true as to any State Bar telephone number, not merely the toll-free discipline number."

"Under the system then extant, the Bar relied upon the 'complinaing witness' (CW) - that is, the person informing the Bar of a possible problem licensee - to 'carry the ball' and provide evidence.  However, 80% of those complaining to the State Bar by phone did not bother to send in subsequently requested written material.  When this occurred, that matter was dropped.  With rare exception, the Bar viewed a complaint about an attorney as a between between the CW and the attorney who was the subject of the complaint.' (Footnote omitted).

"Information about lawyers' misconduct from attorney self-reporting (required by the State Bar Act), judges, malpractice judgments, or other potentially rich sources of information about attorney wrongdoing was not reliably gathered, and was not systematically used for pattern detection purposes."

"The work product of the State Bar Court was inconsistent and not of the highest quality.  The California Supreme Court in extraordinary frustration, openly criticized the work product of the State Bar Court in two published opinions:  Maltaman v. State Bar, 43 Cal.3d 924 (1987), and Guzetta v. State Bar, 43 Cal.3d 96 (1987)."  (Page 14).

[See also Lubetsky v. State Bar and Latin v. State Bar (1993) 93 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2320, No. 91-M-07563].

"In addition to its failure to meaningfully address incompetence by way of licensure barriers to entry or post-entry requirements, the Bar has not seriously disciplined incompetence, nor has it removed the incompetent from the profession except in extreme cases.

"The failure of the Bar to establish overall standards of personal honest is similarly stark... [and] rightfully a source of embarrassment to any in the profession.

"... But the problem remains, as discussed below.  We are less certain here of viable solutions.  However, it may well rest in ... the basic revision of the extreme "adversary" - all is fair-ethic, particularly in civil proceedings.  This last problem has created a kind of amoral atmosphere which permeates and poisons much of the profession - without reliably producing "truth from conflict" which is its raison d'etre.

"We have some doubt that these kinds of reform can be accomplished given the regrettable structure of Bar governance; that is a system where the state agency regulating the profession in the interests of the larger body politic consist largely of members of the profession selected by the profession.  Political reality makes it more difficult for the Bar's governors or its electorate (here, attorneys electing the Board of Governors) to burden themselves substantially for the benefit of a larger population or purpose... The State Bar is a long way from assuring acceptable attorneys for the public, particularly in terms of everyday personal honest." (at 19).

More recently, a January 28, 1993 Daily Journal Page 2 article entitled "High Court OKs Mitchelson Discipline Terms", shows that the Bar pays only lip service to, and still has no understanding of - its main purpose - to protect the public from attorney misconduct; the Bar continues to demonstrate an inability to even recognize, much less discipline, a renegade attorney.  In pertinent part that article states:

"The California Supreme Court accepted an agreement Wednesday to place famed palimony attorney Marvin Mitchelson on three years of disciplinary probation with the State Bar.

"...[he] is required to take and pass the California Professional Responsibility Exam, a test on legal ethics and the rules of professional conduct within one year.

"Mitchelson, currently on trial in Los Angeles federal court on charges he understated his income taxes could not be reached for comment.  But his attorney, Arthur Margolis of Los Angeles, said 'We think the disposition is a fair one.'

"The agreement between Mitchelson and the State Bar disposes of all disciplinary charges... As part of the deal, Mitchelson stipulated that he failed to properly supervise the work of an associate, failed to tell two clients that he had delegated most of the work on their cases to an associate and commingled personal funds with client funds in his bank account.

"The bar agreed to drop charges that he mishandled client funds, filed frivolous appeals, failed to refund unearned fees and related forms of conduct.

"Mitchelson also was accused of rape by two women in 1988.  But the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, the state attorney general's office, the county grand jury and the State Bar all declined to prosecute, saying evidence was insufficient to support their claims.

The court's one-paragraph order, signed by Chief Justice Lucas routinely goes along with the bar's recommendation in lawyer discipline cases..."

A 02-10-93 LA Times Page B1 article entitled "Celebrity Lawyer Mitchelson Found Guilty of Tax Fraud - Famed Palimony Attorney Convicted of Concealing Nearly #2 million in income from 1983-86" had U.S. Atty. Teree Bowers stating:

"This is the West Coast version of the Leona Helmsley case... This type of case is particularly irksome to us when you have people who are famous and wealthy, yet they engage in manipulative conduct in order to cheat on their taxes.  More than 98% of the income that the IRS collected from Mitchelson since 1972 has been obtained through liens and other enforcement activities."

Where was the Bar during all those years?  What was the Bar doing above giving Michelson only probation?  How was that then approved by the California Supreme Court?  Lucky for the public he was then convicted of tax fraud and will be put away for a while.  But what happens when he gets out?  (See also the 07-93 issue of California Lawyer at P. 42, "Marvin Mitchelson Hits the Wall").

What happens?  Well, for an example, see the recent case of attorney Jerry D. Rudman that appears in the April 1994 issue of California Lawyer at P. 88.

"Rudman was admitted to the Bar in 1975, practices as a sole practitioner until 1978 or 1979, then rented space from another attorney and eventually entered into a partnership.  Starting in 1979, Rudman failed to pay his income taxes and by 1981, owed about $100,000 and three months of mortgage payments.  Rudman entered into a conspiracy with two others to counterfeit money.  About $425,000 was printed, and Rudman and a co-conspirator went to New York to distribute the money.  One conspirator was arrested in Los Angeles, and Rudman handled his bail and release.  Rudman was arrested after the co-conspirator was arrested in Los Angeles, and Rudman handled his bail and release.  Rudman was arrested after the co-conspirator taped a conversation between them. Rudman was convicted in 1982 for attempting to pass counterfeit currency and for conspiracy.  He was placed on interim suspension and resigned from the Bar in 1983 before discipline was imposed.

"Rudman worked as an accountant and became controller at a research and development firm.  Rudman testified that at the time of the conspiracy, he was severely depressed because of a deteriorating marriage, which affected his judgment.  Rudman obtained psychotherapy for four years after his conviction, showed remorse and presented evidence of good character.

"In 1990, however, Rudman was involved in an auto accident and was later convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol.

"The State Bar Court found Rudman demonstrated rehabilitation, moral fitness and present ability and learning in the general law.  Rudman was reinstated effective Jan. 6."

Severely depressed because of deteriorating marriage? Most likely a true finding of the facts would show that marriage deteriorated, like Rudman's law practice, because he refused to deal with his problems and instead chose to live life in the fast lane.  Only after a few years of practice, his chose to engage in a counterfeit conspiracy.  No, the deteriorating marriage did not cause his purported depression; what caused it was that his bad apple behavior was catching up with him.  His behavior caused his marriage and his practice to deteriorate, not the reverse.  What is truly astounding is that the Bar accepts such lame excuses, ignores its duty to protect the public, and lets Mr. Rudman loose again on the public to practice law.

It should be noted that there has been no special discipline monitor at the Bar since Professor Fellmeth's 09-20-91 "FINAL REPORT" and it is obvious that few, if any, of his recommendations were taken up and implemented.  Yet now a 12-12-93 Daily Journal P. 3 article "Bar's Discipline System will Face Panel Review" tells about Bar President Margaret Morrow announcing her appointment of:

"An eleven member commission... [that] will undertake a nine-month investigation of the bar's discipline system."

"Since 1988, when bar dues were nearly doubled to revamp California's lawyer discipline system after a decade of complaints that it did not provide swift and certain punishment for dishonest attorneys, the system has been held up as a national mode.

"...Meanwhile, legal consumer advocates have maintained that, despite the reform, the system does not do a good enough job in swiftly punishing unethical lawyers"...

"In announcing the appointments, Morrow lauded the experience and independence of the panel's members."

The Bar's true colors however are shown, where the article states "...but no overt critics of the State Bar" were appointed to the commission by President Morrow.  Just another PR ploy.  

The "Commission" - formally titled the Discipline Evaluation Committee, was chaired by federal appeals Judge Arthur Alarcon, publicly released its 68-page report in August 1994.  However, it is another attempt simply to cover over the problem.

Because as an article appearing in the October 1994 issue of the California Bar Journal at P. 6 entitled "Alarcon Report:  Out at the Plate" by Professor Robert Fellmuth (recall his above report as the Bar's Special Discipline Monitor) states:

"The Alarcon Committee, within its assigned task, has hit several dozen singles and perhaps one triple:  it's primary structural recommendation, the idea of an Office of Consumer Advocate with broad jurisdiction over intake and complaint audit and review.

"The Bar's regrettable structure places the prosecutor of attorney wrongdoing under the jurisdiction of a board controlled by persons elected by other attorneys.  The office suggested by the committee addresses the underlying need of any cartel system to have a check originally from the outside tribe.

"Currently, the Bar's Complainants' Grievance Panel provides some check, but its jurisdiction focuses on reviewing individual complaints that were dismissed early on over the object of those reporting them...

"But the committee undermined its most promising suggestion with the instruction  that the position report directly to the executive director of the Board of Governors.  If one removes the single relatively independent check extant the Grievance Panel), it should not be replaced with a cartel-subservient creature.  In its one extra base hit, the committee has thrown out going for home."

To conclude, we hope that YOU are a concerned citizen - concerned about the terrible state that YOUR legal system is in.  We hope that YOU are a concerned citizen - concerned enough about doing something to reform YOUR legal system.  If YOU are, join CURBB and join CURBB now!

Because:

"Crime is contagious.  If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."  (Justice Brandies in Olmstead v. United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438).