1. Numerous, Multiple and Repeated Instances of Unprofessional and Unethical Behavior
2. Denied Due Process due to Willful Negligence
3. Honesty Requirement; Prohibition on Deception
4. Practicing Medicine Without a License
• Failing to Act Competently
• Willfully Undertook Legal Matters Without Adequate Knowledge of Medicine
• Willfully Harming and Causing Stress and Anxiety to Purposely Frustrate the Court and Ultimately Harm her Client that will likely have very long term consequences.
5. Fraudulent Willful & Contrived Misrepresentations
6. Acted with oppression, malice, and fraud
7. Failed to Respond to Client
8. Professional Misconduct
9. Motivated by Bad Faith or a Conscious Desire to Injure Father
10. Made False Declarations to a Court (Bus. & Prof. Code, ?? 6068, subd. (d), 6106, 6128.)
11. Prohibition Against Presenting Claim Not warranted
12. Encouraging Lawsuits from Corrupt Motive of Passion or Interest
13. Prohibition against Threatening Criminal, Administrative, or Disciplinary Charges.
14. Gross carelessness and negligence violating the oath of an attorney to faithfully discharge her duties to the best of her knowledge and ability involving moral turpitude as she breach the relationship owed to her clients.

HOW TO WRITE:

• See Image Samples Below:
  • Place "short" version of Violation if you know it - Go To State Bar for Violation Bus. & Prof. Code, § ????
    • http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ca/code/
    • http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ca/code/CA_CODE.HTM
  • Explain what happened and include any Exhibits .. A copy of that "Page" is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference herein.
  • Sample Bar Complaints

CONCLUSION

The State Bar is charged with the responsibility for protecting the public from problematic attorneys. As part of this duty, the State Bar should ensure that the public has ready access to information about attorney misconduct so it can make informed decisions about who to retain when seeking counsel. For these reasons, I / we submit this Complaint and ask that the Bar take action against "Insert Atty" in the form of disbarment, and also make public the various acts of misconduct described herein.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and anticipated cooperation

There are many ways to keep the client informed about development in the case. You must respond to all client contact (by telephone or mail) within a reasonable time. A good secretary or paralegal can often be the contact person for the client, but the attorney must also be involved in developing the client relationship. This relationship is necessary, not only because the rules require it, but because at trial, it is critical that the client trust the attorney. If no relationship has developed prior to trial, it will be difficult to develop a good relationship during trial.

---

More Samples:

---

---

---

Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake
The State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015-2299

Attorney "Atty Name" has knowingly and intentionally consented to the tampering of evidence in order to mislead the Court and myself regarding the facts in my civil lawsuit, C09-02655 LHK (PVT), presently being adjudicated in U.S. District Court The Northern District Of California (San Jose Division).

On November 5, 2010 I filed my, “Plaintiff’s Notification To Court Requesting Clarification Of Discovery,” with the Court which reveals "Atty Name" latest violation of State Bar Rules and California and U.S. laws.

On October 28, 2010 I conducted a test on the taser cameras used to record the March 15, 2008 incident which is the basis for my civil lawsuit. Attorney "Atty Name", the defendants’ counsel of record in my lawsuit, supervised this test. This test produced results that taser cameras merge several individual recordings into one recording. For reasons pointed out in my, “Plaintiff’s Notification To Court Requesting Clarification Of Discovery,” taser cameras do not merge several recordings into one
recording.

The only explanation as to why the taser camera used by the Defendants and "Atty Name" on October 28, 2010 merged several separate recordings into one recording is because the Defendants tampered with the operational function of the taser camera to create the falsified results with the intent to mislead me and the Court regarding the true facts of the case and to falsely explain why there is missing video footage in the taser videos.

"Atty Name" supervised the above test and emphatically stated that this is how taser cameras operate knowing full well that taser cameras do not merge several recordings into one recording.

"Atty Name"’s acts constitute a violation of Penal Codes 134 and 141. (a); Business and Professions Code 6106, 6068 (a) and (d) and State Bar Rules: 3-110, 5-200 (A)(B)(C).

As pointed out in, “Plaintiff’s Response To Defendants’ Request For Clarification,” and “Plaintiff’s Notification To Court Requesting Clarification Of Discovery,” filed with the Court, "Atty Name" withheld and suppressed the information and evidence of the "City" Police Department sending Defendant Burger’s taser camera to Taser International in November 2008 for maintenance and repair. "Atty Name" continues to suppress the information and evidence regarding  what reparative action was conducted on Defendant "name" ’s taser camera.

This act constitutes a violation of State Bar Rule 5-220. In addition the above-mentioned act constitutes a violation of State Bar Rule 5-200 (A) and (B). On lines 6 through 8 of "Atty Name"’s Declaration page 10 of document 59 “Defendants’ Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Discovery; Declaration Of Steven A. "Atty Name""Atty Name"’,” Mr. "Atty Name"’ states,

“I am familiar with the facts and circumstances of this lawsuit and if called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify in conformance with the statements made herein.” State Bar Rule 5-200 Trial Conduct (E) states, that “In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member: Shall not assert personal knowledge of the facts at issue, except when testifying as a witness.” "Atty Name"’ violated State Bar Rule 5-200 (E).

As pointed out in my Motion to Compel Discovery, Exhibit 51, the copies of the MAV videos provided to me by the Defendants over the courses of my criminal and civil cases have different “Dates of Last Modification” and amounts of memory contained in the electronic video files.

I have previously sent the State Bar copies of these videos and should be available for review in your office. I clearly demonstrate in Exhibits 100 through 105 of document 62, “Reply Brief In Support Of Plaintiff’s Motion For Order To Compel Defendants And Defendant Burns To Produce And Provide Discovery,” that the “Dates of Modification and amount of memory contained in the electronic video files should not change unless the files, the videos, have been edited is some fashion.

Despite several requests for the original MAV videos over the last year, Defendants had never provided me a copy of Temores’ MAV video containing the date and time that the video was created and saved, March 15, 2008.

On September 3, 2010 in response of my Discovery Request to Defendant Burns requesting Temores’ MAV video containing the Date of Last Modification of March 15, 2008, "Atty Name" had two DVD’s marked as Temores’ MAV video containing the “Date of Last Modification” of March 15, 2008.

The videos sent to me had a “Date of Last Modification” of September 3, 2010. This act of deception was a deliberate attempt on the part of "Atty Name" to suppress evidence and mislead me and the Court as to the true facts of the case. I expose this false presentation of evidence in Exhibit 52 of document 55 my “Motion to Compel” and document 62 my “Reply Brief.”
The above act constitutes a violation of State Bar Rule 3-110 (A); 5-200 (A)(B) and 5-220.

As a result of exposing "Atty Name" attempt at deceiving the Court and me, Mr. "Atty Name"’ comes up with the excuse that he made the copies of the MAV videos sent to me on September 3, 2010 and not Defendant Burns/the "City" Police which is why the “Dates of Last Modification’ were not as claimed on the DVDs containing the MAV videos, lines 3 through 6 of document 65 “Defendants’ Brief Regarding Dispute Over Obtaining Original MAV Recordings Containing Digital Watermark.” Mr. "Atty Name" states, “Plaintiff alleges that he has not received copies of the recordings with a "City" Police Department label stating that Brian Furtado created the disc. This is because the "City" Police Department provided their counsel with the copied disc and defendant’s counsel made a copy from that for plaintiff.”

This statement verifies that Mr. "Atty Name" knew that the “Date of Last Modification” on the copies he sent me on September 3, 2010 did and could not have had a “Date of Last Modification” of March 15, 2008 as claimed by Mr. "Atty Name".

As pointed out in Exhibit 51 of document 55, “Motion to Compel Discovery” the different “Dates of Last Modification” and amount of memory clearly demonstrate that the "City" Police has edited the MAV recordings. In order to explain why the “Date of Last Modification” and amount of memory changes the Defendants and Mr. "Atty Name" are claiming that they must remove an embedded watermark from the MAV videos because the embedded watermark is proprietary and as such cannot be provided to me or
anyone for that matter, lines 17 through 23 of document 65.

If this were true then Mr. "Atty Name" would not have provided a copy of the MAV videos containing the watermark to a neutral third party, Eduardo Guilarte on October 28, 2010.

More importantly, as I pointed out in document 72 “Supplemental Brief In Support of Plaintiff’s Brief Regarding Discovery Dispute….,” according to the manufacturer of the MAV videos, Kustom Signals, the watermark is embedded into the MAV videos for the intended purpose to transfer to all of the copies of any given video in order to detect who, when and where a copy or copies of any given MAV video are edited and falsified.

This contradicts "Atty Name" statement in lines 16 through 18 of page 3 of document 65 that it is a concern of the Defendants that the MAV recorders can be altered and released to competitors. Mr. "Atty Name" is avoiding the issue, the issue is providing a copy of the MAV recording containing the watermark and is placed there for the specific purpose of determining if a video has been altered.

On October 28, 2010 during an inspection of the MAV system and videos supervised by "Atty Name", the "City" Police produced a copy of Temores’ and Burger’s MAV videos containing the watermark and a “Date of Last Modification” of March 15, 2008 verifying my assertion that the “Date of Last Modification” does not change when making an exact duplicate of the videos and that the only reason why the “Date of Last Modification” and amount of memory contained in the electronic video files would change would be because the video had been edited and changed in some manner from the original, see “October 28 Inspection.”

In order to avoid providing me a copy of the MAV videos with the watermark, Mr "Atty Name" and the "City" Police took the MAV videos and re-created them in another company’s, “nero’s,” software, during the October 28, 2010 inspection. This contradicts Kustom Signals literature and website which asserts that copies are made directly from Kustom Signals’ software, Exhibit 120 of document 72 “Supplemental Brief In Support of Plaintiff’s Brief Regarding Discovery Dispute…”

According to "Atty Name", “Kustom Signals” has the ability to build video cameras and make software that creates videos from those cameras. Additionally, Kustom Signals has the ability to create and attach an electronic watermark to all copies of the videos created by its cameras as well as the software to analyze the watermark in order to detect tampering of any given video or copy of a video. Yet according to "Atty Name", Kustom Signals does not have the ability to remove its own watermark and must rely on re-creating the video in another company’s, “nero’s, video editing software in order to do so.

Logic would dictate that if Kustom Signals did not intend to provide copies of its videos without the watermark, Kustom Signals would have the ability to remove its own watermark from its own videos. What would Kustom Signals do if there were no other company out there that had the software available to remove Kustom Signals’ watermark? There is no intent on the part of Kustom Signals to remove the watermark from any of its videos or copies made from its software.

On October 28, 2010 "Atty Name" supervised the inspection in which Palo Alto MAV Custodian Brian Furtado produced two MAV videos that did not have the watermark with the sole intent to justify why the previous copies provided to me have different “Dates of Last Modification” and amounts of memory contained on the electronic files.

These copies are once again falsified facts created by "Atty Name" in order to mislead the Court and me, which is a violation of Penal Codes 134, 141 (a); Business and Professions Code 6068 (a)(c)(d), 6106 and State Bar Rules 5-200 (A)(B), and 5-220.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Defendants have destroyed and falsified numerous pieces of evidence and continue to do so under the supervision of attorney "Atty Name" which is a violation Business and Professions Code 6068 (c).

"Atty Name" is undermining the due administrations of justice and violating my 14th Amendment right to due process. I need the State Bar to take immediate and decisive action to prevent Mr. "Atty Name" from causing  irreparable harm to my case.

Sincerely,

---

November 17, 2010

Intake Unit/Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015-2299

VIA FACSIMILE & UK MAIL

I. INTRODUCTION & NOTICE OF COMPLAINT:

Please register a formal ethics complaint against "Atty Name" (Bar No. ) for misconduct relating to exceeding approved travel spending limits while serving as the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California.

II. SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Respondent "Atty Name" is a member of the State Bar of California. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1981, and from the University of San Diego School of Law in 1993, where he was an Associate Editor of the San Diego Law Review and received his degree with honors. Presently, "Atty Name" is a litigation partner with Paul Hastings in Los Angeles, where he leads the firm’s west coast White Collar practice group.

---

State Bar of California - Process (Filing, How Long)? Ongoing Broken System (see timelines)

Overview:

• (Timelines in Red) - Based on my research it appears it may take up to:
  • ~ 18 Months when decision is made from date you submited your complaint - Yes!! 1 1/2 Years
  • ~ 22-23 Months for discipline to be adopted by the California Supreme Court. Almost 2 Years
• Complaint Filed:
  • If Complaint is found to be "Serious Enough for Potential Disciplinary Matter"
    • it is designated as an "Inquiry" and given an Inquiry case number.
  • If Facts are True, then is there a potential violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or the State Bar Act?"
  • If NO - matter is typically closed at the Intake level, although some types of minor misconduct can be resolved at this level through a warning letter or an agreement in lieu of discipline (ALD).
  • If YES - matter is typically forwarded to the Office of Enforcement for investigation and prosecution
  • Attorney will be sent a letter entitled "Notice of Intent to File Discipline Charges", called a "20 day" letter because it invites the respondent to meet with a Deputy Trial Counsel within 20 days to discuss the matter.
  • (ENEC) Early Neutral Evaluation Conference.
    • Several Settlement Conferences are attempted to resolve issue. If not, then Judge hears.
  • State Bar Court Judge hears the case
    • Most civil discovery rules apply but the discovery period is limited to 120 days from the service of the NDC (State Bar Rules of Procedure 180, 181).
    • Once NDC (notice of discipline charges) is filed, it must be responded to within twenty (20) days. Failure to do so will result in a default and the charges being deemed admitted
  • Trial in a discipline matter usually occurs 6 to 9 months from the date charges are filed.
  • Trials are conducted by the five judges who sit in the State Bar Court
  • Once the case is submitted, a decision is due within 90 days.
    • Decisions are couched as "recommendations" to the California Supreme Court.
    • Any greater degree of discipline, suspension or disbarment, must be ordered by the Supreme Court.
    • Recommendations for discipline from the State Bar Court are usually adopted by the California Supreme Court within four to five months unless the State Bar or the respondent seeks review in the review department of the State Bar Court, though in rare instances, the Supreme Court has granted review on its own motion

---

FULL DESCRIPTION OF STATE BAR PROCESS:

The discipline office of the State Bar, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel, is a consumer protection agency and is statutorily mandated to investigate complaints.

The discipline system is mostly driven by complaints. Those complaints may come from anyone; there is no standing requirement for filing a State Bar complaint. Complaints are not the exclusive source for information that can lead to the opening of an inquiry or investigation.

The Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California (OCTC) is the agency responsible for investigating attorney misconduct and prosecuting attorney disciplinary proceedings. OCTC is divided into two main offices, the Office of Intake and the Office of Enforcement.

Importance of Filing Correctly: Only 4.76% of the complaints filed in 2004 were truly Enforced.

• 89,823 complaint calls were received in 2004
• 12,383 Inquiries were opened in 2004
• 4,278 were forwarded to Enforcement in 2004

When a matter is deemed serious enough to consider as a potential disciplinary matter, it is designated as an "Inquiry" and given an Inquiry case number. 12,383 Inquiries were opened in 2004. The Office of Intake will sometimes contact the respondent attorney at the Inquiry stage.

• The primary mission of the Office of Intake is to answer the question "If the facts as stated in this matter are true, is there a potential violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or the State Bar Act?"
• If the answer is no, the matter is typically closed at the Intake level, although some types of minor misconduct can be resolved at this level through a warning letter or an agreement in lieu of discipline (ALD).
• If the answer is "yes", the matter is typically forwarded to the Office of Enforcement for investigation and prosecution

Typically, one of their first moves is to write to the respondent attorney seeking information and documents. Respondents have an obligation to co-operate in the State Bar's investigation but also have the right to assert Constitutional and statutory privileges to disclosing information (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6068(I), 6085.)

If the investigators gather sufficient evidence to indicate that the State Bar could meet is burden of proof by "clear and convincing" evidence (State Bar Rule of Procedure 213) the respondent attorney will be sent a letter entitled "Notice of Intent to File Discipline Charges", called a "20 day" letter because it invites the respondent to meet with a Deputy Trial Counsel within 20 days to discuss the matter, including discussion of resolution. The "20 day" letter also notifies the respondent that he or she can request an early neutral evaluation conference (ENEC) with a State Bar Court judge if the "20 day" meeting does not lead to a resolution.

If the investigators gather sufficient evidence to indicate that the State Bar could meet is burden of proof by "clear and convincing" evidence (State Bar Rule of Procedure 213) the respondent attorney will be sent a letter entitled "Notice of Intent to File Discipline Charges", called a "20 day" letter because it invites the respondent to meet with a Deputy Trial Counsel within 20 days to discuss the matter, including discussion of resolution. The "20 day" letter also notifies the respondent that he or she can request an early neutral evaluation conference (ENEC) with a State Bar Court judge if the "20 day" meeting does not lead to a resolution.

State Bar Court is the court where discipline matters are adjudicated. This a real court with real judges who hear discipline, reinstatement and admissions cases. The formal rules of evidence apply (State Bar Rule of Procedure 214) Proceedings in State Bar Court are governed by the State Bar Rules of Procedure, not the Code of Civil Procedure or the Penal Code.

State Bar Rule of Procedure 75 governs the ENEC. The format is similar to settlement conference. Each side is required to submit an ENEC Statement before the conference to guide the Court. If the ENEC is not successful, the State Bar will initiate a discipline proceeding by filing a notice of discipline charges (NDC) in State Bar Court and serving on the respondent at his or her membership records address. The process is similar to civil procedure but different in key aspects. For instance, most of the civil discovery rules apply but the discovery period is limited to 120 days from the service of the NDC (State Bar Rules of Procedure 180, 181). Once the NDC is filed, it must be responded to within twenty (20) days. Failure to do so will result in a default and the charges being deemed admitted. Defaults are difficult to vacate, especially more than 45 days after they are entered.

Trial in a discipline matter usually occurs 6 to 9 months from the date charges are filed. Trials are conducted by the five judges who sit in the State Bar Court hearing department, two in San Francisco and three in Los Angeles. At least settlement conference is held in most matters litigated in State Bar Court and most cases are settled before trial. Once the case is submitted, a decision is due within 90 days.

Decisions are couched as "recommendations" to the California Supreme Court. The State Bar Court has a limited grant of authority from the Supreme Court to impose reprovals (Cal. Rule of Court 956(a)). Any greater degree of discipline, suspension or disbarment, must be ordered by the Supreme Court. Recommendations for discipline from the State Bar Court are usually adopted by the California Supreme Court within four to five months unless the State Bar or the respondent seeks review in the review department of the State Bar Court, though in rare instances, the Supreme Court has granted review on its own motion.

The review department consists of one full time judge, who is also presiding judge of the State Bar Court, and two part time judges. The review department issues written opinions, some of which are citeable as binding precedent in State Bar Court. Seeking review in the review department is necessary for filing a petition for review of a disciplinary matter with the California Supreme Court. Such review is extremely rare.

---

"Top Ten" instances that create discipline for lawyers as identified in opened investigations in a given year. ( *Indicates # of complaints in each category)

• 10.   (380)*   Representing conflicting interests or taking position adverse to former/current client. (Rule 5-102, 3-310)
• 9.     (438)   Failure to return unearned fee after withdrawal, often involved with claims of over-charging. (Rule 2-111 (A) (3)        3-700 (1) (2) )
• 8.    (536)   Improperly withdrawing from employment, i.e., without notice to client or court, timing of withdrawal, etc.          (Rule 2-111, Rule 3-700)
• 7.   (563)   Attorney misappropriated client monies or other property coming into an attorney's possession, etc.  (Rule 8-101 (B) (4), 4-100 (B) (4) )
• 6.    (590)   Failure to promptly return file to client or new attorney. (Rule 3-700 (D) (1) )
• 5.    (778)   Acts of moral turpitude including dishonesty, untruthful means, lack of candor, etc. (B&P 6106)
• 4.    (1,193)   Failure to honor liens (medical, expert and other attorney).  (B&P 6103)
• 3.    (1,262   Failure to account for client funds and failure to promptly pay out of client funds.  (Rule 8-101 (B), 4-100)
• 2.    (2,468)   Failure to communicate, keep client informed of status.  (Rule 3-100, 3-500 & B&P 6068 (m) ) And the number one complaint is....
• 1.    (3,578)   Failure to perform, delay in performance, abandonment of case.  (Rule 3-100)

---

THIS WEBSITE and all of the materials and information on the Site is general in nature and are provided for informational purposes only.
Nothing on the Site should be construed as legal advice or used as a substitute for legal advice. The opinions stated in this site are based on personal experience.