State Bar Files Complaint Against Clinton Parish

The State Bar of California has filed disciplinary charges against a Yolo County attorney for allegedly failing to comply with ethical rules while seeking judicial office. Clinton Parish, 41, is accused  by the California Bar of making misrepresentations about himself and his opponent in the May 2012 election for Yolo County Superior Court.

Canon 5B(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics adopted by the Supreme Court in 1995 states: “A candidate for election or appointment to judicial office shall not…knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present position or any other fact concerning the candidate or his or her opponent.” Failure to comply with Canon 5 is a disciplinary offense under rule 1-700(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

According to the complaint, in May of 2012, Mr. Parish was seeking judicial office against incumbent Judge Dan Maguire when, through campaign advertising, he made a number of misrepresentations regarding his opponent.

As the Vanguard covered at the time, he asserted “that his opponent, while in private practice, was involved ‘in a sordid case of corporate fraud that involved payment of bribes in Russia …’ ; was ‘part of Arnold’s legal team that made decisions including commuting the sentence of convicted murderer Esteban Nunez …’ ; and that his opponent was ‘quoted defending the Protocol Foundation – used to hide $1.7 million in Arnold’s Travel Expenses.’ “

Furthermore, he posted “on his campaign web site a captioned photograph of himself and a uniformed officer in front of the Winters’ [sic] Police Department. The photograph’s caption stated: ‘Clint Parish has been endorsed by the Winter’s [sic] Police Department.’ In truth and in fact respondent had not been endorsed by the Winters’ [sic] Police Department.”

The State Bar also alleges that the lawn signs which stated, “Law Enforcement’s Choice Clinton Parish Judge Because Experience Matters,” implied he had judicial experience.

The State Bar charges, “By knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth, misrepresenting facts concerning his opponent, by knowingly misrepresenting his qualifications and endorsements as a candidate, and by knowingly utilizing false and deceptive campaign materials, during his campaign to be elected judge, respondent failed to comply with Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Ethics while seeking judicial office by election.

Parish was admitted to the State Bar in 2000 and has no public record of discipline.  The case is being prosecuted by Deputy Trial Counsel Robert A. Henderson.

The Vanguard learned in November that Clinton Parish, who was on leave since the election, had taken a Deputy District Attorney position with Tuolumne County.

(The following is background information that previously appeared in the Vanguard).

In June of 2012 Clinton Parish was soundly defeated in his effort to unseat Judge Dan Maguire, appointed in 2010 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

However, the handwriting was on the wall well before that.

Mr. Parish ran initially with the backing of key law enforcement figures such as DA Jeff Reisig and Sheriff Ed Prieto.

However, after a series of misleading attack mailers against his opponent, many of his key endorsers would pull their support.  With the controversy, Mr. Parish was handily trounced at the polls, receiving just over 7000 votes to the more than 24,000 (77%) by Judge Maguire.

Even before the mailer controversy, Mr. Parish was a controversial candidate, opposed by defense attorneys, the bar associations and the entire Yolo County Bench.

Following the election, Presiding Judge David Rosenberg told the Vanguard, “The entire Yolo Superior Court is extremely thankful for the vote of confidence by the citizens of this county. The challenger to Judge Maguire campaigned on the basis of a vast misunderstanding of the role of a Judge.”

He added, “We, on the Bench, are no more ‘pro-law enforcement’ than we are ‘pro-prosecutor,’ or ‘pro-defense,’ or ‘pro-anything.’  Our job is to make sure the law is followed, that people are treated fairly and respectfully, and that everyone’s rights are protected.”

From the start, it would have been an uphill battle for the ten-year prosecutor in Yolo County.  However, Mr. Parish clearly fatally harmed himself when attacks in a mailer proved to lack foundation and his campaign appeared to have failed in its due diligence to perform the kind of research for the mailer that would have been expected of a deputy district attorney, let alone a judge.

Indeed, even his concession speech showed how little he learned.

His release stated, “Although I am disappointed in the results, I am glad that Yolo County had the chance to vote for their government. I still believe that every branch of our government should be elected by the people of this country.”

He added, “I am very grateful to live in a country that allows us to have such a voice in our own government.”

Mr. Parish has never been willing to acknowledge that the appointment process has important checks that are absent in a popular election.

One of the key charges dealt with the decision by Governor Schwarzenegger to commute the sentence of Esteban Nuñez, son of former Speaker Fabian Nuñez – a move that angered many and that the former governor acknowledged was a favor to a friend.

The flier attacked Dan Maguire, who was said to be “part of Arnold’s inner circle, Dan Maguire was part of Arnold’s legal team that made decisions including commuting the sentence of convicted murderer Esteban Nuñez…”   Later in the flier it said, “Dan Maguire received a political appointment (never elected) and took the bench only three weeks before Arnold’s last-day Commutation of Esteban Nuñez’ sentence.”

When the Vanguard inquired about substantiation of this charge, Kirby Wells, campaign communications for Clinton Parish, pointed toward this You Tube video of the Santos Family, the victim’s parents.

The problem is that it appears that Dan Maguire was appointed to the bench of Yolo County on October 18, 2010, while the commutation occurred at the last minute on January 2, 2011.

For his part, Dan Maguire says he had no involvement in the decision to commute Mr. Nunez’s sentence and learned about it on TV.

Meanwhile, Mr. Parish, who had not responded to Vanguard requests for an interview, backed off the entire charge when he spoke to the Davis Enterprise, which paraphrased him saying that “the ads don’t claim that Maguire played a part in the reduced sentence.”

“The point is that he worked for the legal team that made that and other bad decisions,” he said. “It really goes to show, you are a product of the offices you work for.  Right or wrong, it’s the truth, and people judge me based on what I and my office have done.”

The dominoes fell quickly as Sheriff Prieto, an early backer of Clinton Parish, pulled his endorsement.

“I don’t support that kind of campaigning,” Sheriff Prieto said. “You have to run a campaign on your merit and your skills, not by tearing down your opponent.  I do not want to be a part of that.”

At first, DA Jeff Reisig would stick with his support for his subordinate, despite his expressed disapproval for the tactics – tactics that he himself had used in his run for DA in 2006.

“I previously gave him my endorsement and I’m not going to change that,” Mr. Reisig said. “But I don’t agree with the negative mail piece and I told him that.”

But that was before the Bee issued forth a scathing editorial, arguing “Parish shows he’s unfit to be a judge.”

In it they argued: “Parish didn’t apologize for making the mistake. Instead, he sought to shift blame, telling the Bee that the campaign worker who gave him the information no longer works for the campaign.  He didn’t identify the individual.”

“On Wednesday, Parish continued to defend his lowdown hit piece, although he did back off, somewhat, from an allegation that as a private attorney, Maguire somehow was involved in a case involving a bribe,” the Bee writes.  “Lamely, Parish told the Bee that the connection wasn’t as close as he had been led to believe. The allegation is, in fact, false. Parish should have said so.”

The Bee directly implicated Mr. Reisig, which seemed to be enough for the DA to pull his endorsement, as they wrote: “District Attorney Jeff Reisig criticized the mailer but unfortunately stuck by his endorsement of Parish.  By continuing to lend his support to Parish, Reisig displays a lack of insight into how such a mailer can politicize the judiciary.  Yolo County voters should consider Reisig’s embrace of Parish if Reisig appears on the ballot again.”

Mr. Reisig sent an email to the Davis Enterprise stating: “Having considered all the facts and circumstances surrounding judicial candidate Clint Parish’s attack mail piece, including recent explanations from his campaign, I have decided to retract my endorsement of his candidacy.”

The Sacramento Bee article may have been the most critical factor, both in the pulling of the endorsement by Mr. Reisig and in the ultimate decision, it appears, to ask Mr. Parish to find another job.

Back in 2008, James Walker, another Deputy DA, would run against Judge Timothy Fall.  Two years after a sizable defeat to the sitting judge, James Walker would leave the Yolo County DA’s office for private practice.

He told the Vanguard that he was never forced out by the DA, but did venture that those in the DA’s office made his life increasingly miserable.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Categories: