By Fred Johnson and Susan Bassi
California’s Supreme Court has approved a new rule, commonly known as the “Snitch Rule,” that requires attorneys to report any lawyer who engages in criminal acts, fraud, misappropriation of funds or property, or conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, and intentional or reckless misrepresentations. The rule, largely a response to the scandal involving former celebrity attorney Thomas Girardi , was introduced at a time when public trust in the courts and the legal system has hit an all-time low.
Under the new rule, attorneys are required to report any credible evidence of another attorney’s criminal activity to the bar, a judge, or a tribunal with oversight to address complaints regarding misconduct or crimes.
Components of the new rule appear to duplicate the responsibilities of judges charged with safeguarding the public from unethical lawyers. Specifically, Canon 3D2 of California’s Code of Judicial Ethics requires judges to act as public trust gatekeepers by disciplining attorneys or referring them to law enforcement when they are aware an attorney has engaged in unethical or criminal behavior. However, court watchdogs claim judges have been historically complicit in the enforcement of their duties, which provides for attorneys including Thomas Girardi, John Eastman and Michael Avenatti to use their bar cards, and crony networks, to engage in criminal conduct with impunity.
Moreover, it remains uncertain how the new rule will apply to government attorneys, including prosecutors who conceal evidence, and public defenders who fail to provide a zealous defense to indigent clients in criminal proceedings.
Historically, the state’s attorney watchdogs, and judges, have taken limited disciplinary action against government lawyers, raising concerns about the effectiveness of the new rule with respect to lawyers whose salaries are paid by taxpayers.
By way of example, former Contra Costa County District Attorney Mark Peterson faced multiple misconduct and public corruption complaints over the course of his career, but was never formally disciplined by the bar in connection with those complaints. He was ultimately disbarred due to issues related a criminal prosecution connected to his political activities.
Likewise, early in his career, Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen was investigated for misusing public funds by then Attorney General Kamala Harris , who faced her own scandals as a government attorney. Ultimately Rosen faced no public discipline for his admitted misconduct and went on to endorse and lobby to support Harris in her political endeavors.
Recently, as previously reported by the Vanguard, Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Daniel Chung brought a federal lawsuit against DA Rosen. Chung, who is represented by James McManis of the McManis Faulkner law firm, in that matter, claims Rosen violated his First Amendment rights and retaliated against him after he publicly called into question Rosen’s honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as the county’s most powerful prosecutor.
Jeff Rosen, whose wife serves as a public court judge, has additionally refused to comply with a court order directing him to reinstate Chung after Rosen sought to have Chung terminated from his county employment. Meanwhile, county attorneys and state bar officials continue to ignore complaints from the public related to Mr. Rosen’s alleged misconduct, and his refusal to comply with court orders. Such calls into question how a new rule will improve the state’s legal culture or restore public trust when it comes to attorneys.
Further, the state bar has disregarded numerous complaints arising from family law litigants alleging criminal activity in connection with attorneys appointed as minors counsel or private judges. By ignoring such complaints, the state bar continues to create skepticism when it comes to the new rule and how it will provide relief in cases where attorney honesty and trustworthiness are consistently questioned by self-represented litigants and legal consumers whose attorneys have been known to ignore misconduct exhibited by their family law peers.
Critics argue that the new state bar rule is insufficient and unlikely to bring about substantial change in California’s legal community.
Supporters of the new rule remain hopeful that Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, who was recently appointed as the state’s highest ranking judge, has a desire and ability to ensure the proper implementation and meaningful enforcement of the rule such that it will lend to the restoration of public trust and confidence in California’s legal system.
Fred Johnson is a Jailhouse Journalist working under the Vanguard’s mentorship program designed to expand coverage of California’s family courts and legal system. To support reporting such as this, please subscribe, share and donate.
If this new rule were anything other than a public relations move to deceive the public, the state bar would begin by restoring the bar licenses to attorneys like Richard I Fine and myself who were disbarred based upon fraudulent charges to silence us for speaking up about judicial misconduct.
Next, the Commission of Judicial Performance would refer for criminal prosecution the mass of corrupt judges who took bribes from Girardi et al and from large defense firms. Those of us who are familiar with the system know what will happen. NOTHING!
Let’s see the prosecution of former Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye. 205 complaints against Girardi and each one went nowhere! Too bad (in a sense) that Justice Paul Turner isn’t around tom do prison time. What about John Torribio? He’s still alive. Let’s not forget our esteemed Vice President Kamala Harris and her terms as SF DA and then as California AG.
Nothing will happen except more disbarments of honest attorneys and accolades for corrupt judges.