The State Bar Of California Is Lawless And A Travesty, And Should Be Abolished

8 09 2014

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1][2]

When I took and passed California’s bar examination and became a lawyer and a member of The State Bar of California, I was very proud of what I had accomplished.  I worked hard in law school at Berkeley—and later at Georgetown, for a second law degree—and I considered it an honor to be a member of the State Bar . . . but not anymore.  Under former California Governor Pete Wilson, for all intents and purposes, it was put out of business; and its uselessness was exposed for all to see, like the emperor in Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”[3]

This stinging indictment should have been a wake-up call for California lawyers.  However, the State Bar has come roaring back with a vengeance; and it is worse than ever, and a true disgrace.  Once again it is a “rogue” trade association; a waste of its members’ and taxpayers’ monies; and a travesty.  It should be eliminated permanently, with its staff sent looking for other jobs.[4]  Or at the very least, it should become voluntary, with its disciplinary functions transferred to an independent arm of California’s Supreme Court—and its present staff of rogue prosecutors eliminated completely.

Today, I am ashamed to be a member of the State Bar; and I never thought that I would come to that conclusion.[5]  It is like belonging to a private club that discriminates, and is run by an inbred clique or cabal.  At best, it is a third-rate trade association—and Sacramento and Washington, D.C. are full of them.

Undergraduates in colleges, and others who enter law schools in California, have been lulled into the belief that being a lawyer is some “magical” ticket to success—which it is not—and that it is an honorable profession to join.  What they do not realize is that very successful lawyer friends of mine and I have recommended for many years that our kids and others never become lawyers or practice law . . . albeit I am proud of what I have accomplished as a lawyer.[6]

The value of this advice will be even more evident as California’s economy deteriorates during the balance of this decade, and fewer Californians are able to afford legal services.  The State Bar has defrauded would-be lawyers by failing to disclose that the debt obligation a legal education entails may encumber the students (or their parents) for much of their lives, and there may be no jobs when they graduate.[7]

A $15-an-hour job as a non-lawyer will not service a $150,000 debt incurred during law school, yet the State Bar never discloses this because it is knee-deep in fraud itself.  The first goals of any trade association are to perpetuate its existence and full-time employment for its staff members, which the State Bar has been doing with gusto since it essentially went out of business.[8]

Also, the State Bar has done almost nothing to police abuses by lawyers in California, relating to fraud in mortgage lending and other activities.  It has wasted valuable resources pursuing “minnows,” all the while allowing the “big fish” to escape unscathed.  It has never gone after the lawyers at Countrywide who participated in and/or condoned predatory lending practices; and one of Countrywide’s lawyers even testified on the State Bar’s behalf in a predatory lending case[9].

Equally disturbing, disconcerting and odious is the fact that divorce lawyers prey sexually on their vulnerable and distraught clients.  They should be automatically disbarred; and the State Bar is culpable and morally reprehensible for failing to act.  As in the case of other professionals—such as medical doctors and psychiatrists who prey on their vulnerable patients—the most stringent sanctions must be imposed, but they are not.  The State Bar turns a blind eye, which undermines any notions of morality and propriety that it purports to represent.

Its failure to disbar these divorce lawyers is inherently repugnant.  Women’s rights organizations especially should be up in arms, protesting the State Bar’s culpability.  Anyone is vulnerable during divorce proceedings, and this is particularly true of women.  Yet the State Bar does nothing.  If some lawyers can act with impunity in the context of divorces, what use is the State Bar to society—or to those lawyers whose conduct is above reproach?

Unlike the District of Columbia Bar, of which I am proudly a member—for example, because (1) it is more prestigious, with its members being recognized on a nationwide and worldwide basis, and (2) it does a far better job, and (3) its members are charged much less in terms of annual dues—the State Bar forces its members to satisfy Continuing Legal Education (“CLE”) requirements every three years, which is absurd.  Financial “kickbacks” are standard for the State Bar, which is a travesty unto itself; and mandatory CLE is merely one example.

Most CLE courses that are required have no bearing whatsoever on a lawyer’s legal specialty and practice.  Over the years, I have never seen a successful lawyer who failed to keep up with the nuances of his or her specialty.  Indeed, truly proficient lawyers do it each and every day that they practice law; and there is no need to take mandatory CLE courses to accomplish this.  Quite to the contrary, it is a waste of time—but the State Bar mandates this because it enhances the State Bar’s financial coffers and insures the perpetuation of the trade association’s existence and power.[10]  

The contrast between the State Bar and the District of Columbia Bar is striking in almost every respect.  Aside from costing much more, the State Bar is grossly inefficient in serving its members.  For example, I received a check from a purported “client” in what turned out to be a fraudulent “phishing” scam; and I contacted both bar associations to ask what I should do with it, ethically.  The D.C. Bar got right back to me; and one of its attorneys was very thoughtful and helpful.  No one from the State Bar ever called me back, and I gave up trying to reach them.

To say that the State Bar is totally worthless—and lawless, and does not pay its bills—is not to exaggerate one iota.[11] When I was sworn in as a California lawyer, I was in awe of the State Bar.  However, this has not been true for many years.  It is just one more fraudulent trade association, whose existence is perpetuated to serve its staff members above everyone else.  Lawyers are held in low esteem today, inter alia, because rogue organizations like the State Bar exist, which are bankrupt morally and ethically.

Its support from financially strapped Californians and the equally strapped State of California[12] is wasted and must be eliminated completely; and its membership must become voluntary, at best.  Clearly, enough political forces coalesced to effectively put the State Bar out of business when Pete Wilson was California’s governor.  The same thing must happen now—this time to accomplish the job once and for all, and eliminate what is probably the most corrupt and diabolical trade association of its kind in the United States.

In a quotation attributed to the Irish-born statesman Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men [and women] do nothing.”  California lawyers must rise up and say enough is enough, and mean it this time.  Perhaps it is naïve, optimistic and idealistic to believe this will happen, but hopefully not.  American justice requires nothing less.[13]

© 2014, Timothy D. Naegele

Ban State Bar of California

[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass).  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, which specializes in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see and  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g.,, and can be contacted directly at; see also Google search: Timothy D. Naegele

[2]  Note: The author has held these personal opinions for many years, probably since the State Bar was effectively put out of business (see infra n.3), and he and other members woke up to problems with the Bar.  The author paid dues, but worked full time in Washington, D.C. then, and did not pay much attention to the Bar.  He began drafting this article in 2012, long before he heard the names Erin McKeown Joyce, Thomas A. Miller or Lucy Armendariz; and he made refinements (i.e., principally to its footnotes) before it was published here.

[3] See (“Member fee authorization process”) and

[4]  Two general counsel (i.e., “the State Bar’s lawyer,” or chief legal officer) have served during this time frame: Joseph Starr Babcock and Thomas Allen Miller.  Babcock came in to pick up the pieces after the State Bar essentially went out of business; and Miller came on board recently after practicing law.

Miller has taken a “hands’ off” approach, by saying that his “Office of General Counsel” has no “direct involvement” with “the exclusive jurisdiction of the Office of Chief Trial Counsel,” despite the fact that Miller was told by the author that (1) one of his lawyers in the latter office—Erin McKeown Joyce—has totally ignored the law nationally, as enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit and California’s Supreme Court; (2) the State Bar owes the author a substantial sum of money stemming from his deposition testimony as an expert witness, and payment is required by a California statute; (3) another member of the State Bar is reportedly subject to criminal prosecution for fraud, Lloyd J. Michaelson (SBN 94145), yet no actions have been taken by the State Bar; and similarly (4) the State Bar has not taken action against a second attorney, Richard H. Lubetzky (SBN 154032), even though he suborned perjury with respect to testimony before the State Bar, and his troubled history with the State Bar began before his admission to the Bar.  See, e.g.,; see also infra n.11.

See, e.g. (“The suits claim that from 2008 through early 2010, defendants Nicholaus Skultety and lawyer Lloyd Michaelson were scamming millions of dollars from individuals and businesses across the United States by fraudulently promising to fund construction projects in exchange for an up-front cash fee of 2 percent of purported loans. . . . Various people . . . , including some of the alleged victims, said they have been in contact with the FBI”) and (“Local men charged in real estate loan scam – Complaint says they collected fees for loans that were never delivered”) and

While Miller may be competent, and the “new kid on the block,” he is in charge now.  If he will not take actions (1) to rein in abuses by lawyers in the “exclusive fiefdom” of the Office of Chief Trial Counsel, and (2) to address other serious problems with the State Bar—and he allows such problems to fester—who will?  Ultimately, he is responsible and the buck stops with him, yet he is turning a blind eye to wrongdoing by those who work for him.  Indeed, others beneath him have taken the State Bar down a path that must end.  Investigations by California’s legislature and its Governor are warranted and needed; and there must not be a “whitewash.”

[5] The author has debated for some time whether to go “inactive,” or resign from the State Bar altogether.  He applauded the actions that essentially put it out of business.  While it may be best to fight it from within—because only a relatively small number of lawyers know how truly corrupt it is—the State Bar costs the author money, and it wastes his time satisfying useless CLE requirements.

Since being admitted to the State Bar, the author has handled very few matters in California, and less than a handful for individual clients.  Mostly, he has purchased banks there from the federal government for large business clients located elsewhere in the U.S. or overseas; served as an expert witness for the FDIC, in connection with a failing national bank case; and served as a special consultant to the State on banking matters, during the first administration of Governor Jerry Brown.

[6] See  (see also the footnotes and comments beneath the article) and  (“Justice And The Law Do Not Mix”); see also

[7] See (“The American Legal System Is Broken: Can It Be Fixed?”) (see also the footnotes and comments beneath the article)

[8] If one looks hard enough at the State Bar’s Web site, its staggering budget is set forth, although nowhere is an overall summary presented.  See, e.g., (“2015 Proposed Final Budget”).  Its members must be provided with such information in great specificity, because they pay dues; and the public must be as well, because the State Bar’s budget is part of the General Fund support for California’s judicial branch.  Also, funds for the State Bar should be eliminated entirely.

For 2015 alone, more than $5 million is shown for the Office of General Counsel, even though the State Bar’s lawyer apparently will not “intrude” in the activities of his lawless Office of Chief Trial Counsel (see infra n.4 & 11), whose budget for the same period is shown to exceed $30 million.  Both individuals are shown to earn $200,000 per year.

At the State Bar’s Web site in July, 2014, it was stated:

The bar’s programs are financed primarily by fees paid by attorneys and applicants to practice law. In 2011, the bar’s general fund budget was more than $64 million, over 75 percent of which funded the bar’s attorney disciplinary activities.

See (“How is the State Bar funded?”).

Surely, the State Bar must cite figures that are more recent than three years old; and 75 percent of “more than $64 million” equals almost $50 million.  This means that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel’s budget is likely more than that amount today, rather than the amount shown in the “2015 Proposed Final Budget.”  And this money is paid to rogue prosecutors, who are seeking as many “scalps” as they can take.  Not many lawyers can afford to fight this vicious and unholy juggernaut.  See infra n.11.

[9] James Goldberg of Bryan Cave LLP, San Francisco, represented related persons and entities—for example, Bank of America, N.A., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., ReconTrust Company, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and Kelly Germa (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Countrywide”)—which have been defendants in a lawsuit alleging predatory lending and fraud; namely, Kaleb v. Bank of America Home Loans, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:09-cv-05958-RS).

In turn, Goldberg testified on behalf of the State Bar in a predatory lending case before the State Bar Court, In the Matter of Sharon Lapin, 165919, A Member of the State Bar, in which Countrywide’s wrongdoing was an issue.  Clearly, the State Bar has zero problems with (1) allowing the “fox” into the “chicken coop,” and (2) not pursuing the lawyers at Countrywide—which was headquartered in Calabasas, California—for their wrongdoing, despite the fact that Countrywide has been the “poster child” for fraud in America’s mortgage lending scandals.  Also, all of this occurred before State Bar Court Judge Lucy Armendariz, who presumably had no problems with it either.  See also infra n.11.

[10] Instead of eliminating CLE requirements altogether, the State Bar has actually advocated increasing them, which is patently absurd—and simply underscores how irresponsible the State Bar is.


Furthermore, the State Bar is wasting money auditing thousands of its members—to ensure compliance with the requirements—which is absurd, abusive, and another reason why the trade association should be abolished.

See (“5,500 attorneys expected to go through MCLE audit”)

Education of California’s lawyers can and does take place on an individual, very personal basis.  Also, there are many private organizations, such as universities, which provide superior educational resources.

[11] For example, the author testified as an expert witness before the State Bar pursuant to its subpoena on June 27, 2012, with respect to matters involving another member of the State Bar.  Section 1986.5 of California’s Code of Civil Procedure states in pertinent part:

Any person who is subpoenaed and required to give a deposition shall be entitled to receive the same witness fees and mileage as if the subpoena required him or her to attend and testify before a court in which the action or proceeding is pending.


The State Bar has not paid the author, and one must assume that it has not paid others as well.  In its defense, on September 12, 2013, it produced a handwritten “Clarification order,” dated July 9, 2012, for the first time—which had been signed by State Bar Court Judge Armendariz, and purported to shift the fees and costs away from the State Bar.  However, it did not override or nullify the California statute; and arguably the State Bar Court judge is “complicit” in the State Bar’s lawlessness.

How many people have been “cheated” financially by the State Bar?  Indeed, it must be determined—by means of an independent investigation—how many other times the State Bar has used the State Bar Court or other ruses to cheat people out of monies that are owed.  The spotlight must be focused on the State Bar’s employees and State Bar Court judges who engage in such abuses.

Clearly, the State Bar is dodging the courts and the laws by turning to its own State Bar Court judges to bless its decisions.  The State Bar’s rules and those of the State Bar Court are Byzantine at best, and are skewed against lawyers in California.  See, e.g., and (“Rules of Practice and the Rules of Procedure, which govern State Bar Court proceedings”)

Next, a “Senior Trial Counsel” with the State Bar, Joyce, told the author that the “black letter law” decisions of federal courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) do not count as far as she was concerned, nor do decisions of California’s Supreme Court.

In essence, she was saying that the “law of the land” could and should be ignored.  Needless to say, the author was stunned and flabbergasted by her ignorance and naïveté, yet these are the types of lawyers who are apparently employed by and represent the State Bar.  They are lawless; and hence, when the State Bar acts through them, it is lawless.

Evidently the performances of the State Bar’s prosecutors are measured by how many “scalps” they take, which gives them enormous incentives to go after the State Bar’s members, whether they are innocent or not—and grotesquely distorts the prosecutorial process.  When State Bar Court judges override existing laws, without thinking twice about it, one understands how corrupt the system is, from one end to the other.

Most prosecutors seemingly have never laid eyes on an innocent defendant.  As the author has written:

Anyone who thinks that prosecutors are advocates of truth and justice is living in a “Mary Poppins” fantasy world, and knows nothing about how our legal system really operates. It is seldom if ever discussed or written about, yet it is often said—by lawyers—that the only thing separating prosecutors from guilty criminals is the “badge.”

See infra n.6.  Imagine a life spent hurting people.  Joyce may be a perfect example, and the question is: how many people has she hurt?

Unlike some state bar associations such as the District of Columbia Bar, where the membership is worth something, the State Bar is a burden and not something to be proud of.  When it essentially went out of business, it was not missed except by its staff members, who had been feeding at its trough.

As the author has written in an article cited above:

Can our legal system be fixed, and will the American people come to trust and respect lawyers and judges again, and believe that justice not only exists but prevails in this great nation?  Maybe . . . if the profession is restructured, and if it attracts those people who believe that the law is sacred, sacrosanct and pristine—truly a shining city upon a hill—and they put such principles into practice.  The profession does not require saints, but it does need something different than “Law West of the Pecos by Judge Roy Bean.”  And it needs people who are different than it has been attracting: who are often driven, ruthless, unprincipled, money-hungry, and power-hungry.

See infra n.7 (emphasis in original).  At the very least, Joyce seems to be Bean’s successor.

On July 29, 2014, Joyce commenced a disciplinary action against the author based on (1) “Failure to Update Membership Address,” and (2) “Unconscionable Fee” and “Failure To Refund Unearned Attorney Fees.”  The charges were totally false, bogus and constituted pure harassment—and this article was written well beforehand (see infra n.2)—but she brought the action anyway.  And Miller did nothing to stop her, even though both were briefed fully about the issues.  See, e.g., infra n.4.  It is unrealistic to expect even a modicum of justice from a rogue prosecutor such as Joyce, or a judge like Armendariz to whom the author’s case was assigned,  who ignores the law.

It is interesting that on the same date, July 29, 2014, the homepage of the State Bar’s Web site asked in a banner headline: “What can the State Bar of California do for you?”  Above that question in bold print appeared another headline: “MCLE audit will include more than 5,500 [members].”  See infra n.10. Below the question appeared another headline: “State Bar Court recommends three-year suspension for prominent ex-prosecutor.”  This is the State Bar today: hurting its members in every way possible, to justify its bloated budget and staff.

The author has maintained and paid for the same Post Office address continuously since 1989, but some mail was returned to the State Bar through no fault of his own.  Also, the author and a legal team that he assembled lost a class-action, RICO Internet fraud case against the national infomercial company, Guthy-Renker, despite the fact that its agent in Texas testified as to the full extent of the fraudulent scheme that hurt large numbers of Americans.  Other attorneys (including one who is a federal judge today), law clerks and the author worked hard to win the lawsuit; however, “success has many fathers, while defeat is an orphan.”

There is no way to predict with certainty how a federal judge will act: lawyers are not fortune tellers or seers.  A new District Judge decided against the author’s clients, just as the judge decided against a major Hollywood movie studio where a friend of the author is Executive Vice President and General Counsel.  Hence, the former clients came after the author—even though no lawyer can guarantee success, and the author made that clear to them—and Joyce was only too happy to oblige.

Imagine every lawyer in California being harassed by the State Bar when he or she loses a lawsuit, which is Joyce’s modus operandi and constitutes nothing more than a witch hunt.  The author ceased to represent the former clients more than ten years ago. Hence, the case is time-barred by “Rule 5.21 Limitations Period” of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, which states in pertinent part: “[T]he proceeding must begin within five years from the date of the violation.”  The case was baseless for other reasons as well.  However, this did not matter to Miller or Joyce, or deter them.

The tragedy is that Californians and other Americans were defrauded by Guthy-Renker, yet the federal judge did not care; and certainly, neither Miller nor Joyce care, even though Guthy-Renker conducted its fraudulent scheme from and in California.  Just as the State Bar does not take action against Countrywide’s lawyers—or against (1) attorneys who prey sexually on their vulnerable clients in divorce proceedings, or (2) Michaelson who is reportedly subject to criminal prosecution for fraud, or (3) Lubetzky who suborned perjury with respect to testimony before the State Bar, which is a crime—so too it looks the other way regarding Guthy-Renker and its lawyers.

[12]  Lots of Californians and Americans are hurting these days, including lawyers.  See (“Poverty In America”) (see also the comments beneath the article).  California has severe financial problems.  However, the State Bar continues to spend like a “drunken sailor,” which is unfathomable and reprehensible.

[13] Also, it is not beyond the pale of reason to believe that boycotts of the State Bar and its activities by members may occur; mass refusals by them to pay State Bar dues may take place; and California lawyers may refuse to satisfy the State Bar’s CLE requirements.



47 responses

15 11 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Ex-California State Bar Director Files Whistle-Blower Action

Ban The State Bar Of California

The Courthouse New Service has reported:

In a whistle-blower lawsuit filed Thursday, former Sen. Joseph Dunn says the State Bar fired him as its executive director for exposing malfeasance and “egregious improprieties.”

Dunn, who was fired on Nov. 7, claims he was targeted after he discovered that the bar’s chief trial counsel, Jayne Kim, removed 269 backlogged cases from official reports released to the public in order to make her office appear more productive.

Dunn is represented by Mark Geragos in Los Angeles.

“We wouldn’t have filed this case if we didn’t think there was egregious conduct going on at the State Bar,” Geragos said.

The lawyer noted that Dunn’s fellow whistleblowers are afraid of retaliation. “They figure if they’re going to blow the whistle that their employment is at risk,” Geragos added. “They’re very brave to stand up against what I consider to be outrageous, unethical and illegal conduct at the State Bar.”

He said Dunn was not available for comment Thursday.

Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, the complaint names the bar and the bar’s newly installed president, Craig Holden, as defendants.

Shortly after Holden took office in May, says the complaint, he began telling people he wanted “to do something about Dunn,” who had worked as executive director since 2010.

Upon learning of Dunn’s concerns with the activities at the Office of Chief Trial Counsel, Kim complained about Dunn, according to the lawsuit.

Her internal complaint led to an evaluation “conducted at exorbitant expense to the membership of the State Bar,” said Dunn. He was at no point provided with a copy or summary of her complaint.

In early November, Dunn and several other bar employees lodged complaints about Kim’s conduct with the bar’s board of trustees.

Within two days, Dunn was fired.

His lawsuit points out that Kim’s alleged misconduct occurred just as the bar is about to undergo an audit.

“The California Bureau of State Audits is set to conduct its biannual audit of the State Bar in 2015. Rather than hold Ms. Kim and the OCTC accountable for its actions as Senator Dunn encouraged, the State Bar has terminated Senator Dunn and taken adverse actions against other whistleblowers for bringing this issue to their attention,” said the complaint.

This investigation cost bar members more than $300,000, according to Dunn.

His lawsuit says the State Bar used a private law firm with close ties to one of the bar’s trustees, Miriam Krinsky, even though a retired former California Supreme Court Justice had offered to conduct a pro bono evaluation.

Krinsky was a member of the Judicial Council from roughly 2009-2012. The council decides on rules and budgets for California’s vast court system. During a period of intense turmoil in the council’s staff roughly two years ago, Dunn was under consideration to direct the staff, then called the Administrative Office of the Courts.

One of the merits to his possible ascension to that post was his knowledge of the Legislature where the administrative office had been severely criticized over its handling of public funds, including a disastrous software project. Dunn served as a California state senator representing Santa Ana in Orange County from 1998-2006.

In Thursday’s lawsuit, Dunn said, “The retention of the private firm, in addition to being an utter waste of State Bar membership dues, violated State Bar protocol.”

“Three billing partners from the private firm that were put on the ‘evaluation’ each billed in excess of $800 per hour,” said the complaint. “The current billable hours for the services rendered by that private firm likely exceeds $300,000.”

Dunn says he was given his 30-day termination notice on Nov. 7 while he was giving a speech for the State Bar in San Francisco. Holden allegedly said he couldn’t speak to the press, or risk losing his severance pay.

The State Bar has not announced a search for a new executive director, Dunn’s lawsuit notes, adding that Holden plans to take the job himself.

Dunn is seeking damages and injunctive relief reinstating him as executive director, or at the very least, an order to show cause why he should not be reinstated.

See (emphasis added); but see (“Investigation Found Dunn Misled Bar Trustees, Breached Fiduciary Duties”)


25 11 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Investigate Former SF Bar President For Taking $438,000 From Escrow Account

The following petition has been provided by Leah Ahn, and its facts have not been independently confirmed or denied:

All California attorneys are bound by an ethical duty of candor that is codified by statute. The State Bar Act imposes misdemeanor criminal liability on any attorney who engages in any deceit or collusion with punishment that could include a jail sentence (section 6128). Section 6106 deems “any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption” as cause for disbarment or suspension and does not wait for a criminal conviction to disbar or suspend an attorney for an act that constitutes a felony or misdemeanor.

We respectfully request that the State Bar of California investigate complaints that the former President of the Bar Association of San Francisco, PRIYA SESHACHARI SANGER, secretly took $438,000 from an escrow account, then passed forged and false documents to claim that it was authorized.

A homebuyer deposited purchase funds into an escrow account intending that her money be sent to the bank to pay the mortgage on the property she was buying. Instead, $438,000 of the unsuspecting homebuyer’s money was wired directly into Priya Sanger’s personal bank account.

Sanger was vice president and senior counsel of Wells Fargo Bank when she tapped into the escrow account without the homebuyer’s knowledge. At the time the homebuyer found out that Sanger had taken her money, Priya Sanger was the Treasurer of the Bar Association of San Francisco.

[Note: Sanger is apparently with Google’s Legal Department now:]

Sanger had accessed the account with the help of notoriously corrupt real estate broker WB Coyle and his contacts at the escrow company. NBC News has already aired several investigative stories exposing Coyle’s widespread real estate-based fraud and theft ( Coyle surrendered his license last year after the California Bureau of Real Estate served him with allegations of fraud and intentional violation of real estate laws.

The homebuyer was buying into a three-unit building where there were already two other owners. My family is one of these owners. Sanger happens to be the other owner. Sanger’s actions didn’t just harm the homebuyer; the mortgage is secured by the entire building, which includes my family’s home. Because Sanger took the money that was supposed to be paid to the mortgage, that debt is still on our property. The mortgage is in technical default. Sanger (a former bank attorney) refuses to correct the mortgage default. She refused the homebuyer’s request to pay back the money and avoid legal action. Instead, Sanger chose to litigate against her neighbors, claiming that we agreed to give her the money.

Sanger produced a document with the homebuyer’s forged signature claiming that the homebuyer agreed to give $438,000 to Sanger instead of paying it to the mortgage. Sanger entered this false evidence in a legal proceeding where she specifically informed the judge of her then-current position as the President of the Bar Association of San Francisco—and won. Sanger’s sole witness to “verify the authenticity” of her fraudulent evidence was none other than WB Coyle ( Sanger had retained Coyle’s attorney to represent her in the proceedings.

Evidence discovered after these proceedings show how Sanger got the money, which involves other forged and altered documents. Sanger personally solicited the escrow holder—using her Wells Fargo Bank email address identifying herself as senior counsel for Wells Fargo Bank—to secretly get her hands on someone else’s money. The escrow instructions had been altered after they were signed to include a new handwritten note to give the funds to Sanger. Sanger executed an agreement that she would not sue the escrow holder for giving her the cash—which she faxed from her Wells Fargo Bank office using the official Wells Fargo Bank cover sheet identifying herself as vice president and senior counsel of Wells Fargo Bank. That same day, the escrow assistant (who was the girlfriend of Coyle’s business partner) prepared the wire transfer for $438,000 directly into Priya Sanger’s personal bank account with the instruction to “RUSH, please!”

Complaints reporting Sanger’s actions have been submitted with documentary evidence to the State Bar. The Bar also received documents in which Sanger made deceitful representations to different parties regarding the $438,000 and refused to cooperate in releasing the other mortgage borrowers from personal liability for the money that she took. My family has been financially devastated from litigating the mortgage disputes against Sanger.

Furthermore, the Bar received evidence that, in a separate matter, Sanger and her husband were also discovered to have taken $15,000 out of the building’s common bank account. The building contract required the homeowners’ agreement to take funds from the account. The other then-homeowners, who deposited the majority of the money, deny authorizing the withdrawals to Sanger. Sanger never produced any proof of authorization. Instead, Sanger stated in writing that the statute of limitations had passed and refused to pay back the $15,000. Sanger was the Treasurer of the Bar Association of San Francisco at the time.

We ask the State Bar to determine if the foregoing is conduct becoming of an officer of the court. It is baffling that any third party could take $438,000 out of an escrow account and manage to escape formal inquiry. We respectfully contend that there is sufficient evidence of an attorney’s wrongdoing to warrant investigation by the State Bar. Especially given that the accused attorney continued a pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior while holding official titles within the local Bar Association, we believe that any finding of Priya Sanger’s misconduct should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the disciplinary system.


I, Leah Ahn, author of the petition, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above petition is true of my own knowledge, except as to those things stated upon information and belief, and as to those, I believe it to be true. Executed on November 13, 2014, in San Francisco, California.



7 12 2014
Michael Warnken

While I agree with you in principle because the Ca State Bar itself is in fact a corrupt cesspool. However abolishing it is not really the issue. The real truth is, the Bar and many other State agencies who are also corrupt is a function of the tiny legislature bodies we have across America. In fact, after looking over all of your articles between the the “US Department of Injustice” to the American Legal system being broken, these are all issues that directly exist due to poor representation.

The Federal level is an excellent example. 435 US House members cannot properly represent the over 700,000 constituents they each have. The idea that the US Senate has a mere 100 members for the over 300 million people in America is a cabal in itself.

Consider locally in LA County, its 10 million residents have 5 Supervisors. Each has 2 million. More violence by Government goes on there than anywhere else. So, you are correct in your views, but the problems you aptly examine are symptoms. The disease is lack of representation!


7 12 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Michael, for your comments.

On balance, I agree with you—and certainly with your first sentence.

I have spent my professional career thus far dealing with the federal government and State governments. The only exceptions are a few real estate projects; for example, trying to oversee the construction of a building on the California coast from Washington, D.C., which required approximately 40 different permits and turned out to be a nightmare.

You conclude: “The disease is lack of representation!”

I understand your point of view; and certainly in theory, I would agree.

However, too many chefs stirring the pot might result in nothing positive being done. This is one of the reasons why so many Americans hate government at all levels today, feeling they have lost their freedoms. However, I realize too that what is “positive” is in the eye of the beholder.

After dealing with governments, there is one conclusion that I came to years ago: the government that governs least governs best.

The United States today is a country that is strangled by government intrusions into Americans’ lives and their privacy; and perhaps the EU is even worse.

Food for thought.


7 12 2014
Michael Warnken

I disagree and from your thoughts, I should sit down and do a compilation of all the powers in a law review at some point since so many people tend to misunderstand this. However, Too many chefs do not spoil the soup is not the proper analogy here even if it does seem apt.

There are two key duties of the legislative branch. The first is to take Petitions for redress of grievances. This Petitioning process is what leads to the creation of laws. Generally only those with lots of money can get laws. The rest of us are left Petitioning and getting no answers.

The second key duty is to investigate and inform.

“It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function. The argument is not only that discussed and interrogated administration is the only pure and efficient administration, but, more than that, that the only really self-governing people is that people which discusses and interrogates its administration. The talk on the part of Congress which we sometimes justly condemn is the profitless squabble of words over frivolous bills or selfish party issues. It would be hard to conceive of there being too much talk about the practical concerns and processes of government. Such talk it is which, when earnestly and purposefully conducted, clears the public mind and shapes the demands of public opinion.”

“By increasing the representation we make it more difficult to corrupt and influence the legislative members; we diffuse them more extensively among the body of the people, perfect the balance, multiply information, strengthen the confidence of the people, and consequently support the laws on equal and free principles.” Federal Farmer

There are a few more than 535 members of Congress. Who can they investigate? There are more Federal Agencies than Members of Congress. There are over 1,000 Federal Judges and who knows how many Federal Prosecutors? It is the duty of the Members of Congress to investigate, well all Federal expenditures and everything else.

“[George] Mason was convinced that once the US House began meeting, it would resist efforts to add more members, which he believed necessary for the body to represent the diverse interests of the people.”

The same is true at the state level. In California, we have 120 no ability to oversee the 560+ California Agencies.


7 12 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Michael, for your additional comments.

First, I worked in the U.S. Senate for almost four years. During this time, I wrote several pieces of legislation that are still the law today.

Second, after leaving the Hill, I worked directly with both the Senate and House for many years, and am still involved.

Third, I rewrote the financial institutions laws of the State Of Maine, which now appear as Title 9-B of the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated.

Fourth, I served as special consultant to the State of California on matters pertaining to financial institutions.


I do not say any of this to brag, but merely to point out that I know how the legislative process works.

Fifth, you have said:

There are two key duties of the legislative branch. The first is to take Petitions for redress of grievances. This Petitioning process is what leads to the creation of laws. Generally only those with lots of money can get laws. The rest of us are left Petitioning and getting no answers.

Each member of Congress—Senators and Congresspersons alike—has “case workers” who receive “petitions” from constituents regarding problems. Most of the time, this relates to problems with government agencies; and the staff members handle them to the satisfaction of the constituents.

Sixth, you have said:

The second key duty is to investigate and inform.

Generally, this is handled by the Senate and House committees, and not by the personal staffs.

Seventh, you have cited two paragraphs in quotes, which are apparently from the “Federal Farmer.” Perhaps more legislators are needed. I do not disagree. However, a constitutional change would be required at the federal level, which would be difficult if not impossible to obtain.


7 12 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

The State Bar Of California Is Further Descending Into A Banana Republic

Ban The State Bar Of California

Maura Dolan of the Los Angeles Times has reported:

The agency that regulates California’s lawyers is once again beset with conflict, riddled by accusations involving expense accounts and ethics.

The turmoil became public last month when the board of the State Bar of California fired its executive director, Joe Dunn, a former state senator from Orange County.

Dunn did not go quietly.

He hired high-profile Los Angeles lawyer Mark J. Geragos and filed a lawsuit charging the bar with “egregious improprieties.”

Dunn’s critics fired back by revealing that a confidential report commissioned by the board found Dunn had spent $5,600 for a party at a Los Angeles restaurant and that a former bar president had filed an expense account report for $1,000 at Tiffany & Co.

The acrimony threatens to further diminish the reputation of the bar, an arm of the California Supreme Court that oversees nearly 250,000 lawyers and is charged with rooting out corrupt attorneys and upholding high moral standards.

Some lawyers and lawmakers have long criticized the bar as bloated, political and lenient on errant lawyers. Upheaval in the 1990s almost led to the organization’s demise, and there have been various efforts to make it less a trade organization and more a regulatory agency.

“The bar is just further descending into a banana republic,” said Golden Gate University law professor Peter Keane, who tried unsuccessfully decades ago to overhaul the association. “It is totally dysfunctional and should be unraveled.”

Funded largely by mandatory lawyers’ dues, the bar is a public corporation that regulates, disciplines and licenses attorneys, subject to the approval of the state high court. Becoming a bar leader is considered a steppingstone to a judgeship and a way to enhance a resume or attract clients.

Dunn, a former trial lawyer hired four years ago, was earning $259,000 a year when he lost his job, overseeing 500 employees and an organization with a $138.6-milllion budget.

Shortly before Dunn was fired, he filed an anonymous “whistle-blower” complaint alleging, among other things, that a bar official was manipulating records to hide a huge backlog in untended complaints against lawyers. Dunn later identified himself as the whistle-blower and said he was fired in retaliation for the complaint.

The bar suggested in a prepared statement that Dunn knew he was going to be fired before filing the complaint, a charge Geragos called “totally untrue.” The statement said Dunn was being investigated because of a complaint by a high-level executive — the same bar official Dunn had accused of misconduct.

The highly public fight is expected to cost the bar hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and could lead to efforts to restructure the organization. The Legislature must pass bills each year authorizing the bar to collect dues, and two governors have vetoed such bills, calling the bar wasteful, partisan and racked by “chronic disharmony.”

“I think there are going to have to be major changes,” said Arthur L. Margolis, who defends lawyers before the bar and advises other attorneys on legal ethics, “to protect whatever credibility” the bar has left.

Dunn’s lawsuit alleged “ethical breaches, prosecutorial lapses and fiscal improprieties” within the bar.

He accused the bar of paying a private law firm $300,000 — with three law partners each billing $800 an hour — to investigate him even though a former judge had offered to do it for free. The purported hourly fee galled many lawyers, who must pay bar dues. Most earn far less than $800 an hour. The bar has refused to confirm the amount spent on the investigation.

The target of Dunn’s wrath was Craig Holden, a partner at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, one of L.A.’s largest law firms, who became bar president in September in an uncontested election. Dunn, who reported to the bar’s board, accused Holden of orchestrating his ouster, possibly because Holden wanted the job himself.

Holden, whose bar position is volunteer, said he laughed at that charge. The bar said Dunn’s lawsuit was “baseless.”

After Dunn filed his lawsuit, details of the outside law firm’s confidential investigation into Dunn became public. People with access to the report shared its contents with The Times and two legal newspapers.

The investigation, ordered by the bar’s trustees, found that Dunn had submitted an expense report for $5,600 for an event in July at 10e, a Los Angeles restaurant owned by Geragos. Geragos said the expense was for a going-away event for former bar President Luis Rodriguez, a Los Angeles deputy public defender whose one-year term ended in September.

The report also said Rodriguez submitted an expense for $1,000 at Tiffany. Rodriguez, asked about the expense, said any suggestion of impropriety was “maddening.”

Rodriguez said bar presidents are given $30,000 annual stipends, and he used part of that to buy gifts for the bar’s trustees as a gesture of appreciation as he was leaving. He said the gift giving was a tradition.

“Every president before me has given a gift, and he or she is free to use that money,” Rodriguez said.

Rodriguez presented the trustees with pens from Tiffany. He referred further questions to his lawyer.

A bar spokeswoman said presidents have been given up to $30,000 a year since 2006 for “secretarial assistance, miscellaneous expense and travel expense.”

The money for the stipend and the going-away party came from mandatory bar dues, which this year cost most practicing lawyers $420 each.

Under a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, mandatory bar dues may be spent only on regulating the profession and improving legal services to the public. A spokeswoman for the bar said expenses such as gifts and dinners will be paid from other revenues in the future — a policy instigated by Holden when he became president.

Disclosures from the confidential report infuriated Dunn’s supporters. Geragos described the ouster of Dunn as “a power play” and said Dunn was never allowed to hear or respond to the charges, which included cronyism and misleading the board.

Geragos blamed the bar board for revealing the contents of the report on Dunn to journalists, and warned that any lawyer who divulged the findings could face legal discipline.

The feud is drawing attention in legal circles in California and elsewhere.

“Lawyers in California and legal ethicists around the country are wondering if there is something systematically problematic with the state bar,” said John Steele, who teaches legal ethics at UC Berkeley’s law school.

Or, Steele added, the internal squabbling may amount to just another particularly bad bout of turbulence.

See; see also (“Suit spurs calls for new lawyer discipline model”—”The state bar for the last generation has been a completely dysfunctional organization”)


7 12 2014
Michael Warnken

Mr. Naegele,

I appreciate your response. It is interesting reading your response and I shall respond accordingly.

I am aware that you have some experience, but the experience you have is exemplar. You are in effect an insider that has had access that more than 99% of the people do not have. You also have an idea on the process.
You wrote: “. . . Senators and Congresspersons alike has ‘Case workers’ who receive ‘petitions’ from constituents regarding problems. . . ” these petitions relate to government agencies. Then you go on to note that “. . . the staff members handle them to the satisfaction of the constituents.”

Now, there are a number of ways I can react to this. I want them all to be constructive and you not to be upset, but I also wish to be a little colorful to make my point and perhaps have it stick. These responses range “Are you kidding me?” to “Do you really believe that?” to the more obvious and proper response of “That is not really how it works in most instances” because right now is the magical moment where I don’t think you see the connection between the topics you write about, but might. What I am saying directly is that is the deficiency of the legislature and its formation which is allowing these issues to occur.

I have more direct responses with these “staffers” and there is a great book about them called “Hill Rat” that is one hell of an expose on these staffers, what they do and their effect on this process. The Average member of Congress now has about 100 non elected staffers either for themselves or the committees. Just like the members of Congress cannot oversee the executive or judiciary, but they can barely watch the staffers and as “Hill Rat” shows us, the staffers are making more and more of the decisions of the members of Congress. I argue that when members of Congress are debating, questions should not so much be “How would vote on this or that issue” but in fact, “who are you going to hire and what are they going to vote for?”

I attended Georgetown University in the Summer of 1999 and worked at a large org in DC and had many roommates who worked for members of Congress and I heard a lot about what really goes on there and what the staffers really do.

The theory is, we pay taxes, thus we have representation. What the public coffers pay for are supposed to be watched by those we elect as well as the laws they create. This is the concept of “Taxation with Representation” but if we do not have enough members of a legislative body to do its job, then what does it matter? Taxes are collected and the money is used as it is used. If the money is wasted or people are harmed, by the institutions that money creates or pays for, then what? Nothing, the abuse continues.

Also, the more people that a rep has in their district, the more money it costs to run for office. This in turn makes it so money has more import than each individual vote. So, the concentrated powers (The Bar, The DOJ, Trade Associations) and the moneyed interests have more access. The real reforms do not exist or those enjoying the current circumstances can keep them that way and those petitioning or those who should be petitioning do not. People harmed do not even assume that they can affect the process.

So, if these “staff members” who work for the members of the legislatures were indeed handling these petitions for grievances from their constituents to the satisfaction of those petitioning, then the Bar would be dealt with. The Law would not be so that the Prosecution was overcharging the Defendants because they would be able to Petition over these wrongs.

I am aware that Committees perform oversight. However, that is just my point, not only are there more agencies than there are members of Congress, but there are far more agencies than there are committees. So, you probably recall the Madoff incident. One of the things it made us aware of is the fact that members of the SEC were engaged in misconduct of an array of stripes. Lawyers not current with their bar licenses, some members were in there downloading pornographic material all day. Would you like to know why? They have no one looking over them. The Secretary of Commerce (I think it was Chris Cox at the time) overseeing the SEC did not even have an idea that this was going on. So, the internal procedures were not enough and Congress did not investigate the SEC so, the abuses were able to go on.

Wanna know why the VA is in such a mess? No oversight. Those receiving the services from the VA were letting their members of Congress know what was going on, but Congress did not respond, not until the media showed that people were dying (quite a threshold). I have a friend in this boat. He complained often. He was ignored. So, the VA (which you have not apparently written about) was engaging in abusive practices for a very long time.

So, some investigations do occur. We all remember when Baseball was being investigated. The bigger question is, what weren’t they investigating when they were investigating baseball? Well, the VA for one since it seems they were having massive problems then. They also weren’t investigating the SEC at that time either. Why weren’t they investigating Football which is rampant with steroids? What else aren’t they investigating? How about the abuses of the bar that you have written about?

The US House size is set in 2 USC 2(a-c) and its size can be between a minimum of 1 per state (which would place the house at 50) and just over 10,000. The Size of the Senate is set twice by the Constitution, both in Article I and Article V. Article I sets it at 2 per State. Article V opens the door for more, but suggests that there can be more, but that the number allocated can be equal per state. So, we could in theory have 3 per state or 4 or 6 or even 12!

I agree with you, difficult, but not for the direct reason you cited.

So, I reassert that the things you are rightfully complaining about are in fact symptoms of lack of legislative representation! So now you know why the things you are being courageous about by blogging on are happening. But, you still might not see it or agree with me!


8 12 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Michael, for your additional thoughtful comments.

First, I can only speak based on my personal experiences. We had exceptional case workers, who were very dedicated to doing their jobs and serving the constituents. And we monitored their efforts.

Heaven knows, this may not be true of every congressional staff member, much less those who serve constituents on a state-wide or local basis. Each of us has encountered rude, uncaring conduct on the part of government workers.

However, I have received exceptional care and attention—and when I write these words, three black men come to mind immediately, two with the federal court system and another with the Social Security Administration.

With all due respect, to increase the number of government employees seems to be no solution to anything. Also, to increase the number of our federal legislators would require a constitutional change, which again is almost impossible to obtain.


8 12 2014
Michael Warnken

Again, I return to the point that all the problems you speak of are symptoms of lack of representation. It is that simple!

Second, I do not advocate the increase of Government employees at all.

Third, no, an increase in the size of the US House does not require a Constitutional amendment. The Size of the US House increased and decreased since it was formed. It’s initial size is set in the Constitution (I believe at 65 members). From there, it grew. More states were added, the population grew.

The US House actually shrunk during the Civil War when the Southern states no longer participated. Then it increased up until 1911. Then it was officially frozen at 435 until Alaska and Hawaii were added and it became 437. Then two years later it was shrunk back to 435.

The Population was about 100 million when the house was frozen today we are about 320 million. So, the Congressional districts are 3 times as large. We now add assistants in lieu of adding more reps.

The cost of running an effective campaign correlate 93% with money. So, the incumbents all have the benefit and the challengers are forced to be millionaires and the real losers are the rest of us who endure the violence of the Bar. Turn over is less than 10% and yet our reps have a favorability rating of about 10% to 20% at any given time. Turn out is low because “why bother” and at the same time, when a lawyer damages a person and they go to the bar and the bar does nothing, you will find that when you go to your representative or their assistants, they do the same and guess what, they win their next election! It’s pretty perverse.

As a simple question I ask of those who defend the current system. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about Assistants or Staffers? When I ask people “Should you as a voter have access to the Representative or the Assistant?” I rarely hear the Assistant. When you ask a big donor if they should have access to the rep or the Assistant, their answer is no different!

Guess who has their grievances remedied? Not I said the fly!


8 12 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Michael.

First, the “District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment” and the “Equal Rights Amendment” have failed, and this may be reflective of other similar efforts, although I realize that the number of representatives has changed over time.

See (“Synopsis of each unratified amendment”)

Second, if you review all of my articles here, you will realize that in no way do I believe the “system” is perfect or above reproach. Quite to the contrary. However, there is no simple solution to remedying an imperfect system.

Having said that, I believe “trade associations” such as the State Bar of California should be abolished, or at the very least made voluntary; and their staff members should be discharged without any benefits.


8 12 2014
Michael Warnken

I appreciate your thoughts here. I actually disagree on the Trade Association matter. They have the right under Amendment I to Assemble. They are like any group of like minded individuals who wish to act in concert. I just don’t believe they should have so much influence on the process as they do.

The Amendments you have raised are not really relevant here. But DC and other similar enclaves such as the US Virgin Islands do need representation and at least now have non voting (actually part time voting).

There was a reason that DC was not supposed to have a Representative. The founders were worried that such a corrupt center would have too much influence on the process. There is a great US Supreme Court case on this the topic of DC not having a Rep: Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 5 Wheat. 317 317 (1820)

There is an interesting argument raised by a resident of DC that he should not have to pay taxes since he doesn’t have a representative. John Marshall rules against him and notes:

“Although in theory it might be more congenial to the spirit of our institutions to admit a representative from the District, it may be doubted whether, in fact, its interests would be rendered thereby [Page 18 U. S. 325] the more secure, and certainly the Constitution does not consider their want of a representative in Congress as exempting it from equal taxation.”

DC has a non voting representative. Representation was supposed to run with the States. DC gets about $5 for every dollar it pays in taxes, so from that angle, it is well represented!

How many people can a representative really represent? When does agency dissipate? When is substituting an Assistant proper and when does it no longer constitute agency? I think we’ve been there.

When the size of a district was proposed by the Founders, 30,000 was decided to be the right size.40,000 was tyranny. We are 720,000 per US House member. Is that agency? Can they oversee these things?

I have read many of your articles and enjoyed them. The problems you have spoken are complex. However, the legislative branch has the duty to oversee and reign in these problems. 435 Members do not have the bandwidth to deal with these problems. It is just that simple! The better the representation, the less violence committed against the common citizen and the more liberties. More representation does not fix the core problem of man’s sometimes evil nature, however, it makes it more likely for individuals to find protection from the Bar or the other groups who are violating citizens.

I am surprised you have stayed in this so long, you need not respond, I enjoy once in a while debating this, especially with astute people as yourself. Some are more abstinent about their refusal to acknowledge the obvious. I have to keep sharp when I am not presenting to a crowd on the issue.


8 12 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Michael.

First, I have represented trade associations, some very large and some small; and the State Bar is nothing more than a third-rate trade association, if that. Its “leadership” should be sacked, along with its staff. What happened when Pete Wilson was governor was the right thing to do. It should disappear permanently.

Second, you have said:

The better the representation, the less violence committed against the common citizen and the more liberties.

The thugs and hoods who torched Ferguson and other communities should be treated as domestic terrorists, and dealt with harshly.

They must not be coddled, which has happened since the Watts’ riots of 1965!

Third, you and I do not disagree about the need for effective representation. This is what our great country is all about. However, I have difficulty squaring that with my long-held and deep belief that the government that governs least governs best.

I am sick and tired of government, and so are most Americans. When we find corrupt organs such as the State Bar, we rail against them—privately or in public.


8 12 2014
Michael Warnken

I like the idea of competing Bars. One of the problems with the State Bar as it is formed is the fact that it has a monopoly on the matter. That would take away some of the problems under the bar.

I need not touch the Ferguson matter. That is outside the scope here.

More representation does not mean more government. This is essential. There are two ways to look at the issue of Government. The first idea is that Government is all person involved in a Polity. The question is, what is our function. Some people are representatives. Some people are in the Judiciary and some are in the legislature.

Most of us are Citizens and as such, we have the potential of running for office. However, we have the function of voting and being Jurors. This means service in both Petite Juries and Grand Juries. So, under this theory Government is everyone within a Polity.

Under my Second theory, the “Government” as we know it is the Executive branch. That is anyone who executes the functions of Government. The Executive branch is the most dangerous branch of Government. The legislature in effect creates the Executive, it forms taxes that pays the Executive. It is the ultimate duty of the legislature to restrain the Executive.

I have traced this last theory back to Blackstone. He had an interesting passage in the Common Law of England where he noted that it was quite natural for the King to go out and Conquest other Countries for himself. He then noted it was necessary that Parliament restrain the King.

When we speak of a “Balance of Power” We just assume that there are three branches and they Balance. Done right? Some people take it a little bit further and they note that it is necessary for a legislature to be BiCameral and there are many reasons for this. I recall one that note that the Power of the Legislature was so great that it must necessarily be divided.

However, the Federalist Papers actually give parameters.

“The members of the executive and judiciary departments are few in number, and can be personally known to a small part only of the people. The latter, by the mode of their appointment, as well as by the nature and permanency of it, are too far removed from the people to share much in their prepossessions. The former are generally the objects of jealousy, and their administration is always liable to be discolored and rendered unpopular. The members of the legislative department, on the other hand, are numberous. They are distributed and dwell among the people at large. Their connections of blood, of friendship, and of acquaintance embrace a great proportion of the most influential part of the society. The nature of their public trust implies a personal influence among the people, and that they are more immediately the confidential guardians of the rights and liberties of the people.” Federlist 49

So, it says that there are supposed to be more Reps than Judges. In 1789 when the Judiciary Act of 1789 was first Passed, there were 19 Judge, 26 Senators and 65 House members. The Executive branch was tiny. George Washington was the entire Patent Office! Today, there 435 House members, 100 US Senators and over 1,000 Federal Judges. The Executive branch is massive. I saw one figure that noted we had 22 million Federal employees!

So, when you say “The Government” I beleive that means the Executive branch. As the Federalist notes:

“In a government where numerous and extensive prerogatives are placed in the hands of an hereditary monarch, the executive department is very justly regarded as the source of danger, and watched with all the jealousy which a zeal for liberty ought to inspire. In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter. But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.” Federalist 48

There is what you are looking for! I hope that makes sense.



8 12 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

First, I am not proposing the idea of “competing Bars” at all. The corrupt State Bar of California would become voluntary at best, and would likely disappear quickly, similar to what happened under former Governor Pete Wilson.

Few if any bar members would want to pay its extravagant dues or satisfy its absurd CLE requirements—which are nonexistent with the District of Columbia Bar.

Second, as you know, there has been a long debate over whether our elected representatives must reflect precisely the will of a majority of their constituents, or whether they are elected to “listen” and then make intelligent, informed decisions. Each elected official sees his or her job in this context, and makes individual decisions as issues arise.

Third, your citations are interesting, and will be debated and put into effect—or not—as long as our republic exists, which hopefully will be forever.


4 12 2016
Donna Christine

As the oldest daughter of a 27 year Army Veteran, a domestic abuse survivor, former wife of an attorney and a victim of the divorce process and the lawyers and others that my ex-husband associated with, I can tell you that there is no one in government or at the State Bar level of any state that truly helps or protects child rearing parents. Many are homeless and have no voice. The District Attorneys really don’t do anything either without Police investigating the case and giving them evidence. It is a very ineffective triangle. The DCSS stops enforcing Spousal Support when all children turn 18, so once again the custodial and child rearing parent gets screwed. There has to be a Federal Website to list those individuals. They go from state to state doing the same thing. Essentially they have 50 chances to move and start over.

Liked by 1 person

4 12 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments.


14 12 2014
Mark Talmont

I have not seen any coverage of these matters in the press. I scan numerous papers online including the Sacramento Bee, which did a decent job of looking into the stunningly unprofessional conduct during the building of the new SF/Bay Bridge.

I think I’ll drop a note to a few editors and suggest they look into it.


15 12 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Mark, for your comments.

Aside from the Courthouse New Service article that I cited above—with respect to ex-State Bar Director Joseph Dunn and his attorney Mark Geragos—and the Los Angeles Times article regarding the same issues, I have not seen anything either.

See (“Ex-California State Bar Director Files Whistle-Blower Action”) and (“The State Bar Of California Is Further Descending Into A Banana Republic”)

The more people who are aware of the depth of the State Bar’s wrongdoing, the better.


13 01 2015
Ron Pierce

I’ve been struggling with the blatant cover up of my complaint against an attorney for over two years now. I have to take the matter to the Supreme Court but that has burdened the holy hell out of me doing it myself. Not that I’m overly inspired by what I already know to be a seriously corrupt state supreme court.

And then there is this:


13 01 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Ron, for your comments.

LOTS of good luck to you!


14 01 2015
Ron Pierce

Thank you. I’ve referenced your blog here to put it in their face. I’ll need more than luck though. Actively being targeted here.


15 01 2015
Ron Pierce

Don’t I know it. If you saw my cases and how they’ve been fixed, it would bear that out. With the Dunn matter further exposing the State Bar as corrupt, with the CaliforniaALL scandal exposure, with the recent audit of the court system—and I think an impending State Bar audit now—what can be done to further demonstrate that the State Bar and larger court system is a giant charade? I can tell you that things on the public side are definitely heating up.


15 01 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Ron. The idea that members of the Judicial Council—whatever that is—allowed you only a minute of their precious time is a travesty unto itself!


15 01 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

California Is Lawless

Justice And The Law Do Not Mix

Tragically, the system of “justice” in the United States—and especially in California—is little better than that of Russia and other authoritarian countries that try to silence their critics.

The principal problem is that the judges are often egotistical, callous, mean-spirited, power-hungry, self-righteous, condescending and, yes, incompetent and arrogant. They can smile at you, just as easily as they can slit your throat and never think twice about doing it.

To be perfectly blunt, they are Hitler-esque—and not worth a thimble full of a day laborer’s warm spittle.

As I have written:

Shakespeare’s famous quotation—“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”—must have been written in some light-hearted moment with the dark and sinister characteristics of judges in mind.

See (“Justice And The Law Do Not Mix“); see also (“The State Bar Of California Is Lawless And A Travesty, And Should Be Abolished“) and (“The United States Department of Injustice“) and (“The American Legal System Is Broken: Can It Be Fixed?“)

. . .

When the California Supreme Court does nothing in the face of irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing at the State Bar and State Bar Court—and even ignores its own precedents and established law, and is blindly bureaucratic—it too becomes lawless, complicit and a disgrace.

A fish rots from the head down . . .

This prompts a growing awareness of the burning need for justice in the State where I was born.


21 02 2015

The State Bar needs to burn down with all inside the building . . .

Their lawyers destroyed my profession and family by all kinds of illegal actions, lies and fabrications. I filed numerous complaints about lawyers B.N.G, J R, S.G and TM but nothing happened. Then I filed complaints to their appeal unit but still nothing happened. The State Bar is a fraudulent organization that is running the biggest fraud operations, and is not really interested in taking complaints seriously.

The best option is to close this organization immediately. It is nothing more than a useless and shameful operation. They have done nothing about thousand of pages of complaints about the ongoing legal mafia; and corruption in the legal system is at the highest [level] ever.

Liked by 1 person

9 03 2015
Juan Jimenez

Sad to read such horrible things about our State Bar in Los Angeles, CA. We need closer monitoring on every Attorney licensed by the State Bar of California to omit corruption, abuse, and misleading of any, and all Attorneys!

Restore monitoring the Attorneys by the State Bar because the general public needs such truth who, or whom is serving with good intensions, and not with wrongful intensions! Attorneys suppose to protect, and serve the client well, not unfair!

Just like Law Enforcement protect, and serve the public, not shot to kill, and then ask questions after the fact! If one cannot depend on Attorneys, and Police Officers then who, and whom can we depend on to avoid unruly acts?


9 03 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Juan, for your comments.

Yes, I agree: it is sad to realize that the State Bar of California and the State Bar Court are corrupt. However, this has been true for many years.

Yes too, attorneys who are licensed in California must not abuse their duties to clients. However, sometimes there are literally “clients from Hell” who abuse the legal system as well.

A very careful balance must be achieved between protecting the public—and each of us is a member of the public—and protecting members of the legal profession. It is a “two-way street.”

As I have written in the article above:

Lawyers are held in low esteem today, inter alia, because rogue organizations like the State Bar exist, which are bankrupt morally and ethically.

Its support from financially strapped Californians and the equally strapped State of California is wasted and must be eliminated completely; and its membership must become voluntary, at best.


28 03 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

The State Bar Of California Is Acting Illegally In Restraint Of Trade

Ban the State Bar of California

In an article entitled “[U.S.] Supreme Court ruling puts state regulatory boards in crosshairs,” the Los Angeles Times‘ Michael Hiltzik has written:

Want to get paid for shampooing someone’s hair? In California, you may need to have at least nine months of experience and pass a licensing test overseen by the state barbering and cosmetology board, whose members include salon professionals.

Do you clean dogs’ teeth for pay as part of a grooming service? You might run afoul of the state Veterinary Medical Board, which includes four veterinarians and a veterinary technician among its eight members. The board treats tooth cleaning using anything but a toothbrush as veterinary medicine — and the unlicensed practice of which is a crime punishable by up to a year in jail.

These are just two of countless ways that members of a business or occupation can close the doors to others by using their authority on a state regulatory board. This smacks of “restraint of trade,” a fundamental no-no in antitrust law. Until a few weeks ago, such state regulatory boards thought they had an exemption from the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has now set them straight, ruling 6-3 on Feb. 25 that if a “controlling number” of a board’s members are active participants in the business it regulates, they could be sued as antitrust violators.


The case involved North Carolina’s board of dental examiners, but its nationwide impact could be immense. Yet in California, state officials have been slow to acknowledge its implications. The Department of Consumer Affairs, which encompasses as many as 40 boards, says it hasn’t yet figured out how it applies. The state Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development has asked legislative counsel to examine the Supreme Court decision, but it isn’t expecting a report until next month.

Hanging in the balance is the state’s ability to regulate not only barbers and pet groomers, but also doctors and surgeons, nurses, chiropractors, optometrists, accountants, architects, lawyers, pest exterminators and security alarm installers. That’s a partial list of California professional boards affected by the ruling, which is based on a 1943 precedent set in a case involving a marketing program for California raisins. The Supreme Court ruled then that state regulatory bodies comprising industry members are entitled to antitrust immunity only as long as their authority to set regulations is constrained and their decisions are subject to “active supervision” by state officials.

February’s decision means that “the vast majority of commissions and boards in all 50 states are untenable and illegal,” says Robert Fellmeth, a veteran antitrust expert who is executive director of the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego law school. The court has established, he says, that “the king has been wearing no clothes for the last 72 years.”

There’s little doubt that California is in the ruling’s crosshairs. “My sense is that it will apply directly to California,” says state Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), chairman of the Senate’s business and professions committee. “We don’t have active supervision of our boards — they make their decisions and move forward without any oversight by the state.”

The downside of professional and occupational licensing is one of the few subjects on which liberals and libertarians have been in accord. Liberals say that licensing provisions can be pretexts for discrimination against minorities or other disadvantaged groups. Libertarians cite studies indicating that licensing raises income for incumbents and therefore consumer costs, often without any increase in the quality of services.

Many regulatory boards nominally function as enforcement bodies overseeing health, safety and consumer protection rules. That’s true of California’s healthcare boards, which typically have strong majority membership from the regulated specialty. For example, of the 14 current members of the state medical board, which licenses and disciplines physicians and surgeons, eight are M.D.s and a ninth is a registered nurse practitioner. One non-physician’s seat is vacant.

Yet distinguishing between consumer protection and professional protectionism can be difficult under any circumstances; it’s harder when the regulators are members of the profession. Consider a California accountancy board rule barring individuals from identifying themselves as “accountants” or offering “accounting” services unless they’re licensed as a public or certified public accountant by the board, six of whose 13 current members are CPAs. Is the goal to prevent consumer “confusion,” as the board maintains? Or is it to foreclose competition from non-licensees who may be qualified to perform any number of services the general public would regard as “accounting”?

Nor is it simple to assess a board’s approach to misbehavior by those it has already admitted to the club: The medical board and the State Bar of California (13 of whose 19 trustees must be attorneys) have been faulted for sometimes treating misbehaving or underperforming licensees too leniently.

The North Carolina case involved a successful effort by the state’s dental board to eradicate teeth whitening services by non-dentists. The board designated whitening as the practice of dentistry and issued 47 cease-and-desist letters warning providers that they were committing a crime, even urging shopping mall operators to kick teeth-whitening kiosks off their premises. The commercial services disappeared, but the dental board got sued by the Federal Trade Commission.

To Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, author of the majority opinion upholding the FTC, the dentists were acting suspiciously like a price-fixing cartel, not a state agency. When a state delegates regulation to members of the regulated business or profession, he wrote, “established ethical standards may blend with private anticompetitive motives in a way difficult even for market participants to discern.”

The ruling doesn’t provide states with much guidance on what to do next. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the dissenters, argued that removing “active market participants” as a “controlling number” of board members — Kennedy’s phrasing — leaves vague whether insiders can’t be a majority or can’t even constitute “a voting bloc that is generally able to get its way.”

In Sacramento, legislators may consider simply “removing active participants from the boards,” Hill says — reconstituting the boards as advisory panels for boards comprising only members of the public and empowered to set regulations and enforce them. The Legislature has been trying to strengthen the public voice on regulatory boards anyway, by giving majorities to their public members. The Supreme Court ruling may hasten the process, while answering the old question of who watches the watchmen. In the wake of the court’s decision, the job belongs to the public.

See (emphasis added)

This is just another way in which the State Bar of California Is lawless and a travesty, and why it should be abolished.

Also, the pathetic, incestuous and insidious relationship between the State Bar and the State Bar Court must be terminated.


13 05 2015
Cliff lee

Obviously I couldn’t agree more. I think TIm you have hit this before, the Bar is a political institution with little concern over its members and the community and is more interested in the occasional flashing headline and throwing its members under the bus when it is desirable. I hope this will lead to its being dismantled.

Liked by 1 person

13 05 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Cliff, for your comments. I agree completely.

As you may know, its executive director Joe Dunn, and its general counsel Thom Miller are both gone.

The rest of the trade association needs to be dismantled too.


29 05 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Why Doctors And Lawyers Quit

Ban the State Bar of California

The Washington Post‘s Charles Krauthammer—an American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, author, political commentator, and physician—has written an article entitled “Why doctors quit,” which states:

About a decade ago, a doctor friend was lamenting the increasingly frustrating conditions of clinical practice. “How did you know to get out of medicine in 1978?” he asked with a smile.

“I didn’t,” I replied. “I had no idea what was coming. I just felt I’d chosen the wrong vocation.”

I was reminded of this exchange upon receiving my med-school class’s 40th-reunion report and reading some of the entries. In general, my classmates felt fulfilled by family, friends and the considerable achievements of their professional lives. But there was an undercurrent of deep disappointment, almost demoralization, with what medical practice had become.

The complaint was not financial but vocational — an incessant interference with their work, a deep erosion of their autonomy and authority, a transformation from physician to “provider.”

As one of them wrote, “My colleagues who have already left practice all say they still love patient care, being a doctor. They just couldn’t stand everything else.” By which he meant “a never-ending attack on the profession from government, insurance companies, and lawyers . . . progressively intrusive and usually unproductive rules and regulations,” topped by an electronic health records (EHR) mandate that produces nothing more than “billing and legal documents” — and degraded medicine.

I hear this everywhere. Virtually every doctor and doctors’ group I speak to cites the same litany, with particular bitterness about the EHR mandate. As another classmate wrote, “The introduction of the electronic medical record into our office has created so much more need for documentation that I can only see about three-quarters of the patients I could before, and has prompted me to seriously consider leaving for the first time.”

You may have zero sympathy for doctors, but think about the extraordinary loss to society — and maybe to you, one day — of driving away 40 years of irreplaceable clinical experience.

And for what? The newly elected Barack Obama told the nation in 2009 that “it just won’t save billions of dollars” — $77 billion a year, promised the administration — “and thousands of jobs, it will save lives.” He then threw a cool $27 billion at going paperless by 2015.

It’s 2015 and what have we achieved? The $27 billion is gone, of course. The $77 billion in savings became a joke. Indeed, reported the Health and Human Services inspector general in 2014, “EHR technology can make it easier to commit fraud,” as in Medicare fraud, the copy-and-paste function allowing the instant filling of vast data fields, facilitating billing inflation.

That’s just the beginning of the losses. Consider the myriad small practices that, facing ruinous transition costs in equipment, software, training and time, have closed shop, gone bankrupt or been swallowed by some larger entity.

This hardly stays the long arm of the health-care police, however. As of Jan. 1, 2015, if you haven’t gone electronic, your Medicare payments will be cut, by 1 percent this year, rising to 3 percent (potentially 5 percent) in subsequent years.

Then there is the toll on doctors’ time and patient care. One study in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine found that emergency-room doctors spend 43 percent of their time entering electronic records information, 28 percent with patients. Another study found that family-practice physicians spend on average 48 minutes a day just entering clinical data.

Forget the numbers. Think just of your own doctor’s visits, of how much less listening, examining, even eye contact goes on, given the need for scrolling, clicking and box checking.

The geniuses who rammed this through undoubtedly thought they were rationalizing health care. After all, banking went electronic. Why not medicine?

Because banks deal with nothing but data. They don’t listen to your heart or examine your groin. Clicking boxes on an endless electronic form turns the patient into a data machine and cancels out the subtlety of a doctor’s unique feel and judgment.

Why did all this happen? Because liberals in a hurry refuse to trust the self-interested wisdom of individual practitioners, who were already adopting EHR on their own, but gradually, organically, as the technology became ripe and the costs tolerable. Instead, Washington picked a date out of a hat and decreed: Digital by 2015.

As with other such arbitrary arrogance, the results are not pretty. EHR is health care’s Solyndra. Many, no doubt, feasted nicely on the $27 billion, but the rest is waste: money squandered, patients neglected, good physicians demoralized.

Like my old classmates who signed up for patient care — which they still love — and now do data entry.

See; see also (“Why doctors quit, Chapter 2”)

The Wall Street Journal has an article entitled “Ex-Partner Says Dewey & LeBoeuf Got Stuck in Debt Cycle,” which is worth reading as well.


Krauthammer’s comments echo the sentiments of many successful lawyers, who strongly recommend to their kids and others: “Never become a lawyer.”

A number of large and small law firms have gone belly-up, with many more to come.

Global economic conditions between now and the end of this decade—and beyond—are scary at best.

The legal profession is by no means sheltered from these developments. Far from it, lawyers may be on the cutting edge of the suffering.

See (“The World’s Next Credit Crunch Could Make 2008 Look Like A Hiccup”)

Lawyers with excellent clients often break away and form their own firms, or join other firms as a ready-made “department,” when the handwriting is on the wall.

What is crystal clear, however, is that no American lawyers or lawyers from other countries need corrupt trade associations like the State Bar of California.

See (“The State Bar Of California Is Lawless And A Travesty, And Should Be Abolished“) and (“California Is Lawless“) and (“The State Bar Of California Is Acting Illegally In Restraint Of Trade“)


1 09 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

The State Bar Of California Must Be Abolished

Ban the State Bar of California

In an editorial entitled, “State Bar proves it needs a little sunshine,” The Sacramento Bee notes:

Annual legislation authorizing the State Bar Association to collect dues from attorneys wouldn’t ordinarily warrant much attention beyond the legal profession.

But this year’s dues bill comes after the California State Auditor in June revealed an astonishing level of dysfunction at the bar, including questionable spending and lax discipline of errant attorneys.

The Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego law school, which tracks the bar’s spotty history of policing its own, is asking the Legislature to require that the association become subject to the Public Records Act and the state’s open meetings law.

As described in The Recorder, a publication aimed at lawyers, the Assembly Appropriations Committee agreed, and slipped amendments into the dues bill, Senate Bill 387 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara. The bar is protesting. In our view, the disclosure provisions represent a good start.

The auditor, which concluded that the bar failed to properly report its backlog of discipline cases, counted it at 5,174 as of 2011. The bar helped alleviate the backlog in part by imposing weak sanctions, the audit said.

The California Supreme Court, which reviews attorney discipline cases, took the extraordinary step of rejecting 27 cases because penalties were so limp. Upon further review, the bar increased sanctions in 21 cases, five of which resulted in disbarment.

“Thus, to reduce its backlog, the State Bar allowed some attorneys whom it otherwise might have disciplined more severely – or even disbarred – to continue practicing law, placing the public at risk,” the audit said.

The audit also found that the bar bought and renovated a downtown Los Angeles building at a cost of $76.6 million, $50 million more than what it told the Legislature the building would cost.

Unlike state boards that oversee doctors, nurses, dentists and other professions, the State Bar functions as a trade association for lawyers and regulates them. That is an inherent conflict. Adding to the insider nature, 13 of 19 members on the board are attorneys; only six are public members.

The Center for Public Interest Law suggests ending the attorney majority on the bar board, and eliminating provisions allowing for the election of six of the 13 lawyer board members. Both steps make sense. Lawyers, no one’s dummy, probably would not vote for candidates who promise to crack down on abusive lawyers.

We can think of other steps: Why not require bar board members and top executives to file meaningful statements of economic interest, as officials in other state agencies do? For now, however, subjecting the bar to basic provisions of open government would help cleanse an organization that has shown itself to be in need of greater oversight.

See (emphasis added)

More than “a little sunshine,” the State Bar of California must be abolished.

As highlighted in the article and comments above, it is probably the most corrupt and diabolical trade association of its kind in the United States.

Like a rabid warthog on the rampage, it must be put down.


22 10 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

No Confidence in State Bar of California’s Discipline Chief [UPDATED]

Ban the State Bar of California

Cheryl Miller of The Recorder has reported:

Employees in the California State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel on Wednesday cast an overwhelming vote of “no confidence” in department leader Jayne Kim, signaling opposition to bar leaders’ plans to appoint the top prosecutor to another four-year term.

Seventy-six percent of those who cast ballots in the two-hour election period indicated no support for Kim, according to an employee who was familiar with the vote tally. Approximately 200 attorneys, investigators, secretaries and other OCTC workers in the bar’s Los Angeles and San Francisco offices were eligible to participate in the election, said Lita Abella, president of the workers’ union, the State Bar of California Association.

Abella said that union leaders expected to meet Thursday to consider what to do next. She declined to comment further.

The vote is the latest blow for an organization that has been searching for stability since the ouster of its executive director and general counsel almost one year ago. Kim, who filed an internal complaint against then-top executive Joe Dunn that contributed to his firing by the bar board of trustees, survived the turnover and has generally received strong public support from bar leaders.

A critical state audit issued in June found that the bar has not been transparent in reporting its disciplinary caseload numbers and that at one point, the agency was so focused on clearing cases that it offered lenient settlements to lawyers under investigation to clear the books quickly. But bar leaders placed the blame squarely on Dunn and praised Kim for changes she made after she took office in late 2011.

Kim did not respond to a message seeking comment Wednesday. But chief operating officer Leah Wilson said in an email that the bar “values its employees, and respects employee rights to express their opinions in all legally permissible and appropriate formats.”

But, Wilson added, “significant improvements have been made in the discipline system in particular in recent years,” including a reduction in the bar’s ongoing case backlog, additional training for staff and creation of a vertical prosecution system.

OCTC employees who spoke with The Recorder, often on the condition of anonymity, described a department with enormous discipline caseloads and pressure from managers to pursue charges against lawyers under investigation. A document provided to The Recorder outlining unnamed employees’ complaints cites chronic understaffing and an overreliance on temporary workers. The seven-page “whistleblower complaint” describes Kim as “a bully, petty, thin skinned, and vindictive” and says employees have voiced their concerns to trustees and bar executives to no avail.

“There’s a lot of acrimony in this office,” said Adriana Burger, an attorney who has worked at the bar for more than 20 years. “People are very disappointed that this has been going on for so long and nothing has really happened to change it.”

The state Senate Rules Committee must confirm Kim’s nomination if bar trustees recommend her for another term as chief trial counsel, a fact that could prove troublesome if bar employees decide to actively oppose her. The bar union is affiliated with Service Employees International Union Local 1000, a powerful lobbying force in the state Capitol.

See (emphasis added); see also (“State Bar wrestles with controversy over its chief prosecutor”—”Only months after new management took charge, the State Bar of California is tangled in another controversy. . . . In September a new management team, lead by former McGeorge School of Law dean Elizabeth Parker, took charge of what many call a dysfunctional organization. . . . [S]enior trial counsel Erin Joyce . . . and Robin Brune, a former El Dorado County district attorney who now serves as senior trial counsel at the bar, railed about [Kim]. . . . [Famed attorney Mark Geragos said:] ‘In my 33 years of practicing law, I’ve gone up against a lot of parties. I’ve never seen a more dysfunctional group than this. In my humble opinion, it may be time to clean house or disband the bar altogether'”) and (“Spurning Union, Bar Backs Discipline Chief”—”The state bar’s board of trustees voted Monday to give chief trial counsel Jayne Kim a new term despite a vote of no confidence from office workers”—”[The totally lawless and despicable] Erin Joyce, vice president of the attorney unit of the State Bar of California Association, also spoke out against Kim before Monday’s vote”)

As the article and comments above make crystal clear, the State Bar’s problems are not limited to one person. They are pervasive institutional problems, which cannot be rectified by “scapegoating” one person.

Indeed, as my article above states:

[The State Bar’s] support from financially strapped Californians and the equally strapped State of California is wasted and must be eliminated completely; and its membership must become voluntary, at best. Clearly, enough political forces coalesced to effectively put the State Bar out of business when Pete Wilson was California’s governor. The same thing must happen now—this time to accomplish the job once and for all, and eliminate what is probably the most corrupt and diabolical trade association of its kind in the United States.

Nothing less will suffice.


18 05 2016
Much to learn in Arizona from Calif. State audit blasting State Bar non-transparency. | The Irreverent Lawyer

[…] last week. My praise, though, is restrained. The California Bar has sustained plenty of hits and fault-finding the past 30 years.1 And still it has resisted genuine reforms. Apart from that, the Cal Bar getting […]


28 05 2016
burke dental center

I think this is one of the such a lot important info for me.
And i am happy studying your article. However should commentary on some common things, The website taste is ideal, the articles is in point of fact nice : D.
Good activity, cheers

Liked by 1 person

28 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you. 🙂


1 07 2016
Regenia Thurstonson

that’s good, thanks for sharing,.. I think this is great blog

Liked by 1 person

1 07 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your kind words.


19 08 2016

I submitted a complaint to the CA State Bar approx. 6 months ago, and just recently got a call from them saying they plan on closing my case b/c of the state bar’s rule of limitations. My complaint was filed within 5 years of the date of the attorney’s violation, however, for whatever reason (backlog, laziness, forgetfulness, corruption) they chose to do nothing with it for months, and then contacted me recently to say it’s now too late to proceed. He acknowledged we had properly filed our complaint and that is was submitted with months to spare (until the 5 year mark)…And, he even said, “I’m not saying it’s fair….read the rule on our website.”
This clearly isn’t fair/right, b/c if what he is saying is true (that even though our complaint was submitted within the necessary timeframe), the CA Bar could intentionally or unintentionally stall complaints long enough to get them past the rule of limitations. (an easy way to reduce backlog, to help out a fellow atty., …) Where are the victim’s rights in this scenario?
Please explain if you think the Bar atty was explaining the rule properly. If not, how do you recommend I proceed.
Thanks in advance!

Liked by 1 person

19 08 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Ban the State Bar of California

Thank you for your comments, Emily.

Pursuant to “Rule 5.21 Limitations Period” of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California:

[T]he proceeding must begin within five years from the date of violation.

See Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.21.

As stated in my article above, the State Bar is corrupt and lawless, and it must be terminated. It pursues cases long after the 5-year limitations period has expired; and it fails to pursue other cases that have been filed in a timely manner, such as yours.

The California Supreme Court is equally shameful (e.g., it ignores its own precedents, as well as the law nationally enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court), and represents the worst of America’s legal system. The State Bar festers because the California Supreme Court is lawless. Tragically, Judge Roy Bean’s notions of justice are alive and well in California.

My recommendation is that you contact state legislators. This may be your only hope, sadly, of obtaining redress. You might wish to contact the media as well (e.g., see some of the sources cited above).

I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful, but Californians need to realize that when dealing with the State Bar, they are encountering a lawless, rogue entity.


30 08 2016
Darell Duncombe

Thank you for every other fantastic article. Where else could anybody get that type of info in such a perfect approach of writing? I’ve a presentation next week, and I’m on the search for such information.

Liked by 1 person

30 08 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Darell, for your comments.

If you are interested in the lawlessness of the State Bar, do a Google search and you will find plenty of opinions that mirror the article above.

The State Bar is a travesty, and must be abolished, not reconstituted. To “tinker with it” is tantamount with rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.


8 12 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The State Bar Is A Cancer That Must Be Removed

Ban the State Bar of California

In an article entitled, “California Supreme Court sets interim dues for state bar, creates $4.5 million shortfall,” it has been reported:

Interim dues have been set by the Supreme Court of California for the California State Bar in light of legislation that has not been approved a bar bill for 2017.

The interim due schedule allows for the California State Bar to collect dues from members of $297, slightly lower that the $315 that was outlined in the bar bill that didn’t pass the legislature. The lower amount presents a shortfall for the California State Bar of $4.5 million which is approximately 5 percent of its general budget.

“We’re looking at using existing reserves to cover that shortfall and we do have the reserves available to cover that,” Rebecca Farmer, director of strategic communications and stakeholder engagement told the Northern California Record.

While the California State Bar will be able to cover the loss of revenue, it does have plans to tighten its belt when it comes to finances for the agency. “It will require us to look at our focus and priorities and what we’re spending money on,” Farmer said. “We want a really minimal impact on staff, so we’re looking at where we can streamline funding elsewhere.”

The money from the interim dues supports the California State Bar’s attorney discipline activities, an important function of the bar. The bar’s admission, client security fund, lawyer assistance program and sections are funded separately from the interim dues.

“We have 550 staff and well over half of those staff are in the attorney discipline system,” Farmer said. “It’s a core part of what the bar does to make sure people who need an attorney to help them navigate whatever in their life is happening. Often when you come to an attorney, it’s to deal with the hard stuff so it’s critical to make sure attorneys are high quality, they’re ethical and that they’re abiding by a bound set of ethics rules.”

The California State Bar anticipates having legislation in place that will dictate full member dues for 2018 and give the bar a clear path for the following year. The California State Bar operates as state regulatory agency as well as a trade group association.

“The legislation in California, as well as the Supreme Court, have oversight of the state bar,” Farmer said. “There were a number of important conversations about how and when the bar should make certain reforms so that was a big focus of how this agency should best be fulfilling its public protection mission.”

The California State Bar protects the rights of 39 million Californians. With the new presidential administration coming in, it doesn’t know how or if this will impact its legislation or functions as a state regulator. It does anticipate an uptick in fraud from immigration consultant and is prepared to deal with that issue should it arise.

“When there’s a change in political leadership, there’s always going to be effects but it remains to be seen what those will be, Farmer said.”

See (emphasis added)

California’s legislature is correct: not a penny should go to the State Bar. As stated in my article above, it is “the most corrupt and diabolical trade association of its kind in the United States.”

Like a cancer, its existence must be terminated, not covered with a Band-Aid. California’s Supreme Court is corrupt and lawless too; and hence, its decision is not surprising.


28 02 2017

I just suffered a painful arbitration process through California Bar Associations. California State Bar is a big lawless monster for the public, I do not think I have enough power to fight with evil attorneys under Bar’s protecting umbrella. I quit with a deep concern for “US justice”… The monster is growing so fast with decades… I will consider to leave California in future because of the darkness.

Liked by 1 person

28 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments.

As I have written in the article above, the State Bar must be abolished. It is a “big lawless monster,” as you aptly described it.


28 02 2017
Guven uzun

Judiciary biggest fraud in United States almost the level of Zambia -I have been defrauded by judge Myers , judge Mel racana, judge rotschield and her colleagues at appeal court Cheney as well as Judge Johnson , judge Borenstein etc lawlessness out OF control that public court replace fraudulent judiciary-

Liked by 1 person

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: