Mr. David Cameron Carr — an expert in the area of legal ethics and the
current President of the California-based Association of Discipline
Defense Counsel — has publicly criticized the State Bar of California, Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk, as well as Thomas Girardi and Howard Miller,
over the handling of disciplinary proceedings concerning misconduct by
Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack in the litigation against Dole Food
Company.
Mr David Cameron Carr, believes that “all lawyers must understand the
rules of legal ethics, not only to fulfill their responsibilities to
society and to the justice system, but to protect themselves.”
(Photo credit: www.123people.com ) In a shocking move, Mr. Carr -– a former California State Bar prosecutor
–- offered a stinging rebuke to Jerome Falk’s decision not to pursue any
discipline against Girardi and Lack despite the clear findings of
misconduct on their part by the Ninth Circuit. Previously, in a rare action, the Ninth Circuit suspended Walter Lack
and Paul Triana of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack for 6 months, and
reprimanded Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese, while imposing close
to $400,000 in monetary sanctions. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit found that the misconduct by Walter Lack
and Thomas Girardi involved “the persistent use of known falsehoods,”
and that the “false representations” were made “knowingly,
intentionally, and recklessly.”
Carr, writing on his blog http://www.ethics-lawyer.com/kafkaesq/ in an
entry labeled “It is Good to Be King,” wrote as follows on January 21,
2011: “It’s hard to escape the troubling thought that, had Mr. Girardi
and Mr. Lack been different lawyers with no connection to the State Bar
like Howard Miller, the process and perhaps even the result would have
been much different.” Mr. Carr offered legal analysis, referring to “Bus. & Prof. Code
section 6068(d) (codifying lawyer’s duty not ‘to seek to mislead the
judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact
or law.’). As a matter of law, this, most assuredly, would warrant the
imposition of discipline in California.” Mr. Carr continued, noting
that “the lack of intent to mislead the court doesn’t seem to matter for
culpability purposes in State Bar Court.” In his conclusion, Carr stated: “As a discipline defender, I am not inclined to second guess a
decision not to prosecute a discipline case. And I don’t know all the
facts that went into Mr. Falk’s exercise of discretion; he isn’t talking
and neither is the State Bar. But I do know, now as ever, it is good to
be king. Or at least very close to one. Very very good.” According to confidental sources , Mr. Carr should be commended for his
courage in speaking up, as well as his intellectual honesty and
integrity – the defining traits of a good lawyer. One confidential source believe, however, that some of Mr. Carr’s
comments regarding “intent” are superfluous as Walter Lack had
stipulated that his misconduct was “intentional.” See http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434690835
Discussion
Comments are closed.