State Bar of California California Bar Journal
Home Page Official Publication of the State Bar of California August2005
Top Headlines
From the President
Wendy Borcherdt
David Cameron Carr
MCLE Self-Study
Discipline
You Need to Know
Trials Digest
Contact CBJ
PastIssues

Meaningless disbarment

“Four attorneys face second disbarment” (June) is another reminder that maybe I really don’t miss California that much. Obviously the whole concept of disbarment has somehow lost its meaning in California — like the concept of the death penalty (which in California now amounts to warehousing those under a death sentence until they die of other causes). 

I was particularly amused at the quote by the former head of the State Bar Court (now the State Bar’s chief trial counsel), Scott Drexel, about disbarred attorneys seeking reinstatement: “You just make your best judgment based upon the evidence of rehabilitation that they present and deal with it if they offend again.”

May I safely presume that the California medical licensing board has a similar policy?

J. Jeremiah Mahoney
Alexandria, Va.

No mitigation allowed

After reading in the July issue both the letter by David D. Murray, in which he laments the state of implementing discipline upon wayward attorneys, and the discipline section, I’d like to offer the following commentary:

No mitigation for disciplined lawyers. For many years a reading of some of the monthly disciplinary reports has disgusted me. Time after time the reports of trangressions of disciplined attorneys end with the representative statement: “In mitigation, the subject attorney has no prior record of discipline.”

Allow me to suggest that there be no mitigating factor related to an attorney’s freedom from prior discipline. Such is to be expected, not applauded. Rather, the fact of prior discipline should be an aggravating factor.

Peter R. Sobel
San Diego

A different kind of legal education

The inspiring story of Chris D’Sa related by President John Van de Kamp (July) shows the benefits of California having different educational tracks to achieve entry into the ranks of lawyers. Despite frequent elitist attempts to restrict bar membership under the guise of quality controls on legal education providers, California legislators have continued to maintain open doors for dedicated persons who are motivated to achieve a legal education.

This is going to allow our bar to eventually become as diverse as our state population, and having multiple legal education tracks puts the opportunity into the hands of those students who may have had to overcome personal or social detriments.

We are fortunate to have a variety of law schools, some of which have ABA- or Committee of Bar Examiner- approved or registered labels, along with distance learning law centers or private law office as well as judicial chamber study.

The different routes all lead to qualifying to take the bar examination. As dean of a California registered law school under Rule 19 of the Rules for Admission to Law Practice of the Committee of Bar Examiners, I see how our student body reflects the great diversity of our state. For all the worry about diversity in the lawyer population, having multiple educational tracks to a law license will result in future full ethnic, racial and class diversity of the bar. Our school provides a part-time legal program taking four years plus having to pass the First Year Law Student Examination, which requires maturity, dedication and sacrifices for most of our working student body with family responsibilities.

Thanks, Mr. Van de Kamp, for pointing out an excellent role model for everyone and especially for opening some minds on legal education.

George J. Gliaudys Jr.
Dean, College of Law
Irvine University
Cerritos

Imperfect but visionary

James Mize’s editorial in the June issue of the Bar Journal was a timely, powerful statement of our need to protect the judiciary from the bias and prejudice of our political system. He only omitted a conclusion that seems more and more sensible: the judiciary should not be subject to election.

The founding fathers knew the judiciary’s job is not to represent the populace, but to apply the law of the land. Thus, they determined that life tenure was the manner in which that could be best assured. While the system is not perfect (as we know from the recent bombardment of judicial candidates regarding their personal social and political views, not to mention the murder of a federal judge by a litigant), it is one of the most visionary of the concepts contained in the U.S. Constitution.

In California, judicial freedom has deteriorated along with the rising costs of elections. Thus, money is the determining factor, especially when television ads increase in cost every year. To suggest educating the public may be a first step, but ultimately rational analysis requires a system of appointment subject to the approval of the legislature and the bar, whose members know what a tough job a judge has when he or she can only please half of those pleading their cases.

If a judge has to read briefs and listen to arguments thinking who is going to be most likely to fund the next election, we are all in deep trouble. But will the bar be courageous enough to work for such a change?

Iryne Codon Black
Newport Beach

Recall Mize’s words

The California Judges Association would be well advised to consider recalling its president, Judge James Mize, before he can do any more damage to the reputation of the judiciary. His injudicious rant against a “naïve electorate” excerpted in the Bar Journal (June) from his speech before the Judicial Council raises serious questions about whether he has the temperament suitable for credibly performing judicial duties as he idealizes them in his screed.

The California electorate has been consistently supportive of the judiciary over the years except when it has become lawless itself, to wit, the Bird Court with its de facto repeal of the death penalty after the people had voted directly to reinstate it. Fortunately, for now, the judicial system seems capable of reining in the worst excesses of the trial bench. 

Judge Loren McMaster has the proverbial “snowball’s chance” of being recalled in Sacramento County even though he is an avid Forty-Niner fan. Mize’s overreaction leaves the unfortunate impression that he has political and ideological motivations which are extraneous to “preaching to the choir” about the “independence of the judiciary.” The last thing the California judiciary needs is to be stampeded into the “political thicket.” It is not likely to come out unscathed.

Geoffrey Lloyd Graybill
Sacramento

Contact Us Site Map Notices Privacy Policy
© 2024 The State Bar of California