Disbarment urged for trying to bribe a witness

A Sacramento attorney who was convicted of trying to bribe a witness and dissuade her from testifying in a rape case now faces the loss of his law license after a State Bar Court judge recommended that he be disbarred. ANTHONY I. FURR [#61204], 69, was convicted in 2000 of four felonies, all involving moral turpitude. The recommendation will take effect if approved by the state Supreme Court.

Judge Pat McElroy recommended Furr’s disbarment in December because, she said, “the nature and extent of [his] felony convictions of conspiracy to dissuade a witness from testifying, dissuading a witness from testifying for pecuniary gain, offering a bribe to a witness and conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice, alone, establish his unfitness to practice law.” In addition, McElroy said, Furr has taken no responsibility for his actions.

Furr represented Charles Trautwein, who was accused of rape in 1994. Furr’s investigator, Monica Glazebrook, hired the victim to work as a salesperson in her new company, befriended her and suggested that the woman sue the defendant civilly. She never disclosed that she was actually working for the defendant.

Glazebrook then set up a meeting with herself, Furr and the victim to discuss the possibility of a civil suit. At the meeting, Furr and Glazebrook introduced themselves to one another as if they had never met. Furr told the victim he represented Trautwein in regard to a possible civil settlement but did not disclose that he also was his criminal defense attorney. He presented the victim with a declaration in support of a motion to reduce Trautwein’s bail, explaining that she should sign it so Trautwein could obtain money in his bail account that could be used to give her $16,000 to settle her civil claims.

He also gave the victim a five-page document in which she released all claims for civil damage in exchange for $16,000. The victim signed the release, which also stated that she was not required to testify at a criminal trial.

After receiving half the money, the victim went to a deputy district attorney and gave her the documents Furr had provided, but said the settlement agreement had nothing to do with whether she would testify at trial.

Furr later gave the victim’s boyfriend another $8,000 and suggested that if she did not testify, she could receive more money, an apartment in a gated community and a 10 percent share of Trautwein’s estate. At a meeting with the victim later the same day, Furr said she could receive up to $1 million if she didn’t testify.

When the victim was subpoenaed to testify, she told the prosecutor that the DA’s office was interfering with her negotiations with Furr. She did not, however, disclose the new offer of more money and housing.

The DA secretly taped a settlement conference in the rape case in which Furr claimed he had been unable to reach the victim for two months and sought a continuance of the trial, saying he was no longer Trautwein’s lawyer due to a disagreement between them. He did not disclose his meeting with the rape victim or that he had given her $16,000.

When the victim later cooperated with prosecutors, Glazebrook, who also was charged criminally, told her in a taped phone conversation that Furr and Trautwein were willing to give her another $15,000 and a trip to Cancun.

Furr told the district attorney’s investigator that the victim initiated the possibility of settling the case and that the settlement agreement was legitimate.

Furr testified that Trautwein believed the rape victim had stolen a watch from him and he hired Glazebrook to help recover it. Furr suggested Glazebrook set up a business and hire the victim as a way of finding the watch. It was while she was working for Glazebrook that the woman said she was interested in suing Trautwein because he had “big bucks,” Furr claimed.

Furr also said he didn’t believe a rape had occurred and he thought Trautwein could lose a substantial amount of money in a civil case. He therefore decided it would be best to try to settle any civil claims and Trautwein authorized him to pay the woman $20,000, Furr said. He denied offering the victim money in exchange for not testifying.

Rather than acknowledging any wrongdoing, McElroy found, Furr said he had done nothing wrong and in fact should be commended for carrying out Trautwein’s wishes and helping a crime victim, whom he said was not harmed because she received $16,000.

“Just as the jury in [Furr’s] criminal case rejected [his] version of the facts, so does this court,” McElroy wrote. “This court finds [his] testimony totally lacking credibility.”

Furr was sentenced to three years in prison, was released pending appeal after 10 months, and returned to prison for another year after his conviction was affirmed. He will remain on parole until April.

He was placed on interim suspension in 2000, but failed to comply with rule 955, as ordered. He submitted a defective compliance declaration six years late.

Although Furr had no prior discipline record in 20 years of practice, it did not outweigh the seriousness of his actions and was not considered mitigation for his misconduct.