Bar will look for new discipline chief

Drexel

The State Bar Board of Governors declined last month to reappoint its chief trial counsel, Scott Drexel, but reconfirmed its support of the strong public protection measures that Drexel enforced.

“This was a personnel, not a policy decision,” said bar president-elect Howard Miller. Added Richard Frankel of San Ramon, chair of the board’s discipline committee: “Nobody should read into this that the board is kowtowing to any particular group.” Both Miller and Frankel stressed that the board approved of Drexel’s “aggressive prosecutorial standards” and said they expect the prosecutor’s office to maintain its strong public protection policies.

Deputy Chief Trial Counsel Russell Weiner will serve as interim chief trial counsel until a successor to Drexel is named. The board expects to hire a legal search firm to field candidates for the four-year term of chief trial counsel. The board has asked Weiner to give a report at its meeting this month in Los Angeles outlining policies the discipline unit intends to follow as well as any changes it might wish to make.

Citing confidentiality in personnel decisions, board members declined to say why Drexel was not reappointed. In a letter to the chairs of the Senate and Assembly judiciary committees and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, Frankel wrote, “the board is not looking for a change in policy direction and has made clear that it expects the vigorous public protection efforts pursued during Mr. Drexel’s term to continue unchanged … The board expects the chief trial counsel to hold all attorneys in this state fully

Bar will look for new discipline chief

Drexel

The State Bar Board of Governors declined last month to reappoint its chief trial counsel, Scott Drexel, but reconfirmed its support of the strong public protection measures that Drexel enforced.

“This was a personnel, not a policy decision,” said bar president-elect Howard Miller. Added Richard Frankel of San Ramon, chair of the board’s discipline committee: “Nobody should read into this that the board is kowtowing to any particular group.” Both Miller and Frankel stressed that the board approved of Drexel’s “aggressive prosecutorial standards” and said they expect the prosecutor’s office to maintain its strong public protection policies.

Deputy Chief Trial Counsel Russell Weiner will serve as interim chief trial counsel until a successor to Drexel is named. The board expects to hire a legal search firm to field candidates for the four-year term of chief trial counsel. The board has asked Weiner to give a report at its meeting this month in Los Angeles outlining policies the discipline unit intends to follow as well as any changes it might wish to make.

Citing confidentiality in personnel decisions, board members declined to say why Drexel was not reappointed. In a letter to the chairs of the Senate and Assembly judiciary committees and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, Frankel wrote, “the board is not looking for a change in policy direction and has made clear that it expects the vigorous public protection efforts pursued during Mr. Drexel’s term to continue unchanged … The board expects the chief trial counsel to hold all attorneys in this state fully accountable for their actions regardless of their employment status.”

Drexel proposed a series of measures that toughened the bar’s disciplinary rules during his tenure as chief trial counsel. Although the board adopted those measures, they drew criticism from several quarters. Defense lawyers who represent attorneys charged with misconduct felt Drexel was overzealous and sought punishment harsher than deserved. Several recent high-profile prosecutions of deputy district attorneys from throughout the state also caused unhappiness among county prosecutors, who tried unsuccessfully last year to push legislation to reduce the bar’s disciplinary power.

“In no way was our decision reflective of any political issues whatsoever, whether respondents’ bar, district attorneys or any pending matter,” Frankel said.

Drexel, 60, was appointed chief trial counsel in 2005 by the board of governors and confirmed by the California Senate. He came to the job after 1accountable for their actions regardless of their employment status.”

Drexel proposed a series of measures that toughened the bar’s disciplinary rules during his tenure as chief trial counsel. Although the board adopted those measures, they drew criticism from several quarters. Defense lawyers who represent attorneys charged with misconduct felt Drexel was overzealous and sought punishment harsher than deserved. Several recent high-profile prosecutions of deputy district attorneys from throughout the state also caused unhappiness among county prosecutors, who tried unsuccessfully last year to push legislation to reduce the bar’s disciplinary power.

“In no way was our decision reflective of any political issues whatsoever, whether respondents’ bar, district attorneys or any pending matter,” Frankel said.

Drexel, 60, was appointed chief trial counsel in 2005 by the board of governors and confirmed by the California Senate. He came to the job after 16 years as chief court counsel and administrative officer for the State Bar Court. As chief trial counsel, he oversaw more than 200 employees and a $40 million budget in the bar’s disciplinary enforcement office, which includes the investigation and prosecution of attorneys for professional misconduct.

Drexel said he was disappointed by the board’s decision. “I felt I had done my best both to protect the public and to serve the profession and to implement what I understood to be the expectations of the Supreme Court. I’m proud of what my office accomplished during my term. I would not change anything I did.”

Among the measures proposed by Drexel and adopted by the board to toughen the bar’s disciplinary rules:

• A lawyer who resigns with charges pending must stipulate to misconduct within 60 days of tendering a resignation. If a stipulation cannot be reached with bar prosecutors, the Supreme Court can reject the resignation.
• Lawyers who seek reinstatement after disbarment or resignation must pass the attorneys’ bar exam.
• Lawyers who wish to resign without charges pending must declare, under penalty of perjury, that they have not been convicted of a crime and no criminal investigation or charges are pending against them.
• The Alternative Discipline Program for lawyers with mental or chemical dependency issues was modified.
• Charges filed against lawyers are posted on the bar’s Web site.
• A permanent disbarment rule was adopted.

Defense counsel for lawyers who face disciplinary charges complained that Drexel’s proposals pushed the system in an unnecessarily punitive direction and that they added to the workload. Drexel said when he was the administrator of the State Bar Court and played a more neutral role, those same lawyers had supported his appointment as chief trial counsel. But as a prosecutor, he said, “you have a different focus. 6 years as chief court counsel and administrative officer for the State Bar Court. As chief trial counsel, he oversaw more than 200 employees and a $40 million budget in the bar’s disciplinary enforcement office, which includes the investigation and prosecution of attorneys for professional misconduct.

Drexel said he was disappointed by the board’s decision. “I felt I had done my best both to protect the public and to serve the profession and to implement what I understood to be the expectations of the Supreme Court. I’m proud of what my office accomplished during my term. I would not change anything I did.”

Among the measures proposed by Drexel and adopted by the board to toughen the bar’s disciplinary rules:

• A lawyer who resigns with charges pending must stipulate to misconduct within 60 days of tendering a resignation. If a stipulation cannot be reached with bar prosecutors, the Supreme Court can reject the resignation.
• There was a huge culture change. What used to be acceptable was no longer acceptable.”

  And despite defense counsel’s complaints, Drexel said 80 percent of the cases filed settle, the majority for no period of actual suspension. The punishments “are commensurate with the misconduct but adhere to the standards,” he said.

  David Cameron Carr, president of the Association of Discipline Defense Counsel, said the group took no position on Drexel’s reappointment and speculated that what he saw as a lack of dialogue between the chief trial counsel and others involved with the discipline system was another factor that led to the board’s decision. But he also said he was surprised. “I like Scott,” Carr said. “To see his career end like this … I’m personally saddened.”

  Drexel’s staff, by whom he is well-liked, were stunned by his termination.

  “The news that he had not been reappointed was met with shock and sadness at all levels of the staff,” said Jeff Dal Cerro, deputy chief trial counsel in San Francisco. “Everyone will miss Scott deeply.”

  The current chief trial counsel position was created by statute in 1986. Since then, there have been five incumbents. The only one to be reappointed to a second term was Judy Johnson, who is now the State Bar’s executive director. Johnson was reappointed in 1998, when the bar was in a fiscal crisis due to Gov. Pete Wilson’s veto of its fee bill. The bar laid off most of its staff and had no budget. “Based on this history, it appears that reappointment is the exception rather than the rule,” said Bob Hawley, deputy executive director. The job of chief trial counsel, he added, is “brutal.”

  Lawyer Discipline & Complaints Lawyers who seek reinstatement after disbarment or resignation must pass the attorneys’ bar exam.

• Lawyers who wish to resign without charges pending must declare, under penalty of perjury, that they have not been convicted of a crime and no criminal investigation or charges are pending against them.
• The Alternative Discipline Program for lawyers with mental or chemical dependency issues was modified.
• Charges filed against lawyers are posted on the bar’s Web site.
• A permanent disbarment rule was adopted.

Defense counsel for lawyers who face disciplinary charges complained that Drexel’s proposals pushed the system in an unnecessarily punitive direction and that they added to the workload. Drexel said when he was the administrator of the State Bar Court and played a more neutral role, those same lawyers had supported his appointment as chief trial counsel. But as a prosecutor, he said, “you have a different focus. There was a huge culture change. What used to be acceptable was no longer acceptable.”

And despite defense counsel’s complaints, Drexel said 80 percent of the cases filed settle, the majority for no period of actual suspension. The punishments “are commensurate with the misconduct but adhere to the standards,” he said.

David Cameron Carr, president of the Association of Discipline Defense Counsel, said the group took no position on Drexel’s reappointment and speculated that what he saw as a lack of dialogue between the chief trial counsel and others involved with the discipline system was another factor that led to the board’s decision. But he also said he was surprised. “I like Scott,” Carr said. “To see his career end like this … I’m personally saddened.”

Drexel’s staff, by whom he is well-liked, were stunned by his termination.

“The news that he had not been reappointed was met with shock and sadness at all levels of the staff,” said Jeff Dal Cerro, deputy chief trial counsel in San Francisco. “Everyone will miss Scott deeply.”

The current chief trial counsel position was created by statute in 1986. Since then, there have been five incumbents. The only one to be reappointed to a second term was Judy Johnson, who is now the State Bar’s executive director. Johnson was reappointed in 1998, when the bar was in a fiscal crisis due to Gov. Pete Wilson’s veto of its fee bill. The bar laid off most of its staff and had no budget. “Based on this history, it appears that reappointment is the exception rather than the rule,” said Bob Hawley, deputy executive director. The job of chief trial counsel, he added, is “brutal.”

Lawyer Discipline & Complaints