Letters to the Editor

Go after the real UPL

It's disgusting that Suzi Schor - or whoever she is today - was allowed to pass herself off as a lawyer to the various firms that employed her (January Bar Journal, p. 1).

But what about the people who don't pretend to be lawyers but practice law with impunity?

Last week I called my local "We the People." I spoke to a man who identified himself as the owner.He assured me that he, a certified financial planner, drafted all of the living trusts and had been doing so for years. Where is the State Bar in cracking down on these people, who unlike Ms. Schor, practice law without any legal supervision?

Ms. Schor will be an easy mark, but organizations allowing financial planners and other non-attorneys to draft trusts, family law documents, and who knows what else, are more likely to cause much more damage to clients. That's where the bar's focus should be.

Brian Sheppard
Encino

Shame . . .

Shame on the Bar Journal for the front page headline on the article concerning the election of Bonnie Dumanis as the new district attorney in San Diego (January Bar Journal, p. 1).

Her sexual preferences were not an issue in the campaign at any time. Your headline was simply journalistic pandering.

I always thought that a headline on a story was supposed to give a summary of the content. Silly me.

Robert M. Foster
San Diego

Shame . . .

Who cares what Dumanis' sexuality is? We are lawyers, the first line defense against discrimination and yet the Bar Journal allows this headline to be printed on its front page. Such headlines are better left to the daily tabloids.
I think you owe us all an apology, especially Bonnie Dumanis. Shame on you.

Karen Iwrey
Solana Beach

. . . Double shame

The editors and Adam Kaye owe an apology to their parents, their teachers, the people of San Diego and both liberals and conservatives everywhere.

The headline alone was a gratuitous hit attempt against conservatives. Wow! Political conservatives could not possibly ignore gender, sexual orientation, skin color and religion to elect the better candidate?

Shame for even attempting to pose the question, Why are people scratching their heads over how a Jewish lesbian beat a white male Catholic? Quit scratching. Race, religion, gender and sexual orientation were essentially ignored in the campaign by the candidates and the press.

Shame again for your blatant prejudicial premise that conservatives are somehow a class of people who are biased against anyone who is not a straight WASP. Read the papers, listen to the news.

A huge percentage of the time these divisive issues are raised by liberals and not by conservatives.

Homogeneity, not, diversity has made this country great.

Based on this article, I posit that the editors and Adam Kaye are either liberals, homosexuals or stupid or some combination thereof.

Eliot N. Pierce
San Diego

Who pays?

Who will pay for the Paid Family Care Leave Act which Ms. Shiu so enthusiastically supports (January Bar Journal, p. 1)? Who cares? Not Ms. Shiu. This "model" legislation comports with her personal and erroneous belief that government is responsible for "family-friendly living."

Ms. Shiu notes in passing that "paid leave will be entirely funded by employees through a withholding tax," which she disingenuously characterizes as a "wage replacement benefit." A withholding tax is hardly a "benefit" to the taxpayer. In Ms. Shiu's world, workers can be trusted to earn income, but not to spend it.

Amy Lyons
Los Angeles

Join the 21st Century

According to Attorney et al's web site: California requires at least one-half of the CLE hours to be be participatory whereas Colorado, Florida and New York permit either self study or participatory hours.

Why can't California treat its attorneys as adults; e.g., allow us to do all MCLE requirements by self study?

Alvin Milder
Los Angeles

A partial defense

Among three letters criticizing Daniel Hess' indifference to the Constitution, you would sneak in a letter proposing to deprive Mr. Hess of his own constitutional rights. A professor concludes with "advice to Mr. Hess is to keep his un-informed, biased opinions to himself."

Two questions: First, are biased opinions inherently evil? Then we must eliminate politics and litigation. Second, does the Constitution not protect uninformed opinions? Isn't that why we can't require even a minimal level of intelligence of voters?

Kurtiss Jacobs
Lafayette