Former Merced district attorney faces suspension

Former Merced County District Attorney GORDON SPENCER [#67634] faces a 30-day suspension of his license if the Supreme Court accepts his admission that he misrepresented himself while trying to settle a dispute his son had over kitchen cabinets. Spencer, 59, stipulated last month that his actions constituted moral turpitude. He also agreed to a two-year stayed suspension and two years of probation.

Spencer, who was appointed DA in 1990 and ran unopposed four times, resigned his post in 2006 while the target of five investigations by the attorney general. No criminal charges were ever filed although Spencer agreed to a civil settlement that required him to reimburse the county for using a car that was supposed to be assigned to another employee.

The investigations were wide-ranging and included charges of serving alcohol to a minor, entering into a land deal with a man who was in jail and was being prosecuted by Spencer’s office, and questions about whether he embezzled money from the county by receiving nearly $57,000 in phone and car reimbursements.

But it was the kitchen cabinet caper that led to bar discipline.

Spencer’s son and daughter-in-law contracted with a cabinet company while remodeling their kitchen, and wound up in a dispute with the company when it claimed the couple did not pay for two cabinets that were not included in the invoice. Because the cabinets were included in the contract and designs of the kitchen, Spencer’s daughter-in-law contended the cabinets were paid for.

When the couple asked Spencer to look into the matter, he assigned a deputy district attorney in the consumer fraud unit to investigate. The deputy DA subsequently left the office without having looked into the problem.

Spencer then asked an investigator in his office to take over, but later decided to handle the issue himself. Spencer asked the investigator if he could use his name in a phone call with the cabinet company. The investigator agreed and was present in the room during a two-minute phone call. A company representative indicated she would have to call back after talking to counsel. The company ultimately honored the contract.

Spencer acknowledged that using the investigator’s name was a mistake and said he did so to avoid intimidating the company.

He stipulated that by falsely representing himself in a telephone conversation, he committed an act of moral turpitude.

Although the attorney general did not file charges in the impersonation case, Spencer was asked in 2005 to take an ethics course.

“I think Gordon Spencer is a stand-up guy,” said Carol Langford, who represented him before the bar. “He did what he did trying to protect his son. He admitted he shouldn’t have used (the investigator’s name). That’s all he did. He did not try to get something for free. He’s a good guy.” 

Following the impersonation matter, the attorney general began an investigation of Spencer’s use of an SUV that was supposed to be assigned to another employee. Spencer drove the car for almost a year, and the state Office of Emergency Services, which awarded the grant that paid for the car, concluded he violated the terms of the grant. It ordered the county to reimburse the agency $26,898 for the use of the car, and the county passed the expense on to Spencer. The attorney general filed a civil complaint in 2007 and Spencer paid the money the same day.

The Merced Sun-Star reported in 2006 that Spencer received almost $57,000 in phone and car reimbursements while using a county-owned car and cell phone. The paper reported he violated county policy for more than two years by receiving a $150 per month stipend meant to reimburse him for using his personal phone for business, while at the same time using a county cell phone. He also received a monthly stipend while driving a county vehicle for seven years. During part of that time, the stipend amounted to $700 a month.

The attorney general also looked into a land deal in which Spencer and several others bought land from a man who was in jail and faced prosecution by Spencer’s office. Investigators said there was no evidence Spencer coerced the landowner into selling his property.

Finally, the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Board recommended charging Spencer with a misdemeanor for serving alcohol to a minor. No charges were filed because prosecutors said the minor appeared to be over 21.

In mitigation, Spencer had no discipline record since his 1975 admission to the bar, he presented evidence of his good character, demonstrated remorse and cooperated with the bar’s investigation.