Leave proof of service rules alone
I enjoyed reading in the July issue the article entitled “proof
of service statute needs amending,” advocating a change to the statute that would
allow “parties to an action” to sign “proofs of service in the same
action.”
While most people are honest, there may be those who might stray and
provide proofs of service when in fact no service, or improper service, has been made.
The statute was written to protect parties from wrongful or no
service. What would be done if the party allegedly being served were to submit an
affidavit that no service or improper service was made? Do our courts have the time to
conduct hearings on proper service?
While the current system may be somewhat of an inconvenience to some,
I suggest such a change would create a procedural nightmare and further stack the
court’s calendars. It would create more harm than to repair the current
inconvenience.
Dennis J. Leffert
Carlsbad
An endless array of ridiculous programs
Frankly, I find the whole IOLTA program ridiculous. Before
Wash-ington Mutual acquired Home Sav-ings, Home Savings was charging an $8 monthly service
charge which was offset against interest payable under the “program.”
Since my account never earned $8 per month, you had a negative return
on my account. At least now you are receiving about four cents per month.
Someday, hopefully, we sole practitioners will be successful in
eliminating the mandatory bar. One of the principal motivations for this hope is the
seemingly endless array of “politically correct” programs, such as IOLTA,
instigated by the bar.
William E. Jacobs
San Diego
MCLE’s a boondoggle from start to finish
I was admitted in 1949 and have had the pleasure of having been
president of the Orange County Bar Association (1962). MCLE is, and from its inception has
been, a prohibitively unproductive (for the bar and for society) boondoggle. It is
expensive to the lawyers and is milked for all it’s worth by others for the money in
it.
MCLE is a boondoggle from start to finish. It is interesting to the
bar, is unnecessary and is a positive evil, inviting raids on the bar member’s
pocketbooks under the false colors of being necessary.
Robert Fraser
Santa Ana
The silence is deafening
For many years, the State Bar has been promising us a much improved
and more efficient discipline system. Based on my experience, nothing has changed.
On July 2, 1999, I filed a complaint concerning the unethical conduct
of two lawyers. Within two weeks, I received a postcard declaring that my complaint had
been received and that I should exercise “patience” while the matter was
evaluated.
Having heard nothing more, I wrote to the State Bar on April 21,
2000, and requested an update. The silence was deafening. On May 16, 2000, I wrote to bar
President Andrew Guilford and requested a report from him. To date, Mr. Guilford has
apparently been too busy to acknowledge either my letter or the existence of my complaint.
Since I have no choice, I will continue to patiently await word from
the State Bar. With any luck, I might even get a response before the next increase in our
bar dues.
Dallas Sacher, Assistant Director
Sixth District Appellate Program, Santa Clara
Lawyers should not excuse thieving lawyers
State Bar punishment of nine months suspension plus two years
probation for a lawyer convicted of grand theft is totally inconsistent with an ethical
bar.
By comparison, those who have stolen or embezzled from their employer
would be quickly fired, or at the very least, relocated to a position where further
opportunity of theft doesn’t exist.
Isn’t it odd that we allow thieving lawyers to continue in a
position of trust? The condonation and pardon speaks our own standard of ethics and
morality. Here, the term “fiduciary duty” has a different meaning to those who
define it.
James H. Disney
Concord
The bar should take the lead on price competition
We seem to have already forgotten the serious fight with former Gov.
Pete Wilson. It was serious because he had plenty of public support, not because he was
the governor playing politics.
At a time when medical care competition is on fire, the lawyers are
talking about the unauthorized practice of law (August California Bar Journal, page 1).
The public understands that UPL policing supports our monopoly and the high price they pay
for our services.
Perhaps the State Bar could lead in encouraging more price
competition for legal services before the legislature does so.
H. “Bud” Hill Jr.
Glendale
Letters
California Bar Journal invites its readers to send letters on any
topic. All letters must include full name with a daytime telephone number and complete
address. All letters are subject to editing, and no anonymous letters will be printed.
Send letters to Editor, California Bar Journal, 180 Howard St., San Francisco, CA
94105-1639; fax to 415/538-2247; or e-mail: cbj@calsb.org. |
