The Anatomy of Public Corruption

Showing posts with label The State Bar of California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The State Bar of California. Show all posts

JUNE OF 1993 : APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION IN

Connecting the Dumbo Bar to looking out their back door

When Concord City Attorney Mark Coon committed suicide the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) resurfaced into my view.  
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammell Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

ss



My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  
xxxx2

Standards of Professional Courtesy

PREAMBLE
Attorneys are most often retained to represent their clients in disputes. The practice of law is largely an adversarial process. Attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent and advocate their clients’ interest. Nonetheless, there exist certain standards of professional courtesy that are observed and certain duties of professionalism are owed by attorneys to their clients, opposing parties and their counsel, the courts and other tribunals, and the public as a whole. Members of the Contra Costa County Bar Association have practiced law with a level of professionalism that goes well beyond the requirements of the State Bar mandated Code of Professional Conduct. The following standards of professional courtesy describe the conduct preferred and expected by a majority of attorneys practicing in Contra Costa County in performing their duties of civility, professional integrity, personal dignity, candor, diligence, respect, courtesy, cooperation and competence. These standards are not meant to be exhaustive. They should, however, set a tone or guide for conduct not specifically mentioned in these standards.
These standards have been codified to make the level of professionalism reflected in them the standard of practice within Contra Costa County and with the hope that their dissemination will educate new attorneys and others who may be unfamiliar with the customary local practices. They have received approval of the Board of Directors of the Contra Costa County Bar Association. They have also been endorsed by the Judges of the Superior and Municipal Courts of Contra Costa County, who expect professional conduct by all attorneys who appear and practice before them. They will be considered by those judges in their rulings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 128, 177, and 177.5, as provided for in the Contra Costa County Superior Court Rules, Rule 30.
All attorneys conducting any practice of law in Contra Costa County are encouraged to comply with the spirit of these standards and not simply blindly adhere to the strict letter of them. The goals stated and inherent herein are equally applicable to all attorneys regardless of area of practice.
This Code is, of course, not a substitute for the statutes and rules. No provision of this Code is intended to be a method to extend time limitations of statutes and rules, including fast track time limitations, without appropriate court order.
  1. SCHEDULING:
    1. (1) Attorneys should communicate with opposing counsel prior to scheduling meetings, depositions, hearings and other proceedings and make reasonable efforts to schedule such meetings, hearings, depositions, and other proceedings by agreement whenever possible. At all times, attorneys should endeavor to provide opposing counsel, parties, witnesses and other affected persons, sufficient notice thereof.
      (2) Where such advanced efforts at scheduling are not feasible (for example, in an emergency, or in other circumstances compelling more expedited scheduling, or upon agreement of counsel) an attorney should not arbitrarily or unreasonably withhold consent to a request for scheduling accommodations that do not prejudice their clients or unduly delay a proceeding.
    2. In all cases, attorneys should endeavor to reserve sufficient time for the completion of the proceeding to permit a complete presentation by counsel for all parties.
    3. An attorney should not engage in delay tactics in scheduling meetings, hearings and discovery; nor should they seek extensions or continuances for the purpose of harassment or solely to extend litigation.
    4. Attorneys should notify opposing counsel, the court and others affected of scheduling conflicts as soon as they become apparent and shall cooperate in canceling or rescheduling. Attorneys should also notify opposing counsel and, if appropriate, the court or other tribunal as early as possible of any resolution between the parties that render a scheduled hearing, deposition or meeting unnecessary or otherwise moot.
    5. Consistent with existing law and court orders, attorneys should grant reasonable requests by opposing counsel for extensions of time within which to respond to pleadings, discovery and other matters when such an extension will not prejudice their client or unduly delay a proceeding.
    6. Attorneys should cooperate with opposing counsel during trials and evidentiary hearings by disclosing the identities of all witnesses reasonably expected to be called and the length of time needed to present their entire case, except when their clients’ material rights would be adversely affected. Attorneys should also cooperate with the calling of witnesses out of turn when the circumstances justify it.
    7. The timing and manner of service of papers should not be calculated to disadvantage, overwhelm or embarrass the party receiving the papers. Attorneys should not serve papers simply to take advantage of an opponent’s known absence from the office or at a time or in a manner designed to inconvenience the adversary, such as late in the day (after normal business hours), so close to a court appearance that it inhibits the ability of opposing counsel to prepare for that appearance or to respond to the papers (if permitted by law), or in such other way as would unfairly limit the other party’s opportunity to respond to those papers or other matters pending in the action.
  2. DISCOVERY:
    1. Attorneys should pursue discovery requests that are reasonably related to the matter at issue. Attorneys should not use discovery for the purpose of harassing, embarrassing or causing the adversary to incur unnecessary expenses as a means of delaying the timely, efficient and cost effective resolution of a dispute, or to obtain unfair advantage.
    2. Attorneys should ensure that responses to reasonable discovery requests are timely, organized, complete and consistent with the obvious intent of the request. Attorneys responding to document demands and interrogatories should not do so in an artificial manner designed to assure that answers and responses are not truly responsive or solely to attempt to avoid disclosure.
    3. Attorneys should avoid repetitive or argumentative questions, questions asked solely for purposes of harassment or questions that are known to the questioner to be an invasion of the rights of privacy of third parties not present or represented at the deposition.
    4. Attorneys should bear in mind that depositions are to be taken as if the testimony was being given in court. Therefore, they should not engage in any conduct during the deposition that would not be allowed in the presence of a judicial officer. Attorneys should avoid, through objections or otherwise, improper coaching of the deponent or suggesting answers.
    5. Attorneys should meet and confer on discovery requests in a timely manner and make good faith attempts to actually resolve as many issues as possible before proceeding with motions concerning the discovery. Before filing a motion concerning discovery, or otherwise, attorneys should engage in more than a mere pro forma effort to resolve the issue(s).
  3. CONDUCT TOWARDS OTHER ATTORNEYS, THE COURT AND PARTICIPANTS:
    1. Attorneys must remember that conflicts with opposing counsel are professional, not personal, that vigorous advocacy is not inconsistent with professional courtesy, and that they should not be influenced by ill feelings or anger between clients in their conduct, attitude or demeanor toward opposing attorneys.
    2. Attorneys should never use the mode, timing or place of serving papers primarily to embarrass a party or witness.
    3. Motions should be filed sparingly, in good faith and when the issue(s) cannot be otherwise resolved. Attorneys should not engage in conduct that forces opposing counsel to file a motion and then not oppose the motion, or provide information called for in the motion only after the motion is filed.
    4. Attorneys should refrain from disparaging or denigrating the court, opposing counsel, parties or witnesses before their clients, the public and the media.
    5. Attorneys should be courteous and respectful (not rude or disruptive) with the court, court personnel, opposing counsel, parties and witnesses (and should encourage their clients and witnesses to do the same).
    6. Attorneys should make an effort to explain to witnesses the purpose of their required attendance at depositions, hearings or trial. They should further attempt to accommodate the schedules of witnesses when setting or resetting their appearance and promptly notify them of an cancellations. Dealings with nonparty witnesses should always be courteous and designed to leave them with an appropriately good impression of the legal system. Attorneys should instruct their clients and witnesses that they are not to communicate with the court on the pending case except with all counsel and/or parties present in a reported proceeding.
    7. Where applicable laws or rules permit an exparte application or communication to the court, before making such an application or communication, attorneys should:
      1. make diligent efforts to notify opposing party or opposing counsel known to represent or likely to represent the opposing party;
      2. make reasonable efforts to accommodate the schedule of such attorney or party to permit the opposing party to be represented;
      3. avoid taking advantage of an opponent’s known absence from the office.
    8. Attorneys should draft agreements and other documents promptly so as to fairly reflect the true intent of the parties.
    9. No attorney shall engage in any act of age, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental impairment, religion or race bias while engaging in the practice of law in Contra Costa County.
  4. CANDOR TO THE COURT AND OPPOSING COUNSEL:
    1. Attorneys should not knowingly misstate, misrepresent or distort any fact or legal authority to the court or to opposing counsel and shall not mislead by inaction or silence. Written materials and oral argument to the court should accurately state current law and fairly represent the party’s position without unfairly attacking the opposing counsel or opposing party.
    2. If, after all briefing allowed by law or the court has been submitted, an attorney locates new authority that s/he desires to bring to the court’s attention at the hearing on the matter, a copy of such new authority shall be provided to both the court and to all opposing counsel in the case at or prior to the hearing.
    3. Attorneys should draft proposed orders promptly. The orders should fairly and adequately represent the ruling of the court. When proposed orders are submitted to counsel for approval, attorneys should promptly communicate any objections to the party preparing the proposed order to encourage good faith discussions concerning the language of the proposed order.
    4. Attorneys should respect and abide by the spirit and letter of all rulings of the court.
    5. Attorneys should not draft letters assigning to opposing party or counsel a position that party or counsel has not taken or to create a “record” of events that have not occurred.
  5. EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION:
    1. Attorneys should refrain from actions which cause unnecessary expense or delay the efficient and cost-effective resolution of a dispute.
    2. Whenever appropriate, attorneys should stipulate to all facts and legal authority not reasonably in dispute.
    3. Attorneys should encourage principled negotiations and efficient resolution of disputes on their merits.
    4. Attorneys should be punctual in communications with others, as well as prompt and prepared for all scheduled appearances.
    5. As soon as and and every case can be reasonably evaluated, attorneys should consider whether the client’s interest could be adequately served and the controversy more expeditiously and economically disposed of by settlement, arbitration, mediation or other form of alternative dispute resolution.
    6. Attorneys making objections during a deposition, trial or hearing should do so for legitimate and good faith reasons. Attorneys should not make such objections only for the purpose of making a speech, harassment or delay. All remarks, argument, objections and requests by counsel during trial shall be addressed to the court rather than directly to adversaries. Objections should be in legal form and without argument, unless directed to make argument by the court.
    7. Attorneys shall arrange for the appearance of witnesses during presentation of their case so as to eliminate delay caused by waiting for witnesses who have been placed on call.
  6. APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION IN JUNE OF 1993 (updated October 2009). ADOPTED AND APPENDED TO THE RULES OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT.

Share:

Obit: Daniel L. Brenner L.A. County judge killed while crossing the street in Pico-Robertson

A Los Angeles County judge who also was a recognized expert in communications law was killed Monday when he was struck by a vehicle while crossing a West L.A. street, police said.
The judge, identified as Daniel L. Brenner by a court spokeswoman, was walking across Beverwil Drive near Pico Boulevard about 6 p.m. when a driver heading north struck him, said Los Angeles police Officer Tony Im.





The driver remained at the scene and is not under a criminal investigation, Im said. Brenner was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. He was 64.

Brenner was not using the crosswalk, LAPD Sgt. Benjamin Zucker said.
"He was a brilliant judge and lawyer and a beloved friend to many," said Judge Carolyn Kuhl, the presiding judge of the L.A. County Superior Court. "His death is a terrible loss for his family and the court."
Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Brenner to the bench in 2012, and the jurist had most recently heard civil matters in the Chatsworth Courthouse, according to court spokeswoman Mary Hearn.
At the time of his appointment, Brenner had been a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Hogan Lovells LLP after spending about 17 years as the vice president of the regulatory department at the National Cable and Telecommunications Assn., an industry group.
Brenner had previously served as a top advisor to the chair of the Federal Communications Commission.
"Dan's insightful knowledge of telecommunications law made him a formidable force in public policy during his years leading the legal department at NCTA," said Michael Powell, president and CEO of the cable and telecom group.
"A prominent and distinguished member of the federal communications bar, Dan was a key staffer and advisor to two FCC chairmen during a time of immense change," he added.
Many praised Brenner for his sharp legal mind as well as his comedic talent.
For several years, Brenner performed stand-up comedy in clubs across the country and even taught a comedy course at UCLA Extension. He told The Times in 1991 that lawyers and comedians faced similar tasks: using language to be persuasive.
Brenner had earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Stanford University, and he graduated from Stanford Law School. Following law school, he was a clerk for U.S. District Court Judge William Byrne Jr.
During his career, Brenner wrote two legal textbooks and served as an adjunct faculty member at Georgetown University Law Center, Washington College of Law at American University and Cardozo Law School. He previously served as a faculty member at UCLA's law school and was a lecturer at USC's Gould School of Law, according to his USC biography

Share:

Obit: Murder: James Gilliland

This brazen murder occurred when a prominent attorney with Kilpatrick, Townsend and Stockton was murdered in El Cerrito CA as he exited his car in his driveway. 
Few take to time to look past the shooting with another ho hum. 

Your Elected Officials

They have been well informed, expert stonewallers and next election vote getters.

There are a few good ones. 
Congressman DeSaulnier

Are we Staring at Racketeering


Complex events often trips up public officials, police officers and suppliers who underestimate the risks of crossing the line between favor, snippet of information, accepting a gift like a big house in Las Vegas or 
-->The Perjury Conviction of DA Mark Peterson who dipped into to his campaign honey jar after he ignored my pleas about arson and attempted murder.
The murder of attorney James Gilliland wouldn't RICO unless it was related to clients like Sony, Oracle, Apple, Levi Strauss and Co., I am worried because they were my clients.



-->
Related 
Dead Witnessess
Dead Bankers
Dead Attorneys
Dead Officers 


-->
Bootstrap
Image Manager
Images
The Perjury Conviction of DA Mark Peterson
Related Tags
Dead Witnesses
Dead Bankers
Dead Attorneys
Dead Officers


Share:

Litigation Associate













If you're considering a law degree consider that my Kaitlyn Strand worked here: She's dead 

 

 Litigation Associate
Job ID:
23522137
Position Title:
Litigation Associate
Company Name:
McNamara Law Firm
Location(s):
California, United States  
Posted:
April 29, 2015
Job Function:
Associate
Entry Level:
No

APPLY FOR THIS JOB

Job Description

The McNamara Law Firm is a 35+ attorney civil litigation defense firm with offices in Contra Costa and Solano Counties, seeking a litigation associate for its Walnut Creek Office, with one to four years of relevant experience.  Police and civil rights defense experience are preferred.  Successful candidates will have excellent writing and research skills, a strong academic background from an accredited law school, be a self-starter, and be willing to accept significant responsibility in a broad range of litigation matters.  We offer a congenial atmosphere and competitive salary and benefits.  All inquiries will be treated confidentially.  Please email resume and short writing sample to hr@mcnamaralaw.com
Share:

#William Michael McCann [#66753] Disbarred, represented by Horowitz

Attorney Search





William Michael McCann - #66753


Current Status:  Active

This member is active and may practice law in California.
See below for more details.

Profile Information

The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
Bar Number: 66753
Address: 1530 Meridian Ave Ste 120
San Jose, CA 95125
Map it
Phone Number: (408) 269-8787
Fax Number: Not Available
e-mail: Not Available 
County: Santa Clara
Undergraduate School: Univ of California at Los Angeles; CA
District: District 6
Sections: None Law School: Santa Clara Univ SOL; Santa Clara CA

Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Active
9/17/2008 Active  
7/19/2008 Not Eligible To Practice Law  
3/11/2002 Active  
9/1/2001 Not Eligible To Practice Law  
12/18/1975 Admitted to The State Bar of California
Explanation of member status

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law

Effective DateDescriptionCase NumberResulting Status

Disciplinary and Related Actions
7/19/2008 Discipline w/actual suspension 05-O-00119 Not Eligible To Practice Law 

Administrative Actions
9/1/2001 Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance Not Eligible To Practice Law 

Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.
Explanation of common actions

State Bar Court Cases

NOTE: The State Bar Court began posting public discipline documents online in 2005. The format and pagination of documents posted on this site may vary from the originals in the case file as a result of their translation from the original format into Word and PDF. Copies of additional related documents in a case are available upon request. Only Opinions designated for publication in the State Bar Court Reporter may be cited or relied on as precedent in State Bar Court proceedings. For further information about a case that is displayed here, please refer to the State Bar Court's online docket, which can be found at: http://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/dockets/dockets.aspx
DISCLAIMER: Any posted Notice of Disciplinary Charges, Conviction Transmittal or other initiating document, contains only allegations of professional misconduct. The attorney is presumed to be innocent of any misconduct warranting discipline until the charges have been proven.
Effective Date Case Number Description
7/19/2008 05-O-00119 Opinion [PDF] [WORD]

California Bar Journal Discipline Summaries

Summaries from the California Bar Journal are based on discipline orders but are not the official records. Not all discipline actions have associated CBJ summaries. Copies of official attorney discipline records are .
July 19, 2008
WILLIAM MICHAEL McCANN [#66753], 59, of San Jose was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of probation with a 60-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect July 19, 2008.
The State Bar Court review department agreed with a hearing judge's findings that McCann forged documents, failed to keep clients informed about developments in their cases and made misrepresentations to a bar investigator, but it increased the level of discipline.
He was hired to represent a minor who had been in a traffic accident.
July 19, 2008
WILLIAM MICHAEL McCANN [#66753], 59, of San Jose was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect July 19, 2008.
The State Bar appealed a hearing judge’s recommended discipline, which did not include an actual suspension, and asked for a three-month actual suspension. The review department took into consideration McCann’s 30 years of discipline-free practice and settled on a 60-day actual suspension.
The hearing judge found that he committed forgery, failed to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments and made misrepresentations to a State Bar investigator.
In a personal injury case, he represented a minor whose medical expenses were paid by Blue Cross of California through an ERISA-qualified plan. Blue Cross hired The Rawlings Co. to obtain reimbursement for those benefits.
McCann did not respond to Rawlings’ notice of a lien and he believed that Blue Cross did not have a valid lien against any recovery. The lien amounted to $831.85.
When the case settled for $4,500, McCann endorsed the settlement check on behalf of Rawlings Co. for Blue Cross, knowing his clients were anxious to receive their money. He later received another lien notice but did not respond. When a Rawlings representative called McCann about the settlement check, he responded that he had “implied authority” to sign it. Although he attempted to pay part of the amount owed and then the full amount, his checks were returned.
He told a State Bar investigator that he had verbal authorization to endorse the check and said he thought the matter was resolved when he offered to fully reimburse Rawlings.
The review panel agreed with a hearing judge’s findings that McCann committed forgery, failed to keep his clients reasonably informed and made misrepresentations to a bar investigator, committing an act of moral turpitude. However, it disagreed with the judge’s belief that McCann acted in good faith because he believed the lien was invalid. That belief, the panel said, did not justify forgery.
“McCann consciously took the risk and forged Rawlings’ name in order to get the money to his impoverished clients quickly,” wrote Judge Madge Watai. His “good intentions,” she added, did not trump his dishonesty.
McCann has no prior record of discipline in 30 years of practice.

Start New Search »
Share:

Anchor links for post titles

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

Labels

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Labels

Recent Posts

Pages

Labels

Blog Archive

Recent Posts