Many of us probably realized in law school the answer is often “it depends.” The specific fact-patterns shift the issues or trigger exceptions to the rule. Attorneys make a living navigating in those gray areas when the answer is not obvious. This is true in litigation, transactional matters, contracts and disciplinary proceedings, too. A recent grievance proceeding proves that some points may seem so obvious that they are not worth mentioning, such as don’t hire hackers to spy on the presiding judge and don’t collude with your adversary to file a sham complaint. Whoa.
The State Bar of California recently found an attorney culpable on nine counts arising from “serious misconduct” that warrant disbarment. The story began when the City of Los Angeles sought to upgrade its water department’s billing system. Unfortunately, the new system was a disaster and caused widespread overbilling to the residents of LA. The city ultimately developed a plan to address the issue: pursue a class action lawsuit against the consultants who created the billing software and, effectively, pursue a sham class action lawsuit against itself. The apparent thinking was to engage “friendly” counsel to pursue the claim against the city, reach a quick resolution, and then focus entirely on the claim against the outside consultants.
The same city attorneys who targeted the claim against its outside consultants also drafted the complaint to be filed “on behalf of” its residents against the city. Those attorneys then hired the defending attorney who allegedly agreed to pretend to represent the city’s residents and who filed their complaint as drafted. According to the judge, he collected a $1.65 million fee for work he never performed. Worse still, after the discovery of the alleged collusion, the attorney met with foreign hackers to monitor the emails of the supervising judge.
According to the court:
“[the Attorney] knowingly acted as a figurehead attorney in a collusive scheme, submitted false declarations to secure $1.65 million in attorneys’ fees, and concealed relationships with opposing counsel…Beyond this, his deliberate efforts to compromise and access the court and private communications of a sitting judge …undermines the administration of justice and demonstrates an extraordinary and calculated violation of ethical standards. His actions, rooted entirely in his role as an attorney, reveal a complete disregard for the responsibilities of the legal profession.”
For his part, the attorney denies all wrongdoing and has suggested that the decision “is irrefutable evidence of desperately needed reforms of the justice system.”
Some lessons provide an opportunity to debate and hypothesize. Others are outliers that represent a clear departure from the standard of care and the model rules. Suffice it to say, if the allegations are proven true, the defending attorney is facing disbarment. Sometimes the truth – or at least the alleged truth – is stranger than fiction.
