Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Moral Turpitude, Dishonesty, Fraud, Corruption or Concealment: Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Mary Ann Grilli - Attorney Bradford Baugh San Jose - Family Law Lawyer Brad Baugh - Baugh & Amini 1550 The Alameda - Nat Hales - James Butera - Divorce Lawyers - 1st District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Jim Humes, Justice J. Anthony Kline, Justice William R. McGuiness, Justice Ignazio J. Ruvolo, Justice Barbara J.R. Jones First District Court of Appeal San Jose -

Rule 2.11 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California provides for the disbarment or actual suspension of an attorney for misconduct, including moral turpitude. The rule was revised and renumbered on July 1, 2015. The rule previously was designated as 2.7. The 23-page document catalog embedded at the end of this post includes the 2016, 2014, and 2012 versions of the rule. 

Under rule 5.126, a serious offense is defined as conduct involving dishonesty, moral turpitude, or corruption, including bribery, forgery, perjury, extortion, obstruction of justice, burglary or related offenses, intentional fraud, and intentional breach of fiduciary relationship. 

This compilation also includes the moral turpitude section from the California Compendium on Professional Responsibility Index, published by the State Bar. Under California law, there are more than 100 forms of attorney misconduct that are considered acts of moral turpitude. Common forms include:

  • Advancing untrue facts prejudicial to opposing party. 
  • Concealing material information. 
  • Misleading the court. 
  • Acts of deception. 
  • Omission of material facts from documents. 
  • Misrepresentation and concealment of adverse and material facts. 
  • Dishonesty. 
  • Misrepresentations to opposing counsel or pro per. 
  • Overreaching. 
Under California law, codified at Code of Judicial Ethics canon 3D(2), judges are required to report, or otherwise correct attorney misconduct, including moral turpitude, dishonesty and concealment.

For more information about moral turpitude and attorney misconduct, visit the California Attorney Misconduct page at Sacramento Family Court Report

Thursday, August 4, 2016

Controversial Attorney Brad Baugh Whistleblower Leak: Winnov Founder Olivier Garbe Divorce Battle

Attorney Garrett Dailey Controversy: Whistleblower Leak - Marriage of Dong and Garbe - Winnov Inc Olivier Garbe - Judge Mary Ann Grilli Santa Clara County Superior Court – Attorney Bradford Baugh, Baugh & Amini, 1550 The Alameda, Suite 155, San Jose CA 95126 - Garrett C. Dailey SBN 76180 Attorney at Law 2915 McClure Street Oakland CA 94609 - Sixth District Court of Appeal California San Jose
Silicon Valley divorce attorney Bradford Baugh. 
The past due attorney fee invoice embedded at the bottom of this post is from the high-conflict Silicon Valley divorce case between Winnov Inc Founder Olivier Garbe and Diana Dong. The case is being heard by controversial Santa Clara County Family Court Judge Mary Ann Grilli.   

San Jose divorce attorney Brad Baugh represents Garbe in the trial court, and prominent appellate attorney Garrett C. Dailey represents Garbe on appeal. Dong has been represented by a string of attorneys or been self-represented due to denials of motions requesting attorney fee funds.  


Baugh is connected to a number of high-profile, high-conflict Santa Clara County divorce cases, including Richard and Laura Beauchesne, Janet and Kyle Bowers, Susan and Robert Bassi, and Evan and Violet Brooks. 


Court watchdogs contend that Santa Clara County Superior Court case files show Baugh deliberately generates conflict between divorcing couples who have substantial assets and income, unnecessarily drags cases out for years, and in the process churns exorbitant legal fees.  Whistleblowers also allege that Baugh fails to disclose conflicts of interest with judges, referees, special masters, judge pro tems, and child custody evaluators, who Baugh has had personal, social, or professional relationships with for more than 20 years. 


Court case file statistical sampling and anecdotal evidence suggest that Baugh obtains favorable outcomes for his clients at a statistically improbable level. Whistleblowers attribute the attorneys unusual success to alleged unethical conduct, bad faith litigation tactics, serial moral turpitude misconduct, and corruption within his network of judges and associates. 


Monday, November 17, 2014

Receiver Kevin Singer Serial Unauthorized Practice of Law Violations Ignored by State Bar Office of Chief Trial Counsel

Whistleblower Records Show Statewide Unauthorized Practice of Law by Court Appointed Receiver Continues Without Consequences


Receivership Specialists Kevin Singer Receiver John Rachlin, Gregg Foster, Richard Marquis, - Jayne Kim State Bar of California - Office of the Chief Trial Counsel California State Bar Association - California Supreme Court - Kamala Harris Attorney General State of California
Whistleblower leaked court records indicate that court appointed
receiver Kevin Singer routinely practices law without a license.
Court records leaked to State Bar of California News indicate that prominent court appointed receiver Kevin Singer routinely engages in the unauthorized practice of law without consequences. Singer is not an attorney or member of the State Bar of California, yet has filed court pleadings in a variety of cases throughout the state

In addition to the Alameda County Superior Court "notice of motion and motion" for a criminal contempt of court hearing posted below, Singer has filed a motion for authorization to retain an attorney in Contra Costa County, and a stipulation in Santa Clara County. 

"Preparation of stipulations and releases constitutes the practice of law," according to Ellen R. Peck, a former State Bar Court judge and co-author of The Rutter Group California Practice Guide: Professional Responsibility. In a San Francisco Superior Court case, Singer drafted and filed an "ex parte application and application for orders" to confirm a prior stipulation and order, which he also drafted and filed.     

According to a disciplinary decision from the state Commission on Judicial Performance, Singer's court filings also implicate each judge who permits his UPL conduct. A judge who aids and abets the unlawful practice of law is subject to discipline for committing conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judiciary into disrepute, according to the CJP.  The whistleblower leaked court records are posted below, and at this Scribd link. For the law and legal authorities that prohibit, and define the unauthorized practice of law, click here.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

California State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim Misconduct: Disciplinary Backlog Data Manipulated

Fired State Bar Executive Director Joe Dunn Files Whistleblower Lawsuit - Jayne Kim Cooked Books

Former California State Bar Executive Director Joe Dunn alleges misconduct by Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim. 
From The Recorder:
Fired California State Bar executive director Joe Dunn filed suit Thursday afternoon, alleging that he was canned after alerting the bar to "serious ethical breaches" among top leaders. The complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, says that Dunn and other unnamed plaintiffs filed two whistleblower notices with the bar during the first week of November. Dunn says he was fired two days later - via email - while giving a speech in San Francisco...
...The whistleblower notices, the complaint alleges, warned administrators that Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim - hired on his watch - was manipulating the agency's books to conceal a disciplinary backlog - an issue that Dunn had pledged to lawmakers that he would correct when he came on the job. Dunn also says he complained the bar wasn't doing enough to prosecute non-lawyers performing legal work.
Click here to read the full story at The Recorder. For the Courthouse News Service report, click here. Read the complete lawsuit filed by Joe Dunn below, posted exclusively by State Bar of California News.  

Sunday, August 24, 2014

State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim Ignores Alleged Criminal Conduct, Serial Moral Turpitude Acts By Sacramento Attorney Against Pro Per Domestic Violence Victim

Sacramento Bar Association Officer Repeatedly Violates State Law, Attorney Ethics Rules - Maintains Clean Bar Record

Divorce Lawyer Paula D. Salinger family law Woodruff OHair Posner and Salinger - Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter – Associate Justice Goodwin H. Liu – Associate Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar - Justice Cantil-Sakauye – Supreme Court of California – Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye – Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan – Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard – Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar – Associate Justice Ming W. Chin - California Supreme Court  Jayne Kim State Bar Chief Trial Counsel, California State Bar Court - Office of the Chief Trial Counsel -
The State Bar of California and the California Supreme Court are responsible for attorney oversight in California. Despite documented, multiple violations of state law and attorney ethics rules, Sacramento lawyer Paula D. Salinger maintains a pristine State Bar record.

Whistleblower leaked records from a Sacramento Family Court case indicate that criminal acts were committed by family law attorney and temporary judge Paula Salinger against an indigent, unrepresented, pro per family court party. The pro per was a victim and witness in a family court criminal contempt case filed against a Salinger client, and the pro per also is a domestic violence victim, according to court records. Family court reform advocates say the case is another example of the complete lack of oversight and accountability of attorneys who engage in egregious misconduct against disadvantaged, pro per litigants who can't afford legal representation. 

To continue reading, click Read more >> below: