This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Ethics/Professional Responsibility,
Law Practice,
Letters

Dec. 11, 2012

State Bar action bolsters public perception

Prohibiting legitimate discovery into discipline actions tends to increase the public perception that the State Bar is impenetrable and lacks transparency of its operations.

Samuel C. Bellicini

Email: sam@statebaradvice.com

Samuel is an experienced California ethics and professional responsibility attorney in Marin County, servicing the Bay Area and the entire state of California.

See more...


Attachments


Regarding the State Bar case against Del Norte County District Attorney Jon M. Alexander ["State Bar Review Panel Denies DA Request to Introduce Evidence That Agency Is Targeting Him," Dec. 6], I am a recovering attorney myself, and I am a member of The Other Bar. Please see Matter of Bellicini, 4 Cal State Bar Ct Rptr 883 (2006). I have been clean and sober for 11 years.

I disagree with the review department's decision. I believe that a respondent attorney is entitled to reasonable discovery on the issue of selective prosecution. This has been the law of the state of California for half a century. See Brotsky v State Bar, 57 Cal 2d 287 (1962).

Traditionally, the State Bar court and the Supreme Court have been very supportive of the genuine recovery efforts of attorneys afflicted with the diseases of alcoholism or addiction. Nevertheless, there is still a great deal of moral opprobrium associated with these diseases.

Thus, any allegation that a prosecution is motivated, even in part, by animus toward an attorney's successful recovery efforts is contrary to our system of due process in the State Bar court. Prohibiting legitimate discovery into that allegation tends to increase the public perception that the State Bar is impenetrable and lacks transparency of its operations.

#256243


Submit your own column for publication to Diana Bosetti


For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com