This document is confidential work product, protected from disclosure by attorney-client

privilege which may be waived by the client.

REPORT AND ANALYSIS OF AUDITED GIRARDI FILES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In March 2021, the State Bar’s General Counsel employed outside counsel to audit all closed
disciplinary files pertaining to State Bar complaints filed against California attorney Thomas
Vincent Girardi (“Girardi”), State Bar Number 36603. The primary purpose of the audit is to
determine whether or not there is any information in any of the files showing that the handling of
the case to the benefit of Girardi resulted from some type of personal or financial relationship with
or benefit to any of the individuals who were involved in the case disposition, including outside
special deputy trial counsel as well as State Bar employees. There were 130 complaints filed
against Girardi with the State Bar from 1982 to January 2021. One hundred fifteen of them were
reviewed. Fifteen older files could not be located in off-site storage. The auditor found no
documentation in any files to support a finding of improper influence by Girardi on either State
Bar employees or outside examiners in the resolution of these cases.

The complaints involve a myriad of alleged violations. Forty-four raised possible client trust
account issues violative of Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.15. Thirty-eight alleged failures
to competently or diligently perform legal services (RPC 1.1; 1.3), to communicate with the client
(RPC 1.4) and/or to take appropriate actions when withdrawing from employment (RPC 1.16).
The remainder complained about other ethics violations including dishonesty (RPC 8.4), failing to
comply with conflicts rules (RPC 1.7, 1.8.1), violating reporting requirements of Business and
Professions Code §6068(o), and interfering with other attorneys’ representation of their clients
(RPC 3.10; 4.2).

The auditor did find numerous errors in the handling of some of these files both by the Office of
the Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) staff and by some of the outside examiners appointed pursuant to
State Bar Rules of Procedure, Rule 2201. Many of these errors appear to be the result of strict
compliance with office practices which, in this case, required flexibility in order to properly
address patterns of misconduct. For example, in ten cases where the complaint focused on Girardi
delaying in paying settlement funds to the client and Girardi made the payment out of his trust
account once contacted by the State Bar (OCTC staff and outside examiners), the complaints were
closed. There was no investigation as to whether Girardi had actually received settlement funds
for that particular client before the payment was made or he was simply advancing his own money
or other clients’ trust funds to get the State Bar complaint closed. There was no determination that
the funds had been maintained in one of Girardi’s many client trust accounts until paid and whether
or not there was an unjustified delay in disbursing the funds, which is in itself a violation of the
State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct.

A case resolved in 2002 evidenced a misappropriation

. There was
no filing of disciplinary charges with the State Bar Court and therefore no discipline for the
misconduct due to the false statement by the deputy trial counsel that

Page 1 of 21
 Girardi’s fame and fortune may
have impacted the decision to erroneously close this case. There is no evidence in the file of any
improper interactions between staff and Girardi prompting the closure.

Between 1992 and 1994, another deputy trial counsel who was responsible for the closure of 11
cases without any discipline, also appeared to be impressed with Girardi’s celebrity status and

the millions of dollars in Girardi’s trust accounts. Two of the cases involved distribution of funds
from Girardi’s trust account in excess of the amounts held in trust for the clients, which facts would
have been sufficient to prove violations of the trust account rules. Three other cases all assigned
to different staff with the same violation were closed between 1998-2000. Although there is no
documentation in the files to show improper influence by Girardi on OCTC staff, these errors in
judgment resulted in no public discipline being imposed on Girardi for decades when there was
sufficient evidence to support findings of professional misconduct by the State Bar Court’s
standard of clear and convincing evidence.

In 2010, an outside examiner incorrectly closed a complaint referred by the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeal which had disciplined Girardi for misleading the court. This matter would have resulted
in public discipline for Girardi. There was no evidence in the file that the closure was due to any
improper motive, but instead due to the attorney’s lack of knowledge and training on the mandatory
nature of the reciprocal discipline provisions of Business and Professions Code §6049.1. Twenty-
one other files were assigned to other Special Deputy Trial Counsel between 2007 and 2019 due
to various conflicts including Girardi’s representation of individuals in actions against the State
Bar and a partner’s service as President of the Board of Governors. The closures of these files were
appropriate based on the evidence or the exercise of prosecutorial discretion such as discussed
above regarding delayed payments to clients.

Even though there was no definitive evidence of disparate handling of any of the cases due to some
ulterior motive, the auditor has provided recommendations to reduce or prevent similar errors in
the handling of future cases by OCTC staff and outside examiners which are contained at the end
of this report.

Page 2 of 21
 I. INTRODUCTION

ill early March 2021 , the General Counsel of the State Bar of California, Vanessa Holton, requested
the assistance of attorney Alyse M. Lazar to audit all closed disciplinaiy files pe1t aining to State
Bar complaints filed against California attorney Thomas Vincent Girai·di ("Girardi"), State Bai·
Number 36603. Ms. Lazar was selected to peifonn this work as an independent outside consultant
based on her background and experience.

Ms. Lazai· has practiced law in the State of California for over 40 years. She was employed by the
State Bar of California in the Office of Trial Counsel from 1980 to 1998 as a litigator and an
Assistant Chief Trial Counsel. She represented the office in all types of disciplinaiy cases at the
trial and appellate levels, oversaw the work of attorneys and investigative staff, had responsibilities
for drafting and interpreting regulato1y mles and statutes, and served as a liaison to various
government agencies. Since that time, she has worked in private practice in Ventura County,
California and has served on numerous boards, committees and commissions for various
government and non-profit entities. From 2012 to the present, Ms. Lazar has conducted
independent random audits of closed State Bai· files in confonnance with the Office of the Chief
Trial Counsel Policy Directives 2006-02 and 2010-01. These audits ai·e perfo1med under the
auspices of the Mission Advancement and Accountability Division of the State Bar.
Both at the inception and throughout the audit, conflicts checks were perfo1med to ensure that Ms.
Lazar's work would not be influenced by any info1mation contained in any of the files reviewed.
Had a conflict arisen, any such files identified would have been removed from the audit and
reviewed by a separate outside counsel. No such conflicts were identified including any of the files
that were reviewed between 1984 and 1998 when Ms. Lazai· was employed at the State Bai·. Ms.
Lazar did not work on any of those files directly or indirectly nor did she supervise any employees
who worked on such files.
ill total, 115 files which were received by the State Bai· between Febmaiy 1984 through Janua1y
8, 2021 and thereafter closed involving complaints about Girai·di's conduct were audited. Fifteen
additional files could not be located in off-site storage due to their age and a less detailed tracking
systems than the one in place today. The vast majority of files were deemed to not waiTant any
disciplinaiy action and were closed at either the intake or investigation levels. ill 1992, six files
that had been considered for disciplina1y action were consolidated and resolved with - -

ill October 1999, the State Bai· Court approved a stipulation

to a private reproval against Girai·di where he acknowledged misconduct in three sepai·ate matters.
By its te1ms, this discipline which was agreed upon prior to the filing of charges with the State Bai·
Comt, is confidential.

Consequently, from his admission in 1965 through Febmaiy 2021 , no infonnation was available
to the public regarding any of the disciplinaiy matters pertaining to Girardi that were investigated
by the State Bai·. Most of these cases were investigated by employees of the Office of the Chief
Trial Counsel (OCTC). Whenever a conflict was identified with any personnel of the State Bai·,

Page 3 of 21
such files were assigned to independent outside examiners pursuant to the special deputy trial
counsel provisions of State Bar Rules of Procedure, Rule 2201. Twenty-four of the 115 files were
handled by these trained outside counsel between 2007 and 2019 due to various conflicts including
Girardi’s representation of individuals in actions against the State Bar and a partner’s service as
President of the Board of Governors. In some of these files assigned to outside counsel, the Office
of General Counsel performed some administrative oversight.

The purpose of the audit is to determine if all files reviewed were properly handled whether the
work was performed by employees of the State Bar or by special deputy trial counsel. In particular,
the auditor was tasked with determining whether or not there is any information contained in any
of the files showing that the handling of the case was influenced by some type of personal or
financial relationship with Girardi benefitting any of the individuals who were involved in the case
disposition, including outside special deputy trial counsel as well as State Bar employees.

This report provides a full and fair evaluation of all the cases audited. It critically evaluates and
explains errors that were identified. Differences of opinion regarding the handling of a case have
been evaluated using the prosecutorial discretion standard. So long as no abuse of discretion is
evident, the handling of such files is not deemed to be erroneous. Nonetheless, comments
regarding such differences of opinion are set forth in this report for informational purposes.

To the extent possible, depending upon when various files were located and provided to the
auditor, the files were reviewed in chronological order. The reason for doing so was to understand
what information was available to OCTC staff at the time they made the decision on how to handle
each file. Contained in each file is a printout of all prior cases involving that particular attorney,
the first listed allegation code, and the status of the case (open or closed.) OCTC has maintained
electronic records for files received by the office for most of the years in which complaints were
received regarding Girardi. The prior mechanism was known as AS400 and in or about 2018, it
was converted to a system known as Odyssey. All OCTC staff have access to this system which
contains more detailed information regarding all closed and open files in the system including
identifying all possible areas of misconduct based on an analysis of the complaint and the
disposition of each allegation. More limited information has been made available to special deputy
trial counsel.

As the files were reviewed, the auditor prepared written comments on each file along with
information as to staff assigned, open and closure dates and whether or not Girardi was contacted
for a response to the allegations. This document, Audit of Closed OCTC Files re Thomas Vincent
Girardi (“Audit”), contains the State Bar’s file number for each case. These numbers changed
whenever a file was transferred from the intake unit to the investigation department. To avoid
confusion regarding the case numbers, this report references the files from numbers 1 to 115. The
cross-reference to the actual State Bar case numbers is contained in the Audit.

II. TRUST ACCOUNT VIOLATIONS

Of the cases audited, forty-four of them raised issues pertaining to possible client trust account
violations (files 3, 4, 8, 9,10, 14, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 42, 45, 47, 48,
49, 51, 53, 55, 59, 70, 75, 80, 81, 83, 91, 92, 95, 96, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105,107, 112).

Page 4 of 21
The most serious allegations involved the possible misappropriation of funds which occuned in a
variety of ways. The failure to retain funds in an identified tiust account was raised in five cases
(files 34, 51 , 81 , 83, 96). Issuing trnst account checks before the funds cleared the account resulted
in two actions repo1ied by a bank (file 59). Five of the complaints (files 8, 14, 28, 47, 48) raised
issues regarding Girardi advancing payments to clients from his client trnst account when the
settlement funds for their cases had allegedly not yet been received. Finally, there were two
instances (files 24, 51) where Girardi paid the client more money than he had received on behalf
of the client from tiust account funds to compensate them for expenses incurred or for interest that
would have been earned had Girardi taken the appropriate steps to earn interest for the client on
their funds.

Other identified violations of the ti11st account rnles that may or may not have also revealed a
misappropriation oftiust funds were identified in the following cases. Seventeen cases (files 8, 20,
29, 30, 53, 55, 70, 80, 91 , 92, 95, 96, 101, 102, 105, 107, 112) include a complaint that Girardi had
delayed in paying the clients their po1iion of settlement funds or paid insufficient funds to the
client. Nine cases (files 3, 8, 9, 10, 23 , 26, 51, 91 , 104) involved Girardi's failure to promptly
resolve medical liens on client cases for which the court had designated a specific sum of money
to be maintained in a ti11st account to make the payment with the remainder to be paid to the client.
Another area of concern raised in fifteen complaints (files 4, 18, 19, 24, 25 , 30, 34, 36, 42, 45 , 48,
49, 51 , 75, 99) was Girardi's alleged failure to promptly provide accountings to clients after
numerous requests for a complete itemization of all funds received on their behalf and how the
funds were disbursed. Files 31 and 34 involved allegations of failing to obtain comi approval of
the settlement and the legal fees paid to Girardi
- - The evidence of such misconduct in these two cases did not rise to the clear and
convincing standard required for State Bar Comi proceedings.

Based on the volume and content of these complaints, there were indicia that Girardi may have
been repeatedly violating provisions of the State Bar's tiust accounting rnles by delaying the
payment of settlement funds to clients and lienholders and not providing accountings for the funds.
To detennine whether or not Girardi had maintained all funds to be held on behalf of his clients
including for the payment of medical liens in the account until paid and paying out all the moneys
due, OCTC would have had to review bank records and Girardi ' s client trnst account ledgers;
however OCTC did not do so in most of these cases. It failed to look at this bigger picture due in
paii to the fact that these files were handled by many different investigators and attorneys
throughout the 37 yeai·s covered by this audit. On a case-by-case basis, these closures appeared to
be appropriate, however, except as othe1wise noted, they did not involve a sufficient investigation
to be certain.
It is disturbing to note that on several occasions when an investigator contacted a ti·ial attorney
regarding the possibility of pursuing fo1mal disciplina1y action, some possible tiust account
violations were minimized and not pursued.

Page 5 of 21
 This was not a one-time instance, but repeated over the decades.

fu May 1989, the State Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct were amended and Rule 8-101
pe1iaining to "Preserving Identity of Funds and Property of a Client" was renumbered to Rule 4-
101 but with the same language. This rnle was expanded in Januruy 1993 to include specific record
keeping standards. The cmTent Rule 1.15, adopted in November 2018 contains substantially the
same language with some additional provisions. The principle behind all of these pe1mutations of
the rnle is that client funds require protection from an attorney's creditors ' claims and segregating
them completely from an attorney's own funds is the only way to safeguard them . When attorneys
commingle their funds in the tiust account, no matter how they ru·e designated on office ledgers,
it desti·oys the identity of the account as a tiue tiust account.

This Rule specifically required and requires:

No funds belonging to the licensee or the law fnm shall be deposited therein or
othe1wise commingled therewith except as follows: (1) Funds reasonably sufficient
to pay bank chru·ges. (2) In the case of funds belonging in part to a client and in prut
presently or potentially to the licensee or the law finn, the po1tion belonging to the
licensee or law furn must be withdrawn at the eru·liest reasonable time aBer the
licensee's interest in that po1iion becomes fixed. However, when the right of the
licensee or law fnm to receive a portion of ti11st funds is disputed by the client, the
disputed portion shall not be withdrawn until the dispute is finally resolved.

Page 6 of 21
were serious breaches of Girardi' s ethical obligations and yet no actual discipline was imposed by
staff exercising prosecutorial discretion.

-·
- - T h is same detennination should have been included in

Nonetheless, this first-time disposition was within the range for

matters resolved with a cooperative a t t o r n e y - - rather than requiring OCTC to expend
the resom ces and take the risks to prove up all allegations in a State Bar Comi trial. No evidence
of Girardi improperly influencing the OCTC attorney to agree to this resolution appeared in the
files, however, as discussed above, the attorney had expressed some bias in favor of Girardi.

Even after this case was resolved fom

subsequent files (24, 28, 47, 48) show that Girardi continued to advance sums of money to some
of his clients while awaiting resolution of their cases and before receiving money on their behalf.
These checks were written from the t:Iust account, resulting in violations of the t:Iust account mles
as well as Rule of Professional Conduct 4-210(A)(2) which requires the client's written consent
and promise to repay such a loan
. While Girardi was disciplined in pali for a Rule 4-210 violation
regarding file number 28, (discussed in more detail below), OCTC eITed by not pm-suing discipline
in any of these four cases for t:Iust account violations.

Page 7 of 21
 At the ve1y least, the conduct
would have constituted commingling and, at the high end, misappropriation of other clients' funds.
The fact that Girardi had been put on notice that this was disciplinable conduct
six years earlier makes it even more egregious.

Misappropriation is not the same as theft. It does not require the attorney to use money received
on behalf of a client for an improper purpose. It occurs whenever an attorney fails to deposit or
fails to maintain funds received on behalf of any client, excluding attorney fees, in a clearly marked
tiust account. As stated in Rule of Professional Conduct 4-100 "All funds received or held for the
benefit of clients by a licensee or law fnm, including advances for costs and expenses, shall be
deposited in one or more identifiable bank accounts labeled "Tmst Account," "Client's Funds
Account" or words of similar impo1i."

Therefore, eve1y time Girardi issued an advance on a case with a ti11st account check, he was either
using other client money being maintained in that account or using his own commingled funds.
Even if he claimed that the money caine from attorney fees that were in dispute, he had no right to
remove any of these funds from the account including paying it to other clients until the dispute
was resolved. This constitutes misappropriation which, according to the disciplinaiy standards,
waiTants suspension or disbaiment in most instances.

To ensure compliance with proper ti11st account practices, the State Bai· adopted Standru·ds on
Januaiy 1, 1993 regarding the records that eve1y attorney must maintain for client funds, which
includes funds received to be paid to lienholders of the client if agreed upon by the client. They
state:
A licensee shall, from the date of receipt of client funds through the period ending five
years from the date of appropriate disbursement of such funds, maintain: (a) a written
ledger for each client on whose behalf funds ai·e held that sets fo1ih: (i) the name of such
client, (ii) the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client, (iii)
the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client,
and (iv) the cmTent balance for such client; (b) a written jomnal for each bank account that
sets fo1ih: (i) the name of such account, (ii) the date, amount and client affected by each
debit and credit, and (iii) the cmTent balance in such account; (c) all bank statements and
canceled checks for each bank account; and (d) each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of
(a), (b), and (c).

fu 1993, Girai·di was infonned about a complaint (file 30)

have issued a waining or directional letter to explain the long-standing Rules regarding record
keeping and the requirements of these new standards.

Page 8 of21
 This handling of the matter provided no assurance that
Girardi would change future conduct or even be advised about it from his counsel. More
significantly, OCTC did not resolve other issues raised in the complaint that are far more serious.

This case was not appropriately investigated before it was closed and potentially serious violations
were disregarde

opinion about Girardi ' s fame and fortune may

have influenced the handling of this case. The file contains no infonnation regarding a possible
personal or monetaiy benefit to the attorney for • actions.
ill October 1999, the State Bar Comi approved a stipulation to a private reproval that was agreed
to prior to the filing of a Notice ofDisciplinaiy Charges and therefore it was not publicly disclosed.
Three cases were consolidated for this disposition regai·ding misconduct that occmTed between
1988 and 1995. One complaint involved advancing money to a client (file 28). Girardi was only
disciplined for the Rule 4-2 10 violation for not preparing a loan agreement.

no client tmst account (Rule 4-1 00)

violations were contained in the stipulation for this count. ill the second matter (file 34), Girardi
admitted that he ti·ansfeITed one million dollai·s belonging to a client into two ce1i ificates of deposit
in the finns ' name with no identification that the money belonged to the client. This was deemed
to violate RPC 4-l 00(A), but was downplayed by Girai·di's statement that these actions were taken
to avoid tax liability to the client. This ignores the fact that had OCTC not gotten involved resulting
in the funds being delivered to the client, there was the real possibility that the client could have
lost this million dollai·s to Girardi's creditors had his fortunes been reversed as they ai·e today. The
third matter consolidated into the private reproval (file 39) involved Girai·di's failure to info1m a
client of significant development on her case including its dismissal. Because the misconduct was
minimized, including the exclusion of misappropriation charges, and Girardi's mitigation
involving his public service to the legal profession was heavily weighted, the comi approved the
stipulated disposition. It relied on 1991-1992 State Bar case law establishing precedent for a
private reproval for technical tiust account violations.

It is noted that stipulated dispositions involve compromise and, under all of the circumstances
present at the time, this outcome was not inappropriate based on the included violations. It is

Page 9 of 21
curious that standard conditions of probation required in almost eve1y other disciplinaiy matter at
that time, nainely attending the State Bai· Ethics School and taking and passing the multistate
professional responsibility exain were replaced by a provision to take twelve hours of continuing
legal education classes on law office management or legal ethics. There were no requirements
regarding his fnm 's handling of tmst funds nor even requiring education on the subj ect. Had the
case been litigated in State Bai· Court and the misconduct established by cleai· and convincing
evidence, a greater level of discipline would have been mandated.

Ultimately, based on the facts and circumstances presented to - the Chief Trial Counsel at the
time approved having OCTC stipulate to a private reproval.

fu October 1997, when Girardi, through counsel, was communicating with OCTC regai·ding the
private reproval matter, (file 51).

OCTC did not handle this file appropriately. It

misappropriation

- -clearly were aware that they did not need proof that Girardi
to proceed with discipline for misappropriation. Nonetheless, there
is no evidence in the file that Girai·di improperly influenced the closure of this case through a
personal, financial or business relationship with any of the staff involved.

no
clients ' funds were jeopardized and closure of the file was appropriate although a directional letter
would have put Girardi on notice of the proper handling of tmst accounts . File 83 involved .

Page 10 of 21
 While it may have been difficult to
establish any culpability for these issues were
never even investigated by asking Girardi to explain the allegations before the file was closed.

File 81 was properly closed when

Nonetheless, by 2012 after there had been numerous other cases raising questions about Girardi
maintaining funds received for the benefit of clients, it would have been appropriate to at least
investigate
No such investigation was performed
prior to closure.

File 96 with the complaint filed in 2016 and resolved by an outside examiner in 2020, was properly
closed due to
the fact that the misconduct, if any, had occurred fifteen years earlier and could not be prosecuted
under the doctrine of laches. Closure was also appropriate for file 104 involving and unpaid
medical lien, as it could not be investigated because
barring OCTC from obtaining attorney-client privileged documents without a good cause waiver.

In the seventeen cases where the clients complained about delays in receiving all of their settlement
funds, it was Girardi’s practice in many of these cases to pay out the money if the case had settled
upon receiving notice of the State Bar complaint.

- In accordance with OCTC practice, these cases were all closed without any investigation of
possible trust account violations.

file 51 that

In file 92, an outside examiner attempted to investigate whether or not Girardi maintained the
funds in a trust account until paid out.

This attorney intended to pursue further

investigation
Before this occurred,
- obtained new employment requiring
• to have the case transferred to a
different outside examiner who then closed the file without any additional investigation and
without determining if any trust account violations had in fact occurred. A review of the file reveals
no evidence that the subsequent outside examiner received any benefit from Girardi for closing
the file without this additional investigation which may have resulted in proof of significant trust
account violations.

Had the Bar fully investigated these matters involving delayed payments by requesting the ledger
for each of these clients, it may have revealed either a technical non-compliance with the State Bar

Page 11 of 21
requirements or possibly additional misappropriations. Without these records, it could not be
determined whether or not Girardi at the very least violated Rule of Professional Conduct 4-
100(B)(4) by failing to “Promptly pay or deliver, as requested by the client, any funds… in the
possession of the licensee which the client is entitled to receive”. The ledgers, if Girardi had
maintained them in accordance with the State Bar Standards, would have disclosed the dates of
receipt of funds and the dates of disbursal for each client. On a case-by-case basis, Girardi would
have been required to explain in detail any substantial delays,

For example, in file 101, there was a delay

in paying the client
. This issue was not pursued after Girardi paid this money to the
client even though OCTC may exercise its discretion to pursue investigations even if the CW
requests closure of a file.

During the investigation of several of the files, OCTC requested Girardi’s bank records.

Where information is revealed during a valid investigation that could amount to additional
misconduct, it is normal practice for OCTC to open its own State Bar Investigation (SBI) file.
There were two instances,
that should have led to further investigation. File 34

Similarly in 2002, for file 51,

This should have resulted in additional investigation as it

did not comport with the trust account Standards.

As noted at the beginning of this section, there were fifteen cases which included an allegation for
failing to promptly provide written accountings to clients regarding all funds received by Girardi
on their cases. Compared to misappropriation, this is a less serious violation, but it should not
have been ignored. In a 1999 matter (file 48),

In a 2000 case (file 49), OCTC closed the case without

Page 12 of 21
recognizing that

in file 45 the case was closed with no action

By OCTC
continually closing these cases without at the very least putting Girardi on notice of the
wrongdoing, it resulted in his treating other clients in a similar fashion with apparent immunity.

III. UNTRUTHFUL/MISLEADING CONDUCT

Files 62, 67 and 68 all pertain to the same matter but were given different case numbers due to the
manner in which they were reported to the State Bar. They were all assigned to one outside
examiner pursuant to Rule of Procedure 2201. In the underlying case, Girardi and other attorneys
were disciplined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. The examiner erroneously closed the file
with no State Bar discipline even though he was required to at least pursue possible discipline
pursuant to Business and Professions Code §6049.1, designated as a “J” case. This statute provides
that whenever an attorney is disciplined by another jurisdiction, such as the federal court, the case
will warrant reciprocal discipline by the State Bar of California so long as the provisions of this
statute are satisfied.

In such proceedings, the State Bar Court would be obligated to deem the factual determinations
and conclusions of the federal court as correct and the only issues would have been the degree of
discipline to impose if the culpability determination in this other jurisdiction would constitute
conduct disciplinable by the California State Bar, which it was. In fact, the court cited to State Bar
Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200 (requiring truthfulness in dealing with a court) and Business
and Professions Code §6068(d) (prohibition against misleading a judge) as two of the grounds for
discipline. The only other issue would have been whether or not “the proceedings of the other
jurisdiction lacked fundamental constitutional protections”, which it did not, as both discovery and
a four-day court trial occurred where Girardi was represented by counsel prior to the imposition
of discipline by the federal court.

The Ninth Circuit formally reprimanded Girardi for his participation in bringing and pursuing a
case before the court against the wrong defendant (The Dole Company) to enforce a foreign
judgment from Nicaragua obtained by default after the foreign court barred Dole from participating
in the case and explicitly holding that the judgment was not against The Dole Company. Girardi’s
conduct was aggravated in that after he found out the true facts, he wilfully failed to take any action
to dismiss the appeal and instead pursued further inappropriate actions by opposing defendant’s
efforts to provide the court with the accurate documents to show a lack of jurisdiction.

The outside examiner incorrectly concluded that the federal reprimand was sufficient. In fact, had
similar discipline in the form of a public reproval been imposed on Girardi, it would have
necessarily contained additional standard conditions including but not limited to reporting

Page 13 of 21
requirements to the State Bar's probation department, taking and passing the multistate
professional responsibility exam, and possibly tailored provisions to address the misconduct. A
public reproval would have been the lowest level of discipline that could have been imposed due
to Girardi's prior private reproval. The State Bar Comt may have ordered suspension or at least
stayed suspension especially in light of the fact that Girardi's conduct in this matter negatively
impacted hundreds of his clients involved in the litigation as well as being a significant bmden on
the comt and opposing paities. Instead, Girai·di's record with the State Bar continued to be
sheltered from public disclosme. A review of these files produced no evidence that Girardi
improperly influenced the outside examiner in his decision. In fact, the attorney never contacted
Girardi about the matter.

Several oth er files audited also contained infonnation regai·ding misleading or dishonest conduct.
A note contained in case 3,

-
T hree complaints contained allegations that Girardi had made misrepresentations to clients
regarding their cases. In file 55,

1111
IV. PERFORMANCE AND COMMUNICATION ISSUES

Complaints were filed against Girai·di alleging perfo1mance and/or communication issues in thi1ty-
eight cases. Fo1mer Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110 (cunent Rule 1. 1) requires attorneys to
diligently and competently perfonn legal services on behalf of clients and eleven cases raised this
issue (files 6,11 , 16, 21 , 39, 40, 51 , 65, 71 , 84, 103). Business and Professions Code §6068(m)
and fo1mer Rule of Professional Conduct 3-500 (cunent Rule 1.4) mandate that clients are kept
reasonably infonned of significant developments on their cases, including responding to
reasonable requests for info1mation. This violation was alleged in twenty-six of the cases audited
(files 2, 4, 5, 6, 11 , 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 36, 39, 40, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 71 , 77, 103, 105, 111, 113,
114, 115). Failure to take appropriate actions when withdrawing from the representation of a client

Page 14 of 21
in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700 (cmTent Rule 1.16) was alleged in twelve
matters (files 14, 18, 40, 43 , 49, 52, 54, 55, 56, 82, 89, 97.)

According to the State Bar 's Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Conduct the
presumed discipline for perfo1mance, communication, or withdrawal violations of multiple clients
is actual suspension or disbaiment and yet no public discipline was imposed on Girai·di for the
misconduct apparent in many of these files. The reason for the closures of most of these files
which were meritorious was the result of an OCTC practice to resolve these matters between
attorneys and clients rather than pursue discipline. While some cases wananting disciplinaiy
action were enoneously closed by deputy trial counsel possibly enamored with Girardi's persona,
there was no evidence that any of these cases were closed due to some benefit personally obtained
by State Bai· staff from Girai·di.

his reaction was to express anger and info1m the

client to obtain new counsel as he felt the complaint had created a situation where he would need
to withdraw from the case.

nature of the cases he handled for which few other attorneys could provide similai· representation,
withdrawing from representation often resulted in the clients losing their cases as they were unable
to obtain new counsel. Such action was not unethical on the paii of Girai·di however, it could be
construed as vindictive "pay back" to these clients for appropriately complaining to the State Bar
especially when calls to his office by the client rendered no response.

- -Many of the cases that Girai·di handled involved people who all lived in the same
neighborhood or worked in the same place of employment. If the word spread that filing a
complaint with the State Bai· would result in Girai·di tenninating representation of an individual,
this would have had a chilling effect on the ability of clients to info1m the State Bar of possible
wrongdoing. This is simply noted as an issue which the State Bar might want to address for the
future and not as any en or on the paii of OCTC staff.

Regarding file 51 closed in 2002, the deputy ti·ial counsel

- - the failure to perfo1m and communicate

Page 15 of 21
 Girardi had been disciplined in 1999 with a private reproval in part for
a failure to communicate and more serious misconduct. Based on this prior record,

was a false statement contra1y to the Standards for attorney discipline. Staff
eITed in closing the file and not making a public record of clear violations of Girardi's duty to
The motivation for this decision is unknown.

ill 2011, file 71containe

. .

the closure was appropriate, however, this misconduct was

to the potential detriment of other clients.
ill 2017, in case 97, handled by a special deputy trial counsel,
abandoned the client's case

Nearly one-qua1ter of the complaints reviewed for the audit contained an allegation of a failure to
communicate.
one instance in 1987 (file 2),

- - the file was closed consistent with OCTC policy. Similar conduct was repeated in
2005 (file 57)

More often these failures to communicate occmTed when there were long delays in the litigation
and Girardi only sent fo1m letters to entire groups of clients rather than responding to their
individual concerns. It is nonnal practice for OCTC to encourage an attorney in a pending case to
re-establish communications with the client by simply sending a letter to the attorney and
info1ming the client that they could contact the State Bar again if the attorney did not conta.c t them
within 10 days. Unless the complainant recontacted OCTC, the file would remain closed. While
this restraint in most cases avoids unnecessaiy interference by the State Bar in the attorney-client
relationship,
(files 5, 6,17 and 55), OCTC should have considered disciplinaiy action or
at least a waining letter for violating Business and Professions Code §6068(m). A note in file 17
states that
The auditor found no info1mation in any files establishing
that any staff member was doing this.

Page 16 of 21
fu a 2002 case (file 53), a memo in the file from the deputy chief trial counsel states

A resource letter is not discipline, nor would it have put Girardi on notice of his
wrongful conduct in the same manner that a warning letter is intended to do. Nonetheless, OCTC
staff should have at least taken this action on a clear and repeated violation.

fu 2003 in file 56, Girardi failed to communicate with the client or his new c o u n s e l - -

fustead of advising Girardi of his

ethical responsibilities, OCTC again simply closed the file with a fo1m closing letter which had
the effect of leading him to believe that his conduct was appropriate when it was not. This same
misconduct of failing to communicate with the client and failing to tum over the client's file-
had also been evidenced in file 18 from 1990 that was closed with no action.

The other cases in which Girardi failed to take the appropriate actions when withdrawing from
representation of a client involved vaiying misconduct. Files 14, 54 and 89

- T he closures upon confmnation of Girai·di's compliance were in accordance with OCTC

practice.

OCTC staff failed to sufficiently investigate this matter to dete1mine if Girai·di

improperly continued
- - It would have been appropriate to issue warning letters on these cases to put Girai·di on
notice that his conduct was inconsistent with the requirements of
- especially after being required to
in his 1992

This case was improperly closed without

Page 17 of 21
pursuing either issue presumably due to the backlog of investigation files resulting from the State
Bar’s work slowdown in mid-1998 and an erroneous note in the file
when in fact .
In file 49, the client had requested that OCTC reopen complaint

A similar request for reopening was made in file 55

OCTC staff erred and did not

follow office policy by not informing Girardi that

in these two matters.

V. OTHER AREAS OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT AND STAFF ERRORS

The vast majority of the complaints filed against Girardi alleged either violations of the State Bar’s
trust account rules and/or performance and communication issues. In these areas, patterns of
repeated conduct emerged over time, but appear to have been ignored by staff as well as some of
the special deputy trial counsel. There was even a reticence to issue warning letters which would
have put Girardi on notice that his conduct was violative of the Rules of Professional Conduct
and/or State Bar Act. The reasons for doing so are not disclosed in the files.

In cases raising other types of violations, OCTC did in file 106 for
threatening the complainant and a for Girardi’s misleading advertisement in file
100. Such actions do not protect the public, but at least put staff on notice that OCTC has made a
definitive determination of misconduct when and identified problematic
activity when a is contained on the attorney’s internal records in OCTC’s Odyssey
system. Absent these warning flags, staff who had not handled prior cases on Girardi might assume
all the closed complaints had no merit rather than considering that Girardi was engaging in patterns
of misconduct.

The evidence in file 7,

The decision to close the file was made in January 1992 when
there were six other open cases pending at the pre-filing level which were resolved by
in August 1992. This case should have been included in order to put Girardi
on notice that he had violated the conflicts rules. The deputy trial counsel,
declined to take the case without a
sufficient basis for doing so. There is no evidence that the attorney received any benefit from
Girardi for directing closure of the file.

Case 12 was referred by the Los Angeles Superior Court because Girardi had five lawsuits filed
against him between May 1987 and March 1988 which he failed to report to the State Bar as
required by Business & Professions Code 6068(o)(1).

Even if these were technical

Page 18 of 21
violations, some type of action possibly including them in another disciplinaiy matter would have
been appropriate.

File 20 wherein Girardi was found civilly liable for taking twice the fee than he had verbally agreed
to charge was properly closed due to differences in the burden of proof in civil litigation versus
State Bar Comi proceedings

At the time, thi1iy-two State Bar complaints against Girai·di had been closed and ten were still
open. Under these circumstances, even though the closure was appropriate, this should not have
been factored into the decision. There is no info1mation in the file to show that this false statement
which was the impetus for closure was motivated by any relationship between Girardi and the
investigator.

Case 27 involved refeITal fees and was properly closed because

opened to look into this conduct and the related

llllbased on the info1mation contained in the file instead of simply closing the case.

The complaint in File 90 alleged that Girai·di had threatened CW to

gain an advantage in civil litigation (RPC 5-100) and being untruthful in a deposition - -

examiner closed the matter believing that there was not cleai· and convincing evidence of any
violations.
the matter should have been investigated by info1ming
him about the complaint and, if the facts did not change, a warning letter should have been issued
to put Girai·di on notice that future such conduct would subject him to discipline.

While this is generally an appropriate disposition for

such conduct, the- - should have disclosed the full extent of Girai·di 's misconduct.

The investigator failed to comply with the investigation plan in file 82

Without additional investigation, the case was
prematurely closed. Similai·ly, there was an incomplete investigation of the facts in file 44 prior to
closing the file. There is no evidence that these actions were motivated by any improper
relationship between OCTC staff and Girardi.

Page 19 of 21
The audit revealed other perfonnance issues beyond the pmpose of this audit. These included
inconect language in a letter sent to Girardi possibly prompting him to withdraw from
representation of the client (55), inconsistencies in handling closmes (file 115), and misfiled
documents (58). Two items noted on cases handled by outside examiners were failing to send
closing letters to CWs (files 86, 87, 88) and delays in reassignment of a case resulting in the
rnnning of the rnle of limitations (File 95).

Twenty-two of the files audited (files 1, 13, 32, 35, 37, 38, 41 , 46, 50, 63, 64, 66, 72, 73, 74, 79,
84, 85, 98, 108,109, 110) were appropriately closed with little if any investigation due to such
factors as the nature of the complaint was incomprehensible from the info1mation provided and
the complainant did not provide additional info1mation in response to OCTC's request; the rnnning
of the rnle of limitation with no exceptions enabling tolling of the five-year period; the case was a
duplicate of another case; or the facts alleged did not constitute professional misconduct. Other
cases that were either not identified in this repo1t or simply listed in various classification but not
critically discussed were appropriately closed by OCTC after a complete investigation.

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There was ve1y little evidence in the files containing opinions of staff regarding Thomas Girardi.
Written notes showed that two of the deputy trial counsel responsible for making decisions on
whether or not cases were closed or prosecuted did appear to have some bias either against the
complainants and/or in favor of a belief that Girardi was not engaging in any misconduct
wananting discipline. The investigators who worked on these files appear to have simply been
following the directives of these attorneys to close the files. Even if there was no improper motive
for the closmes, the evidence suppo1ted findings of commingling and possibly misappropriation
in cases 24, 28, 47, 48 a n d - misappropriation in file 51 all of
which should have been prosecuted.

The audit concluded that nineteen cases (files 7, 11, 12, 22, 24, 28, 30, 40, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53,
55, 56, 59, 62, 90) were improperly closed when they wananted at the ve1y least a warning letter
and in some cases pm-suit of actual discipline in the State Bar Comt . Nine other cases (files 44,
45, 81 , 82, 83, 92, 101 , 102 and 112) were not sufficiently investigated.
The files do not provide sufficient info1mation to dete1mine if any OCTC staff or outside examiner
was improperly influenced by Girardi into closing valid cases or not thoroughly investigating
matters because of his celebrity status in the legal community or due to the provision of financial
or other benefits.

Page 20 of 21
With regard to the errors identified, it is recommended that additional staff training and possibly
modification of OCTC practices occur regarding the various issues contained in this report, if not
already implemented. Specific attention should be focused on using tools available based on the
trust account standards to obtain Respondents’ client ledgers as well as bank statements when
investigating the possible mishandling of trust funds whenever an attorney maintains substantial
funds in a trust account making it difficult to trace funds. The revision of OCTC practices should
be considered pertaining to the investigation of files involving an attorney with a large volume of
similar State Bar complaints to identify patterns of possible misconduct rather than simply closing
them on a case-by-case basis. Specific training of outside examiners is recommended regarding
Business and Professions Code §6049.1and similar statutes requiring the filing of disciplinary
actions if the provisions are satisfied. Also, additional training is encouraged for these attorneys as
to why resolutions of matters with the clients should not necessarily result in closure of the files.
Finally, when top level managers of OCTC are involved in decisions pertaining to the resolution
of cases involving high-profile Respondents, they are encouraged to independently review the
entire file rather than relying upon staff memos that may not fully and fairly disclose all the
information and evidence contained in the file.

The auditor is available to assist in any follow-up requested by the General Counsel or the Chief
Trial Counsel.

Submitted by Alyse M. Lazar Date: May 7, 2021

Page 21 of 21
This document is confidential workproduct, protectedfrom disclosure by attorney-client privilege
which may be waived by the client. This Audit was prepared by independent counsel Alyse M
Lazar at the request ofthe General Counsel of the State Bar of California. It provides information
and analysis ofall 115 files reviewed by the auditor. The information contained herein and in the
original files was relied upon by the auditor in preparing the Report and Analysis of Audited
Girardi Files submitted to the General Counsel on May 7, 2021 .

AUDIT OF CLOSED OCTC FILES RE THOMAS VINCENT GIRARDI (SBN 36603)

# Case No. Staff Assigned Supervisor Open/Close Dates R notified
1. 84-0-11185 - 2/3/84-1/24/86 n
This case involved Respondent's handling of funds
The matter was appropriately closed based on the docmnents in
th e file.

2. 87-0-11697 - - 4/8/87- 4/28/87 y

Respondent failed to
cormnunicate with CW . Even
th ough there was a significant delay, the case was appropriately closed in line with OCTC policy

Noneth eless, it is serious misconduct that likely wan anted at least some public discipline.

4. 87-0-18399 - 12/20/87-8/18/92 y
This case involved a failure to cormnunicate and failure to promptly provide an accounting and
was the lead case in contained in file no. 89-0 -1 0983- -

1
 files 89-O-12014, 89-O-12946, 89-O-15098, 89-O-10983, 91-O-
07791, and 87-O-18399 were all closed.

Nonetheless, the trust

account violations in this case and file no. 89-O-10983 would normally warrant public discipline.
There was no information in the file that this disposition was reached due to any personal or
financial relationship between Respondent and the trial counsel motivating this non-disciplinary
resolution.

5. 88-00464
CW complained about Respondent’s failure to inform
- 12/24/87-2/9/88 y
of the status of the case.

The case was properly closed in line with OCTC policy.

6. 88-O-11569
- 4/5/88-5/5/89 y
Respondent withdrew from representing the CW who complained about delays in performance
and failures to communicate.
were insufficient facts to support proceeding with discipline in this case on the failure to
perform. Closure on failing to communicate was consistent with OCTC policy.
, there

7. 88-O-11756 5/27/88-7/19/93 y
This case was closed and reopened upon reconsideration by the Complainants’ Grievance Panel
recommending the file be forwarded to the Office of Trials

OCTC closed the case

due to

the file

The other violations would be difficult to prove,

Nonetheless, the documentation in
is sufficient to establish
-
the conflict of interest.

While the
conflicts violation did not definitively result in damage to the clients, it should not have been
dismissed. The decision to close the file was made in January 1992 when there were six other
open cases pending at the pre-filing level which were resolved
in August, 1992 (see file no. 87-O-18399). This case could have been included in
order to put Respondent on notice that he had violated the conflicts rules.

Having this opinion of Respondent may have impacted the deputy trial
counsel’s objectivity in handling complaints against him.

2
8. 89-0 -10983 - - 4/6/89- 8/18/92 y
This case was resolved as part which is contained in

9. 89-0 -12014
- - 7/12/89-8/18/92
contained in File 89-0 -1 0983.
y

10. 89-0-12946 - - 6/26/89-10/16/92 y

This case involves the same matter as File No. 89-0 -12014 and was brought
regarding Respondent's failure to promptly satisfy th e lien
from the settlement funds. It appears that - - misstated the file number an d referenced this
case as 89-0-12949. Some papers from this case were included in a file with miscellaneous
documents. Also, in that file were papers from File No. 90-0 -17655. In that matter, _ _

issue was not pursued further due to some confusion in coITespondence sen

11. 89-0 -15098 8/18/89-10/14/92 y

This was paii of the contained in File 89-0 -10983. Respondent
failed to communicate with the client an d to timely file the case before the rnnning of the statute
of limitations

12. 89-0-15641 - 8/9/89/10/1/90 y

This case was refeITed by the Los Angeles Superior Comi because Respondent had five lawsuits
filed against him between May 1987 and Mai·ch 1988, which he failed to repo1i to the State Bar
as required by Business & Professions Code 6068(0)(1).

3
violations, some type of action possibly including them in another disciplinaiy matter would
have been appropriate.

There is no evidence in the file that there was some

improper impetus from Girardi motivating closure of this file even though it was wrong to do so.

13. 89-0-1 7526 -- - 12/21/89-3/22/91 y

This case was a duplicate of 89-0-10983 which was included in
- - involving an unpaid medical lien - . Even though Respondent did not admit to
any misconduct, it was properly closed as pa1t of the compromise for

14. 90-07797
-- 1/11/80-1/22/90 y
complained about not receiving

- - Because the client did not initiate or join in the complaint, closure was appropriate
once Respondent

15. 90-1411 7 - 6/25/90-6/27/90 y

Respondent failed to respond to phone calls and letters from the CW
The closure by intake was in line with 0CTC policy.

16. 90-27634
- 11/20/90-12/7/90 y

by intake was appropriate.

17. 90-0-1 2614 - 4/26/90-9/18/90 y

CW complained about Respondent's failure to communicate

Respondent has the right to withdraw from cases so long as there is no

prejudice to the client and filing a State Bar complaint could ce1tainly create a situation where
Respondent did not feel he could effectively represent the client. Because Respondent's

4
representation was sought after due to his celebrity status, he could afford to pick and choose his
clients. Because 0CTC could not discipline Respondent for withdrawing from such cases, these
complaints resulted in haim to the clients that could not be rectified by the Bai·.

18. 90-0-1 7655 12/05/90-10/10/91 y

This is an SBI case stemming from Respondent's failure to tum over
■ file to new counsel and to provide a complete accounting of settlement funds. ■II-■

While Respondent had a duty to return the file and provide an

accounting upon being relieved as counsel, it does not appear there was any haim to the client as
a result of minor delays and the closure of the file was an appropriate exercise of discretion at the
time. Had 0CTC been awai·e of other cases revealing a pattern of engaging in this conduct,
closure would not have been co1Tect.

19. 91 -0-03923 -- - 6/10/91 -4/23/92 y

This case alleging a failure to communicate and account for settlement funds was properly closed
upon receipt of sufficient documentation from Respondent to show that there was no misconduct.

20. 91 -0-04209 6/20/91 -8/26/91 y

This case was appropriately closed due to a difference in the burden of proof in a civil case
versus a State Bai· matter. Respondent was found civilly liable for taking twice the fee that he
had verbally agreed to charge. The closing memo
states

At the time, 32 State Bai· complaints

against Respondent had been closed and 10 were still open. Under these circumstances, even
though the closure was appropriate, this false statement should not have been factored into the
decision. There is no evidence that the investigator was unduly influenced by Respondent in any
manner in falsely stating this reason for closing the file.

21. 91 -0-05449
-- - 6/25/91 -3/2/92 y

22. 91 -0-07791 -- - 11/13/91 -6/28/94 y

This case was inco1porated in contained in file 89-0-10983

5
23. 91 -0-07877 -- - 11/18/91 -1/30/92 y
This case was appropriately closed

24. 92-0-1 5406

-- - 7/02/92-12/5/94 y

This handling
of the matter provides no assurance that Respondent would change future conduct or even be
advised about it from his counsel. More significantly, OCTC did not resolve other issues raised
in the complaint that are far more serious.

was not appropriately investigated before it was closed and potentially serious violations were
disregarded

- -which may have resulted in the improper handling of this file, however, there is no
evidence in the file that. was motivated by some actions taken by Respondent to close the file.

25. 93-0-11 598 -- - 3/05/93-4/20/93 y

This case involving Respondent's alleged failure to account for and return unearned advanced
costs to new counsel was properly closed at CW's request after resolving the matter.

was properly closed after a thorough investigation.

27. 93-0-1 3654 -- - 5/6/93-7/14/93 y

The case involved refe1Tal fees and was properly closed

6
opened to look into this conduct and the related
- - but the case was simply closed.

28. 93-0-1 4209 3/30/93-10/18/99 y

The case was consolidated with files 95-0-11864 and 96-0-01837 for disciplina1y action,
resulting in a stipulation to a private reproval. The only violation in this case for which
Respondent admitted culpability was his failure to obtain the client's written consent to repay a
loan made to- by Respondent as an advanced payment, a RPC 4-2 10(A)(2) violation.

This tiust account violation was not recognized and addressed in the
stipulation and therefore was not considered by the State Bar Comt judge in approving the
stipulation to this minimal discipline

There is no info1mation in the file disclosing any improper

dealings between the deputy ti-ial counsel and Girardi which would explain the failure to include
this misconduct in the stipulation or even in the memo to the Chief Trial Counsel.

29. 93-0-1 5913 -- - 7/08/93-9/2/93 y

The case involving a delay in Respondent paying CW the remainder of. settlement funds was
properly closed per office policy

30. 93-0-1 6928 -- - 8/23/93-1 1/8/94 y

This case involved a possible mishandling of funds- - however, due to the age of the
underlying case
the Respondent could have claimed laches if the matter
had proceeded to ti·ial before the State Bar Comt .

at the ve1y least, Respondent- -

and should have been advised of this fact in a directional
or warning letter to at least document the misconduct.

31. 94-0-1 8874 -- - 12/5/94-7/25/95 y

This case was refen ed by a ti-ial judge based on findings that Respondent did not obtain comt

7
approval of the minor 's compromise and for his legal fees in a post-trial settlement of a minor's
case and that Respondent improperly retained the client 's money in Respondent's non-interest-
bearing tmst account. Respondent eventually turned over all of his fees and additional sums of
money as interest that should have been earned to the client 's new counsel. A stipulation
between Respondent and new counsel set fo1ih facts absolving Respondent of any wrongdoing
which stipulation was accepted by the comi of appeal and was the basis for closing the State Bar
file.
The evidence does not suppo1i a finding that Respondent
misused the client's fonds and therefore closm e was appropriate. It appears unusual that the
appellate comi through Justice Croskey decided to delay remitting the case back to the trial comi
until the judge who had detennined that Respondent engaged in misconduct and had submitted
the complaint to the State Bar retired from the bench even though this resulted in delays in
finalizing the case. Nonetheless, 0CTC handled the file co1Tectly under all of the circumstances.

32. 95-23932 - - 5/25/95-4/16/96 y

This case involving an unpaid expe1i witness bill was properly closed as a civil matter ■

33. 95-0-10852 -■- unknown y

This case was considered for consolidation with the disciplinaiy matters resulting in a private
reproval including case number 93 -0-14209. The allegation involved a conflict of interest

Under the circumstances, closme of this file was appropriate due to conflicting
evidence.

34. 95-0 -11864 1995-1 0/18/99 y

This case was included in a stipulation to a private reproval with file 93-0 -14209 as the lead
case. Respondent withdrew one million dollai·s of the client's settlement and pm-chased two
ce1iificates of deposit in Respondent name without any indication that they were in tiust for the
client even though the funds were for the benefit of the client and to satisfy any excess medical
bills. Respondent acknowledged that this violated RPC 4- l00(A), but claimed that he did this to
avoid negative tax consequences to the client.

This misconduct would most

likely wa1Tant public discipline today, but at the time, the deputy trial counsel referenced similai·
cases where private or public reprovals were approved by the State Bar Comi. Thus, the private
reproval approved by State Bar Comi in 1999 was within the range of existing case law based on

8
the facts presented to the court.

There is no explanation in the file regarding these discrepancies which were

tagged on the bank records, but never pursued.

35. 95-0-13372
-- -
Closure was appropriate as the allegations
5/18/95-1 1/4/95

solicitation of clients were not substantiated by the evidence produced.

y
involving possible

36. 95-0-1 6942 -- - - 10/11/95-3/26/96 y

Closure was appropriate as CW did not substantiate . claim that Respondent failed to
communicate with. or provide an accounting of the settlement funds

37. 96-1 0040 -- 1/23/96-3/29/96 n

This file was closed due to insufficient evidence however the CW was not interviewed and the
nature of the complaint is unce1tain. Nonetheless, the misconduct, if any, occmTed many years
ago and
1111 Therefore, closure would have been appropriate based on the rnle of limitations as well as
laches.

38. 96-0-01060 -- -- 2/21/96-7/17/96 y

The case involves fee sharing and was properly closed due to CW' s failure to provide any
documentation substantiating the complaint.

39. 96-0-01837 86-1 0/18/99 y

This case was included in the stipulation to a private reproval with file 93-0-14209 as the lead
case. The was dismissed, and while there were allegations of
Respondent's failure to competently perfo1m, Respondent was disciplined for failing to info1m
the clients of the dismissal in violation ofB&P§6068(m). The RPC 3-110 violation would have
been difficult to prove based on a review of all the facts and therefore dropping this allegation
and agreeing to the stipulation was appropriate.

40. 96-0-06526 -- -- 10/7/96-3/30/99 y

Allegations of failure to diligently perfonn and to communicate were investigated and
dete1mined that there were insufficient facts to establish such misconduct. An issue that was not

9
 By closing this file without a warning letter,
Respondent was not put on notice of this continuing problem with his law practice.

41. 97-33282 futake staff not identified 9/15/97-9/30/97 n

The complaint fo1m in this case failed to provide any infonnation regarding the nature of the
complaint and

42. 97-0-1 6122 - - 9/9/97-3/19/99 y

CW had requested an accounting
- · It was closed at CW's request indicting the matter had been resolved in confo1mance
with OCTC practice.

This case was closed

with out pursuing all these issues presumably due to the backlog of investigation files resulting
from the Bar's work slowdown in mid-1 998 and an enoneous note in the file
when in fact

44. 97-0-1 6781 -

The file in this case is incomplete. - 10/3/97-3/30/99 y

case was nonetheless closed after a curso1y review following the mid-1 998 work slowdown
based on a determination that there was no evidence in the file to substantiate the allegations.
Without a full investigation, this determination was premature.

45. 97-O-18393 12/23/97-10/2/98 y

This complaint involved had not
received a full accounting
Staff agreed
referencing case number 93-O-14209 and closing it as a duplicative matter, however, that case
did not focus on a failure to account.
OCTC never determined
whether or not

While this violation may be technical in nature,

would have exposed any possible discrepancies regarding where the
money went and if it was appropriately maintained in Respondent’s trust account.

46. 98-23887 9/3/98- 7/14/99 n

This case was properly closed as it was brought by a non-client

While there was significant public outcry about , there

was no evidence of any misconduct that the State Bar should have pursued at the time.

47. 98-O-02011 4/13/98-5/4/98 y

Until these questions were answered,

the file should not have been closed. If not handled appropriately, this conduct constitutes a
violation of a RPC 4-210(A)(2) and possibly a commingling or misappropriation charge and is
similar to some of the conduct for which Respondent . Staff erred in closing
the file although there is no evidence to show any improper motivation for doing so.

11
48. 99-O-11880 8/20/99-3/28/00 y
This case was closed after Respondent finally met with the CW and provided an accounting

Staff erred in not fully investigating this apparent violation

of Respondent’s handling of trust funds.
the facts of this case
exhibit an ongoing pattern of conduct with Respondent wherein he ignores his ethical duties to
account for money received on behalf of his clients until they complain to the State Bar.

49. 00-05826 4/11/00-11/2/00 y

- OCTC closed the file without recognizing that what Respondent provided to CW was not
a full and proper accounting.

reopened and
CW requested the matter be

Respondent should have been contacted and informed of his duty

- Instead, OCTC failed to take any action and informed the CW that the case would remain
closed.

50. 00-O-13160
-
This case was properly closed as a civil dispute.

51. 01-O-03204 Platell

7/28/00-6/26/01

8/6/01-4/23/02
y

OCTC
but did not obtain sufficient records to
completely trace the funds.

OCTC failed to obtain bank records for the period

12
- - This case should have been prosecuted for the t:Iust account violation . It was
inappropriately resolved wit

These issues were not fully investigated

and/or raised in the closing letters to CW and the to Respondent. Had this
matter been prosecuted 20 years ago, it would have resulted in suspension or disbaiment based
on th e disciplinaiy standai·ds applicable at the time and, at the ve1y least, put future clients as
well as OCTC staff on notice of Respondent 's mishandling of tiust funds. There is no
info1mation in the file explaining the motivation behind the deputy t:I'ial counsel 's inaccurate
assessment of this case and failure to pursue the matter in State Bai· Comt.

52. 02-09927 - 6/28/02-9/9/02 y

This case, involving a mix-up in retmning the client's file to new counsel, was properly handled
byOCTC.

13
 53. 02-10958
CWwas
■ phone calls
-
CW
- - 2/20/02-3/25/02 y
complaining about Respondent 's failure to return any of

and wondering why ■ had still not received ■ money. After the complaint was filed,
requested that the matter be closed

issuance of a warning letter should have been taken rather than the strnight closing letter that was
provided

54. 02-11859 ■II■■ 5/30/02-6/25/02 y

Between August 2000 and May 2002, CW contacted Respondent numerous times requesting
Respondent tum over the client file to an attorney authorized to receive th e file. -

The possible was not

identified or pursued, however, due to the low level of the primaiy misconduct, closure was
wairnnted.

55. 02-14699
- - 8/12/02-2/24/03 y

th e investigator 's letter should have specified the issues raised and requested Respondent
communicate with CW about them.

at the ve1y least, Respondent should have

14
been advised to keep accurate records regarding . When the CW requested
reconsideration of the Bar’s decision raising a new issue

OCTC erroneously refused to contact Respondent regarding this issue.

Respondent should have been instructed to

56. 03-07921 5/13/03-7/10/03 y

This case is related to file number 02-14699 and involved Respondent’s failure to communicate
and to provide requested documents to the client’s new attorney

Instead of advising
Respondent of his ethical responsibilities , OCTC again simply closed the file
with a form closing letter which had the effect of leading Respondent to believe that his conduct
was appropriate when it was not.

57. 05-01525 1/28/05-3/15/05 n

Respondent failed to communicate

-
with CW for several months
After the complaint was filed, the matter was resolved and the case was closed through the
State Bar’s mediation program with no letters sent out by OCTC.

58. 06-20052 Greenberg 6/23/06-6/8/07 y

complained about Respondent threatening to report him

. The facts do not support an RPC 5-100 violation and the file
was properly closed. Contained within the file is information regarding litigation in another
client matter

The document was

obviously misfiled and a case involving these facts was not provided to the auditor.

59. 06-29601/06-29602 12/6/06-1/5/07 y

This case involves two reportable actions regarding overdrafts of Respondent’s trust account.

After receiving a private reproval in 1999 in part for trust account violations, at

15
minimum a directional letter should have been sent to Respondent regarding the risks involved in
issuing checks from his client tiust account before the deposited checks had cleai-ed the bank.

60. 07-1 2185 - 2/5/07-4/13/07 y

This file was appropriately handled and closed by OCTC

61. 07-21717 -- 7/11/07-4/23/08 y

The case involved alleged ex parte communications by Respondent with the ti·ial and settlement
judges
Once the documentation was obtained, there was sufficient evidence to wanant
closure of the file.

62. 08-0-1 2613 Falk (OEX) 6/25/08-12/15/10 n

The outside examiner, appointed by Jim Towe1y , was assigned this case in April 2010 and closed
it in December 2010. No disciplina1y action was taken even though the Ninth Circuit Comi of
Appeals fonnally reprimanded Respondent for his participation in bringing and pursuing a case
before the comi against the wrong defendant (The Dole Company) to enforce a foreign judgment
from Nicaragua obtained by default after the foreign comi baiTed the defendant from
paii icipating in the case and explicitly holding that the judgment was not against the Dole
Company but a different named entity that did not exist. Respondent's law paiiner, Howard
Miller, was the president of the State Bar Boai·d of Directors at the time, requiring the
assignment to an outside exaininer even though he was not disciplined by the federal court for
his conduct. Other Respondents from a different law fnm were disciplined by the comi ,
The outside examiner applied the wrong

The Bar has specific rnles and statutes pe1iaining to imposing its
own discipline on attorneys who have been disciplined by another comt in another jurisdiction
and does not take the position that such other discipline is sufficient to not pursue independent
discipline by the Bar.

. Discipline can be imposed on attorneys for wilful,

not intentional violations of any of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Wilfulness does not
require knowingly and pmposefully engaging in the conduct, but simply having the capability of
doing so (See Durbin v. State Bar.) Rule 5-200(A), applicable at the time, required all attorneys
presenting matters to a ti·ibunal to be ti11thful to the court. Rule 5-200(B) prohibited attorneys
from seeking to mislead the judge "by an aii ifice of false statement of fact or law." Similai·ly,
pursuant to B&P Code §6103 suspension or disbaim ent is appropriate for "wilful" violations of
the oaths and duties set fo1i h in B&P Code §6068 including subsection (c), only maintaining
actions that appear to be "legal or just", and subsection (d), "never to seek to mislead the judge ...

16
by an a1iifice or false statement of fact or law". Moreover, B&P Code §6068(0) requires
attorneys to repo1i to the Bar sanctions such as those imposed against Respondent in this matter.
The reason th at this statute contains this provision is not simply to file the infonnation away, but
rather for the State Bar to investigate and take disciplina1y action, if appropriate, regarding the
conduct for which the attorney was punished in a different fornm.
It is acknowledged that in State Bar proceedings the misconduct must be established by
clear and convincing evidence rather than the preponderan ce standard applied in most civil cases.
ill this case, both discove1y and a four-day trial were held on the sanction and disciplinaiy issues
wherein Respondent was represented by counsel. The comi's decision states that the judge's
findings regai·ding the states of mind of the attorneys "ai·e accurate and provable by clear and
convincing evidence." Also, th e Order issued by the Ninth Circuit is supported by documentaiy
evidence and deposition testimony which could have been utilized in the State Bai·'s disciplinaiy
case especially because Respondent had the opportunity to take paii in these depositions through
counsel. If the matter proceeded as an original "O" matter, the Circuit Comi's conclusions could
not be accepted as trne for pmposes of a State Bai· trial, however, using the evidence considered
by th e comi, could have fonned the basis for similai· detenninations by the State Bai· Comi. This
would include the facts that Respondent was provided info1mation that the documents relied
upon to establish jurisdiction over defendant Dole were inaccurate and the Nicaraguan comt
never found any liability against Dole Company. Thereafter, Respondent wilfully failed to take
any action to dismiss the appeal and instead pursued fmiher inappropriate actions by opposing
Defendant's effo1is to provide th e comi with the accurate documents. Because Respondent had a
previous State Bar disciplinaiy record, public discipline in th e range referenced in B&P§6103
would have presumably been the con-ect outcome of this matter.
ill case number 10-J-06845 ,
ill such proceedings, the
State Bai· Comi would be obligated to deem the factual dete1minations and conclusions of the
federal comi as con-ect and the only issues would have been the degree of discipline to impose if
th e culpability dete1mination in this other jurisdiction would constitute conduct disciplinable by
the California State Bar, which it was. The only other issue would have been whether or not "the
proceedings of the other jurisdiction lacked fundainental constitutional protections", which it did
not. Because the matter had been refen-ed to an outside exaininer,
OCTC could not handle the matte~

Because there is no flexibility in proceeding on a J case if the criteria of B&P Code

§6049.1 are met, it appears that these cases were closed in e1rnr. Finally, it is noted that the
outside examiner appai·ently never contacted Respondent about this matter,

--
63. 10-09589 - 4/20/10-7/27/10 n
This case was closed as a duplicate of case file 08-0-12613. Even though it contained additional
info1mation not provided to the special deputy trial counsel, it was properly closed.

17
64. 10-18253 7/30/10-8/6/10 n
This case was properly closed as a duplicate of case number 08-O-12613.

65. 10-26141
- Greenberg 10/29/10-11/19/10 n
This case alleging failure to competently perform was appropriately reviewed and closed at the
intake level.

66. 10-27314
- 11/12/10-12/15/10 n
This case regarding Respondent’s conduct as opposing counsel was appropriately reviewed and
closed at the intake level.

67. 10-J-06845 unknown n

See the auditor’s remarks in 08-O-12613 which is part of this same matter.

68. 10-J-08337
- unknown n
See the auditor’s remarks in 08-O-12613 which is part of this same matter. The file contains very
little information and therefore it cannot be determined what happened with this file
, but it is assumed that it
was closed with no work being performed.

69. 11-16918
- (OEX)/Hawley 4/7/11/8/10/11 n
This case alleging a conflict of interest in Respondent’s representation of an opposing party was
appropriately handled by the outside examiner in coordination with State Bar staff.

70. 11-18676 6/14/11-7/5/11 n

This file refers to a lawsuit filed by some of Respondent’s clients against him for allegedly
misusing/misappropriating some settlement funds
While OCTC could have
independently investigated this matter, it was within OCTC policies to close this specific file
pending the outcome of the Superior Court case.

71. 11-26130

closed
- 8/8/11-10/26/11
failed to communicate with
n

-- and
that there was a failure of diligent performance. The CW requested that the case be

the closure was appropriate.

72. 11-26135 8/9/11-8/15/11 n

This case was appropriately closed when CW did not provide the information needed to
determine the basis for

73. 11-35398
• complaint.

Intake staff not identified 11/29/11-12/27/11 n

This case was appropriately closed when CW did not provide the information needed to

18
detennine the basis for ■ complaint.

74. 12-03261 Greenberg 2/14/12-3/2/12 n

This case involving Respondent misplacing CW's papers was appropriately closed due to a
resolution of the matter with Respondent.

75. 12-08523 -- 4/19/12-5/2/12 n

Once it was confinned that CWs had received all of their settlement funds in an individual case
handled by an associate in Respondent's fnm , the case was properly closed.

76. 12-08796 - 1111 4/23/12-12/7/15 n

This case regarding fee sharing was appropriately closed due to pending civil litigation.

77. 12-11225 - - 5/25/12-1/2/13 n

This case alleged a failure to perfo1m an d was appropriately reviewed an d closed.

78. 12-14555 -- -- 7/ 13/12-1/14/13 y

This case involving th e tenns of a settlement was appropriately reviewed and closed.

79. 12-22361 -- 11/5/12-11/8/12 n

This case, alleging ex parte communications with a judge, was properly closed without refe1Tal to
an outside examiner as there were insufficient facts presented by CW to waiTant an investigation.

80. 12-24077 - Greenberg 12/3/12-1/9/13 n

The case was appropriately reviewed an d closed upon the dete1mination that
but Respondent's handling of th e matter
was proper.

81. 12-0-12006 - 5/6/11 -3/26/12 n

This case raised the issue of whether or not Respondent maintained disputed fees- -
in his client tiust account. OCTC never investigated this
matter due to the fact that CW resolved the fee issue with Respondent and requested the closure
of■ file. This closure was appropriate, however, the file did raise a concern that was being
repeated by other clients regarding the maintenan ce of Respondent 's tiust account and the Bar
could have taken the opportunity to obtain bank records and detennined the whereabouts of the
funds, because the decision to close a file is up to the discretion of the State Bai· and not the CW.
While such exti·aordinaiy work would not n01m ally be appropriate when a file could be closed,
due to the number of complaints brought against Respondent pertaining to Respondent's
handling of tiust funds, the Bai· would have had the opportunity with a client 's consent to
investigate this matter.

82. 12-0 -15515 Noonen ■II-■ 7/26/12-8/8/13 y

This case was closed by intake and reopened when CW complained that Respondent had dumped
• as a client

19
 Even though it appears
that CW ultimately suffered no haim and the misconduct, if any, by Respondent was probably de
minimis, insufficient documentation was obtained by the investigator to cleai· up the
discrepancies in the facts.

83. 12-0-16066 Noonen

- 8/23/12-1 1/26/12 y

have been conducted and it was not.

84. 13-26286 - 9/4/ 13-10/21/13 n

This case alleging failure to perfo1m was appropriately reviewed and closed.

85. 13-33967 - -- 12/19/ 13-9/22/14 n

This case regai·ding was appropriately reviewed and closed.

86/7/8. 14-30049, 14-30061, 14-30269- - 11/15/14-12/25/16 n

All these files involved the same litigation matter where issues regarding the disbursement of the
funds were pending appeal. As such,

20
- and there was no basis for disciplinary action. What is missing from the documents
reviewed are any letters to the CWs explaining why the files are being closed and informing
them of their right to contact the Bar again after the court hearings are completed if

89. 14-16046
-
This case was appropriately handled
4/1/14-4/24/14 y

90. 14-28979 10/28/14-6/8/15 n

The complaint alleged that Respondent had threatened CW to gain an
advantage in civil litigation (RPC 5-100) and being untruthful in a deposition
Once the civil case was resolved, the
CW requested that the complaint be closed.

The outside examiner closed the

matter believing that there was not clear and convincing evidence of any violations.

the matter should have been investigated by informing Respondent about the complaint and, if
the facts did not change, a warning letter should have been issued to put Respondent on notice
that future such conduct would subject him to discipline. It was correct to dismiss the allegations
regarding Respondent’s dishonesty in the deposition for lack of sufficient evidence.

91. 15-12318 unknown (OEX ) 2/13/15-? unknown

There appear to be possible trust account violations regarding these

matters, however, only the complaint was provided to the auditor and there is insufficient
information for OCTC to track down this file which was assigned to an outside examiner.

92. 15-14329/16-O-17380 3/17/15-2/21/18 y

This file and files 15-30007 and 15-31489
Those
matters were investigated and closed by . Due to OCTC conflicts, the cases

investigation,
examiner -
against Respondent were assigned to outside examiner . Prior to completing the
obtained new employment necessitating transfer of the cases to another outside
who closed all three matters. All three cases involved delays in payment
of settlement funds to the clients.

21
 None of these actions were taken by prior to closing the
files.

It is
unfortunate that this change of outside examiner resulted in an incomplete investigation. There is
no evidence that closed the file for any improper purpose or motivation provided by
Girardi.

93. 15-30007/16-O-17383 11/30/15-2/21/18 y

See discussion contained in file no. 15-14329

94. 15-31489/16-O-17384 12/29/15-2/21/18 y

See discussion contained in file no. 15-14329

95. 16-O-15214 10/5/15-7/8/20 y

This case was appropriately closed due to the running of the rule of limitation (Rule 5.21(C). It
had been assigned to an outside examiner who recommended additional investigation regarding
This case apparently sat
for several years before it was reassigned to a new outside examiner in April 2020 and by then, it
was untimely and the investigation was terminated without answers to this issue.

96. 16-O-15215 6/26/16-4/30/20 y

This case was appropriately closed as the alleged misconduct occurred over 15 years earlier, and
while an SBI case is exempt from the Rule of Limitations, the principle of laches would apply
because the documentation that both parties would need to resolve this matter was no longer
available. The case involved alleged misuse by Respondent of some of the settlement funds
received by Respondent

It is
unfortunate that the State Bar did not open an SBI case on

It will never be known

whether or not the millions received were properly accounted for with regard to each and every
client.

97. 16-O-17385 6/20/16-6/14/17 y

Respondent abandoned CW

22
the circumstances including the amount of time and resources that would have been required to
tiy the case before the State Bar Comt, closing the case was an appropriate exercise of
prosecutorial discretion.

2/10/17-2/25/17 n
- - Because the client did
not join in the complaint, it was properly closed as a civil matter.

99. 17-08854 5/30/17-7/9/17 y

This case was originally investigated by O C T C - - who eIToneously sent a letter to
When the coITect Respondent was contacted, - -

After the Bar received this additional info1mation, the case was
ti·ansfeITed to an outside examiner who appropriately closed the matter based in the
documentation provided.

100. 17-0-02388 -- 4/3/17-1 1/15/17 y

was issued to Respondent regarding his adve1t isement
This outcome of the case
was appropriate.

101. 18-29529 12/18-3/9/19 y

This case involved Respondent's delay in disbursing settlement funds to the CW

23
102. 19-O-10151
. - 11/20/18- 4/17/19 y
This complaint, filed in November 2018, involved a delay by Respondent in paying CW a
-
This outside examiner was not privy to all of the prior matters
on Respondent which could have prompted to conduct this additional investigation

portion of settlement funds

The CW agreed and the file was closed even

though other State Bar files showed a pattern of Respondent delaying payments of settlement
funds until he was notified by the State Bar. Because there is no indication that CW would not
have cooperated with the Bar if it had further pursued the matter, investigation into this specific
delay should have been completed as RPC 4-100(B)(4) required the prompt payment of funds to
clients. Unfortunately, with different files assigned to different outside examiners, they may not
have been provided with information regarding other investigations pertaining to Respondent to
which OCTC staff would have been provided access. This may have impacted why cases such as
this were closed without a thorough investigation.

103. 19-O-10247 12/12/18-4/9/19 y

This case involves allegations of failing to perform and failing to communicate.

The case was appropriately closed.

104. 19-O-10248 12/14/18-3/12/19 y

This case involves the failure to honor a medical lien which was closed when Respondent paid
CW.
Because the CW was not the client, The State Bar could not require Respondent to breach
attorney-client privilege regarding the handling of client funds.

closure was appropriate.

105. 19-O-10279 10/24/18-3/22/19 y

This case involves a failure to communicate with clients regarding a delay in payment of
settlement funds and possible misrepresentations to the clients regarding

24
the reason for the delay. Respondent was notified of the complaint

106. 19-0-10695 1/2219-3/7/19 y

and is related to case no. 19-0-10248--

appears that having been required to take ethics courses for past discipline did not have the
intended impact on Respondent's conduct.

107. 19-0-16483 1/22/19-3/13/19 y

This case which involved a delay in CW receiving. settlement funds
- - was appropriately closed after contacting Respondent as a result of CW desiring to
withdraw the complaint,

The allegations regarding Respondent's failure to communicate with the

client were also not pursued at. request.

108.19-0-25820 -- 10/23/19-2/24/20 n
This case was properly closed at the intake level due to CW's failure to cooperate with the State
Bar .

109. 19-0-29284 12/26/ 19-6/4/20 n

This complaint involves Respondent's refusal to represent CW
- T he complaint was filed in December 2019 and therefore was beyond the 5-year Rule of
Limitation period with no applicable tolling provisions. Therefore, it was properly closed due to
the mnning of the Rule of limitation.

110. 19-10584 1/8/19-3/1/19 n

This case involves the alleged solicitation of a client
case was appropriately closed due to proof problems,

25
 While this is generally an appropriate
disposition for such conduct, the- - should have disclosed the full extent of
Respondent's misconduct.

26
 For all these reasons, it is recommended that the file be
reopened, if appropriate, to conduct additional investigation.

113. 21-O-00654 1/19/21-2/3/21 y

This case was appropriately closed by Intake with

114. 21-O-00698 1/20/21-2/10/21 y

In this case, the CW wanted information regarding the status of legal matter and indicated
that attempts to contact Respondent were unsuccessful ■
. The closure was handled in accordance with OCTC
policies and procedures by

Nonetheless, if the State Bar is involved in any manner in assuming jurisdiction over
Respondent’s practice, staff should make sure that the information in this case is shared with the
appropriate individual(s) involved in such activities.

115. 21-O-01074 1/27/21-3/8/21 n

This case appears to involve the same legal matter as files (113) 21-O-00654 and (114) 21-O-
00698. The CW clearly complained about Respondent’s lack of communication regarding the
status of the case.
this case was closed because CW had not provided additional
information even though there was sufficient information on the complaint form including the
court case number and to proceed with the matter. The
inconsistency in handling these files by different staff is noted. Moreover, if the same staff
person had reviewed all three files, it may have prompted an inquiry into whether or not
Respondent had
.

27