S.D. Police Assn. Attorney Seeks Investigation of Witt

Accusing City Atty. John Witt of conflict of interest, the attorney for the San Diego Police Officers Assn. on Wednesday asked the agency that polices the state’s 98,000 lawyers to determine whether Witt is violating rules of professional conduct.

The complaint by Patrick Thistle to the State Bar of California is in connection with the San Diego Civil Service Commission’s attempts to investigate his allegations that Police Department supervisors use lies, intimidation, retaliation and discrimination against officers who file disability claims.

Thistle initiated that investigation by filing a voluminous complaint with the commission in November.

Thistle said Wednesday that Witt should by forbidden from advising both the commission and the city departments it is seeking to review--the Police Department, the city manager’s office, the Personnel Department, the City Retirement Office, the Risk Management Department and the city attorney’s office.

Witt “is representing people with opposing interests in this case and his presence as adviser to the Civil Service Commission puts him in a conflict-of-interest situation,” Thistle said in an interview.

“I believe Witt is actively participating in the move to limit the commission’s investigation, and in that sense I think he’s actively engaged in this conflict of interest right now.”

In November, the commission voted to seek funds from the City Council to hire an independent counsel to advise it during the Police Department probe. Witt responded in December that there was “no legal necessity” to do so because the City Charter names the city attorney as the commission’s legal adviser. He warned commissioners that he would sue them and the city if they tried to hire outside counsel.

Witt said Wednesday that “if the State Bar does its usual thorough job, I’m sure they will find (Thistle’s) charges perfectly groundless.”

He added that he is not guilty of conflict of interest because the commission and the city agencies “are not adversaries” and that the commission is entitled to investigate only procedures used in cases such as the ones raised by Thistle. Any wrongdoing must be investigated by the city manager’s office or, in criminal cases, the district attorney, Witt said.

The commission’s investigation has been on hold while commissioners await answers from Witt on questions regarding their investigative powers and procedures. Witt is scheduled to provide those answers at a commission meeting today.

Thistle’s complaint includes as an exhibit a diary kept by former Officer Jeanne Taylor, who filed a disability claim and then was assigned to “light duty” in Kolender’s office in 1981 and 1982. In that position, Taylor was given personal errands to run for Kolender and his top aides.

The commission voted Nov. 17 to investigate Thistle’s charges and appointed Commissioners David Lewis and Hope Logan to preside over the investigation.

While that situation was unfolding, City Manager John Lockwood began his own investigation into alleged Police Department improprieties, prompted by Thistle’s report and findings by The Times that Police Chief Bill Kolender and his top assistants had fixed parking tickets and moving citations for their friends, family, the media and influential San Diegans.

Shortly before Thanksgiving, Lockwood issued written reprimands to Kolender and Assistant Police Chief Bob Burgreen. He forwarded the matter to the San Diego County district attorney’s office, which is considering whether to begin a criminal investigation.

The State Bar’s Office of Investigation would be the first unit to review Thistle’s complaint, according to Mitchell Lathrop, former presiding referee for the State Bar court. If that unit believes a violation has been committed, it would pass the complaint to the Office of the Trial Counsel.

If the matter could not be settled, it would then go to trial before the State Bar court, Lathrop said. The process could take at least six months, he said.