Horror Tales Spark Group to Tackle Disciplining of Lawyers

A year ago, disabled World War II veteran Bernard Schonfeld hired an attorney to help him defend his home and other resources against a former live-in girlfriend. Schonfeld, 60, had signed over his assets to the woman after falling ill, but when she left him abruptly one day, he sought to regain sole title to his money and possessions.

First, his attorney requested $750 up front. Thereafter, he was billed an average of $200 a month. Through it all, Schonfeld, who is confined to a wheelchair, remained optimistic that the matter was heading toward a resolution.

Not long ago, his hopes were dashed. After collecting $3,000 in fees from the elderly Imperial Beach man, the attorney suddenly announced he would proceed no further unless Schonfeld produced $2,100 in cash. Schonfeld did not have the money, so the attorney dropped the case.

Since then, Schonfeld has been unable to find another attorney to represent him. His former girlfriend, meanwhile, has countersued, seeking clear title to his house as well as money for “services rendered” during their nine-year relationship.

Doesn’t Know What to Do

“I’m now on the verge of losing my home and everything else but I can’t find an attorney to help because this other attorney has already taken all I have,” Schonfeld said. “I have no idea what to do.”

Schonfeld’s story was one of a string of compelling tales related Tuesday at an unusual public hearing called to illuminate problems plaguing the system used to discipline attorneys who commit misdeeds.

The hearing, which drew about 50 people, was organized by a national consumer protection group known as HALT, or Help Abolish Legal Tyranny. The Washington-based HALT, which claims 140,000 members nationally and 2,400 in San Diego County, has been a leader in an ongoing fight to strip the California State Bar of its authority to review cases involving attorney misconduct and mete out punishment ranging from reprimands to disbarment.

Under the existing system, which has been widely criticized, complaints filed against individual attorneys are reviewed by the bar, which makes recommendations for discipline to the state Supreme Court.

System Criticized

Critics say the system is slow, inefficient, lenient and improperly secretive, and amounts to a form of self-regulation that protects attorneys while not adequately serving the public. The state bar itself agrees there are problems, and this year has beefed up the funding and staff devoted to its disciplinary functions.

HALT leaders said Tuesday’s hearing is unprecedented and marks the kickoff of a campaign to rally public support for reform of the attorney discipline system both in California and nationwide.

Glenn Nishimura, HALT’s executive director, said he believes California, which represents the group’s largest chapter, can be “a catalyst that can send shock waves through the country and result in some significant reforms down the road.”

“This is the beginning of what we hope will be a major breakthrough and help make California a forerunner on this issue,” said Richard Hebert, HALT’s communications director. “I liken it to the taxpayers’ revolt that started here and snowballed.”

Testimony to Go to Bar

Nishimura said testimony presented at the hearing Tuesday will be delivered to the state bar’s Board of Governors, who are meeting Thursday in Los Angeles. It also will be forwarded to state lawmakers who have demonstrated an interest in the issue and have vowed to carry reform legislation if the bar’s own efforts to improve the discipline system are ineffective.

Although each resident who turned out to testify Tuesday about being victimized by the legal profession related a different set of facts, their stories were all tinged by common emotions. Frustration and anger were commonly expressed, as were feelings of intimidation and helplessness.

There was the housewife who was unable to hire an attorney to defend her in a divorce proceeding because her former husband is a prominent attorney in town and former head of the local bar association.

“No one would touch the case,” the woman, near tears and shaking, said, “because nobody wanted to go against him in court.”

Reneged on Agreement

There was the artist whose attorney reneged on a verbal agreement on fees, and then sued her when she failed to pay his astronomical bills.

There was the businessman who eventually won a case involving his interest in a limited partnership but, after a long, draining legal battle, ended up hating his own attorney more than his courtroom adversaries.

“This attorney had the arrogance to tell me that he rented a car to drive to Los Angeles because his car was a Porsche that breaks down a lot and he didn’t want me to have to pay to have it towed,” Steve Beck said, recalling one example from his saga.

And there were those who had filed complaints against attorneys with the state bar, only to be greeted with months of silence because of an enormous backlog that has overwhelmed investigators.

Patience Urged

“The guy I talked to up there said he had 90 cases in the bin and 12 on his desk and that I would just have to be patient,” said Alicia Cox, who has filed a complaint against an attorney in connection with his performance on her lawsuit against a homeowners’ association. “In the meantime, other people may be getting hurt by my lawyer.”

HALT leaders say such testimony is convincing evidence that attorneys are not being effectively disciplined under the existing system administered by the state bar.

Nishimura likened the “self-regulation” system to “the fox guarding the henhouse” and said that citizens can only be protected from abuse by the state’s 105,000 attorneys if “a publicly accountable, independent, non-lawyer board is set up to oversee discipline.”

Richard Annotico, one of six non-lawyer members on the bar’s 23-member Board of Governors, agreed with that analysis, testifying that the system constitutes “special treatment” that breeds suspicion among the 10,000 Californians who file complaints against attorneys each year.

‘Outmoded as Ford Model T’

“This so-called self-regulation was an improvement over caveat emptor, or the so-called law of the jungle system that existed when the bar was first created 60 years ago,” Annotico said. “But now it is as outmoded as the Ford Model T.”

Leaders of the state bar, however, take issue with such criticism and complain that their efforts to improve the discipline system have been all but ignored by groups such as HALT.

“I believe we’ve demonstrated good faith and a clear determination to do the job and do it well,” State Bar President Terry P. Anderlini said in a telephone interview from the Bay Area. “I’m of the opinion now that California has the finest discipline system in the country.”

Anderlini said that in the last six months, the bar has beefed up its discipline staff, increased salaries for attorneys in the discipline division to reduce turnover, hired a former deputy district attorney from Los Angeles to serve as the bar’s chief prosecutor, and earmarked 65% of next year’s budget to the discipline function.

$18 Million Budgeted

“We have devoted $18 million of our 1988 budget of $22 million to discipline and that is the highest percentage that any regulatory agency of any kind is spending on it,” Anderlini said. “I think that’s a dramatic statement.”

Anderlini said the bar also has cut into the backlogged consumer complaints that have piled up over the years. Under legislation passed last year, the bar must resolve all the remaining cases by Dec. 31 or face possible withholding of its dues. The number of stalled complaints now stands at 2,500.

Noting that the bar’s discipline practices have been under intense scrutiny in recent years, Anderlini challenged critics like HALT to compare the system’s effectiveness with that used in other professions, like medicine or the insurance trade.

“There is an immense amount of fascination with what we’re doing, which is fine,” Anderlini said. “But it’s not really a fair analysis unless you compare us with another profession rather than some artificial standards.”

At least one bar watchdog, however, says such a defense doesn’t hold water. Robert Fellmeth, a University of San Diego law professor who was charged with monitoring the bar and issuing periodic reports on its performance, said “comparisons don’t matter if your system isn’t meaningfully accomplishing its purpose.”