Bar Urges Six-Month Suspension for Lawyer

The State Bar of California has recommended that civil rights lawyer Stephen Yagman be suspended from the practice of law for six months and that he seek psychiatric counseling, The Times has learned.

Yagman was recommended for the suspension after State Bar reviewers found evidence that he refused client demands to return case files, failed to account for $50,000 in client funds entrusted to him and charged an “unconscionable fee” to a client in a product liability case.

In findings presented to the state Supreme Court in June, the State Bar also recommended that Yagman, 43, be placed on probation for two years and ordered to pass the professional responsibility examination given by the National Conference of Bar Examiners within one year.

In making its recommendations, the State Bar said it was tempered by Yagman’s record of public service, representing scores of low-income plaintiffs in lawsuits challenging misconduct by police and other government agencies.

‘A Significant Function’

Yagman, Bar reviewers said in their findings, “is one of the few attorneys willing to take on the representation of clients in difficult and not necessarily rewarding civil rights cases and . . . therefore serves a significant function in the justice system.”

But the reviewers said the multiple acts of purported misconduct and his failure to account for the trust funds merited some period of suspension.

Yagman could not be reached for comment Monday but, through a spokeswoman, he accused lawyers for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department of leaking information about the recommended suspension to influence a jury in a pending case.

“The L.A. County Counsel leaked this not-yet-final matter to improperly influence the jury in the case Mr. Yagman is now trying against two Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs who shot one of his clients,” paralegal Linda Hirsch said.

‘Capricious, Cheap Shot’

Yagman’s lawyer, Brian O’Neill, would not comment on the recommendation except for the proposed condition that Yagman obtain psychiatric or psychological counseling, a condition that was added by a State Bar review panel after a State Bar court made its initial findings in the case. The Bar specified that Yagman could also present an affidavit from a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist stating that he does not need counseling.

“We strongly oppose that condition. It’s a capricious, cheap shot,” O’Neill said.

Yagman gained notoriety several years ago in a well-publicized feud with Chief U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real which began in a case stemming from the jail-house death of Cal State Long Beach football star Ron Settles. After Real dismissed Yagman’s lawsuit, the lawyer accused Real of suffering from “mental disorders.”

Real imposed $250,000 in sanctions against Yagman for his purported conduct at trial, but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an appeals court’s decision to reverse the sanctions and assign the case to another judge in view of the conflict between the lawyer and the judge.

The first count against Yagman stemmed from his representation of Martin Kove, an actor who retained Yagman to represent him in negotiations for a movie project with an author and director.

The original charges against Yagman accused him of negotiating a deal that gave his own law firm a cut of the movie proceeds and funneling the screen writing job to a personal friend without advising Kove to seek other counsel.

In its findings, however, the State Bar Court found only that Yagman had failed to account for $50,000 in trust funds Kove had forwarded to Yagman in early 1981 and never returned papers and records to Kove after the deal broke up.

The court also found that Yagman attempted to collect an “unconscionable fee” from a client in a product liability case. Yagman had originally contracted to split with another lawyer a contingency fee of half of all money collected after trial or 39% if the matter was settled before trial.

Tried to Settle

When the client tried to settle with one of the defendants for $65,000, Yagman urged her not to accept the settlement and asserted that his fee would be computed against the entire $1-million default judgment that had been assessed, for a total of $225,000, less certain costs, the court said.

The State Bar said the factual findings constituted violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the state Business and Professions Code and a breach of the lawyer’s fiduciary duty to his clients.

There was no indication when the Supreme Court will act on the suspension recommendation.