Bar Clears Hawthorne City Attorney in 1991 Lambert Investigation

Hawthorne City Atty. Michael Adamson did not violate any ethical standards when he launched an investigation against a former councilwoman during last year’s contentious race for mayor, the State Bar of California has concluded.

The former councilwoman, Ginny Lambert, alleged that Adamson’s probe conflicted with his duties to represent her as a member of the City Council. Lambert, who called the investigation politically motivated and blamed it for her narrow defeat in the mayoral race, has appealed the State Bar’s decision to close the case.

“I didn’t even get an interview by them,” said Lambert, who lost her bid for mayor to Steve Andersen by 34 votes. “It appeared that there wasn’t any in-depth research into our complaint.”

It could be two years before Lambert’s appeal is reviewed by the State Bar’s seven-member grievance panel, said spokeswoman Susan Scott. If panel members disagree with the findings of the inquiry, they can order the office of investigations to reconsider its decision not to discipline Adamson.

Adamson’s probe against Lambert centered on allegations that the former councilwoman violated several state laws by secretly lobbying the Planning Commission in the summer of 1991 to postpone a controversial vote on a condominium project. Adamson also accused Lambert of threatening to fire him unless he dropped his probe.

At a council meeting Oct. 28, about a week before the election, Adamson told the council that he and a Hawthorne police sergeant had interviewed 10 witnesses, some of whom said they saw Lambert lobbying four of the five planning commissioners in a back room just a few minutes before the public meeting began.

Adamson gave his preliminary report to the district attorney’s office for further investigation. The matter is still under review, said Deputy Dist. Atty. Gail Ehrlich. The State Bar’s conclusions will have no bearing on the case, she said.

Lambert said she spoke with the commissioners but denied she talked to them about any upcoming projects. She called Adamson’s claim that she threatened him “a blatant lie” and said Adamson only investigated her to undermine her candidacy. The allegations were “a deliberate attempt to malign my name and put doubt in the minds of voters,” Lambert said.

Lambert also asked the district attorney to investigate whether Adamson’s probe violated any conflict-of-interest codes. That matter also remains under review, Ehrlich said.

Adamson insisted that there was nothing political about his investigation and said he believes there is ample evidence that Lambert attempted to solicit the commissioners to violate open meeting laws.

“She is excellent at painting herself as the victim,” Adamson said. “She is an absolute master at attacking people and then, if they try to respond in any way, she immediately becomes an excellent actress at playing the victim.”

Councilman David M. York, who supported Andersen for mayor, first raised questions about Lambert’s actions with the Planning Commission at a council meeting in mid-October.

The charges and countercharges eclipsed the final days of the two-way mayoral race, prompting Andersen and Lambert to accuse each other of slimy politics and mudslinging.

When the polls closed, Lambert emerged with an eight-vote lead over Andersen. But after absentee ballots were tallied, Andersen was named the winner by 34 votes.