Lawyer Scandal Reflects Poorly on State Bar, Judges

Re “Hot Line Seeks ‘Victimized’ Clients of Lawyer” (Dec. 2): I am not surprised at the sudden public attention now given to the James D. Gunderson case by the State Bar of California and Bar President Harvey I. Saferstein.

Mr. Saferstein was recently a guest of radio talk show host Michael Jackson. The call-in portion brought a call from a would-be lawyer complaining about the CalBarEx and calls from attorneys who had negative views on and low opinions of the State Bar--one attorney gave credit to The Times’ story, exclusively, for the State Bar’s sudden public attention to attorney Gunderson. This was followed by a string of callers all relating negative experiences with their attorneys.

The State Bar, I opine, is a failure on all counts by any objective measures. Even the state Legislature briefly considered abolishing the State Bar; the vested interests quickly put a stop to such an anti-special-interest measure. How, I ask, is the State Bar “safeguarding members of the public”?

It is apparent, on the issue of the CalBarEx, that the State Bar, through its Bar exam, practices illegal, purposeful discrimination, i.e., the Bar exam is not job-related.

This is most readily evidenced by the growing numbers of non-attorney, non-licensed people--independent paralegals, law consultants, legal advisers, etc.--completely practicing law and generating few, if any, complaints by the general public.

Attorneys now openly question the value of State Bar membership. Many state that they would not join the association if it were not mandatory. I recall a prior story in The Times about an attorney-generated suit on this very issue of compulsory membership--involuntary servitude.

If the State Bar was serious about holding meaningful public hearings on the discipline, competence and Bar admissions of lawyers, it could at least start by advertising the hearings.

How many people from the general public knew about the recent public hearings at the State Bar’s Los Angeles office on Dec. 2? Circumstances strongly suggest that the State Bar is there only for self-preservation and maintenance of the status quo.

Finally, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department is to be lauded for its role in efforts to ferret out possible attorney wrongdoing. I hope such efforts spread to other sheriff’s departments in California.

Quick, somebody justify the existence of the State Bar of California.

GEORGE C. BALDERAS

Corona