HomeMy WebLinkAbout33-City Attorney
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: JAMES F. PENMAN
CITY ATTORNEY
Subject:
Request for Payment of Legal Fees.
Dept: CITY ATTORNEY
Date: October 30, 2008
MICC Meeting Date: November 3, 2008
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
April 17,2006 - Council authorized reimbursement of$3,000 to James F. Penman for his payment to Attorney
Erica Tabachnick and payment of an amount not to exceed $900 to Attorney Erica Tabachnick for legal fees.
May 15, 2006 - Council authorized the allocation of $4,040.28 from the City Attorney Outside Counsel budget
(Line Item 001-051-5503) for payment to Erica Tabachnick in the amount of $1,040.28, and authorize payment of
additional bills to Erica Tabachnick, not to exceed $3,000, without further approval of the Mayor and Common Council.
June 16,2008 - Council authorized the allocation of$3,154.97 from the City Attorney Outside Counsel budget
(Line Item 001-051-5503) for payment to Erica Tabachnick not to exceed $5,000.00 without further approval of the
Mayor and Common Council.
Recommended Motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council allocate the sum of $7,000.00 from the City Attorney Outside Counsel
budget (Line Item 001-051-5503) for payment oflegal fees to Erica Tabachnick, Esq. not to exceed $7,000 without
further approval ofthe Mayor and Common Council.
Jz~J
(J
llk~~
Signature
Contact person: James F. Penman
Supporting data attached: Staff Reoort
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:
Source: (Acc!. No.)
(Acc!. Description)
Phone:
Ward:
5255
All
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item NO-:W j 3
//I.J)og
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JAMES F. PENMAN
CITY ATTORNEY
To:
Mayor and Common Council
From:
James F. Penman
City Attorney
Date:
October 30, 2008
Subject:
Request for Payment of Legal Fees, Agenda Item # 33, November 3,2008
Council Meeting
In December 2005, Ms. Judith Valles, acting as an individual, filed a complaint against me with
the State Bar of California. (Copy attached.)
The State Bar investigated the issues raised by Ms. Valles and, in a letter dated April 7, 2006
(copy attached) announced its determination "that there are insufficient grounds for disciplinary
action. Therefore, we are closing our file at this time, without prejudice."
Subsequently, Ms. Valles formally asked the State Bar to "review" their decision. Because of
this the State Bar has reopened her complaint.
Although Ms. Valles' original complaint dealt with several issues, it is my understanding that the
allegations that I have been asked to respond to arose relative to that part of her complaint
concerning a meeting of the San Bernardino City Council held on September 19,2005.
Allegedly, at that meeting I declined to declare a conflict, did not recuse myself, and did not
properly advise my client of its right to independent counsel. By her complaint, Ms. Valles
argues that I violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by my actions. I respectfully disagree.
Ms. Valles has hired private counsel to press her complaint with the State Bar and he has done an
admirable job of doing so.
Previously, the Mayor and Common Council, on three separate occasions, approved a total sum
of$ll,095.25 for my legal fees in defending myself in these proceedings. To date, once a bill
received today is paid, there will be $215.00 remaining in the amount previously allocated.
300 NORTH "D" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418-0001' (909) 384-5355. FAX (909) 384-5238
Memo to Mayor an Common Council
October 30, 2008
Page two
After speaking to my attorney, Ms. Erica Tabaclmick, Esq., at the offices of the State Bar on
October 28, 2008, it is my understanding that my legal bills in the next few months could reach
another $5,000.00 to $7,000.00 if the case does not go to a formal hearing. If this case does go to
a formal hearing, Ms. Tabachnick advises me the legal fees will be approximately $25,000 to
$35,000, depending on how much discovery is involved.
On Wednesday, October 29,2008, I briefly discussed this current request with the Mayor
following agenda briefing in the MIC room. He again, as he has done previously, told me to go
ahead with this request.
I have attached a copy of my April 12, 2006 memorandum to you and I request that you read it
again, along with the two exhibits attached to it, for a more detailed explanation of why I
originally made this request to the Mayor and Common Council and why I feel it is appropriate
for me to do so.
At the Council meeting on November 3, 2008, I will recuse myself from giving legal advice to
the Mayor and Common Council on this agenda item # 33. I will leave my usual post in the City
Attorney's chair and speak at the staff podium where other elected officials, department heads or
other city employees routinely speak, to provide additional information or to respond to any non-
legal questions regarding my request.
I recommend that if you have any legal questions regarding this matter that you confer with
independent counsel of your choosing.
Respectfully submitted,
/ t""", i ,"CJL }....".'"
~~mes F. Penman
City Attorney
cc: Erica Tabachnick
attachments
; l......' '.)'- l....VI.',-' 'i,'-.! ,"_,." ,>,
"U\ ilV,
i, Vi-I 1."_
.J
Margolis Bt Margolis LU'
"rTO~HeVS "1 LAW
AATI1UR L oIWtGOlIS
SU!WoI L. MAIlGOLIS
EXHIBIT A
2000 lUV'fRSlDE DaM
LOS ANGElES. CALlFOlNA. fOO39.3758
Taa'HONi1ol231 ~8~6
PM 1"23) 953-4740
November :1, 2005
Office of rh~ Chief Trial Counsel
Complaint Intake
The Slate !jar of California
J 149 South Hill Street
Loil Al\~~k8. CI\ 9OO15~2299
RE' Cumplaint a~a.inst Attornev JameR F Penman
COlJipl<linl lnlake:
ThIs Bnn repre6ent9 Judith Valles in her comphlint against
Jame:; F. f'ermllll1. Ms. Valles is the Mayor of the CIty of San
BernardinQ: Penman is the City ALtorney of San Bernardino. and he is
pn1!lf!ntly a c.anclldate for the offite of Mayor. Ms. Vall~s IS not running
for re-elp,,,,rJon. and ",he i9 bringing lhili l'ompla1nt as an IndiVidual. nol
aB a public official.
San 13~mardino City CounetlperSOIl Rikke Van JohnBon on or
about September 15. 2005. recommended that the San Bernardino
Clty Council ,lpprove the follo\\iin~ Motion:
"That In ord~r to assurf' th~ taxpayers that City
resources and funds au not being used for polItical
purposes. the City Council shall file a formal complaint
wllh th~ Public Integlity Unil (if the Dilitricll\llomey's
offke requesting an investigauon of Mr, James Penman's
use of City resources for polltlcal llUrposes In vlulatJun of
. Penal Code. Section 424 and Government Code Section
8314. and; furthermore. that the District Attorney's office
prosecute to the fullest extent. of the law any violation."
That proposal was based upon a Slaff Report which slates. in
part.. as; follows:
"It is clear. that based on Mr. Penman's conduct over
the past several weeks. Mr. P~nman is using the etty's
reSOW"Celi. compensated s(<Iff (1m" and City equipment.
includlnj:t mmputers. telephones. lUld faxeb. for hIs own
polltJcaJ purpoaes liS he campai~ns for thc office of Mayor,
M:r. Penman's unauthorizoo and i!1egal U~ of city reflOurcC.'\
'..:-' ~':"", :"__"_'_' :J:'_ '~'~il~V ,J:
! nn !1V,
r, l..;,J/ JO
~
~
Complaint Intake
Sta,e liar of California
November 3. 2005
P~sc 2
for his puliti~al needs is a gro~s violation of t.he puhlic trust
and in di!"C~t. violarion of Ihe law. A.~ thc elected city
olriei"l", rcsp<>nslble lor the dty's bud/(el. We have a duty to
snfe~uard the taxpaycr'8 dolh.rs and to ensure any illegal
use of public resources Is not allow~d to continue,"
A heltring, Including public coromcn!. was held on that MOUon
on September 19, 2005. Durlnll (hat public proceeding. the CIty
Ntorney. Jllmes Penman, !lerved 08 legal advisor to the City Council.
~e.ated ncar thl! Councll. with hIs OWn microphone. Thllt is. for a
proceeding In Which it Wall betng d~C'ided whether 10 request the
D,strid Attorney's office t.o conduct a ~rlmtnill investigation of
T'emnan, he served as legal advisor 10 the Council.
DUrin~ thl' meeting. he Intertwined his legal adVice With
advocacy in hill OWIl favor. !ncludln/( us!n/( the freedom of his p05ltJon
and phy"k~ location to IUs advantagf" by lmrnedlately ar~ing against
ccmment~ lTlade by members of the public. a procedure which would
have been out of order for anyone l"ilje who happened to be the subject
of the dlsellssion That. i8. he combined hJ!I role as attorney for Ihe
CoulldJ Wllll hls role of repres!'ntlng himself.
\Vhen. during the prO(:ecdm~. Coun('lIper~on fstiler Estrada
f<Jil:led th~ obVious question of wheth.-r Penman ha.d a conl1ict and
whet.her th.. Counctl was enlitlcd to tndependl\llt legal !\dVire. Penman
~dViscd hls CUe.ll!. the Council. that h.. was not clulming t.hat he did
not have il \.:onfllct. but that. nl'verthelI"Ss. the Council was not enUtled
to anothrr attorney. He persistl'd In his role as legal advisor On the
matter about which he WWi the subject, and he persisted In combining
that role wJth that of representing himself and advocating on his own
behalf
It ap~ars that in pro\1dlng his legal Opinion that the Council
was not 'entitled to the ..dvlcl:' of anothl'r attorney, Pllnman was relying
upo!'\ Section 241 of t.he Charter of thl' City of San Bernardino, nlat
Stetian provides:
"Upon the r~commcnda(jon, and with the written
consent. of Ihe City Attorney. the Mayor Glnd Common
Council shall have power llnd authority to employ and
engagl:' such !e!(al counsel and $leMces and other
asslstnnts, as may be neCeSllary and proper for the interl'~t
and b..nefit of the City and the lnhabita.\1ts thereof."
r~~-~c-cuuu !nU lJJ.4Y rJ"1
tH^ J'il),
r, U4/UD
.J
J
Complain! Inl.ake
Slate Bar of California
Novembf,f 3, 2005
Pa~e 3
Pmllnan, It seems, j>i int.~rpr~l!nl( Section 24] itS ~uperscdtng
his ..thlcal obligations. That 1s. because that Section requires hill
consent as a condlUon for the Coun~ll to obtain other legal advice. he
apparently b~\!evc$ he IS free to withhold his consent CVen if he has a
dlsqualiJylng conillct. Yet. It i$ well-establlsned that a lawyer in the
pubhc secWr IS not exempted from the conflict of interest rules
applicoble to other attomeys, D.eukmt"ltan v, BrOWU (1981) 29 CaJ.3d
150, 157.
A videotape of th~ proctedlng held on Sept.ember 19, 2005 Is
ull:luded here
~
It iI; requested that the State Bar of CaW'arnia er"Tftipc tho iuUlIfl
(l) Whethllf Jamet Penman violated ethic:.J req1W'ementa
reglU'4iJl& eonfIieta;
(2) Whetber hit legal advice to th. CotuIci1 that it ... DOt
entiUed to independent Jeaal advice was ttHlf a violation of eoDflict
law: IIDd
[3) Whether he aave that advice to bia client in beet tlllUl.
bow1nC it W1UI WltnJe.
As ~hown on the enclosed vidt>otape of the prol~eedlng5 of
September 19. 2005, certain allcgatlonR were made about him
rej(ardUl~ I:lcxuaJ harassment. f't:nman rMpond~ by announcing that
the Slate Rl\r of Cillifomla had fUlly Investlgaled those allegations and
found them to be Without merlt. We request that the Bar determ.iJJc
whether P_Tft... wu lyinf to bia c:Ueat and the puhHc 1t'h"U he lJWie
that ~'mu.t.
Further, 'in The PresS-E:nterpril:u: neWpaper. on Septl'mbcr 16,
2005. It was reported that CouncUperson Rikke Van John~on
intended tel ask the Councl.l to requt"sl a C'rtmtnal investigation of
P"nman bascd upon the matters refiect./'d 1n Tne CounciJpeTson's
a bovc-quotcd Motion as well as in the Slaff Report,
The article stated. in part:
'The dty attorney raIled .Joh.nson's step smy,
r -~:::. "_';~--,:::,,,:.)C ;j'...- ;';J' "1:- r-n
r r,,\ !~U,
r, I~::,/l'b
~
.J
Complaint Intake
Stare Bar of California
November 3. 2006
Page 4
"Penman a1,s{l said h~ plans to draft a resolution that
call" for the di"trict attorney's Public Inte~rlty Unit to
investigate n.unOl"$ about soml' officials using dty phones
and cqlllpmcnt to Sllpport other mayoral candidates,
"'p(1ople who live in glas!! hOllses shoulrin't throw
ijtont':s,' he said.
"If lJohnfion) pUts somf!thing on the eoundl
agenda. , , thill's aimed at promotlng Judge Moms' eampaign by
altackillj;( another candidat/' [P/'l1nl;ln]. that would br. a mlsu!le of
hl~ official position to carnpail:n.' PennlllTl said. 'I'll have no
recourse but to refer that \0 I he .dllitnC'[ altomtO' flU:
inve!\tlgatloll,:
"Penman observed that all the other CIty Council
members are cither nmnin~ for election themselves or
have endorsed a candidate In November's l'!lectlon. If they
b'",k Johnson. they coulrl find 1 hem",C'lv"s before the
Publil: Intcll'r1lv UnH as well. (he c:ity attomey saIQ."
IArackcted material and emphasis added.)
^ copy of the ;<rUck j,; Included here,
IOn thC' rnorn1n~ of September 19. 2005, Penman telephoned
Mayor Valles prior to the hearin~ regardIng his own conduct. lie
stated to her that unless the matter was withdrawn from the agenda.
h~ would pmsue his own agenda Item calling for a CouncH request that
dle Oistrict Mtorney's office lnvcstl~ale po~!;lble criminal vi(llatlOn.~ by
any elcct/'d CIty official's l.lSe of pubhc resources 10. campaignln~
activities. [Copy enclosed.] He said that he would Withdraw his own
Hem II the Motion regarding hImself Was dropped,)
, .
(MS, Valles did not Join With Perunan In iliat effort, and both
Items remained on the agenda. At onl" point, afier at least a portion of
lile h(.'al1n~ was held regarding Penma.n, Councilman Rikke Van
John..on Withdrew hi!> Mollon, and, In response. Penman wIthdrew hi~
OWn proposal)
TbU matter la bnnaalht to your attention Cot determination of
'-,,,-' ',)'-.. '--.\.-",J...; j .I'~ ,).), 'i J ; I J
J:ln I1l:,
r, 0:";1 UQ
.)
.)
Complaint Intake
Slate Bar of California
Nr)vl'mbl'r 3, 2005
Page 5
whether Penman violated Rule 5-100 of the R.ules of Profeu1onal
COnduct. which Rule states. in part:
"A m<om1har sball DOt threaten to preMDt crlmln"l.
al1l)1lnl.u.tlve. or d.lactpllnary charlet to obtabl AD
advanbie in a etYtl diIpute."
It is also pretelltecl for your conmcleratioll of whether p.........,,'.
coudllCt IUDOUDted. to. or was ill the Dature of. eztonton u deftaed by
Pellal Code Section IUS. Tbat Seetion stat..:
"Extortionla the ob~.lnIDI 01 property from another.
with hb coruent, or tlut obtalpln. of an om...ftJ act of .
public o&icer. iaduccc1 by wronCful UlIe of force or fev. or
under color of offtclal rtabt."
We rcm>lln available to provide furtht:r information and materials
Yt:.ry lruly yours,
(Ji;;t; J )l~"rJ~
Arthur L. Mar~olls
i\I,M:jd
F:nd.
INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
To:
The Mayor and Common Council
From:
James F Penman, City Attorney
Subject:
Request for Reimbursement/Payment of Legal Fees
Date:
April 12, 2006
In December 2005, Ms. Judith Valles, acting as an individual, filed a complaint with The State
Bar of California, through her attorneys, Margolis & Margolis, against City Attorney James F.
Perunan (reference: Margolis & Margolis November 3,2005 Complaint against Attorney James
F. Penman: please note final sentence of first paragraph, page I, Exhibit "A," copy attached.)
The complaint, in summary, appears to be that City Attorney James F. Penman, while advising
the Mayor and Common Council at a regularly scheduled meeting of said Mayor and Common
Council held on September 19,2005 may have committed some violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
Included with the complaint to the State Bar was a complete video tape of items # S-l and # S-2,
fyom the televised City Council meeting of September 19, 2005. Thus, The State Bar was able to
review my conduct on that date, which was the subject of the allegations. On April 7,2006,
fo!lowing the submission of further evidence, and argument by my attorney, the State Bar of
Califomia issued a letter confimJing that "there are insufficient grounds for disciplinary action."
That 1 was acting within the course and scope of my employment, is, apparently, not challenged
by Margolis & Margolis, inasmuch as their complaint states, "[ d]uring that public proceeding,
the City Attorney, James Penman. served as legal advisor to the City Council, seated near the
Council, with his own microphone." (Please see page 2, Exhibit "A".)
As a direct result of performing my duties as City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, and
acting entirely within the course and scope of my emplOyment by and for the City of San
Bernardino, it becanle necessary for me to engage the services of legal counsel to respond to the
allegations stated in the letter of complaint filed by the law firm of Margolis & Margolis with
The State Bar of Cali fomi a in December of2005.
Because the City of San Bernardino is self-insured, and because the city does not carry
Memo to Mayor and Common Council
Request for Reimbursement/Payment for Legal Fees
April 12, 2006
Page two (2)
malpractice insurance for its lawyers, including insurance to cover allegations of ethical
violations, it has been the practice of this city to pay for the legal defense for its lawyers when
such allegations have been filed with the State Bar in previous situations.
For example, in March 1997, responding to a previous complaint to the State Bar, the Mayor and
Common Council hired a law firnl to defend myself and a Deputy City Attorney, at city expense,
in such a proceeding. No ethical violations were found to have occurred in that case either.
On April 1 0,2006, the attorney I retained, Erica Tabachnick, received a letter dated April 7,2006
from Dane C. Dauphine, Supervising Trial Counsel of The State Bar of California infonning her
that "the determination has been made that there are insufficient grounds for disciplinary action.
Therefore, we are closing our file at this time, without prejudice." (Reference, April 7, 2006
letter from the State Bar of California to Erica Tabachnick, copy attached as Exhibit "B".)
After conferring with Mayor Patrick J. Morris, I am requesting, "that the Mayor and Common
Council allocate the sum of up to $3,900 from the City Attorney Outside Council budget (line
item # 001-051-5503) to reimburse City Attorney James F. Perunan for his payment of53,000.00
to attorney Erica Tabachnick, and that any remaining fees due Erica Tabachnick be paid to her
from the same account in an amount not to exceed $900.00, without further approval of the
Mayor and Common Council."
I would point out that I am roughly in the same position as a police officer, who. actmg in the
course and scope of his employment, uses force he believes to be reasonable to detain a suspect
and is subsequently accused of exccssive force.
[ also mention that the city attorney's office, in the recent past. and for many years in thc more
distant past, has assisted several elected officials during investigations of their conduct by the
Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC,) and!or has sought legally binding opinions from the
FPPC on behalf of elected official(s) whose perfornlance ofthw official duties, i.e. casting a
votelintending to do so, on an agenda item, resulted in the need to obtain such an FPPC opinion.
I thank the Mayor and Council for their consideration of this request.
. spectfully Submitted,
( U-'7r>--. 7 t1z.-u-,-~.,
J mes F. Penman
ity Attorney
!-.J v_ LJliU l!JU v'",:.'-tJ jlJ
rMf\ JIlU.
r. U (,' UO
J
C.I.D:.OF SA~ BER:\ARDl:\O .
.J
RE()lEST FOR COU1\CIL ACTIO:\
om' J,.\~IES F. l'l:-.i\1.\'i
Cil:"Mro~~
S\lb)e~'.
( 'se orCi~ R"soun;cs B:: EJumd OHicl~l; for
Political Pt.:rposes
Dopt: CITY ATTOR:>:F.Y
\)3t~ Se,.t<:,:"b,'r i \ 20G5
,"Ice Date: Septem ber 19, ZOOS
-""--'-~-'-'-
S:,,"nt)psi$ Jf Pit:vioU5 Council :lei.ierr
'-- ---_._---~.
Recat!'lm~n~ed mo~jon;
T1m in order Ie ~SS'"re th. 13:tpllyel; that C:::. resources md funds aro not being used for campaign aCllvil~.
the eHY Cotmtil sh31l f.k J fnrr.:31 request v.ic.h lhe Putl;, inl'~rity ltlir o{lne District Aetol7ley'soffice tcqueS1lOg
(\1\ "" cstigallorr ot plmibie viohltlorl5 by any elected City off, dais' use of publ ic resources for Colmpaiin lcuvil:es
in ',iolation of I'<n"i Coau SuctIon 4:'4 and Govanm~nt ('"Je Sectlon 8314, and; funnennore. thut the Dim,c:
Arrome,', o[jjc'~ pmse~ule :0 the r.lli.'L extent Ilf:he I~w ~n)' VIO:at'or..
A
".
~"
j.......("'"V1_
.r;~
'1
-; . I
'i .~~........_
Signature
/[
Co~t3.~t ptrsor.: Ja:-nes V. P~pm:u~
Phone:
5255
Supponlr.g da~ 3cac~~d' S~;'f Re~ort
Ward
FL:.:l)f'.;Q RiQL'lR.EYlE\;l:i
Amount:
Source:
Finance: __
Cu~ncil t\OI:~.
"-----~-..-
JJ:?!k'd{t ice 1t~~~$dur{c:,-.F,ll?ffl~:\I i:.,....,~
- .
Agenda hem No. . .j j....J
C( I JlI It) j-
:';_:'-~'(. l:.L.::.;c Iji~ 'J',../I'-tU rli
.J
Councilman,
city attorney
seek inquiries
,
i SAN BERNARDINO: Rikke
, \'an Johnson poiI\lI; Itl
. "'oms at a meeting. Jim
; Penman reports nunors,
IY ..a IICl1Ull
MIlf$\J1\_
.1 San Sernarntno =U.
n\;w hili) called for a <.."riminal
:ov.'llH.lion o( the city ,IL,
">me,', who vowed to ~~ rJo
""11 probe If ll1vtitlCBt.ol'1 got
: ':":lrders to ~t3rt 1n\lett1r::n-mR
i 'Ole lat.,t SQuabbllng In a ell:)'
. 'tl.-ht:'rt' n:latIons arooll2 el~'ted
: <J1Il'""ls III'e not aJwll)'jl cord",l
, to "'file.:! In a ~pt 7 eommitlJ!.
',,(;oring at which elt)' .\tt,l1loy
j\ln ~'MlDn.cCUMd Moyor
JU<!llil Ville. of \llId.nnJninS
, '''e:nl'ts t:> <onlrul the number
: 01 c.,.nl",,~ l,.nng in San Bernar.
dini;.
Throul1h ~ II'pok~trW/.)mun.
v~ if'" "'.I"'~!ed th. uUegtNuft
(~'I\H~dlm:uJ .H.Otit:e van JO.t1..~.
! ~I.ln h~jo .tl news cot1!~ence
: '0, ",..~~) (1) UcnoUllcc Penman,
...."0 l~ run~ror mayor. JObn-
: 'un ".nts the Sun B'rnardlnD
: C :':u.nry dJ~lrfct atlliml1~,.I!I omc'
; ill jm:~t Pe~... llo'M be
, :illc~cd rnJslUt'd srat1 time aad
; :'\!;. n::)Ou!"CC$ ~ lObbing accu~
: .,."LOM <Ie vaUe.3 rather tbu1
. "'oPCJlflg 1''''~lnW"" which I~
'.iI. 1"'gts.lath"C ~vk':... CoUlllllt.
l!.;(."sp~.
JOhn":n, who supports Sup'"
Jill; Court Jud~e !'at Morns'
m~'Oral rJlndidacY, >;lit! 'lJch
mjSu'~ V'toJate5 ~.:n.e l~w. He
",in iliK the Clllllldi Monda, 10
rCQuest an inve5tlglcon, he
said,
The city ~ttum.r culled J"iln.
''In'S step silly.
PC1lIllllll 3lsD said he ~I;jns [tl
draft a I'tiOlur\on that cat.. ~"
tilt Wtl'tct anorn~y'$ Public
lntegrlly Lilit to Invest!tat~
rumon; about S<lllle o!licWl;
using ,'ity phon.. and "'lwp
ment to oupoort other m.y"",l
candldat.=,
"PooPle 11'110 llve lJ1 ~Iu!\:!
bo""," abauldll't tlU'Ow 3~11e:i."
be >ald.
"If Wohnsonl puts somelhin~
on tlle CllunclJ ageIKtt ... thal\
aJmed at promot!1\g Jllllgr. ~lvr
rj~' l'JllllplllllD by attacldn; ilD'
oUt.... candidate, tluIt would he J
mJsw. 0( hJs otIll!1aJ pMltlon lil
campnigl\." PoIUllllll I$lIld. "!'Ii
lUY't n(j reeuum but to ref~r
thaI to tn.. dlstliclau.\Il'I1"Y rnr
lnvesligallon. "
Penmllll obs~ed th.t all Ibe
uth~r City COl1llclJ lllelllber-; l1l'e
ettller ruMlag for election
tlltmscJm or ll.n'e endllrud J
(;&J1dil1ll. ill NoVlllllber'S elet;.
Uun, If lIIey bad Jc)h""",,, they
.'Oll!d flDd themscMs before
lb. Publk Intelriry Unlt.~ wen,
S/a 1IlQlJES.1i5
--
-
r M^ nu,
.J
; INQUIRIES
It''ll.'.!IIiClI11
. t b' city uttomr.y 'ald.
l::.\C1'l Councilwoman .susan
Lien L<1ngvUle, who i. ntll "',,k
'og "...Iedlon.may not be ..fe.
Moms ofliCll8tlld It her "'~d,
ctil1~, ~nd \M has enllOnled !lUll
fm muvor.
She laughed WIlen tald of tbe
. plJMc'd requests for govern.
rr"nr prot>es
'On. ,.., San ~ru""ilinc I. .
~ gl'!"al {I1wn," .{he said. "San
IkroardlM and u", OK Corm!."
She dedlnf'd to say how she
y,:,ll \'')It' tin .J(}lllt.;;.t)n'~ r-e~olu-
non,
Di~ri{'( attorncY'l 31><>k..,;
r. UD/UO
! FRIDAV, S~!ll~ 16, 2005.: .!~
woman SU3tlJ'1 ~[lC'.it?'o 3uic:1 thr
Public Integrity [nil \~i11 ;.v'ell'
llllY cOlllplaJDU it gets
IlUt SIlo Sl:t'CSSCd that there
ClUl be a bu~ 111Jl'~l'\:IJ"" be,
tween ronsidenl1j( the merits of
Itn. tlb:u~l.ltion and pur~uing lill
tDVcstlgatlon.
ShQ ssid the taslt r01"('O "'on'!
let ltAelf b. u.e~ :IS n polid'~l
wtaPllrl
"TI\at was one <If our con-
cern.. when we first e,mblisbcd
\hil progrum: IhI! ult1
"W" weTe kind or expect.
ing ttJlO~S to get inLer",<Ll"~
during tni~ jl<llltlctJ SC3SOn.
and thi~ L~n 't e"(;]l'llv .1 sur.
proSe," .
Ae4Cfi Ctln!: Rlc-.are ,H ;5~: ~'.;c":'R
or entl"t8r~.~
f\nt-II-UtJ II :.HI
~1/2005 10:29
ll;~~'4b44
213895:
P 01
ETABACHNICK
R-311
Jab-101
PAGE 02/02
EXHIBIT 8
-
.- .
THE STATE BAR
OF CALIFORNIA
1149 SOUTH HlU.STREET, LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90015.2299
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRlAL COUNSEL
INTAKE
TEI..EPHONE (213) 765-1000
roo' (213) 765-1566
FAX (213) 765-1168
http://www.ClI.lbtLr.cp..gov
DIRECT DIAL: (213) 765-1293
Apri17,2006
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
" '-- ,..~-, --.
RE: Inquiry Number:
Respondent:
Complainant:
05-17429
James F. Penman
Judith Valles
t- "."{~:.:'.',.....:r'-,'_l- ::~D
k :"_1.0 .':]
'. . \ "",.',"'ICI(
A L" ,.,' : " : IT0RAI ION
Erica Tabachnick
900 Wilshire Blvd, #1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Dear Ms. Tabachnick:
This letter is sent to you based upon information that you currently represent the Respondent in this
matter. If this is incorrect, please advise me within five days so that I may redirect this lettcr to the
Respondent personally.
We have reviewed and evaluated the above referenced matter. The determination has been made that
thcre arc insufficient grounds for disciplinary action. Therefore, wc are closing our file at this time,
without prejudice.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation,
Very truly yours,
~C
Dane C. Dauphine
Supervising Trial Counsel
DCD/dd