[Cal. Bar Journal]A State Bar Court judge has compared Beverly Hills lawyer Richard I. Fine to a "gladiator”, and not in a good way.
Dispite Fine’s impressive academic credentials--a law degree from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics—Judge Richard Honn has recommended that Fine be disbarred for his campaign of harassment against “almost every judicial officer who ruled against him.”
Honn found that Fine committed 16 acts of moral turpitude by repeatedly challenging judges who ruled against him, filing frivolous actions and meritless appeals and making misrepresentations to the court. Fine’s actions, Honn wrote, were done “out of spite, for revenge and to harass”.
When his efforts to disqualify judges in various state courts failed, Fine took his campaign to the federal courts, where he filed more lawsuits against the same judges.
Judge Honn stated:
“[Fine] played the courts like a bully in a child’s game of dodge ball — retaliating by aggressively throwing the ball back at those who just knocked him out of the center. But what may have started out as a game soon escalated into a war, with meritless litigation tactics as the primary weapons . . . In [Fine’s] world, he became a gladiator, waging battle by whatever means he could muster, irrespective of his ethical duties.”It all started in 1996 when, as a veteran attorney with more than 20 years of practice under his belt, Fine filed a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles seeking damages arising from about 1,000 medical exams conducted by an imposter doctor for an insurance company. The original group of 19 clients grew to 491 after the class was certified; Fine represented about 75 percent of the clients as class counsel.
Superior Court Commissioner Bruce Mitchell handled the proceedings, approving a settlement in 1999 of $7.868 million. Attorney’s fees amounted to about $2.6 million and Fine stood to earn as much as $1.9 million for his work on the case. Just before a “fairness hearing,” Fine filed a motion for partial distribution of attorney’s fees — a $1.4 million advance for himself — and a partial distribution of $2,000 to each of the original 19 clients from the settlement proceeds. The judge agreed to the distribution to the clients but denied any distribution to the lawyers.
Once Mitchell began ruling against Fine, Honn said, Fine embarked on “a litigation rampage” against Mitchell, ultimately filing 12 disqualification challenges against him. Another superior court judge sent him to jail for three days and imposed a $1,000 sanction. The court of appeal ruled against Fine, finding his challenges to Mitchell were without merit and contained false allegations.
In response to the multitude of adverse rulings, Fine filed a federal civil rights suit against three court of appeal judges, two superior court judges, two court clerks and Mitchell.
Mitchell also presided over another class action suit Fine filed against the city of Los Angeles, alleging that it overcharged residents on their sewer bills.
Wrote bar court Judge Honn:
“Everything [Fine] did in filing his frivolous challenges and petitions was done to harass the targeted bench officers and to interfere with the prompt resolution of the cases.”
Fine filed disqualification challenges against Mitchell in four other matters, each one frivolous, said Honn. He also filed three more federal civil rights lawsuits against judges, claiming variously that they denied him due process, equal protection and property interests, among other rights.
His actions, Honn wrote, amounted to “an almost never-ending attack on anyone (including attorneys and judicial officers) who disagreed with him or otherwise got in his way.”
Fine said nothing he did supports Honn’s conclusions and that all his cases were filed legitimately, under valid statutes. (But they all say that, don't they?)--Blogonaut
14 comments:
Your article was impressive for the information it omitted or misreported. Had the article disclosed the "facts" as shown by the evidence in the "trial", the real "Bully" may be the State Bar who is violating every lawyer's and client's First Amendment rights, by prosecuting lawyers who are fighting to stop corruption and abuse of power by those who are entrusted to protect us, particularly judicial officers who act without jurisdiction or for their own personal benefit. As shown herein, the actions of the State Bar demonstrate actions to protect the financial interest of the members of the Board of Governors and the self interest of members of the the judiciary being paid monies by parties appearing before them, or using class action settlement monies for their own benefit instead of paying such to the class members, over the interests of following the law and maintaining the integrity of the judicial system. The article's major omissions are as follows amongst others: First, it wrongfully analagized a proper motion for a new trial at the end of the Hearing Department proceeding to an act of "moral turpitude", demonstrating a lack of understanding of the legal system. Every trial attorney knows and that a motion for a new trial must be made when the trial court has committed error. Second, it omitted to inform the reader that the State Bar Court does not have the "authority" to order an "involuntary inactive enrollment" or place an attorney on "inactive status". See CRC Rule 9.10 which sets out the "Authority of the State Bar Court". The act of ordering "inactive status" was a violation of such Rule and a violation of the position of the State Bar which is an "administrative arm" to the Supreme Court without disciplinary power. See In re Rose, (2000) 22 Cal.4th 430 at 442 and cases cited therein. Although a reference exists therein, to inactive enrollment under B&P Code § 6007(c), at FN 7, CRC Rule 9.10 does not give authority for such. In my case, the action of the State Bar Court was particularly egregious in that the State Bar never made an application for a B&P Code § 6007(c), hearing or made a B&P Code § 6007(c)charge in the NDC. These actions raise constitutional issues of no notice. (The failure to give notice of the substance of the charges in the NDC as required by In re Ruffalo (1968) 390 U.S. 544 shows a denial of due process.) Third, it omitted to look at the actual allegations in the NDC. The allegations in the NDC were solely based upon court filings of three federal civil rights cases, one notice of appeal, one petition for writ of mandate, one petition for writ of supersedeas and disqualifications against Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell who was not the "temporary judge" in the DiFlores case after the Final Judgment but continued to issue void orders after the Final Judgment in violation of the Final Judgment and CCP §473(d),Cal. Const. Art. 6, §21, CCP §259(d) and the LASCR, and who also issued a sanction order in the Shinkle case when he was not a "temporary judge" in violation of CCP 1008(d), Cal. Const. Art. 6, §21, CCP §259(d) and the LASCR. The NDC contained 22 counts alleging "moral turpitude": (1)Counts 1-5 in the DiFlores case for the filing of 12 disqualifications against Commissioner Mitchell, (the particular substance of which were not disclosed in the NDC), and one appeal; (2)Counts 6-13 in the Shinkle case for filing one disqualification against Commissioner Mitchell, filing a petition for writ of mandate and making three true statements therein, filing a petition for writ of supersedeas and filing a notice of appeal; (3)Count 14 for filing disqualifications against Commissioner Mitchell in other cases (the substance of the disqualifications were not disclosed in the NDC); (4)Counts 15-17 for filing a federal 42 U.S.C §1983 civil rights suit against Judge Kurt Lewin, et al for accepting money from LA County while it was a party before him and not disclosing such in violation of the 1997 Trial Court Funding Act, (Government Code §§ 77201(a)), the Political Reform Act (Government Code §§ 87200, 87203 and 872030), CCP § 170.9 and the Code of Judicial Ethics, Cannons Nos. 2A, 3D, 3E, 4D and 6 and Government Code § 69894.3 which establishes a method of the local court passing a “rule” and the County passing an Ordinance to provide benefits to judges, which statute may also violate Cal. Const. Art. VI, §19 which requires the Legislature to set the salary of the judges. Government Code §§ 68200-68211 sets the salaries and benefits of judicial officers, which effectively disqualified Judge Lewin from acting thereby removing him from being a "judicial officer" with immunity, and amending such in accordance with the suggestions of Judge Matz in his opinion; (5)Counts 18-19 for filing the same type of federal 42 U.S.C §1983 civil rights suit as a defendants class action seeking injunctive relief against Judge James C. Chalfant, Commissioner Mitchell, Justice Todd (all of whom accepted monies from LA County while it was a party before them and did not disclose such) and Justices Boren and Nott who knew of such payments to Justice Todd and did not disclose such; and (6) Counts 20-22 for filing a federal 42 U.S.C §1983 civil rights suit against Commissioner Mitchell (who was not a "judicial officer" in the DiFlores case, J.Stephen Czuleger (who did not have jurisdiction to act in the DiFlores case and who was later disqualified when he did not respond to a disqualification and his contempt order voided by operation of law), Robert A. Dukes (the Presiding Judge of the LA Superior Court who was acting in an administrative capacity), Justices Boren, Nott and Todd (who did not have jurisdiction to act in the DiFlores case as the September 24, 2001 Contempt Order upon which they "ruled" had been voided and annulled leaving no order upon which for them to rule and all other orders of Commissioner Mitchell were void due to no jurisdiction and violations of CCP §473(d), and they were left only in their administrative capacity) and Appellate Court Clerk Joseph A. Lane and LA Superior Court Clerk John A. Clarke (each acting in their administrative capacity)(The actions against the judges and others acting without jurisdiction or in an administrative capacity are sanctioned under Ex Parte Virginia, (1880) 100 U.S. 339 and Forrester v. White, (1988) 44 U.S. 219. The action against the judicial officers for “habeas corpus” violations, after imprisonment are sanctioned under Spencer v. McKenna, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-7171 (March 3, 1998)); Fourth, it omitted to inform the reader that there were two contempt actions, both of which were voided. In the first September 24, 2001 contempt order by Commissioner Mitchell, the Court of Appeal upheld the the contempt. This contempt was then voided and annulled on August 21, 2002 by the Superior Court after the U.S. District Court issued an OSC re issuing immediate habeas corpus relief without hearing on August 12, 2002. This "voiding and annulling" removed the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, and voided its decision. The second contempt order of September 29, 2003, by Judge J.Stephen Czuleger, became void when the judge did not respond to a disqualification challenging his conduct prior to the contempt through the time of the disqualification, thereby disqualifying him and the contempt became void as a matter of law. Fifth, it omitted to tell the reader that Commissioner Mitchell ordered the removal of approximately $1.6 million from the Di Flores Class Settlement Fund in violation of the Section 5, Paragraph 5.2 of the Stipulation of Settlement and Final Judgment (See Joint Trial Ex. 180), through approving the purchase of all claims held by Fine against “Bruce E. Mitchell, the Superior Court and other judicial officers” in the name of the class members for $40,000.00 with another $40,000.00 to be paid to defend the purchase in violation of Section 5, Paragraph 5.2 (b), approving $300,000.00 to be paid to specially appointed “class bankruptcy counsel” to defend the purchase in violation of Section 5, Paragraph 5.2(b) approving $1.6 million in attorneys fees to “plaintiffs counsel” on the condition that they would withhold 35% (or approximately $566,464.65) to fund the defense of the “purchase" in violation of Section 5, Paragraph 5.2 (b), (of the $1.6 million of attorneys fees, the additional violations of the Stipulation of Settlement Section 5, Paragraph 5.2(a)(i)-(iv) were approximately $1,075,000.00 in “Individual Fees and Costs in violation of Paragraph 5.2 (a)(i)-(iv) and approximately $301,342.22 in Attorney Fee Reserve Fund in violation of Paragraph 5.2 (a)(I)-(iv)); Sixth it omitted to tell the reader that Commissioner Mitchell, based upon the accounting presented by the Disbursing Agent for the March 13, 2006 hearing in the DiFlores case, illegally paid, Byron Moldo who is also the “receiver” and “notice giver”, an estimated $510,172.00 for performing attorneys work, acting as a “receiver”, and a “notice giver” in violation of Section 5, Paragraph 5.2(b) of the Stipulation of Settlement, illegally paid, Diane Karpman, of Karpman & Associates, an estimated $55,980.00 as an “ethics expert” to assist “plaintiffs’ attorneys” in violation of Section 5, Paragraph 5.2(b) of the Stipulation of Settlement, illegally paid, Bernard George Investigations an estimated $10,146.00 as an “investigator” to investigate Fine in violation of Section 5, Paragraph 5.2(b) of the Stipulation of Settlement, illegally paid, Joel Rudof an estimated $7,939.00 to contact Richard I. Fine’s clients in violation of Section 5, Paragraph 5.2(b) of the Stipulation of Settlement, illegally paid, Tovar & Cohen $800.00 to retain a medical expert for the Court in violation of Section 5, Paragraph 5.2(b) of the Stipulation of Settlement, and illegally paid, $768.00 to purchase a “scanner” for an unstated purpose in violation of Section 5, Paragraph 5.2(b) of the Stipulation of Settlement (See Joint Trial Ex. 180); Seventh it omitted to inform the reader that the NDC was brought and pursued by the State Bar and the State Bar Court with the knowledge of the conflict of interest of State Bar Board Member and President Sheldon Sloan and State Bar Public Board Member Laura Chick each of whom had a “Financial Interest” in Fine being removed from the practice of law, and each of whom did not disclose such in violation of B&P Code §6036 which deliberate non disclosure is a misdemeanor under B&P Code §6037; Eighth it omitted to inform the reader that the State Bar Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the NDC as the NDC should not have been allowed to be filed as it violated SBRP 261(c) in that it was over two years since a previous NDC involving the same transactions was dismissed without prejudice in the furtherance of justice and the State Bar had not received permission from the court to file the instant NDC; Ninth it omitted to inform the reader that the NDC should have been dismissed under SBRP 262(d) as the State Bar violated B&P Code § 6085 and did not give notice of the charges under SBRP 262(c)2 and committed fraud on the Court by not disclosing that Commissioner Mitchell was the "Complaining Party" and "Complaining Witness" who filed the complaint leading to the NDC and deliberately misleading the court by telling it that a State Bar investigation had uncovered the facts in violation of B&P Code §6068(d); Tenth it omitted to inform the reader that the statute of limitations of SBRP Rule 51(a) is applicable to all allegations prior to February 6, 2001; Eleventh it omitted to tell the reader that the State Bar Court denied discovery in violation of B&P Code §6085.5 and Constitutional Due Process by the Hearing Department’s withholding its Decision on the March 3, 2006 Motion to Dismiss until June 1, 2006, three weeks after the Discovery Cut Off and the State Bar did not provide any information or even attend a Discovery Conference required by the SBRP; and Twelfth it omitted to tell the reader that the State Bar admitted that it researched the files of thirty cases to develop the charges in the NDC, amongst other things. These facts show that the actions upon which the NDC is based are protected by the First Amendment under the concepts expressed in Lockary v. Kafetz (9th Cir. 1992) 974 F.2d 1166 with the State Bar encroaching on the freedom of an attorney to advocate the cause of his client and himself when the judicial officers or those purporting to be judicial officers have abused their position of public trust. The questions are "Who is the real 'Bully'?" and "Who has abused the public trust?" With due respect to Judge Honn's opinions of our judicial system, the judicial system is not a game of "dodge ball" laced with internecine personal disputes amongst the players. It is the corner stone of our democracy, to be vigorously defended against all who attempt to compromise its principles, for their personal benefit or to abuse the trust placed in them by the public. Sincerely, Richard I. Fine
Wow, I think Fine just 'bullied' the comments section!
Hey Fine, start referring to yourself as 'Thompson' and that XBOX picture at the top of the post starts making a whole lot more sense.
The State Bar supposedly exists for the protection of the public. Does anyone seriously believe that judges need protection from lawsuits? Believe me, there are numerous effective ways to curtail vexatious litigation, if that was what it was. Suing judges in court does not constitute moral turpitude, except in the mind of the State Bar.
If you doubt the California State Bar is a leashless mad dog, take a look at its obstruction of justice. (http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com/2007/12/kanbaroo-court-14th-installment-turning.html)There you will see some real moral turpitude.
Then look at its misconduct in a third case (http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com/2007/11/kanbaroo-court-6th-installment.html)
Stephen Ronald Diamond - #183617
Legal Rsch & Writing Svc
61967A Begonia Pl
Joshua Tree, CA 92252
Undergraduate School Johns Hopkins Univ; Baltimore MD
County San Bernardino Law School Univ of Denver COL; Denver CO
Present Not Eligible To Practice Law
1/5/2008 Not Eligible To Practice Law
9/24/1996 Admitted to The State Bar of California
Disciplinary and Related Actions
1/5/2008 Ordered inactive 05-O-4605 Not Eligible To Practice Law
You can find a legal analysis of the Bar Court action against Fine at http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com/2008/02/kanbaroo-court-30th-installment-richard.html and http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com/2008/02/kanbaroo-court-30a-installment.html
For my case, see: http://kanBARoo.blogspot.com
(kanBARoo Court: How legal ineptitude engenders oppression)
For all you people who slam Fine you guys are clueless. Here's a man who is standing up for people and sticking his neck out to preserve the truth and seek justice and you want to disbar him? You need to think again. Mr. Fine is just that - A FINE man and a FINE attorney. He is the attorney that all of us wish we had. He doesn't cave in to court Politics or go golfing with the Judge. He sticks to the law and he compels others to do the same. Most attorney's don't have an ounce of this man's integrity.
Kathleen Dearinger
Attorney Fine is one of the best attorney's in the Country. Fine had the gut's to call the judges out on their corruption, in addition to questioning the extra pay that the judges are receiving from the County in addition to the pay that the state is paying them.
True, most attorney's won't fight for their clients this vigiously, because they are afraid of retailiation; however, Fine is a man of integrity.
Many spectators attended Fine's hearing and they were amazed, first of all, Fine was talking over their heads, they didn't even understand what Fine was saying, bottomline, Fine is a genius with respect to the law.
Secondly, he attempted to recuse the presiding judges on this hearing based upon the fact they all three are also plaintiff's in his case, you see they gave him the department in which to appear; however, they omitted the names of whom would be presiding on the case; thus not giving him time to recsue them via a motion.
Third, you see, they were caught, the news was there with the camera's , watching as one of the judges slept. Most inportant, they refused to remove themselves, they attempted to set Fine up, and they were caught red handed with the local news there to witness.
Lastly, all three of these judges violated the law by withholding their names on the summons (only putting down the department ) it was unethical and sneaky. How can any of these three presiding judges sit in judgement of Attorney?
I'd say that Anonymous and Mr. Diamond are synonymous; ass-kissers who are just jealous.
It's funny how people rip others apart for standing up to protect other people's rights. When Mr. Fine wins his next victory he will be a hero to many. Those who write discouraging words will have to eat them later on and contend with his supporters.
I don't know attorney Fine. I have acted as a local activist in many actions against the County of Los Angeles where judges have made inexplicable rulings that seemed contrary to both the law and the facts. The "gift" of $40,000 each to every single Los Angeles Superior Court judge may explain some of these otherwise inexplicable and to me unjust and perverse rulings.
Mr. Fine should be considered a CHAMPION of the law and the People, not some kind of out of control nut. Each and every Judge in Los Angeles County had an ethical responsibility to at least disclose the inherant conflict of interest he or she had in getting the extra unlawful $40,000 a year from the County of Los Angeles and to allow themselves to be disqualified. Thats a MINIMUM standard of ethics that the JUDGES are not observing.
It seems to me that the Judges rather than Mr. Fine are the people who are guilty of moral turpitude and who should be disbarred.
What a joke our local judicial system is!
Just for the denial of a much needed restraining order in 6/94 alone should be enough to get him off any bench permanently.
Galdi vs. Megdal YCO30202
www.fbiblacklistedspecialagentfrankjester.com
Just for the denial of a much needed restraining order in 6/94 alone should be enough to get him off any bench permanently.
Galdi vs. Megdal YCO30202
www.fbiblacklistedspecialagentfrankjester.com
Just for the denial of a much needed restraining order in 6/94 alone should be enough to get him off any bench permanently.
Galdi vs. Megdal YCO30202
www.fbiblacklistedspecialagentfrankjester.com
COMMISSIONER BRUCE MITCHELLS CARREER WILL SOON HE OVER BY HIS OWN ACTIONS
I recently published an analysis of Fine's imprisonment as related to the big issue of biased judges: "Gratuitously paying judges biases them: Caperton, Sturgeon, Fine" (http://tinyurl.com/ceom77)
http://juridicalcoherence.blogspot.com
Post a Comment