In this decision, the Central District of California found Irell's performance wanting. The Court suppressed evidence based on failure of the defendant's counsel -- Irell -- to properly disclose actual and potential conflicts, and for giving stupefyingly bad advice. The government took its lumps -- important evidence was suppressed. Irell, on the other hand, not quite so much. There is the embarrassment of a public rebuke by the Court, which is something. And the Court referred the firm to the State Bar. But that is the end. The Court did not order disgorgement of fees, and did not sanction any particular lawyers or the firm's management. I did not see anything in the order which would put any particular lawyers in front of the State Bar. And that seems odd. Someone had to have committed the violations -- particular lawyers are named as having communicated in various ways, but the Court never says anything about any of them violating their duties. The firm alone violated duties? That is odd. Not only because actual people have to do the things which constitute the violation, but also because it is unclear how the firm could be under the State Bar. The firm is not a member of the Bar, never sat for an exam, etc. The members did. And what will the Bar do? Is there some provision allowing sanctions against a firm, rather than against some lawyer? It looks, in the end, that there is the public reprimand and nothing more. Which hardly seems a deterrent, let alone justice.
On the other hand, the Bar did successfully prosecute a prosecutor for ethical violations. The outcome of that, is mixed up. But remarkable that it happened. So maybe there is more there than I think. Not for the first time.
Recent Comments