Transcription
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDATHE FLORIDA BARComplainantVs.JEROME BERGRespondent))))))))))Supreme Court Case No. SC08-957The Florida Bar FileNo. 2007 – 00, 818(2A)RESPONDENT’S AMENDEDINITIAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HISPETITION FOR REVIEW OF THEJANUARY 7, 2009 REPORT OF THEREFEREEAttorney discipline in California need not follow precedent (stare decisis).Discretion to overturn precedent by easily dismissed untenured 6-year contract“judges” for only one case is the new California standard. See pages 19 to 33.Jerome Berg, Bar #54421255 Post Street, Suite 606San Francisco, CA 94109(415) 775-7751
Table of ContentsPageI.II.Statement Of The Case and of the Facts - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1A.A summary of the argument: the California State Bar Courtviolated the rule of law to disbar Petitioner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1B.A conclusion of the argument is that The Florida Court ruleexception to rule 3-4.1 under Wilkes results in a finding that theCalifornia disbarment was deficient for failure to allow Petitionera full a fair opportunity to prove his defenses - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1C.Petitioner contends that Florida Court rule 3-4.6(b) refers thisCourt to California’s published rules and case law - - - - - - - - - - - - -2The factual basis for this discipline matter is found in one casewhere Respondent was forbidden a full and fair opportunity to litigateand another where a unidentified lawyer friend of Petitioner’s clientschemed to seek 20,000.00 from Petitioner over a 650.00 claim - - - - - - 3A.Two suits from the bottom of the barrel support the Florida Bar’scomplaint - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3B.Three California suits support the Florida Bar’s complaint.The first suit is a civil action contesting legal fees of “IndependentCounsel” - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4C.These laws focus the “coverage/conflicts problem - - - - - - - - - - - - -7D.Synopsis of the charges against Respondent’s clients with referencesto the court clerk’s records (marked C.T.) and the court reporter’srecord (marked R.T.) of the legal fee suit referred to in The FloridaBar’s Complaint Count I which were offered to the referee (about1200 pages of the court reporter’s record and several volumes of theclerk’s transcript) but the referee accepted the unobjected to extractsof the court record as it appears below - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -82
Pagea.b.iii.The cases against Dr. W (unlicensed workers practice dentistry)i.Malpractice cases - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8ii.The “retreatment” claims against Dr. W. - - - - - - - - - - -9iii.Retreatment claims became a source of more malpracticelawsuits- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9iv.The contract lawsuit- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9The cases against Dr. P (a “meat factory”)i.The retreatment claims- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10ii.The malpractice litigation- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10The contract suit- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -12c.III.The cases against Dr. M (unlicensed surgery) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12The civil case against Petitioner began with a summary judgmentthat held Petitioner was not entitled to pay for 50% of his work as“independent counsel” for the dentists- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13A – Can an insurer fire “independent” counsel for its insured? - - - - - - - - 13IV.The two dentists who face multiple claims presented four classes ofproblems for Petitioner- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14B – Instead of accurately quoting the text of California Civil Code Section2860, the California Court of Appeal inserted a requirement notmandated by 2860 that Petitioner had to present “direct” evidence ofconflicts to justify his employment as “independent counsel” - - - - - - - - -15V.Respondent Created A Private Mediation Method To Resolve The 200 PlusPre-litigation Claims- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 153
PageVI.The California Trial Court’s Summary Judgment In TDIC v Berg- - - - - - 15VII. The second action concerned Ms. Reynolds who had been injured in twoauto accidents- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17VIII. The Third Action Was A Disbarment Proceeding- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19A – The California Supreme Court abandoned writing disbarmentcases- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -19B – “Judge” Brott reduced Petitioner’s hearing time to present hisdefense from a scheduled day and a half to a skimpy single hour- - - - 21IX.Swivel Headed “Judges” Of The California State Bar ReviewDepartment- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22A – California State Bar Review Department Judges Obrien & Stovitzparticipated as the majority of a three judge panel in 3 state bardiscipline cases swiveling their heads to injure Petitioner- - - - - - - - - 22B – The rules of collateral estoppel apply to attorney discipline hearings inCalifornia- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23C – Petitioner was denied the right to a full and fair defense in the CaliforniaState Bar Court- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24D – The California State Bar Court returned to the classic collateral estoppelrule- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24E – Details of Petitioner’s unfair disbarment- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -261.The underlying civil case- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26F – In the State Bar Court Review Department- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30G – Standard of review- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 324
PageX.The legal issues focused in Petitioner’s California disbarment violateduniversal American Rules of Law- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32A – The Restatement of Judgments, 2d expresses the California andFlorida rule regarding preclusive use of a prior judgment- - - - - - - - - 32XI. Florida observes the majority rule of the law of collateral estoppelexpressed in the Restatement of Judgment, 2d, section 28- - - - - - - - - -33A – Florida cases- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33B – Judges who reject stare decisis must explain in writing why achange is needed- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33C – The test: Did Respondent have a full and fair opportunity toprove his defense?- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34D – Florida follows stare decisis- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35XII. A Closer Examination of the California State Bar Court ReviewDepartment discussion In The Matter Of Berg [reproduced As Exhibit6(b), I Of R Tab 10] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -36A – The doctrine of stare decisis compels established rules of law to befollowed in current cases. Petitioner produced defense of liabilityevidence- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38XIII. Dissenting California Supreme Court judges explain the new method(Cal. Rules Of Court, Rule 954) to discipline California lawyers using6-Year contract lawyers with no tenure rights as “Judges” - - - - - - - - - - - 40XIV. Mitigation Under Florida’s Lawyer Sanction Standards- - - - - - - - - - - - - 42A – A long and successful legal career- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -425
PageB – These cases demonstrate competence. Lawyers know that fewer thanone appeal in 10 benefits a plaintiff appellant. Fewer than one in 20 or30 cases that benefit the appellant are published by the CaliforniaSupreme Court- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -45C – Petitioner applied for a real estate license- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 46D –A California Court of Appeal judge describes a “kangaroo court” - - - 46E – Judicial officers worked hard to upset the separation ofpowers by re-writing the controlling statutes in violation oftheir oaths- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 47XV. Conclusion- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -496
Table of AuthoritiesPageCalifornia StatutesCalifornia Business and Professions Code Section 10,177(f) - - - - - - - - - -47California Business and Professions Code Section 6079.1 - - - - - - - - - - - 19California Business and Professions Code Section 6200 - - - - - - - - - - - 4,13California Business and Professions Code Section 1617(b) - - - - - - - - - - 26California Civil Code Section 1668- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7California Civil Code Section 2860(c)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,14,36California Insurance Code Section 253 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7California Insurance Code Section 533 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7California Court of Appeal DecisionsAssurance Co. of America v Haven (1995) 32 Cal.App. 4th78[Cal.Rptr.3d 198] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36Barragan v Banco BCH(1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 283,296[232 Cal.Rptr.758] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32Bommareddy v Superior Court(1990)222 Cal.App.3d 1017[272 Cal.Rptr.246] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - 8Clemmer v Hartford Ins. Co.(1978)22 Cal.App.3d 865,887;[151 Cal.Rptr.285] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - 7Gilmore v Superior Court(1991)230 Cal.App.3d 416,418[281 Cal.Rptr.343-344-5] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 107
PageGolden Eagle Ins. Co. v Foremost Ins. Co.(1993)20 Cal.App.4th1372- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7Schaffer v. Superior Court(1995)33 Cal.App.4th 993 [39 Cal.Rptr.560] - - 25Selby Department of Motor Vehicles(1980)110 Cal.App.3d 4700,473[168 Cal.Rptr.36,37] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35Johnson v Glaxosmithkline, Inc.(2008)166 Cal.App.4th 1497,1507 - - - - - 32Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, etc.(2000)91 Cal.Rptr.2d 877,884-886- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10People v. Harbolt(1997)61 Cal.App.4th 123,127-128[71 Cal.Rptr.2d 459,461] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -10People v. McHenry(2000)Cal.App.4th 380[54 Cal.Rptr.3d 198] - - - - - - - -35People v. Tolbert(1986)176 Cal.App.3d 685,690[222 Cal.Rptr.313] - - - - 10People v. Zackery(C051434)147 Cal.App.4 380[54 Cal.Rptr.3d 198]- - - -46Quan v. Truck Ins. Exchange(1998)67 Cal.App. 4th 583,598[79 Cal.Rptr.2d 134,142-143] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7Rutherford v. State(1987)188 Cal.App.3d 1267,1283[233 Cal.Rptr.781,789] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35Sacramento v. State of California(1990)50 Cal.3d 51,64[266 Cal.Rptr.139] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - 23Schaffer v. Superior Court(1995)33 Cal.App.4th 993[39 Cal.Rptr.2d 506] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27U.S. Fire insurance Co. V. Johansen(1969)270 Cal.App.2d 824,834;[76 Cal.Rptr.174,180] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 348
PageCalifornia Supreme Court DecisionsAtwater Elementary School v. Truitt 4 Cal.App.4th 583,598[79 Cal.Rptr.2d 134,142-143] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 48City of Sacramento v. State of California(1990)50 Cal.3d 51[266 Cal.Rptr.2d 135] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Com.(1979)25 Cal.3d 891, 902[160 Cal.Rptr.124] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -32Herrsher v. State Bar(1935)4 Cal.2d 399,401-402[49Pac.2d 832,833] - - - -9JC Penney Casualty Ins. Co. v. M.K.(1991)52 Cal.3d 1009 - - - - - - - - - 7,10People v. Cuevas(1995)12 Cal.4th 252[48 Cal.Rptr.2d 135] - - - - - - - - - - 34Superior Court v. County of Mendocino(1996)Cal.4th 45,53)[51 Cal.Rptr.2d 837,842] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 47Taboada v. Sociedad Espanola, Etc.(1923)191 Cal.187[215 P.673] - - - - -27Taylor v. Superior Court(1970)24 Cal.3d 890[157 Cal.Rptr.5, 693,702, 704] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7Torres v. Parkhouse(2001)26 Cal.4th 995, 1003) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -35Walker v. City of San Gabriel 20 Cal.2d 879, 881-882[129 Pac.2d 348] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11California Attorney SanctionsCalifornia State Bar Court Standards for Attorney Sanctions forProfessional Misconduct, Rule 4, 20- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 259
PageFlorida Appellate DecisionsAll Pro Sports Camp, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (1999) 727 So.2d 363,366 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34Baxas Howell Mobley, Inc. v. BP Oil Co., 630 So.2d 207(Fla.3d 1993)- - -34Florida Bar v. Wilkes (1964) 19 So.2d 197 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1,33,49Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35King v. State 684 So.2d 1388- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4McGregor v. Provident Trust Co. 119 Fla.718, 162 So.323 (1935) - - - - - 35Federal California CasesAetna Life Ins. Co. v. Alla Medical Services (9th Cir.,1988)855 F2d. 1470 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -13Adriewski v. Fed. Aviation Administration 2009 filed 12/3/09,Amended April 10, 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32,34Durkin v. Shea & Gould, 92 Fed.3d 1510, 1516 (9th Cir.1996) - - - - - - - - 35Elrich v. Remas, 839 Fed.2d 630, 635 (9th Cir.1988) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35Employers Ins. Etc. v. Albert D. Seeno Constn., (N.D. Cal.1988)629 F.Supp.1150- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36California Cases Against PetitionerThe Dentist Insurance Co. v. Berg- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25,26,38California State Bar Court Attorney Discipline CasesEdmondson v. State Bar (1981) 29 Cal. 339, 345[172 Cal.Rptr.899]- - - - -3710
PageHerrseher v. State Bar (1935) 4 Cal.2d 399,401-402[49 Pac.2d 832, 833] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38In Re Attorney Discipline System (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 582[79 Cal.Rptr.2d 863] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41In Re Rose (2000) 22 Cal.4th 430[93 Cal.Rptr.2d 298] - - - - - - - - - - - -40,41In the Matter of Applicant A (1995) 3 Cal. State Bar Court Rptr.318, 324-325- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -PassimIn the Matter of Berg (1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Court Rptr. 725 - - - - - PassimIn the Matter of Kittrell (2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Court Rptr. 195 - - - -PassimCalifornia Code of Judicial EthicsCode of Judicial Ethics, especially Canon 3 sub 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 47Federal ProcedureAdministrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(a)(A)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -32U.S. Supreme Court CasesAtchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry Co. v. Wichita Bd. of Trade(1973) 412 U.S. 800, 807-08[93 S.Ct.2637, 2374-2375]- - - - - - - - - - - - - 32Rules Regulating the Florida BarRule 3-4.1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1Rule 3-4.6- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2Rule 3-4.6(b) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2Rule 3-11.02(b) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -111
PageFlorida’s Lawyer Sanction Standards9.3- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 429.31- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 429.32 b, d &g- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42Standard K- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45Standard N- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 46California Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional MisconductCalifornia’s Rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct - - - - - - 17, 27Standard 1.2(e)(iii) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -21California Rules of CourtRule 213- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -20Rule 954- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -40California State Bar of Governors Committee on Regulation, Admission, andDiscipline Oversight(the RAD committee) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 48Florida Federal DecisionsGreenblatt v. Drexel Burnam, etc. (11th Circ.1985) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34Mike Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Mercedez Benz of North America(1984) 32 F.3d 528, 532, Cert denied 116 S.Ct.702 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -33Precession Air Parts, Inc. v. Avco Corp. 736F.2d 1499 at 1504- - - - - - - - 3312
PageVasquez v. Metropolitan Dade County, 968 F.2d 1101,1107 (11th Cir. 1992) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34Petitioner’s 8 Successful Appeals in California CourtsCampbell v. General Motors (1982) 2 Cal. 3d 112,[184 Cal.Rptr.891] of common knowledge do notrequire the testimony of an expert. This case is discussedin Witkin’s most important cases in the past 25 years.(See Witkin, Significant Development of California SubstantiveLaw 1970 to 1991, pages 306-307. This book is the textbook ofa statewide 1992 CEB lecture course. Campbell is discussed fora full page in Soule v. General Motors (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 548, 563[34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44Colvig v. RKO General (1965) Cal.App.2d 56 [52 Cal.Rptr.473]Discussed in 2 Witkin, Summary of Law, 9th Ed. 74 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -44Dr. Ascherman v. St. Francis Hospital (1975) Cal.App.3d 507[119 Cal.Rptr.507], is discussed at 9 Witkin Summary of CaliforniaLaw, 9th Ed.560- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44Dr. Gold v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 275[90 Cal.Rptr.161] - - - - - -44Dr. Hillsman v. Sutter Hospital (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 743.[200 Cal.Rptr. 605]. In this case the decision enforced ahospital-based physician whistle blower’s right to due processprotection of his hospital staff status. This case is discussed atlength in 2 Witkin, Summary of California Law 9th Ed. 168.This decision is also frequently referred to in published casesThe latest of which is Janda v. Madera Community Hosp. (1998)[16 Fed.Supp.2d 1181] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -45Guenter v. Lomas and Nettleton Company (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 460[189 Cal.Rptr.470] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -45Payton v. Dr. Weaver (1982) 1
to the court clerk’s records (marked C.T.) and the court reporter’s record (marked R.T.) of the
![IN THE SUPREME COURT OF T]-lE STATE OF MONTANA](/img/7/526b198c923f8.jpg)
