UPDATED

Fired State Bar Director Fights Back in Whistleblower Suit

, The Recorder

   | 4 Comments

Bar leaders have yet to explain why they put an immediate end to Joe Dunn's tenure as executive director.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Catherine Rucker, law school student

    The California Supreme Court did not make specific comments when it returned the proposed rules for Professional Conduct. But what it did say was that the rules were too massive. Also, the court ordered the CA Bar to dissolve the committee and to start over with new committee members. So, those were implied comments that the proposed rules were unacceptable.

  • Howard

    The Office of Chief Trial Counsel does not enforce the Rules of Professional Conduct I have done researched on two California Bar Members who in a federal habeas corpus case abandoned their client and the federal judge had to vacate a judgment based upon a factual finding that the attorneys abandoned their client.

    The B & P Code 6068 (o) (7) requires that this is a self reporting requirements and the two attorneys did not report.

    Additionally, one of the attorneys was already under a state bar court complaint and the bar never did anything against this attorney.

    In fact there is a second case pending in Federal Court against this conduct and is awaiting a decision.

    Ms Kim does not enforce either the State Bar Act or the Rules of Professional Conduct and it well documented as what could be a more complying proof but a federal court judgment, according Ms Kim the judges decision is does not mean anything and denied the complaint.

  • Catherine Rucker, law school student

    Dear California Supreme Court,
    I think that the CA Bar should clean up its internal affairs before it dumps its massive and burdensome "practical skills requirements" on the law student and the law schools. See the Task Force on Admissions Regulation Reform (TFARR) website within cabler.ca.gov.

  • Been There Done That

    Welcome to the club Joe. The State Bar has a history of engaging in retaliation against those willing to expose its unlawful and unethical practices. This will continue to be the culture at the Bar until it rids itself of Robert Hawley -- the architect of every retaliatory action and the most unethical and dishonest executive ever employed by the Bar. Prepare yourself for fabricated justifications and manipulative internal actions that are falsely portrayed to the public and others as unbiased and fair.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202676361630

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.