Perri O'Shaughnessy - Unfit to Practice

For one whole week she had immersed herself in the issues, driven down to Soledad Prison to talk with the client, studied every case in the briefs, reviewed the evidence. The voice in her head that always stood in the way got louder every day, saying, you can’t do this. You’re not good enough. You haven’t had enough time handling this case. You’ll be tongue-tied and the whole court will laugh at you.

You will lose.

But other times, as she sat at her desk in the lamplight long after closing hours, searching for just the right words to persuade the justices that her client deserved another trial, a new feeling would well up in her: a determination to win. She couldn’t fail him. She had to act as a conduit, expressing the principles that would result in justice for him.

She dealt with the seesaw between fear and determination by working harder and longer. The night before the argument, at 4:00 A . M ., Bobby woke her up, crying. She gave him some water and led him to the bathroom, then helped him back into his little bed.

I have a child, she thought to herself before going back to sleep, I have this child and have kept him alive. What could be harder or more important than that?

The morning scheduled for arguments in her case dawned in the traditional San Francisco way: foggy, cool, mysterious. She dressed in her black suit and wore her mother’s watch. At the courthouse downtown, standing outside the doors, Nina experienced one more moment of savage fright. A man’s liberty was at stake. His defense was entrusted to her, and who was she? Just a young woman without much self-confidence, not brilliant, not impressive, not experienced-who was she against the state of California?

Her case was called. She walked to the podium, under the lights. She laid down her papers and set her mind on her client, Klaus, her mother, all the people who had supported her over the long, lonely years and brought her to this place.

She opened her mouth and began to speak.

EXHIBIT ONE

OFFICE OF TRIAL COUNSEL

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

Gayle Nolan, NO. 101447

Attorney at Law

555B Franklin Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

555/698-4947

THE STATE BAR COURT

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

HEARING DEPARTMENT-SAN FRANCISCO

In the Matter of

Nina F. Reilly, No. 379168

A Member of the State Bar

TO: NINA FOX REILLY, Respondent herein:

IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY STATE BAR RULES, INCLUDING EXTENSIONS, YOU MAY BE ENROLLED AS AN INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR AND WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNTIL AN ANSWER IS FILED.

You were admitted to the practice of law in the state of California on January 12, 1994. Pursuant to Rule 510, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, reasonable cause has been found to conduct a formal disciplinary hearing, commencing at a time and place to be fixed by the state bar court (NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING WILL BE MAILED TO YOU BY THE STATE BAR COURT CLERK’S OFFICE), by reason of the following:

COUNT ONE

1. In 2001, you were a sole practitioner in the law firm of Law Offices of Nina F. Reilly, Attorney at Law, 2489 South Lake Tahoe Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, California.

2. While acting in your duties as an attorney, you occupied a position of trust for many clients. For our purposes here, one client group, consisting of Brandy Ann Taylor, Bruce R. Ford, and Angel Guillaume, is represented in this count.

3. Beginning on September 6, while serving in a lawyer-client relationship, and with a primary obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of your clients, for the separate parties as referenced above, you failed to protect client information as required under California Business and Professions Code section 6068 (e) by leaving client files in an unlocked vehicle, which was subsequently stolen from you. You failed to implement the proper safeguards to ensure that client information remained confidential, a violation of your duty to perform competently.

4. Disclosure of the contents of those files has caused harm to your clients. After the loss of your client files, these three individuals were threatened and attacked by a man, Cody Stinson, whom they revealed in private conversations with you, their attorney, they had witnessed fleeing the scene of a murder.

COUNT TWO

1. While acting in your duties as an attorney, you knowingly assisted in the commission of a fraud against the Heritage Life Insurance Company Incorporated, by Kao Vang, former owner of Blue Star Market located in South Lake Tahoe, California.

2. Representing Kao Vang in an insurance claim against Heritage Life, you knew that arson had been committed by your client for the fraudulent purposes of obtaining an insurance settlement. The gross amount of that settlement, since paid in equal portions to Kao Vang and his wife, See Vang, was $210,000.

3. As a result of your personal, speedy delivery of funds to Kao Vang, he left the country before the fraud was apparent, making recovery of the fraudulently obtained funds difficult or impossible. The funds delivered to See Vang have been attached awaiting disposition of this count.

3. Your collection of any portion of that settlement constitutes a separate fraud.

COUNT THREE

1. While representing your client, Kevin Cruz, in a custody case, you engaged in a sexual relationship with him.

2. You employed undue influence in entering into the relationship, and implied that this level of intimacy was required in order for you to continue representation.

3. In violation of Rule 3-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, you continued to represent this client, even though the relationship damaged and prejudiced the client’s case, and resulted in the loss of temporary custody of his two minor children.

By committing the acts described above, you willfully violated your oath and duties as an attorney. In particular, you violated California Business and Professions Code section 6068 (e); and Rule 3-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

“I N THE MATTER OF REILLY,” Judge Hugo Brock said in a soft voice. He had climbed the stairs to his seat with grave eyes downcast, without a word to his clerk. Decorum above all, Nina thought. He’s the type who worries about losing control in the courtroom. How will he handle Jack?

More to the point, how will Jack handle Judge Hugo Brock? She had asked Jack this very question. His answer was, “Don’t worry. Hugo beats the alternatives.”

The huge digital clock on the judge’s dais ticked off the seconds before the momentous switch to 9:30 A.M. In this moment before the hearing began, close together in the tense, windowless room, they all sat at attention, ignoring one another. The judge’s clerk, a girlish-looking woman with festive auburn hair and a midcalf-length blue skirt slit demurely up to her knees, paid no attention to anyone. Black headphones covering her ears, she stared at her computer, with them corporeally only. She might even be working on some other matter, transcribing the words of some other poor practitioner who had suffered in this very chair the previous week.

So defendants felt like this! Nina glanced at Gayle Nolan, the chief trial counsel. Jack called her Pit Bull Nolan, more or less an admission that he considered her competent. In navy wool, glasses low on her nose, her hair in a gray pageboy, she had a haggard expression. Retirement could not be far away, assuming that the state bar still gave its staff retirement benefits. The big money no longer rolled in from California’s attorneys, but the criticism of the whole disciplinary system got louder every year.