Judge Misconduct: Criminal Case Against Hon. Peter J. McBrien - Informal Probation Order

Judge Peter McBrien Criminal Conviction for Destruction of Public Owned Trees at Effie Yeaw Nature Center in Ancil Hoffman Park - Leaked Probation Order

Tuesday Document Dump

Sacramento Family Court News has obtained the Order of Informal Probation and Minute Order from the criminal prosecution of Sacramento Family Court Judge Peter McBrien. McBrien was charged with felony vandalism for the destruction of oak trees at the Effie Yeaw Nature Center in Ancil Hoffman Park on October 28, 2000. The judge had the trees cut to improve the view from his home on a bluff above the park, according to Sacramento County District Attorney's Office investigator Craig Tourte. Click here to read the Sacramento News and Review cover story about the case. 

Less than 48 hours after the case was filed, McBrien worked out a plea bargain, pleading no contest to a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code § 384a, which prohibits the destruction or removal of public or private trees and other plants. As the probation order reflects, the judge paid a fine of $500 and restitution of $20,000, the estimated value of the public owned trees. McBrien made the payments the same day, and the probation was terminated. 

Many observers considered the plea agreement overly lenient and reflecting a form of professional courtesy because of McBrien's status as a judge and previous employment in law enforcement. The plea deal also reportedly outraged the Ancil Hoffman Park employees who initially discovered and investigated the crime. Before becoming a judge, McBrien worked for the California Department of Justice from 1972 to 1982, and was a member of the California District Attorneys Association from 1979 to 1987. For our complete coverage of Judge Peter McBrien click here. 

For additional articles about the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the document.   

Attorney Misconduct: Federal Indictment for Unethical, Illegal Attorney Conduct Includes Obtaining False and Misleading Testimony

Federal Conspiracy, Honest Services Fraud Indictment Includes Violations of Attorney Fiduciary and Legal Duties

Friday Document Dump

Violations of lawyer ethical standards can be used as evidence of criminal conduct, according to records from a U.S. District Court. A federal criminal indictment filed against an attorney in Nevada indicates that violations of professional standards are one component in a criminal prosecution for honest services mail or wire fraud, conspiracy, money laundering, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Personal injury attorney Noel Gage was charged in a scheme to defraud clients of the honest services of their attorneys, and obtain the money and property of others by false pretenses, representations, promises, omissions of material fact, and half-truths. The indictment recites the duties owed by an attorney to a client, including providing honest services that are free from self-dealing, corruption, fraud, deceit and conflicts of interest. According to the document, the duties include: 

• The duty to deal honestly and forthrightly with others in connection with a client's case;
• The duty to provide honest and independent counsel to clients;
• The duty to remain free of conflicts of interest with a client; 
• The duty to act at all times in the best interests of the client; 
• The duty to disburse money from the proceeds of a client's settlement or judgment honestly and with full disclosure to the client; and 
• The duty to ensure that others who are employed by the attorney in connection with a client's case comport with the same duties and obligations listed above.     

For additional reporting on the issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below: 

Family Court Sacramento - State Law Now Protects Court Employee Whistleblowers

New Law Designates Court Rule Violations as Improper Governmental Activity, Protects Court Employees From Retaliation  

California State Auditor 
Whistleblower Hotline

Governor Jerry Brown yesterday signed into law Assembly Bill 1102. The bill updated and revised a number of Government Code statutes designating the functions and powers of the California State Auditor. In addition, a violation of a California Rule of Court by a state or court employee is now classified as an improper governmental activity equal to corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion, willful omission to perform duty, and similar types of misconduct.

The Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, superior courts and Administrative Office of the Courts are now included in the California Whistleblower Protection Act "state agency" definition. Among other ramifications, the revised definition ensures that the protections of the Act extend to court employees. Under the Act, state employees who make complaints about improper governmental activities are protected from retaliation. Retaliation includes intimidation, the denial of appointment or promotion, a threat of adverse action, a poor performance evaluation, involuntary transfer, or any form of disciplinary action.

Court employees can report improper governmental activities to the State Auditor using the Whistleblower Hotline, by mail, or using an electronic form at the State Auditor website. Under a variety of state statutes, rules, and regulations, state employees who fail to report misconduct may themselves be guilty of misconduct and subject to discipline, job termination, or criminal prosecution. Employee conduct standards include Article 20 of the California Constitution, California Rules of Court rules 10.16, 10.17, and 10.670 and the Court Employee Code of Ethics. 

Court employees may be subject to criminal prosecution under several statutes, including Penal Code sections 470(c) and 470(d), which prohibit altering, corrupting, or falsifying documents. Failing to report a co-worker engaged in criminal conduct may expose a court employee to the same criminal prosecution as an accessory, for aiding and abetting, conspiracy, or under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.   
For the complete California Whistleblower Protection Act, click here.