You are on page 1of 26

Silicon Valley Public Trust Committee

C/0 Susan Bassi – P.O. Box 2220 Los Gatos, CA 95031 | 831-320-6421 | GilroyBassi@gmail.com

California Supreme Court


c/o Clerk’s Office November 26, 2018
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102 Hand Delivered with USB Exhibits

Re: Appeal of State Bar Antitrust Determination #2018-003

This letter appeals the California State Bar’s Antirust Determination #2018-003. The State Bar erred
by ignoring a request for an independent investigation based on a media audit that revealed potential
antitrust activity involving licensed attorneys associated with the Santa Clara County Bar Association
and employed by the State Bar.

When marriages break and families fracture, mothers and fathers reach to family law attorneys to
assist them in settling their financial matters and their most personal affairs. These unsophisticated
legal consumers rely on the state to assure that the lawyers they retain; act morally, ethically and
according to the law such that justice resembles what they have seen on television and in the movies.

If innocent spouses encounter unethical lawyers who intend to earn unconscionable profits through
an abuse of a legal process that allows for the stealing of savings, raiding of retirements, draining
college investments and foreclosing on family homes, then the potential for antirust activity
becomes a reality as it has in Silicon Valley for the past three decades, which is the subject of this
appeal.

1. Request for Sanctions on State Bar Lawyers

State Bar lawyers violated the Court’s Administrative Order #2017-09-20 when it declined to
investigate allegations of antitrust activity brought to the attention of the State Bar by members of
the public in January 2018 and in March 2018. Both complaints alleged antitrust activity involving
Silicon Valley divorce lawyers and were simply ignored. A pattern commonly seen at the Bar where
family law attorneys in Santa Clara County are concerned.

Mr. Clyde Berg1, the complainant in January 2018, is a victim of attorney crime given a pending
indictment of family law attorney Valerie Houghton. Based on the testimony of other victims, it is
now believed that in addition to stealing from Mr. Berg through a business investment, Ms. Houghton
was consulted with Mr. Berg’s former wife, who made false allegations of domestic violence that cost
Mr. Berg nearly $6,000,000 to defend himself in a Santa Clara County criminal, civil and family law
matter, despite Mr. Berg having executed a prenuptial agreement prior to his marriage.

1 Complaint lodged by victim Clyde Berg in January 2018, antitrust activity alleged not investigated.
1|Page
It was during his former wife’s testimony at a 2013 preliminary criminal hearing that Mr. Berg learned
his former wife had been consulting with divorce attorney Bradford Baugh for at least two years
before she made allegations of domestic violence and filed for divorce. In fact, in 2010 as she
consulted with Baugh, she was being prosecuted for domestic violence and elder abuse, which Mr.
Berg asked the district attorney’s office to drop, a common occurrence for victims of intimate partner
abuse.

At that same hearing, DDA Allison Filo 2 engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, again, when she
objected to a line of questioning that Mr. Berg was entitled to have pursued such that he could
determine the role Bradford Baugh 3 and Sharon Roper 4 played in his criminal, family and civil cases. 5

Mr. Berg continues to be denied justice in the Houghton matter, where Ms. Houghton, reportedly a
close friend of Mr. Baugh’s, is charged with felony crimes involving moral turpitude and continues to
work with families and children as a licensed attorney. This work has been assured based on referrals
from Mr. Bradford Baugh and publishing opportunities provided by the State Bar.6

For nearly three years, Santa Clara County Victim’s Services representatives have failed to provide
services to Mr. Berg, services that are offered to other victims of crimes. Mr. Berg is 79 years of age
and has faced irreparable harm, and loss, due to the failures of the State Bar, and the Santa Clara
County District Attorney Jeff Rosen.

Nudelman 7

In her March of 2018 complaint to the Bar, Pamela Nudelman, the former wife of an ex Santa Clara
County prosecutor, Alan Nudelman, also raised issues of potential antitrust activity that she
experienced opposing Mr. Baugh in her divorce case. For 10 years after the divorce, Mr. Baugh
continued to refuse to release a lien he had placed on her property improperly. Pam ultimately
learned that her lawyers made secret deals with Mr. Baugh, referee James Cox and Special Master
Nat Hales, to her determent. Those “deals” resulted in diminished quality of legal services and
created an inability for her to retain lawyers who could compete and advocate on her behalf in a
county where her husband had been employed as a lawyer for most of their 29- year marriage. Mr.
Nudelman retired from that office following a felony charge. Additionally, Ms. Nudelman was aware
the Bar had received complaints alleging that Mr. Nudelman had engaged in an improper sexual
relationship with a client, who was a victim of domestic violence. The Bar’s website reports no
discipline lodged against Mr. Nudelman.

Over the course of a six-year divorce, Mr. Baugh’s representation of Pam’s former husband caused
Pam to be evicted from the Los Gatos home where she had raised her four children, to incur
unnecessary legal and business expenses on her rental property in Santa Clara, and to lose income as
Baugh allowed attorney Barbara Parrish 8 to miss payments on a contracted lease Parrish had with

2 https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/04/16/report-finds-prosecutorial-misconduct-in-bay-area/
3 Deposition of Bradford Baugh in the matter of Berg Case #1-13-CV-243348 taken January 4, 2016
4 Deposition of Sharon Roper in the Marriage of Berg Case #1-12-FL163027 taken on January 10, 2013
5 Partial Transcript from Filo examination- Prelim. Hearing August 22, 2013.
6 Houghton Emails and Publication with State Bar employees.
7 Nudelman Complaint to State Bar March 2018. And Santa Clara County DA letter dismissal.
8 Barbara Parrish was an attorney leasing office space from the Nudelmans and friendly with Mr. Baugh.

2|Page
the Nudelmans. Baugh colluded in gross mismanagement of that property with referee, James Cox
and Special Master Nat Hales 9, all of whom dragged out the divorce and impaired Pam’s effort to
retain competent local counsel capable of dealing with the unfair and deceptive business practices
regularly deployed by Mr. Baugh and Alan Nudelman during what should have been a simple divorce.

Only one of Pam’s lawyers assured her due process by demanding the withdrawal of Special Master
Nat Hales and by objecting to the appointment of Ms. Zecher after she made the ONLY lawful
disclosures of cases held in common with Mr. Baugh that can be found in the public court files. 10

Ultimately two of Ms. Nudelman’s lawyers were disbarred. Three were sued for malpractice where
Pam obtained a $3.6 million-dollar judgement 11 against one disbarred attorney, which she will likely
never be able to collect. At 69 years of age, the harm Mr. Baugh imposed through unfair and
deceptive business practices is ongoing based on recent interviews conducted with the lawyer
representing attorney Rebekah Frye 12 whom Pam sued for malpractice.

2. Pattern of Antitrust Activity: Monopoly on Attorney Fees in Silicon Valley’s Divorce Cases

As Silicon Valley experienced unprecedent wealth and success, families required legal services across
varying specialties. In interviews with former clients of Mr. Baugh, and Donelle Morgan, clients report
that a small group of family lawyers sought to monopolize these legal fees by:

A. Seeking to deter clients from consulting lawyers with specialties in real estate, business, and
criminal litigation, even if such consultation would have been in the best interest of their client.
B. Pressuring clients to agree to use joint experts, and other privately compensated lawyers who were
afforded quasi-judicial immunity, without informing clients as to the harm such appointments could
cause when lawful disclosures were secreted.
C. Taking advantage of gullible, and incompetent judges, who trusted these lawyers and were assured
due process had been assured, when in fact they knew clients had not been properly informed
when courts made appointments pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §638 and §639.
D. Colluding with other lawyers to assure the press, the public and the clients would have no way of
discovering their crimes. Most insidious was that when Sharon Roper prepared a list pursuant to
California Rules of Court 2.834, a media audit shows that over 80% of the cases where lawyers were
privately paid to act as judges, were not on the list. This results in obstructing the right of spouses,

9 Order of Receiver James Cox appointing Nat Hales as Discovery Master in the Nudelman divorce failed to
make mandatory findings when he ordered $10,000 to Baugh trust account and placed $50,000 in Baugh
trust account to manage community property asset. Orders of Hales filed 7-21-2004- Notice of Hales
Withdrawal dated January 28, 2005.
10Bill Dresser Objections to Appointment of Zecher, filed 4-29-2005-with Zecher’s disclosures of cases

held with attorney Bradford Baugh Case #1-02-FL-109142; Order of Johnson filed May 6, 2005,
appointing Richard Roggia granting Dresser’s objections, but failing to make appropriate findings to
determine an ability to pay.
11 Pam Nudelman Judgement for $3,662,008.32 against disbarred lawyer Joseph Johnson -6-23-2011.
12 Ms. Frye was the lawyer for Gloria Hejna who jumped to her death on highway 101 reportedly due to

the emotional issues involving divorce and following her firing from Oracle where she was distraught
over being unable to pay lawyers to address the custody matters of her children. Email exchanges with
her sister and Frye following Gloria’s death, Email dated 4-27-2006 from rebekahfyre@earthlink.net.
3|Page
and out-of-area-lawyers to be informed as to potential conflicts, or to assure the subordinate
judicial officer they paid would charge a fair fee, and act without bias in their divorce case.
E. Using the trust accounts of certain lawyers to collect, and conceal, community and separate
property rents, income and home equity in a manner that served as an underground financial
instrument that avoided detection from the taxing authorities and violates the law that provides for
these trust accounts to be used for “nominal sums” , and for “short periods of time”.

3. Audit of Divorce Cases: Reveal Victims of the Monopoly

In 2016, Stephan James 13, an independent investigative reporter came to Silicon Valley following his
own divorce in Sacramento, where he made a media request in the Marriage of Bassi. That request
was granted by Judge Mary Ann Grilli. Susan Bassi had worked in family farming businesses for over
20 years and had additionally been a publisher of My Out and About Magazine, which she sold in
2015 to the San Jose Metro News as she had to represent herself in a divorce case opposing Bradford
Baugh.

All subsequent requests Mr. James made to Judge Grilli, and Judge Towery, in the Marriage of Bassi,
Brooks and Diana Dong, where Mr. Baugh represented the financially dominant husband, were
denied. 14

For the past decade Mr. James has audited and monitored thousands of divorce cases across
California. In 2016 he made formal media requests in the marriages of Brooks and Dong that led him
to begin to investigate an appearance of criminal activity in high asset divorce cases involving
attorney Bradford Baugh. By December of 2016 that investigation led him to investigate the custody
case of Mr. Mc Donald, a former 49er football player who had been accused of sexual assault and
domestic violence.15

Since that time Susan Bassi and Mr. James have pooled resources and collaborated with publishers,
reporters, editors, and public records researchers during a media investigation of potential antitrust
activity that arises in Silicon Valley’s high asset divorce cases involving lawyers and judges associated
with the Santa Clara County Bar Association.

In his work, Mr. James is mindful to maintain an eye to socioeconomic justice issues that impact the
poor, the elderly, and our most vulnerable citizens who must represent themselves in court.

For his efforts Mr. James has faced substantial blacklisting from members of the Santa Clara County
Bar Association, from Judicial Officers including James Towery16, and from court staff who have
denied, delayed and attempted to marginalize his work as a reporter. This is a pattern that has been

13 https://muckrack.com/stephen-james/portfolio- Muckrack.com is a website used by independent


reporters and journalists as a resume to retain work from publishers and editors.
14 Stephen James media request in Brooks for the disqualification of Baugh and Dailey – denied.
15 Media Request and Transcript of December 8, 2016 and other court documents in the McDonald v. Scott

Custody and Domestic Violence cases.


16 Transcript from Hearing on the Bassi child support matters of 12-21-2016. Judge James Towery while

presiding over a child support arrearage hearing in the Bassi matter defamed Stephen James and acted in
violation of California’s Code of Judicial Ethics, currently under review by CJP.
4|Page
seen in Santa Clara County for decades and had only been discovered in the course of this
investigation.

The Silicon Valley Public Trust Committee would like to acknowledge, and thank, Mr. James for his
contributions to this appeal.

4. Audit of Victims Cases Impacted by Divorce Monopoly

Beauchesne 17: Baugh Effort to Monopolize

Court files show Mr. Baugh represented a lawyer, Richard Beauchesne, during a divorce case where
Mr. Baugh engaged in what appears to be antitrust activity as well as cruel and unusual treatment of
a client in need of mental health services. This case also shows evidence in support of the allegations
as to how Mr. Baugh regularity misleads judicial officers to excuse and ignore his crimes.

In this case, Mr. Baugh obtained his client’s consent for the appointment of a guardian ad litem, GAL.
Once a GAL had been appointed, Mr. Baugh represented both the GAL and his client in a divorce case,
which rises to the level of great concern where such conflict should be strictly scrutinized by a
supervising superior court judge.

When Judge Johnson questioned Mr. Baugh on what appeared to be a clear conflict, Baugh claimed:

“We have got a waiver of conflict ”. 18

Judge Johnson did not ask Mr. Baugh to produce evidence to support the statement, and no such
waiver appears in the court file. Mr. Baugh was removed as counsel for the client, but remained in
the case for the GAL, consuming ALL the fees possible until there were none left, demonstrating the
harm that can be inflicted when a client waives their rights and are uninformed by their lawyer.

Mr. Baugh never produced the waiver he claimed to have, and the matter appears to be being civilly
litigated at this present time. It is unlikely Mr. Beauchesne will ever obtain justice in the county where
Mr. Baugh has operated his criminal monopoly for decades.

The pattern of Mr. Baugh falsely claiming to have a waiver, or consent, that was lawfully obtained by
informing clients, opposing parties, opposing lawyers, and judges, of potential conflicts is so pervasive
that it is the cornerstone of Mr. Baugh’s conduct.

It is believed that Mr. Baugh’s client, who was investigated by the Bar himself, did not lodge a proper
complaint with the Bar against Mr. Baugh.

17 Communications from the Bar, Joseph Dunn and Lucita Torres for records and Criminal #C1093248 and

Min Order from Hearing where Baugh and GAL withdraw on4-24-2013Beauchesne letter to Judge Persky
dated April 2, 2013.
18 Transcript of Hearing before Judge Johnson 10-27-2011, Page 19, line 12 “We have got a waver of

conflict”- and supportive documents in Beauchesne.


5|Page
TIM HARER: Secret Employment and Potential Kickbacks

Victims: Moorehead, Nudelman, Dong, Brooks, Cheriton, Newman, Hull, Cheriton, Bassi & Burch

It is from the Beauchesne court file (January 2015) that we learned how Mr. Baugh secretly employed
Michelle Harper, the wife of Tim Harper, a vocational examiner used in nearly every high asset
divorce case in Santa Clara County, including the Nudelman case where Mr. Harper was retained by
Ms. Nudelman. 19

Allegations that Mr. Harper did work for the purpose of benefiting Mr. Baugh’s clients have been
found in countless interviews. Documentary evidence to support these claims, and how they acted as
barrier to market entry can be seen in the billing statements of Mr. Berg.

Once Mr. Berg retained counsel from an out-of-area lawyer, he was told a vocational exam of his
former wife was needed, a pattern that occurs in all high asset divorce cases. (Judges must figure
these issues out on their own when it involves poor people with no lawyers).

Mr. Berg’s bills show that as Mr. Baugh represented his former wife, his lawyers reached out to retain
the services of Mr. Harper. Mr. Berg was billed for that communication. Ultimately, Mr. Harper was
not used for Mr. Berg, and Berg was not told why. If courts posted lists for these appointments, local
lawyers would not be able to secret deals and conflicts that would add to billing expenses to clients.

Transparent lists noting the qualifications needed for vocational examiners used in a local family
court would allow for a fair market competition for these services, which are currently monopolized
by unlicensed persons acting as JUNK experts for lawyers actively engaging in antitrust activities. Not
only do those activities restrict access for competition for legal services, the practice provides a
secondary monopoly for experts who shut out competition for these services, most of which are not
needed.

Before Mr. Berg used an out-of-area lawyer, he paid Donelle Morgan $80,000. Ms. Morgan was
disqualified by Mr. Baugh from the Berg divorce within 2 months nonetheless. Mr. Berg recently
learned Mr. Baugh did not seek to disqualify Morgan from other cases, where the same
circumstances existed that were the basis for disqualification in the Berg matter.

There is more than an appearance that Mr. Baugh and Ms. Morgan, and other lawyers associated
through the Santa Clara County Bar Association, stage FAKE conflicts as an indirect form of
advertising to attract high asset divorce cases where they both will profit regardless of the outcome.
The information contained in Mr. Baugh’s motion to disqualify Ms. Morgan 20, combined with the
disqualification of Mr. Baugh from the Wahl v. Perkins hearing before Judge Persky on April 17,
2008 21, and the deposition of Bradford Baugh on January 4, 2016 in the Berg civil matter serve to
illustrate how the conduct of a core group of local family law lawyers work to restrict access to legal

19 Vocational Examination of Alan Nudelman conducted by Tim Harper.


20 Baugh motion to disqualify Morgan signed by Judge Elving on 6-7-2013 includes declarations of Mr.
Baugh’s staff, partners and others including Bill Dok, Chris Gill, Marianne Gill, Darcy Taylor, and Leah
Amini.
21 Transcript from the Persky hearing on Motion to Disqualify Bradford Baugh held April 17, 2008.

6|Page
services and how they increase prices and diminish the quality of legal services for families involved in
Santa Clara County divorce and custody cases.

In making his request to disqualify Morgan, Mr. Baugh submitted declarations from his partners and
office staff. Ms. Harper was not noticed in that motion, and there is no way of knowing if she was
employed by Mr. Baugh’s firm at the time the motion was made. If she was, her statements could
have been relevant such that Mr. Berg would have known if Ms. Berg interacted with a vocational
examiner’s wife as Mr. Berg sought to retain that expert as his witness in a divorce case.

These “staffing” practices demonstrate how unfair and deceptive business practices in the Silicon
Valley’s family law community date back to the Nudelman divorce (2002-2008) and serve to harm
legal consumers. Michelle Harper has appeared as Mr. Harper’s ADA aide in divorce trials as recently
as June 2018 (Bassi), where it was never disclosed that she had once worked for Mr. Baugh (2015), as
Ms. Bassi was self-represented and issues of child support were at hand and an active DCSS case was
open. Tim Harper also acted in Diana Dong’s case in 2015, where she was imputed with income she
never earned, causing her children to be harmed by Mr. Harper’s negligent work.

Tim Harper has been used in more high asset divorce cases to get Mr. Baugh’s clients out of paying
child and spousal support than any other expert. If Mr. Baugh “employed” Mr. Harper’s wife, in lieu
of paying fees to Harper in order to manipulate outcomes in attorney fee and child support matters,
such conduct would rise to the level of criminal activity that served to children and families.

In interviews conducted in and around the San Jose Country Club it was reported that Mr. Harper, a
former teacher with no unique license, credentials or education, drove expensive sports cars, put his
son through costly private schools and enjoyed a lifestyle much like that described in the Houghton
indictment. A lifestyle Mr. Harper likely could not have afforded without illegal or questionable
business practices.

The State Bar should be ordered to investigate if Mr. Baugh did in fact employ Michelle Harper and
properly report that employment to the taxing authorities. The State Bar should also determine if Ms.
Harper was in fact the “person in charge” in his office in 2015 and if Mr. Baugh, and his partners,
properly supervised and managed Ms. Harper to assure that cases where Ms. Harper’s husband
acted as a paid vocational expert for opposing lawyers, and litigants, were not tainted.

Brooks

The Silicon Valley Divorce Monopoly is best revealed in the Marriage of Brooks, where Evan Brooks
used over $30 million in profits from DigiDesign, and the deficiencies in the family courts, to inflict
ten years of abuse on his former wife, which was masterfully executed by his attorney, Bradford
Baugh and which benefited an army of lawyers Ms. Brooks was forced to retain.

Court files show that Ms. Brooks was duped early on into agreeing to use a privately compensated
attorney to act as a judge, whose conflicts with Mr. Brook’s counsel were not disclosed.22

22 Declaration of Violet Brooks in Support of Recusal of Private Judge Cassedy filed March 6, 2012.
7|Page
Fortunately for Ms. Brooks she had access to enough assets to put up a good fight for her rightful
share of community property, and to try to protect her children, and herself, from what was
described early in the divorce as domestic violence and sexual abuse perpetrated by Mr. Brooks.

Sadly, that fight cost Ms. Brooks more than money. It took years for the lawyers and experts to take
her money. It took lawyers jockeying to retain the county’s highest paid experts including CPA James
Butera, attorney and “custody consultant” Valerie Houghton, Tim Harper, Garett Dailey and
unlicensed reunification camp operators that were recently the subject of a recent NBC Bay Area
investigative report. 23

Violet’s friends and family reached out to reporters, to supporters, and to anyone who would be able
to stop Mr. Baugh’s constant degrading of her character in hearing after hearing before Judge Mary
Ann Grilli. However, Violet’s most recent lawyer, Hector Moreno, didn’t want public attention and
made threats to make sure the monopoly’s secrets would remain in the courthouse.24

Perhaps Judge Grilli didn’t notice because as the local lawyers knew, she was impaired, and in pain
based on her own medical issues. Or perhaps she didn’t notice because she had so many undisclosed
relationships herself with Mr. Baugh and Ms. Houghton, that she felt she could trust them to have her
back. 25

Money couldn’t save Violet. The monopoly demanded more fees, which brought more lawyers as
Judge Erica Yew appointed referee Nat Hales 26, and the corruption escalated. On record disclosures
that Violet was entitled to were non-existent. A list of privately compensated temporary judges that
should have been posted in the Sunnyvale Courthouse pursuant to California Rules of Court 8.34,
weren’t. If they had been, Ms. Brooks could have seen that at that same time Mr. Baugh had
convinced Judge Grilli to appoint Nat Hales in the Bassi case during a hearing on April 8, 2014, Judge
Yew was appointing Nat Hales in the Brooks case. If the list had been posted, as the law requires, Ms.
Brooks could have seen that Mr. Hales and Mr. Baugh also acted in the Nudelman case, and Pam
could have warned Violet about what Baugh and Nat Hales had done to her family. Brad Baugh knew
that list wasn’t posted, and so did Hector Moreno.

If Ms. Bassi had been afforded a lawyer, as the law required, when Violet Brooks spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars to get Mr. Baugh and Mr. Dailey disqualified from her case 27, Ms. Bassi could
have let Ms. Brooks know that Mr. Dailey knew all about Mr. Hales and Mr. Baugh because she had
consulted with Mr. Dailey and told him what was going on. Susan Bassi reached out to Garrett Dailey

23 Min. Order shows Houghton as witness before Grilli on 6-4-2012 and


https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/No-Oversight-for-Programs-Advertising-They-Reconnect-
Children-with-Alienated-Parents-499412851.html
24 Moreno email threat to website Re: Cease and Desist sent October 14, 2016 at 5:13 pm, the State Bar

should investigate if Ms. Brooks was billed for the drafting and sending of this threat.
25 Santa Clara County Bar notice of: Voice of the Child Baugh and Grilli Nov. 14, 2014 NOT disclosed in

Bassi, Brooks or Dong


26 Order of Erica Yew dated 4-29-2014 appointing referee Nat Hales without making lawful findings over

the ability to pay.


27 Min Order of Baugh DQ denied 10-2-2015 and pleading for March 2016 Reconsideration DQ denial of

Dailey.
8|Page
because she thought as the former Elkins lawyer, Mr. Dailey would certainly help a self-represented
party being beaten up by a mob of greedy lawyers. Ms. Bassi was wrong. 28

Like Diana Dong, and other women who had to deal with Mr. Baugh, Violet’s claims of Domestic
Violence that were made early in her case were simply ignored, as Evan Brooks continued to hand
money over to Mr. Baugh again and again, accounting for none of it. Violet had to account for every
penny and spent hundreds of hours responding to Baugh’s harassing demands. Violet was even
sanctioned for “losing” a request for domestic violence protection. Ms. Berg was never sanctioned for
requests that were found to be unfounded by a criminal court and a jury. Violet just didn’t know that
Baugh could convince the courts to punish women, or believe them, depending on who was paying
Bradford Baugh.

Mr. Moreno could have done more for Violet, but he wasn’t about to tell Judge Grilli she was
breaking the law by letting Mr. Baugh get away with it. Besides, Mr. Moreno needed some of the
$2,000,000 Violet paid in legal fees to help him support the local Bar events, and so he could be
“liked” by Judge Towery, who would decide how much he could get in fees in Kendra Scott’s case.

Sadly, as Violet Brooks may “win” something in the Sixth District Court of Appeal like Tracy Hayward
did in Napa County, it is unlikely Mr. Dailey will let the Court focus on the issues that got that “win”
for Ms. Hayward, as long as Evan Brooks is willing to pay him NOT to tell about what Nat Hales and
Bradford Baugh did to her.

Lynch- Woodward 29

In the early 1990s, Bradford Baugh was appointed as minor’s counsel in the high asset divorce case of
Alexandra Lynch’s parents, where Nat Hales represented Alexandra’s father. In multiple interviews
both Alexandra’s parents described how Baugh’s appointment to represent their children caused
permanent emotional damage and disability to their children. This was echoed in other interviews
with adults Baugh represented as children dating back to the 1990s.

When Alexandra grew up, she dated Don Woodward, who retained Bradford Baugh to represented
him in his divorce case as he and Alexandra dated. After Alexandra and Mr. Woodward had a falling
out in their relationship, Mr. Baugh told an out-of-area lawyer that he would need to seek a DVRO
against Ms. Lynch in order to prevent his client from losing custody of his children and paying more in
child support. This is not the only case where Mr. Baugh appeared to use domestic violence as a
litigation tool in order to generate more in fees for himself, it is a case that shows the capacity Mr.
Baugh has to harm children, and his own clients.

When Ms. Lynch told a judge that Mr. Baugh should not represent her former boyfriend because he
had been her lawyer as a child, Mr. Baugh said he “forgot”. Just like he told Judge Johnson he had a
“waiver” in Mr. Beauchesne’s case. It is unlikely Mr. Baugh would have forgotten a case that
generated millions in profits as Alexandra’s parents divorce case would have.

28 Email from Bassi of 11-12-2018; Judicial Council Internal Audit, Judge Lucas, Lisa Herrick, Mr.
Russoniello, Hector Moreno Travis Krepelka, Rebekah Frye, and more Re: 638 and 639 appointments in
Books case before Judge Grilli and Erica Yew. With attachments.
29 Baugh - Lynch minors counsel- DV in Woodward case, Baugh gets Towery to order: $3,292.34

9|Page
In July of 2018, before Judge James Towery, Mr. Baugh continued to obtain court orders for Ms.
Lynch to pay his attorney fees, despite the fact Ms. Lynch had long since moved from the area, was
indigent and was on federal disability. Ms. Lynch, a disabled woman, on federal assistance, continues
to suffer ongoing harm based on the conduct of Mr. Baugh. When Ms. Lynch complained about Mr.
Baugh to the State Bar and the county’s presiding judge, Patricia Lucas, Alexandra did not receive an
answer.

Lawyers like Mr. Baugh who represent children during a divorce case are every parents worst
nightmare.

Diana Dong

When Mr. Baugh represented the former step-son of Sean Connery in a divorce case before Judge
Grilli, he earned $100,000 in an attorney fees which were paid from the separate property of an
immigrant mother forced to involuntarily represent herself opposing Mr. Baugh in what became a 10-
year divorce proceeding. When Ms. Dong appealed that order, the Sixth District Court of Appeal said
she didn’t ask the right way.

That mother’s claims of domestic violence just dropped off calendar as she could not pay lawyers to
assist her. The mother could not afford her own lawyer as she was forced to pay fees for the court
appointed children’s lawyer, Heather Allan, who stayed in the case for 10 years and obtained orders
for the mother to not speak to her children in her native language and put court orders in place that
allowed the mother’s abuser to record her calls with her own children, whom she was not allowed to
see.

In that same case, Baugh obtained judgements from a mother on welfare, as Baugh had enough
money to retain Garrett Dailey to assist him in assuring the self-represented mother could not prevail
on appealing any of Judge Grilli’s orders. Court files in that case show Judge Grilli continued to award
Mr. Baugh some of the highest fee awards in the county, with no legal basis for doing so.

Other clients of Baugh report Baugh informed them that Dailey would cost $150,000 to do an appeal.
In Diana Dong’s case Judge Grilli was so tainted by her undisclosed social and professional
relationships with Mr. Baugh that it was impossible for her to remain neutral. This is the calling card
of Mr. Baugh’s antitrust activity.

Bassi

As Mr. Baugh represented Robert Bassi before Judge Grilli and Judge Towery, and as Susan Bassi
involuntarily represented herself, Mr. Baugh hand delivered referee Nat Hales over $28,000 in cash,
without an order and without Susan Bassi’s consent. 30 Nat Hales, who never provided Susan Bassi, or
her lawyer, a court ordered Conflict of Interest Statement for the cases he held with Mr. Baugh,
issued an order awarding Brad Baugh $50,000 in profits charged to Ms. Bassi’s share of equity in a
Gilroy property home she had owned for over 23 years, shortly after Baugh had delivered that cash to
Nat Hales and as Ms. Bassi had no money to pay her own lawyer.

30 Memo or Nat Hales Dated 12-18-2014 “Brad Baugh brought $28,683. 25 in cash to my office”
10 | P a g e
When Susan Bassi complained to the State Bar, and John Chase at the Santa Clara County DA’s office
about the conduct of Nat Hales and Bradford Baugh, the State Bar dismissed the complaints against
Mr. Baugh and gave Nat Hales confidential discipline (ALD) that concealed his conduct from the
public, which Susan Bassi always contended resulted after James Towery intervened in her
complaints to the Bar. 31

The State Bar’s confidential discipline executed against Nat Hales32 failed to address Hales stealing
money and accepting bribes. The Bar didn’t even investigate if Nat Hales lied when he told them he
had told Mr. Tennant, a former Santa Clara County prosecutor, of his conflicts with Brad Baugh.

In fact, the Bar hasn’t even bothered to answer Mr. Tennant’s letters wherein he charged Mr. Baugh
with committing over 15 felonies and misdemeanors during the Bassi divorce. Even Santa Clara
County District Attorney Jeff Rosen couldn’t be bothered to meet with Mr. Tennant to discuss Mr.
Baugh’s crimes.

The failure on the part of the Bar to investigate, inform and or protect the public, leaves
unsophisticated legal consumers capable of hiring a lawyer willing to engaged in reckless criminal
conduct. Nat Hales engaged in such conduct as a quasi-judicial officer that rose to the level of
criminal activity and the Bar secreted that conduct and required Nat Hales to take an “ethics” course.

Ramalingam 33

The abuse Ms. Ramalingam suffered as a result of Mr. Baugh’s representation in her divorce case is
nothing more than a footnote in a published ruling she lost. And while Mr. Baugh and his partner Liz
Goodley settled out and reportedly paid $600,000 in fees, it took Ms. Ramaglingam six years in
appeals and civil filings to get to that settlement, evaporating any financial benefit the settlement
would have provided. Baugh on the other hand paid malpractice insurance (because he could) and
used $100,000 toward litigating against his former client. It cost Baugh nothing to keep abusing this
woman whose family was destroyed as she involved Baugh in her effort to just get her half. Baugh
convinced her to use Michael Thompson as a joint expert, and this cost her everything, and
Thompson got CPAs like James Butera and Jack Peth immunity in a published ruling that has become
law.

HOW THE SILICON VALLEY DIVORCE MONOPLY OPERATES:


5. Deceptive Billing Practices Harm Legal Consumers: Baugh’s Deceptive Bills Don’t Add Up

An audit of Mr. Baugh’s bills, and fees awards, show patterns that cannot be explained by fair
competition when compared to other family law attorneys and other counties.

A 2011 public records request showed Santa Clara County didn’t track or report attorney fees. Other
counties, including Sacramento, typically track similar fees and report amounts as little as $100 paid

31 Transcript 10-24-2016 Towery Bassi Threats to Brad Baugh turned in to the Bar.
32 State Bar letters of 2016 giving Hales confidential Discipline and an Ethics course.
33 Baugh malpractice settlement statement Baugh has a $1million in malpractice and used $100,000

litigating against former client.


11 | P a g e
to our charged to lawyers, for all cases, but the millions paid to lawyers in Santa Clara County aren’t
even recorded. And audits of fees Baugh reports to judges, don’t add up. 34

Santa Clara County Superior Court’s failures allow Baugh and other lawyers to conceal how much
they profit in high asset Silicon Valley divorce cases. Furthermore, in the court files Baugh’s fee
information shows he makes millions in these fee awards that are not reported. Instead of Baugh
keeping a running total so a judge, or member of the public, could see what he bills in each case,
Baugh SELCETIVELY reports what he earns in divorce cases by using language such as “fees not
included here”, or by omitting certain dates in his reports to conceal what he earns.

Kathey Fyke, who was on a court fee waiver, was fined $1,000,000 that was converted to fees for
Lynne Yates Cater, who acted as Falcone’s lawyer for nearly 10 years. Ms. Fyke even had to pay fees
to lawyer Ed Mills, whom Judge Lucas failed to appoint lawfully in her case, as Judge Lucas allowed
Ms. Fyke’s lawyer to withdraw after she was unable to pay him. The fines charged to Kathey during
her divorce are not available in any court record that is reported to the public. 35

Mari Lynne Earls was sanctioned over $500,000 that went to benefit her Silicon Valley tech titan
former husband. Those fines are not reported in any record available to the public.

Susan Bassi was sanctioned nearly $500,000 which went to pay attorney fees to Baugh and Hales as
she was self-represented and could not afford to pay her own lawyer. Those fines are not reported in
any public record.

Baugh appears to negotiate to suppress fees and payment schedules for his male clients, as he acts as
a predatory debt collector for his female clients, unless Baugh feels confident he can get fees from a
wealthy ex-husband (Berg, Hull, Lasola) or, in the case of Kari Wolff, Baugh believes the wife can
provide a fee lifeline to assure her “wins” in court.

In a 2018 order Baugh claimed he incurred, and was awarded, fees by Judge Towery, in the amount of
$3,292.42 as he obtained a permanent DVRO against a woman he represented as a child, for the
benefit of another client, Don Woodward. By comparison, in Ms. Berg’s case Baugh incurred
$250,000 in fees, which were paid by Mr. Berg, for less than one year of representation after Baugh’s
client falsely accused Mr. Berg of domestic violence. Interviews wit Baugh’s former clients reveal that
Baugh has said he adds $50,000-100,000 in fees in cases involving domestic violence.

In Diana Dong’s case, Baugh told the judge he incurred over $65,000 in fees to have Ms. Dong
declared vexatious during her divorce case, as custody remained in dispute.

We know from the deposition to Baugh and Roper that for two years before Baugh formally
represented Ms. Berg, Baugh wasn’t billing her, and Roper wasn’t billing her when she communicated
with Baugh on her behalf. We also know that Sharon Roper prepared a court posted list pursuant to
California Rules of Court 2.834, and Mr. Baugh’s cases were NOT on that list.

34 2011 from SCC CEO don’t keep records, sample of records kept by other counties, sample Baugh fees
self- reported in a case redacts and omits as a deceptive practice.
35 Fyke documents: Order of Lucas for withdrawal of counsel filed 11-21-2016 and Order appointing

referee (Special Master) 639 and 638 filed 12-14-2006.


12 | P a g e
Diana Dong, who was on a court fee waiver, was ordered to pay Mr. Baugh, her husband’s lawyer,
over $100,000 after Mr. Baugh submitted blank bills to Judge Mary Ann Grilli that where the proof as
to how he had charged such fees.

By April of 2017, Baugh spent nearly $800,000 in fees for Robert Bassi which were paid a year before
the case reached a final trial, and as James Towery announced at a Santa Clara County Bar
Association that he would award more in fees to lawyers he “liked”.

Mr. Baugh’s billing practices show that a lack of oversight and reporting on these fees provide
lawyers in the county to use fees as a shield, and a sword, to block entry into the market for other
lawyers and to diminish the quality of legal services in the county. Baugh uses deceptive billing
practices that announce a flat fee, but then demands payments and bills some clients for every email,
while other clients he allows to build up unpaid fees promising them he will convert a former
spouse’s property to pay his bills, as he told Robert Bassi in 2015. 36

The State Bar should be ordered to audit all fees in all cases Mr. Baugh acted from 2000-2018.

6. Deceptive Business Practices: Collusion to Fix Prices and Limit Market Entry

In 2008 Judge Persky disqualified Brad Baugh from a high-profile divorce case where Mr. Baugh
represented internet icon Drew Perkins. In that case Brad Baugh reportedly hired away a staffer from
a firm associating in with Mr. Hammon to represent Mr. Perkin’s wife, Ms. Wahl. If Judge Perksy had
reported Mr. Baugh to the Bar as Canon 3D2 required, the public would not know because no such
discipline is noted by the Bar, as Judge James Towery aptly explained on June 23, 2016. 37

Towery appointed, without following the law, Valerie Tarvin as a referee in the Bassi case in 2017.
Mr. Baugh remained silent on the fact that Tarvin was his former partner. These partnerships are
further concealed in representations to the public, even in business license information contained in
San Jose’s public records. Had Susan Bassi been self-represented she would have had no way of
knowing of the Tarvin-Baugh connection. Fortunately, Mr. Tennant knew and objected to Tarvin’s
appointment.

Baugh’s conduct and use of selective disqualification and selective “partnerships” verses
“associations” is clearly a deceptive business practice designed to limit outside competition and
restrict trade for those who are not familiar with Mr. Baugh’s history.

Further, Baugh’s conduct looks different with others in the Monopoly. In the Berg case when
Catherine Gallagher was appointed as a Special Master pursuant to CCP 639, Mr. Baugh clearly
worked to address conflicts Ms. Bechtel had with Gallagher in what appeared to be an effort to
disqualify Gallagher from the case. Baugh made no such effort in the Nudelman case, the Brooks
case, the Bassi case, or the Dong case when courts appointed lawyers including Catherine Gallagher.

7. Local Bar Meetings: Potential for Violation of Antitrust Laws

36 Email of Baugh to Bassi to convert wife’s property in form of fees and sanctions.
37 Towery Transcripts in Bassi June 23, 2016 s how State Bar Protection of Baugh and Hales.
13 | P a g e
On April 28, 2017, divorce attorneys Tracy Duell-Cazes, and Lynne Yates Carter, along with Judge
Mary Greenwood and Judge James Towery, participated in a panel discussion on attorney fee issues
for the Santa Clara County Bar Association. Garret Dailey provided materials for the event, free of
charge. 38

During that meeting Ms. Yates Carter described how she successfully managed to get the former wife
of lawyer Richard Falcone, sanctioned over $1 million dollars, which was paid from the wife’s share of
proceeds from the sale of the family’s Saratoga home. A home that had neighbored Judge William
Danser, and his wife, retired Judge Catherine Gallagher.

During the panel discussions, lawyers appeared to snicker and cheer at the thought of successfully
having Ms. Fyke sanctioned, and declared vexatious, while reporting she was additionally criminally
prosecuted for taking $1 from a community bank account. Mr. Falcone evaded contempt charges for
the orders he violated during the divorce. Ms. Fyke was forced to represent herself after a November
21, 2006 hearing, wherein Judge Lucas allowed her lawyer, Paul Nesse, to withdraw, claiming Ms.
Fyke would not be harmed by representing herself in a divorce case against three other lawyers.

Also, during that April 2017 meeting, Judge James Towery was heard telling local lawyers that they
would receive greater attorney fee awards from him, if he “liked them”, giving an appearance that
Judge Towery favors conduct that restricts outside competition in high asset divorce cases where
attorney fee awards are made.

These statements evidence why antitrust laws strive to prevent such meetings from being conducted
where such conversations can take place. Litigants who involuntarily represent themselves have no
access to these meetings such that they could know that Judge Towery is willing to issue orders based
on whom he “likes”.

Local Bar Associations do not provide a public service, where over 90% of spouses must represent
themselves in court, because they cannot afford to pay a lawyer. Lawyers from out of the area do not
attend these meetings and thus, over the past 30 years theses associations have become a breeding
ground for corruption where unethical lawyers like Mr. Baugh and Mr. Hales use these associations
for a corrupt motive designed to enrich themselves and harm innocent families, and as they
monopolize publishing to the local legal community as well. 39

8. Culture of Abuse, Harassment and Terror

To assume lawyers and judges are immune from the conduct described in the media in recent years
would be naive. Assuming the report on Judge Rushing in 2017 was the worst of the sexual abuse,
harassment and terror women have suffered in the legal community over the past three decades in
Santa Clara County would be to marginalize victims whose abusers carry a Bar Card.

39Santa Clara County Bar Association January 2014 Newsletter- Baugh editor advertising new spaces for
Nat Hales, and other information re: Irwin Joseph (Berg Judge who appointed Catherine Gallagher and
now in-laws with Nudelman).
14 | P a g e
In interviews with hundreds of men, and women, who worked for, retained, or opposed Mr. Baugh,
and Mr. Hales, all tell similar stories that weave a web of credibility behind what has been secreted by
attorney- client privilege, and judges, for decades.

Baugh’s former female clients have vividly described how Baugh terrorized them as he represented
them in a divorce case. This led to revictimization of spouses who had experienced domestic violence
and sexual abuse during marriage. One doctor client described how Baugh told her to lie on the
stand before Judge Grilli, and when she refused, Baugh became so violent and abusive that he kicked
boxes in his office and caused her to remove him from the case. She further described how she was
retraumatized having to pay Baugh’s fees for work he did poorly, as he abused her and filed
documents in the court that he knew to be false.

A woman who appeared before Nat Hales in a family law case reported Nat Hales told her if she
would “agree to be his mistress” he would “assure her a favorable outcome” in the case before him.
This was reported to the Bar, they did nothing. The local legal community knew Nat Hales had affairs
and hit on staffers in various offices, reportedly in offices such as those of Kimberly Lynch, and the
lawyers said nothing.

This conduct was reported to the Santa Clara County Whistleblower Program by a third party, they
did nothing except threaten and retaliate against the reporter.

Children fair worse. One witness reported hearing Baugh and Hales engaging in exparte
communication involving a custody matter, where a Grandfather was paying Mr. Hales’ fees. On
information and belief, Nat Hales and Brad Baugh would assure court orders to people they knew
were sexually assaulting and verbally abusing children.

One male child subjected to such abuse reached out to the media for help knowing his privacy would
be protected better in the media than it was in the local courts when Brad Baugh represented him.

The conduct of Mr. Baugh and Mr. Hales has caused generations of children to mistrust our courts.

9. Victims of Antitrust Activity

For at least three decades, victims of antitrust activity, abuse, domestic violence and sexual
harassment imposed by family law attorneys in divorce and custody cases have lodged complaints
with the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office and the State Bar. Those complaints were
dismissed through a pattern of complicity as Silicon Valley divorce lawyers continued to operate in a
manner that sought to monopolize high asset divorce cases with impunity from the courts, the Bar
and local law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Tennant, an attorney representing one of the victims, was ignored by the DA, and continues to be
ignored by the State Bar. He is a former prosecutor and has been practicing law for over 50 years.

Robert J. Tennant is also a victim who has been deprived of the right to compete to provide services
in the Santa Clara County legal community based on the conduct of Nat Hales and Bradford Baugh, as
assisted by James Towery, former Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar.
15 | P a g e
California’s Supreme Court has the inherent authority to regulate the practice of law in this state. The
State Bar violated the rights of victims when it failed to investigate complaints as ordered and by
consistently obstructing the right of victims to be heard, as is assured by Victim’s Rights Laws.

10. Improper Governmental Activity

These divorce lawyers did not act alone. Underpaid judges and court staff working in underfunded
courts, as well as government lawyers including the court’s general counsel, Lisa Herrick, acted as
“lookouts” and spies that served to deter individuals who might reveal suspected activity. 40

Lawyers including Hector Moreno, Deborah Kim and John Perrot may not have directly engaged in
antitrust activity, but they benefited from it by deflecting attention critical of members of the local
bar and judiciary.

In an interview with attorney John Perrott he admitted to acting as a “lookout” by engaging in


exparte communications to report to Judge Grilli issues related to the media and identifying for the
judge who was associating in groups and on social media that were critical of family court judges and
lawyers. 41

Elise Mitchell used the personal Facebook pages of Susan Bassi and Robin Yeamans in an effort to
bias James Towery against a victim of domestic violence whom Yeamans and Bassi had advocated for
in the media as Mitchell represented the victim’s alleged abuser. Mitchell even reported Yeamans to
the Bar for her advocacy. The Bar should have investigated Mitchell, not Yeamans.

When victims took to social media to complain abought Baugh, they reported Baugh threatened YELP
to have their reviews taken down. The Bar should subpoena YELP.

Vocational examiner Tim Harper stated in open court he would seek to remove information in the
public domain that alleged he was involved in criminal activity arising from family court cases.
Stephen James assisted the media in making sure that information did not get taken down.

Hector Moreno threatened his clients to not associate with the media or people known to be
supportive of family court reform.

Santa Clara County prosecutor Admir Alem used his office to discredit litigants acting as witnesses
the case against Valerie Houghton.

Divorce attorney Robert Allard emailed reporters that they should not believe that Michael Lazarin,
the biological father of Audrie Pott, as Allard represented Sheila and Larry Pott following the suicide
of Audrie Pott where Allard and the Potts made millions in settlements by concealing domestic
violence that had occurred in the homes of Sheila and Larry Pott throughout Audrie’s childhood.

40 Lisa Herrick email of December 4, 2016 to Website serves as prior restraint on speech and to intervene
with speech during the recall election of a Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge, Aaron Persky.
41John Perrott pleading in Marriage of Hagen Case #1-07-FL-143604 and Grilli Vanilli Article in San Jose

Metro from 1990s when parents were protesting these same issues and Judge Grilli’s conduct.
16 | P a g e
Sheila, Larry and Audrie Pott falsely accused Michael Lazarin for using Facebook names that he did
not use during his advocacy that followed the death of his child.

Santa Clara County prosecutor John Chase can’t investigate public corruption when it falls on his
desk. Santa Clara County was negligent by failing to supervise him, which they knew since a 2016-
2017 Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report critical of the District Attorney’s Office.

In his email to Susan Bassi dated September 12, 2017, responding to “Re: Misdemeanor- Violation of
Business and Professions Code 6128 MISDEAMEANOR” Mr. Chase had this to say:

The State Bar should be ordered to investigate John Chase for failing miserably in his duty to protect
Santa Clara County residents from public corruption and domestic violence.

17 | P a g e
11. Private Judging: Potential for Antitrust and Monopolistic Practices

As early as 2000 the state knew lawyers acting as “rent-a judge” in divorce cases could prove to be
problematic. When the state stopped watching, lawyers increased pressure on clients to pay more
lawyers, promising these payments would reduce court costs and delays. It did not.

Antitrust activity imposed by a handful of lawyers resulted in simple divorces becoming “complex”,
and an epidemic of court appointed lawyers acting to represent children, or as privately compensated
judges ravaged high asset divorce cases in Silicon Valley. Payments to these lawyers eclipsed the state
averages reported by the Judicial Council in 2004. 42

Complaints to county presiding judges did nothing. Complaints to the District Attorney did nothing.
Complaints to the State Bar have done nothing. Things have only gotten worse.

ANTITRUST ACTIVITY: Collusion Privately Compensated Temporary Judges CCP 638 and CCP 639

*** 43In preparing for this appeal a document prepared by divorce attorney Sharon Roper was posted
in the Santa Clara County Family Courthouse. That document indicated it was prepared on 5-1-2017.
Ms. Roper provided what she claimed to be the only list prepared pursuant to California Rules of
Court 2.834. In preparing that list, Ms. Roper, who was documented in the Berg case for giving Mr.
Baugh and his client preferential payment and service agreements, failed to note ANY cases involving
Nat Hales and Bradford Baugh that are now known to have existed at the time Roper prepared the
list.

An audit of high asset divorce cases in Santa Clara County shows NO cases involving Brad Baugh and
Nat Hales appear on the list and ONLY 20% of cases known to have such appointments during this
time were listed.

This consisted of secret deals that out-of-area lawyers and litigants would have no way of knowing.
This left them no way of legally objecting and no way of knowing if what they paid these privately
compensated judges were reasonable fees.

It was the perfect crime and it happened in the family law courthouse.

42 2004 Judicial Council Report to the State Legislature on CCP 638 and CCP 639 appointments – Use and
Costs .
43 Santa Clara County Privately Compensated Temporary Judge List Prepared by Sharon Roper and

dated 4-21-2017.
18 | P a g e
The audit also found private payments for these appointments in Santa Clara County divorce cases far
outstripped payments from the 16 cases the county appears to have provided during the preparation
of a report to the State Legislature. See table below taken from that report:

Copyright to California’s Judicial Council:

19 | P a g e
The report also sought to demonstrate how much time privately compensated lawyers acting as
subordinate judicial officers spent on cases, that meant time not paid by taxpayers:

20 | P a g e
Finally, the report noted that across the state, 80% of appointments resulted in the payment of
private and public fees under $20,000, with a state-wide average of $12,769.

In March of 2017, Judge Lucas knew that Nat Hales had billed $100,000 in a single divorce case. 44

Four months later Judge Lucas published an article attempting to explain how to make proper
appointments. She offered no such information to the 97% of people representing themselves in
divorce and custody cases, where such appointments are possible.45

44 Lucas Letter March 2017 Nat Hales


45 https://www.dailyjournal.com/mcle/117-appointment-of-discovery-referees
21 | P a g e
By 2010 these lawyers could not claim they did not know that vast underfunding in the courts would
serve as an incentive for lawyers like Mr. Baugh to seduce innocent lawyers, and litigants, to provide
their consent for these private judge arrangements, for which there would be no lawful disclosures
and no viable relief for disqualification once such consent was obtained.

In 2015 Garrett Dailey became embroiled in the very conduct he knew to be problematic when Violet
Brooks attempted to disqualify Mr. Dailey from a case where Ms. Brooks’ former husband is
represented by Mr. Baugh and where Nat Hales was appointed as referee under CCP §638 and §CCP
639.

Early in the case Ms. Brooks had to disqualify a privately compensate judge, Ms. Cassedy, and then
was further harmed as Nat Hales acted, and did not disclose on the record the Bassi case, where
Hales acted with Baugh. Violet’s most recent lawyer, Hector Moreno, actively sought to deter public
scrutiny as court files indicate his office, and associates, have earned over $2,000,000 in fees, as
discussed herein.
22 | P a g e
On June 5, 2018, Santa Clara County voters recalled Judge Aaron Perskie in a landslide vote. The recall
was opposed by nearly every judicial officer and licensed attorney in the state. It is believed that
Judge Persky was removed by local voters not just because of his role in the sentencing of Brock
Turner based on a sexual assault conviction, but because of the culture that was allowed to thrive
when Judge Aaron Persky presided over family law cases in Santa Clara County.

Judge Persky is believed to be a victim of the antitrust activity that created that culture which has
served to harm public trust and confidence in the local courts, and media.

This culture has ravaged the Rule of Law and created courts where disfavored lawyers and litigants
are susceptible to victimization and ignored by the Bar, and local law enforcement agencies.

12. Unregulated Attorney Trust Accounts: Ripe for Antitrust Activity

California’s State Bar Act provides that lawyers can place “nominal funds” in their trust accounts for
“short periods of time”. These accounts carry with them the security of attorney-client privilege and
the support of the State Bar which investigates client trust account complaints as a matter of highest
priority.

In some cases, IOLTA accounts produce interest income that lawyers are required to provide to the
State Bar, which is reportedly is used to provide pro bono legal services for indigent clients.

However, a dangerous pattern has emerged that shows that as courts began issuing orders to sell
homes and businesses in divorce cases, courts ordered proceeds from those sales to be deposited in
attorney trust accounts. These proceeds were NOT “nominal sums”.

Bradford Baugh began placing millions of dollars of home equity and rental income into his trust
account for long periods of time, where third parties were owed a fiduciary duty that conflicts with
Mr. Baugh’s representation of his clients. As seen in the Nudelman case, lawyers continued to incur
fees simply by asking Mr. Baugh to account for community and separate property rents and expenses
that Nat Hales ordered to be paid through Mr. Baugh’s trust account. Baugh even held fees that
would be paid to Hales.

In the Bassi case, Judge Grilli ordered Brad Baugh to produce an accounting on 9-9-2014, he never
did.

In the Dong case, Baugh obtained a stray payment from the sale of Dong’s home. Baugh took the
payment for his fees and gave half to minor’s counsel, Heather Allan, without the consent of Ms.
Dong, and without a court order. When Ms. Dong complained to the Bar, she was ignored as Bar
investigators told her they only investigate lawyers for mishandling client funds deposited to their
trust accounts. Ms. Dong wasn’t Mr. Baugh’s client.

23 | P a g e
This provides for an underground and unregulated financial market that allows for antitrust activity to
thrive. 46

The State Bar should be ordered to do a complete accounting of funds placed in Mr. Baugh’s trust
account from 2000-2018.

13. LESSON FROM OTHER COUNTIES: Divorce Monopoly Potential

In Hayward v. Superior Court of Napa County (2016), reciprocal private judging relationships
pursuant to CCP 638 (consensual) or CCP 639 (nonconsensual) demonstrated the harm they can
cause innocent spouses. These relationships provide a steady stream of income to lawyers who
willfully engage in antitrust activity. These lawyers have an incentive not to disclose conflicts and
relationships that would reveal a pattern of favorable court rulings for members in what clearly has
become a monopoly for attorney fee awards and court appointments in Silicon Valley’s high asset
divorce cases where money is run through unregulated attorney trust accounts.

Photo: Keith Dolnick lawyer for Ms. Hayward in: Hayward v. Superior Court of Napa County (2016)

46Letter from Baugh to Tennant on 11-8-2018, evidence Baugh took over $726,000 in his trust account on
the Bassi case and $50,000 in the Nudelman case, he has refused to account for either.
24 | P a g e
While the record in the Hayward case is clear, that record failed to consider the unrelenting harm and
loss Ms. Hayward suffered based on the unethical conduct of privately compensated temporary
Judge Nancy Perkovich and opposing divorce attorney Bob Blevans. It is also unclear why Keith
Dolnick declined to sue Ms. Perkovich and Mr. Blevans for disgorgement of fees.

After Ms. Hayward incurred $3,000,000 to pay legal fees for what was considered a legal “win”, the
State Bar refused to disbar Ms. Perkovich and Mr. Blevans who were investigated by State Bar
employee Ben Charney for over two years. The Bar’s failures have caused Ms. Hayward to suffer
ongoing emotional trauma and harm. Worse, the experience has left Ms. Hayward with a complete
lack of trust and confidence in our legal system.

In interviews with other Perkovich private judging clients, Perkovich reportedly changed transcripts
and misused law enforcement officers, which Ms. Hayward reported to the Bar, and nothing was
done.

Ironically investigative reporter Stephen James was assigned to Ms. Perkovich in his own divorce case
where Perkovich acted as a Judge Pro Tem in Sacramento County. In that case, Mr. James was denied
FC2030 fees and involuntarily represented himself as Ms. Perkovich demonstrated favoritism toward
his former wife’s attorney, Paula Salinger. Mr. James reached out to Ms. Hayward’s lawyer. Keith
Dolnick, following the publication of the Hayward case. Mr. Dolnick did not respond.

Had the Sacramento Courts and the State Bar properly addressed attorney misconduct imposed by
Ms. Salinger and Ms. Perkovich back in 2012, Ms. Hayward might not have had to suffer the
irreparable harm and loss she clearly faced after giving consent for Ms. Perkovich to act as a privately
compensated judge in her divorce case.

Families should not need to be the founders of Google in order to obtain a fair outcome and
equitable settlement in a divorce case, as court files indicate Sergey Brin received when he divorced
in Santa Clara County in 2015, because he used a lawyer not part of the Silicon Valley Divorce Mob.
Sergey Brin’s divorce case was on the list prepared by Sharon Roper.

14. Victim Statements

Victims hereby request the appointment of counsel to protect the privacy rights of individuals who
have suffered loss, or harm, as a result of unethical, and criminal conduct, imposed by licensed family
law attorneys. Victim’s statements are currently being prepared for broadcast, and on behalf of these
victims we respectfully request the assistance of the Court in assuring these victims have the right to
be heard and the right to be free from retaliation in exercising those rights.

This appeal will be posted on Susan Bassi’s LinkedIn page, which is available for public view. Ms. Bassi
will reach out to her colleagues in the media to get these important stories told where the privacy of
the victims will be assured.

25 | P a g e
Finally, in that the State Bar is permitted to copy court files and documents without incurring any
expense47, The Silicon Valley Public Trust Committee, through their agent, Susan Bassi, hereby
requests an Order granting Susan Bassi, and her associates in the media, as well as victim's rights
advocates, equal access and the right to copy, or photograph, at no charge, documents in the public
court files in the Santa Clara County Courthouse, without fear of prosecution.48

Relief Requested:

A. Order for appointment of Counsel; where privacy of victims and protection of


confidential sources will be assured.
B. Order the State Bar to audit the trust accounts of any Santa Clara County lawyers who
placed community property rents, income, or home sale proceeds into their trust
accounts from 2002-2018.
C. Order the Disgorgement of attorney fees, sanctions and costs in any Santa Clara
County family law matter where a court appointment pursuant to CCP §638 or CCP
§639 was made in violation of a litigant's due process rights for cases filed between
2000 and 2018.
D. Order an investigation of Santa Clara County District Attorney Office, and Jeff Rosen,
for prosecutorial misconduct and for repeated failures to protect Victims' Rights.
E. Order Setting Aside the No Photographing Order in the Public Areas of the Santa Clara
County Family Courthouse, signed by Patricia Lucas on 10-10-2017.

Respectfully Submitted,

Susan Bassi and Pamela Nudelman,

On behalf of the Members of the Silicon Valley Public Trust Committee

47 Letter from Joe Dunn to the Santa Clara County Courts in a Baugh matter.
48 See Judge Lucas Standing Order Signed 10-10-�017, posted on the court's website.

261Pa ge