Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12-1-2023 - State Bar's Special Deputy Trial Counsel Shane Morrison's Decision To The Complaint Against Dresser, Huggins and Brune

    Uploaded by

    Jerry Vashchook
    20 views7 pages
    Case No.: 23-0-23272 Respondent: Dresser, Gregory Case No.: 23-0-23273 Respondent: Laura, Huggins Case No.: 23-0-23322 Respondent: Brune, Robin Review of Decision If you wish to present new facts or circumstances you believe may change my determination to close your complaints, you may submit a written statement with the new information to the address listed in the letterhead above within 10 days. Shane Morrison Special Deputy Trial Counsel

    Original Title

    12-1-2023- State Bar's Special Deputy Trial Counsel Shane Morrison's Decision To the Complaint Against Dresser, Huggins and Brune

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Case No.: 23-0-23272 Respondent: Dresser, Gregory Case No.: 23-0-23273 Respondent: Laura, Huggins Case No.: 23-0-23322 Respondent: Brune, Robin Review of Decision If you wish to present new facts or circumstances you believe may change my determination to close your complaints, you may submit a written statement with the new information to the address listed in the letterhead above within 10 days. Shane Morrison Special Deputy Trial Counsel

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    20 views7 pages

    12-1-2023 - State Bar's Special Deputy Trial Counsel Shane Morrison's Decision To The Complaint Against Dresser, Huggins and Brune

    Uploaded by

    Jerry Vashchook
    Case No.: 23-0-23272 Respondent: Dresser, Gregory Case No.: 23-0-23273 Respondent: Laura, Huggins Case No.: 23-0-23322 Respondent: Brune, Robin Review of Decision If you wish to present new facts or circumstances you believe may change my determination to close your complaints, you may submit a written statement with the new information to the address listed in the letterhead above within 10 days. Shane Morrison Special Deputy Trial Counsel

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 7
    4 DEC 2023 PMB L Jaroslaw Vaszczuk 2216 Katzakian Way Lodi, CA 95242 ss2a2-a79916 Mortar Ona Ds {ge THE STATE BAR ‘SPECIAL DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL ‘ Ue OF CALIFORNIA Wey ca December 1, 2023, "ERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL Jaroslaw Waszezuk 2216 Katrakian Way Lodi, cA 95242 RE: CaseNo: — 23-0-23272 Respondent: Dresser, Gregory caseNo: — 23-0-23273 Respondent: Laura, Huggins CaseNo: 2-0-2332 Respondent: Brune, Robin Dear Mr. Waszczuk: {ama Special Deputy Trial Counsel ("SOTC") appointed pursuant to Rule 2201 of the Rules of Procedue of the State ar of California. Rule 220! allows forthe appointment ofan independent SOTC In situations where the State Bar's Office of the Chief Teal Counsel ("OCTC") is recused from considering disciplinary matters concerning varous categories of individuals, including attorneys who hhave a current or recent professional relationship tothe State Bar and/or OCTC. ‘You have filed complaints against: Gregory Dresser, in his former capacity as Acting Deputy Chief Trial ‘Counsel and Interim Chief Trial Counsel with OCTC; Laura Huggins, in her former capacity asa Deputy ‘rial Counsel with OCTC; and Robin Brune, in her former capacity as a Senior Trial Counsel with OCTC. Accordingly, our complaints have been referred to me for review. | willbe addressing your complaints ‘against al three of those attorneys in this letter. Please be advised, to the extent that your complaints reference allegations against attorneys other than Mr. Dresser, Ms. Huggins, and Ms. Brune, those matters have not been referred to me and | have no authorty to address those allegations at this time. Specifically, you have referenced various allegations in connection with your complaint against your forme attorney, Douglas Stein (Case No. 415-0-10110). While I may discuss the substance and procedural history of your complaint against Mr, Stine, asit relates to your present complaints | have no authority to address your allegations against ‘Mr. Stein at this time. As such, this letter will nly address your current complaints against Mr. Dresser, Ms. Huggins, and Ms. Brune. ‘Asan SDTC, | cannot proceed with disciplinary charges against an attorney unless | can present evidence in court suficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence thatthe attorney has committed 2 Violation of the State Bar Act or the Rus of Professional Conduct. ln some cases, there may be ‘euidence of potentially wrongful conduct, bu this evidence may be Insufficient to prove allegations of ‘misconduct at tral orto justify the commencement of a disciplinary proceeding After carefully reviewing your complaints and other relevant information, have determined that there isnot a sufficient basis to pursue your complaints against Mr. Dresser, Ms. Huggins, or Ms, Brune. For the reasons stated below, have decided to close your complaints. Most ofyour complaint and the majority ofthe numerous supporting documents you have provided are exclusively related to your various underlying civil cases, as wll as complaints you have filed with ‘the Commission on Judicial Performance. You have also made various assertions concerning alleged criminal misconduct. Therefore, before | address the substance of your complaints, believe itis necessary to clarify the purpose ofthe tate Bar disciplinary process, as well as outine the limits of my powers and authority as an SOTC, ‘The California Supreme Court has authority over the admission and discipline of attorneys under {Acticle VI of the Constitution ofthe State of California. The State Bar acts 2s the administrative arm of ‘the Calfornia Supreme Courtin all matters related to attorney admission and discipline in California (Rules of tate Bar, Rule 1.2.) The State Baris governed by a board known asthe board of trustes. (Gus, & Prof, Code § 6010) Allofficers, agents, and entities operating on behalf of the State Bar have only the powers, duties, and authority delegated by the board. (Rules of State Bar, Rule 6.20,) The board has delegated to OCTC exclusive jurisdiction to review inquires and complaints, conduct investigations into alleged attorney misconduct, and determine whether to Fle Notices of Disciplinary Charges in the State Bar Cour, (Rules of Proc. of State Bar, Rule 2101.) When a matter referred to an SOTC, that attorney has all the powers and duties of OCTC and acts entirely in OCTC's place with regard ‘to_an inquiry or complaint and any resulting investigation or prosecution (Rules of Proc, Rule 2204(c).) However, the SOTCis not an employee ofthe State Bar and exercises independent judgment in carrying out those duties. (Rules of Proc, Rule 2203(e).) ‘An SDTC has complete discretion to close an inquiry, complaint, or investigation. (Rules of Proc, Rule 2601.) fan SDTC determines the factual allegations ofa complaint do not articulate a violation, or that the factual allegations contained therein, if proven, wauld not result n discipline, the SOTC is required to lose the matter. (Rules of Proc, Rule 2201(¢) Further, an SDTC may onl file @ Notice of Disciplinary Charges f there Is reasonable cause to believe that an attorney has committed a violation ofthe State Bar Actor the Rules of Profesional Conduct. (Rules of Proc., Rule 2608.) Even aftera notice of disciplinary charges has been filed, an attorney cannot be disciplined unless the SOTC can prove culpability by clear and convincing evidence. (Rules of Proc, Rule 5.103.) If an SDC believes the Available evidence is insufficient ta satisy that burden of proof, then the matter should be close. ‘With that background established, l want to emphasize that neither the State Bar nor OCTC are law ‘enforcement agencies, They do not have the authority or ability to conduc criminal Investigations, file ‘criminal charges, isue or execute warrant, or drect the investigative efforts of any law enforcement Page 2 ‘agency. Further, bth the State Bar and OCTC can only exercise the powers delegated to them by the California Supreme Court through the board of trustees. Neither the State Bar nor OCTC have the authority or ably to compel the Supreme Court, nor any other court or administrative body, to take any actions. As an SDTC, I stand inthe shoes of OCTC and all those same limitations apply to me. "Neither OCTC nor the State Bar have judicial authority, they are not appellate bodies, and they do not hhave ussdietion to review or change any decisions made in any of your civil matters. Your complaints about those matters should be addressed tothe tribunal, court, or administrative body with proper jurisdletion to address those concerns. In regards to your various allegations concerning the Commission on Judicial Performance ("CP"), neither the State Bar nor OCTC have any authority to direct that activities ofthat agency, CIP isan independent state agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity and for disciplining judges, pursuant to article Vi, section 18 ofthe California Constitution. Any concerns you have related tothe CIP or its decisions should be addressed to that agency -Again, the authority of OCTC and the State Bar, and by extension my authority, Is imited to regulating ‘the conduct of licensed attorneys. This basic fact renders mast of your allegtions and purported evidence irelevant as to your complaints against Mr. Dresser, Ms. Huggins, and Ms. Brune. The few allegations and pieces of purported evidence that are relevant do not form a sufficient basis from hich could prosecute Mr. Dresser, Ms. Huggins, or Ms. Brune for any alleged acts of professional misconduct. More importanty, as willbe discussed in detail below, nearly every single action and ‘event that you have complained of occurred more than five years ago and is therefore procedurally time-barred pursuant tothe time limit for complaints under Rule 5.21 of the Rules of Procedure ofthe State Bar of California ‘The entirety of your complaint stems from your underlying dispute with the Regents of the Univesity ‘of California in connection with thelr termination of your employment. Sine approximately 2013, you have initiated various civil matters in cannection with that ongoing dispute, which then led to your ‘complaint against your former attorney, Mr. Stein, and your various CJP complaints. In regards to Mr, ‘Stein, you fled a complaint against him on December 19, 2084 (Case No. 15-0-10110). That case was handled, both directly and Indirectly, by multiple OCTC attorneys, including both Ms. Huggins and Ms. Brune. During the pendency of your complaint against Mr, Stein, Mr. Dresser served in various leadership positions within OCTC, (On May 9,2017, a Notice of Disciplinary Charges was fled in Case No. 25-O-10110 alleging that Mr. Stein engaged in various acts of misconduct stemming from your complaint. On October 17, 2017, Mr. Stein entered into a stipulation with OCTC wherein he admitted to engaging in various acts of ‘misconduct, namely falling to preserve client funds, commingling personal funds in a client trust account, failing to render an appropriate accounting of funds toa client, and committing an act of ‘moral turpitude by misappropriating client funds. Mr. Stein stipulated to be placed on probation fr a period of three years, subject to various conditions, including that he would be actually suspended from the practice of taw fora period of one year, and until he paid the full amount of restitution owed to you and your wife. The State 6ar Court subsequentiy approved the stipulation and recommended to Page 3 the Supreme Court of California thatthe stipulated discipline be imposed. On March 1, 2018, the Supreme Court of California imposed the recommended discipline on Mr. Stein. Me. Sten subsequently failed to comply with nearly all the concitions of his probation and, on December 20, 2018, a Notice of Disciplinary Charges was filed against Mr. Stein in Case Nos, 18-- 116529 and 18-N-16452 in connection with those failures. Those matters were not handled by Ms Huggins or Mr. Brune, and Me. Dresser was no longer employed by OCTC by the time those charges were filed. Mr. Stein failed to participate in those matters and his default was entered on February 7, 2019, Mr. Stein was utimately disbarred on January 10, 2020 in Case No, 18-N-16452 and is no longer Permitted to engage in the practice of law in California, With that background in mind | turn to the substance of your complaints against Mr. Dresser, Mis Huggins, and Ms, Grune, Your complaints are contained in a sprawling SS-page document thats

    You might also like