POLITICS - The objective of this article is not to discuss the current City Attorney and his being a habitual liar and manufacturer of evidence and too unethical to state his job title correctly for the ballot. Nor, shall I opine whether it would take some type of mental disorder for the city attorney, whose main job is to advise the city and its personnel and defend them when charged with criminal wrong, to believe that his minor role in misdemeanor prosecutions would make him Los Angeles Chief Prosecutor. Those character traits are more appropriately discussed when calling for Carmen Trutanich’s resignation as City Attorney.
Skipping over the lies and frauds peculiar to Trutanich, there is a fundamental policy question whether the City Attorney – this City Attorney or any City Attorney – may ethically run for District Attorney.
While the California Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to the wealthy and powerful, we may indulge ourselves in a fanciful discussion of “what if” everyone played by the same rules.
Rule 3-310 Avoiding the Representation of Adverse Interests says that an attorney should not represent a client in matters where a previous relationship would substantially affect the attorney’s representation of his new client. (Rule 3-310 B) (2)(b)
Also, an attorney may not undertake a new case when he had a prior legal or business relation who would be substantially affected by the outcome of the new case (Rule 3-310(B)(3).
Furthermore, an attorney shall not accept representation of a new client where the attorney has confidential information about a former client. Rule 3-310 (E)
Let’s see how these rules impact a City Attorney, whose job is to advise the City and its personnel how to conduct business and to defend them when sued civilly or criminally.
While the City Charter makes clear that the City Attorney does not represent the people, the District Attorney’s website says that the DA does represent the people. It states:
“The District Attorney of Los Angeles, as a constitutional officer and the public prosecutor acting on behalf of the people, is vested with the independent power to conduct prosecutions for public offenses, to detect crime and to investigate criminal activity. The District Attorney advises the Grand Jury in its investigations. By law, the District Attorney sponsors and participates in programs to improve the administration of justice." ¶ 1 Mission Statement by Los Angeles County District Attorney, downloaded March 13, 2012
Thus, it appears that while the DA represents the public, the city Attorney represents some of potential felons whom the DA should criminally prosecute.
How can a former City Attorney prosecute his former clients? He may very well have confidential information about the corruption in City Hall. The law forbids his disclosing that information. Rule 3-1000(A), California Evidence Code, §§ 954, 955
Thus, any City Attorney who becomes District Attorney may not prosecute the City of Los Angeles or its personnel for civil or criminal wrongs. In a city which has been identified as the second most corrupt in the nation, the inability of the District Attorney to prosecute the criminals should preclude him from the Office of District Attorney. He is legally incompetent to perform his legal responsibilities as “public prosecutor acting on behalf of the people.”
We need to bear in mind, as City Attorney, someone like Trutanich is privileged to all confidential data in the City Attorney’s Office. He may look into any file at any time. His job is to oversee all the cases in his office as well as to advise the city on its conduct. The law has to presume that he knows all the secrets. As District Attorney, he is again the head honcho. He is privy to everything.
However, matters are more serious. The District Attorney may not even undertake an investigation where he should know that the investigation would substantially affect his former client(s). In brief, that means District Attorney Trutanich could not investigate AEG as it may reveal criminal conduct by members of the city council.
He could not investigate Hal Katersky and the $1.4 Million appraisal fraud at the CRA project at 1601 N. Vine as that surely would lead to CRA and Council President Garcetti. He could not investigate CIM Group and the CRA Midtown Project, as that would lead to the CRA and Councilmember Wesson, nor could he look at CIM Group and CRA’s Hollywood Western project and the fraud on the city council to obtain the ENA as that would lead to CRA and Councilmember LaBonge. Nor may he investigate the $12.5 Million fraudulent Bait and Switch involving the Hollywood Sign. Nor, may he investigate the extortions and kick-backs by the Housing Authorities or the illegality of the City Attorney’s paying $100,000.00 to outside counsel who had donated to his political campaign.
Thus, when a City Attorney becomes the District Attorney any and prior civil and criminal wrongdoing by the city and its personnel are placed beyond the reach of the law. Could that be the reason, Trutanich may be under pressure to become DA – the other candidates might launch criminal investigations into the missing millions of dollars at City Hall, into the dealings with AEG, or with CIM Group or with the CRA in general? They surely don’t seem bothered by his habitual lies and frauds.
Of course, the muckymuck powers on high see no conflict as the District Attorney may obtain the consent of his former clients to criminally prosecute them. It’s reasoning like that which has resulted in Los Angeles’ rise to the top of corruption in the nation.
The lofty powers will quietly ignore how DA Trutanich would obtain the public’s consent to this conflict of interest. Hmm, perhaps he’d hire a bunch of kids in Bangladesh to sign consent forms by clicking on his You Tube site.
(Richard Lee Abrams is an attorney in Los Angeles. He can be reached at: [email protected] ) –cw
Tags: City Attorney, District Attorney, Carmen Trutanich
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 22
Pub: Mar 16, 2012