Professional Negligence, Complaint Filed By Plaintiff
Hicks B-80852, Michael J.
As To Defendant
Bien, Michael W. For Rosen, Bien & Galvan Llp
Summons Issued, Judicial Council Civil Case Cover Sheet Filed
Case Management Conference Scheduled For Sep-21-2007
Proof Of Service Due On Jun-18-2007
Case Management Statement Due On Sep-06-2007
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
MICHAEL J. HICKS B-80852 VS. MICHAEL W. BIEN
001001744981
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Page 2 C Cc SUM-100
_ SUMMONS oie EE OO
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO): 97/CAAEL MK GEN PAR.
AAEM, LIEN t CRLVANM LLP"
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
PIICHA ELT BblS
The name and address of the court is SUSLIE AA LOT OF CFL fad
{Ef nombre y direccién de ta corte es): CUNTV DEEN FI eco ” iimbs Syke 7 ~4 6 2 5 3 0
KEI APIO PVL LISTER SIR ELT
SAA FRAN CLSCOr CA PHO R
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attomey, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(El nombre, la direccién y ef nimera de teléfono det abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
L9ACMA Fil TK Ml CARD LP2 DO LO AVG 0OBL
O-PS OP SR ; SPOEPERE SSA! FSA
DATE: : . Clerk, by : » Deputy
wrecks) ‘APR 19 207 Gordon ParkeLt (scoetaiay C7 Jun Panelo _— ‘¢adjunto
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010)) :
(Para prueba de entrega de esta citatién use ef formutaria Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
1. as an individual defendant.
2. >< ‘as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
POSEN BIEN ¢ SALVA MS
3, Exct on behait of (specify):
under: [__] CCP 416.10 (corporation) ((7) CCP 416.60 (minor)
(_) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) [__] CCP 446.70 (conservatee)
Ea CCP 416.40 {association or partnership) Pet CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
(_] other (specify):
4. [7] by personal delivery on (date):
Page tott
Form Adopted tor Mandatory Use Code of Crd Procedure §§ 42.20, 465
pat00 fan sence tae SUMMONS
SUML100 [Rev, Jarasary t, 2004]Page 3 < q CM-010
| ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name,"sie Bar number, and address):
SVL OLAEL Go FFI CNS Fo, LIK oP FY: CE FOR COURT USE ONLY
BLD BIR NEFHESA 1 CR GEEO/ EY L E D
TeverHone nor TETALS” FAXNO: San Frpncisco County Superior Court
ATTORNEY FOR name A094 S224 Ot?
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF. (>971/ FRAN SOO APR 1 9 2007
Smrceranorsss| 09) SO0 ALLISTER STKELT |
conowe, SAN FRAMED P8322 ror? N Ned Ponce rerk
BRANCH NAME: . Deputy Clerk
CASENAME: LPOSLVGAEL So LISLIS
AOSEN) LENE CALLAN LF
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation eas, -
! Untimited [J] Limited oO oO CEC ~07 -46 2 3 30
(Amount (Amount Counter Joinder
demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant &
exceeds $25,000) — $25,000 or fess) (Cal. Rutes of Court, rule 3.402) CEPT:
items 1-5 below musi be completed (see instructions on page 2}.
1. Check one box below for the case type thal best describes this case:
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
Auto (22) CJ Breach of contractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
Uninsured motorist (46) (J Cottections (09) {_] AntitrusvTrade regulation (03)
Other PUPDAWD (Personal Injury/Property. [__] Insurance coverage (18) [__] Construction defect (10)
Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Other contract (37) {__] mass tort (40)
Asbestos (04) Real Property [__] Securities litigation (28)
Product ability (24) LC] Eminent domaininverse L_} EnvironmentatToxic tort (30)
Medical malpractice (45) condemnation (14) Insurance coverage claims arising from the
CJ Other PYUPDAWD (23) C ] Wrongful eviction (33) tes (si) provisionally complex case
Non-PYPDAVD (Other) Tort { Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
Business torf/unfair business practice (07} Untawful Detalner C] Ent ent of jud (20)
4 Civil rights (08) . LJ Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civit Complaint
Defamation (13) L_] Residential (32) [1 ricown
[_) Frava (16) , Drugs (38) . . .
[_] intenectual property (19} Judicial Review [] ote . . ri Got speci fied above) (42)
Professional negligence (25) L_] Asset forfeiture (05) (_] Parnership and te govemance (21)
Other non-PYPDAWD tort (35) [7] Petition re: arbitration award (11) FI ome ton i an ne ora od above) 83)
Employment [__] wait of mandate (02) Pe
Wrongful termination (38)
[J other juciciat review (39
[_] other employment (15) or cicial review (39)
2. This case CJ is by isnot complex under rule 3.400 of the Califomia Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
a. Large number of separately represented parties d. Cj Large number of witnesses
b. L_] Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. [_J Coordiriation with related actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will ba time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
c. L) Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. | Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
3. Type of remedies sought (check alf that apply): ‘
a. L_J monetary b. BQ nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. [<4 punitive
4. Number of causes of action (specify):
This case CJ is isnot aclass action suit.
if there are ed known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-075.}
Date: &. ~[6 -o7 ’ a
LULL LALA CLT MHICEES : fe
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME} (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATFORNEY FOR PARTY)
Page 1 of 2
Fe a aguas ae CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET — paar] ere an
cau oie ew lorry 82007 wow contre ca erPage 4 # Cc |. | C
ev | a PLD-PI-001
™ |_ATTORNEY OR PARTY VWATHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and sddress}: FOR COURT USE ONLY
AION ALL, TO PICKS POO. BAK 2GO8LE
B-EO BSR LVESPOR ESA CA IGEF
San Fr¢nciseo County Superior Court
recepHone No. ALAA FAX NO. (Opeonag:
E-MAIL ADORESS (Options: APR 1 9 2007
ATTORNEY FOR (Name AA AY) KYE7O
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF_ SAA ARAN OLLI
GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
STREETAOERESS. C509 LYCALLISTER STREET BY: pt epuy Clerk
* Graoze co: DPVIMAVLISEE F¥/02.
BRANCH NAME:
MAINTE: B21 CHAEL D. H4/CKS" CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET
DEFENDANT: BCMA EL ad feu Far p
OSEMAEIENM 0 GALVAN -
[5 poes1 70 ‘ VAN LL SEP 21 2007 -9%AM
COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death
[J] AMENDED (Number): DEPARTMENT 212
Type (check all that apply):
(__] MOTOR VEHICLE - [__] OTHER (specify):
[__] Property Damage Wrongful Death SIMMONS ESSUED
Personal Injury |__| Other Damages (specify):
Jurisdiction (check all that apply): CASE NUMBER:
[__] ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE
Amount demanded [_] does not exceed $10,000
{__} exceeds $10,000, but does not exceed $25,000
[52] ACTION IS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $25,000} —£ Ce- -4£62 0
[J] ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint , G 0 7 4 6 - 3 3
[J from limited to untimited
[__] from unlimited to timited «
1. Plaintiff (name ornames): 7 /CMALL Fo AIKS
alleges causes of action against defendant (name ornames):: FYCA ALL Lod: GIEN FO
AOEM LIEN GALVAN LLP
2. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages:
3. Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult
a, [] except plaintiff (name):
(1) [] a comoration qualified to do business in California
(2) [_) an unincorporated entity (describe):
(3) [_) a public entity (describe):
(4) CJ] aminor (_] anadutt
(a) (__] for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed
(b) (7) other (specify):
(5) [_] other (specify):
b. [__] except plaintitt (name):
(1) E] a comoration qualified to do business i in California
(2) [__] an unincorporated entity (describe):
(3) (__) a public entity (describe):
(4) CJ aminor [_] an adutt
(a) (_] for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed
(b) (__] other (specify):
(5) L_] other (specify):
C—] Information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shawn in Attachment 3. Page tots
Ferra Aoproved fox Once COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Co nt ten
PLO-P1.O01 Rev, January 1, 2007) Damage, Wrongful Death ‘
American Legainet, inc.
rerane Forme Workflow comPage 5 PLD-PI-091
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER
LLOKS LOLUEN CA 27
4. [_) Plaintiff (name):
is doing business under the fictitious name (specify):
and has complied with the fictitious business name taws.
3. Each defendant named above is a natural person
a. [_] exeept defendant (name): KOMEN LEN ALG HL VAM, (—} except defendant (name):
(1) [7] a business organization, form unknown (1) (7) a business organization, form unknown
(2) (] a corporation (2) ("J a corporation
(3) (] an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) [] an unincorporated entity (describe):
(4) ["_] a public entity (describe): (4) (7) a public entity (describe):
(5) EX) other (specity: 9 LALI F/ RIN (5) C2) other (specify):
PRAINER SH P
b. (] except defendant (name}: ¢. (7) except defendant (name):
(1) [") a business organization, form unknown (1) (7) a business organization, form unknown
(2) [£] acorporation (2) () a corporation
(3) [J an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) (5) an unincorporated entity (describe):
(4) (J a public entity (describe): (4) (_] 2 public entity (describe):
(5) (] other (specify): (5) () other (specify):
{~~ ] Information about additional defendants who are not natural persons is contained in Attachment 5.
3. The true names of defendants sued as Does are unknown te plaintiff,
a. (7 Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): were the agents or employees of other
named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment.
b. ([_] Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): are persons whose capacities are unknown to
plaintiff. :
". (2) Defendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names).
This court is the proper court because
a. [><] at least one defendant now resides in its jurisdictional area.
b. ><] the principal place of business of a defendant comoration or unincorporated association is in its jurisdictional area.
c. [eTinjury to person or damage to Personal property occurred in its jurisdictional area.
d. [7] other (specify):
[~] Plaintiff is required to comply with a claims statute, and
a. &<] has complied with applicable claims statutes, or :
b. (_] is excused from complying because (specify):
P +4 G01 (Rew January 1, 2007] COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Page Zot 3
Damage, Wrongful DeathPage 6 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
LYILR EM LEN C7? 24
10. The following causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have one or more
causes of action attached):
. [J Motor Vehicle
. []} General Negligence
[>
[__] Products Liabitity
. L] Premises Liability
[__] Other (specify):
PLD-PI-001
=~oanga»
11. Plaintiff has suffered
a. [__] wage loss
b. [__] loss of use of property
c. [__] hospital and medical expenses
d. [__] generat damage
e. [__] property damage
f. [__] toss of eaming capacity
g. B<] other damage (speci): PAKSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ZNO
LINOTIONAL DISTRESS
12, [[_] The damages claimed for wrongful death and the relationships of plaintiff to the deceased are
a. (_] listed in Attachment 12.
b. £_] as fotows:
"13. The relief sought in this complaint is within the jurisdiction of this court.
14. Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit: for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for
a. (1) compensatory damages
(2) [>< punitive damages
The amount of damages Is (in cases for personal injury or wrongful death, you must check (1)):
(1) ($2 according to proof
(2) [__] in the amount of: $
15. EG] The paragraphs of this complaint alleged on information and belief are as follows (specify paragraph numbers):
Date: f- [6 -o 7
LULHABLA. TZ. Lt ee hoe!’ bee
(TYPE OF PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE INTIFF OR ATTORNEY)
PLO-PI.001 [Rev, January 1, 2007) COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Page 3 ot 3
Damage, Wrongful DeathPage 7 C €
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER
LLCS LK LLL
__ OWE ____ CAUSE OF ACTION—Intentional Tort Page 7.
{number} a
ATTACHMENT TO Comptaint [_] Cross - Complaint
PLD-PI-001(3)
te LI CLE VALE CL el Ala, O8@ FI EIEY
Page 1 oft
Form Apprved for Opgonal Use CAUSE OF ACTION-intentiona! Tort Cote of Gea Process, § 25.52
PLD-P1-001(3} [Rev. January 1, 2007]
www Forms Workfiow.comPage 8 C C
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE
nies nen = my 1188) Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other Court Paper CRC 201, 504
American LegalNet, inc.
www USCourtForms.comPage 9 € C
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
10
1
—
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
2
26
3. ON f8-S-20m8 DEFEMLANT LWRAES: 2
"ZT WAVE WIRITIEAI THE SPECIAL PIAST 8 NU THE, COLLETDA VMSA, |
CASE QOVCERM/NVE SLR NEED FOR ZNPATIENT TREATINENT AT ASH ANL
THE CDOS REFUSAL JOP ROVIDE bho GITH AD ERATE NIENTAL MEALTH
PAE
“ZL LET FOU KWON COAT THE SPECIAL TRASTERS EXPERTS
(DOP. IETZNER) (ANE 70 SAP A Bear St R CASE Fallow! FIER
VAST 7a CORCORAN.” CEXHIEYT F')
K ON F-26-01 DEFENOANT WWRITESY
“LW TERI OF INY SENTENCE (MINI LEDER RECARDING THE EAMELOPE;
ST OUAS NOP POEBNT FO POEBKNT FOREARM PNOTIINE CXCEP F FART VOU
SHOMD LEEL FREE F4 CONTROT US AOBOLIT ANE SPECHTC PRDLLEIS THAT
60 ARE HAVING THAT WE CAN HELP to17# CEXWIEITE'),
a, LW ¥-12-0/ DEPENDANT CIRITES:
“JUST” GOTO FE THE CONFERENCE CRLL FROMD THE COLEIAN (ROMUTORS
td WERE AT CORCERAN PAD QRINETENER DISUSED FoUR CASE.
(SxH/817 /7'),
SW B-S-O) DEFENDANT WRITES:
"2 HOVE Nor 62TEN 900? RECOR aS $7 Bi LOO REQUEST FHE
ZN SPATIENT AECOROS AS CHL by |
AAD...
“Zh TERINS OF US MIVESTICR TIE CONDITIONS 1A) THE Shite WE
ARE Dh F30CH OTT ANS LOANS LMINATES HOUSED IM TOE SH L
FROCRAMNS THROUGHOUT THE STATE."
2. FR T2 COLEDENLSCHIMARZENEECER
(Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
numbers):
27 . ”
This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. Page - 5
Farm Aoproved by te ADDITIONAL PAGE
eee Cowes of cover Attach to Judicial Councit Form or Other Court Paper CRC 201, 501
American LegatNet, Ine.
www US CourtForms.comPage 10 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
SMO.
WE HAVE BEEN ABLE 70 MAINE MARES CUHEM WE REAR FROM
A FE DUMATES PEOUT THE SANE OFFICERS AND THIS HAS
ARELTED IV SIP FF BGINE MOVED AT Sone OFTHE PRISENS,”
(LyMborz)
2. OM 3-27-62 DEFENORNT WRITES
"ZF fou ARE UNABLE TO GET THE OFFICERS 70 ACCEPT OR AESPOND
70 $6OR C021 FEU CAN SEND IT FOIME PND DAML SEE ZF LZ
CAN FERUARD 19°70 THE DEPUTY ANTORNEY GENERAL. 20HO
Works oN THE CASE." CEKXMEIT TT’),
E. DECENDANT CONTINUED TO OFFER AND ASSIST ALT ZNDWIDUAL
ZNTERVENTION OW GEHILF OF PLAINTIFF ON S~6-02) PoP:
Fo P02 1 PAS (2-20-02 EXHIBIT KY),
I? Qh 3-16-02 DEPENDANT SPEAACALLS REQUESTEL PLBINTIFF 78
FoRWARD ANY DEPARTMENTAL CO0C-66as OR LOC-1/S1 OR OTHER
en DiVioth, DOLUMENTBT IO OF PITELOPTEL EFFORTS Te GALS
SYLCS FLED MIENMTAL. RERLTIATREATINENT:
INDEVEN PROVIOED (IN ENVELOPE: FIR YOU 78 RESPOND AT FOUR
EARLIEST CONVEMENCE. EXHIBIT)
11. Pham PREM 2003 THRY D eden BER bs 200%: DEFEMDANT-
CONTINUED 70 AFFIRD AND ASSIST PLA INTVEE LN AM ZNDIVIMUAL
CAPACITY. DORIN GC THE COORSE OF THIS T1NE PZAINTIFE /ILS0
CN OURED A IEAR LONG BATTLE OF CIATCHINE P18 01 F & SUCCUTA
FO CANCER tot HER DEARTH OCCORRIME OW SEPTEMBER 181 OF,
WY, ew MOVEMBER 2001 FEAIITIEE WROTE DEFENLRNT
are) for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
numbers):
This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. P x
age
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE
Judcal Counc of Caltioria Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other Court Paper CRE 201, 501
American Legainet, Inc.
ween USCourtForms.comPage 11 C C
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
23
26
MEOUESTUVE THE RETURN OF SOlnk COURT TRANSCAILTS
THAT DETENDANT LIPS. HHOLOINE 1A) STORERCE. DEF ENLAN I
LNVWTED PLEINTIFE. GW ld-1-OV SEE ALISO A212 09)
“LET SS KNOL 1F VOOM AVE ANE FURTISER CONCERRS
ABIN7T THE LEVEL OF MENTAL HEALTH CARE YOU ARE
RPECEVINE AT CORCORAN. ° CEXW1EIT 79),
Jee. YS STATED (MN DEFENDANTS LEVER a F 1A Af-OT*
“ENCLOSED ARE THE Q/GINAL DOCUMENTS FROM Your
CRIMUNACTRIAL THET YOO REQUESTED."
HOWEVER: DEFENDANTLLSOANCLUDED FI COPY OF PLAINTUFS
CORRESPINDANCE FILE CIH1CH CONTAINED THE DOCUINENTS (PLING
OTHERS) IM EXHIBIT'R'. os NS
YZ. OW Aa-OS DELEN ONT CONFALTEL THE ATTORNEY GENERALS °
OF/SICE AT PLAINTIFFS. REQUEST CONCERMAIE SAFETY CONCERNS
Ah FRSOKN OFFICIAL ABOSE AT CORCORAN PRISEMELN BIT 1).
6 OM A~?-051 PLAINTIFF DUSCOVERED THE DOCUMENTS 0 F EXHIBIT
(BAND ATTEMPTED TO ERINTHE AIDORESS FORTHE DEMUTT
ATIORNE! GENERAL INTHE LOLEDAM CASEe DEFENDANT GURITES
OW A~/5-05.
“orAin UNAELE TAGIVE FiO THE ALDRESS FOR THE DE PUTT
ATIORNE ¥ GENERM, HON L CONTACTED ON $0UR BEHALF.”
(exHiBrr 6’). .
JE, TH Fake GONG 1S HiSTIR CAL OVERVIECS THAT 1S A ABKED
CONTRAST FO DEFENLANTS LETTER 8 F 3-50-07 1 bSHERE
h
=. dER AC Ya FEAR PERIOD,
aiaellad for verified pleading) The Items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify Hem numbers, not line
numbers):
27 : : _ : .
This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. Pe =
ge
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE
Judicial Councl of Caltfornia Attach to Judiclal Council Form or Other Court Paper CRC 201, 601
MC-020 [New January 1, 1987}
American LegalNet, Ine,
wwe US CourtForms.comPage 12 c €
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
10
"1
12
DEFENDANT OMITES >
“QDR ROLES CLASS COUNSEL |S TO L0aRK FO PROVIDE ZTMPROVED
DENTAL HEALTH TREATIP ENT TO LNMATES SISTEMEM/DE AND
THOS OEPNS THAT SE D8 NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES 70 INTERVENE
ON BEHALF OF ZVI LUALIN MATES! OTHER THAN 70 CONTR
THe COLEMAN PRote&Cr TzAIn, £ HOPE §b0 LNDERSTAND.”
Ee. QINAT SOAINTI FE HAD REQUESTED ORS Fa TZAKE CONTACT HTH
DR. METENER REEARDING AIN EARLIER SEPTEVIBER ROO
DNIERMECA LIP FHE DOETOR ” Lop DN OPDATE 1) COMNECT AKI TO
He DEVELOPEINENT OF A SPEC CITED COCR SUP PROCRAT.
AN ZN STROTION GHIEN 73 FYPIMIIFE BE THE DOCBR.
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
LOST LAWSUT RETALIATION
17. SWCE FUE [RRO SETTLEMENT DEPENDANT HAS DISTLA FED) :
KE PEBTED AND NUMER IOUS ACTS OF ZNEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEZ.
18. FLAINTIFE: SENT DEPPRTMENTAL. MEDICAL RECORDS THAT ARE
FALSE IN NATURE AND-THAT HAVE CREATED CONSTITUTIONAL
VIOLATIONS GF DLE PROCESS AND CRUEL. AND UNUS VAL PUNISHMENT
To BE TNFLECTED DPON PLAINTICF: INCLUDING A DOCUMENTED ACT
OF DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYEE ATTEMPTED MURDER.AND A
UN PROVEN ALLEGATION Of DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYEE SEXVAL AS AULT.
JP. DEFENDANTS ACKNOWLEDCE THE FALSITHITEY OF THESE (NENTAL
Y, SALCAAL MEASIER EXPER],
(Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
numbers):
This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. Page oO
MC-020 [New January 1, 1997]
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE
Judiaal Council of California Attach to Judictal Council Form or Other Court Paper CRE 201, 501
American LegaiNet, Inc.
wow USCourtForma.comPage 13 € C
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
HLELUT TS RECORDS,
30, DEFENDANTS ACKNOLE DCE PLAINTIFFS. PLLEERTIONS LOENTAL
AND PHYSICAL CRUELT FS ZNPLECTED OP ON PS PERS FEF
BOVE DNITENTIONALLY FAMED 70 BRINE THE POATTER FOTHE
AENTION OF THE LEPARIINENT OF CORRECTIONS 1 7T7HE STATE
ATTORNEY GENERALS THE COLEPIAN) SPECHAL IASTER OR THE
COLEIAM TOLGCE .
al. GIHEN PLAINTIFF TIREATENEL T8 ONCE NORE FHE Sort
AERAINST FOS) COURT APPOINTED COONS Et.1 COUNSEL RESPOND EL
OM 3-408 6 -
“(at SOV OONTINUE TO THREPTEN TO SUE OUR OFFICE WIE Will
CEASE 70 COMMONICATE WITH You."
AND.
“THREATENING US ILL WOT CET YOO ANYUNHERE.
Cexwerr P)
RA. OW 330-60 PLINTH FE REQUESTED DEFENDANT 72 PLPR OUCH
SHE L00RT tII777 A DDARSD EA)? FSPE NOTION
23.0M 2-806 1 DEFENDANT REPUSEO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST
STATING:
” 7 An GIRITING 1H RESPONSE 70) SOUP LETTER OF AUGUSTO 126663
PE QUESTING THAT L REQUEST THAT THE COURT PPPOING SEPARATE
OR UPSIDE COUNSEL Jo KEPRESENT Fou IN THE COLEMALL
CASE. WE WILLNaT DO SO.AS WE ARE NOT AWARE O€ ANY LEGAL
Rule oR AUTHORITY THAT SUPPORTS THE PROCEDURE Yau
REQUEST UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. "CéxW/E77Q)),
(Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
numbers):
This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. Page 7
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE
Juana Councd of Calfomia Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other Court Paper CRE 201, 501
American LegalNet, Inc.
wew.USCourtForms.comPage 14 c C
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
7
1
a
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
AY, ON 3-17-08 AND REFERREMED ON 3-/O°OS., 2 & FENDANT-
WROTE GEOR E THE FILING OF PIERS Ke MOLAN EH BAL AK)
8-/1-058 *
“HIE PRE MOT 1S A/EST1M FO CVE! FOU ADVISE AECL TF
PURSUING AN ZNO DUAL CERO RERIAIST bP P7RO,. NOR DO
UE BELIEVE THERE 1S ANE BASIS FoR $0070 FURSUE A
CtAIN REAINST 00k FIR, EXHIBIT FP).
OS. QELELANTS LETIER § OF 321-053 F00-05: AND F-E°6 6s ARE
5
Att SIONED BY MICHAEL bt. BIEM POR. FOSEM: LIEN & BSALO
LOL CIRITING AND ZuirtAL APPEARS IN PLABITIFES DRA fr"
LEVER DATED: GONE RY Bodo.
CONCLUSION
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FARBERAPHS OF STHRU RSE
PERINTIFF OONTEN LS THAT DEFENDANT 1S 1h) INTENTIONAL
VIOLATION OF CALIFORM/A BUSINESS AIL PROFESSION CODE SECTIANM
SBC LEGAL MNALPRACTICE AND FEDERAL Via lrrriaoX OF THE
FIRST, Sixth E1GHTH AND FOURTEENTH AmENDMENTS AFFORDED To
PlainTi FF AS A COLEMAN CLASS MEMBER,
PLAINTIFF THERE FORE SEEKS THE FolLowInG:
1. TRIAL BVP TORY
&. DECLATOR Y REUEF IN THE APPOINTMENT OF SUTSIDE COUNSEL
AT DEFENDANTS, EXPENSE.
5. AOSEN BIENAASARD HAS SIMCOE BLAME KESEN) BEN A CRLUAM
(Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
numbers):
27 :
This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. Page oP
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE
Judecel Councl of California Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other Court Paper CRC 201, 501
MC-020 [New January 1, 1987]
American LegaiNet, Inc.
weew USCourtForms.comPage 15 C C
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
~d
18
19
SD. AWTWE THONTARY AldRRD ACCORDING T8 PROEOF,
SY ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THOS COURT DEE IO LE FAIR AND
Tas7 72 LLPINTIFF o
DATED. ¥-\b-07 —MtLerh Ga toe
VERIFICATION
TT MICHAEL J. HICKS Do HEREBY DECLARE UNDER THE LAW of THE
STRATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRIE AND CoRRECT
LEAT AS To THE NATIERS BASED OPE DELIEFLAND ISTO THOSE | °
JOST ERS 1 I BELIEVE THEM TE BE TRUE.
LATED Y- / Sa? Mates Siete
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 (Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
numbers):
27 ; : a
This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. gy
Page
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE
oon horas ot see Attach to Judicla! Council Form or Other Court Paper GRC 201, 501
American LegatNet, inc.
www.US CourtF onrs.comPage 16 EXHIBIT COVER PAGE| A
EXHIBIT
Description of this Exhibit:
Number of pages to this Exhibit: 7 " pages.
JURISDICTION: (Check only one)
[7] Municipal Court
(_] Superior Court
(Appellate Court
[J State Supreme Court
[~] United States District Court
‘State Circuit Court
(] United States Supreme Court
(JGrand JuryPage 17 MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike —
FROM: Tom nota ff THomAS NOLAN
DATE: June 29, 2000 .
RE: _Letter from Inmate Hicks alleging breach of confidentiality
Our File No.: Admin-1
_ Attached is a copy of a letter from a former CMF inmate named Michael Hicks,
who complains about our handling of his case last year. Mr. Hicks accuses me of
breaching the attorney-client privilege by revealing his suicidal feelings to CMF staff
members. I have no recollection of doing this, but, of course, it is our routine practice to
breach client confidentiality (if a letter threatening suicide counts as a confidence) when
an inmate threatens to kill himself in a letter to us. A review of our files suggests that
because Mr. Hicks wrote to us from SVSP, we forwarded his letter to Kimber Simpson,
who forwarded his concern about ASH and his letter to Mr. Breed (Mr. Hicks was
transferred from SVSP to CMF during this period). . The correspondence further suggests
that even though Kimber asked Allen not to share the letter with CMF staff, Allen gave
1 Bob Horel a copy of the letter and that this somehow resulted in Mr. Hicks’ placement in
' (. S-3. (The PLO may actually be better protected, in this regard, because they use a
j3 disclosure form that allows them to disclose information to others in the course of their
(4 advocacy of the client’s claims, A signed disclosure from Mr. Hicks is attached to our
r -copy of Kimber’s letter to Allen Breed). We may want to adopt a similar disclosure
& form.
SQQY AN HYY—
17 In response to Mr. Hick’s letter, I have done some preliminary research, called the
16 State Bar Ethics Hotline (which is sending me some materials), and drafted a letter back
Iq to the inmate for your review.
we The Jaw in California on this issue is not good for us. Most states have adopted
2! the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which contain two broad “safe harbors”
é2 for our practice of notifying prison officials when an inmate threatens to harm himself.
23 Unfortunately, neither of these provisions of the model rules has been adopted in
29 sf California. The relevant model rule provisions are Model Rule 1.6(b)(1), which allows
4.5 an attorney to reveal information necessary to prevent an act “likely to result in imminent
death or substantial bodily harm,” and Model Rule 1.14 (allowing an attorney to “take
97 protective action with respect to a client”). According to the State Bar Hotline, there is a
28 BASF Ethics Opinion that attorneys may take protective action when they have a
mentally impaired client. (No. 1999-2, September 8, 1999).Page 18 -209 —~APN in SO BD
. that an attorney has the duty to:
Memo to Mike
June 29, 2000
Page 2
The only California rule or Jaw governing client confidences is Business and
Professions Code Section 6068(e), which is very harsh, contains no exceptions, and states
Maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself
or herself to preserve the secrets, or his or her client.
Cal Bus. & Profs. Code § 6068(e). A number of the Opinions given to me by the State
Bar Hotline do not allow any exception to this strict rule of confidentiality,
I will do some additional research on this issue next week, Please review my
draft response letter, attached hereto, and let me know what you think,
eo T am alse ote. ching Bre ‘all of .
{!
He lees rom thes in On Tiled.Page 19 Cc. — €
SANFORD JAY ROSEN * TELEPHONE
MICHAEL W, BIEN N (415) 433-6830
MNOREAG. ASARO ROSEN, BIEN & ASARO, LLP
_ ATTORNEYS AT LAW FAX
WILLIAM H.D. FERNHOLZ EIGHTH FLOOR . (415) 433-7104
ERNEST OALVAN . 155 MONTGOMERY STREET
JANEKAHN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 EMAIL
SHANA MARGOLIS ** rba@rbalaw.com
THOMAS NOLAN
DEAN PRESTON = _
June 29, 2000 qu ) £ (, J
oe | are L
CONFIDENTIAL — LEGAL MAIL ) joes
Michael J. Hicks, B-80852 OC ? CL QO
A8-208
P.O. Box 290066 pn C
Represa, CA 95671 {) yp i
Re: Coleman v. Wilson 7) sf Jr
Our File No. 489-3 Yr ‘
Dear Mr. Hicks: \
I am writing in response to your recent letter alleging that my firm disclosed
confidential information last year by notifying CMF personnel of your threat to kill
yourself, You also complain that we failed to take adequate steps to secure your transfer
to ASH.
While I have no specific recollection of the incident that you allege, our office
takes suicide threats from inmates who write to us very seriously. We do so for obvious
reasons: we have a moral duty to do whatever we can to prevent our clients from taking
their own lives. Where there is a threat of imminent harm, attorneys have a duty to
attempt to save human life that outweighs the duty to protect confidences. See Tarasoff
jo v. Regents of the University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 440: see also ABA
{1 Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(b)(1)(lawyer may reveal information to prevent
(2 act “likely to result in imminent death or substantial bodily harm”); Rule 1.14 (allowing
j3 an attorney to “take protective action with respect to a client”). In the past, our office
iy has received letters from inmates threatening to kill themselves in instances where the
‘{¢ inmate writing the letter committed suicide before we received the letter.
16 We have never agreed that defendants should use S-3 strip cells to house suicidal
i7 inmates at CMF, and, in fact, we have had negotiations with defendants over this issue
if and defendants have agreed as part of the transition plan we negotiated last year to plana
new psychiatric program using hospital beds in G-Wing in lieu of S-3 to house suicidal
2° CMF inmates.
MEMBER OF THE CONNECTICUT AS WELL AS THE CALIFORNIA BAR
MEMBER OF THE ILLINOIS AS WELL AS THE CALIFORNIA BAR . firePage 20 ms wy oh ee GS ROOT
Michael Hicks
June 28, 2000
Page 2
As for your complaint that we failed to secure your transfer to ASH, we have been
closely monitoring ASH transfers from CMF for several years, and have repeatedly
requested that defendants make more bed space available at ASH for cases like yours.
Nevertheless, in individual cases like yours, we are often unable to secure a transfer when
- ASH or CDC clinical staff rejects the transfer for clinical reasons. If you are still seeking
a transfer to ASH, please let us know and we will ask the Coleman Special Master’s
experts to evaluate your mental health needs. ,
Finally, because we serve as class counsel in the Coleman case, we do not
represent individual inmates in Section 1983 actions.
Sincerely yours,
ROSEN, BIEN & ASARO, LLP
By: Thomas Nolan
AttorneyPage 21 zihics Opinions - FORMAL@_ INION NO 1989-112 Cc Page 1 of 6
THE STATE BAR CF CALIFORNIA
STANDING COMMITTEES ON
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CONDUCT nL
FORMAL OPINION NO 1989-112, (, NEY
a Ne
L~
May an attorney institute conservatorship proceedings on a client's behalf, without the client's consent,
where the attorney has concluded the client is incompetent to act in his best interest?
+
<>
ISSUE: .
DIGEST:
Although the attorney may feel that it is in the client's best interest to do so, it is unethical for an
attorney to institute conservatorship proceedings contrary to the client's wishes, since by doing so the
attorney will be divulging the client's secrets and representing either conflicting or adverse interests.
However, should the client's conduct interfere with or unduly inhibit the attorney's ability to carry out
the purpose for which the attorney was retained, withdrawal may be appropriate.
AUTHORITIES
INTERPRETED:
Rules of Professional Conduct 3-110, 3-310, 3-700 and 5-210 of the State Bar of California. Business
and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e).
DISCUSSION
The Committee has been asked to opine on the ethical propriety of an attorney instituting
conservatorship proceedings on behalf of a client but against that client's express wishes. For purposes
of this discussion, it is assumed that the client's behavior patterns and dealings with his attorney over a
significant period of time have convinced the attorney that the client requires a conservator. It is also
assumed that other lawyers in the community would have a reasonable basis for concluding the same.
1. Duty to Protect Client Secrets
This situation is governed broadly by Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e),
which provides that an attorney has the duty to:
maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself [or herself] to preserve the
secrets, of his or her client.
What the attorney has seen or heard during the course of the relationship with the client may be a
client “secret.” (See State Bar Formal Opinion 1987-93 which states ". . . the attorney-client
relationship involves not just the casual assistance of a member of the bar, but an intimate process of
consultation and planning which culminates in a state of trust and confidence between a client and his
attorney.”) Here, it is assumed that the attorney has spent considerable time in the client's presence,
. |.
heen fanaa nalhar araltnnhiothien8kO_1179 hte A/FOiNNPage 22 BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO
LEGAL ETHICS COMMITTEE
OPINION 1999-2 ogee
September 8, 1999 yer
ptember 8, ok
ISSUE: What action, if any, may an attorney take if the attorney believes that a client is so
mentally impaired that the client is not capable of making rational choices regarding the subject
of representation?
DIGEST: An attorney who reasonably believes that a client is substantially unable to manage
his or her own financial resources or resist fraud or undue influence,' may, but is not required to,
take protective action with respect to the client’s person and property.? Such action may include
recommending appointment of a trustee, conservator, or guardian ad litem. The attorney has the
implied authority to make limited disclosures necessary to achieve the best interests of the
client.? ‘
. CURRENT AUTHORITIES
ABA Model Rule 1.14 (b) permits an attorney to seek a guardianship of the attomey’s
own client if the attorney reasonably believes that the client cannot protect his or her own
interests. California has no such rule. California case law states that when there is no California
Rule on a subject, the courts can look to the ABA Rules and published California ethics opinions
for guidance, People v Ballard (1980), 104 Cal App 3rd 757,761. See also COPRAC (State Bar
Standing‘Committee on Professional Response nee) Sorel Opinion 1983-70.
Unfortunatelyrthase authorities disaaree-There is som ifomiativil case law dealing with
these issues that appears to have been ignored by most of the discussion in the California Ethics
Opinions.
Sullivan v Dunne (1926) 198 Cal 183, appears to be the earliest case addressing this issue.
It holds that the client must have capacity to contract in order to give the attorney authority to
represent the client in a civil proceeding. In dicta, it states that if the client had contract capacity
when hiring the attorney, then lost it, the contract would necessarily end, as the authority of an
agent ends when the principal becomes incompetent. _
The ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility was promulgated in 1969. Canon 7
was the zealous.representation section. EC (Ethical Consideration) 7-12 stated that if the client
a Language taken from Probate Code 1801(b) on conservatorships.
. 2 Modified from the criteria applied by the American College of
Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC) in commenting on Model Professional Rule of
Conduct (MRPC) 1.14.
3 Modified from the criteria applied by the American College of
Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC) in commenting on Model Professional Rule of
Conduct (MRPC) 1.14.Page 23 was mentally incompetent, the attorney “may be" compelled to make decisions in court on behalf
of the client. The ECs were silent on the problems that arise outside of court proceedings.
In Conservatorship of Chilton (1970) 8 Cal. App. 3rd 34, the attorney was introduced to
the client by the client’s boyfriend, and proceeded to act for the client. The appellate court
upheld the trial court’s finding that the boyfriend was a “designing” person seeking to take
advantage of the client and denied the attomey’s petition for fees. One of the facts used against
the attorney was his opposition to the conservatorship, when the existence of the conservatorship
was clearly needed to protect the client. Another finding was that he advocated positions taken
by aclearly incompetent client. Another was that the client lacked the capacity to enter into an
attorney client relationship with the attorney.
In Caldwell v State Bar (1975)13 Cal. 3rd 488, one of the facts uscd to discipline the
attorney was that he continued to expend client funds under a power of attorney after the client
had been adjudicated incompetent. The Caldwell Court cited Sullivan for support. There was no
mention of EC 7-12.
The first California ethics opinion to take up this issue was San Diego Opinion 1978-1. It
concludes that to seek a conservatorship for the attorney’s own client, the attorney would
necessarily reveal client secrets, and to do so would be contrary to the rules of professional
conduct. There was no mention of Sullivan, Chilton, Caldwell, or EC 7-12.
The ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility were promulgated in 1983. Model Rule 1.14 (b)states that the attorney should, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal
attorney client relationship with an impaired client. The Rule goes on to permit an attomey to
seek a guardianship of the attomey’s own client if the attorney reasonably believes that the client
cannot protect his or her own interests. .
COPRAC, when commenting in 1986 on proposed changes to the California Rules of
Professional Conduct, recommended against a California rule similar to ABA Model Rule 1.14,
on the basis that such a move is adverse to the client and also constitutes the revelation of client
confidences in violation of Bus & Prof 6068(e). There was no mention of Sullivan, Chilton, or
Caldwell. .
Los Angeles Opinion #450 (1988), was next in chronological order. It concludes that an
attorney cannot seek a conservatorship for his or her own client, based on the rationale that a
conservatorship proceeding would be adverse to the client, and therefore the attorney would be
representing conflicting interests. This opinion did not consider the ABA Model Rule 1.14,
Sullivan, Chilton, or Caldwell. It never revisited the issue in a published opinion.
In Drabick v Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal App 3rd 185, the client was in a coma and
the family filed a petition to discontinue life support. Court appointed counsel agreed. The trial
court denied the petition. The family appealed. New counsel was appointed on appeal. The
appellate attormey argued that trial counsel should have opposed it. The court med that when th:
client is in a coma, the attorney must be guided by his own understanding of the client’s best
interests. The court recognized, but did not comment upon, the issue addressed here -- what to
do when the client is impaired but able to speak.
When the California Rules were revised in 1989, they were silent on the issue.
The next California opinion to visit this issue was COPRAC 1989-112, The opinion
adopts the rationale of both the San Diego and Los Angeles opinions. COPRAC noted, but did
not discuss, the ABA Rule 1.14 on impaired clients. There was no mention of Sullivan, Chiltor,
Caldwell, or Drabick.
6.Page 24 Cc Cc
Vhean an2The Comer SAB nf He tthes spinton Wee
A Aarne... Tha, Jan Déroes hit othe Mate ESPECIALLY
THE TARAS OFF V REGEN ES. L7ED PIS ASS OFS! ff PALE EL
(US LEEPER DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION oe De PAGED
LEGAL ETHICS COMMITTEE
ETHICS OPINION 1990-1
I
QUESTION PRESENTED
Attomey represents a Client in a criminal proceeding. During a meeting between Attomey and Client in Attorney's office, Altomey
discloses to Client that a codefendant has agreed to cooperate with the prosecution and provide information which will incriminate Client. -+
Upon learning of the foregoing, Client becomes enraged. Client opens a brief case, displays a handgun and tells Attorney: "F've had it
with that lying scum. I know how to use this and I'm going to take care of him once and for all.” Client hurriedly departs Attomey’s
office.
Based upon Attorney's knowledge of Client, Attomey believes that Client intends to seriously injure or kill the informant.
May Attorney disclose Client's intentions or otherwise wam the authorities or informant of the apparent danger?
' a
SUMMAR’
Despite the obvious moral dilemma, presented to the attorney in the foregoing scenario, California law (including Section 6068(e) of the
Business and Professions Code) forbids the atiomey from disclosing any information ined in confidence from the client. No implied
common law duties or rules of professional conduct promufgattd-in other jurisdictions apply to allow even a limited disclosure.
m ,
DISCUSSION
Historically, the maintenance of client confidences has been one of the highest duties of an attorney. Society originally derived this duty,
in pan, from Roman law, see Redin, The Privilege of Confidential Communications Between Lawver and Client, 16 Cal.L.Rev, 487, 488
(1928), and carried it forward through common law and legislate promulgation.
-
Jn California, twn independent legislative schemes establish the duty to maintain client confidences. First, Section 6068(e)} of the Business
and Professions Act provides:
It is the duty of an attomey to do all the following:
oe
. I
(e} to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.
A related codification of this duty can be found in the statutes relating to the attorney-client privilege collected in the Evidence Code.
Specifically, Section 954’ provides:
Subject to Section 912 and except as otherwise provided in this ticle, the client, whether or not a party, has a privilege to
refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication between client and lawyer if the
privilege is claimed by:
(a} The holder of the privilege ....
The only arguably relevant exception to the Evidence Code Provisions dealing with the attorney-client privilege is Section 956, the
so-called “crime-fraud* exception. This section provides:
There is no privilege under this articte if the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit
or plan to commit a crime or a fraud. |
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all references are tn the Fiddenna Pa. ooPage 25 SP 1990-1 page 2
Many judicial and ethics committee opinions have made clear the attorney's duty to maintain confidential all client disclosures of past
enmes and frauds. Considering the foregoing legislative scheme, we believe that the attorney's dury also extends to protect confidential
disclosures of an intent to commit future crmes and frauds, even those encompassing threats of great bodily injury or death.
The California Legislature has expressed a clear and unequivocal statement of the attorney's duty to maintain elient confidences and
secrets. Only in the narrow exception provided by Section 956 may an attorney disclose a confidence if the client sought or obtained the
services of the attorncy in order to help in the commission of a crime or fraud. In all other circumstances, the attorney must maintain
the secrets and confidences of the client. .
We recognize the seemingly harsh consequences of our opinion, particularly in fight of the contrary standard espoused by Rule 1.6 of
the ABA Mode! Rules of Professional Responsibility (“Model Rules")# Im most circumstances, we look favorably to the Model Rules
for guidance on issues of ethical conduct in California. However, in this instance, the jemsiatwve history of the Rules of Professional
conduct precludes us from relying upon the Mode! Rules.
Indeed, were the California Rutes of Professional Conduct and the refevant statutory authorities silent on this subject, we would be
inclined to suggest that Rule 1.6 of the Model Rules provides at least persuasive guidance for California attorneys, Unfortunately, that
is not the case. No exception to the duty imposed by Section 6068(e) of the Business and Professions Code or the attorney-client privilege
established by Section 964 of the Evidence Code exists which would render the Model Rules rejevant in this cireumstance. And, most
importantly, as indicated below, the legislative history of the current Rules of Professional Conduct suggests that the California Supreme
Court has apparently rejected the rationale of Rute 1.62
2 (Rule 1.6 of the Mode! Rules, entitled "Confidentiality of Information,” provides:
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consuttation, except
for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to.carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraph (b).
(b) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(1) To prevent the client from committing & criminal act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in imminent death or
substantial bodily harm; or
(2) To establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish
a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or
to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client.
The official comment to Rule 1.6 provides some guidance to the intent of this rule:
The lawyer may learn that a client intends prospective conduct that is criminal and likely to result in imminent death
Or substantial bodily harm. ... [T]he lawyer has professional discretion to reveal information in order to prevent
such consequences. The lawyer may make a disclosure in order to prevent homicide or serious bodily injury which
the lawyer reasonably believes is intended by client. It is very difficult for a lawyer to "know" when such a heinous
purpose will actually be carried out, for the client may have a change of mind.
-». A lawytr’s decision not to take preventive action permitted by paragraph (b) (1} does not violate this Rule.
3 /Specifically, in the proceedings which culminated in the presentation of currently effective Rules of Professional Conduct to the
California Supreme Court in December 1987, the original proposal contained a proposed rule, 3-100, which was derived from and
substantively identical to Model Rule 1.6. As proposed, Rule 3-100 stated:
3-100: DUTY TO MAINTAIN CLIENT CONFIDENCES AND SECRETS INVIOLATE.
(A) It is the duty of a member to maintain inviolate the confidence, and, at every peril to himself or herself, to preserve the
secrets of a client or former client.
(C) A member may reveal a confidence or secret:
(3) To the extent the member reasonably believes necessary:
(3) to prevent the commission of a criminal act that the member believes is likely to result in death of substantial
bodily harm....
After the proposed rules were submitted to the Supreme Court, the Court forwarded a letter to the State Bar which specifically
questioned the authority of .he Court to promulgate a rule of professional conduct = and particularly Proposed Rute 3-100(c) -whieh
a,Page 26 Un Codes (bpe:6060-6069) (- | € Page | of 8
BUSINESS-AND PROFESSIONS CODE
SECTION 6060-6069
6060. To be certified to the Supreme Court for admission and a
license to practice law, a person who has not been admitted to
practice law in a sister state, United States jurisdiction,
possession, territory, ‘or dependency or in a foreign country shall:
(a} Be of the age of at least 18 years.
(b)' Be of good moral character.
(c) Before beginning the study of law, have done either of the
following:
(1) Completed at least two years of college work, which college
work shall be not less than one-half of the collegiate work
acceptable for a bachelor's degree granted upon the basis of a
four-year period of study by a college or university approved by the
examining committee.
(2) Have attained in apparent intellectual ability the equivalent
of at least two years of college work by taking any examinations in
such subject matters and achieving the scores thereon as are
prescribed by the examining committee.
(d) Have registered with the examining committee as a law student
within 90 days after beginning the study of law. The examining
committee, upon good cause being shown, may permit a later
registration.
(e) Have done any of the following:
(1) Graduated from a law school accredited by the examining
committee or approved by the American Bar Association requiring
substantially the full time of its students for three years.
(2) Graduated from a law school accredited by the examining
committee or approved by the American Bar Association requiring a
part only of its students’ time for four years.
(3) Studied law diligently and in good faith for at least four
years in any of the following manners:
(i) In a law school that is authorized or approved to confer
professional degrees and requires classroom attendance of its
students for a minimum of 270 hours a year.
A person who has received his or her legal education in a foreign
state or country wherein the common law of England does not
constitute the basis of jurisprudence shal] demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the examining committee that his or her education,
experience, and qualifications qualify him or her to take the
examination.
(ii) In a law office in this state and under the personal
supervision of a member of the State Bar of California who is, and
for at least five years last past continuously has been, engaged in
the active practice of law. It is the duty of the supervising
attorney to render any periodic reports to the examining committee as
the committee may require.
(iii) In the chambers and under the personal supervision of a
judge of a court of record of this state. It is the duty of the
supervising judge to render any periodic reports to the examining
committee as the committee may require.
(iv) By instruction in law from a correspondence law school
authorized or approved to confer professional degrees by this state,
which requires 864 hours of preparation and study per year for four
years.
(v) By any combination of the methods referred to in paragraph (3)
of this subdivision.
fe
- hitn://www, leainfo.ca.gov/ce.../displaycode?section=bpc& group=06001-07000&file=6060-606 6/28/00Page 27 CA Codes (bpe:6060-6069) € . c Page 6 of §
{a} To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and
of this state,
(b) To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and
judicial officers. :
(c) To counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses
only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a
person charged with a public offense.
(d} To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided ‘
to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and
never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law.
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril e\
(nimselt 0 or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client
(f}) To abstain frem all offensive personality, and to advance no nq
fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness,
unless required by the justice of the cause with which he or she is
charged.
{g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of
an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or
interest. ;
(th) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself or
herself, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.
{i) To cooperate and participate in any disciplinary investigation
or other regulatory or disciplinary proceeding pending against the
attorney. However, this subdivision shall not be construed to
deprive an attorney of any privilege guaranteed by the Fifth
Amendment to the Censtitution of the United States or any other
constitutional or statutory privileges. This subdivision shall not
be construed to require an attorney to cooperate with a request that
requires the attorney to waive any constitutional or statutory
privilege or to comply with a request for information or other
matters within an unreasonable period of time in light of the time
constraints of the attorney's practice. Any exercise by an attorney
of any constitutional or statutory privilege shall not be used
against the attorney in a regulatory or disciplinary proceeding
against him or her.
(j} To comply with the requirements of Section 6002.1,
({k} To comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary
probation, including a probation imposed with the concurrence of the
attorney.
_ (1) To keep all agreements made in lieu of disciplinary
prosecution with the agency charged with attorney discipline.
{(m) To respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries.of clients Jal
and to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments g-6
in matters with regard to which the attorney has agreed to provide
legal services.
(n) To provide copies to the client of certain documents under
time limits and as prescribed in a rule of professional conduct which
the board shall adopt.
{o}) To report to the agency charged with attorney discipline, in
writing, within 30 days of the time the attorney has knowledge of any
of the following:
(1) The filing of three or more lawsuits in a 12-month period
against the attorney for malpractice or other wrongful conduct
committed in a professional capacity.
(2) The entry of judgment against the attorney in any civil action
for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, or gross
negligence committed in a professional capacity.
(3} The imposition of any judicial sanctions against the attorney,
except for sanctions for failure to make discovery or monetary
sanctions of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(4) The bringing of an indictment or information charging a felony
against the attorney.
. AG-
_hitto: iwww. leginfo. ca. govicg.. Hisplaycode?secuon=bpc& group=06001- 07000&file=6060-606 6/28/00
oe eePage 28 EXHIBIT COVER PAGE |B
EXHIBIT
a
Description of this Exhibit:
—
Number of pages to this Exhibit: pages.
JURISDICTION: (Check only one)
(CD Municipal Court
(_) Superior Court
(_] Appellate Court
[_] State Supreme Court
[_] United States District Coun
CJ Stale Circuit Court
(J United States Supreme Court
{(")Grand JuryPage 29 SANFORD JAY ROSEN *
MICHAEL W. BIEN
ERNEST GALVAN
HOLLY BALDWIN
GAY C. GRUNFELD
JANE KAIIN
MEGHAN LANG
SARAH LAUBACH
ANNE MANIA
ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 390
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-0390
TELEPITONE
(415) 433-6830
FAX
(415) 433-7104
EMAIL
rbg@rbg-law.com
NURA MAZNAYI
MARIA MORRIS **
THOMAS NOLAN
LORI RIFKIN °**
LOREN STEWART
KENNETH WALCZAK****
AMY WHELAN
SARAH OLSON ZIMMERMAN ****
March 30, 2007
CONFIDENTIAL - LEGAL MAIL
Michael Hicks, B-80852
CSP - Sacramento
PO Box 290066
Represa, CA 95671
Re: Coleman v. Schwarzenegger
Our File No. 489-3
Dear Mr. Hicks:
I am writing in response to your letters dated March 8 and 12, 2007, which our
office received on March 12 and 13, 2007. This letter will address the Coleman and
Plata issues you raise. It will not address your discussion of filing a lawsuit against our
firm or attorneys, as these issues are outside the purview of these cases.
In your letter dated March 8, 2007 you requested updates regarding a SVP
program in the CDCR. The most recent change is that the Judge in the Coleman case
recently ordered the CDCR to develop exhibitionism treatment programs at at least three
institutions by July 1,2007. While I understand that you are not diagnosed with
exhibitionism and you do not engage in these types of behaviors, Dr. Metzner did state
that this mode! of treatment might be beneficial to you. I have enclosed a copy of this
order for your reference.
In your letter dated March 12, 2007 you requested that our office contact Dr.
Metzner about getting you a referral to an SVP program. As we have written before,
your institution’s mental health staff is responsible for all clinical decisions involving
your treatment. Given this, it is important that you continue to talk with your case
manager regarding your treatment concerns. Due to our large class membership, the fact
that we are not clinicians, and that we are not employed by the CDCR, we are unable to
influence decisions regarding an individual inmate’s mental health treatment. Our role as
MEMBER OF THE CONNECTICUT AND THE CALIFORNIA BAR
MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK AND THE CALIFORNIA BAR
MEMBER OF THE CONNECTICUT, NEW YORK AND THE CALIFORNIA BARPage 30 CONFIDENTIAL - LEGAL MAIL
March 30, 2007
Page 2
class counsel is to work to provide improved mental health treatment to inmates system-
wide and this means that we do not have the resources to intervene on behalf of
individual inmates’ other than to contact the Coleman Project Team. I hope that you
understand, =~
I was sorry to read about your problems with your medications and very
concerned to read that you are currently not taking any of your medications, including
those for your health problems. I encourage you to continue to talk with mental health
staff about these issues.
In your letter you also raise some issues concerning your medical care. Although
the Coleman case is restricted to mental health issues, the Prison Law Office (PLO) has
settled a case, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, which deals with medical care issues system-
wide. The PLO is currently monitoring the administration of medical care. I have
forwarded a copy of your letter to that office. In the future, you can write to them at:
Prison Law Office, General Delivery, San Quentin, CA, 94964,
I have returned your original documents to you with this letter. I wish you the best
of luck, and please take care.
Sincerely yours,
ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP
By: Sofia Mil[ham Vo
Paralegal
SM:ad
Encl: ORIG, 3/12/07 Order
Cc: PLO-Plata
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
INAONTOAAV AAA
San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Apr-19-2007 11:14 am
Case Number: CGC-07-462530
Filing Date: Apr-19-2007 11:00
Juke Box: 001 Image: 01744981
COMPLAINT
MICHAEL J. HICKS B-80852 VS. MICHAEL W. BIEN
001001744981
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
# Cc |. | C
ev | a PLD-PI-001
™ |_ATTORNEY OR PARTY VWATHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and sddress}: FOR COURT USE ONLY
AION ALL, TO PICKS POO. BAK 2GO8LE
B-EO BSR LVESPOR ESA CA IGEF
San Fr¢nciseo County Superior Court
recepHone No. ALAA FAX NO. (Opeonag:
E-MAIL ADORESS (Options: APR 1 9 2007
ATTORNEY FOR (Name AA AY) KYE7O
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF_ SAA ARAN OLLI
GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
STREETAOERESS. C509 LYCALLISTER STREET BY: pt epuy Clerk
* Graoze co: DPVIMAVLISEE F¥/02.
BRANCH NAME:
MAINTE: B21 CHAEL D. H4/CKS" CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET
DEFENDANT: BCMA EL ad feu Far p
OSEMAEIENM 0 GALVAN -
[5 poes1 70 ‘ VAN LL SEP 21 2007 -9%AM
COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death
[J] AMENDED (Number): DEPARTMENT 212
Type (check all that apply):
(__] MOTOR VEHICLE - [__] OTHER (specify):
[__] Property Damage Wrongful Death SIMMONS ESSUED
Personal Injury |__| Other Damages (specify):
Jurisdiction (check all that apply): CASE NUMBER:
[__] ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE
Amount demanded [_] does not exceed $10,000
{__} exceeds $10,000, but does not exceed $25,000
[52] ACTION IS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $25,000} —£ Ce- -4£62 0
[J] ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint , G 0 7 4 6 - 3 3
[J from limited to untimited
[__] from unlimited to timited «
1. Plaintiff (name ornames): 7 /CMALL Fo AIKS
alleges causes of action against defendant (name ornames):: FYCA ALL Lod: GIEN FO
AOEM LIEN GALVAN LLP
2. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages:
3. Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult
a, [] except plaintiff (name):
(1) [] a comoration qualified to do business in California
(2) [_) an unincorporated entity (describe):
(3) [_) a public entity (describe):
(4) CJ] aminor (_] anadutt
(a) (__] for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed
(b) (7) other (specify):
(5) [_] other (specify):
b. [__] except plaintitt (name):
(1) E] a comoration qualified to do business i in California
(2) [__] an unincorporated entity (describe):
(3) (__) a public entity (describe):
(4) CJ aminor [_] an adutt
(a) (_] for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed
(b) (__] other (specify):
(5) L_] other (specify):
C—] Information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shawn in Attachment 3. Page tots
Ferra Aoproved fox Once COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Co nt ten
PLO-P1.O01 Rev, January 1, 2007) Damage, Wrongful Death ‘
American Legainet, inc.
rerane Forme Workflow com
PDF Page 6
PLD-PI-091
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER
LLOKS LOLUEN CA 27
4. [_) Plaintiff (name):
is doing business under the fictitious name (specify):
and has complied with the fictitious business name taws.
3. Each defendant named above is a natural person
a. [_] exeept defendant (name): KOMEN LEN ALG HL VAM, (—} except defendant (name):
(1) [7] a business organization, form unknown (1) (7) a business organization, form unknown
(2) (] a corporation (2) ("J a corporation
(3) (] an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) [] an unincorporated entity (describe):
(4) ["_] a public entity (describe): (4) (7) a public entity (describe):
(5) EX) other (specity: 9 LALI F/ RIN (5) C2) other (specify):
PRAINER SH P
b. (] except defendant (name}: ¢. (7) except defendant (name):
(1) [") a business organization, form unknown (1) (7) a business organization, form unknown
(2) [£] acorporation (2) () a corporation
(3) [J an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) (5) an unincorporated entity (describe):
(4) (J a public entity (describe): (4) (_] 2 public entity (describe):
(5) (] other (specify): (5) () other (specify):
{~~ ] Information about additional defendants who are not natural persons is contained in Attachment 5.
3. The true names of defendants sued as Does are unknown te plaintiff,
a. (7 Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): were the agents or employees of other
named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment.
b. ([_] Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): are persons whose capacities are unknown to
plaintiff. :
". (2) Defendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names).
This court is the proper court because
a. [><] at least one defendant now resides in its jurisdictional area.
b. ><] the principal place of business of a defendant comoration or unincorporated association is in its jurisdictional area.
c. [eTinjury to person or damage to Personal property occurred in its jurisdictional area.
d. [7] other (specify):
[~] Plaintiff is required to comply with a claims statute, and
a. &<] has complied with applicable claims statutes, or :
b. (_] is excused from complying because (specify):
P +4 G01 (Rew January 1, 2007] COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Page Zot 3
Damage, Wrongful Death
PDF Page 7
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
LYILR EM LEN C7? 24
10. The following causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have one or more
causes of action attached):
. [J Motor Vehicle
. []} General Negligence
[>< punitive damages
The amount of damages Is (in cases for personal injury or wrongful death, you must check (1)):
(1) ($2 according to proof
(2) [__] in the amount of: $
15. EG] The paragraphs of this complaint alleged on information and belief are as follows (specify paragraph numbers):
Date: f- [6 -o 7
LULHABLA. TZ. Lt ee hoe!’ bee
(TYPE OF PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE INTIFF OR ATTORNEY)
PLO-PI.001 [Rev, January 1, 2007) COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Page 3 ot 3
Damage, Wrongful Death
€ C
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
10
1
—
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
2
26
3. ON f8-S-20m8 DEFEMLANT LWRAES: 2
"ZT WAVE WIRITIEAI THE SPECIAL PIAST 8 NU THE, COLLETDA VMSA, |
CASE QOVCERM/NVE SLR NEED FOR ZNPATIENT TREATINENT AT ASH ANL
THE CDOS REFUSAL JOP ROVIDE bho GITH AD ERATE NIENTAL MEALTH
PAE
“ZL LET FOU KWON COAT THE SPECIAL TRASTERS EXPERTS
(DOP. IETZNER) (ANE 70 SAP A Bear St R CASE Fallow! FIER
VAST 7a CORCORAN.” CEXHIEYT F')
K ON F-26-01 DEFENOANT WWRITESY
“LW TERI OF INY SENTENCE (MINI LEDER RECARDING THE EAMELOPE;
ST OUAS NOP POEBNT FO POEBKNT FOREARM PNOTIINE CXCEP F FART VOU
SHOMD LEEL FREE F4 CONTROT US AOBOLIT ANE SPECHTC PRDLLEIS THAT
60 ARE HAVING THAT WE CAN HELP to17# CEXWIEITE'),
a, LW ¥-12-0/ DEPENDANT CIRITES:
“JUST” GOTO FE THE CONFERENCE CRLL FROMD THE COLEIAN (ROMUTORS
td WERE AT CORCERAN PAD QRINETENER DISUSED FoUR CASE.
(SxH/817 /7'),
SW B-S-O) DEFENDANT WRITES:
"2 HOVE Nor 62TEN 900? RECOR aS $7 Bi LOO REQUEST FHE
ZN SPATIENT AECOROS AS CHL by |
AAD...
“Zh TERINS OF US MIVESTICR TIE CONDITIONS 1A) THE Shite WE
ARE Dh F30CH OTT ANS LOANS LMINATES HOUSED IM TOE SH L
FROCRAMNS THROUGHOUT THE STATE."
2. FR T2 COLEDENLSCHIMARZENEECER
(Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
numbers):
27 . ”
This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. Page - 5
Farm Aoproved by te ADDITIONAL PAGE
eee Cowes of cover Attach to Judicial Councit Form or Other Court Paper CRC 201, 501
American LegatNet, Ine.
www US CourtForms.com
PDF Page 11
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
SMO.
WE HAVE BEEN ABLE 70 MAINE MARES CUHEM WE REAR FROM
A FE DUMATES PEOUT THE SANE OFFICERS AND THIS HAS
ARELTED IV SIP FF BGINE MOVED AT Sone OFTHE PRISENS,”
(LyMborz)
2. OM 3-27-62 DEFENORNT WRITES
"ZF fou ARE UNABLE TO GET THE OFFICERS 70 ACCEPT OR AESPOND
70 $6OR C021 FEU CAN SEND IT FOIME PND DAML SEE ZF LZ
CAN FERUARD 19°70 THE DEPUTY ANTORNEY GENERAL. 20HO
Works oN THE CASE." CEKXMEIT TT’),
E. DECENDANT CONTINUED TO OFFER AND ASSIST ALT ZNDWIDUAL
ZNTERVENTION OW GEHILF OF PLAINTIFF ON S~6-02) PoP:
Fo P02 1 PAS (2-20-02 EXHIBIT KY),
I? Qh 3-16-02 DEPENDANT SPEAACALLS REQUESTEL PLBINTIFF 78
FoRWARD ANY DEPARTMENTAL CO0C-66as OR LOC-1/S1 OR OTHER
en DiVioth, DOLUMENTBT IO OF PITELOPTEL EFFORTS Te GALS
SYLCS FLED MIENMTAL. RERLTIATREATINENT:
INDEVEN PROVIOED (IN ENVELOPE: FIR YOU 78 RESPOND AT FOUR
EARLIEST CONVEMENCE. EXHIBIT)
11. Pham PREM 2003 THRY D eden BER bs 200%: DEFEMDANT-
CONTINUED 70 AFFIRD AND ASSIST PLA INTVEE LN AM ZNDIVIMUAL
CAPACITY. DORIN GC THE COORSE OF THIS T1NE PZAINTIFE /ILS0
CN OURED A IEAR LONG BATTLE OF CIATCHINE P18 01 F & SUCCUTA
FO CANCER tot HER DEARTH OCCORRIME OW SEPTEMBER 181 OF,
WY, ew MOVEMBER 2001 FEAIITIEE WROTE DEFENLRNT
are) for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
numbers):
This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. P x
age
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE
Judcal Counc of Caltioria Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other Court Paper CRE 201, 501
American Legainet, Inc.
ween USCourtForms.com
PDF Page 12
C C
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
23
26
MEOUESTUVE THE RETURN OF SOlnk COURT TRANSCAILTS
THAT DETENDANT LIPS. HHOLOINE 1A) STORERCE. DEF ENLAN I
LNVWTED PLEINTIFE. GW ld-1-OV SEE ALISO A212 09)
“LET SS KNOL 1F VOOM AVE ANE FURTISER CONCERRS
ABIN7T THE LEVEL OF MENTAL HEALTH CARE YOU ARE
RPECEVINE AT CORCORAN. ° CEXW1EIT 79),
Jee. YS STATED (MN DEFENDANTS LEVER a F 1A Af-OT*
“ENCLOSED ARE THE Q/GINAL DOCUMENTS FROM Your
CRIMUNACTRIAL THET YOO REQUESTED."
HOWEVER: DEFENDANTLLSOANCLUDED FI COPY OF PLAINTUFS
CORRESPINDANCE FILE CIH1CH CONTAINED THE DOCUINENTS (PLING
OTHERS) IM EXHIBIT'R'. os NS
YZ. OW Aa-OS DELEN ONT CONFALTEL THE ATTORNEY GENERALS °
OF/SICE AT PLAINTIFFS. REQUEST CONCERMAIE SAFETY CONCERNS
Ah FRSOKN OFFICIAL ABOSE AT CORCORAN PRISEMELN BIT 1).
6 OM A~?-051 PLAINTIFF DUSCOVERED THE DOCUMENTS 0 F EXHIBIT
(BAND ATTEMPTED TO ERINTHE AIDORESS FORTHE DEMUTT
ATIORNE! GENERAL INTHE LOLEDAM CASEe DEFENDANT GURITES
OW A~/5-05.
“orAin UNAELE TAGIVE FiO THE ALDRESS FOR THE DE PUTT
ATIORNE ¥ GENERM, HON L CONTACTED ON $0UR BEHALF.”
(exHiBrr 6’). .
JE, TH Fake GONG 1S HiSTIR CAL OVERVIECS THAT 1S A ABKED
CONTRAST FO DEFENLANTS LETTER 8 F 3-50-07 1 bSHERE
h
=. dER AC Ya FEAR PERIOD,
aiaellad for verified pleading) The Items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify Hem numbers, not line
numbers):
27 : : _ : .
This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. Pe =
ge
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE
Judicial Councl of Caltfornia Attach to Judiclal Council Form or Other Court Paper CRC 201, 601
MC-020 [New January 1, 1987}
American LegalNet, Ine,
wwe US CourtForms.com
PDF Page 13
c €
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
10
"1
12
DEFENDANT OMITES >
“QDR ROLES CLASS COUNSEL |S TO L0aRK FO PROVIDE ZTMPROVED
DENTAL HEALTH TREATIP ENT TO LNMATES SISTEMEM/DE AND
THOS OEPNS THAT SE D8 NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES 70 INTERVENE
ON BEHALF OF ZVI LUALIN MATES! OTHER THAN 70 CONTR
THe COLEMAN PRote&Cr TzAIn, £ HOPE §b0 LNDERSTAND.”
Ee. QINAT SOAINTI FE HAD REQUESTED ORS Fa TZAKE CONTACT HTH
DR. METENER REEARDING AIN EARLIER SEPTEVIBER ROO
DNIERMECA LIP FHE DOETOR ” Lop DN OPDATE 1) COMNECT AKI TO
He DEVELOPEINENT OF A SPEC CITED COCR SUP PROCRAT.
AN ZN STROTION GHIEN 73 FYPIMIIFE BE THE DOCBR.
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
LOST LAWSUT RETALIATION
17. SWCE FUE [RRO SETTLEMENT DEPENDANT HAS DISTLA FED) :
KE PEBTED AND NUMER IOUS ACTS OF ZNEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEZ.
18. FLAINTIFE: SENT DEPPRTMENTAL. MEDICAL RECORDS THAT ARE
FALSE IN NATURE AND-THAT HAVE CREATED CONSTITUTIONAL
VIOLATIONS GF DLE PROCESS AND CRUEL. AND UNUS VAL PUNISHMENT
To BE TNFLECTED DPON PLAINTICF: INCLUDING A DOCUMENTED ACT
OF DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYEE ATTEMPTED MURDER.AND A
UN PROVEN ALLEGATION Of DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYEE SEXVAL AS AULT.
JP. DEFENDANTS ACKNOWLEDCE THE FALSITHITEY OF THESE (NENTAL
Y, SALCAAL MEASIER EXPER],
(Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
numbers):
This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. Page oO
MC-020 [New January 1, 1997]
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE
Judiaal Council of California Attach to Judictal Council Form or Other Court Paper CRE 201, 501
American LegaiNet, Inc.
wow USCourtForma.com
PDF Page 14
€ C
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
HLELUT TS RECORDS,
30, DEFENDANTS ACKNOLE DCE PLAINTIFFS. PLLEERTIONS LOENTAL
AND PHYSICAL CRUELT FS ZNPLECTED OP ON PS PERS FEF
BOVE DNITENTIONALLY FAMED 70 BRINE THE POATTER FOTHE
AENTION OF THE LEPARIINENT OF CORRECTIONS 1 7T7HE STATE
ATTORNEY GENERALS THE COLEPIAN) SPECHAL IASTER OR THE
COLEIAM TOLGCE .
al. GIHEN PLAINTIFF TIREATENEL T8 ONCE NORE FHE Sort
AERAINST FOS) COURT APPOINTED COONS Et.1 COUNSEL RESPOND EL
OM 3-408 6 -
“(at SOV OONTINUE TO THREPTEN TO SUE OUR OFFICE WIE Will
CEASE 70 COMMONICATE WITH You."
AND.
“THREATENING US ILL WOT CET YOO ANYUNHERE.
Cexwerr P)
RA. OW 330-60 PLINTH FE REQUESTED DEFENDANT 72 PLPR OUCH
SHE L00RT tII777 A DDARSD EA)? FSPE NOTION
23.0M 2-806 1 DEFENDANT REPUSEO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST
STATING:
” 7 An GIRITING 1H RESPONSE 70) SOUP LETTER OF AUGUSTO 126663
PE QUESTING THAT L REQUEST THAT THE COURT PPPOING SEPARATE
OR UPSIDE COUNSEL Jo KEPRESENT Fou IN THE COLEMALL
CASE. WE WILLNaT DO SO.AS WE ARE NOT AWARE O€ ANY LEGAL
Rule oR AUTHORITY THAT SUPPORTS THE PROCEDURE Yau
REQUEST UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. "CéxW/E77Q)),
(Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
numbers):
This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. Page 7
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE
Juana Councd of Calfomia Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other Court Paper CRE 201, 501
American LegalNet, Inc.
wew.USCourtForms.com
PDF Page 15
c C
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
7
1
a
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
AY, ON 3-17-08 AND REFERREMED ON 3-/O°OS., 2 & FENDANT-
WROTE GEOR E THE FILING OF PIERS Ke MOLAN EH BAL AK)
8-/1-058 *
“HIE PRE MOT 1S A/EST1M FO CVE! FOU ADVISE AECL TF
PURSUING AN ZNO DUAL CERO RERIAIST bP P7RO,. NOR DO
UE BELIEVE THERE 1S ANE BASIS FoR $0070 FURSUE A
CtAIN REAINST 00k FIR, EXHIBIT FP).
OS. QELELANTS LETIER § OF 321-053 F00-05: AND F-E°6 6s ARE
5
Att SIONED BY MICHAEL bt. BIEM POR. FOSEM: LIEN & BSALO
LOL CIRITING AND ZuirtAL APPEARS IN PLABITIFES DRA fr"
LEVER DATED: GONE RY Bodo.
CONCLUSION
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FARBERAPHS OF STHRU RSE
PERINTIFF OONTEN LS THAT DEFENDANT 1S 1h) INTENTIONAL
VIOLATION OF CALIFORM/A BUSINESS AIL PROFESSION CODE SECTIANM
SBC LEGAL MNALPRACTICE AND FEDERAL Via lrrriaoX OF THE
FIRST, Sixth E1GHTH AND FOURTEENTH AmENDMENTS AFFORDED To
PlainTi FF AS A COLEMAN CLASS MEMBER,
PLAINTIFF THERE FORE SEEKS THE FolLowInG:
1. TRIAL BVP TORY
&. DECLATOR Y REUEF IN THE APPOINTMENT OF SUTSIDE COUNSEL
AT DEFENDANTS, EXPENSE.
5. AOSEN BIENAASARD HAS SIMCOE BLAME KESEN) BEN A CRLUAM
(Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
numbers):
27 :
This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. Page oP
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE
Judecel Councl of California Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other Court Paper CRC 201, 501
MC-020 [New January 1, 1987]
American LegaiNet, Inc.
weew USCourtForms.com
PDF Page 16
C C
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
~d
18
19
SD. AWTWE THONTARY AldRRD ACCORDING T8 PROEOF,
SY ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THOS COURT DEE IO LE FAIR AND
Tas7 72 LLPINTIFF o
DATED. ¥-\b-07 —MtLerh Ga toe
VERIFICATION
TT MICHAEL J. HICKS Do HEREBY DECLARE UNDER THE LAW of THE
STRATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRIE AND CoRRECT
LEAT AS To THE NATIERS BASED OPE DELIEFLAND ISTO THOSE | °
JOST ERS 1 I BELIEVE THEM TE BE TRUE.
LATED Y- / Sa? Mates Siete
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 (Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
numbers):
27 ; : a
This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. gy
Page
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE
oon horas ot see Attach to Judicla! Council Form or Other Court Paper GRC 201, 501
American LegatNet, inc.
www.US CourtF onrs.com
PDF Page 17
EXHIBIT COVER PAGE| A
EXHIBIT
Description of this Exhibit:
Number of pages to this Exhibit: 7 " pages.
JURISDICTION: (Check only one)
[7] Municipal Court
(_] Superior Court
(Appellate Court
[J State Supreme Court
[~] United States District Court
‘State Circuit Court
(] United States Supreme Court
(JGrand Jury
PDF Page 18
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike —
FROM: Tom nota ff THomAS NOLAN
DATE: June 29, 2000 .
RE: _Letter from Inmate Hicks alleging breach of confidentiality
Our File No.: Admin-1
_ Attached is a copy of a letter from a former CMF inmate named Michael Hicks,
who complains about our handling of his case last year. Mr. Hicks accuses me of
breaching the attorney-client privilege by revealing his suicidal feelings to CMF staff
members. I have no recollection of doing this, but, of course, it is our routine practice to
breach client confidentiality (if a letter threatening suicide counts as a confidence) when
an inmate threatens to kill himself in a letter to us. A review of our files suggests that
because Mr. Hicks wrote to us from SVSP, we forwarded his letter to Kimber Simpson,
who forwarded his concern about ASH and his letter to Mr. Breed (Mr. Hicks was
transferred from SVSP to CMF during this period). . The correspondence further suggests
that even though Kimber asked Allen not to share the letter with CMF staff, Allen gave
1 Bob Horel a copy of the letter and that this somehow resulted in Mr. Hicks’ placement in
' (. S-3. (The PLO may actually be better protected, in this regard, because they use a
j3 disclosure form that allows them to disclose information to others in the course of their
(4 advocacy of the client’s claims, A signed disclosure from Mr. Hicks is attached to our
r -copy of Kimber’s letter to Allen Breed). We may want to adopt a similar disclosure
& form.
SQQY AN HYY—
17 In response to Mr. Hick’s letter, I have done some preliminary research, called the
16 State Bar Ethics Hotline (which is sending me some materials), and drafted a letter back
Iq to the inmate for your review.
we The Jaw in California on this issue is not good for us. Most states have adopted
2! the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which contain two broad “safe harbors”
é2 for our practice of notifying prison officials when an inmate threatens to harm himself.
23 Unfortunately, neither of these provisions of the model rules has been adopted in
29 sf California. The relevant model rule provisions are Model Rule 1.6(b)(1), which allows
4.5 an attorney to reveal information necessary to prevent an act “likely to result in imminent
26 death or substantial bodily harm,” and Model Rule 1.14 (allowing an attorney to “take
97 protective action with respect to a client”). According to the State Bar Hotline, there is a
28 BASF Ethics Opinion that attorneys may take protective action when they have a
24 mentally impaired client. (No. 1999-2, September 8, 1999).
PDF Page 19
-209 —~APN in SO BD
. that an attorney has the duty to:
Memo to Mike
June 29, 2000
Page 2
The only California rule or Jaw governing client confidences is Business and
Professions Code Section 6068(e), which is very harsh, contains no exceptions, and states
Maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself
or herself to preserve the secrets, or his or her client.
Cal Bus. & Profs. Code § 6068(e). A number of the Opinions given to me by the State
Bar Hotline do not allow any exception to this strict rule of confidentiality,
I will do some additional research on this issue next week, Please review my
draft response letter, attached hereto, and let me know what you think,
eo T am alse ote. ching Bre ‘all of .
{!
He lees rom thes in On Tiled.
PDF Page 20
Cc. — €
SANFORD JAY ROSEN * TELEPHONE
MICHAEL W, BIEN N (415) 433-6830
MNOREAG. ASARO ROSEN, BIEN & ASARO, LLP
_ ATTORNEYS AT LAW FAX
WILLIAM H.D. FERNHOLZ EIGHTH FLOOR . (415) 433-7104
ERNEST OALVAN . 155 MONTGOMERY STREET
JANEKAHN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 EMAIL
SHANA MARGOLIS ** rba@rbalaw.com
THOMAS NOLAN
DEAN PRESTON = _
June 29, 2000 qu ) £ (, J
oe | are L
CONFIDENTIAL — LEGAL MAIL ) joes
Michael J. Hicks, B-80852 OC ? CL QO
A8-208
P.O. Box 290066 pn C
Represa, CA 95671 {) yp i
Re: Coleman v. Wilson 7) sf Jr
Our File No. 489-3 Yr ‘
Dear Mr. Hicks: \
I am writing in response to your recent letter alleging that my firm disclosed
confidential information last year by notifying CMF personnel of your threat to kill
yourself, You also complain that we failed to take adequate steps to secure your transfer
to ASH.
While I have no specific recollection of the incident that you allege, our office
takes suicide threats from inmates who write to us very seriously. We do so for obvious
reasons: we have a moral duty to do whatever we can to prevent our clients from taking
their own lives. Where there is a threat of imminent harm, attorneys have a duty to
attempt to save human life that outweighs the duty to protect confidences. See Tarasoff
jo v. Regents of the University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 440: see also ABA
{1 Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(b)(1)(lawyer may reveal information to prevent
(2 act “likely to result in imminent death or substantial bodily harm”); Rule 1.14 (allowing
j3 an attorney to “take protective action with respect to a client”). In the past, our office
iy has received letters from inmates threatening to kill themselves in instances where the
‘{¢ inmate writing the letter committed suicide before we received the letter.
16 We have never agreed that defendants should use S-3 strip cells to house suicidal
i7 inmates at CMF, and, in fact, we have had negotiations with defendants over this issue
if and defendants have agreed as part of the transition plan we negotiated last year to plana
17 new psychiatric program using hospital beds in G-Wing in lieu of S-3 to house suicidal
2° CMF inmates.
MEMBER OF THE CONNECTICUT AS WELL AS THE CALIFORNIA BAR
MEMBER OF THE ILLINOIS AS WELL AS THE CALIFORNIA BAR . fire
PDF Page 21
ms wy oh ee GS ROOT
Michael Hicks
June 28, 2000
Page 2
As for your complaint that we failed to secure your transfer to ASH, we have been
closely monitoring ASH transfers from CMF for several years, and have repeatedly
requested that defendants make more bed space available at ASH for cases like yours.
Nevertheless, in individual cases like yours, we are often unable to secure a transfer when
- ASH or CDC clinical staff rejects the transfer for clinical reasons. If you are still seeking
a transfer to ASH, please let us know and we will ask the Coleman Special Master’s
experts to evaluate your mental health needs. ,
Finally, because we serve as class counsel in the Coleman case, we do not
represent individual inmates in Section 1983 actions.
Sincerely yours,
ROSEN, BIEN & ASARO, LLP
By: Thomas Nolan
Attorney
PDF Page 22
zihics Opinions - FORMAL@_ INION NO 1989-112 Cc Page 1 of 6
THE STATE BAR CF CALIFORNIA
STANDING COMMITTEES ON
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CONDUCT nL
FORMAL OPINION NO 1989-112, (, NEY
a Ne
L~
May an attorney institute conservatorship proceedings on a client's behalf, without the client's consent,
where the attorney has concluded the client is incompetent to act in his best interest?
+
<>
ISSUE: .
DIGEST:
Although the attorney may feel that it is in the client's best interest to do so, it is unethical for an
attorney to institute conservatorship proceedings contrary to the client's wishes, since by doing so the
attorney will be divulging the client's secrets and representing either conflicting or adverse interests.
However, should the client's conduct interfere with or unduly inhibit the attorney's ability to carry out
the purpose for which the attorney was retained, withdrawal may be appropriate.
AUTHORITIES
INTERPRETED:
Rules of Professional Conduct 3-110, 3-310, 3-700 and 5-210 of the State Bar of California. Business
and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e).
DISCUSSION
The Committee has been asked to opine on the ethical propriety of an attorney instituting
conservatorship proceedings on behalf of a client but against that client's express wishes. For purposes
of this discussion, it is assumed that the client's behavior patterns and dealings with his attorney over a
significant period of time have convinced the attorney that the client requires a conservator. It is also
assumed that other lawyers in the community would have a reasonable basis for concluding the same.
1. Duty to Protect Client Secrets
This situation is governed broadly by Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e),
which provides that an attorney has the duty to:
maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself [or herself] to preserve the
secrets, of his or her client.
What the attorney has seen or heard during the course of the relationship with the client may be a
client “secret.” (See State Bar Formal Opinion 1987-93 which states ". . . the attorney-client
relationship involves not just the casual assistance of a member of the bar, but an intimate process of
consultation and planning which culminates in a state of trust and confidence between a client and his
attorney.”) Here, it is assumed that the attorney has spent considerable time in the client's presence,
. |.
heen fanaa nalhar araltnnhiothien8kO_1179 hte A/FOiNN
PDF Page 23
BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO
LEGAL ETHICS COMMITTEE
OPINION 1999-2 ogee
September 8, 1999 yer
ptember 8, ok
ISSUE: What action, if any, may an attorney take if the attorney believes that a client is so
mentally impaired that the client is not capable of making rational choices regarding the subject
of representation?
DIGEST: An attorney who reasonably believes that a client is substantially unable to manage
his or her own financial resources or resist fraud or undue influence,' may, but is not required to,
take protective action with respect to the client’s person and property.? Such action may include
recommending appointment of a trustee, conservator, or guardian ad litem. The attorney has the
implied authority to make limited disclosures necessary to achieve the best interests of the
client.? ‘
. CURRENT AUTHORITIES
ABA Model Rule 1.14 (b) permits an attorney to seek a guardianship of the attomey’s
own client if the attorney reasonably believes that the client cannot protect his or her own
interests. California has no such rule. California case law states that when there is no California
Rule on a subject, the courts can look to the ABA Rules and published California ethics opinions
for guidance, People v Ballard (1980), 104 Cal App 3rd 757,761. See also COPRAC (State Bar
Standing‘Committee on Professional Response nee) Sorel Opinion 1983-70.
Unfortunatelyrthase authorities disaaree-There is som ifomiativil case law dealing with
these issues that appears to have been ignored by most of the discussion in the California Ethics
Opinions.
Sullivan v Dunne (1926) 198 Cal 183, appears to be the earliest case addressing this issue.
It holds that the client must have capacity to contract in order to give the attorney authority to
represent the client in a civil proceeding. In dicta, it states that if the client had contract capacity
when hiring the attorney, then lost it, the contract would necessarily end, as the authority of an
agent ends when the principal becomes incompetent. _
The ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility was promulgated in 1969. Canon 7
was the zealous.representation section. EC (Ethical Consideration) 7-12 stated that if the client
a Language taken from Probate Code 1801(b) on conservatorships.
. 2 Modified from the criteria applied by the American College of
Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC) in commenting on Model Professional Rule of
Conduct (MRPC) 1.14.
3 Modified from the criteria applied by the American College of
Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC) in commenting on Model Professional Rule of
Conduct (MRPC) 1.14.
PDF Page 24
was mentally incompetent, the attorney “may be" compelled to make decisions in court on behalf
of the client. The ECs were silent on the problems that arise outside of court proceedings.
In Conservatorship of Chilton (1970) 8 Cal. App. 3rd 34, the attorney was introduced to
the client by the client’s boyfriend, and proceeded to act for the client. The appellate court
upheld the trial court’s finding that the boyfriend was a “designing” person seeking to take
advantage of the client and denied the attomey’s petition for fees. One of the facts used against
the attorney was his opposition to the conservatorship, when the existence of the conservatorship
was clearly needed to protect the client. Another finding was that he advocated positions taken
by aclearly incompetent client. Another was that the client lacked the capacity to enter into an
attorney client relationship with the attorney.
In Caldwell v State Bar (1975)13 Cal. 3rd 488, one of the facts uscd to discipline the
attorney was that he continued to expend client funds under a power of attorney after the client
had been adjudicated incompetent. The Caldwell Court cited Sullivan for support. There was no
mention of EC 7-12.
The first California ethics opinion to take up this issue was San Diego Opinion 1978-1. It
concludes that to seek a conservatorship for the attorney’s own client, the attorney would
necessarily reveal client secrets, and to do so would be contrary to the rules of professional
conduct. There was no mention of Sullivan, Chilton, Caldwell, or EC 7-12.
The ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility were promulgated in 1983. Model
Rule 1.14 (b)states that the attorney should, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal
attorney client relationship with an impaired client. The Rule goes on to permit an attomey to
seek a guardianship of the attomey’s own client if the attorney reasonably believes that the client
cannot protect his or her own interests. .
COPRAC, when commenting in 1986 on proposed changes to the California Rules of
Professional Conduct, recommended against a California rule similar to ABA Model Rule 1.14,
on the basis that such a move is adverse to the client and also constitutes the revelation of client
confidences in violation of Bus & Prof 6068(e). There was no mention of Sullivan, Chilton, or
Caldwell. .
Los Angeles Opinion #450 (1988), was next in chronological order. It concludes that an
attorney cannot seek a conservatorship for his or her own client, based on the rationale that a
conservatorship proceeding would be adverse to the client, and therefore the attorney would be
representing conflicting interests. This opinion did not consider the ABA Model Rule 1.14,
Sullivan, Chilton, or Caldwell. It never revisited the issue in a published opinion.
In Drabick v Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal App 3rd 185, the client was in a coma and
the family filed a petition to discontinue life support. Court appointed counsel agreed. The trial
court denied the petition. The family appealed. New counsel was appointed on appeal. The
appellate attormey argued that trial counsel should have opposed it. The court med that when th:
client is in a coma, the attorney must be guided by his own understanding of the client’s best
interests. The court recognized, but did not comment upon, the issue addressed here -- what to
do when the client is impaired but able to speak.
When the California Rules were revised in 1989, they were silent on the issue.
The next California opinion to visit this issue was COPRAC 1989-112, The opinion
adopts the rationale of both the San Diego and Los Angeles opinions. COPRAC noted, but did
not discuss, the ABA Rule 1.14 on impaired clients. There was no mention of Sullivan, Chiltor,
Caldwell, or Drabick.
6.
PDF Page 25
Cc Cc
Vhean an2The Comer SAB nf He tthes spinton Wee
A Aarne... Tha, Jan Déroes hit othe Mate ESPECIALLY
THE TARAS OFF V REGEN ES. L7ED PIS ASS OFS! ff PALE EL
(US LEEPER DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION oe De PAGED
LEGAL ETHICS COMMITTEE
ETHICS OPINION 1990-1
I
QUESTION PRESENTED
Attomey represents a Client in a criminal proceeding. During a meeting between Attomey and Client in Attorney's office, Altomey
discloses to Client that a codefendant has agreed to cooperate with the prosecution and provide information which will incriminate Client. -+
Upon learning of the foregoing, Client becomes enraged. Client opens a brief case, displays a handgun and tells Attorney: "F've had it
with that lying scum. I know how to use this and I'm going to take care of him once and for all.” Client hurriedly departs Attomey’s
office.
Based upon Attorney's knowledge of Client, Attomey believes that Client intends to seriously injure or kill the informant.
May Attorney disclose Client's intentions or otherwise wam the authorities or informant of the apparent danger?
' a
SUMMAR’
Despite the obvious moral dilemma, presented to the attorney in the foregoing scenario, California law (including Section 6068(e) of the
Business and Professions Code) forbids the atiomey from disclosing any information ined in confidence from the client. No implied
common law duties or rules of professional conduct promufgattd-in other jurisdictions apply to allow even a limited disclosure.
m ,
DISCUSSION
Historically, the maintenance of client confidences has been one of the highest duties of an attorney. Society originally derived this duty,
in pan, from Roman law, see Redin, The Privilege of Confidential Communications Between Lawver and Client, 16 Cal.L.Rev, 487, 488
(1928), and carried it forward through common law and legislate promulgation.
-
Jn California, twn independent legislative schemes establish the duty to maintain client confidences. First, Section 6068(e)} of the Business
and Professions Act provides:
It is the duty of an attomey to do all the following:
oe
. I
(e} to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.
A related codification of this duty can be found in the statutes relating to the attorney-client privilege collected in the Evidence Code.
Specifically, Section 954’ provides:
Subject to Section 912 and except as otherwise provided in this ticle, the client, whether or not a party, has a privilege to
refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication between client and lawyer if the
privilege is claimed by:
(a} The holder of the privilege ....
The only arguably relevant exception to the Evidence Code Provisions dealing with the attorney-client privilege is Section 956, the
so-called “crime-fraud* exception. This section provides:
There is no privilege under this articte if the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit
or plan to commit a crime or a fraud. |
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all references are tn the Fiddenna Pa. oo
PDF Page 26
SP 1990-1 page 2
Many judicial and ethics committee opinions have made clear the attorney's duty to maintain confidential all client disclosures of past
enmes and frauds. Considering the foregoing legislative scheme, we believe that the attorney's dury also extends to protect confidential
disclosures of an intent to commit future crmes and frauds, even those encompassing threats of great bodily injury or death.
The California Legislature has expressed a clear and unequivocal statement of the attorney's duty to maintain elient confidences and
secrets. Only in the narrow exception provided by Section 956 may an attorney disclose a confidence if the client sought or obtained the
services of the attorncy in order to help in the commission of a crime or fraud. In all other circumstances, the attorney must maintain
the secrets and confidences of the client. .
We recognize the seemingly harsh consequences of our opinion, particularly in fight of the contrary standard espoused by Rule 1.6 of
the ABA Mode! Rules of Professional Responsibility (“Model Rules")# Im most circumstances, we look favorably to the Model Rules
for guidance on issues of ethical conduct in California. However, in this instance, the jemsiatwve history of the Rules of Professional
conduct precludes us from relying upon the Mode! Rules.
Indeed, were the California Rutes of Professional Conduct and the refevant statutory authorities silent on this subject, we would be
inclined to suggest that Rule 1.6 of the Model Rules provides at least persuasive guidance for California attorneys, Unfortunately, that
is not the case. No exception to the duty imposed by Section 6068(e) of the Business and Professions Code or the attorney-client privilege
established by Section 964 of the Evidence Code exists which would render the Model Rules rejevant in this cireumstance. And, most
importantly, as indicated below, the legislative history of the current Rules of Professional Conduct suggests that the California Supreme
Court has apparently rejected the rationale of Rute 1.62
2 (Rule 1.6 of the Mode! Rules, entitled "Confidentiality of Information,” provides:
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consuttation, except
for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to.carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraph (b).
(b) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(1) To prevent the client from committing & criminal act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in imminent death or
substantial bodily harm; or
(2) To establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish
a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or
to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client.
The official comment to Rule 1.6 provides some guidance to the intent of this rule:
The lawyer may learn that a client intends prospective conduct that is criminal and likely to result in imminent death
Or substantial bodily harm. ... [T]he lawyer has professional discretion to reveal information in order to prevent
such consequences. The lawyer may make a disclosure in order to prevent homicide or serious bodily injury which
the lawyer reasonably believes is intended by client. It is very difficult for a lawyer to "know" when such a heinous
purpose will actually be carried out, for the client may have a change of mind.
-». A lawytr’s decision not to take preventive action permitted by paragraph (b) (1} does not violate this Rule.
3 /Specifically, in the proceedings which culminated in the presentation of currently effective Rules of Professional Conduct to the
California Supreme Court in December 1987, the original proposal contained a proposed rule, 3-100, which was derived from and
substantively identical to Model Rule 1.6. As proposed, Rule 3-100 stated:
3-100: DUTY TO MAINTAIN CLIENT CONFIDENCES AND SECRETS INVIOLATE.
(A) It is the duty of a member to maintain inviolate the confidence, and, at every peril to himself or herself, to preserve the
secrets of a client or former client.
(C) A member may reveal a confidence or secret:
(3) To the extent the member reasonably believes necessary:
(3) to prevent the commission of a criminal act that the member believes is likely to result in death of substantial
bodily harm....
After the proposed rules were submitted to the Supreme Court, the Court forwarded a letter to the State Bar which specifically
questioned the authority of .he Court to promulgate a rule of professional conduct = and particularly Proposed Rute 3-100(c) -whieh
a,
PDF Page 27
Un Codes (bpe:6060-6069) (- | € Page | of 8
BUSINESS-AND PROFESSIONS CODE
SECTION 6060-6069
6060. To be certified to the Supreme Court for admission and a
license to practice law, a person who has not been admitted to
practice law in a sister state, United States jurisdiction,
possession, territory, ‘or dependency or in a foreign country shall:
(a} Be of the age of at least 18 years.
(b)' Be of good moral character.
(c) Before beginning the study of law, have done either of the
following:
(1) Completed at least two years of college work, which college
work shall be not less than one-half of the collegiate work
acceptable for a bachelor's degree granted upon the basis of a
four-year period of study by a college or university approved by the
examining committee.
(2) Have attained in apparent intellectual ability the equivalent
of at least two years of college work by taking any examinations in
such subject matters and achieving the scores thereon as are
prescribed by the examining committee.
(d) Have registered with the examining committee as a law student
within 90 days after beginning the study of law. The examining
committee, upon good cause being shown, may permit a later
registration.
(e) Have done any of the following:
(1) Graduated from a law school accredited by the examining
committee or approved by the American Bar Association requiring
substantially the full time of its students for three years.
(2) Graduated from a law school accredited by the examining
committee or approved by the American Bar Association requiring a
part only of its students’ time for four years.
(3) Studied law diligently and in good faith for at least four
years in any of the following manners:
(i) In a law school that is authorized or approved to confer
professional degrees and requires classroom attendance of its
students for a minimum of 270 hours a year.
A person who has received his or her legal education in a foreign
state or country wherein the common law of England does not
constitute the basis of jurisprudence shal] demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the examining committee that his or her education,
experience, and qualifications qualify him or her to take the
examination.
(ii) In a law office in this state and under the personal
supervision of a member of the State Bar of California who is, and
for at least five years last past continuously has been, engaged in
the active practice of law. It is the duty of the supervising
attorney to render any periodic reports to the examining committee as
the committee may require.
(iii) In the chambers and under the personal supervision of a
judge of a court of record of this state. It is the duty of the
supervising judge to render any periodic reports to the examining
committee as the committee may require.
(iv) By instruction in law from a correspondence law school
authorized or approved to confer professional degrees by this state,
which requires 864 hours of preparation and study per year for four
years.
(v) By any combination of the methods referred to in paragraph (3)
of this subdivision.
fe
- hitn://www, leainfo.ca.gov/ce.../displaycode?section=bpc& group=06001-07000&file=6060-606 6/28/00
PDF Page 28
CA Codes (bpe:6060-6069) € . c Page 6 of §
{a} To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and
of this state,
(b) To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and
judicial officers. :
(c) To counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses
only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a
person charged with a public offense.
(d} To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided ‘
to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and
never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law.
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril e\
(nimselt 0 or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client
(f}) To abstain frem all offensive personality, and to advance no nq
fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness,
unless required by the justice of the cause with which he or she is
charged.
{g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of
an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or
interest. ;
(th) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself or
herself, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.
{i) To cooperate and participate in any disciplinary investigation
or other regulatory or disciplinary proceeding pending against the
attorney. However, this subdivision shall not be construed to
deprive an attorney of any privilege guaranteed by the Fifth
Amendment to the Censtitution of the United States or any other
constitutional or statutory privileges. This subdivision shall not
be construed to require an attorney to cooperate with a request that
requires the attorney to waive any constitutional or statutory
privilege or to comply with a request for information or other
matters within an unreasonable period of time in light of the time
constraints of the attorney's practice. Any exercise by an attorney
of any constitutional or statutory privilege shall not be used
against the attorney in a regulatory or disciplinary proceeding
against him or her.
(j} To comply with the requirements of Section 6002.1,
({k} To comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary
probation, including a probation imposed with the concurrence of the
attorney.
_ (1) To keep all agreements made in lieu of disciplinary
prosecution with the agency charged with attorney discipline.
{(m) To respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries.of clients Jal
and to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments g-6
in matters with regard to which the attorney has agreed to provide
legal services.
(n) To provide copies to the client of certain documents under
time limits and as prescribed in a rule of professional conduct which
the board shall adopt.
{o}) To report to the agency charged with attorney discipline, in
writing, within 30 days of the time the attorney has knowledge of any
of the following:
(1) The filing of three or more lawsuits in a 12-month period
against the attorney for malpractice or other wrongful conduct
committed in a professional capacity.
(2) The entry of judgment against the attorney in any civil action
for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, or gross
negligence committed in a professional capacity.
(3} The imposition of any judicial sanctions against the attorney,
except for sanctions for failure to make discovery or monetary
sanctions of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(4) The bringing of an indictment or information charging a felony
against the attorney.
. AG-
_hitto: iwww. leginfo. ca. govicg.. Hisplaycode?secuon=bpc& group=06001- 07000&file=6060-606 6/28/00
oe ee
PDF Page 29
EXHIBIT COVER PAGE |B
EXHIBIT
a
Description of this Exhibit:
—
Number of pages to this Exhibit: pages.
JURISDICTION: (Check only one)
(CD Municipal Court
(_) Superior Court
(_] Appellate Court
[_] State Supreme Court
[_] United States District Coun
CJ Stale Circuit Court
(J United States Supreme Court
{(")Grand Jury
PDF Page 30
SANFORD JAY ROSEN *
MICHAEL W. BIEN
ERNEST GALVAN
HOLLY BALDWIN
GAY C. GRUNFELD
JANE KAIIN
MEGHAN LANG
SARAH LAUBACH
ANNE MANIA
ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 390
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-0390
TELEPITONE
(415) 433-6830
FAX
(415) 433-7104
EMAIL
rbg@rbg-law.com
NURA MAZNAYI
MARIA MORRIS **
THOMAS NOLAN
LORI RIFKIN °**
LOREN STEWART
KENNETH WALCZAK****
AMY WHELAN
SARAH OLSON ZIMMERMAN ****
March 30, 2007
CONFIDENTIAL - LEGAL MAIL
Michael Hicks, B-80852
CSP - Sacramento
PO Box 290066
Represa, CA 95671
Re: Coleman v. Schwarzenegger
Our File No. 489-3
Dear Mr. Hicks:
I am writing in response to your letters dated March 8 and 12, 2007, which our
office received on March 12 and 13, 2007. This letter will address the Coleman and
Plata issues you raise. It will not address your discussion of filing a lawsuit against our
firm or attorneys, as these issues are outside the purview of these cases.
In your letter dated March 8, 2007 you requested updates regarding a SVP
program in the CDCR. The most recent change is that the Judge in the Coleman case
recently ordered the CDCR to develop exhibitionism treatment programs at at least three
institutions by July 1,2007. While I understand that you are not diagnosed with
exhibitionism and you do not engage in these types of behaviors, Dr. Metzner did state
that this mode! of treatment might be beneficial to you. I have enclosed a copy of this
order for your reference.
In your letter dated March 12, 2007 you requested that our office contact Dr.
Metzner about getting you a referral to an SVP program. As we have written before,
your institution’s mental health staff is responsible for all clinical decisions involving
your treatment. Given this, it is important that you continue to talk with your case
manager regarding your treatment concerns. Due to our large class membership, the fact
that we are not clinicians, and that we are not employed by the CDCR, we are unable to
influence decisions regarding an individual inmate’s mental health treatment. Our role as
MEMBER OF THE CONNECTICUT AND THE CALIFORNIA BAR
MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK AND THE CALIFORNIA BAR
MEMBER OF THE CONNECTICUT, NEW YORK AND THE CALIFORNIA BAR
PDF Page 31
CONFIDENTIAL - LEGAL MAIL
March 30, 2007
Page 2
class counsel is to work to provide improved mental health treatment to inmates system-
wide and this means that we do not have the resources to intervene on behalf of
individual inmates’ other than to contact the Coleman Project Team. I hope that you
understand, =~
I was sorry to read about your problems with your medications and very
concerned to read that you are currently not taking any of your medications, including
those for your health problems. I encourage you to continue to talk with mental health
staff about these issues.
In your letter you also raise some issues concerning your medical care. Although
the Coleman case is restricted to mental health issues, the Prison Law Office (PLO) has
settled a case, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, which deals with medical care issues system-
wide. The PLO is currently monitoring the administration of medical care. I have
forwarded a copy of your letter to that office. In the future, you can write to them at:
Prison Law Office, General Delivery, San Quentin, CA, 94964,
I have returned your original documents to you with this letter. I wish you the best
of luck, and please take care.
Sincerely yours,
ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP
By: Sofia Mil[ham Vo
Paralegal
SM:ad
Encl: ORIG, 3/12/07 Order
Cc: PLO-Plata
Back to 
