The counsel for a former Los Angeles chief deputy city attorney accused of four disciplinary charges involving misconduct and collusion defended her client as a lawyer with an exemplary record who was being railroaded by the testimony of a convicted felon.
A State Bar Court hearing got under way last week in Los Angeles for James Patrick Clark, whom the California State Bar accuses of misconduct for his alleged role in arranging a legal scheme to allow the city to manipulate ratepayer class-action litigation in a way that resulted in terms favorable to the city.
The legal manipulation to settle ratepayer class actions came in the wake of a Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) scandal that unfolded more than a decade ago due to the problem-plagued launch of the utility’s new billing system, according to the State Bar.
The State Bar’s complaint against Clark contends that he met with attorneys Paul Paradis and Paul Kiesel to arrange a class-action lawsuit in which lawyers for ratepayers and the city would conspire to obtain settlement terms favorable to the city. Paradis has already served one year in federal prison for his role in the legal scheme and was released in January, according to the State Bar, which indicated that Paradis cooperated extensively during an FBI probe.
A State Bar judge will determine if Clark will be able to continue to practice law after hearing witness testimony and examining evidence this month and in May.
“Based on irrefutable facts, the State Bar's disciplinary case against Mr. Clark shouldn’t be proceeding at all,” Clark’s attorney, Erin Joyce, told the Southern California Record in an email. “It certainly wouldn’t be at any other enforcement agency in the country. Unfortunately, unlike other administrative agencies, the State Bar's Office of Chief Trial Counsel is empowered to proceed against anyone it chooses to pursue, no matter how unreliable or dishonest its complainant may be.”
The case against Clark is based not on a complaint filed by a client, co-counsel or an opposing attorney, Joyce said. Instead, it’s based on the testimony of Paradis, a convicted felon who was disbarred two times and who defrauded Los Angeles residents of more than $24 million in a constellation of illegality involving bribery, kickbacks and money laundering, she said.
In addition, the federal judge who sentenced Paradis to prison said the former attorney was motivated by “pure greed,” adding that his level of corruption was “mind-boggling.”
“As if this pathological level of duplicity and dishonesty were not enough to disqualify him as the State Bar's sole complainant against Mr. Clark, Mr. Paradis’ recent admissions of cognitive incompetence would cause any other prosecutorial authority to cease proceedings,” Joyce said.
She alluded to statements from Paradis, his doctors and his attorneys that, starting in 2014, Paradis began to suffer from cognitive dysfunction, memory loss and other impairments as a result of a debilitating brain tumor.
Paradis’ credibility stands in stark contrast to Clark’s legal record and reputation, according to Joyce.
“Mr. Clark has had an exemplary 50-year record as a lawyer in both private practice and public service, without a single ethical complaint at any point during a career marked by an extraordinary history of commitment to the community, and pro bono service to the disadvantaged,” she said.
Joyce also disputed Paradis’ allegation that Clark consented to or was involved in the effort to manipulate class-action litigation to get terms favorable to the city.
“Zero credible evidence supports Mr. Paradis’ assertion that Mr. Clark was even remotely aware of this hare-brained scheme,” she said. “Nor is there any remotely plausible motive for Mr. Clark to have supported it.”
The hearing examining the State Bar’s charges against Clark will continue next month, from May 12 through May 14.