The California State Bar has ordered San Francisco's district attorney to enter a confidential diversion program in the wake of ethics complaints filed by a former Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, who had publicly opposed the effort the current DA had led to oust her controversial left-wing predecessor.
The State Bar’s action against District Attorney Brooke Jenkins comes in response to complaints submitted in 2022 and 2023 by former Judge Martha Goldin over Jenkins’ past actions as a prosecutor. Specifically, Jenkins was accused of misconduct by emailing a party not involved in a criminal case an unredacted police report and a criminal history record of the criminal defendant, Troy McAlister.
Jenkins left the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office shortly thereafter and became the spokeswoman for the recall campaign of the then-district attorney, Chesa Boudin, according to Goldin’s account. Voters later elected Jenkins district attorney.
Goldin had vocally and publicly opposed the recall campaign against Boudin.
Goldin's accusations further asserted that, during the case of People v. Daniel Gudino in 2021, Jenkins served as prosecutor of a man with a serious mental illness convicted of murdering his mother, Goldin reported. Jenkins made prejudicial statements to the jury and sought the defendant’s incarceration, rather than follow the recommendations of experts who said he should be confined to a locked mental health facility, one of Goldin’s letters to the State Bar states.
Mano Raju, the San Francisco public defender, said earlier this month that the “corrective action for multiple ethics complaints” against Jenkins reflected poorly on the integrity of the District Attorney’s Office.
“When an elected district attorney has a history of ethical violations, it undermines the integrity of the entire District Attorney’s Office and leads to wrongful convictions and unjust incarceration,” Raju said in an April 9 statement.
Raju had also politically sided with Boudin, particularly against efforts by the city to fight surging crime in San Francisco in the early years of this decade.
He said the order by the State Bar spoke volumes given that prosecutors rarely face discipline for violations of their professional ethics.
“It’s ironic that District Attorney Jenkins, who often opposes diversion in court – and thereby closes off an avenue for our clients to better their lives – has now been ordered to complete professional diversion,” Raju said.
In a statement emailed to the Southern California Record, the State Bar stressed that it could not confirm receiving complaints about Jenkins or that an investigation has been under way. Disciplinary probes remain confidential until a notice of disciplinary charges is filed with the State Bar Court or certain stipulations are filed with the court, the statement says.
“Speaking generally and not to any particular case, the targets of the Office of Chief Trial Counsel’s diversion program are respondents (a) whose disciplinary and complaint histories demonstrate that they do not pose a significant risk of future harm to their clients or the public and (b) whose current alleged misconduct is relatively minor and stems from issues potentially subject to correction through education or other rehabilitative measures,” the statement continues.
Typically, those who take part in diversion have not been subject to discipline previously and do not have 15 or more complaints over the past five years, according to the statement.
“Also speaking generally and not to any particular case, the determination whether diversion is appropriate takes into account the results of the Office of Chief Trial Counsel’s investigation, including the sufficiency and strength of the evidence as to particular allegations,” the State Bar reported.
Overall, the diversion program’s aim is to rehabilitate a particular attorney while maintaining the professional standards of the legal profession, according to the State Bar.
In her Oct. 11, 2023, letter to the State Bar, Goldin expressed frustration about the time it was taking the State Bar to act on her arguments.
“I am concerned about the delays,” she said. “The failure of the State Bar to act on these matters is an extreme disservice to the people and the city and county of San Francisco.”