The State Bar of California released reports from an independent investigation into whether former Chair of the Board of Trustees Sean SeLegue had a disqualifying conflict of interest arising out of his involvement with a 2010 discipline case against since disbarred attorney Thomas V. Girardi. The investigation found that Mr. SeLegue did not have a disqualifying conflict of interest and that neither he nor other State Bar leaders engaged in misconduct. The reports, which have been redacted on a limited basis as required by law, are being shared in keeping with the State Bar’s commitment to transparency.
“While the investigation found there was no disqualifying conflict of interest under existing law, the current Board and leadership team recognizes that we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard, where even the perception of a potential conflict should trigger a Board member’s duty to disclose and recuse,” said Trustee Arnie Sowell, who chairs the Board’s Ad Hoc Committee on Oversight and Accountability Reforms. “That’s why we are advocating for a change in the law that would hold the State Bar’s Board to a broader conflict of interest standard. We have made improvements and will continue to strengthen the State Bar’s conflict of interest policies and foster a culture of transparency and accountability.”
Investigation findings The State Bar engaged Christine Adams of Adams, Duerk & Kamenstein LLP (ADK) to determine if Mr. SeLegue should have recused himself from decisions regarding Girardi matters because of his involvement in 2010 with a Girardi discipline case handled and closed by his then law partner Jerome Falk, who was serving as Special Deputy Trial Counsel (SDTC) for that case. The investigation also reviewed whether that involvement influenced decisions made by the State Bar and whether there was any attempt on the part of State Bar leadership to deliberately conceal information about Mr. SeLegue’s involvement in the Girardi discipline case handled by Mr. Falk.
The investigation, which involved 15 interviews and a review of thousands of documents, found that Mr. SeLegue had no obligation under current law to recuse himself from Board decisions regarding Girardi matters. The investigation also found no evidence that Mr. SeLegue’s prior involvement in a Girardi matter influenced decisions the State Bar made concerning Girardi, and no deliberate effort to conceal Mr. SeLegue’s connection to the matter by those informed of it. In finding that Mr. SeLegue applied disinterested skill and undivided loyalty to the State Bar, the report noted examples where he advocated for transparency and proactive reform actions as the Board determined its course of action in dealing with the Girardi matters.
Next steps The Board, its Ad Hoc Committee on Oversight and Accountability Reforms, and leadership staff proposed conflict of interest improvements beginning in January this year; these improvements are ongoing. The improvements are outlined in a new webpage that also publishes current Form 700s of current Board members and provides background information on conflicts of interest policies as well as State Bar compliance statistics on two types of conflicts of interest reporting:
- Form 700s (Statements of Economic Interest), required by members of the Board, State Bar Court judges, members of certain committees, and staff in certain roles, and
- State Bar-specific conflicts of interest reporting required under Rule 2201, which requires annual reporting by the Board, all staff, and outside conflicts counsel (SDTC).
Original source can be found here.