Both Florida attorneys in a series of disputes were sanctioned after email exchanges that started with epithets like “hack” and “loser,” and then got much, much worse from there. [St. Petersburg Times, Above the Law]
They’ve contributed to a recommended three-year suspension for San Francisco attorney Philip Kay. “Kay rose to fame with the Baker & McKenzie suit, earning him a reputation as the go-to plaintiff lawyer for sexual harassment suits.” [Mike McKee/The Recorder, California Civil Justice]
More: Via a commenter, this is said to be the official statement released by the office of Philip Edward Kay:
“This decision admits it used default, as punishment, in violation of Business & Professions Code §6068(i), because I asserted constitutional and statutory rights of attorney client privilege and work product before answering questions, and demanded the right to have these issues heard and determined by an article VI court of general jurisdiction to determine whether the questions sought privileged information, pursuant to State Bar Rules. The State Bar Court did this knowingly to allow the Office of Chief Trial Counsel the ability to lie about what the Superior Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court found in their orders and opinions regarding these important civil rights cases.
In these matters, only after the trial judges were reversed on appeal and disqualified, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§170, et seq., did they claim misconduct. So, either these judges lied in their orders denying misconduct, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §657(1) – “irregularities in the proceedings,” OR they lied in their testimony in the State Bar trial. This will create an uncertain and chilling effect by allowing unfit and disgruntled judges to lie about the record and impugn lawfully obtained civil rights verdicts, which have been upheld by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The State Bar Court has allowed these disqualified judges to attack and undermine the very verdicts, which, they could not touch in the trial court under statutory and case law in California.”
And not a figurative brawl either: “fisticuffs broke out between attorneys Madro Bandaries and J. Robert Ates, who were pushing rival class-action suits about the late handling of insurance claims …[lead attorney Wiley] Beevers and Bandaries have traded hostile rhetoric in recent weeks as they try to gain advantage for their rival class-action suits against Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp., which could produce $5 million in spoils for the victorious legal team.” (Rebecca Mowbray, “Brawl erupts between two lawyers at civil court”, New Orleans Times-Picayune, Dec. 16).
The California state bar has charged San Francisco attorney Philip Kay, famed for sexual harassment lawsuits, “with turning two cases before three San Diego judges into three-ring circuses by repeatedly impugning court orders and caustically accusing the judges of misconduct in front of jurors. Prosecutors also claim Kay entered into an illegal fee-splitting agreement in his most high-profile case — a sexual harassment suit against mega-law firm Baker & McKenzie that in 1994 resulted in a $6.9 million San Francisco jury award for his client, former legal secretary Rena Weeks. (The judgment was later reduced to $3.5 million.)” The title quote is from San Diego judge Joan Weber, and refers to Kay’s conduct in a sexual harassment suit against Ralphs Grocery. (Mike McKee, “Famed Plaintiffs Lawyer Faces Bar Charges Over Conduct”, The Recorder, Dec. 5).
Seems there’s no surfeit of collegiality among L.A. lawyers whose names figure in the Terry Christiansen connivance-at-wiretapping trial. (Amanda Bronstad, “A Tale of the Tape in Christensen Wiretapping Trial”, National Law Journal, Jul. 16; “In Opening of Wiretap Trial, Christensen Claims He Was the Victim”, Jul. 21).