Two years, two months since his arrest, the State Bar adds this alert to Michael Acosta's profile?

 

Local attorney Michael Acosta was arrested on February 4, 2020. Since I posted on his arrest, I checked the State Bar site regularly to see if there was any mention of his case on his profile. 

I just happened to check again last night. Now, there is this consumer alert? Whenever this was added, it was recent. Two years and two months later the State Bar wants to alert the public? Is the timing a coincidence?  Acosta is running for Humboldt District Attorney in a race where the supporters and Humboldt connected funders of the two other candidates for DA just assumed no one else would run. 

The votes for Deputy District Attorney Stacey Eads will most likely not be affected by Acosta. Deputy Public Defender Adrian Kamada has more to lose.

I don't care for some of the endorsers for both Eads and Kamada based on personal knowledge and their involvement in politics and previous campaigns. I have been upfront how I feel about Kamada as an attorney and if he is elected DA would be a disaster. 

Kamada's personal and professional relationship with Judge Elvine-Kreis, former Public Defender and Public Defender Luke Brownfield who arecall facing lawsuits with serious allegations is a bigger issue than Acosta's case. Why isn't the lawsuit on Brownfield's profile? 

Even if Acosta was not in the race, Kamada better step up his game because even some of his donors don't think he has a chance. The regular voters as well as others I have spoken to know the least about Kamada and this includes all local candidates running for office in the June 7 election.

The State Bar could officially state any reason and  maybe it is a coincidence but the appearance before the upcoming election is a question that deserves to be raised. Very similar to the "issues" being regurgitated by only one "media source" almost daily about the current Auditor Controller. Both Acosta and Dominguez are outsiders shaking up the Humboldt system and highlighting what should be changed.

"Thank you for bringing this issue to light," Mr. Acosta told me. He was on his way to court and sent me the following detailed response. Mr. Acosta's response did not address the timing of when this alert was added and that is his choice.

Michael Acosta response:

Business & Professions Code §6101(b) states in relevant part:

"The district attorney, city attorney, or other prosecuting agency shall notify the Office of the State Bar of California of the pendency of an action against an attorney charging a felony or misdemeanor immediately upon obtaining information that the defendant is an attorney. The notice shall identify the attorney and describe the crimes charged and the alleged facts."  

So a consumer warning such as the one cited here would be consistent with standard operating procedure in the case of an attorney with pending criminal charges,.  However, does a criminal charge trigger attorney discipline by the State Bar?  The answer is and should be NO.

Because the State Bar of California, against all odds it seems, STILL subscribes to the Constitutional doctrine known as the "presumption of innocence," the State Bar does not initiate disciplinary investigations or proceedings when an attorney is charged with a criminal offense.  Instead, the State Bar prudently waits to see whether criminal charges against an attorney become a conviction before disciplinary action is taken.  If criminal charges are dismissed, or if the attorney/defendant is acquitted at trial, then there would be no disciplinary action and the consumer warning would be removed.

Also, this is probably a good spot to interject that there is a difference between disciplinary actions and administrative actions.  I don't have any disciplinary record with the State Bar of California.,  The two "ineligible to practice" entries cited at the State Bar website, and highlighted as possibly relevant by the North Coast Journal, which, like Mr. Chiv, publishes respectable journalism (as opposed to merely regurgitating canned law enforcement press releases without editorial scrutiny), were administrative suspensions, not disciplinary suspensions.  

The story of my first ineligibility to practice law is related only to incomplete MCLE (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) credits, of which California attorneys must complete 36 hours every three years, This happened during the MCLE reporting period directly following the death of my first son, (i.e. at a time when my desire to practice law had almost entirely dissipated.)  I remember the moment I was told about this first ineligibility.  My colleague, Mr. Allan Dollison, then a prosecutor and a former candidate for the office of District Attorney, kindly advised me in the hallway that it would be a misdemeanor for me to appear that morning for court in front of Judge Cissna, then presiding over Courtroom 4.  Not exactly knowing what to do, I was asked to come back into the courtroom and wait until the end of the calendar ( a very scary proposition for an attorney if you remember anything about Judge Cissna, who had a reputation for being the "hanging" judge of Humboldt County.  I sat there in the back row in a cold sweat for the remainder of Judge Cissna's criminal calendar. After the last case was called, Judge Cissna cleared the courtroom (other than the bailiff) so that he could speak to me privately.  I thought to myself, this is the end of the line for sure; Judge Cissna has a noose with my name on it, and needs to exercise his long arm of the law. 

Much to my surprise, when I tried to explain myself and the nature of the ineligibility to practice, along with my lack of knowledge as to it, Judge Cissna just put his hand up as if to say "Silence young man," he smiled, raised his chin in judgment, and said something like "I don't need to know the reasons.  That is between you and the State Bar.....Just take care of it and then come back."  At that moment, I felt as if I had a fifth grandparent... who happened to be a towering legal giant and Superior Court Judge in Humboldt County.  I think I studdered "Ye..yes, Your Honor" and meekly withdrew myself from his seemingly immaculate presence.  With this encouragement, I completed the remaining MCLE units that I owed the good folks at the State Bar for that reporting period and became eligible to practice once again.

The second brief period of ineligibility to practice law was simply a failure to pay my bar dues on time.  This has occurred in only one of my twenty years of practice in California, and it was simply because I was flat broke at the time. 

Again, since my admission to the State Bar of California on January 15, 1999, I have never been ineligible to practice law in California related to misconduct or as a result of a disciplinary proceedings.  While my colleagues whom are also candidates for the Office of District Attorney in the present election cycle similarly have no disciplinary records at the State Bar, I would only  point out in addition that I have been practicing law in California longer than either of them (only 2 years longer than Ms. Eads, but about 13 years longer than Mr. Kamada), and that the lack of State Bar disciplinary records becomes more relevant and meaningful the longer one has practiced. 

Thank you for your interest in my professional career and I welcome the opportunity to address any further inquiries. "