Scott, political cowardice does not excuse a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Yell all you want about the Council's timidity and refusal to act -- I would heartily agree! -- but it doesn't give Aguirre an "out" for violating rules he d*mn well should know about.

Posted by Angel | reply to this comment
February 20, 2008 5:17 pm

Authorized or not, Aguirre and Sanders both wanted court CLARIFICATION as to the legality of the benefits. When the courts determined the benefits were legal, Aguirre did not back down, but continued his lawsuits at the expense of the taxpayers. THAT is the reckless litigation that sums up Aguirre's term in office.

Posted by Cheeky | reply to this comment
February 20, 2008 5:30 pm

Cheeky, please provide the cite of the final decision by the Cal Supreme Court or Court of Appeal holding the pension benefits challenged by the City Attorney were, as you claim, legal. I am not aware of any such decision and believe the issues are currently on appeal. But, you may know better. I'd just like you to provide the citation so that I can acquaint myself with the decision. Thanks.

Posted by Bruce | reply to this comment
February 20, 2008 6:25 pm

Scott, The issue should not be put back on the Council for not following up with another, maybe more definitive action, saying that Aguirre should NOT take action. The issue is one that Aguirre should have to factually prove; i.e., did the Council give him specific direction to sue? If he can prove that, clearly and factually, then the Council is up the proverbial creek. If he can't prove it, then, it seems to me (a non-lawyer) that Aguirre goes down the tubes. The onus should be on Aguirre, not the Council. He's the one who the Bar Assn. is investigating.

Posted by Mike Leach | reply to this comment
February 20, 2008 6:39 pm

Scott, I think if you go back and check the record, Peters challenged Aguirre's authority to file the case in the City's name shortly after Aguirre filed the case. Peters made several public comments about Aguirre's assertion he did not need Council authority and his not having the consent of the Council. In the end Aguirre lost and has challenged the loss by way of appeal. The benefits were ruled valid (legal) by way of statute by Judge Barton. Aguirre is now trying to make everyone else out to be in some sort of conspiracy. What happened to "open and transparent government"? If Mike did nothing wrong, why is he worried about the CA Bar investigation? The truth will set him free... or hang him!!! The Council should have challenged him at the time. But hindsight is always 20-20.

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
February 20, 2008 8:24 pm

I went to link and found that who other than Bonnie Dumanis, fervent Aguirre opponent, is on their board of governors. Scott, shouldn't this be mentioned in your reporting on the Bar and Aguirre? It certainly seems to speak to the many accusations of this being investigation politically motivated. Considering the convenient timing, just before the election, it does seem a bit fishy.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
February 20, 2008 8:42 pm

Amazing what you can find on the internet in just a few minutes...who is on the State Bar's "Discipline Oversight Committee"? Official Aguirre hater and Goldsmith endorser, our very own Bonnie Dumanis: link Maybe you aren't looking quite enough, Scott. Need more help?

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
February 20, 2008 8:45 pm

good reporting Scott; although it does not entirely confirm my earlier suspicions about the origins of this "investigation" by the bar, it is certainly consistent with the odor I found around this. Very reminiscent of the uproar a few months ago about contributions from "The Rat" McGrath and Kathryn Burton to Aguirre's campaign. As you may recall that was another bit of sound and fury from Aguirre's detractors signifying . . . . well nothing. I think that this investigation and the fact that Tom Shepard is once working on behalf of Smelly Cat Peters is more than mere coincidence. (I'm taking the liberty here of assuming that Scott Peters is as happily attached to his nickname as Don McGrath is to his; if he is not, my apologies in advance.)

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
February 20, 2008 9:21 pm

Mr. Williams: “By statute, the State Bar's prosecutor's office acts with complete independence from the Board of Governors. The board does not know who is being investigated or prosecuted until charges have been filed and made public.”

Posted by Oliver Holmes | reply to this comment
February 20, 2008 10:52 pm

You are quite right. If the Council were to release the transcript, it would clear up who said what to whom and what inferences would be reasonable under the circumstances.

Posted by Rich | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 8:01 am

I agree with Scott's conclusion about the Council authorizing Aguirre to file the pension lawsuit in 'his own name.' THat makes no sense and the Council had the later opportunity to clarify this but declined. I suspect there were not five votes either way at the time and there was alot of public pressure to have the court weigh in on the legality of the pension benefit increases. I believe Scott and the State Bar examiners should also seek other instances where Aguirre filed significant litigation without Council approval, which I think should answer the question more clearly.

Posted by Dick | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 8:15 am

link In the article Mr. Flannery suspects "Peters lied and continues to lie about it, because the unions are extremely angry at him for voting to authorize Aguirre to sue the pension board regarding illegal pension benefits" and knowns that Mr. Aguirre would love to see the closed session transcript published for public review.

Posted by La Playa Heritage | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 8:52 am

My comments of yesterday never got posted so I will give it another try....NO ACTION IS ACTION! The voice gives little attention to Frye. Let's ask Frye what went down at the meeing. Frye is true blue versus tainted Peters and Atkins. Peters...it's going to rain this week, you can shut off your sprinklers :-)

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 8:57 am

Thanks Fred Williams for the info....I wonder why the contact info on the State Bar Member info for dumanis has the email of Steve Silva? Anybody got the dibs on that one: Dumanis, Bonnie M. (District 9) Office of the District Attorney 330 West Broadway, Suite 1300 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-531-4114 FAX: 619-237-1351 steve.silva@sdcda.or

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 9:00 am

I suspect the question the state bar is investigating is not whether Mike filed a suit without council approval, but whether in his declaration to the superior court he misrepresented the fact that he had the council's authority. And given Girard's and Smelly Cat Peters' statements to the effect that he had authority to do so at least in his own name I think its going to be something of a stretch to say Aguirre made any material misrepresentations to the court. With respect to the independence of the bar investigators, yeah right. And all of Bonnie Dumanis's investigators are completely independent of her political agenda, except in those exceptional cases where they are not independent. All in all looks like Alex Roth and our friends at the UT got sent down another empty rathole.

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 9:07 am

15. jorgeelgato wrote on February 21, 2008 8:07 AM: "...I think its going to be something of a stretch to say Aguirre made any material misrepresentations to the court." Oh puleese! Aguirre has done nothing but misrepresent the facts since he became CA. George, have another gelato because your man is sunk.

Posted by Joe in PTL | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 12:09 pm

Sound and fury over a State Bar "investigation" that happens just before elections? They must think we just fell off the cabbage truck not to realize that this inquiry is motivated by political foes who want to destroy our populist, popular, Democrat City Attorney Mike Aguirre. Please remember that such State Bar "investigations" frequently occur and, when nothing important materializes, no facts or details are ever provided to the public. But in an election year, the very notion of a State Bar inquiry into a high-profile office-holder can be used to cast doubt about that person's credibility, integrity, or competence, and there is no recourse. Shame on San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, one of the State Bar governors, for her unbecoming public hostility toward City Attorney Mike Aguirre and for doing the dirty work of others by instigating this witch-hunt against him.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 1:15 pm

Why does everyone always forget that SDCERS sued the City FIRST. As is commonly necessary in civil suits, there was a cross-complaint. No permission required to file that. In addition, Aguirre's office prosecutes thousands of cases a year -- imagine if Council had to approve every case the City prosecutes. Ridiculous.

Posted by forgetful | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 1:18 pm

Re # 17: Thinking about St. Patrick's Day, I said "cabbage" when I meant "turnip" truck. You get the idea.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 3:32 pm

Anyone who believes that the politicians who attended this closed meeting would allow the transcript to be opened for public scrutiny is a true "day-dreamer." Politicians only give lip service to honesty, integrity and open government. Politicians believe that they are above us little people when it comes to values. After all who do we think we are to ask questions about their actions, they are politicians. As an example of political arrogance I use Sup. Ron Roberts upcoming trip to Asia. Emails pertaining to Roberts planning the trip prior to a vote of the Supervisors. The emails prove there was misconduct by Roberts. Rather than being honorable and bowing out of the trip, he's still going! Now that's arrogance. When are the voters going to get sick of the political malfeasance occurring in San Diego government? Actually in all areas of government. So sad.

Posted by Ralph of San Diego | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 4:01 pm

The oldest trick in the book is to do something SO OUTRAGEOUS that no one would EVER suspect you actually did it. This is the circumstance, I believe, concerning the deal with Board of Governor, Bonnie Dumanis, where some of her supporters claim she has no connection with the state bar investigation of Aguirre. Indeed, you all can easily list the establishment special interest players, and pretty much guess who has a hand in trying to crucify Aguirre. Also, these players own the game and make the rules, so how are we simpletons ever going to expose them when they play this awful, unconscionable trick? If you think it's hard, just ask Mike Aguirre, he's been trying for a few years now, and look what they're doing to him!

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 9:24 pm

14- Norman, Steve Silva is Ms Dumanis' adminstrative assistant. 18- forgetful, the 'thousands' of cases prosecuted by Aguirre's office every year are mostly criminal prosecutions brought in the name of the People of the State of California. The City would and should have no say in whether they get filed. The only issue about permission seems to be in initiating civil cases brought in the name of the City, the client, and whether the client has the say on whether to sue. I guess the question is whether a cross complaint could qualify as the initiation of a lawsuit in some way that permission is required

Posted by historian | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 9:53 pm

Re: #9. Yes, the statute states this must be an independent investigation. So when you see that a publicly declared nemesis of the accused is on the committee directing the investigation, THAT should be part of the story. As Scott says about the transcript not being made public..."how convenient". Isn't ALL of this a bit TOO convenient? A bit, I dunno, orchestrated? Scott, you know they want to play you, (it's their job), so better check your back, dude. Keep digging here, and find the story behind the story...Fred.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 11:43 pm

Someone has to leak the transcript NOW. And regarding #23 -- Fred is right, and most certainly no offense to Scott on the 'they want to play you' -- they will use the press to manipulate the perception of reality, this has been done since the beginning of time by these rogue players, and the BEST way to fight back is to get leaked information.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
February 22, 2008 8:43 am

#22 thanks for the info!

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
February 22, 2008 9:44 am

Aguirre thinks the People are the client, not the City Council. Yet, it was the Council that had to waive the attorney/client privilege to release the transcript to the Bar. If Aguirre's right, seems he could have given the Bar the transcript himself since he is "authorized" to make all legal decisions on behalf of his client, the People. You see, this is the same rationale he uses to file lawsuits in the name of the City without needing Council authorization. But, alas, Aguirre has followed his definition of who the client is according to what benefits him at the moment. Yes, the people are the ultimate client, but they are represented by the Council, who makes these decisions on behalf of the people. The remedy for the people is to install new leadership if they don't like something. However, giving Aguirre carte blanche is not authorized by anything.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
February 22, 2008 1:17 pm

26. Rock On wrote on February 22, 2008 12:17 PM: "Aguirre thinks the People are the client, not the City Council. Yet, it was the Council that had to waive the attorney/client privilege to release the transcript to the Bar....... GOOD point, but the fact is The Clowncil repesents the people in the peoples stead, and since it would be impossible to get all 1.3 million residents/people of SD to sign a waiver the council would be requested to waive the A/C priviledge- they would be doing so in the stead of the people/residents- see Rock On.... see my point.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 22, 2008 2:36 pm

14. Norman wrote on February 21, 2008 8:00 AM: I wonder why the contact info on the State Bar Member info for dumanis has the email of Steve Silva? Anybody got the dibs on that one: Dumanis, Bonnie M. (District 9) Office of the District Attorney 330 West Broadway, Suite 1300 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-531-4114 FAX: 619-237-1351 steve.silva@sdcda.or well, someone from the DA's office is reading this blog, because ALL OF Dumanis's info is now deleted from the bar's web site. Unreal... link here; link

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 24, 2008 6:37 pm

BBH, its nice to see we've found something to agree about regarding the position of the City Attorney and who the client is. I'm glad we both understand that legal decisions on behalf of the City, whether to waive a privilege or initiate a lawsuit, require the concent of those representing the City - in this case the Council. I'll be interested to see what actually happened in that closed session.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
March 7, 2008 5:59 pm

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.