Ed Jew's lawyer goes into ironic attack dog modeBy Sarah Phelan
In what could be the most ironic moment of the Ed Jew saga so far, Jew's attorney Steven Gruel is accusing the City Attorney's response to a recent public records disclosure request of being "woefully incomplete."
This from the attorney of the "D4" Supervisor, who still hasn't been able to prove that he actually lives in the district that he is supposed to be representing at City Hall.
Gruel's ironic accusation followed Jew's July 11 request that the City Attorney's office immediately disclose all communications regarding the investigation of Jew''s "official Residence or any allegations of his 'official misconduct.'"
When Deputy City Attorney Chad Jacobs invoked an extension--citing the 'voluminous nature" of Gruel's request, plus the fact that other docs might be covered by "attorney work product privilege" --Gruel accused City Attorney Dennis Herrera of "skirting" the public records act request.
This from the attorney who applied for and got an extension from the City Attorney on behalf of his client not once but three times, but still failed to provide complete materials or make his client available for an interview--a request that doesn't seem that hard given that Jew's office is just around the corner from Herrera's.
But maybe the proximity of that office is bothering Jew, because now his attorney Gruel is also demanding that the Attorney General's Office disqualify Herrera and the entire City's Attorney's office from Quo Warranto proceedings for "submitting false/misleading information", and "abandoning all objectivity."
"Mr. Herrera's hot pursuit of this issue from the outset indicated that political motive, rather than the public good, is his guiding consideration," Gruel claims, in a package of to-and-fro correspondence now making the media rounds.
This comes at the end of a week that began with it suddenly occurring to Mayor Gavin Newsom--just as the deadline passed for removing Jew from office in time for a D4 candidate to run this fall --that maybe the $40,000 in cash deal that the FBI is investigating, might be grounds for the Mayor to also boot Jew out of office.
With so many recall attempts in the air this election season, will Jew also become a recall target? Stay tuned.
PS: Jim Sutton Watch -- In his response to Gruel, Herrera argues that his office shouldn't be disqualified, although Gruel's co-counsel in the case, the notorious Jim Sutton, should.
"As you are will aware," Herrera wrote, "Mr. Sutton provides legal representation to both Mayor Gavin Newsom and District Attorney Kamala Harris, in their private capacities and/or their respective campaign entities. It is likely a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct to provide representation to Mr. Jew in this matter without first having received informed written consent from these clients."
Sutton told us he hasn't read the letter and has no comment. We're checking to see if Harris or Newsom provided any written waiver; we'll let you know.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (1)
um, like the Herrera's office doesn't self deal all the time? Huge conflict of interest and blindness to the Rules of Professional Conduct happen frequently in Dennis Herrera's office.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/sunshine_page.asp?id=59785
Member Pilpel asked the Task Force (TF) to resolve the matter as to whether there is a conflict with DCA Llorente serving as counsel for this item. He said that there is no conflict and doesn’t see a need for him to recuse DCA Llorente.
Chair Comstock asked DCA Llorente if the TF can discuss his possible recusal as part of jurisdiction?
DCA Llorente responded that the TF can discuss the matter now or later. He said that he is not hearing the matter; that he is only the TF counsel, and can be impartial.
Allen Grossman said that he objects to DCA Llorente providing legal counsel to the TF on this compliant since the City Attorney’s Office is a party to the complaint. He said that there is a conflict and no legal reason basis for not recusing him.
Kimo Crossman said that DCA Llorente should be recused, since there is a potential conflict. He suggested that Member Craven provide legal counsel to the TF since she is an attorney.
Peter Warfield said that DCA Llorente should be recused for possible actual conflict, appearance of a conflict, and/or out of respect for the complainant.
DCA Llorente said that he has no contact with the Government Team, and that he can represent the TF interest with regard to open government, open meetings and CPRA.
Member Cauthen said that a previous recusal of the TF attorney Jackie Minor was a totally different matter, because she was advising the Department who was a party to the complaint.
Member Wolfe said that if DCA Llorente were recused his advice letters would also need to be considered. He asked Mr. Grossman if he had a problem with the written advice from DCA Llorente?
Mr. Grossman said that he does not have a problem with the advice letters only a slight problem with how DCA Llorente described the violations. He said, that he is not accusing DCA Llorente of anything; that he is only questioning his ability to remain impartial.
Chair Comstock asked DCA Llorente to explain the procedure for his recusal.
DCA Llorente responded that he could recuse himself or the TF can vote to recuse him. He said that he has no basis to recuse himself.
==============
(Jackie Minor dispute at another SOTF hearing)
"Bruce Brugmann stated there is a serious problem here of conflict of interest regarding the City Attorney. Would like to redo my original motion to send this item to the Board of Supervisors, then to the City Attorney, then to the Attorney General."
More here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS224US224&q=sunshine+task+force+jackie-minor&btnG=Search
Posted by commenter | July 14, 2007 07:02 AM