Unfit to Practice (26 page)

“Must've given him quite the headache. Mom's disappointed, not having her darling son in town to spoil. Pops is disappointed he's such a loser he'd give in to a woman. So he needed to show them. His goal became becoming the biggest fish. Impress the folks in the way they really understood, by making money and being a huge success. That worked for a while. He made partner, got lots of press, won a few biggies that even got reported in San Francisco. Something for the folks to brag about. Convinced his wife to give up her ridiculous hopes and start working on a family. By then he didn't want to leave. And the spotlight was back where it belonged, on him.”

“And then I come along—”

“You waltz in, fresh from San Francisco, cute as a button, getting all the attention, dancing your way into all the best cases. He's floundering lately. Everyone cites your last coup as the reason why.”

“My last coup?”

“The gambling interests he used to represent lost faith in him. Some negotiation strategy you pulled?”

She remembered.

“Apparently you hustled him out of a fee. Worse, you called him ‘asshole' in front of some very important men.”

“That was naughty of me.”

“Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, he got into a shouting match outside the courtroom with his partner Michael Stamp and a few things were said—let's just say his partners are grumpy about a loss of income. There's more going on behind closed doors there, and I worked on finding out what this morning, but the people at his law firm are trained well. They don't talk to strangers, except to sing Jeffy's praises.”

So, it was as she had suspected when Stamp cornered her that morning at court. Riesner's firm had finally been kicked into taking the competition—her—seriously. How unsettling for Riesner. Still. “Paul, Riesner's a professional in a tough business. He's had years of success up here. He wins plenty. He's got friends, contacts, a wife he seems to care about who's willing to play the game his way. So why does he hate me?”

He paused, then said, “It's instinctive. You're a woman; he's an alpha male.”

“So what?” she said, frustrated.

“He wants you to be beta.”

She met with two new clients, hosted a deposition, and appeared in court on a hit-and-run case that was held over, going through all her activities with the competence of years of practice. She thought clearly, spoke articulately, operated at her keenest level of thinking, and kept her mind on her tasks.

She supposed people whose family members had wasting diseases went through something similar every day. Each day, they got up, leaving behind someone, maybe a lover, maybe a parent, in the bedroom, maybe crying, maybe screaming. They straightened a tie or stocking, and walked out the door into life moving on. The mountain grew cold and accepted the snow; the lake roughened under the wind.

At four-thirty, Kevin Cruz did not appear. Instead, a courier delivered a letter, or rather, the copy of a letter.

Addressed to the California State Bar.

To Whom It May Concern,

I feel that I must inform the state bar of a serious breach of ethical duty by my attorney, Nina Reilly, Esquire, of South Lake Tahoe. While representing me in a custody case she engaged in a sexual relationship with me.

As a result, it's my feeling that her representation of me was compromised because of personal feelings and entanglements that made her objectivity impossible. I lost temporary custody of my children, and will probably lose permanent custody as a result of her immoral behavior, which made it hard for me to concentrate on how my case should be properly handled. I also believe that, for her own personal reasons having to do with maintaining a long-term serious relationship with me, she didn't want me to get custody at all.

As an attorney practicing in California, she has a duty to uphold the highest standards of ethics and legal behavior, and in those two arenas, she has failed. I respectfully request that the state bar open an inquiry into her legal practice, which I think will result in the exposure of further illegal or immoral activities.

I am available for any questions and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Kevin Cruz

Attached to the letter was another letter, this one an original, from Kevin Cruz, firing her as his attorney of record.

Without a word, she handed the letters to Sandy.

Sandy read the first letter, fixing on every word, while Nina struggled to keep control. What she wanted to do was laugh, laugh loudly, uproariously—

“Sure hope at least he was hot in the sack,” Sandy said.

That did it. Nina started to chuckle, and that grew into laughing, and she went to the window, tearing up from her laughter, and said, her back turned to her secretary, “Sandy—ha, ha, ha—what a staggering day of heartbreaking shit. Sandy, I'm so screwed.”

Silence. Then, “I find that objectionable,” Sandy said calmly.

Nina stopped laughing, although she had to work hard to do it. “I'm—I'm sorry if I offended you,” she managed to say.

“It's not offensive enough,” Sandy said. “Change it to you're fucked, and I'm with you.”

Their laughter boiled up and overflowed. Sandy had a weird laugh, a sort of hupping laugh, hilarious really. “You want—hup, hup—some more cognac?”

“That's a good one—ha, ha, a new tradition—I'll pass—”

“Save it for—the—hup, hup—boyfriend—good idea,” Sandy said. “Hoo, boy. Ah.” She dug a tissue out of a box on Nina's desk and wiped her eyes. “Girl,” she said, “life is cold.”

Nina sobered. “You've got that right.” She sat down heavily. “Kevin. Kevin. Why?”

“I never liked that guy.”

“I did, at first.”

“How's he think he's going to get away with this? Don't you have to be able to prove what you say?”

Nina said, “I'll bet he's got proof.”

“Of what? That very bad scene you told me about?”

Nina nodded. “Photos or a video, carefully cut. Two scenes. One outside the restaurant across the street. A clinch. The other, at his condo. Heavy petting. Carefully edited. Heck, he's probably got love letters. Like my new Vang intake notes that I didn't write.”

“Why would he do this to you?”

“I lost the hearing. That's enough reason, if you're unbalanced and obsessed. But wait, the files were taken the day before we lost. He lost because the files were taken. So—he didn't take the files. This is—could this be separate?”

“Can any of this help him get his kids back?”

“I don't see how. From a judge's point of view, it makes him look worse.”

“He's a cop. He would know how to steal a car. Maybe he's got some gripe against you about some old case.”

“Could be.”

“He's your enemy.”

“No question, but, Sandy, today's pattern is no coincidence. Three files, three disasters all at once, as if timed for maximum impact. Kevin's just one of the three. Maybe he has been set up, too.”

“You know that powwow Joe and I organized? Someone told a story there about a big bird that lived at Lake Tahoe that ate the people. An old man was carried up to its nest and found himself lying next to a corpse. He took a piece of obsidian he had with him and stuck it inside the corpse. Then he watched the bird finish off the corpse and listened to the bird howling when he felt the pain of that sharp rock inside. When the bird died, he cut off its wing and used that to get back down to the lake. He told the people the bird was dead and they celebrated. Now they were safe.”

“I'm not sure why you're telling me this story, Sandy.”

“Put some rocks in your pocket. Don't be afraid to play dirty.”

“I have to call Jack.” Nina went into her office. The California State Bar would be calling soon. She needed to get ready.

Book Three

March

She walked to the podium, warm under the spotlights. In front of her on a high dais sat three justices of the First District Court of Appeals, San Francisco Division, three wise old men in solemn black robes.

Today was her first day in court.

They watched her, maybe a little curious because they had never seen her before. She set her notes in front of her, the tabbed background material, the appellate briefs. Behind her and to the side she felt the eyes of the deputy attorney general opposing her on the appeal and the many other lawyers here today to argue their cases. Her mouth felt full of cotton and her head felt—empty.

She had so much to fear, and so much at stake, and yet this wasn't even her case. She was a substitute for another lawyer who was in the hospital.

For one whole week she had immersed herself in the issues, driven down to Soledad Prison to talk with the client, studied every case in the briefs, reviewed the evidence. The voice in her head that always stood in the way got louder every day, saying, you can't do this. You're not good enough. You haven't had enough time handling this case. You'll be tongue-tied and the whole court will laugh at you.

You will lose.

But other times, as she sat at her desk in the lamplight long after closing hours, searching for just the right words to persuade the justices that her client deserved another trial, a new feeling would well up in her: a determination to win. She couldn't fail him. She had to act as a conduit, expressing the principles that would result in justice for him.

She dealt with the seesaw between fear and determination by working harder and longer. The night before the argument, at 4:00
A
.
M
., Bobby woke her up, crying. She gave him some water and led him to the bathroom, then helped him back into his little bed.

I have a child, she thought to herself before going back to sleep, I have this child and have kept him alive. What could be harder or more important than that?

The morning scheduled for arguments in her case dawned in the traditional San Francisco way: foggy, cool, mysterious. She dressed in her black suit and wore her mother's watch. At the courthouse downtown, standing outside the doors, Nina experienced one more moment of savage fright. A man's liberty was at stake. His defense was entrusted to her, and who was she? Just a young woman without much self-confidence, not brilliant, not impressive, not experienced—who was she against the state of California?

Her case was called. She walked to the podium, under the lights. She laid down her papers and set her mind on her client, Klaus, her mother, all the people who had supported her over the long, lonely years and brought her to this place.

She opened her mouth and began to speak.

EXHIBIT ONE

OFFICE OF TRIAL COUNSEL

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

Gayle Nolan, NO. 101447

Attorney at Law

555B Franklin Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

555/698-4947

THE STATE BAR COURT

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

HEARING DEPARTMENT—SAN FRANCISCO

In the Matter of

Nina F. Reilly, No. 379168

A Member of the State Bar

TO: NINA FOX REILLY, Respondent herein:

IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY STATE BAR RULES, INCLUDING EXTENSIONS, YOU MAY BE ENROLLED AS AN INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR AND WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNTIL AN ANSWER IS FILED.

You were admitted to the practice of law in the state of California on January 12, 1994. Pursuant to Rule 510, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, reasonable cause has been found to conduct a formal disciplinary hearing, commencing at a time and place to be fixed by the state bar court (NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING WILL BE MAILED TO YOU BY THE STATE BAR COURT CLERK'S OFFICE), by reason of the following:

COUNT ONE

1. In 2001, you were a sole practitioner in the law firm of Law Offices of Nina F. Reilly, Attorney at Law, 2489 South Lake Tahoe Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, California.

2. While acting in your duties as an attorney, you occupied a position of trust for many clients. For our purposes here, one client group, consisting of Brandy Ann Taylor, Bruce R. Ford, and Angel Guillaume, is represented in this count.

3. Beginning on September 6, while serving in a lawyer-client relationship, and with a primary obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of your clients, for the separate parties as referenced above, you failed to protect client information as required under California Business and Professions Code section 6068 (e) by leaving client files in an unlocked vehicle, which was subsequently stolen from you. You failed to implement the proper safeguards to ensure that client information remained confidential, a violation of your duty to perform competently.

4. Disclosure of the contents of those files has caused harm to your clients. After the loss of your client files, these three individuals were threatened and attacked by a man, Cody Stinson, whom they revealed in private conversations with you, their attorney, they had witnessed fleeing the scene of a murder.

COUNT TWO

1. While acting in your duties as an attorney, you knowingly assisted in the commission of a fraud against the Heritage Life Insurance Company Incorporated, by Kao Vang, former owner of Blue Star Market located in South Lake Tahoe, California.

2. Representing Kao Vang in an insurance claim against Heritage Life, you knew that arson had been committed by your client for the fraudulent purposes of obtaining an insurance settlement. The gross amount of that settlement, since paid in equal portions to Kao Vang and his wife, See Vang, was $210,000.

3. As a result of your personal, speedy delivery of funds to Kao Vang, he left the country before the fraud was apparent, making recovery of the fraudulently obtained funds difficult or impossible. The funds delivered to See Vang have been attached awaiting disposition of this count.

3. Your collection of any portion of that settlement constitutes a separate fraud.

COUNT THREE

1. While representing your client, Kevin Cruz, in a custody case, you engaged in a sexual relationship with him.

2. You employed undue influence in entering into the relationship, and implied that this level of intimacy was required in order for you to continue representation.

3. In violation of Rule 3–110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, you continued to represent this client, even though the relationship damaged and prejudiced the client's case, and resulted in the loss of temporary custody of his two minor children.

By committing the acts described above, you willfully violated your oath and duties as an attorney. In particular, you violated California Business and Professions Code section 6068 (e); and Rule 3–110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.