Lawyers Behaving Badly: Bulb Campers are Ill Served by their Counsel in Cody vs. Albany

boona cheema’s new post about the impending settlement negotiations in the case the Bulb campers have filed against Albany has reminded me of a promise I have not kept.  Commenter christopher papazaglow challenged me to explain how I would handle the Albany Bulb campers' case differently from how it is currently being handled by Kilpatrick & Townsend and the East Bay Community Law Center, had the campers had approached me for legal advice. 

It is a good question, and I promised to answer, but I have found it difficult to address in a brief blog post.  Still, here is a 'top ten' list of the guidelines I would follow:       

1.       Pursue the client’s best interests, not the political cause. 

The political cause of keeping the Bulb open to settlement as a ‘wet’ shelter is very different from the clients' interests (which is apparently to stay on the Bulb as long as possible and get as much money as possible from the city of Albany when they have to move).   A lawyer for a vulnerable client or group of clients should NOT use the case as a vehicle to advance a political cause that is different from and potentially risky to the client interests.  More about conflicts of interest in this case below.

2.       Energetically and timely pursue non-litigation solutions to my client’s problems.   

Without question, this case could and should have been settled before it was ever filed, which would have sacrificed the political cause but would have been of great benefit of the campers.   

3.       Consider potential risks to my clients of the current situation.

Some campers face serious risks from their Bulb lifestyles.  I would think long and hard before accepting a case that might increase my client’s risk of death or serious injury, especially if my client suffers any mental impairment that might make it difficult to comprehend the risks.    

4.       Consider potential risk to my client’s interests that could result from their employment of me as their counsel.

If I were a fur fashionista, and I were approached by an animal-rights group seeking representation, I would explain to them that my association with them might reflect poorly on their cause.  If I were a devoted off-road vehicle enthusiast, and I were approached by some environmental activists about a land-protection case, I would do the same. 

So . . . if I lived in a huge house in a wealthy town, where even a shelter for homeless families with children has been successfully barred, and I were approached about a case seeking damages from a much less affluent town struggling to help its homeless population and reclaim its parkland . . . well, you get the idea. 

Ms. Sheehy should be using her wealth and influence to assure that her own intolerant hometown of Orinda does its share for the homeless - not trying to drive tolerant Albany into bankruptcy over the issue.

5.       Consider and address potential conflicts of interest of my co-counsel as well as myself.

I would not accept Osha Neumann as co-counsel in this case, in which he and his son-in-law Jason de Antonis have a direct personal interest.  No way. 

6.       Consider potential conflicts of interest among different clients and groups of clients.   

The interests of high-functioning campers with incomes and benefits that provide them with far more discretionary spending power than achieved by full- time minimum wage workers may be quite different from the interests of low-functioning campers who may need permanent supportive housing, possibly even conservatorships, and who may not even have applied for benefits to which they are entitled.  There may be special considerations for special groups – any veterans, undocumented people, or persons at extreme high risk due to untreated mental illness or substance abuse. 

Nevertheless, a dozen or more lawyers, as a group, have taken on thirty or more clients, as a group, apparently advising ALL of them to claim various disabilities no matter how weak the claims, in order to defer the issuance of citations. 

This looks like abuse of process – use of the judicial system solely for delay - and it is potentially deeply unfair to any individual camper who might actually have a disability and who should be receiving some special attention and care.  

7.       Don’t involve groups known for engaging in political violence.

It is just appalling if, as reported by participants, EBCLC sent lawyers to an organizing meeting about the Bulb with Occupy Oakland, in an apparent effort to draw the latter into the Albany Bulb issue.  Boo!

8.       Limit my firm’s participation in civil disobedience actions to legal monitoring. 

While Occupy Oakland is notorious for hurting people and destroying property, Occupy the Farm activists have taken the less objectionable path of nonviolent harassment - in the form of campouts at the home and the law office of park activist Robert Cheasty. 

If I were representing the campers, I would not only decline to join these harassment campouts, I would tell everyone who worked for my firm to limit their participation to legal monitoring and not act as participants in this form of protest, which is uncivil even if it is nonviolent.   It is distasteful to see EBCLC personnel proudly participating in these harassing actions.         

9.       Protect my clients’ privacy to the greatest extent possible under the circumstances.

Speaks for itself, I think.      

10.   Safeguard the attorney-client privilege.

I would take great care to keep my clients’ communications private.  Again, speaks for itself.