Patterico's Pontifications

12/6/2007

BREAKING: Stephen Yagman About to Begin a Federal Trial on December 14 . . .

Filed under: General,Scum — Patterico @ 11:52 pm



. . . even though he is not eligible to practice law in the state of California.

In an article that gives new meaning to the term “burying the lede,” the Argonaut — a small paper published in Marina del Rey, California — tucks the following tidbit into the 38th paragraph of a 39-paragraph article about convicted felon Stephen Yagman:

Currently free pending his appeal and preparing to try a federal case on December 14th, Yagman was philosophical about his immediate future, with a jail term looming over the horizon.

“[The conviction] puts a crimp in what I’ll be doing for a while, but that’s life,” he concluded.

Apparently it’s not putting enough of a crimp.

I honestly had to rub my eyes after reading that passage.

Stephen Yagman is preparing to try a federal case on December 14th?! Are you kidding me? Are you [several expletives deleted] KIDDING me?!

Is that federal case taking place in California? Because I just looked up his page on the State Bar web site, and here’s what it says today:

yagman-ineligible.JPG

And the reason he’s not eligible is really no mystery:

yagman-interim-suspension-after-conviction.JPG

I suppose it’s remotely possible that the federal case is taking place in a state other than California. If so, it must be a state which doesn’t care when one of its members is convicted of more than a dozen federal felonies, and has been suspended from practice by the State Bar in his home state.

Either that — or maybe the phrase “Not Eligible to Practice Law” has some arcane meaning with which I am unfamiliar.

I have another question: how is Yagman able to conduct a federal trial when he is supposedly oh, so very sick? Isn’t this the guy whose attorney argued that he couldn’t be sent to federal prison in part because of his allegedly poor health? Why, yes . . . it is.

One other thing: UC Irvine must be very proud, because their new dean is about to help Yagman in his appeal:

In an exclusive interview with The Argonaut, Yagman vowed to appeal his conviction. Erwin Chemerinsky, the newly appointed dean of the University of California, Irvine and a well-known professor of constitutional law, will join Yagman’s trial attorney, Barry Tarlow, in appealing the sentence.

Thank God they reinstated Chemerinsky’s offer! What would Southern California do without him?

I’m going to nose around and see if I can’t get to the bottom of this Yagman December 14 trial thing. This seems like a genuine story to me.

Do you think it’s really true? Or did the Argonaut just get it wrong?

13 Responses to “BREAKING: Stephen Yagman About to Begin a Federal Trial on December 14 . . .”

  1. Is having a disbarred lawyer really a plus at trial?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  2. Yagman may think he’s getting ready for trial, and he may have told the reporter that. But there isn’t a prayer in the world that a federal district judge is going to let him practice once the J&C was entered.

    wls (6c5569)

  3. It is suspicious and it would be a big story. I hope he’s not the lead attorney.

    In addition, Yagman’s disciplinary history suggests he is on the 10-year “on-again, off-again” legal practice plan.

    DRJ (a6fcd2)

  4. I’ve been assuming all along that he’ll be disbarred.

    But if the State Bar had any question about it, shouldn’t this put it to rest?

    This appears to be a blatant disregard of their order. Someone should report him.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  5. So I’m assuming he’s not formerly disbarred, but also is not allowed to practice in California. While out on appeal he can practice law federally. Really?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  6. I thought Erwin was a happy Socialist and rabble rouser at Duke. I wonder if he’s going to spend more time as one of Hewitt’s smart guys?

    PCD (09d6a8)

  7. So I’m assuming he’s not formerly disbarred, but also is not allowed to practice in California. While out on appeal he can practice law federally. Really?

    I don’t pretend to know the law surrounding this, but I know of another attorney that was recently disbarred in MA and is still practicing in Federal Court. That disbarment is also under appeal, which may have something to do with continuing to practice in Fed. There seems to be something here that we’re missing.

    Pablo (99243e)

  8. So, will Yagman be teaching at UCI when this is over? Or will Chemerinsky have found his collection of Marxists and dunderheads by then? Dumb and dumberest.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  9. He could conduct his own defense. Maybe it’s his appeal he’s preparing for.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  10. It’s a newspaper, and this is a technical detail, so I’ll assume that they got it wrong. He’s probably also preparing for something on the 14th, perhaps assisting in that case? It will be interesting to see what he does then.

    htom (412a17)

  11. I don’t believe that – even in California – he anywhere but the spectator section. But then, it IS California where you don’t have to be a college graduate to attend law school, graduate and take the Bar exam!

    Gayle Miller (187b6e)

  12. Being admitted to practice before the courts of a particular state, and being admitted to practice before the Federal district court, are two separate matters. In fact, at least here in Florida, being admitted to the bar of one Federal court doesn’t mean you can practice in another Federal district court without being admitted separately there.

    And where admission is distinct, one must presume disbarment is also distinct. So just because he’s not allowed to practice in the courts of the state of California, does not mean he can’t appear as an attorney in a Federal court where he’s he been admitted, until and unless that Federal court moves to take him off its own rolls. Same, in fact, with any other state where he’s been admitted to practice.

    Hopefully, the District Court involved here will doing just that pretty soon.

    And to be fair, it may be only that he’s helping another attorney prepare the case.

    And apparently the source is Yagman himself. A word to the wise is sufficient.

    kishnevi (db1823)

  13. Either that — or maybe the phrase “Not Eligible to Practice Law” has some arcane meaning with which I am unfamiliar.

    I don’t think so. I’m sure the bar would pounce if he appeared to argue a case in state court. I wouldn’t think the state bar would have jurisdiction to dictate who may or may not argue cases in federal court, though. Presumably, it all comes down to what the federal court rules are.

    Thank God they reinstated Chemerinsky’s offer! What would Southern California do without him?

    The same thing we in NC would do with him. Take him, he’s yours.

    Xrlq (6a3c55)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2890 secs.