L.A. Times Lionizes Stephen Yagman Yet Again
The L.A. Times runs another mostly glowing profile of ethically challenged civil rights attorney Stephen Yagman today, here. It just forgets to mention that he is ethically challenged.
There’s nothing in the story about the fact that Yagman has been disciplined for ethics violations such as misappropriation of funds, charging of unconscionable fees, and paying clients late. No mention of the case where Yagman was suspended for an ethical violation, and the State Bar “suggested that Yagman get counseling for his hostile behavior toward a client.”
Instead, he is treated as a civil rights hero. The sub-head of the story, which is a profile and not a “news” story, reads: “Stephen Yagman began the practice of holding leaders to account for the actions of police.” The story makes it sound as though Yagman’s only fault (if any) is that he arguably hauls the rich and powerful into court a little too often, and maybe makes a few too many outrageous statements about them. That all seems like the behavior of a scrappy civil rights lawyer. But he has many greater faults — they just aren’t being reported in this profile.
Ah, you say, but what is the relevance of Yagman’s checkered history to the story? The paper simply isn’t in the business of reprinting nasty stuff about people, time and time again, regardless of its relevance to the story . . . right?
Uh-huh.
Read this post of mine from June 2004. It pretty much rips that theory to shreds — and further explains my love for Stephen Yagman.
Why not link to his official state bar record, which comes complete with the official mentions of discipline?
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 3/22/2006 @ 7:39 amUmmm .. let me guess, he is a good liberal … did I get it right?
10ksnooker (26027c) — 3/22/2006 @ 7:59 amThese dingbats really do not get this whole illegal immigration thing. Clumping those who come here following the rules with those who illegally run across the desert really is offensive to many people. I guess it is shallow to attack words in a headline instead of the article, but this really makes me angry. The whole point of the article is that roads are opening up to illegals, not immigrants.
Headline: Welcome to Maywood, Where Roads Open Up for Immigrants
Wesson (c20d28) — 3/22/2006 @ 1:16 pmWow. I read your archived post for the first time. I didn’t think it was possible for my opinion of the LA Times to go any lower, but it just did. If I can find a copy of the “Dog Trainer” here in Orlando, I won’t let my dog pee on it, because I’m going to pee on it myself.
Mike S (d3f5fd) — 3/22/2006 @ 1:24 pmRegarding the 2004 post you cite, Johnson never ran against Nixon for president (although he was Kennedy’s VP in the 1960 race). I have heard the pig story before but in reference to one of Johnson’s Texas races.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 3/22/2006 @ 2:09 pmYeah, I think that came up in the comments before but the original set of comments was lost. Or maybe it was another post where I made the claim and linked to that post. It might even have been you who mentioned it.
Patterico (59bfb8) — 3/22/2006 @ 2:10 pmYes it came up again in a 12/23/04 post and commenter Stuart questioned it. The most commonly quoted version of the pig story seems to be due to Hunter Thompson who is not the most reliable source in the world so the story may be an urban legend.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 3/22/2006 @ 4:15 pmEthically challenged, isn’t that a PC way of saying he a freeking career criminal? Got to be a liberal since they all love criminals.
scrapiron (a90377) — 3/22/2006 @ 7:33 pmWow,
paul (001f65) — 3/23/2006 @ 7:36 amI can’t believe there is no legal recourse to a whacko Like Yagman. I see people daily refrain from speaking their mind in the face of real incompetence for fear of ‘being sued’ and this yahoo just keeps spinning the hits!
Not to offend the able minded out on the west coast, but the LAT is just another ‘eye-roll’ in conversations here.
With tongue barely in cheek a friend of mind put it this way:
“Quoting the LAT on any issue is not done in polite company…’
Too bad there really isn’t an EASY button like in the Staples Ads…
In any retrospective on Yagman’s career, it is inexcusable to omit any mention of the State Bar findings of unethical conduct and as well as what Yagman’s critics say. Thus, the Times article is neither news nor a profile; it is a PR release. So the article should have covered the points of public record you raised rather than rehashing Yagman’s “success” in dragging top officials into court to testify. After all, any lawyer can subpoena anyone within the court’s subpoena power.
As further proof of the reporter’s incompetence, the article said virtually nothing about truly remarkable and commendable accomplishments in Yagman’s career. Two are worth mentioning (because both involved the LAPD): Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1991), and Gomez v. Gates, 804 F. Supp. 69 (C.D. Cal. 1992). In both cases Yagman, overcoming the inherent (& understandable) pro-police biases of conservative federal jurors, established (a) police officers committed misconduct, misconduct that included (in Gomez)unlawful homicides, (b) the officers lied about it in an effort to coverup their misconduct, and (c) in so doing had the implicit approval of top LAPD brass, including then Chief Gates. The article made no mention of Larez or its significance — in a pre-Rodney King trial, a jury found Gates personally liable for nearly $200,000 in punitive damages (though later overturned on a technicality). As to Gomez, while the reporter mentions the case briefly he omits the details on why the case was so significant — the all-white jury found that SIS killed w/o justification 3 of the 4 robbers, tried to kill the 4th, lied about it afterwards, all done with the implicit approval of Gates and the city. Although the facts in these cases were good for the plaintiffs, it takes more than just good facts to win a police abuse case. Just ask the prosecutors in the Rodney King state court criminal trial. Yagman’s in-court skills made the plaintiffs’ victories in Larez and Gomez possible. Those skills, along with the lowpoints and questionable conduct in Yagman’s career, should have been mentioned.
DWC (06ea11) — 3/23/2006 @ 7:51 amDWC,
paul (001f65) — 3/23/2006 @ 8:04 amThere is an old saw; “One ‘aw s**t’ wipes out a thousand ‘attaboys'” A
Are you implying the reverse is true as long as the one ‘attaboy’ takes the LAPD to task? [Merits of the conviction notwithstanding]
Paul:
What I am saying is that if you want to write a profile on someone (as was apparently the intent of the Times reporter) then you write about what it is that makes the person interesting & significant enough for the profile. Subpoenaing officials into court doesn’t cut it. Yagman’s disciplinary history and his outside-the-courtroom statements certainly gets attention and may make him interesting. Given all that, one legitimately wonders why Yagman remains sufficiently successful to continue in his practice. That’s where Yagman’s courtroom skills come in. I’ve heard from more than one cop who, upon observing Yagman in court, say this is the guy they want representing them should they ever be the plaintiff.
DWC (06ea11) — 3/23/2006 @ 8:22 amThis is typical of the LA Times and the local news media where they support these type of lawers who bring up “fruitless” lawsuits. One such example is when Attorney Stephen Yagman filed a lawsuit claiming that prisoners are being forced to sleep on mattresses. And when tough questions were asked by John & Ken, check out his response from their audio archives:
Michael (087c4a) — 4/19/2006 @ 2:19 pm
When I arrived to Federal building to have a judge assigned to my case I saw my attorney face she was white and clearly in fear I noted that but could not say a word.
She was not there anymore when I meet Guy Iverson.
He told me straight: there are 67 judges 65 of them are OK. One is senile, and one is a RACIST!!! You got him the notorious “Killer Keller” sorry, your case is going to appeal you got no chance.
Then I heard about an article in the LA Times:
Los Angeles Times – federal judge William D. Keller
– Venice civil rights lawyer Stephen Yagman contends that he violated no canon of ethics and should not be sanctioned for his withering criticism of U.S. District Judge William D. Keller, whom he accused of being anti-Semitic, drunk on the bench, ignorant, dishonest . . . a bully and one of the worst judges in the United States. Los-Angeles Times Tuesday, June 21, 1994″
Then another attorney I’ve meet in MDC told me “Keller is a racist he hate minorities and people of colors”.
Then I meet some more who told me more of the same.
Now from my personal experience with Judge William D. Keller it fits the bill.
He called me a liar after one question even though the supreme expert on lies Paul Ekman
Claims in his books that there is no definite answers even for experts… but Keller can tell.
Keller in the course of the preliminary hearings and 2 weeks trial constantly and actively assisted the prosecution which he headed so I heard for 35 years.
He told them in the beginning they got no case, but instructed them how to make one!!!
And I was naïve enough to believe that the role of a judge is more like a… referee.
He displayed total ignorance of the law in respect. And ignored a relevant misdemeanor law in favor of a severe felony with mandatory jail sentence for a first time “offender” who claimed strongly for innocence (lesser included). And by doing so and his demeanor on the bench, his body language, and the disrespect he displayed to the defender and family (yelling at the defender wife after one time show that he know why she came:”to be a PROP. he was actually mislead the jury and manipulated them to convict.
He excessively punished the defender a prominent artist an animator (http://www.eshkol.com), to the 9th circuit opinion who gives 5 minutes to my attorney to argue my complaints???????
He was constantly threatened my attorney to send “him” to jail.
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, do not apply to him!
All in all I Think the Judge William Keller is a shame to the proud American justice
And since I do not have any respect to him or the system he serves for life and backing him up.
Giora Eshkol (f0af39) — 9/20/2008 @ 10:42 pm
A convicted criminal upset at her judge. Go figure.
Patterico (ad3eb7) — 9/20/2008 @ 11:44 pm