Remorseless Prosecutor Says Bar Should Back Off

If nothing else, embattled Santa Clara County prosecutor Benjamin Field has chutzpah.

Accused by State Bar prosecutors of abusing his authority by ignoring judges’ orders, concealing evidence and attempting to intimidate witnesses, Field filed court papers recently arguing that at worst he should be given a public reproval. And that amounts to a hard slap on the wrist.

This even after the State Bar in late September stated in court documents that it wouldn’t seek disbarment, but rather a three-year suspension.

“There was no venality or corruption here. There was a very able lawyer doing his job,” Allen Ruby, a partner with San Jose’s Ruby & Schofield, wrote in a post-trial brief filed Oct. 31 in the State Bar Court in San Francisco. “If there is a finding by this court that Mr. Field should have done his job better, or differently, that ought not to transform him into a menace to the public, deserving of ruin.”

Field is accused of ignoring judges’ orders by seeking search warrants in a habeas case involving two convicted rapists and moving forward with a dental examination of a minor in another rape case. He also is accused of concealing evidence that would have helped the defense in some cases.

Field escaped facing disbarment because of more than 35 witnesses — including the former and current district attorneys of Santa Clara County — who testified on his behalf earlier this year.

“Without the character testimony,” State Bar Supervising Trial Counsel Donald Steedman wrote in court papers, “the State Bar would have recommended disbarment.”

Field’s effort to either be exonerated or be publicly reproved irked Steedman, especially because the State Bar feels he has shown no remorse.

Field’s claims of innocence, Steedman wrote in papers filed Thursday, “are a symptom of his attitude, i.e., that anyone who dares to disagree with his interpretation of facts or events is guilty of mischaracterizing the record.”

In earlier papers, the State Bar said Field “believes that he has done nothing ethically wrong, but rather committed a series of honest mistakes that have unluckily placed him in a bad light. [His] only remorse is for the damage these events have caused him, his family and his office.”

State Bar Court Judge Patrice McElroy, who has presided over Field’s case, has the prerogative to ignore both the State Bar’s and Field’s recommendations on punishment. She easily could still recommend disbarment.

Previously: Expert scuffle in Field's Bar Trial
Wayback Bonus: Troubled Prosecutor Gets New Assignment (May 2006)

— Mike McKee

Comments

[paige hamm]

I think that Fields should be locked up for a long time I mean not even one apology. I think that Fields should have the worst punishment he can get he's a big jerk and needs to be locked up end of story

[Melanie]

If this guy Fields really did all this stuff, why should a few character witnesses matter. This guy Fields should step up and be a man. Take responsibility for his actions, deal with the consequences, and move on with his life.

[Grotius]

The idea that Mr. Field is "remorseless", as Mike McKee calls him, is absurd. He gave moving testimony at his State Bar about how this experience has changed him and the way he practices. As for the character witnesses mentioned by commenter Melanie, it certainly should matter to hear from crime victims who had an advocate in Mr. Field, or defense attorneys who were treated fairly by Mr. Field, or judges who attested to his skill and character. The idea that the State Bar Court could "easily" disbar him is equally absurd. Mike McKee appears to have bought into the State Bar's narrative. He should look at the facts.

The assertion of the State Bar and its counsel, one Donald Steedman, that no one dare disagree with Mr. Field is preposterous. It is the State Bar with whom no one dare disagree. The Bar's ad hominem attack on Mr. Field in its reply briefing is all there is in that filing; it is only four pages and declines to address or revisit almost all of the legal and factual points raised in Allan Ruby's closing brief on behalf of Mr. Field. Mr. Steedman is reduced to schoolyard "I'm rubber, you're glue" taunts because the Bar lacks the facts to make its case against Mr. Field.

Lawyers need to be very concerned about the State Bar's new found ardor for bringing charges against prosecutors and defense attorneys. If its action against Mr. Field is any indication, the Bar will be coming after you, second-guessing your judgments made in the heat of the moment and inventing new standards of practice as they go. Woe will be to you if you do not bow down and beg for forgiveness but instead try to defend yourself and your practice career by deigning to explain your actions. So to the self-satisfied commenters who want to pile on to Mr. Field, be warned: you may be next on the State Bar's list.