[X] Suzette Valladares

Friday, September 20, 2024

Page 8

EDITORIAL

Suzette Valladares

State Senate, District 23

e only endorse in election contests where a requisite of holding the office is having been admitted to membership in the State Bar. Normally, that is. The candidacy of one Kipp Mueller for the state Senate is not a normal election bid. It’s a quest by a lawyer devoid of scruples to attempt to flimflam voters into thinking that he is something that he is not: a former criminal prosecutor.

Mueller is, out and out, a liar.

His unfitness for election to the state Senate—or any other public office—is manifest. So is the worthiness of his rival in the Nov. 5 run-off, former state Assembly member Suzette Valladares.

Although a newspaper’s endorsement is nearly always centered on the person being recommended for election, we’ll discuss Valladares later, and tangentially, given that Mueller’s mendacity is the impetus for our only endorsement of a state Senate candidate since the MetNews came under its present ownership in 1977.

The duplicity he has exhibited, while violative of broad ethical strictures, points to the need for a revision of the Rules of Professional Conduct to explicitly render subject to discipline not only lawyers who misrepresent their qualifications in races for judgeships, which is presently covered, but those who, like Mueller, make false claims in seeking nonjudicial offices.

he candidate’s deviousness was first exposed on Sept. 3 by the conservative news and opinion website, RedState. Managing Editor Jennifer Van Laar pointed to statements by Mueller, such as this, in the Santa Clarita Valley Signal:

“I spent time in two different offices as a prosecutor. First, at the United States Department of Justice, I was in the Consumer Protection branch. There, I prosecuted fraudsters who targeted vulnerable populations. I took on the largest food illness case in American history, helping convict two criminals who fraudulently and knowingly sold food products that were salmonella-positive, causing 22,000 reported cases of salmonella poisoning and nine deaths.”

Mueller was never a prosecutor, Van Laar reported. The following day, she advised in an addendum that he had been an extern at the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and a clerk at the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office, adding:

“He hadn’t even passed the Bar yet at the time he held those positions, so was not a prosecutor.”

n his campaign website, it’s represented:

“In the early stages of his legal career, Kipp helped prosecute criminals at a DA’s office and the DOJ, focused on sex crimes, fraud cases, and corporate abuse.”

What is a “legal career”? Plainly, it connotes a career in the practice of law—not plausibly the engagement in some field that happens to be lawful, such as a career as a taxidermist.

Nor can “legal career” reasonably be construed as a career in some capacity merely related to law, such as that of a court reporter. A “medical career” is universally understood to be the career of a licensed doctor—and does not include ambulance drivers; a “legal career” is commonly understood to be the career of a licensed lawyer, not assistants whether employed regularly or, like Mueller, merely fliting in to do some minor chores on a volunteer basis.

Unmistakably, Mueller is saying that at the start of his law practice—that is, after having been admitted to the State Bar—he “helped prosecute criminals.” In a loose sense, he helped prosecutors—as did those who cleaned toilets in their offices—but he did not help “prosecute criminals.”

alladares is an articulate and level-headed businesswoman who has been involved in numerous community organizations, boards and projects. As a member of the Assembly from 2020-22, she was a founder of the bipartisan Senate/Assembly “Problem Solvers Caucus.” In a radio interview, she explained: “Partisanship gets in the way of legislation too often.”

She pushed for legislation that was uncontroversial and productive.

Mueller, a Democrat, is endorsed by holders of partisan state offices who are members of his party; Valladares, a Republican, is supported by such officeholders from her party—and so what? Republican statewide officeholders robotically endorse Republican candidates and Democratic officeholders mindlessly endorse Democratic nominees.

Far more meaningful is the support of holders of nonpartisan local offices. Valladares has the backing of 22 officials, mayors and councilmembers, of cities within the 23rd Senate District (which includes portions of Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties), in addition to the mayor of a town, three members of a water district and three school district members. Mueller has no such support.

(He does have the endorsement of the Los Angeles County assessor; Valladares is supported by a Los Angeles County supervisor, a former county supervisor, a former district attorney, and a former Los Angeles City council member.)

ishonesty on the part of Mueller should not escape attention of the State Bar. Indeed, it would be derelict if it did not impose discipline on him.

Business & Professions Code §6106 provides:

“The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney or otherwise, and whether the act is a felony or misdemeanor or not, constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension.”

Too, there’s rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct which renders it an ethical breach to “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation.”

otwithstanding those broad provisions, a need was spotted by the State Bar’s governing board and the California Supreme Court to explicitly forbid lawyers to fib in the course of running for, or seeking appointment to, a judgeship. Rule 8.2(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct sets forth:

“A lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office in California shall comply with canon 5 of the California Code of Judicial Ethics.”

Canon 5(B) of that code provides: “(1) A candidate for judicial office…shall not: [¶] …. [¶] (b) knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, make false or misleading statements about the identity, qualifications, present position, or any other fact concerning himself or herself or his or her opponent or other applicants.”

We submit that there is no less need for expressly proscribing misrepresentations by lawyers who are candidates or applicants for nonjudicial offices than there is for forbidding lying by aspirants for judgeships. Surely it cannot be credibly postulated that inclusion of prevaricators in the judiciary can’t be tolerated but, well, it’s not so bad to have dishonest folk in state legislative or executive posts or municipal offices.

Rule 8.2(b) should be amended, in our view, to add that a lawyer, in seeking election or appointment to a nonjudicial office, is required to desist from engaging in conduct delineated in canon 5(B)(1)(b).

side from running afoul of §6106 and Rule 8.4(c), Mueller is in violation of Rule 7.1(a), under the heading, “Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services.” It says: “A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer….A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact…or omits a fact necessary to make the communication considered as a whole not materially misleading.”

Mueller is an associate at the Pasadena law firm of Brent & Fiol, LLP. Its website claims: “Kipp Mueller worked for President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice, Consumer Protection branch before joining the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office, Consumer Fraud unit.”

In an email to the firm’s founders, we pointed to the RedState posting, to the contrary information on the Brent & Fiol website, and queried:

“Has the information on your website been verified? Do you stand by it?”

David L. Fiol responded on Sept. 5:

“[W]e have known Kipp Mueller for more than a decade and have the utmost confidence in his integrity. He has advised us that he worked in the Justice Department through an unpaid externship, and with the Santa Clara County DA in a fellowship through Columbia Law School.”

He continued:

“The article you refer to invites readers to ‘join the fight against the left,’ and is not an unbiased reporter of facts. Nevertheless, that article was updated yesterday at 1:00 am to back off its false claims, stating, ‘According to a website that scrapes information from LinkedIn and other social media sites, Mueller was indeed a clerk at the Santa Clara County DA’s office and an extern at the USDOJ.’ So, to answer your specific question as to whether we ‘stand by’ the information on our firm’s web site, the answer is yes; he worked for those two agencies. We trust you will report these facts accurately.”

Saying that Mueller “worked for” the agencies, in the context of reciting his background in law, necessarily communicates that he was a lawyer at those agencies. Fiol joined with Mueller in playing games with words, ratifying the misconduct and becoming complicit in it.

He asked that facts be reported accurately. Yet, his own portrayal of what was said on the RedState website was inaccurate. RedState reported on Sept. 3: “Mueller was never employed by the U.S. Department of Justice or the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office, and we’ve found no evidence that he prosecuted fraudsters and sexual abusers.” That was not false. Mueller apparently did some volunteer work for those agencies but was not “employed” by them. He was not an “employee,” to whom wages must be paid.

And Van Laar did not “back off” her claim. On Sept. 4, she provided an elaboration: that his actual roles were those of an extern at the DOJ and a clerk at a D.A.’s office. She did not retract the allegation that Mueller was misrepresenting his background.

To point out that RedState has a conservative outlook begs the question as to whether its report was accurate. Fiol points to no inaccuracy; in fact, he confirms that Mueller was not (as he has sought to create the illusion that he was) an attorney at either agency.

t is noteworthy that, despite what has come to light, Brent & Fiol has not altered the deceptive recitation on its website. Fiol would do well to take cognizance of this commentary to Rule 7.1:

“This rule prohibits truthful statements that are misleading. A truthful statement is misleading if it omits a fact necessary to make the lawyer’s communication considered as a whole not materially misleading. A truthful statement is also misleading if it is presented in a manner that creates a substantial likelihood that it will lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services for which there is no reasonable factual foundation.”

Even if it is literally true that Mueller “worked for” the DOJ and the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office, there is a “substantial likelihood”—if not a certainty—that the claim on the website would “lead a reasonable person” to infer that he was employed by those agencies as an attorney. It boils down to a lie.

And reference to Mueller “joining the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office, Consumer Fraud unit” cannot be regarded as other than a 100% falsehood.

We urge that voters in the 23rd Senate District elect Valladares and that the State Bar take appropriate disciplinary action against Mueller and Fiol.