[X] Tracey M. Blount

Thursday, January 4, 2024

Page 8

EDITORIAL

Tracey M. Blount

Los Angeles Superior Court Office No.137

f the seven contests for Los Angeles Superior Court open seats on the March 5 ballot, only one—for Office No. 137—has no deputy district attorney running. There are four aspirants for that office. Our choice is Deputy County Counsel Tracey M. Blount.

Admitted to the State Bar on Dec. 27, 2003, she served as a legal research attorney for the San Bernardino District Attorney’s Office’s Appellate Division, then returned to the Los Angeles County Counsel’s Office where she had worked as a paralegal. Blount handles child dependency and abuse cases, including appeals.

She is a graduate of the University of LaVerne College of Law in Ontario. That institution is accredited by the State Bar of California but not by the American Bar Association. Her legal education is less than impressive; other aspects of her candidacy are.

Her only serious rival, criminal defense lawyer Michael Berg, is able to boast, “I’m in court every single day.” Blount isn’t. But she does deal with the law “every single day,” and appears to have a breadth of knowledge of the law.

Meaningfully, her bearing inspires respect. She is confident without being arrogant; that is to say, she possesses ideal “judicial temperament.”

We do not doubt that she would perform admirably as a judge.

erg’s ballot designation—“Attorney/Business Owner”—is deceptive, though not outrageously so, as many designations have been. Elections Code §13107(c) provides:

“A candidate for superior court judge who is an active member of the State Bar and practices law as one of the candidate’s principal professions shall use one of the following ballot designations as the candidate’s ballot designation: ‘Attorney,’ ‘Attorney at Law,’ ‘Lawyer,’ or ‘Counselor at Law.’ The designations ‘Attorney’ and ‘Lawyer’ may be used in combination with one other current principal profession, vocation, or occupation of the candidate, or the principal profession, vocation, or occupation of the candidate during the calendar year immediately preceding the filing of nomination documents.”

So, what business is he in? His business, Berg explains, is running a law office.

Hold on. The statute allows listing something “other” than being an attorney.

The practice of law is a profession. A lawyer in the private sector who, like Berg, is involved in collecting money from clients, paying expenses, and keeping books does engage in business activities, but these are merely a component of the candidate’s practice; those activities cannot reasonably be construed as constituting a separate occupation.

An appellate lawyer writes briefs, but a ballot designation as “Attorney/Author” would hardly be appropriate if the candidate engages in no professional writing other than those briefs. A lawyer for an insurance company settles cases; the designation of “Attorney/Negotiator” would likewise, plainly, be improper.

(It could also be argued that “Business Owner”—as opposed to “Businessman” or “Businessperson”—is not an occupation because being an owner of something is merely a status. For example, “Art Collector” could qualify as a principal vocation but “Owner of Two Rembrandts” would certainly not be; “Real Estate Investor” could be categorized as a principal occupation but “Landowner” would amount merely to a status. However, 2 Code of Regulations §20714(g) says, by way of example, that “Placer County Supervisor/Business Owner” would not qualify as a ballot designation because it exceeds three words, suggesting, though not declaring, that ‘Business Owner’ would be acceptable but for the three-word limit set forth in the Elections Code. The words “Business Owner” could, charitably, quite charitably, be construed to connote someone who, by occupation, runs a business. Even so viewed, it would not legitimate Berg’s designation because, in light of §13107(c), his running of his law firm is inseparable from his practice of law.)

is campaign website identifies Berg as “A SUCCESSFUL ATTORNEY” and “A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER FROM A LONG TRADITION OF LOS ANGELES BUSINESS OWNERS,” again implying that he acts in two discrete capacities.

The website also says:

“A RESPECTED ATTORNEY, BERG HAS OWNED AND OPERATED HIS OWN LAW FIRM FOR NEARLY 15 YEARS.”

Aside from not revealing that the law firm is the “business” he owns, it refers to “his own law firm,” connoting sole ownership. That’s puzzling because the law firm’s website says that “LA Defense Team”—the name that’s used—“was founded by Michael Berg and Levon Kyurkchyan” and Kyurkchyan is featured side-by-side with his supposed teammate, Berg.

In response to an inquiry, Berg said on Tuesday:

“I am the sole owner of the Law Office of Michael H. Berg and own/started the website LA Defense Team. Levon Kyurkchyan and I work on some cases together and share an office suite and some marketing expenses. We do not have a partnership, and he does not have an interest in my business. I am 100% responsible for my business and its operation as the business owner.”

That’s revealing. In seeking to substantiate his claim that he owns a business—that is, his law firm—he acknowledges that “LA Defense Team” is not actually the name of that firm, as represented online, but is merely the title of a website.

Rule 7.5 of the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct sets forth that “[a] lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer practices in or has a professional relationship with a law firm…unless that is the fact.” Berg might well have difficulty in showing that he is not in violation of that rule.

We cannot fathom why Berg supposes that, by creating the misconception to voters that he has business interests in addition to practicing law, he will pick up more than a handful of additional votes, or why, by spawning an impression, aimed at potential clients, that he is a member of a “team” rather than being a sole partitioner, he will prosper. Whatever his thinking, he is an illusionist, a games-player.

A lawyer is an advocate. An advocate, by nature, puts a “spin” on matters. Just as it’s said that “Boys will be boys,” can the proposition reasonably be advanced, in defense of Berg’s bending of the truth, that, “Oh, well, lawyers will be lawyers”? We hold the view that those lawyers who are connivers, even if that means being suited to their craft (which is debatable), are not persons who should be wanted as members of the judiciary.

andidate Luz E. Herrera is a professor of law and the associate dean for “experiential” education at Texas A&M in Fort Worth. She acknowledges that she has not handled a matter in the Los Angeles Superior Court since 2009 or 2010.

Despite being an educator, and having a law degree from Harvard, she is lacking, surprisingly, but markedly, in communication skills.

Family law/criminal defense attorney Diana Ruth James is also a candidate. She was admitted to practice in December 2013. We are unaware of any basis for concluding that she is fit to be a judge of the Superior Court.

In this field of four candidates, Tracey M. Blount stands out as the only one fit for judicial office; we endorse her.