📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
During an interview with the Yuba County Airport management, the Chief Deputy County Counsel appeared without an invitation and without any prior notice to the Grand Jury. The Chief Deputy County Counsel did not make the Grand Jury aware of his intended appearance. The Chief Deputy County Counsel was asked to leave the Grand Jury interview of the Yuba County Airport management. The Chief Deputy County Counsel immediately complied. The Grand Jury verified, via interviews, that during the past several years, the County Counsel has represented multiple departments regarding Grand Jury inquiries and investigations without Grand Jury invitation. The Office of the County Counsel appears to be in violation of §934 of the California Penal Code. California Penal Code §934(a) states, “Unless advice is requested… the county counsel..., shall not be present during the sessions of the grand jury.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Grand Jury recommends County Counsel follow California Penal Code §934 (a) and Rule 3-310. County Counsel should be directed by the Yuba County Board of Supervisors to budget from the existing County Counsel budget a retained attorney to be available to the Grand Jury and to any department of the County when a possible conflict of interest is created by following California Penal Code §936. (See F1, F3) California Penal Code §936. Special counsel and investigators states: “When requested to do so by the grand jury of any county, the Attorney General may employ special counsel and special investigators, whose duty it shall be to investigate and present the evidence in such investigation to such grand jury. The services of such special counsel and special investigators shall be a county charge of such county.”
F2
The County Counsel did not notify the 2013-2014 and current Grand Juries of its motion to terminate the Consent Decree of November, 1978. Such motion to terminate was filed by the County Counsel’s office in 2013. The Consent Decree requires the Grand Jury to do an annual analysis of whether the jail is in compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree and include the results in its yearly report. The 2013 motion to terminate the Consent Decree was denied April 2, 2014, by the 9th District Court of Appeals. The County Counsel filed a Notice of Appeal April 29, 2014. The current Grand Jury was not made aware of this Notice of Appeal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
In accordance with the Consent Decree of 1978, the County Counsel, as well as the Yuba County Sheriff, shall ensure that all current Grand Juries are made aware of the yearly requirement for the Grand Jury to perform an annual assessment of the jail’s compliance with all provisions of the Consent Decree of November, 1978. (See F2) 2014-2015 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report
F3
The County Counsel’s office created an apparent conflict of interest to the Grand Jury by offering unsolicited comments during its interview of the Yuba County Airport management. The Chief Deputy County Counsel volunteered comment to a Grand Jury question asked of the Yuba County Airport management, a department of the county. The question was directed to the manager of the airport. It became clear to the Grand Jury that the Chief Deputy County Counsel voluntarily appeared in the interview to represent the interests of the Yuba County Airport; even though the Grand Jury was informed his presence was to solely clear up any misunderstandings between the Yuba County Airport and the Grand Jury; that the County Counsel represents both the Airport and the Grand Jury. 2014-2015 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report County Counsel Dual Representation
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
The Grand Jury recommends County Counsel follow California Penal Code §934 (a) and Rule 3-310. County Counsel should be directed by the Yuba County Board of Supervisors to budget from the existing County Counsel budget a retained attorney to be available to the Grand Jury and to any department of the County when a possible conflict of interest is created by following California Penal Code §936. (See F1, F3) California Penal Code §936. Special counsel and investigators states: “When requested to do so by the grand jury of any county, the Attorney General may employ special counsel and special investigators, whose duty it shall be to investigate and present the evidence in such investigation to such grand jury. The services of such special counsel and special investigators shall be a county charge of such county.”
R3
The County Counsel should seek an ethics opinion from the State Bar as to potential conflicts of interests in simultaneously representing the County of Yuba, the Yuba County Sheriff, the Yuba County Jail, and the Yuba County Grand Jury. (See F3)
F4
The Grand Jury was informed by the County Counsel that the County Counsel represents the Board of Supervisors, 28 county departments, 43 special districts, and the Grand Jury. The office of the County Counsel appears to be in violation of the State Bar of California; Rule 3-310. Current Rules of the State Bar of California; Rule 3-310 - Avoiding the Representation of Adverse Interests. Rule 3-310(C) provides, in part: “A member shall not, without the informed and written consent of each client: (1) Accept representation of more than one client in a manner which the interests of the clients potentially conflict: or (2) Accept or continue representation of more than one client in a manner in which the interests of the clients actually conflict…” Explained in: Walker v. Berkeley, supra, 951 F.2d 182, 184, “ … (1) that an attorney for a governmental entity usually has only one client, namely, the client itself, which acts through constituent sub-entities and officials….”
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The County Counsel should abstain from representing the Grand Jury and other County departments if there is a potential conflict of interest. (See F4) Current Rules of the State Bar of California; Rule 3-310 – Avoiding the Representation of Adverse Interests. Rule 3-310(C) provides, in part: “A member shall not, without the informed and written consent of each client: (1) Accept representation of more than one client in a manner which the interests of the clients potentially conflict: or (2) Accept or continue representation of more than one client in a manner in which the interests of the clients actually conflict…” Explained in: Walker v. Berkeley, supra, 951 F.2d 182, 184, “ … (1) that an attorney for a governmental entity usually has only one client, namely, the client itself, which acts through constituent sub-entities and officials….” Request for Responses: Pursuant to California Penal Code §933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows from the following individuals: Yuba County Counsel (F1, F2, F3, F4, R1, R2, R3, R4) Chairman of the Board of the Yuba County Board of Supervisors (F1, F2, F3, F4,
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Yuba County
County