An attorney who went too far

For my next post I had planned to explore the types of errors one might encounter on appeal.  Unfortunately, life intervenes.  This recently published case stopped me cold.  In Styles v. Mumbert (July 15, 2008, H029767) __ Cal.App.4th ___, respondent Styles obtained a default judgment against appellant Mumbert, who is a licensed California bail agent.  While Mumbert was represented by attorney Anthony Pagkas, it seems that Pagkas failed to respond to discovery, and even admitted on the record that he did not have enough time to devote to the case.  The trial court awarded terminating sanctions against Mumbert for this and possibly other transgressions.  Mumbert hired new counsel, who was unable to vacate the order for terminating sanctions, and then filed his appeal.

Mumbert also filed a malpractice action against Pagkas, who cross-complained for his fees for services rendered.  That case is still pending in the trial court.

Are you still with me?  Then Pagkas had a brilliant idea.  He purchased the default judgment - allegedly caused by his malpractice - for a "valuable, but undisclosed, consideration.  He then attempted to substitute himself into the appeal as the respondent (instead of Styles), while being represented by another lawyer from his firm, which had previously represented Mumbert in the underlying action.  Pagkas argued he should be allowed to step in as the respondent in this appeal so he can offset a possible default judgment against a future malpractice award.

This request did not sit well with Mumbert, who cited numerous ethical violations.  Mumbert also requested sanctions for expenses incurred in opposing this motion.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Mumbert, finding Pagkas's attempt to substitute into appeal violated his fiduciary duties to Mumbert as well as violating the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Business & Professions Code.  The Court, playing by the rule that personal insults against an attorneys should not be tolerated, found that Pagkas's conduct, done for his own personal gain, "is without precedent."  (Slip Opn., p. 6.)

The Court summed it up, again in a very professional and polite language, "Pagkas's actions make a mockery of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  We cannot conceive of, and the case law is devoid of, a scenario which could do more violence to the attorney-client relationship and the public trust in the legal system, than what Pagkas and his firm have done and seeks to do.  Despite the well founded opposition to the motion, citing to the relevant Rules of Professional Conduct and supporting case law, Pagkas and his attorney continue to urge that we grant the motion without cogent argument or cite to relevant supporting authority."  (Slip Opn., pp. 6-7.)  The court assessed $5,260 in sanctions.  It also set an order to show cause as to why Styles's default should not be entered inasmuch as she faild to file a respondent's brief.

Do not attempt to perform this trick at home, your office, or anywhere else!  Now the rest of us will have to spend some time trying to convince our clients and the public that being an attorney is truly a noble profession.