Thomas George Key

     It dawned on me in law school that Law Practice required a multi-disciplinary multi-professional approach. A single practitioner cannot competently do or know ALL that is required for helping clients in the modern world.  In 1975, while I was the law librarian for the firm serving as Counsel to the President of the United States, I  introduced the concept of "paralegals" to serve under the supervision of lawyers.

     Now, the "paralegal" profession has widely recognized credentials. But at that time, it was considered "unlicensed practice of law" by some lawyers.  The Editor of the legal newspaper refused to carry the advertising for my organization, The American Paralegal Association, and "reported" me to the supervising judge at the time, Justice Gardiner.  I was investigated by the State Bar every year until 2001, when Justice Gardiner set aside a large jury verdict awarded to my client in a matter over which he presided.  HIs order was set aside aside on appeal, confirmed at the Supreme Court, and Justice Gardiner was removed from the bench -- my case was the last case over which he presided.  Now things have quieted down with the State Bar. 

     Although I was never even charged with taking clients' money, and have at all times cooperated and stepped up to the plate of responsibility, it is also true that in the course of very complicated matters early in my career, I was not able to control the details in my practice.  The State Bar assigned a Prosecutor who persuaded me to "stipulate" to matters that were never even alleged, as a practical compromise -- after almost 30 hearings and meetings.  The Prosecutor was subsequently fired by the State Bar.  I learned a lot. 

     I remain available to help people , but my advocacy is compromised by the "reputation" created by the State Bar web site.    I urge you to read the "discipline" records very carefully.  An anonymous author clearly repeats the first charges as if they are new charges, three times.  He states things that simply do not make sense -- for example, where a Sheriff gives us funds collected in court-ordered execution, and the funds were turned over to the client, the State Bar cites me for "failing" to place the funds in a trust fund for the client -- who has the money and makes no complaint!  Well. 

     I remain an experienced practitioner whose Ethics have been scrutinized more than most.  The worst the Prosecutors found is a client who got his money back before the Bar was involved, and two NSF's on a very complex distribution of money recovered at the end of an SUV rollover case.  (I covered the NSF's paid to the lienholders with my own funds and was charged with "commingling").  80% of litigators with my level of experience have "Disciplinary" complaints--battle wounds.  Where much is at stake, the opposition will resort to many means.   

     I agreed to the "discipline" -- suspension for one month -- and made arrangements for my practice to be covered by another attorney for the agreed month.  However, the State Bar did not advise me that they did not accept the commencement date we agreed upon, and did not notify me of any other date.  I was in court when a presiding judge advised me that the State Bar suspension had already begun on an undisclosed and unagreed upon date.  Well.  That was another (entirely inadvertent and unintended) violation of the rules. 

     Now I am near retirement.  My reputation is barely worth correcting or resuscitating because soon I will be passing that Other Bar.  My actual reputation is established by the fact that I have recovered several tens of millions for my clients.  I have fought for an honorable profession, and remain convinced that good men and women will always stand up to drive out the predators, the pirates, and those who seek to advantage themselves at the expense of others. 

     I can help.  I look forward to advising young practitioners about the pitfalls.  And I remain available to members of the public who need access to legal services.