Plot To Frame School Volunteer Gets Lawyer A Proposed Disbarment
The California State Bar Court Hearing Department has recommended disbarment based on these findings of fact
Respondent and his wife, Jill Easter, lived in Irvine with three children. Both of the Easters were attorneys. On February 17, 2010, their six year old son, who attended Plaza Vista Elementary, was briefly locked outside the school between his afterschool tennis class and when his mom was supposed to pick him up.
The person responsible for shepherding the kids from their afterschool activities to the front of the school for pickup was Kelli Peters, a parent volunteer. On this particular day, the Easter’s child was left at the locked back door waiting for someone to let him in. He was found by the tennis instructor and walked to the front office. Jill was very upset that the child was locked outside and was unsatisfied by the explanation or apologies from Peters.
On February 24, 2010, the Easters wrote to the school and demanded Peters be fired or removed as volunteer. On February 26, 2010, the Easters filed a police report with the Irvine police regarding the incident with their son.
On March 2, 2016, Jill filed for a temporary restraining order against Peters, claiming Peters was stalking her.
On March 12, 2010, the Easters filed a civil lawsuit claiming false imprisonment of their son by Peters and Plaza Vista Elementary.
Despite the Easters many attempts to have Peters removed as a volunteer at the school, she remained the volunteer director of the afterschool program.
On February 16, 2011, a call was placed to the Irvine Police Department by a person with an Indian accent named Vijay Chandrasekhr. The caller claimed to have seen Peters driving erratically near the school and with drugs in her car.
The police arrived at the school and found Peters’ vehicle parked in the school lot. A baggie of marijuana was visible from the window. Upon opening the car, police found the baggie containing marijuana, a marijuana pipe, Vicodin and Percocet.
For nearly two hours, Peters was detained and questioned in the school parking lot visible to everyone. Peters was not free to leave during the questioning. Afterwards, the police drove Peters home and searched her house. Throughout the interrogation, Peters insisted that the drugs were not hers and indicated that she had been recently targeted by Jill Easter. After searching Peters’ home, the police began to question the legitimacy of the call to police. Peters was not arrested but DNA cheek swabs were taken of her and her minor daughter.
Thereafter, police began investigating whether Peters was framed.
The police investigation revealed the following: On February 16, 2011 at 2am, Respondent’s blackberry placed him outside of Peter’s home; Respondent and Jill exchanged multiple text messages between 2am-4am; On February 16, 2011, Respondent entered the Island Hotel (Respondent’s office is across the street) and placed a call to police pretending to be someone named Vijay Chandrasekher; Respondent claimed he had seen Peters with drugs and driving erratically; Respondent’s DNA was found on one set of the pills and the marijuana pipe located in Peter’s car.
The Easters were arrested and convicted of false imprisonment for planting the drugs in Peter’s car and thereafter enlisting the police based on fraud and deceit to detain Peters. Even though Peters was exonerated the actions of the Easters took a terrible emotional toll on her.
The attorney was suspended in November 2014 for the conviction.
Sanction
Review of the facts of this case unmistakably demonstrate moral turpitude. There were many times during the course of the commission of this crime that Respondent could have acted to extricate himself or to end the scheme and at every tum he failed to do so. Respondent’s actions were dishonest and offensive and they clearly involve moral turpitude. There are no compelling circumstances to counter the presumption of disbarment and protection of the public is a serious concern where an attorney engages in such a prolonged and premeditated act of criminal fraud. Disbarment is the only appropriate outcome.
AbovetheLaw reported the spouse’s appearance on Dr. Phil and provides links to a number of related stories in the Orange County Register. (Mike Frisch)