Prosecutor Convicted Of Lunchtime DUI Agrees To Supension

A stipulated disposition of a two-year suspension with all but 60 days stayed has been approved by the California State Bar Court Hearing Department

The case involves a series of alcohol-related driving incidents. Notably, one took place while she was a prosecutor driving to work.

On July 25, 2011, respondent was employed as an Assistant District Attorney with the El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office.

As an Assistant District Attomey, respondent possessed specialized knowledge about the laws and dangers relating to driving under the influence of alcohol.

Between 12:00 pm and 1:00 pm on the afternoon of July 25, 2011, before returning to work at the District Attorney’s Office following lunch, respondent consumed multiple vodkas.

At or around 1:30 pm on July 25, 2011, respondent drove her 2002 BMW X5 from her home to the parking lot of the El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office.

Soon after arriving at her workplace, respondent was contacted by police officers investigating whether she had driven to work while under the influence of alcohol.

This led to a test and arrest.

Sanction 

 First, respondent demonstrated a complete disregard for the safety of the public by driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content level over five times the legal limit. As a result, she caused a collision resulting in property damage and harm to other citizens. The nexus between her disregard and her fitness to practice is particularly clear here because of respondent’s experience and knowledge of criminal law stemming from her career as a criminal prosecutor. As a result, this misconduct is particularly aggravated because of her awareness and familiarity of the laws surrounding driving under the influence. Respondent possessed specialized knowledge of the dangers and impact of driving under the influence on the public…

Consideration of a respondent’s convictions as evidence of alcohol abuse was the second nexus Kelley used to explain the need for discipline in the absence of moral turpitude or a direct connection between misconduct and the attorney’s fitness to practice. In the present case, that nexus is apparent. Respondent was driving a vehicle, causing auto collisions, at 8:30 in the morning, with a blood alcohol content over five times the legal limit. This, after her first conviction where she was drinking during the day, while at work as a criminal prosecutor. Respondent’s conduct clearly demonstrates a substance abuse issue that the State Bar must acknowledge and address in order to protect the public and the integrity, of the legal profession.

The stipulation provides for five years of probation to include substance abuse treatment. (Mike Frisch)