Metropolitan News-Enterprise


Tuesday, July 7, 2020


Page 1


C.A. Finds Brief Filed by Former Attorney to Be Inadequate

Anthony A. Patel, Who Resigned From State Bar, Battles to Regain Admittance


By a MetNews Staff Writer


The Court of Appeal for this district has ignored the contentions of a former Los Angeles attorney, who resigned from the State Bar in 2016 with no charges pending, because the document he filed does not meet the requisites for an appellate brief.

Appellant Anthony A. Patel of Redondo Beach is currently battling in State Bar Court to regain admission to practice in California, with the Office of Chief Trial Counsel urging that he be barred.

The Court of Appeal opinion contains language that, while commonly used in discounting briefs filed by pro pers, is rare in responding to a brief filed by someone who has been a member of the legal profession. Also rare is opposition to a petition for readmittance to the State Bar by a person who had resigned without disciplinary proceedings in progress or complaints having been made.

Yesterday’s opinion, by Acting Presiding Justice Elizabeth A. Grimes of Div. Eight, affirms a defense judgment which Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Laura C. Ellison ordered after she granted a nonsuit on all causes of action other than invasion of privacy—a claim which went to the jury and was rejected.

Patel’s action was against the Regents of the University of California and others in connection with an alleged misdiagnosis of him in 2013 at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center as suffering from bipolar disorder (manic depression). The diagnosis was conveyed to his then-wife which, Patel alleged, she used against him in her divorce action.

Grimes’s Opinion

Grimes said, in an opinion that was not certified for publication:

“Plaintiff’s brief enumerates 22 alleged claims of error by the trial court and requests reversal of the judgment. Plaintiff’s brief consists entirely of repetitive, generalized pronouncements that the court committed various errors and was biased against him, as were defendant’s doctors and nurses. The brief contains almost no citations to the record. There are no citations to legal authorities to support any legal points. No points are developed with citations to the law or the record. Plaintiffs brief reflects his deeply held belief he was unfairly treated and misdiagnosed simply because he wanted to divorce his wife and had lofty political aspirations, but fails to affirmatively show error by the trial court.”

The jurist recited the requirements for a brief on appeal—including citation to the record and to authorities—and said:

“The fact plaintiff, who is a formerly licensed attorney, is representing himself on appeal does not exempt him from following these rules.”

The case is Patel v. Regents of the University of California, B289869. Patel’s comment on the opinion appears in a box below.

Reinstatement to Practice

Patel tendered his resignation from the State Bar in December 2016, effective Feb. 10, 2017. Currently seeking readmission, he explained in his initial petition that he decided to move to Nevada, became a member of the State Bar there, and has now moved back to California.

The State Bar initially indicated no opposition would be filed—but the Office of Trial Counsel then moved for leave to present newly discovered evidence.

Granting its motion, State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland said in an Oct. 28, 2019 order that the new evidence—showing that Patel sent a “barrage” of emails reflecting questionable judgment in connection with litigation he was maintaining in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California—could well affect the outcome of the petition.

She wrote:

“In some emails, Petitioner made disparaging remarks about specific judges, attorneys, and other individuals, without basis. In other emails, Petitioner directed profanity-laden insults at specific individuals, including judges and attorneys. Further, Petitioner repeatedly claimed to know the law better than any judicial officer or attorney in the state. In doing so, Petitioner baselessly impugned the integrity of the profession, the bench, and various individual attorneys. The tone, content, and needless volume of the emails demonstrate a lack of respect for the subject individuals, the recipients of the emails, the judicial system, and the entire legal profession.”

Roland remarked:

“Petitioner’s conduct as a pro per litigant demonstrates a lack of respect for the rights of others and the judicial process, which calls into question his fitness to practice law at this time….It is likely that the evidence of Petitioner’s recent conduct would lower the persuasiveness of Petitioner’s evidence of good moral character, such that Petitioner would be unable to prove his present moral qualifications by clear and convincing evidence.”

Petition Is Amended

Patel on June 30 amended his petition, now stating:

“Petitioner tendered his resignation November 8, 2016 to coincide with the election of President Trump. Petitioner did not believe that he could continue to adequately function as an attorney in California at that time due to his support for the Executive Branch, Article II, of the U.S. Constitution.”

It goes on to explain:

“Petitioner’s reasons for resigning in 2016 are no longer a bar to his reentry to law practice in California. He supported President Obama from November 5, 2008 to November 8, 2016 and supported President Trump starting November 9. 2016. Thus, regardless of who wins the presidential election in November 2020, Petitioner can faithfully discharge his duties as a California attorney without any political bias or prejudice.”




Former Attorney Whose Appeal Was Spurned Responds


Anthony A. Patel yesterday provided the following comment on yesterday’s Court of Appeal opinion.

As you may know, the civil case alleges violations of my civil rights by California government agencies, including the Regents. I also alleged in my appeal papers that California judges in lower courts were/are essentially covering up those civil rights violations because they do not like my “bipolar” political views or my civic beliefs.

I supported President Obama from the time of his 2008 election to 2016 & then President Trump starting the time of his 2016 election. I think that the Court’s unwillingness to even go into the substance of this case in its short opinion reflects very poorly on the ability of our State & our Nation to succeed going forward. The Court’s decision is not only incorrect but highlights fundamental problems in how the California Legal System works in practice. The opinion demonstrates a lack of ability and evidences poor diligence extant in the California Judiciary today.

Even though my case may be over now, I really hope that the President and Governor, working with Congress & the State Legislature, might someday improve how our Courts & also the Regents themselves function for other Californians in the future. No individual American should have to go through what I did for years & years in battling this system in litigation merely because a citizen’s judgment is better than lawyers (or judges) or an individual’s mental intelligence exceeds that of government employees who violate people’s civil rights.

I realize that my switching my support from President Obama to President Trump starting November 9, 2016 is not at all popular in California or the legal community. And polls today & conventional wisdom do indeed show President Trump is on his way out this November. However, until voting closes on November 3, 2020 I will stick with President Trump to the end. And if he loses, then I will be glad to support his successor. Either way, our country [is] a better place for all Americans when voters speak as opposed to judges and lawyers speaking for them (see Bush v. Gore 2000).

It saddens me greatly that the Court of Appeal did not even bother to ever take either me or my case seriously. But, I hope that my efforts in civil litigation over the past few years help other people in California because I tried to speak the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth.

In short, there is nothing wrong with any American supporting President Obama & President Trump. Even if Vice President Biden wins the election this November, either way today’s opinion is still contrary to common sense & the whole point of our existence as a Country for the past 244 years.


Copyright 2020, Metropolitan News Company