The following is a notice of disciplinary action filed by the State Bar of California alleging that Martin Greenstein violated the Business and Professions Code by sexually harassing female employees while a partner at the Baker & McKenzie law firm. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD HARKER LAWRENCE J. DAL CERRO, No. 04342 555 Franklin Street, Second Floor San Francisco, California 94102-4498 Telephone: (415) 561-8200 THE STATE BAR COURT OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA HEARING DEPARTMENT - SAN FRANCISCO In the Matter of MARTIN R. GREENSTEIN, No. 106789 A Member of the State Bar Case No. 93-0-1522 NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES NOTICE - INACTIVE ENROLLMENT! IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY STATE BAR RULES, INCLUDING EXTENSIONS, YOU MAY BE ENROLLED AS AN INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR AND WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNTIL AN ANSWER IS FILED. The State Bar of California alleges: RESPONDENT, MARTIN R. GREENSTEIN ("Respondent"), was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on December 21, 1982, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California. It is alleged that Respondent wilfully committed the following violations: GENERAL BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS The following general allegations are common to Counts One through Four, inclusive, of this Notice of Disciplinary Charges: 1. In or about July 1991, Rena Weeks ("Weeks") began working as a legal secretary for the Palo Alto, California offices of the law firm of Baker & McKenzie. She ceased employment with Baker & McKenzie on or about September 30, 1991. Until late August 1991, Weeks worked primarily as secretary to Respondent. 2. During in or about December 1989, Elyce Zahn ("Zahn") was employed as a contract secretary performing weekend work at the Palo Alto offices of Baker & McKenzie. 3. From 986 through 991, Twila Carlsen ("Carlsen") was employed as a word processor on an "as needed " basis at the Palo Alto offices of Baker & McKenzie. 4. During 1989 Donna Blow ("Blow") was employed as a legal secretary at the Palo Alto offices of Baker & McKenzie. 5. From December 1989 until February 1991, Vicki Gardiner ("Gardiner") was employed as a legal secretary at the Palo Alto offices of Baker & McKenzie. 6. For four days during 1989, Julie Haydock Davis ("Davis") was employed as a temporary receptionist at the Palo Alto offices of Baker & McKenzie. 7. At all other times relevant to this Notice of disciplinary Charges, Respondent was partner at Baker & McKenzie, with an office at the firm's Palo Alto offices. 8. Unless otherwise indicated, the conduct described in this Notice of disciplinary Charges took place on the premises of Baker & McKenzie's Palo Alto offices. COUNT ONE Case No. 93-0-11522 Business and Professions Code, section 6106 [Moral turpitude and corruption] 1. Unless otherwise indicated, the statements of Respondent, the physical touching of others by Respondent, and the attempts at physical touching of others by Respondent, as described below, were not consented to by the recipients thereof. Conduct as to Weeks: 2. On or about August 8, 1991, Weeks attended a luncheon with other Baker & McKenzie employees at a restaurant near the firm's Palo Alto offices. Weeks left the luncheon in the company of Respondent, who had offered her a ride back to the office. After leaving the restaurant, Respondent reached in the left breast pocket of Weeks' blouse and dropped several pieces of M&M candies into the pocket. Respondent then withdrew his hand from the blouse pocket and grabbed Weeks' breast. He then grasped Weeks' elbows from behind her, forcing Weeks to arch her back, and stated: "Let's see which breast is bigger," or similar words. 3. On or about August 14, 1991, at the offices of Baker & McKenzie, Respondent moved toward Weeks with "cupped" hands. Weeks backed away from Respondent and crossed her hands over her chest. Respondent asked: "What's wrong? You have to protect yourself?" or similar words. Weeks replied: "Yes. I guess I do," or similar words. 4. Later in the day on August 14, Respondent informed Weeks that he was dissatisfied with her job performance. 5. On August 15, 1991, Weeks attended a luncheon at a restaurant to celebrate a co-worker's birthday. Respondent was seated next to Weeks. During the luncheon, Respondent asked Weeks: "What's the wildest thing you've ever done?" or similar words. Weeks did not immediately respond to the question. Respondent asked the question several more times, and Weeks finally responded: "I met this guy from California and married him," or similar words. After Weeks' response, Respondent asked the question again. 6. In late August 1991, Weeks was asked to help Respondent move items from his office to his home. While on the firm's loading dock, Weeks bent over at the waist, leaning over into a van being used for the move. Respondent approached Weeks from behind and touched her hips. 7. On or about August 23, 1991, Weeks complained to Baker & McKenzie's office manager, Mary Contreras ("Contreras"), about Respondent's conduct. Within approximately one week of this complaint, Weeks was transferred to another assignment and no longer worked for Respondent directly. 8. On or about September 20, 1991, Weeks was informed by Contreras and a firm partner other than Respondent that her job performance merited discharge. On or about September 30, 1991, Weeks resigned her position with Baker & McKenzie. Conduct as to Zahn 9. On a Saturday in or about December 1989, Zahn was unloading a dishwasher in the kitchen at Baker & McKenzie. While unloading the dishwasher, Respondent approached Zahn from behind, pulled the strap of Zahn's bra out from under the sweater Zahn was wearing and asked Zahn if she was wearing a black bra. Conduct as to Gardiner: 10. On numerous occasions, Respondent asked Gardiner questions about her personal life and made comments about her mode of dress. Respondent also make comments to Gardiner about his personal life. For example, on one occasion, Respondent said to Gardiner: "Oh, I like your high-collared blouse. It reminds me of my first wife. I also like really low-collared dresses," or similar words. On or about February 145, 1990, Respondent asked Gardiner how long it had been since she had a boyfriend. 11. On or about September 7, 1990, Gardiner was bent over her desk when Respondent placed his hands on Gardiner's hips and pressed his body into Gardiner's, and Gardiner's body into the desk. 12. Within approximately one week following September 7, 1990, Respondent placed both of his hands on Gardiner's hips as the two passed each other in a narrow office hallway. Conduct as to Blow: 13. Beginning in or about July 1989, Respondent invited Blow to participate in numerous activities with him, including going to dinner, to a motel to go "hot-tubbing", and joining him for cocktails. Respondent also made comments about Blow's personal appearance and mode of dress. These comments were made and invitations extended despite Blow's repeated indications to Respondent that they were undesired. 14. In or about August 1989, Respondent asked Blow if she and another individual would join him for a "three-way." Blow understood this comment to refer to sexual activity involving three individuals. Conduct as to Davis: 15. During 1989, Respondent reached across Davis' desk and stroked her arm while asking her if she wished to go "hot-tubbing" with him. Respondent continued by talking to Davis about massage and told her that he like to have his head massaged. Respondent said: "I'll show you how to rub it, massage it right. You never know what that'll lead to next," or similar words. Conduct as to Carlsen: 16. In or about mid-1990, during a conversation of a non-sexual and otherwise unobjectionable nature, Respondent asked Carlsen whether or not she had a "social disease." When Carlsen responded that she did not, Respondent said: "Do you want one?" or similar words. 17. On another occasion in or about mid-1990, Carlsen was seated at her work station. Respondent approached her from behind and pressed a file folder against her back. When Carlsen asked Respondent what was pressed against her, he said: "Just happy to see you," or similar words. 18. Respondent's actions in making unwarranted and undesired comments of a personal or sexual nature, and touching individuals in an unwarranted and undesired manner, as well as his attempts to do so, considered both singularly and as a pattern of conduct, constitute moral turpitude and corruption. By the forgoing conduct, Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106. COUNT TWO Case No. 93-0-11655 Business and Professions Code, section 6106 [Moral turpitude and corruption] 1. Each and every allegation of Count One of the Notice of Disciplinary Charges is incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 2. Respondent's pattern of exploitation of subordinate employees constitutes moral turpitude and corruption. By the forgoing conduct, Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106. COUNT THREE Case No. 93-0-11522 Business and Professions Code, section 6068 (f) [Offensive personality] 1. Each and every allegation of Count One and Count Two of the Notice of Disciplinary Charges is incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. By the foregoing conduct, Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068 (f). COUNT FOUR Case No. 93-0-11522 Business and Professions Code, section 6068 (a) [Violation of law] 1. Each and every allegation of Count One and Count Two of the Notice of Disciplinary Charges is incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 2. These acts constitute deliberate assault and battery in violation of California Penal Code sections 240 and 242. By the forgoing conduct, Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068 (a). NOTICE - DEFAULT PROCEDURE YOUR DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED FOR FAILURE TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER SERVICE. YOUR DEFAULT MAY ALSO BE ENTERED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT TRIAL. THE ENTRY OF YOUR DEFAULT MAY RESULT IN THE FACT SET FORTH IN THIS NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES BEING ADMITTED AND DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED OR IMPOSED BASED UPON THOSE ADMITTED FACTS. IF YOUR DEFAULT IS ENTERED, YOU WILL LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY WAY IN THE PROCEEDING UNLESS AND UNTIL YOUR DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE ON MOTION TIMELY MADE UNDER THE PRESCRIBED GROUNDS. NOTICE - INACTIVE ENROLLMENT! YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF THE STATE BAR COURT FINDS, PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6007 (c), THAT YOUR CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIAL THREAT OF HARM TO THE INTERESTS OF YOUR CLIENTS OR TO THE PUBLIC, THAT YOU MAY BE INVOLUNTARILY ENROLLED AS AN INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR. YOUR INACTIVE ENROLLMENT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO ANY DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT. SEE RULE 101 (c), RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE STATE BAR.