AOL File Library: 9,300 to 9,399/9300.zip/AOLDLs/Court TV Trial Documents/Greenstein Disciplinary Action/MCKEN.txt

Text File | 2014-12-11 | 12KB | 310 lines

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: [phone]



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.