Lawyer gets reprimand for false bribery charge against
Yolo County judge
By Amy Yarbrough
Staff Writer
In a first-of-its-kind case, a Northern California lawyer
has been reprimanded for making false statements about a judge during his
campaign to unseat him.
On Feb. 5, the Review Department of the State Bar Court
publicly reproved Clint Edward Parish, 43, [bar #211982] for
falsely accusing his opponent in a June 2012 judicial campaign of being
involved in a bribery and corporate fraud scheme.
In finding Parish culpable of violating rule 1-700 of the
California Rules of Professional Conduct, the three-judge review panel concluded
he made accusations against sitting Yolo County Superior Court Judge Daniel
Maguire “with reckless disregard for the truth.” In doing so, the panel
disagreed with a hearing judge’s recommendation that Parish receive a lesser
order of admonition.
“Instead, we find Parish’s reckless statement implicating a
judge with bribery requires public discipline to maintain the integrity of the
legal profession and to preserve public confidence in the impartiality of the
judiciary,” the panel wrote.
Parish, who now practices in Sonora, was a Yolo County
prosecutor when he ran against Maguire with the assistance of adviser Kirby
Wells and two political consultants. In March 2012, the campaign began
preparing two mailers targeting Maguire, who had worked as a deputy legal
affairs secretary for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger until the governor appointed
him to the bench in 2010.
Among other dubious claims, one of the mailers accused
Maguire of being involved in a “sordid case of corporate fraud that involved the
payment of bribes in Russia.” The court said Parish could have easily
determined the claim false before sending the mailer. As a result of his
misstep, Parish’s key supporters withdrew support for his campaign, and Parish
stopped actively campaigning and fundraising. He was solidly defeated,
receiving only 23 percent of the vote.
In making its decision to publicly reprove Parish, the panel
noted his remorse and recognition for his wrongdoing and the apology he made to
Maguire during his discipline trial.
“We are cognizant that Parish has already paid a heavy
professional price for the campaign mailer, and that his misconduct was neither
malicious nor intentional,” the panel wrote, noting that his misconduct was
unlikely to occur.
“Even so, Parish’s reckless decision to implicate Judge
Maguire in bribery and corporate fraud warrants public discipline,” it wrote.
Although the Review Department issued its opinion early last
month, either side has 60 days to appeal it to the California Supreme Court.