Q&A: For new trial counsel exec, a transition to public
law
After more 25 years in “big law,” Gregory Dresser joined the State Bar as
assistant chief trial counsel earlier this year. He recently spoke with the
California Bar Journal about his new job and his transition to the public
sector.
You spent 25 years-plus at Morrison & Foerster. What
prompted the change? Why did you want to come to the State Bar?
|
Gregory Dresser - Photo by S. Todd Rogers |
I was there for 26 years. I had for a while been thinking
about doing something different. Like many people, I think that sometimes one’s
spouse has the best idea about things. After talking for a while about wanting
to do something different, one of the things my spouse said to me was, "If
you want to do something different, you should try to do something different.”
There’s lots of things about the bar and specifically the work of the Office of
Chief Trial Counsel that I was interested in. I’m definitely interested in an
office where we do trial work. The public protection part of what we do is
interesting and important and I think if most attorneys were candid, they would
agree.
So you wanted to do more public service?
I was definitely looking around for a place where I could
continue my career of service. I actually think coming from a big firm
background and especially a complex litigation background at a big firm made me
well-suited for lots of different things, this being one of them.
What have you liked most so far?
The work is very interesting. I like the colleagues. The
colleagues are very dedicated. Many of them have been at the bar and have been
involved with the Chief Trial Counsel for a very long time. They’re very, very
knowledgeable in attorney discipline and also the procedures that apply in
State Bar Court. The leadership of the office is very strong, and everyone has
been very willing to help train me, help me understand office procedures, help
me learn about important precedent, how things work in State Bar Court and how
things work in the office. All those things have been great.
So your colleagues have helped get you acclimated to the
job?
Yeah. I definitely tried to hit the ground running and learn
as much as I can as fast as I can but also use my background experience and
knowledge as a practicing lawyer to contribute in any way that I can.
Any parallels, differences between your former work and
your work now?
One of the things that I always thought about being a
litigation and trial lawyer in private practice was, it was always important
that you be able to understand and adapt to new practice areas. That was
certainly helpful in the transition here. Also, in terms of the background of
the substantive areas, when you see attorney discipline cases there’s kind of a
broad range, and so it’s good to have a pretty broad background to be able to
understand the underlying matter in cases.
Can you tell me about some of the interesting cases
you’ve been involved in? A lot of people have been watching the Carson case
[a Modesto defense attorney accused of murder].
Just generally, it is interesting to see where you have the
most cases. I’ve definitely seen some very complex cases here, some involving
prosecutorial misconduct, some involving either real estate scams or financial
fraud. Certainly assumptions of practice are interesting, and the matter with
Frank Carson where we applied to assume his practice after we learned he was
incarcerated, that was very interesting. As it turned out, we understood that
bail was denied in his case. So unless other arrangements were made for the representation
of his clients, it was going to be a matter where it would have been
appropriate for the bar to assume his practice. It looks like [many] of the
clients now have co-counsel, where they’ve consented to continued
representation by Mr. Carson, given his incarceration while he awaits trial. Other
clients have decided to find other counsel. But it is looking like all of the
client matters are going to get handled in some way that’s appropriate.
It must feel good if the bar does have to assume a
practice to go in and help those people.
To be clear, what we do is assume practices, and then we
communicate with all the clients so that they know what happened so they can
make the appropriate arrangements for whatever representation they need.
Do you miss anything about working for a large firm and
doing commercial litigation?
Oh sure. I was at Morrison Forester for a long time. I miss
a lot of my colleagues, many of whom are good friends of mine. The practice
there is very interesting and there were lots of things that I really liked
about that. The firm has great mentors, very good leadership and there were
lots and lots of familiar places there. So I definitely miss all of that. I
thought it would be positive for me and positive for my career to come to the
bar and to do something I knew was important and different.
Have there been any surprises, things people might not
know working in the Office of Chief Trial Counsel?
It’s not so much surprises. I think that some people don’t
have an entirely clear picture of how the discipline system works and how State
Bar Court works. The trials are handled in the State Bar Court Hearing
Department and then the appeal from there goes to the State Bar Court Review
Department and if there’s any further review or action on cases after that it
goes to the California Supreme Court. A lot of people see published cases from
the California Supreme Court, but in terms of even how cases progress through
the State Bar Court, I think that’s a thing that a lot of people don’t know
about. People who worked on attorney discipline, I imagined they were very careful
and thoughtful about it. And that turns out to be true.