Due to numerous verbal complaints and Marsden Motions made by incarcerated defendants in Shasta County, an inquiry as to the discipline records of the State Bar of California show that “Elliot D. Burick, Number 037830, was admitted to the practice of law in this state by the Supreme Court of California on January 5, 1966; that on June 2, 1989, he was placed on a three year probation by the State Bar of California; and that he has been since the date of admission, and is at the date hereof, an ACTIVE member of the State Bar of California.” (As of April 24, 2002). 

The discipline material provided by the State Bar shows there was one incident which involved money handling and management in a civil matter.  The recently overheard verbal complaints concern criminal defense matters, and are of entirely different nature than the 1989 discipline incident.  The following is a summary and excerpts from the discipline material provided by the State Bar: 

In the Supreme Court of California, In Bank, in Case Number S008515, In The Matter of Elliot D. Burick, A Member of the State Bar of California: 

“It is ordered that Elliot D. Burick be suspended from the practice of law for ninety days, that execution of suspension be stayed, and that he be placed on probation for three years subject to the conditions of probation adopted by the Review Department at its November 3, 1988, meeting.  It is further ordered that he take and pass the Professional Responsibility Examination within one year after the effective date of this order.  (See Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 891, fn.8.)  This order is effective June 2, 1989. 

Kaufman, J., is of the opinion the discipline imposed is inadequate and that a more severe discipline should have been imposed.”  Filed May 3, 1989. 

In the State Bar Court of The State of California Review Department, In the Matter of Elliot D. Burick, No. 37830, Case Number 85-0-13315 (Formerly LA85-2284), a “Stipulation As To Facts And Discipline Pursuant To Rule 407(a) Rules Of Procedure of the State Bar” was filed on July 27, 1988. 

On November 17, 1988, the Stipulation was adopted by the Review Department following the recommendations of the State Bar Court on November 3, 1988.  Fourteen referees voted to accept the recommendations, while one referee voted no on the ground that the stipulated degree of discipline recommended is insufficient. 

The discipline resulted from Mr. Burick being retained to manage certain funds received by his client from the sale of a residence previously owned by the client and his late wife.  The client turned over all proceeds from the sale to Burick to hold in trust.  Burick was to pay all of the clients expenses from these monies and invest the unused proceeds.  The amount received by Burick was $150,750.30, in July of 1983. 

On or about August 22, 1983, a corporation solely owned by Burick opened a grocery store in Torrance, California called Grocery Commissary.  In December of 1984, Burick admitted that he had used client’s monies in August of 1983 to partially fund the creation and opening of the Grocery Commissary.  Burick again admitted use of the client’s monies to partially fund the corporation which created and opened the Grocery Commissary to an examiner of the Office of Trial Counsel in March of 1988. 

Although Burick was authorized by the client to invest the proceeds of the sale of the client’s residence, pursuant to the terms of their investment agreement, Burick failed to advise the client to seek independent legal advice concerning the investment in the Grocery Commissary, failed to fully set forth the terms of the transaction in writing, failed to afford the client a reasonable opportunity to seek advice of independent counsel, and failed to obtain the client’s written signature. 

Subsequent to the creation and establishment of the Grocery Commissary, the client visited the grocery store three or four times and ratified the transaction. 

The Grocery Commissary was an unsuccessful business venture.  Shortly after the opening of the Commissary, the corporation filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Petition in Case No. LA84-11951WL, which was eventually converted to a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding.  The client was listed as an unsecured creditor in these proceedings. 

The client then filed a civil action in 1985 against Burick for return of his monies used to fund Burick’s corporation.  In April of 1987, a settlement of this civil suit was reached where Burick agreed to pay his former client the sum of $32,500.00, and then payments on the balance of $92,500.00 at the rate of $1,000.00 per month at a nine percent per annum interest rate on the unpaid balance, with the entire balance due on or before April 1990. 

Burick’s conduct as described in the Stipulation “constituted a wilful violation of his oath and duties as an attorney and in particular, Rule 5-101 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California in that Respondent wilfully entered into a business transaction with his client and: (a) the terms of the transaction were not fully disclosed to the client in writing and were not transmitted to the client in writing; (b) the client was not advised to seek the advice of independent counsel before entering into the transaction nor was the client afforded a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel and; (c) the Respondent failed to seek the client’s written consent to the transaction.” 

The Stipulation also lists some mitigating circumstances: Burick had no prior record of discipline.  He had been candid and cooperative with the State Bar and had expressed great remorse for his conduct, and he made timely monthly payments to his former client.  In September of 1987, the client wrote to the State Bar acknowledging that his dispute with Burick had been resolved to the client’s satisfaction, and that he wishes to withdraw his complaint with the State Bar. 

The balance of the Stipulation spells out the details of Burick’s repayment plan of the funds, and the probation requirements. 

There is no other discipline listed by the State Bar against Elliot D. Burick.  The State Bar indicated there is no case currently pending in the Hearing Department as of April 23, 2002. 

Even though there has been at least one documented complaint filed against Burick as a defense attorney in Shasta County, it is no surprise it is not being acknowledged by the State Bar as it probably has not progressed to the Hearing Department as of April 23, 2002.  That complaint was filed by Jerry Wayne Morgan following a finding of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel by the Third District Court of Appeals.  The State Bar case number for this complaint is #02-4380. 

Inmate Tom Watson