This is a complaint being brought by Jerry Wayne Morgan before the State Bar of California against Attorney ELLIOT D. BURICK #37830, a member of the Shasta County Contract Public Defender Office of Steven Kennedy.The Kennedy Office provides legal representation for indigent defendants in criminal matters pursuant to a contract with the County of Shasta.Because of the small size of the Kennedy Office, three Attorneys, and the large number of criminal defense cases these attorneys accept under their contract, each Attorney cannot possible devote an adequate amount of time to each case so as to properly represent each and every defendant.Therefore, indigent criminal defendants, such as the complainant herein, receive legal representation that falls below the level of representation received by persons with paid Attorneys, and does not meet the professional, ethical, and legal standards that are expected in the State of California as a whole. 

In the case of People v. Morgan, Shasta County Superior Court case number 97F9169, this lack of adequate representation by ELLIOT D. BURICK resulted in the conviction being overturned by the Third Appellate District, and remanded back for “proceedings consistent with this opinion.”On July 16, 2001 and August 30, 2001, the Third Appellate District Court of Appeals issued opinions where it found Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (“IAC”).See People v. Morgan, (2001) 91 Cal.App.4^th 1324 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 502] Depublished Opinion.The People requested and received a rehearing vacating its first opinion, and issued a new opinion on August 30, 2001, People v. Morgan, (2001) 91 Cal.App.4^th 1324, where the unanimous opinion contained a scathing condemnation of ELLIOT D. BURICK for IAC.Next, the People petitioned for review in the California Supreme Court, who denied the petition on December 12, 2001, Supreme Court Case #S101311, and ordered the two Appellate Court decisions depublished. 

Jerry Wayne Morgan, as the criminal Defendant, had previously made two separate Requests for Substitution of Court Appointed Counsel (Marsden Motion), both of which were denied by Shasta County Superior Court Judge Wilson Curle.Most of the actions or inactions of ELLIOT D. BURICK that resulted in the IAC finding are documented in the above-cited cases, and found to be true by the Third District Court of Appeal. 

There is one item that is not in the direct record that Jerry Wayne Morgan also brings as a complaint:

The entire Kennedy Office, and in this case ELLIOT D. BURICK, fail and refuse to preserve the confidentiality of Attorney-client conversations in violation of Business And Professions Code §6068(e).This takes place in the Court’s Trial Holding Cell, which is normally packed full of inmates waiting for court appearances.The Public Defenders, including ELLIOT D. BURICK, insist on discussing sensitive, critical, and confidential defense matters in this open non-confidential environment.They do so under the guise of not having enough time to meet privately with each of their clients before every court appearance.When in reality, they never meet privately with most defendants, because to do so would not let them process the excessive number of clients they accept under their contract. 

These Attorney-client consultations held in this non-confidential setting results in either:A chilling effect on a Defendant’s willingness to provide critical information to his Attorney, and then, that Attorney has incomplete information leaving the Attorney unequipped to adequately represent his client; or, this non-private conversation has the potential to subsequently provide the prosecution with information through a “Jailhouse Informant,” or even a witness who overheard incriminating statements. 

Even after the above-cited Appellate Court rulings, these very same condemned practices continue unabated.Marsden Motions are made and brushed-off regularly in the Shasta County Courts.To preserve the integrity of the legal profession, it is imperative that this legal profession, through the powers vested in its Bar Association, send a clear and convincing message by way of disciplinary sanctions against ELLIOT D. BURICK, that violations of professional, ethical, and legal standards will not be tolerated in the State of California. 

Jerry Wayne Morgan