Uploaded: Tuesday, February 5, 2013, 3:12 PM
Updated: Wednesday, February 6, 2013, 1:41 PM
Charge against San Ramon attorney on hold until March
California Bar could become involved if attorney is convicted
|A misdemeanor case involving a San Ramon lawyer and an Alameda County Sheriff's deputy is on hold until mid March due to a complaint filed with the State Bar of California.
Family law attorney Lesley Regina, who has an office on Crow Canyon Court, was charged with one count of knowingly receiving records that she was not authorized to possess. Deputy Ryan Silcocks was charged with three misdemeanors: unauthorized furnishing of a local criminal record, unauthorized disclosure, and computer access and fraud.
Both have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The cases against Regina and Silcocks stem from complaints filed by Brian Lancaster of Pleasanton, who claims that he was targeted by the two in connection with an ongoing custody battle. Lancaster said Silcocks looked up his name and the names of others in a state database, then forwarded the information to Regina.
Lancaster filed a complaint with the California Bar in December.
Regina and Silcocks were set to appear in Superior Court in Pleasanton Tuesday morning. Neither attended, nor have they since the beginning of the case against them was filed in July 2012.
"Where are the defendants?" Judge Jacob Blea III asked when the case was called Tuesday morning.
"Your honor, we've got the state bar involved," said John Noonan, who represents Regina. Silcocks' attorney was not in court.
Noonan asked that the case be continued until March 12.
"Will we be looking to resolve the sentence at that time?" Bleas asked; Noonan replied that depends on the bar's involvement.
However, a spokeswoman for the State Bar of California said the bar would only become involved if there were a conviction, and that reporting the conviction would be done automatically by the courts.
According to the bar's rules of conduct, an attorney can be penalized if he or she commits a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, engages in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, or engages in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Penalties can range from sanctions to permanent disbarment.
Prosecutor Rebecca Warren admitted it is unusual for a simple misdemeanor to take more than a year to be resolved.
However, she said Regina has been in touch with the Pleasanton District Attorney's office.
The two are also named in a $3 million federal lawsuit filed by Lancaster, which also names the Pleasanton Police Department and K-9 Officer Tim Martens. Lancaster claims in the suit that Marten planted drugs and paraphernalia in his car and revised his report to indicate that Lancaster had illegal weapons at his home, prompting an investigation by the Department of Justice.
The city of Pleasanton has asked that the case be dismissed, and the motion to dismiss will come before a federal judge on Feb. 14.
The motion to dismiss claims that both the city and Martens are immune to prosecution on a number of the claims made by Lancaster.
In January, Pleasanton's first motion to dismiss was thrown out after Lancaster's attorney filed an amended lawsuit.
Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
Posted by Color Of Authority, a resident of another community, on Feb 11, 2013 at 4:53 am
This type of abuse of power is commonplace and needs to be stopped. These individuals denied a father access to his children through illegal abuse of their power and inside connections. They need to be made an example of. Ryan Silcocks later e-mailed the information to Lesley Regina, a San Ramon family-law attorney he was dating who is friends with Lisa Secord, the suit says. Trey Secord Recruited Tim martens to falsely arrest Lancaster, the suit says.
Filthy business. This sort of thing is so deeply damaging to law enforcement integrity that these clowns need to be given the stiffest possible criminal sentence, and the civil piece needs to go to Juryland so they lose everything that they have.
Nobody - and ESPECIALLY law enforcement - has the right to do this sort of thing.
Incidentally, this is probably filed federally as a "Section 1983" suit, which is what you do pursue as a violation under the color of authority. It is a direct hit against the Constitution to deprive a person of their fundamental rights to due process as well as privacy, and these guys deserve to be de-nuded of their assets - I just wish the U.S. Attorney would also take a look at it for federal criminal violations as well.
The tip of the iceberg.
To comment on this topic, please login here if you are a registered member. If not, click here.||