California Court of Appeal Reversed Judge Robert M. Letteau for Abuse of Discretion, Bias, Delay

In an unpublished decision in the Conservatorship of Feist case, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District reversed Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert M. Letteau’s “unexplained and drastic reduction of [elder law attorney Marc B.] Hankin’s fee request—from $62,539.75 to $11,134.71.” The appeals court reversed Judge Letteau’s punitive and arbitrary fee reduction because it found that his decision was “patently an abuse of discretion[,]” the result of “palpable animosity” between Judge Letteau and Mr. Hankin, “inordinately delayed…for a full year[,]” and “tainted by an evident bias against counsel.” The Court of Appeal for the Second District decided not to publish its decision and instead to keep Judge Letteau’s willful misconduct essentially a private matter outside of public rebuke. However, on May 20, 2004, the California Commission on Judicial Performance issued a public admonishment against Judge Letteau because of “a troubling pattern of repeated violation of ethical duties that are fundamental to the fairness…of the judicial process” and a “pervasive pattern of bias, prejudgment, ex parte communication, and abuse of judicial authority toward parties and attorneys…” in the Conservatorship of Feist and four other cases.

California Second District Court of Appeal reversed probate court Judge Robert M. Letteau in Conservatorship of Feist case (2001)

In an unpublished decision in the Conservatorship of Feist case in December 2001, the California Second District Court of Appeal reversed Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert M. Letteau’s “unexplained and drastic reduction of [elder law attorney Marc B.] Hankin’s fee request—from $62,539.75 to $11,134.71.” The appeals court reversed Judge Letteau’s punitive and arbitrary fee reduction because it found that the decision of Judge Letteau, who is a former supervising judge of Los Angeles County probate courts, was:

“Inordinately delayed…for a full year.”
“Patently an abuse of discretion.”
“Tainted by an evident bias against counsel.”
The result of “palpable animosity between the trial court and Hankin.”

The appeals court attributed Judge Letteau’s “thinly veiled hostility toward Hankin” to the judge’s taking Mr. Hankin’s “outspoken commentary” on probate court practices “as a personal affront.” Mr. Hankin’s commentary, which he included in a declaration (PDF 81KB) filed with Judge Letteau’s court, contended that the probate court’s practice of cutting conservators’ and attorneys’ fees encourages perpetrators to be litigious and deters conservators and attorneys from taking up difficult, demanding, contentious elder abuse cases involving small or modest estates.

The Second District Court of Appeal decided not to publish its decision and instead to keep Judge Letteau’s willful misconduct essentially a private matter outside of public rebuke. However, Elder Abuse Exposed.com is providing the appeals court’s decision below to make Judge Letteau’s flagrant abuse of power the very public matter it should be.

Conservatorship of Feist court filings

Share and like this page on Facebook!