You were admitted to the practice of law in the state of California on January 12, 1994. Pursuant to Rule 510, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, reasonable cause has been found to conduct a formal disciplinary hearing, commencing at a time and place to be fixed by the state bar court (NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING WILL BE MAILED TO YOU BY THE STATE BAR COURT CLERK’S OFFICE), by reason of the following:

COUNT ONE

1. In 2001, you were a sole practitioner in the law firm of Law Offices of Nina F. Reilly, Attorney at Law, 2489 South Lake Tahoe Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, California.

2. While acting in your duties as an attorney, you occupied a position of trust for many clients. For our purposes here, one client group, consisting of Brandy Ann Taylor, Bruce R. Ford, and Angel Guillaume, is represented in this count.

3. Beginning on September 6, while serving in a lawyer-client relationship, and with a primary obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of your clients, for the separate parties as referenced above, you failed to protect client information as required under California Business and Professions Code section 6068 (e) by leaving client files in an unlocked vehicle, which was subsequently stolen from you. You failed to implement the proper safeguards to ensure that client information remained confidential, a violation of your duty to perform competently.

4. Disclosure of the contents of those files has caused harm to your clients. After the loss of your client files, these three individuals were threatened and attacked by a man, Cody Stinson, whom they revealed in private conversations with you, their attorney, they had witnessed fleeing the scene of a murder.

COUNT TWO

1. While acting in your duties as an attorney, you knowingly assisted in the commission of a fraud against the Heritage Life Insurance Company Incorporated, by Kao Vang, former owner of Blue Star Market located in South Lake Tahoe, California.

2. Representing Kao Vang in an insurance claim against Heritage Life, you knew that arson had been committed by your client for the fraudulent purposes of obtaining an insurance settlement. The gross amount of that settlement, since paid in equal portions to Kao Vang and his wife, See Vang, was $210,000.

3. As a result of your personal, speedy delivery of funds to Kao Vang, he left the country before the fraud was apparent, making recovery of the fraudulently obtained funds difficult or impossible. The funds delivered to See Vang have been attached awaiting disposition of this count.

3. Your collection of any portion of that settlement constitutes a separate fraud.

COUNT THREE

1. While representing your client, Kevin Cruz, in a custody case, you engaged in a sexual relationship with him.

2. You employed undue influence in entering into the relationship, and implied that this level of intimacy was required in order for you to continue representation.

3. In violation of Rule 3-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, you continued to represent this client, even though the relationship damaged and prejudiced the client’s case, and resulted in the loss of temporary custody of his two minor children.

By committing the acts described above, you willfully violated your oath and duties as an attorney. In particular, you violated California Business and Professions Code section 6068 (e); and Rule 3-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

“I N THE MATTER OF REILLY,” Judge Hugo Brock said in a soft voice. He had climbed the stairs to his seat with grave eyes downcast, without a word to his clerk. Decorum above all, Nina thought. He’s the type who worries about losing control in the courtroom. How will he handle Jack?

More to the point, how will Jack handle Judge Hugo Brock? She had asked Jack this very question. His answer was, “Don’t worry. Hugo beats the alternatives.”

The huge digital clock on the judge’s dais ticked off the seconds before the momentous switch to 9:30 A.M. In this moment before the hearing began, close together in the tense, windowless room, they all sat at attention, ignoring one another. The judge’s clerk, a girlish-looking woman with festive auburn hair and a midcalf-length blue skirt slit demurely up to her knees, paid no attention to anyone. Black headphones covering her ears, she stared at her computer, with them corporeally only. She might even be working on some other matter, transcribing the words of some other poor practitioner who had suffered in this very chair the previous week.

So defendants felt like this! Nina glanced at Gayle Nolan, the chief trial counsel. Jack called her Pit Bull Nolan, more or less an admission that he considered her competent. In navy wool, glasses low on her nose, her hair in a gray pageboy, she had a haggard expression. Retirement could not be far away, assuming that the state bar still gave its staff retirement benefits. The big money no longer rolled in from California’s attorneys, but the criticism of the whole disciplinary system got louder every year.

Now, from the hot seat, Nina began to see why. Salaried employees of the not-very-large entity, Gayle Nolan and Hugo Brock were coworkers. Their motivations should be radically different, exemplifying the enormous gap between judicial and enforcement branches, but in the end these two both represented the goals of the California State Bar.

And what were those goals? The president of the state bar had said in a speech Nina attended, “At the state bar, public protection is our number-one priority.”

This seemed a perversion to many California lawyers, who thought the state bar dues they paid each year should go to an organization with the number-one priority of supporting and encouraging them. When had the focus become weeding out the bad apples in the profession? Whatever happened to stabilizing the wobbly apples and protecting the ripe apples? How could the judge and the prosecutor work out of the same small, half-crippled system and not walk in lockstep?

As Nina whizzed through these thoughts, Gayle Nolan glanced back at her through designer glasses so enormous, so thick, so encrusted with decoration that the face behind them blurred. A blessing.

Her own eyes were bothering her, so she put on her horn-rims. With surgical fussiness, Jack wiped his glasses on his handkerchief, allowing not one mote of fuzz. Every single person in that courtroom was viewing the world through a layer of polymer or glass.

She looked down and discovered she was wringing her hands. She made an effort to sit still and betray nothing. Whatever she did, look scared or look calm, she felt that she looked guilty. Such are the thoughts of a defendant.

“Let’s start by, uh, clarifying the order of proof. I understand we have a change in the usual presentation, Counsel,” Judge Brock said.

Gayle Nolan stood up. “Yes, we do, Your Honor. As you know, this is a bifurcated hearing, with the first part presenting the culpability portion and the second part, mitigation. Right now we are just dealing with culpability. We have three sets of complaints here in three matters. Mr. McIntyre and I have agreed to put on each of the matters separately. I will put on the prosecution witnesses for Count One and Mr. McIntyre will cross-examine each witness and we will complete all the proof for that count before moving on to Count Two. If that is all right with the court.”

“So we will look at the Brandy Taylor matter first?”

“Right.”

“Actually,” Jack said, moving in to make his first impression, “we agreed to start with Officer Scholl, the officer who took the police report involving the stolen files. Her testimony relates to all the cases.”