CDCR Law

11/06/2013

For updates and recent case information, please LIKE the new John Chung Law page!

www.facebook.com/JohnChungLaw.

John Chung Law is dedicated to serving the employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Membership in John Chung Law costs around $1 a day and affords members fully prepaid legal representation during internal affairs investigations and appeals before the State Personnel Board. Membership is open to all employees of CDCR regardless of rank, classification, or geographic location.

11/06/2013

NOTICE:

CDCR Law's transition to John Chung Law is complete.
We are now accepting new members on our website at

http://www.JohnChungLaw.com

Why was John Chung Law created? The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation investigates thousands of allegations of misconduct against its employees every year. More than 70% of these allegations result in discipline including salary reductions, demotions, and even dismissal. … Cont...

09/01/2013

CDCR Law would like to thank all of the men and women of the Department of Corrections that have partnered with us as Members of the CDCR Law program. Membership in the program is now closed. For current members, you will not experience any changes, you will not have to re-enroll in the program, and there will be NO INCREASE in your membership dues.

In the coming months, we will unveil our new website and new membership program under the new name of the firm - John Chung Law. At that time, we will begin accepting new members.

We will provide more detailed information on this page and on our website in the coming weeks.

Thank you.

www.cdcrlaw.com

Nobody ever thinks they will be accused of misconduct. Nobody ever thinks they will be the victim of a crime. Nobody ever thinks they have to worry about getting into a car accident because they are a cautious driver. But the reality is that sometimes things are out of your control. Sometimes yo...

08/26/2013

**FINAL REMINDER**

This is a final reminder to all department employees that CDCR Law will stop accepting new members under the current program and current membership rates after August 31, 2013. We will accept all applications received through the mail with a US Postmark on or before August 31, 2013.

A new program will be unveiled beginning sometime in October 2013.

This is also a reminder to current members that it is the member's responsibility to keep their membership status current and up to date.

We are honored to partner with you.

To sign up before the cutoff date, visit www.cdcrlaw.com

06/17/2013

For those who do not want to sign up online, please print this "photo" of the membership application, complete the form, and submit by mail, fax, or email.

06/17/2013

Important Announcement:

In order to make sure that we continue to provide excellent legal representation and professional service to all of our valued members, CDCR Law will be undergoing some changes in the coming months.

First, we will be closing the CDCR Law Program to new members after August 31, 2013. The Program was designed to ensure that our members receive personal legal representation and individualized attention. Due to the overwhelming interest in the Program and the growing volume of CDCR Law members, we will not be taking on new memberships after August 31st. We will re-evaluate the Program and open the membership process back up on October 1, 2013 (membership prices will be adjusted higher to offset additional staffing).

Second, we anticipate that in October 2013, the firm will undergo a branding change (name and logo). This change is a result of a settlement agreement between CDCR Law and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In July 2012, the Department of Corrections filed a lawsuit asking a Superior Court Judge in Orange County to permanently block attorney John Chung and CDCR Law from representing CDCR employees in employee disciplinary matters. The Department of Corrections alleged that Chung's prior employment at the Office of the Inspector General gave Chung an unfair advantage and created a conflict of interest because Chung was privy to CDCR's "internal playbook." The Department of Corrections also alleged that the name "CDCR Law" was confusing and implied an affiliation with the Department of Corrections. In a preliminary injunction hearing, the Judge found in favor of Chung and declined to rule that there was a conflict of interest. As part of a settlement agreement, it was agreed that CDCR Law would change its business name and not use the acronym "CDCR" and the Department of Corrections agreed it would stop trying to prevent Chung from representing CDCR employees.

Lastly, even with the re-branding and the temporary closure and modification of the CDCR Law Membership Program, we will continue to be available for individual consultation on any investigation or SPB appeal. Please do not hesitate to contact us to discuss your case regardless of what stage in the process you are currently in.

Thank you for your trust and support. We look forward to standing with all the hardworking men and women of CDCR and ask for your assistance in getting this message out to your coworkers.

If you have any questions, please call 877-989-2327 ext. 3 or email us at [email protected].

Sincerely,

CDCR Law

04/27/2013

Recent CDCR Law Cases:

Northern California

In March 2013, a limited term Associate Government Program Analyst (AGPA) was terminated "FOR CAUSE" by his hiring authority, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The AGPA's 2 year limited term contract was terminated for cause only a few weeks before the term was set to expire. The termination memorandum cited numerous allegations of misconduct as the basis for the "FOR CAUSE" termination.

Because a limited term employee who is terminated "FOR CAUSE" is prohibited from seeking future employment with the State of California, the AGPA felt compelled to challenge his case.

The AGPA contacted CDCR Law for help. In April 2013, CDCR Law represented the AGPA at his Name Clearing Hearing and presented evidence that the allegations were unfounded. Following the hearing, the CEO changed his original decision and withdrew the "FOR CAUSE" termination.

The AGPA is now free to seek employment within CDCR and other California state agencies without the stigma and challenges that accompany a "FOR CAUSE" termination.

03/26/2013

Recent CDCR Law Cases:

March 2013, Fresno, CA

In March 2012, a correctional officer was dismissed from CDCR based on allegations of insubordination, dishonesty, and falsification of a CDC-998 timesheet. The allegations stemmed from two separate events in July and October 2011. The Department of Corrections did not conduct a formal investigation and did not interview the officer.

CDCR Law represented the officer at the Skelly Hearing and the SPB Prehearing and Settlement Conference, but neither attempt at trying to reason with the Department were productive. The Department's offer at the Settlement Conference was to allow the officer to resign in lieu of termination. The Department filed two separate motions to continue the SPB evidentiary hearing and assigned a supervising attorney from the Office of Legal Affairs to prosecute the case. The case finally went to hearing in February 2013. The Department called multiple witnesses over the course of two full days before the SPB, but the case was not completed and was calendared to continue in March. The first 2 days of the hearing went extremely well for the officer, as it was shown that he did not do what the Department alleged. The week before the hearing was set to conclude, the Department contacted CDCR Law and wished to discuss a possible resolution.

The Department offered to reinstate the officer and modify the dismissal to a suspension that would result in only 4 months of backpay for the officer. The officer's primary consideration was to not admit to anything he did not do and to return to work as soon as possible (continuing with the hearing and waiting for an SPB decision could have taken another 3-5 months). The officer offered to settle the case under the following terms: removal from the Notice of Adverse Action all allegations and facts related to insubordination, dishonesty, or falsification of his timesheet, and modification of the Dismissal to a "30 day suspension" and backpay + benefits for the entire period of time beyond the 30 day suspension. The amended disciplinary document would charge a simple act of negligence for failing to receive clarification from a supervisor regarding the proper use of PLP credits. The Department accepted the counter-offer and the case was concluded by way of a settlement agreement that was approved by the State Personnel Board on March 21, 2013.

The officer was tempted to continue with the hearing and prevail before the SPB, but he felt the terms of the settlement agreement clearly vindicated him and he was anxious to rejoin his partners at work. CDCR Law was proud to stand next to this officer and help restore his good name and his career.

**A Note from the Correctional Officer - reprinted with his permission**

" I wish to thank the CDCR Law staff, especially John Chung for his dedication and hard work on my case. Mr. Chung was extremely responsive to my concerns and questions and I knew from the outset that I had selected the right firm to represent me in my case. Mr. Chung worked tirelessly to achieve a desirable outcome and if I had it to do all over again I wouldn't think twice about choosing CDCR Law. Once again, thank you CDCR Law! Now it's time to get back to work."

01/15/2013

Recent CDCR Law Cases:

January 2013, Oakland, CA

In September 2012, a 10+ year veteran registered nurse was dismissed from CDCR based on allegations of falsification of medical records. The department of corrections did not conduct a formal investigation and relied, instead, on submitted memorandums by managers.

At the Prehearing and Settlement Conference, the department's only settlement offer was to allow the nurse to resign in lieu of termination. After lengthy negotiations, which included numerous instances of pointing out that the department's Notice of Adverse Action contained significant factual and legal errors, a settlement was reached, and the nurse was reinstated.

12/20/2012

Recent CDCR Law Cases:

December 2012, Los Angeles, CA

In April 2012, a parole agent was given a 60 working day suspension (three months of pay) for an alleged altercation with his child's mother. The agent was arrested by local law enforcement based on the domestic violence allegations, but charges were never filed by the district attorney because there was a lack of evidence.

Without any investigation by the Office of Internal Affairs or interview of the agent, and instead relying solely on the police report, the Department took direct action against the parole agent and disciplined him.

CDCR Law represented the parole agent at his Prehearing and Settlement Conference. The agent was adamant that he was not guilty of what the department was alleging and did not want to negotiate for a lesser penalty. CDCR Law supported that decision and confirmed the matter for a hearing.

In the meantime, CDCR Law filed a Motion to Compel Discovery which was granted by the SPB. The Department violated the SPB's discovery order by failing to timely turn over requested documents. CDCR Law filed a Motion for Sanctions against the department for the violation. SPB granted CDCR Law's Motion for Sanctions and ordered that the Department would not be allowed to present any of the documentary evidence they listed in their Prehearing Statement.

An evidentiary hearing was held in September 2012.

On December 14, 2012, the State Personnel Board adopted the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. The ALJ found that CDCR had failed to prove the allegations and revoked the disciplinary action in its entirety. CDCR was ordered to pay the agent all back pay, benefits, and interest.

The agent maintained his innocence from the very beginning and was vindicated in the end.