E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format | Submit A Comment

By Glenna Jarvis

LiCalsi

Geringer

A local attorney and a former sheriff's deputy filed a civil suit against Madera County Tuesday morning demanding the county recover attorney's fees paid on behalf of the district attorney.

Attorney Steven Geringer and Roger Mann, petitioners and plaintiffs in the suit, claim the Board of Supervisors acted improperly when they voted unanimously to cover attorney fees incurred during a suit filed by Geringer on behalf of his client, Honorio Quiroz.

Geringer and Mann said the county paid $275,668.77 in legal fees defending District Attorney Ernie LiCalsi.

Quiroz struck LiCalsi's son's car Sept. 16, 2002. Quiroz speaks only Spanish, and LiCalsi doesn't speak the language. Quiroz was in the country illegally, was driving without a license and didn't have insurance. He also gave LiCalsi's son a false name following the crash, according to court documents. LiCalsi asked investigator Fabian Benabente to help identify Quiroz.

LiCalsi said he intended to turn the issue over to the attorney general's office for prosecution, but dropped the matter after Quiroz offered to pay the $500 deductible.

In the initial suit against LiCalsi, Geringer says LiCalsi, through Benabente, threatened to deport Quiroz and file criminal charges if he refused to pay LiCalsi's deductible.

After examining the case, charges brought against LiCalsi were dropped by the state attorney general's office. The civil suit was settled in January.

The agreement reached during the January hearing awarded Quiroz $162,500.

Last January, LiCalsi said he was disappointed that the county settled because money was paid out, but said the county's insurer made a financial decision based upon the cost of going to trial.

Geringer said this money did not come from taxpayers, but the almost $275,700 in attorney fees did.

He said this amount was the combined total for the federal suits against LiCalsi and the county, and LiCalsi's representation before the state bar.

"We're seeking a review by the superior court that (the county's) action was improper and asking that the superior court set aside the action ... and have them either take some other action or, more importantly, get a refund, recollect from Ernie LiCalsi," Geringer said.

In February 2003, Madera County Council sent a letter telling LiCalsi that if he submitted a request, the county could cover those legal fees, provided they could be reimbursed if an investigation showed LiCalsi was not acting within the scope of his employment, Geringer said.

A letter dated June 3, 2004, shows that an independent investigation conducted by an outside law firm determined LiCalsi "was acting within the course and scope of his employment," and that the county sent a letter withdrawing its reservation of rights and assuming "full obligation to defend and indemnify (LiCalsi)."

"What we're saying is ... Mr. LiCalsi's ... aspect of taking the $500 from Mr. Quiroz was not within his scope, within his duties as a district attorney for Madera County," Geringer said.

He also said LiCalsi admitted to a "violation of threatening criminal prosecution to get a civil advantage."

LiCalsi said he had been fighting the allegations and reached a point that the financial and emotional burden on his family was too great, so he entered the no contest plea.

Geringer admitted that a law firm determined LiCalsi was working within the scope of his duties, but added that because LiCalsi entered the no contest plea to the state bar allegations he violated ethics. As a result, the county's decision to pay should be rescinded, he said.

"They had to find there was no malice, and that he was working in the best interest of the county," Geringer said. "There's no way in the world he was even working for the county at that time. He was doing it on his own. He wanted to get his $500 deductible back."

He said that while the settlement with Quiroz admitted no liability, the county paid for LiCalsi's acts.

"There are no grounds for the suit," LiCalsi said. "It's politically motivated. The election is in 42 days. I'm sure after the election, this will go away."

Geringer said bringing the lawsuit against the county now, about a week before absentee ballots go out for the June election, was a coincidence. He said he went before the supervisors Feb. 7, and he had to wait 60 days to give the county time to revisit their decision.

"Of course it's going to look like this is being done because of the election," Geringer said. "The truth of the matter is, there's a time frame in which we can file ... it has to be done within a 60-day period. They leave us with no other choice."

That the timing "overlays the election" is "just the way life is," Geringer said.

Geringer said the lawsuit seeks attorney fees and costs, and if the court awards any fees that money will be given to a non-profit organization, the Friends of the Madera Animal Shelter.

"We're not collecting one cent in relationship to any damages," he said.

While the case is slated to go before a Madera judge, Geringer expects the judges to recuse themselves. LiCalsi has been with the district attorney's office for more than 20 years, 14 of those years as district attorney.

"Ernie LiCalsi ... is the chief law enforcement prosecutor of this county," Mann said. "He's bound by a code of ethics. He violated the ethics of his office. It's a matter of doing the right thing.

"This is an abuse of authority," Mann added. "Do we want the Board of Supervisors to make a policy ... that we'll pay for somebody's personal mistakes? I don't believe they do. And I believe the (supervisors) might have been ... misinformed, or not given all the information to make a decision."

"I regret that I created an appearance of a conflict," LiCalsi said. "And as a result, people were able to take advantage of the situation. I regret that. And as I've already stated, the state bar issue was no contest, where I basically did not want to fight any more because of the cost, both emotionally and financially, to my family."

In a previous interview, LiCalsi said continuing the fight would cost another $50,000 after the thousands he had already spent in attorney's fees.

LiCalsi added the state bar had the option of disbarring him, and didn't.

Glenna Jarvis For the Madera Tribune The Madera Tribune The Madera Tribune online subscription To subscribe or log on, CLICK HERE. For more information first, CLICK HERE.