What To Do When A Board Or Government Investigator Requests Records Or Comes To Your Office: What To Do And What NOT To Do - Part 1

If a board investigator from an administrative agency a criminal investigator contacts you or comes to your place of business or requests records in writing, the first step you need to take is contacting an attorney experienced in this area of the law. Tracy Green has given lectures to many professional associations indicating what an individual should do (and not do) when contacted by an investigator or when there is a request for records. Even a one or two hour consultation will help you prepare and not make critical mistakes that can harm you later.

A board representative may claim to have your best interests in mind and may tell you that “you don’t need an attorney.” Unfortunately, their job is not to protect your rights. They prefer to catch you off-guard before you have had time to prepare or think about the issues. For this reason, they do not usually make appointments. They just “show up” at your office.  In addition, they do not usually tape your interviews but have a second person there and they take down “notes” and create a report that is difficult to challenge later. 

It is much easier to be proactive and handle the cases properly from the beginning than to defend an Accusation or other proposed charges. Good beginnings make good ends.

Let's begin with general points to understand about the process. This is Part 1. Look for upcoming articles on this topic.

7 GENERAL POINTS TO UNDERSTAND 

ABOUT REQUEST FOR RECORDS OR INTERVIEWS

1.  The probability of getting a board complaint or being investigated by a state licensing board is increasing for several reasons. First, the longer you practice, the greater chance that you will receive a complaint. Second, there is greater political pressure on the boards and bureaus in California to be aggressive and harsher on the discipline. Third, common sources of complaints are patients/clients, competitors, insurance companies and disgruntled ex-employees. People are more inclined to complain in today's world especially since it is easy for them to find out how to do it on the Internet and the forms are downloadable. 

2.  It is important to know what is being investigated and the nature of the complaint(s) before there are interviews or responses to records are submitted. An experienced attorney knows how to find out this information in a professional manner that will make you look competent and responsible.

For example, I have had numerous cases where a new complaint reactivated an old complaint that my client did not even know existed because it was closed out at the intake level. This is why it is important to know what is being investigated before there are interviews or responses to records. This is also necessary so an overall defense strategy can be implemented. 

In one case, an OB-GYN was visited by a Medical Board investigator and asked to interview him about a patient who alleged a sexual touching. Investigator told him he didn't need an attorney. Sexual allegations are the MOST difficult to get rejects on if they get filed. OB-GYN called me and I spoke to the Board investigator, explained that I am his health care law attorney and I want to be present at the interview. Investigator told me "if it were me, I'd want an attorney present." Before the interview, I made reasonable demands to find out which patients were going to be at issue in the interview so we could ensure that proper releases had been signed and we could review the files beforehand. Turns out that in prior years there were two prior sexual touching complaints that had been closed out at the intake level but my client did not even know about them. All three complaints were completely false: one was complaining about a clitoral examination when the patient had elephantitis of the vagina and was at risk for tumors which was explained to her; another was complaining about having a woman with fibrous breasts sit up and lay down during the breast exam; and the other was equally absurd. Before the interview, all files were reviewed, a summary of each patient's treatment was provided, statements were obtained by staff from those that were present during the examinations, and the doctor was prepared to answer the questions without being offended, upset or too emotional. The investigator was also presented with the OB-GYN's policies and procedures for examining all women with a chaperone present. The case was closed after the interview and presentation of records. 

3.  If  you receive is a request for records or interview, it means that it has passed the intake process and a case has been opened.  That case will be either closed or it will be forwarded to the Attorney General's Office with a recommendation for filing disciplinary action. The GOAL is to get the case closed or to minimize the allegations that are forwarded to the Attorney General.  There is a range of cases ranging from meritless ones to questionable ones to difficult ones. Even with difficult cases, the goal is to have damage control and to determine how to achieve the best result possible even when the facts are not in my client's favor. The investigators have discretion and it may be that I need to help my client build good facts showing in various ways how my client is an outstanding professional

4.  The board or government representatives are NOT your friends. They are often very friendly and one of the biggest mistake my clients make is talking to them since they seemed "so nice" or because they were afraid of "making them mad." This is a very unsophisticated approach. Investigators are trained how to minimize in order to obtain more information. Just imagine that there is an Accusation filed and we are going to hearing, but you tell me "well, Tracy, I think the investigator liked me at the interview." There is a very easy way not to antagonize the investigator and have your attorney assert your rights. A good attorney knows how to make you look good while asking to be present at the interview. 

5. Be professional and respectful even while exercising all your rights. Now this does NOT mean that we fail to be aggressive in your defense but it means that we do not antagonize the investigator or Deputy Attorney General. As much as you want me to write a nasty letter threatening to sue the State, in the beginning I'll recommend instead a letter that focuses on the facts and why this investigation does not have merit. 


It means that we are very cordial -- respecting the power that they can wield over your license -- but we are strong and professional at the same time. The fact is that they know the details of the complaint and we know nothing. This means that we need to learn as much as the investigator to the extent possible before any interview. In addition, the investigator only knows one side of the investigation and we want to educate them as much as possible. I have gotten involved in cases after my client has threatened to sue the Board, the invetigator and that did not help their case. I am aggressive about defending my clients but smart about how to approach the Board and the investigators.  

6. Do NOT take investigations or requests for records lightly even if you are confidant that you did not do anything wrong. For example, assume there is a complaint by a former patient/client that you committed malpractice. The records are clear that there is no malpractice and, in fact, it was a good result. However, a review of the records shows that the recordkeeping is poor -- a surgical report is missing, the notes are skimpy, the handwriting is illegible and/or some other required information is not recorded. 

7.  The time to seek advice is before the records are produced or before there is any type of interview. It may be decided that a letter summarizing the treatment or client history is a good idea. It may also be decided with the help of the attorney that the missing record should be recreated but with a clear indication that the record was unexplainably missing and was recreated in order to give a complete record. Declarations or statements may be obtained from employees or other witnesses.

Some of my clients made serious missteps by backdating records or sending less than ideal records to the investigator without transcribing or summarizing them. Or they think that if the records are disorganized it will help them. To the contrary, if there are good facts, you want to make the job easier for the investigator and give him or her good reasons to close the case. Often the investigator may be sending the files to an expert witness and you want the expert to be able to read and understand the records, especially if there are good facts. A good summary from your attorney can help that process significantly. The advantage of the letter coming from the attorney is that it is not evidence from you.    

Your professional future, the value of a clean license and your rights are of critical importance to our firm.  We know what is at stake when licensees face a California governing body without the aid of an experienced attorney. How you initially respond to a state licensing board investigation or request for records may determine if you get sanctioned, get placed on probation, lose your license, or lose your livelihood. Now that all discipline is on the website, sanctions can adversely affect insurance plans, client/patient confidence and your reputation.


Posted by Tracy Green, Esq. Please email Ms. Green at tgreen@greenassoc.com or call her at 213-233-2260 to schedule a complimentary 30-minute consultation.

Any questions or comments  should be directed to Tracy Green, a very experienced administrative law attorney, licensing attorney, and board and bureau investigations attorney at tgreen@greenassoc.com.

The firm focuses its practice on the representation of licensed professionals, individuals and businesses in civil, business, administrative and criminal proceedings. They have a specialty in representing licensed providers and in administrative board and discipline matters in California and throughout the country. Their website is: http://www.greenassoc.com/

Los Angeles Clinic Owner/Manager Sentenced to 77 Months in Prison for Medicare Fraud With $18.9 In Alleged Losses

The sentences in health care fraud cases continue to be lengthy. On February 6, 2012,  a Los Angeles clinic owner/manager Eduard Aslanyan, 38, of Sherman Oaks, Calif., was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall in the Central District of California to 77 months in prison for establishing and running medical clinics which billed Medicare and in some cases used the stolen identities of physicians. The alleged billed amount was more than $18.9 million. Mr. Aslanyan was sentenced to three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay $10.8 million in restitution.

This sentence was after Mr. Aslanyan pleaded guilty in April 2011. If he had gone to trial and lost, he faced a lengthier sentence. He admitted that between March 2007 and September 2008, he established a series of fraudulent medical clinics in and around Los Angeles to defraud Medicare. His co-defendant, Carolyn Vasquez, who previously pleaded guilty to conspiring with Aslanyan to defraud Medicare, recruited physicians to serve as the medical directors of Mr. Aslanyan’s medical clinics. The physicians did not perform services at the clinics and were rarely present at the clinics. Physician assistants were hired by Mr. Aslanyan and Ms. Vasquez and were allegedly complicit in the fraud scheme at the clinics.

According to court documents, Mr. Aslanyan hired patient recruiters to find Medicare beneficiaries who were willing to provide the recruiters with their Medicare billing information in exchange for expensive, high-end power wheelchairs and other medical equipment which the patient recruiters told the beneficiaries they could receive for free. Often, the Medicare beneficiaries did not have a legitimate medical need for the power wheelchairs and equipment. 

The patient recruiters then provided the beneficiaries’ Medicare billing information to Mr. Aslanyan or brought the beneficiaries to Mr. Aslanyan’s clinics. Mr. Aslanyan paid the patient recruiters cash kickbacks in exchange for recruiting the Medicare beneficiaries.

In court documents, Mr. Aslanyan admitted that he and Ms. Vasquez instructed and paid physician assistants who worked at his clinics to prescribe medically unnecessary power wheelchairs, medical equipment and diagnostic tests for the Medicare beneficiaries. The physician assistants allegedly used stolen identities of physicians who did not supervise them or work at the clinics.

According to court documents, Mr. Aslanyan profited from the scheme at his fraudulent medical clinics in several ways. First, Mr. Aslanyan admitted that he allowed fraudulent diagnostic testing facilities to use the Medicare billing information he purchased from patient recruiters to submit false claims to Medicare for tests ordered at the clinics. In exchange, the fraudulent diagnostic testing facilities paid Mr. Aslanyan cash kickbacks that were disguised as rent payments to Mr. Aslanyan.

Second, Mr. Aslanyan also profited from the scheme by selling fraudulent prescriptions and documents generated at his clinics to the owners and operators of fraudulent durable medical equipment (DME) supply companies, which used the prescriptions and documents to submit false claims to Medicare. Mr. Aslanyan also used the fraudulent prescriptions and documents to submit false claims to Medicare through his own fraudulent DME supply companies, Vila Medical Supply Inc. and Blanc Medical Supplies.

Mr. Aslanyan received 70 months, a higher sentence than his co-defendant, since he has a criminal history and he had a higher restitution amount. Currently, Mr. Aslanyan is serving a three-year state sentence for assault. 

On Jan. 9, 2012, Judge Marshall sentenced his co-defendant Ms. Vasquez to 60 months in prison for her role in the fraud scheme and ordered her to pay more than $6.2 million in restitution to Medicare. 

A third co-defendant, David James Garrison, a physician assistant who worked at the fraudulent medical clinics with Ms. Vasquez and Mr. Aslanyan, is scheduled for trial on Feb. 7, 2012. Defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty at trial. Mr. Garrison has a prior health care fraud conviction which could be complicating the case for him.  

Any questions or comments  should be directed to Tracy Green, a very experienced California health care fraud attorney  and California Medicare fraud attorney at tgreen@greenassoc.com. 

The firm focuses its practice on the representation of licensed professionals, individuals and businesses in civil, business, administrative and criminal proceedings. They have a specialty in representing licensed health care providers and in health care fraud related matters in California and throughout the country. Their website is: http://www.greenassoc.com/

Alert To California Professionals And Licencees: Potential License Denial Or Suspension For Failure To Pay California Taxes Starting In July 2012

Effective July 1, 2012, ALL of the licensing boards in California (Medical Board, Board of Psychology, State Bar, Dental Board, Contractors Board, Veterinary Board,  Accountancy Board, Optometry Board, Pharmacy Board, Board for Professional Engineers, etc.) are required to deny an application for licensure and to suspend the license/certificate/registration of any applicant or licensee who has outstanding tax obligations due to the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) or the State Board of Equalization (BOE) and appears on either the FTB or BOE's certified lists of top 500 tax delinquencies over $100,000. This is pursuant to legislation AB 1424, Perea, Chapter 455, Statutes of 2011.

Once it has been determined that an applicant or a licensee is on a certified list, the applicant or licensee has 90 days from the issuance of a preliminary notice of suspension to either satisfy all outstanding tax obligations or enter into a payment installment program with the FTB or BOE. Any such person who fails to come into compliance will have his/her license denied or suspended until the Medical Board of California receives a release from the FTB or BOE. The form for requesting a release will be included with the preliminary notice of suspension.

The law prohibits the Boards from refunding any money paid for the issuance or renewal of a license where the license is denied or suspended as required by AB 1424.

The FTB and BOE are currently expanding the certified lists from 250 to 500, but you can check if you are currently on the FTB's certified list at: www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/txdlnqnt.shtml or the BOE's certified list at: www.boe.ca.gov/cgi-bin/deliq.cgi. If you believe you are on either list in error, please call the FTB at (866) 418-3702 or the BOE at (916) 445-5167.   

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq. Please email Ms. Green at tgreen@greenassoc.com or call her at 213-233-2260 to schedule a complimentary 30-minute consultation.  

Any questions or comments  should be directed to Tracy Green, a very experienced California board attorney, administrative attorney, and California licensing attorney at tgreen@greenassoc.com.

The firm focuses its practice on the representation of licensed professionals, individuals and businesses in civil, business, administrative and criminal proceedings. They have a specialty in representing licensed health care providers in California and throughout the country. Their website is: http://www.greenassoc.com/

Why Does Medicare Fraud Occur More Frequently In Clinics Run By Managers? Los Angeles Clinic Manager Sentenced To 60 Months For Using Physician Identities To Write Unnecessary Prescriptions And To Bill Medicare

One of the frequent fact patterns we see in California is the presence of "managers" or "management companies" in health care fraud cases. Why is that? It has to do with California's prohibition that prohibits non-physicians from owning medical practices. It also has to do with some of the people that open health care businesses without realizing the level of regulation and the potential consequence of not following the rules and regulations. When business people want to open a medical practice in California, they need to open the clinic in a doctor's name and sometimes the doctor is a nominal owner and he has little or no control over the practice and relies on the managers to run it properly. 


A recent case illustrates the ugly side of health care fraud involving unscrupulous managers. On January 9, 2011, Carolyn Ann Vasquez, 47, from Los Angeles medical clinic manager, was sentenced to 60 months in federal prison after having pleaded guilty to using fraudulent medical clinics and the stolen identities of physicians to defraud Medicare of more than $6.2 million.  U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall of the Central District of California sentenced Ms. Vasquez and also ordered her to pay $6.2 million in restitution. 

Originally, Ms. Vasquez was charged with two other persons: (1) physician assistant David Garrison and (2) co-manager Eduard Aslanyan.  Mr. Aslanyan pleaded guilty in April 2011 to conspiracy charges related to this case and is scheduled for sentencing on February 6, 2012. David Garrison, a physician assistant who worked at the fraudulent medical clinics with Vasquez and Aslanyan, is scheduled for trial on January 24, 2012. Mr. Garrison has a prior state health care fraud case that may be complicating his sentence that also arises from working at a clinic run by a manager.


In March 2011, Mr. Vasquez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit health care fraud. In her plea agreement, Ms. Vasquez admitted that from 2007 to 2008, she conspired with others to use a series of fraudulent Los Angeles-area medical clinics to defraud Medicare. Ms. Vasquez admitted that her co-conspirators used the identities and Medicare provider numbers of physicians who both worked and did not work at the clinics to submit false claims to Medicare for reimbursement for services the physicians did not perform and for power wheelchairs, medical equipment and diagnostic tests that the physicians did not order or prescribe. So the physician is not at the clinic but his name is on the prescription pads that are signed by the PAs or the manager using a stamp signature or even forging the name, and he may have no idea that power wheelchairs are being prescribed to patients and only look at the medical chart that shows a routine medical visit with no improper billing at the medical clinic.  


According to court documents, Ms. Vasquez physician assistants recruited to work at the clinics by Vasquez, and working at her direction and the direction of others, performed services that were medically unnecessary and prescribed and ordered the wheelchairs, medical equipment and diagnostic tests that were medically unnecessary.

According to court documents, Ms. Vasquez obtained access to physicians’ personal and Medicare information, which she stole to further the fraud scheme at the medical clinics. For example, Ms. Vasquez admitted that in approximately 2007, a physician contacted her about a job at one of the medical clinics, but the physician decided not to accept the job. Nevertheless, Ms. Vasquez’s clinic printed prescription pads with the physician’s name and Medicare provider number on them. Ms. Vasquez admitted that she instructed a physician assistant working at one of the medical clinics to use the prescription pads to write fraudulent prescriptions and medical documentation for diagnostic tests, power wheelchairs and other medical equipment in the physician’s name even though Ms. Vasquez knew that the physician did not work at the clinic.


Attorney Commentary: For those managers that are unethical or are seeking a doctor's license to use for their own purpose, they will target doctors who are desperate for money, older or have some other issues (alcoholism, depression, etc.) and use that doctor's license and NPI number to run their business without regard for how it will ruin the doctor's provider numbers, expose them to great financial liability and jeopardize their license. In some cases, there is actual identity theft of the physician's license and NPI number. 


In many cases, the clinics offer to employ the physician, pay them several thousand dollars per month and tell the physician that they do not have to come to the clinic except once or twice a month since a Physician Assistant (PA) is seeing the patients and all that the physician needs to do is to supervise the PA. The manager will reassure the physician that the clinic is well run and has been in business for years without any issues. For physicians who are looking for extra easy money, they often fall prey to these offers without seeking legal counsel about the legality and fail to do any due diligence about the managers running the clinic. 


What the physician or physician assistant often do not know is that the manager also has ownership interest in other businesses related to the clinic: pharmacy, durable medical equipment, diagnostic company, etc. Even if the manager does not make much money on the medical clinic, the prescriptions for these ancillary services can be very profitable. So everything can look pretty good at the clinic but if someone is not paying attention to the prescriptions for potentially unnecessary ultrasounds, DME (expensive wheelchairs or beds) or drugs, the fraud may not be apparent to the physician. 


In the Vasquez case and other cases, all that the manager needs to do is to post an advertisement in the Los Angeles Times or other publication and unsuspecting physicians will fax in resumes that list all their identifying information. Physicians should be very careful in sending identifying information in response to job ads and should not list license or DEA or NPI numbers unless and until they have done due diligence on the medical clinic. 


In addition, in any situation where there is a mangement agreement, physicians should have their own legal representation to ensure that the arrangement is legal and that there is little or minimal chance for any fraudulent conduct to occur. Physicians and those in the health care field often tend to be trusting but trying to clean up fraudulent billing and identity theft -- including the loss of a provider number or addressing a large overpayment incurred -- can take years and can be very expensive.  Practice preventative measures BEFORE you enter into any such arrangements.

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq. 

Any questions or comments  should be directed to Tracy Green, a very experienced California health care fraud attorney  and California Medicare fraud attorney at tgreen@greenassoc.com.

If you have questions regarding your own situation, please call Tracy at 213-233-2260 or email at tgreen@greenassoc.com to schedule a complimentary 15 minute consultation. 

The firm Green and Associates focuses its practice on the representation of licensed professionals, individuals and businesses in civil, business, administrative and criminal proceedings. They have a specialty in representing licensed health care providers and in health care fraud related matters in California and throughout the country. 

Recent OIG Investigation Into Hospices Reveals Compliance, Marketing And Kickback Issues

A recent Bloomberg article (Dec. 6, 2011) on hospices and in particular Harden Healthcare LLC  entitled "Aunt Midge Not Dying In Hospice Reveals $14B Market" reveals issues with some hospices and the focus of government investigations. Hospices are meant for the terminally ill and given that Medicare's reimbursement rates are higher for hospice care, this has been a growth industry.

The article relays a story that caught the interest of the Department of Justice. Janet Stubbs' aunt, Doris Midge Appling, was admitted to Hospice Care of Kansas (HCK) during the company’s “Summer Sizzle” promotion drive, which paid employees as much as $100 a head for referrals. Ms. Stubbs said she had no clue that the nursing home doctor who referred her aunt for hospice moonlighted as medical director for the hospice company. The aunt was discharged after 20 months in HCK, and lived four more years before her death in April at age 106. Medicare paid nearly $80,000 for her hospice care. The aunt is now known as Patient 11 in a civil lawsuit filed by the Justice Department against HCK and its owners.

Hospice care, once chiefly a charitable cause, has become a growth industry, with $14 billion in revenues, 1,800 for-profit providers and a base of Medicare-covered patients that doubled to 1.1 million from 2000 to 2009.

The article discusses the investigations pending in the hospice business - and these are often publicly traded companies and national hospice chains. This means that independent owned hospices will also be under scrutiny and will often have less funds to devote to compliance and responding to government investigations. It is therefore critical for hospices to engage in compliance immediately since there is increased scrutiny on the industry.


The compliance issues noted in the article include:
(1) paying salespeople bonuses for increasing the number of patients enrolled and/or length of stay;
(2) admitting ineligible patients;
(3) giving salespeople a budget of $500 a month to buy lunches and gifts for doctors and nursing-facility managers and staff;
(4) paying enrollment bonuses to doctors, admissions directors and branch managers;
(5) giving pizza parties, gift cards and other extras to its registered nurses and social workers for meeting admission targets;
(6) pay to nursing home doctors who double as hospice medical directors; and
(7) paying incentives to medical directors of hospices.


The inspector general of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department is probing hospice marketing practices and financial relationships with nursing facilities. The inquiry was spawned by a 2009 report by the Medpac commission, a congressional advisory body, that found hospices “aggressively marketed” to nursing-home patients, and paid incentives to medical directors for “inappropriate” referrals and enrollments.

Complicated Laws

Under various federal statutes, paying for patient referrals or compensating employees based on the number of Medicare patients recruited may be illegal. But the laws are painfully complicated and loaded with exceptions.  A conservative view of health care laws bars all employees and contractors from earning bonuses based on Medicare enrollment goals, including salesmen and managers. In structuring bonuses, it is critical to seek legal advice from an established and experienced health care lawyer before establishing the parameters.


Posted by Tracy Green, Esq. Please email Ms. Green at tgreen@greenassoc.com or call her at 213-233-2260 to schedule a complimentary 15-minute consultation.  

Any questions or comments  should be directed to Tracy Green, a very experienced Medicare fraud attorney, Medi-Cal fraud attorney, California health care attorney, and California compliance attorney at tgreen@greenassoc.com.

Ex-Beverly Hills School Employee Convicted By Jury In Felony Conflict Of Interest Case: What Can We Learn From This Case?

A recent conflict of interest criminal case serves as a reminder to employees and consultants (public and private) of the need to seek legal advice before entering into contracts and taking actions that could benefit oneself privately.  In the public sector, there could be conflict of interest charges and in the private sector it could lead to embezzlement charges. Compliance is the key and seeking legal advice upfront is important. 


On November 21, 2011, Karen Anne Christiansen, a former Beverly Hills Unified School District official was convicted by a jury of four counts of felony conflict of interest and taking more than $1.3 million through a building management contract she allegedly steered to herself. The criminal case was prosecuted by the Los Angeles County District Attorney, Public Integrity Division. A very experienced prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Max Huntsman, was assigned to the case.


The jury took two days to reach a guilty verdict. Once the verdict was returned, the trial judge, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen Marcus, immediately ordered Christiansen remanded into custody and increased her bail to $400,000.


What happened here? The facts are interesting in that some of the actions Ms. Christiansen and her lawyers took might have forced the government's hand in filing charges against her. Or perhaps her lawyers knew a criminal case was coming and attempted to use civil litigation as a defense. Either way, it was a gamble.


In 2004, Ms. Christiansen was hired by the Beverly Hills School District at a salary of $113,000 per year to be the project manager for the $334 million Measure E Bond.  The allegation was that the secretly negotiated a deal to be an independent contractor through her company Strategic Concepts while performing her employee duties for the school district. Strategic Concepts received the contract and was paid $5.2 million for consulting services between 2006 and 2009. The Beverly Hills School District terminated Strategic Concepts in 2009. 


This case began with civil litigation commenced by Strategic Concepts suing the District for $16 million in damages. The District countersued for $4 million in damages. After the District spent over $1 million on the civil case, the District Attorney's Office became interested, investigated and ultimately filed criminal charges and stayed the civil lawsuit. The conviction in the criminal case will probably be a ground for the District to file a motion for summary judgment. Query as to whether Ms. Christiansen's attorney had fully evaluated her criminal exposure prior to filing a lawsuit and negotiated a comprehensive settlement with the District or decided not to file a civil lawsuit, would the result in this case have been different? 

Sentencing for Ms. Christiansen is scheduled for January 5, 2012 in Department 102 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court in downtown Los Angeles, and she faces a maximum state prison term of eight years. Given that the jury reached a finding that there was an "excessive taking" of $1.3 million, probation may not be an option for Judge Marcus and may be grounds for the higher end of the sentencing range. 


There is a co-defendant in the case as well, Jeffrey Hubbard, 54, the former superintendent of the Beverly Hills Unified School District. He faces three counts of misappropriation of public funds in connection with the case and his case goes to trial next.

Mr. Hubbard – now superintendent of the Newport Mesa Unified School District – was charged in December 2010 with two counts of misappropriation of public funds for allegedly giving Ms. Christiansen more than $20,000 in unauthorized gifts and giving her increases in her car allowance that were unauthorized by the  school board. On Oct. 11, Hubbard was arraigned on a Grand Jury indictment charging him with a new count of misappropriation of public funds. The new charge stems from his alleged direction of a subordinate to give a raise to a female employee without school board authorization. His next court date is December 12 for a pretrial hearing.


We have represented both both private and public employees in criminal investigations or civil lawsuits for "self-dealing" or conflict of interest. Business practices are under greater scrutiny and the laws for public employees are very detailed and complicated. For example, the California Attorney General's Office published a lengthy 136-page Guide to financial conflicts of interest by local and state executive and legislative officials. This is just one small part of conflict of interest laws - and compliance with conflict of interest rules is the best way of avoiding a civil lawsuit, fines or criminal prosecution. 


This case is unusual in that it is a high profile school district and it seems doubtful that Ms. Christiansen did not fully comprehend her criminal exposure prior to filing the civil lawsuit. What seemed like a contract case turned into a criminal case. We have handled many "civil" lawsuits that have criminal implications and therefore become "sensitive" cases that cannot be handled like traditional civil cases. Full evaluation of cases before filing is key to a successful global result.


Posted by Tracy Green, Esq. Please email Ms. Green at tgreen@greenassoc.com or call her at 213-233-2260 to schedule a complimentary 30-minute consultation. 


Any questions or comments  should be directed to Tracy Green, a very experienced California conflict of interest attorney, California self-dealing attorney, California white collar attorney, and California compliance attorney at tgreen@greenassoc.com.