Thick packets marked attorney-client privilege landed at the offices of the county’s five supervisors the last week of September.
The packets, which have been read by the staff of at least one supervisor’s office, contained not only information regarding former assistant district attorney Todd Spitzer and the conversation with the Public Administrator/Public Guardian’s Office that would cost him his job but also information about a confidential county investigation, Total Buzz has learned.Almost as quickly as the packets were dropped off, they were collected by county’s lawyers after concerns they contained confidential investigatory information that should not have been released to anyone, even a member of the Board of Supervisors. County counsel asked for them back unopened and unread.
The attorney who distributed the envelopes is Phil Greer, a well-connected political attorney hired by Public Administrator/Public Guardian John S. Williams after he was accused of mismanaging the county agency. The county is reviewing the office’s practices and procedures at the request of Supervisor Pat Bates and then Williams himself.
 |
| Phil Greer |
Greer is representing Williams in his individual capacity and not the county, the county’s chief executive office confirmed.
Spitzer, once thought to be the next district attorney, was fired from the District Attorney’s Office in August for what he was told was “inappropriate contact” with the Public Administrator/Public Guardian’s Office. He called the office to check into accusations the agency was mishandling an elder abuse investigation, he told Total Buzz.
Rick Francis, chief of staff for Supervisor John Moorlach, confirmed the supervisor received the packet of documents from Greer and that staff had reviewed them.
Moorlach’s office had also been contacted by the same citizen who eventually contacted Spitzer accusing Williams’ office of mishandling an investigation.
 |
| Adam Probolsky |
Greer told Total Buzz that neither he nor Williams did anything wrong. Greer said he did not see any of the investigatory case files. The information he sent out was from Williams’ operational files, he said.
It was his understanding the state probate code allowed him to share confidential information with the five supervisors because they are in essence managers of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian’s Office, Greer told us.
“Under the probate code we believe the supervisors have a right and a duty to see the information because it completely exonerates John Williams,” Greer said. “Everybody is working on speculation and innuendos instead of facts.”
County Counsel Nicholas Chrisos disagreed with the legal opinion regarding an investigation into elder abuse and a potential conservatee – and informed Greer of this is a subsequent meeting.
“Just because you’re on the Board of Supervisors doesn’t mean you can see that information,” said Supervising Deputy County Counsel Jim Harvey. “It is not to be disclosed to people who are not entitled to see it.”
 |
| Tom Fuentes |
And it is still unclear what information Greer had access to and who gave it to him.
The county has hired Tim Kay, an attorney with expertise in probate and conservatorship law, to look into Williams’ office. Kay is a partner at Snell & Wilmer, the same law firm where state Assemblyman Van Tran is of counsel.
Greer is a Newport Beach attorney who has become a mainstay at the county hall, representing a number of Orange County politicians, including county Treasurer-Tax Collector Chriss Street and four of the five current county supervisors.
Moorlach is the only one who has not hired Greer.
Total Buzz revealed earlier this month that a transcript of a telephone call that Williams said proves Spitzer acted inappropriately simply does not exist. The transcript is not a transcript of a phone conversation between Spitzer and one of Williams’ supervising deputies, but a memo authored by the supervisor after the fact, Jim Harvey confirmed.
Greer, who sat in on a Register interview with Williams last month and was copied on at least one of Williams’ official e-mails to his staff, refused to hand over the memo.
It was Greer who helped Williams keep his office intact last December when CEO Tom Mauk proposed to split the two offices. Greer appeared in front of the board representing Williams; the board voted 3-2 to allow Williams to keep both jobs.
 |
| Tony Rackauckas |
--Gosh. $10,000? Greer's fee in representing former SOCCCD Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur was $25,000. The odious fellow was negotiating his "exit" from the SOCCCD. The college district paid for Greer's services. But why were such services necessary? No doubt Mathur's mentor, Tom Fuentes, a member of the board, insisted.
 |
| From the April 2010 SOCCCD Board agenda |
