John Chung Law

Client Testimonial

I had a case that I have been working on for the past 6 months or so. When the case was finally concluded, I asked my client if he would be willing to write a short testimonial. I told him he could write whatever he wanted (leaving out any specific identifying details) and that the testimonial would be shared without any edits or changes. Below is what he shared.

The second part of this post is something he texted me when I checked in on him after his first week back to work (10 months post-dismissal). While the first part is very kind, to be honest, the second part is far more meaningful to me.

—

“John Chung Law. I can’t say enough about Mr. Chung, or how he preferred me to call him John.

Recently dismissed from state service, I did what any of us would do, I called CCPOA. They told me that my case would have to go through a panel to decided to either help me or not because what I was dismissed for happened off duty. Instead of leaving my established career to a chance/ a gamble I decided to hire an attorney. But who? Who can help me? And then a name we all hear at work popped into my head. John Chung. I googled his name and his phone number popped up. I gave him a call. No answer. I left a voicemail, and within 10 minutes he gives me a call back. He explained the process in great detail. He knew what was going to happen before it happened. John is an amazing attorney and human being. Do not hesitate to call John. He was there for me any day and time I had questions. Weekends, after 5pm, after 10pm you name it John was there. Because of John I was reinstated and was able to continue with my career. Thank you John.”

- Unedited Client Testimonial

—

“It's been good, I was reminded why I fought to come back. I got warm welcomes, a lot of "glad you're back", a lot of hugs. It made me feel good and less of an idiot for doing what I did. The lieutenant even hit me up and offered me my job back and said the unit wasn't the same with out me. Just good vibes all around. A lot of support from all of them. So thank you.”

Recent Case Update
Central California

On November 1, 2021, a correctional officer was dismissed by CDCR on allegations of dishonesty and negligence surrounding an off duty arrest a year earlier. Although the officer was not a member of the John Chung Law program, because JCL had been recommended by numerous co-workers, the officer contacted JCL and retained us to represent her for her SPB appeal. JCL filed a Notice of Appeal to the California State Personnel Board and began a thorough review of the Notice of Adverse Action and the file materials related to the case. Attorney John Chung contacted the attorney representing CDCR and began discussions about the case and some of the witnesses/evidence we intended to introduce at the evidentiary hearing. As required by SPB regulations, JCL prepared and filed a Prehearing Statement on behalf of the office. Unfortunately, the case could not be resolved at the Prehearing Settlement Conference because CDCR's only offer was a resignation In lieu of termination.

The matter was set for an evidentiary hearing, but attorney Chung continued to discuss the matter with the department attorney and provided additional information about the officer's clean work history and the theory of defense that we intended to present at the hearing. The department attorney was very reasonable and engaged in frank and open discussions about the case. After several weeks of discussion, the hiring authority was agreeable to a modified penalty (suspension in lieu of dismissal) and removal of the dishonesty allegations (there was substantial evidence that the officer had a good faith belief in facts that she wrote in a memorandum that she submitted to the department that may not have been completely accurate). The officer will be returning to work as a correctional officer this week.

We are aware that CDCR has recently modified the Disciplinary Matrix in the Department Operations Manual and that this modification will undoubtedly lead to more employees being disciplined and facing harsher penalties. Nonetheless, JCL will continue to work diligently to represent our members and those that retain us privately.

We received permission from the officer to post a message that she sent to us regarding her case and her decision to retain JCL. The message is found below and is completely unedited or redacted.

---

"I appreciate the work Mr. John Chung put into my case. He was committed to getting the best possible outcome and he did. I was facing dismissal for dishonesty and John managed to reach a settlement which resulted in my reinstatement and removal of the dishonestly allegations. I would highly recommend John. He will be with you every step of the way. He is definitely a great attorney and will not hesitate to recommend him to anyone I know."

In the past 12 months, we have noticed a trend of more and more CDCR peace officers contacting us and seeking representation because their union’s Legal Defense Review Panel declined to provide legal representation beyond the Skelly Hearing.

In the past we have seen this happen occasionally when the allegations of misconduct were primarily related to off-duty conduct. But more and more, we are seeing this happen even when 100% of the allegations are alleged to have occurred while on duty.

Many are shocked to learn that legal representation from their union for the SPB Appeal is not guaranteed, even for full union dues paying members.

For those who do not want to be left without competent legal representation at the time when it is needed most (when your career is on the line), sign up now for our program at

Home - John Chung Law 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. … Co...

After much deliberation and internal structuring, we are opening up enrollment into the John Chung Law Program for employees of CDCR only. Only applications online will be accepted. Please visit our website for details. The new fees apply to new members only. Current members in good standing will continue to be re-billed at their original price.

We strongly encourage you to sign up for a PayPal account during the sign-up process as many people have experienced lapses in membership due to credit/debit cards being lost, stolen, or expired. Signing up for a PayPal account will allow members to link one or more back-up funding sources so that there is no disruption in service if the primary card is invalidated.

We are opening up the enrollment for a limited time and will again re-evaluate our decision if memberships reach a certain level.

Thank you for your trust and participation. We are honored to stand with you.

Home - John Chung Law 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. … Co...

We have been receiving a lot of calls and emails from people wishing to sign up for the John Chung Law Program. Due to a dramatic rise in new memberships over the first half of 2018, we are currently not accepting new members. Our website is being moved to a new hosting platform to better handle our needs and will be in maintenance mode until approximately July 1st.

We are, in the meantime, evaluating our program and staffing to see how we can open up the program to new members again.

Thank you for your support and understanding.

Recent Case Update

Northern California

A correctional officer will be returning to his position this Sunday after being dismissed in June for a slew of allegations, including dishonesty. The department alleged that the officer would routinely watch television while on duty, and therefore was not being alert in the presence of inmates. The department further alleged the officer was dishonest when asked about his observations of other staff regarding their use of inmate televisions or their watching television while on duty. The officer contacted our office after being dismissed and retained JCL for representation at the State Personnel Board. Attorney Arthur Shin was assigned to the case.

Arthur noted after extensive discussions with the officer that, in effect, all staff at the institution had multiple televisions at their disposal to watch while on duty and doing so was a generally accepted practice at the institution. Further, when the officer denied (first to a supervisor, then to OIA) seeing a coworker utilizing an inmate television at the officer's podium, the department's case largely rested on the imprecise timing of a number of inmates as well as the vague memories of staff. Still, as all staff should be alert, especially given the environment of a prison, watching television while on duty was probably not something that should be taken lightly.

The officer's matter was scheduled for hearing tomorrow. However, in discussions between the department attorney and Arthur, the parties were able to reach a settlement imposing a lengthy suspension in lieu of termination given the factors of the case. The hearing has been taken off the State Personnel Board's calendar and the officer now has a return date.

Cases such as these illustrate a couple of things all officers should be aware of. First, what may seem normal, even acceptable, in your institution might actually violate the department's policy or the Government Code. It is thus helpful to be wary of such practices, and if you have any questions, contact a supervisor for guidance. Second, even where this officer felt like he was not doing anything against policy, an officer may have to nonetheless take a significant penalty for what ultimately is decided is against policy.

We would like to congratulate the officer on his coming return. We would also like to thank the administration and the department attorney for taking a critical view of the matter and while deciding some discipline was warranted, the penalty of dismissal was far too great ultimately under these circumstances.

***Final Case Update***

Below is a Case Update from November 2015 involving a correctional officer who was fired from his job and charged with 9 felony fraud counts by the Kern County District Attorney. The criminal case was successfully negotiated and JCL was retained to take over the administrative appeal before the SPB. As noted in the Nov. 2015 update, following a full evidentiary hearing, the SPB revoked the dismissal and imposed a suspension instead. The officer was ordered reinstated in November 2015.

Unfortunately, the story did not end there. On December 24, 2015, CDCR filed a Petition for Rehearing with the SPB. JCL filed a responsive pleading on behalf of the officer. On March 3, 2016, the SPB granted the Petition for Rehearing and ordered further briefing and oral arguments on the case. On July 7, 2016, attorney John Chung appeared before the 5 member State Personnel Board and presented oral arguments as to why the officer should be reinstated. On September 1, 2016, the SPB unanimously found in favor of the officer and issued a Final Order that he be reinstated with a modified suspension. At this point, it had been almost 3 years since the officer's dismissal from CDCR.

CDCR, however, was not quite finished with this officer. After numerous contacts and requests from attorney Chung on when CDCR was going to comply with the SPB and reinstate the officer, CDCR's Office of Legal Affairs indicated that they planned to further appeal and file a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the Superior Court. On March 22, 2017, CDCR filed a 159-page Writ Petition in Sacramento Superior Court (CDCR v. SPB) asking the court to overturn the SPB's decision.

On May 1, 2017, attorney Chung filed an Answer to the Writ as required by statute, but also filed a Demurrer (Motion to Dismiss) and a Cross-Petition for CDCR to Comply with the SPB's Reinstatement Order pending the further litigation in Superior Court. The Demurrer argued that CDCR had failed to file its Writ Petition within the statutory time-period of 6 months as required by Government Code Section 19630. (It should be noted that attorney Chung advised the CDCR attorney handling the case on March 21, 2017, that the statutory period for filing a Writ had already passed, but the CDCR attorney elected to file the Writ the next day anyway). The case was reassigned to a different CDCR attorney after the Writ was filed. That attorney re-evaluated the case based on the officer's Motion to Dismiss, conferred with his superiors at the Office of Legal Affairs, and ultimately took the proper steps to file a Motion to Dismiss the Writ Petition with the Sacramento Superior Court. The new CDCR attorney acted quickly and responsibly and has been very cooperative with the reinstatement process.

On July 19, 2017, the officer walked back onto grounds as a Correctional Officer for the first time in almost 4 years. He and his family have endured the lowest of the lows but have been resilient and strong. The officer will have to return to the Academy to be re-trained (he welcomes the training because he wants to be up-to-date on the department's policies and procedures), but for now, the officer is happy to be back to work with his co-workers and happy to be able to support his family again. There is still the issue of calculating and collecting several years' worth of backpay, interest, benefits, service credits, etc., but what is truly amazing is that the officer is not bitter towards the department. He remains grateful for the ability to serve as a correctional officer and plans to be an excellent employee.

We believe this is the final chapter as there are no further avenues of appeal, and by all accounts, CDCR appears to be cooperative in the reinstatement process. 4 years is a long time to wait for justice, but we agree with this officer that it's worth the fight to be vindicated in the end.

---------

Recent Case Updates
November 2015
Central California

In December 2014, we shared information about a correctional officer who was charged with 9 felony fraud charges by the Kern County District Attorney. (The details of that case can be found in our December 20, 2014, status update below) After wasting a year of continuances with a Beverly Hills defense attorney, the officer contacted John Chung Law to defend him. As it was reported, after 7 months of pretrial hearings, a negotiated plea agreement was reached dismissing all of the felony fraud charges in exchange for a non-fraud related misdemeanor with community service. At that time, the officer was represented in his pending SPB case by CCPOA and we believed that our role in this officer's legal woes was completed.

Following the successful conclusion of the criminal case, however, the officer made arrangements to retain John Chung Law to represent him before the State Personnel Board in the appeal of his dismissal from CDCR in October 2013. The Notice of Adverse Action charged the officer with multiple charges of dishonesty, fraud in securing appointment, worker's compensation fraud, and other related allegations. An SPB Evidentiary Hearing was held in August 2015 in Fresno, California. Attorney John Chung represented the officer throughout the hearing. Attorney Chung was able to demonstrate to the administrative law judge that while the officer made some mistakes in completing his application to become a correctional officer and made some omissions in his worker's compensation related medical questionnaires, the officer's mistakes were reasonable in light of the circumstances and that dismissal was too harsh a penalty for unintentional mistakes.

On November 24, 2015, the State Personnel Board issued a unanimous decision adopting the Administrative Law Judge's decision to overturn the dismissal and modify the penalty to a six month suspension. In particular, the SPB found that while the officer was guilty of inexcusable neglect of duty (in completing the medical questionnaires), the evidence showed that the officer was not dishonest or fraudulent in his CDCR application or his medical questionnaires. The officer was ordered reinstated to his position as a correctional officer and CDCR was ordered to pay back (as of the date of this update) approximately 20 months of back pay, benefits, and interest. We are hopeful that CDCR will not unnecessarily drag this case out any further by appealing the SPB decision, but we are prepared to continue to stand by the officer and his family if they do.

This was a very unique situation where attorney Chung was able to utilize his extensive experience in both criminal and administrative cases to reach a favorable outcome for this officer. The officer first contacted JCL in April 2014, and over countless meetings in both criminal and administrative courts in Bakersfield and Fresno, we have developed a very deep relationship with the officer and his family. We have seen them endure some very difficult times (physically, financially, emotionally, and mentally) as these cases wound their way through the system. But through it all, the officer's family stood by him and supported him every step of the way. In the end, we could not be more thrilled at how both of these cases were ultimately resolved.

CHANGE IN PLANS

For the 1:00 to 3:00 meetings originally scheduled at Chili's, please note that Arthur is at the Starbucks next door. Sorry for any inconvenience.

As was mentioned in a previous post, JCL Attorney Arthur Shin will be in the Rancho Cordova area from the evening of January 9th to the evening of January 10th to discuss membership in the JCL program with potential members and to discuss any work-related disciplinary issues for existing members. In an effort to meet with as many individuals as possible, please note the following meeting times and locations.

January 9th (evening): If you would like to meet with Arthur on the 9th, please contact him directly at [email protected] to arrange a location and time.

January 10th (5:30 AM to 8:00 AM): Arthur will be (as early as possible) at the Starbucks Coffee located at 3195 Zinfandel Drive, Rancho Cordova.

January 10th (1:00 PM to 3:00 PM): Tentatively, Arthur will be at the Chili's Restaurant located at 3199 Zinfandel Drive, Rancho Cordova,

January 10th (5:00 PM to 7:00 PM): Arthur will be at The Lodge, 2801 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova.

Any changes to the locations or times will be posted in new posts and/or updated on this post. If you would like to speak with Arthur but cannot make any of these times, please contact Arthur by e-mail. Failing all else, telephone consultations regarding membership or work-related disciplinary issues can also be arranged.

Please feel free to bring coworkers or refer them to these dates and times. We appreciate your interest and will be happy to assist you as much as possible.

Happy New Year to all CDCR employees from John Chung Law. As was previously posted, JCL Attorney Arthur Shin will be in the Sacramento area between January 9th and 10th to discuss membership with any CDCR employees interested. Due to a scheduling conflict, however, Arthur will be coming into Sacramento later than expected. Therefore, if you would like to meet with Arthur on Monday, January 9th after about 7:00, please e-mail Arthur directly at [email protected] to arrange a time and place to meet. On January 10th, Arthur will be available to meet with potential members (and current members) at various times and locations. All locations on both the 9th and 10th will be in the Rancho Cordova area. Times and exact locations are yet to be determined but we will endeavor to ensure that anyone interested can arrange a time to come before or after standard 1W, 2W or 3W shifts.

If you have an issue you would like to discuss with Arthur privately, please contact him directly to arrange a time and place to meet. While all efforts will be made to accommodate schedules, please note it may be necessary to schedule a phone consultation at a later time.

We look forward to meeting all potential members and clients and whether you can make it out or not, please accept our warmest wishes for a happy and fruitful 2017!

Dear JCL community:

JCL is currently gauging interest in meeting and discussing JCL membership with Attorney Arthur Shin between the evening of January 9, 2017 to January 10, 2017 in the Sacramento area. Arthur would be available to meet with potential members to discuss what membership entails, costs, and the benefits of membership with JCL. CDCR employees with pending cases can also meet with Arthur to discuss their cases and possible representation. Currently, Arthur is planning on being available in the Sacramento area on those dates (times and location are still to be determined). If you are interested in meeting, please contact our office or "like" this post. Location is to be determined but likely in the Rancho Cordova area or thereabouts. Those wishing to discuss their cases in private can also arrange individual meetings with Arthur with no charge.

Please note that membership dues for new members are set to increase sometime in 2017. Current members and members at the time of the increase will continue to be protected at the same rate, so will be unaffected by any rate increase. The exact date and amount of the rate increase has yet to be determined, but due to overwhelming demand, monthly/yearly membership dues will increase within the next year. If you have any questions about membership and how JCL differs from your union, this would be an ideal time to meet and address your questions.

Current members, please note even with the anticipated rate increase, your rate will remain the same. These meetings are to discuss membership with those who are not yet members but would like to meet to ask their questions personally. Of course, current members are also welcome to meet to discuss any personnel issues that they would like to discuss.

We look forward to meeting all current and potential members!

Recent Case Update

Northern California
December 2016

A correctional officer was dismissed effective November 2015. The department alleged the officer brought his brother (an attorney and not a state employee) onto prison grounds without obtaining a gate clearance by representing that his brother was an attorney on official business but was in reality only making a social visit. The department also alleged that the officer was dishonest to a number of administrative staff members when he was confronted about his brother’s visit. Further, the department alleged that the officer was dishonest to OIA when he was interviewed about these events.

The officer contacted our office to assist him in helping him return to work. JCL Attorney Arthur Shin represented the officer after his dismissal from the department.

Arthur noted that the department’s more serious allegations only withstood scrutiny if the gate security procedure was followed. In other words, if none of the institutional procedures designed to prevent unauthorized individuals from entering the institution were utilized, then it was clearly excessive to dismiss the officer for what amounted to a misunderstanding on the proper procedure to allow his brother to enter. In this case, staff at the gate of the institution allowed the brother to enter without following the gate clearance procedures for the institution and other staff within the institution failed to follow similar procedures all designed to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive areas of the prison. Also of concern was the fact that the officer’s supervisor allowed the officer to es**rt his brother into the institution and even offered the use of a state vehicle to facilitate the es**rt. Coupling all this with the fact that the officer’s brother was in fact an attorney made it very clear to us that at no point was the officer dishonest to anyone regarding his brother’s visit, nor would the officer have any reason to otherwise misrepresent the nature of his brother’s visit.

The matter was heard before a State Personnel Board Administrative Law Judge in August 2016. In November 2016, the State Personnel Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to reinstate the officer after a modification of the penalty. The judge did find that given the sensitive nature of the officer’s position, he should have known that his brother’s social visit was likely to be a violation of policy. However, Arthur was able to show that the officer certainly was not dishonest, did not have any reason to be dishonest, and that the penalty of dismissal was clearly excessive. Moreover, where the department called a litany of witnesses to show the officer was dishonest, Arthur was able to discredit those witnesses enough to make their testimonies suspect, or at least highly unreliable. With that, the Administrative Law Judge modified the dismissal and the State Personnel Board ordered the officer to be returned to work after a greatly reduced penalty to address the proven policy violations.

This case illustrates the point that while an employee may have violated some sort of policy, the penalty often imposed by the department is usually excessive. This is especially true when the department essentially ignores the mistakes made on multiple levels by other staff members and punishes an employee for essentially not knowing any better. We want to congratulate the officer for what has been a hard road to travel. As with other cases, the department can still try to turn its fortune around by filing a writ with the Superior Court. However, as the department’s case was based mainly on wholly unreliable testimony by multiple levels of the institution, we think it would be highly unlikely that the department would prevail. As such, we hope the officer can carry on with the rest of his career and put this all behind him with all lessons learned. Congratulations to the officer!