Closing arguments held in alcohol control attorney’s lawsuit

SACRAMENTO -- Jurors will soon decide whether a former attorney for the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control was a whistleblower or an underperformer with a poor attitude.

Dean R. Lueders worked for the agency from 2001 until he was fired in 2016. He sued the next year, stating his supervisors retaliated against him for drawing attention to improper communications among staff. Lueders v. California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 34-2017-00219393-CU-WT-GDS (Sac. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 19, 2017).

"Mr. Lueders was a poor performer," Deputy Attorney General Lauren E. Powe said during her closing argument Monday. "His poor attitude and poor performance, combined with his lack of candor required he be monitored."

Lueders' attorney, Daniel M. Siegel with Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta in Oakland, told a very different story.

"In a case like this where you have people testifying so differently, there is a simple solution: trust the documents," Siegel said. "The documents don't lie. Trust the witnesses who do not have a stake."

"I know the difference between a witness and a lawyer," Siegel said. "Ms. Powe spent this afternoon telling you why she thinks Mr. Lueders should have been fired."

But no witness "who we could cross-examine" backed up these claims, he said, reminding the jury, "If an attorney says it, it's just an argument."

Powe cited "poorly drafted briefs," including briefs she said Lueders copied and used almost verbatim in multiple cases, and several alleged instances where she said Lueders failed to provide proof of service of important documents. She also said a review of staff performance showed Lueders, who passed the bar in 1990, made as many mistakes as a first-year attorney in the agency's legal department at the same time.

Siegel argued the defense had exaggerated and misrepresented Lueders shortcomings. The proof of service issues, for instance, cropped up in just a few cases and were addressed the same month, he told the jury. He pointed to performance evaluations showing Lueders exceeded the productivity goals for an attorney with the agency. He also pointed to a "counseling memo" allegedly sent to Lueders to improve his performance, but said the agency never actually included this in his official record.

Jacob L. Rambo, chief counsel with the agency from 2015 to 2018, gave Lueders many chances to improve, Powe told the jury, stating Lueders refused to cooperate. Instead, she said, he engaged in "blame shifting," trying to make it appear others were at fault for his "poor practice skills."

"ABC had to terminate Mr. Lueders," Powe said. "He orchestrated his own dismissal." The defense also claimed Lueders lied in a brief relating to an appeal, a claim that closely preceded his firing.

Lueders' attorney said he was truthful in the document, which concerned whether a store owner had legal representation when he signed a settlement agreement over allegedly selling to an underage customer. In his complaint, Siegel said Lueders was punished for drawing attention to "Quintanar" type communications violations. This is a reference to the 2006 case of Daniel Quintanar, a bar owner whose constitutional due process rights were violated because of improper ex parte communications between the agency's prosecutors and director. He also said investigators with the agency "attested to Lueders' good work over the years." The defense, he said, must prove they "would have fired Mr. Lueders regardless of his protected activity." Siegel invited jurors to look at emails and other documents he said back up his claims.

Siegel also returned to a theme he's touched on throughout the trial: the accusation that Rambo was an abusive and vindictive boss who didn't like anyone questioning how he ran the department, even if there were legal violations.

"The evidence shows that Mr. Rambo is a bully who intimidated the people who worked for him," Siegel said.