Drug Dealer Sues His Attorneys for Malpractice : Law: San Diego lawyers Clyde S. Munsell and Paul A. Di Paolo hit with $3-million suit.

San Diego attorneys Clyde S. Munsell and Paul A. Di Paolo, who have made their share of appearances in court on behalf of clients, now find themselves in the position of defendants and targets of a $3-million malpractice lawsuit filed by a convicted drug dealer.

The lawsuit was filed Aug. 1 in San Diego County Superior Court by Jorge Cazares Ledesma, who is appealing a 1990 drug conviction in U.S. District Court. That conviction and two other federal indictments against Cazares that were later dismissed are the basis for the lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, Cazares alleges that Munsell, 47, and Di Paolo, 42, directed him to arrange a multi-kilo cocaine sale to undercover Las Vegas police officers in what he believed was a ploy to curry favor from prosecutors.

At the time, Cazares, 29, was a Pacific Beach resident awaiting trial in U.S. District Court in San Diego in two separate drug cases.

According to Cazares’ lawsuit, the drug sale was meant to impress federal prosecutors and make them change their minds about rejecting a plea bargain offered by Munsell and Di Paolo on Cazares’ behalf in one of the pending drug cases.

But rather than getting rewarded for arranging the drug deal, Cazares was instead indicted by a federal grand jury in San Diego for his role in arranging the shipment of the cocaine to Las Vegas. This indictment was later dismissed because Cazares was acting under the supervision of Las Vegas police, according to court documents.

Another drug charge against Cazares, which was unrelated to one for which he was convicted, was also dismissed. Sources familiar with the case said that Cazares was one of several defendants named in the indictment and that he agreed to cooperate with investigators.

The drug sale in Las Vegas on Oct. 28, 1989, led to the arrests of three men, including one who, unknown to police, was working as an FBI informant on the drug deal that Cazares had arranged.

According to allegations contained in court testimony and documents, the idea behind the drug deal went beyond a plan that would supposedly help Cazares with authorities. The drug sale also was supposed to help a Munsell client in Iowa who was awaiting sentencing on a drug conviction.

Cazares claims he knew nothing about the other alleged potential beneficiary of the arrangement, a claim used to buttress his malpractice lawsuit.

Munsell failed to return repeated phone calls, and Di Paolo, who recently moved his practice to Virginia, did not return messages left with his answering service.

Last year, Di Paolo testified that he and Munsell never encouraged Cazares to participate in the cocaine delivery to Las Vegas. He also denied advising Cazares that he would get probation with no time in custody by arranging the drug shipment.

In addition, the U.S. attorney who prosecuted Cazares said he is skeptical of Cazares’ story.

Eugene Iredale and Jan Ronis, who are representing Cazares in the malpractice lawsuit, declined to comment. Ronis also represented Cazares in the 1990 criminal case that resulted in Cazares’ conviction. He entered the case after Cazares fired Munsell and Di Paolo.

The strange legal saga, whose many twisted turns are documented in transcripts of trial testimony, began in May, 1989. On that date, Munsell and Di Paolo were separately representing Cazares in two drug cases.

Di Paolo, a former federal prosecutor, was hired by Cazares that May to represent him in a drug case that was later dismissed after he agreed to cooperate with investigators, sources said.

In June of that year, Cazares was facing charges in another federal drug case. But according to a court transcript, Di Paolo referred Cazares to Munsell because of a conflict of interest. Court records show that Di Paolo had worked on the federal case that resulted in Cazares’ second indictment while he was still a U.S. prosecutor.

It was this case that resulted in a conviction and 30-month sentence for Cazares, who is out on $100,000 bail pending an appeal. It is also this case that led to the drug deal arranged by Cazares.

Las Vegas Police Officer Kenneth Wellington testified in July, 1990, in a motion hearing for a new trial, that Munsell introduced him to Cazares and Paul Pierce in Las Vegas on Sept. 20, 1989. At the time, Pierce was awaiting sentencing in Iowa in a federal drug case and was represented by Munsell and Di Paolo.

According to Wellington’s testimony, Munsell left Cazares and Pierce alone in a room with him and another detective while Cazares and Pierce talked to the officers about setting up a drug deal.

Wellington said that after the arrests resulting from the drug deal, Las Vegas police called the Iowa judge who was going to sentence Pierce. The judge agreed to delay Pierce’s entry into jail by 90 days.

“Well, we had already made our phone call for him. . . . All we did was give him 90 extra days of freedom. . . . So we were already paid up for what we were promised out of the deal,” Wellington testified.

A Las Vegas police report of the drug sale noted that, unknown to them, the entire transaction had been under the surveillance of FBI agents from San Diego. When police arrested the suspects, including the FBI informant, FBI agents quickly moved to obtain the informant’s release. It is not known what happened to the other two defendants.

At a July, 1990, hearing in U.S. District Court where Ronis argued unsuccessfully for a new trial for Cazares, he charged that Cazares had been “used” by Munsell and Di Paolo.

Further, Cazares alleges that the drug deal was arranged after the U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego had rejected Munsell’s and Di Paolo’s offer to have Cazares set up the deal in exchange for probation. Cazares said the only reason he carried out the arrangement was to receive probation.

Both Munsell and Di Paolo were subpoenaed to testify at the July, 1990, motion hearing for a new trial about the legal work they did for Cazares. The two attorneys sometimes contradicted each other, and Munsell invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at least a dozen times.

Others involved in the case don’t believe Cazares’ allegations.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Tom Stahl, who prosecuted Cazares, said he was skeptical of Cazares’ allegations. Stahl declined to comment on the malpractice lawsuit, but said he doubted that Munsell and Di Paolo ever told Cazares that they could keep him out of prison if he arranged a drug deal to impress federal prosecutors.

“I was not convinced those representations were ever made,” Stahl said in a brief telephone interview.