'Safe' San Diego U.S. attorney pick now in middle of controversy

By: ALLISON HOFFMAN - Associated Press | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:00 PM PDT ∞

Carol Lam speaks during a news conference in this Dec. 2006 file photo, in San Diego, Calif.
Associated Press File Photo
Order a copy of this photo
Visit our Photo Gallery

SAN DIEGO -- It's an odd twist that ousted San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam is the focal point of a growing controversy over the way the Bush administration fired her and seven of her colleagues.

The low-key litigator who made her name prosecuting health care fraud got the job in 2002 because she was seen as a safe choice following a protracted search for a top federal prosecutor in the nation's eighth-largest city.

Democrats investigating the firings have questioned whether Lam's dismissal was linked to her office's corruption prosecution of now-jailed former Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. That investigation has expanded to ensnare a former top CIA official, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who along with his best friend, defense contractor Brent Wilkes, faces fraud and conspiracy charges.

On Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she had no conclusive evidence to prove any connection between the investigation and Lam's firing but is pushing for more information.

Feinstein is among a growing chorus of lawmakers taking the White House to task for the handling of the firings, which critics say were politically motivated. The White House says they were for failing to follow policy objectives. Some lawmakers, including several Republicans, have called for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to step down.

Lam, now a corporate attorney for San Diego-based wireless technology firm Qualcomm Inc., has not commented publicly about her dismissal. She declined to be interviewed for this story.

Lam became U.S. attorney after a drawn-out search to fill the top prosecutor's slot in San Diego. A political independent who had spent less than two years as a Democratic appointee to a state court judgeship, Lam won out over a crowded candidate field that included Jeffrey Taylor, a former Republican Senate committee counsel who now is the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

"She was a wonderful political appointee -- she was a woman, she was Asian-American, she went to Stanford and Yale, clerked for a judge, she was a terrific lawyer and a mother and a wife," said Pete Nunez, a former San Diego U.S. attorney who hired Lam as an assistant U.S. attorney in San Diego in 1986. "She was a superwoman -- what else would you want?"

A career prosecutor, the 47-year-old Lam took the post with plans to shift the caseload away from low-level immigration and drug violations -- San Diego's signature cases -- and focus on breaking up organized immigrant smuggling rings and pursuing white-collar offenses.

Lam, who in 2002 wrote a book on trying medical fraud cases, took the unusual step of personally prosecuting Tenet Healthcare Corp. on charges the company paid kickbacks to doctors for patient referrals. The case resulted in a mistrial, though Tenet later agreed to settle with the government.

Lam's goals put her at odds with her superiors in Washington.

"She won't just say, 'You got me. You're right, I've ignored national priorities and obvious local needs,"' associate attorney general Bill Mercer wrote in an e-mail last July criticizing Lam to his colleague Mike Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty.

Lam met later in the summer with San Diego-area Republican U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, who had publicly criticized her for filing too few immigration cases.

In an e-mail to Justice Department attorney Rebecca Seidel, Lam said she defended her record to Issa by explaining that she had traded "low-end coyote cases" -- a reference to immigrant smugglers -- for more complicated prosecutions of smuggling ringleaders and violent criminals.

"Essentially I must make a choice -- prosecute the coyotes who are smuggling but not endangering anyone, or the rapists and murderers who are coming back to rape and murder again," Lam wrote.

Shaun Martin, a law professor at the University of San Diego who keep tabs on the local legal scene, said no one should be surprised by how Lam did her job.

"She's very strong-willed, and she didn't change her mind," he said. "But Carol turned out to be exactly what everyone thought she'd turn out to be, which was very hardworking, very personally involved, and very willing to get dirty in the details of particular cases."

Biography

NAME: Carol Chien-Hua Lam

BIRTH DATE-AGE: June 26, 1959; 47

EDUCATION: Yale University; Stanford Law School

CAREER: Assistant U.S. attorney in San Diego, 1986-2000; San Diego Superior Court judge, 2000-02; U.S. attorney in San Diego, 2002-February 2007; legal counsel for San Diego-based Qualcomm Inc., February 2007-present

FAMILY: Married geophysicist Mark Burnett in 1986; four children.

Next

More Stories

9 comment(s)[-]Go to Top

Hmmm.... wrote on Mar 21, 2007 5:09 AM:make a choice -- "...prosecute the coyotes who are smuggling but not endangering anyone (a good coyote?), or the rapists and murderers who are coming back to rape and murder again," Lam wrote. ah, Ms. Lam did it ever occur to you that coyotes are helping these rapists and murderer's come back in?

Rule of Law wrote on Mar 21, 2007 5:17 AM:Carol Lam did an outstanding job. The right-wing attack on her whining about wanting more low profile immigration prosecutions is nothing but mindless noise. She not only nailed Cunningham, she not only scared him into finally confessing to his crimes and lies, she followed the trial of dirt which was leading not only to Abramoff, not only to the CIA, but to Dick Cheney himself. That's shy she was fired. It's all part of another Republican coverup, and thank God Congress is back in the control of the Democrats so that the whole truth (which would have been completely suppressed under Republican control) about Lam and 7 other U.S. Attorney's wrongly discharged for base political reasons will finally come out.

Mike the Marine wrote on Mar 21, 2007 7:39 AM:This is the slow bleed attack on the Bush administration described by Murtha. where were all the investigations when Clinton fired and replaced over ninety U.S. attourneys when he came into office.

GG wrote on Mar 21, 2007 12:26 PM:Mike, you're following Rush's orders well. The Clinton thing doesn't work anymore. Everyone now knows that the circumstances were entirely different. Clinton, like all incoming presidents, requested the resignations of government employees who were appointed by the previous administration. More of these resignations are typically accepted when the previous administation was of the opposing party. Bush however, has fired 8 US Attorneys that he appointed himself. All of the fired attorneys had good, if not outstanding performance reviews. US Attorneys are not the front line for administration policy. They are there to uphold the law. We cannot allow the judiciary to be politicized in this way.

Roger P. wrote on Mar 21, 2007 2:21 PM:These attorneys serve at the discretion of the president. Always have and always will. They are political appointments. This is a big hub-bub over nothing but most people want to believe that this is something new because the mainstream press and jokes like Murtha are trying to keep it on the front page. Read Mike's comment above because he is right. GG, if these attorneys were there to uphold the law then why do we have two border patrol agents in prison for doing their job - which it appears no one in government wants done. Oh!, and by the way it was good that Cunningham was convicted.

John wrote on Mar 21, 2007 5:18 PM:GG - 1 Roger and Mike - Zippo

Chris wrote on Apr 5, 2007 9:41 AM:To all those who continue the Republican talking point of "USAs serve at the pleasure of the President": then couldn't that also infer that the White House has a DIRECT hand in these firings, which they have repeatedly denied?

Skeptic wrote on Apr 5, 2007 10:31 AM:"Cognitive dissonance - psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously" Bring up the point that Clinton asked for the resignations of the US Attorneys and ignore the fact that Bush did the same. Keep repeating "serve at the President's pleasure" and ignore the Emails that point to actions taken by the President's Chief of Staff in the removal of the attorneys in question. Keep insisting that Congress is defunding our troops and ignore the President's veto threat. BTW, why is the money in an "Emergency Funding" bill? Didn't the Administration foresee the need for this money any better than they saw the consequences of massaging intelligence?

Jim H wrote on Apr 5, 2007 11:10 AM:Does it not register with anyone that the White House hoped this would never attract attention? That they managed to tuck that "special provision" into the Homeland Security bill, so that these replacements wouldn't have to be approved by the Senate? Once again, Bush and Rove have made a move for unprecedented, and unchecked, power for the executive. When you put together the shifting reasons given for the move, there's a stinker out there.

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.

Submit Comment[-]

(optional)
   

Advertisement

Videos