Declaration of Robert Knell
Readable transcription of the original document. The actual signed PDF is linked above and below, and the signature is shown at the bottom of this page.
Declaration of Robert Knell
DECLARATION OF ROBERT KNELL
I, Robert Knell, declare as follows:
All statements made herein under are based upon my personal knowledge except for those stated to be under information and belief. I am writing this Declaration in support of Harris Himes in regard to the proceedings before the State Bar of California.
We first met many years ago, in the 1970’s, when I was a professor of law at the University of La Verne College of Law, and he was a student in my first-year class in Contracts. Subsequently, we became and have remained close friends, so I have always been in a position to evaluate his moral and ethical standards and am writing now with regard to my observations.
I should further stress that after leaving my full-time position at the university, I worked for many years as an Administrative Law Judge for The State of California, a position which has required me to observe closely the behavior of others.
Throughout our long friendship, Mr. Himes has always demonstrated the highest level of integrity, honesty, and moral behavior. He consistently has shown concern for others, and he has treated all people with respect and fairness. These observations are reflected in his actions over the years.
He is a wounded combat veteran, having served our nation with honor and distinction.
Later, he practiced law in California for many years, having done so with an unblemished record.
Subsequently, Mr. Himes was ordained as a minister and later moved to Montana. As a minister, he has acted in support of people in need. While in that State, he for many years has operated a non-profit homeless shelter. In doing so, he has forgone the opportunity to earn higher wages in favor of serving his community in this fashion. In essence, he has provided a home and shelter to people of all faiths and all groups who otherwise would have been totally destitute. His actions in this respect bespeak the highest level of moral and ethical character.
I followed Mr. Himes’s trial in 2013. The jury found him not guilty of theft by deception, conspiracy to commit theft by deception, and conspiracy to commit fraudulent practices. Due to an incorrect jury instruction, he was convicted of fraudulent practices, but this was reversed on appeal and dismissed on remand. Ultimately, he was convicted of essentially regulatory charges of failure to register as a salesperson and failure to register a security. In California, these would be misdemeanors (California Corporations Codes Sections 25210 and 25110, misdemeanors “which may or may not involve moral turpitude”); but they are felonies in Montana.
I am also familiar with Mr. Himes’s appeals to both the Montana Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. I know that he had personal input in the writing of these briefs.
With regard to his criminal sentence in Montana, his probation officer recommended that he be conditionally released from direct supervision. He brought a motion, and his conditional release was granted. I understand that a year after the granting of this motion, he can apply to have his sentence terminated, given that he provides proof of continued good behavior. Mr. Himes is pursuing that avenue.
I am also well acquainted with his proceedings before the California State Bar Court and one day attended his trial before the Court.
With regard to Mr. Himes’s fitness to practice law, In the Matter of Terrones, 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. at 299, attests to Mr. Himes’s fitness to practice law because he exercises the “high moral standards required of all attorneys in the state” in his service to the community and to the homeless. Then there are the traits of “honesty, fairness, candor, trustworthiness, observance of fiduciary responsibility, respect for and obedience to the laws of the state and the nation and respect for the rights of others and for the judicial process” (In the matter of Henschel (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 867 citing Rules Regulating Admission to Practice Law, rule X, § 1.) which demonstrate fitness to practice. As I stated before, I can vouch that Mr. Himes exhibits those traits.
It seems to me that the Bar Court’s Decision substantially exonerates Mr. Himes: “many of Serata’s claims are not credible on their face or are completely contradicted by evidence from other sources,” and Mr. Himes’s misconduct does “not evidence any act of moral turpitude;” his actions consist simply of “modifying and presenting to Serata the written evidence of his investment in Duratherm.”
However, California law required the Court to deem his convictions conclusive:
… the [Montana] Supreme Court was not attempting to resolve credibility issues surrounding the testimony of Geoffrey Serata (Serata), the prosecution’s chief witness; nor was it seeking to weigh or decide the considerable evidence contradicting that testimony. The court was merely setting forth the evidence in “the light most favorable to the prosecution.” As such, the Montana Supreme Court’s summary of that evidence is owed no deference by this court as a finding of fact, except to the extent those facts and legal conclusions were required to establish the two criminal convictions — which are deemed to have been conclusively established [California Business & Professions Code § 6101 — which mandates that convictions must be deemed conclusive].
- Concerning remorse that Mr. Himes has felt or expressed, while Mr. Himes has always maintained his innocence, that does not mean that he feels no remorse for any part he played in this case. The State Bar Court’s Decision addressed this issue to some degree:
Nor does this court conclude that Respondent’s continuing unhappiness and disagreement with the convictions is an aggravating factor. In fact, his convictions may well have resulted from the jury not receiving adequate instructions regarding the definition of a security. But that deficiency resulted from Respondent’s own failure to request the required instruction or to object to it not being provided. The Montana Supreme Court correctly concluded that the issue was waived by Respondent’s inaction at trial and that the description of Serata’s interest in Duratherm as “shares” (rather than as a partnership), when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supported the convictions. While Respondent may be understandably in disagreement with the criminal case’s outcome, there is absolutely no indication that that attitude poses any risk of any future misconduct.
I understand from Mr. Himes that he apologized to Mr. Serata at his sentencing for any harm he caused him, and that remains Mr. Himes’s attitude currently. As he has expressed to me, he regrets what occurred, but he was unaware of the broad net which securities laws cast, and these eventually ensnared him. I am sure that, had he been aware, he would have obeyed them. Even though he advised both Mr. Serata and Mr. Bryant not to do so, Mr. Himes was simply trying to help two people he thought were his friends who wished to form a partnership in a Mexican company, and it went sideways. Mr. Himes’s attitude of contrition is consistent with his personality both as an attorney and a pastor.
- Mr. Himes had an exemplary legal career for over 18 years. He is extremely intelligent, logical, and ethical. There is no doubt in my mind but that he is eminently well-qualified currently to practice law.
The signature on the original document.