DOROTHY CLARK v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS, Napa County Superior Court Case Number 16CV000534.



Attorney William L. Bowen of Bowen and Nguyen is listed by the California Court of Appeals as the attorney for the appellant and plaintiff.




According to Lawzilla's understanding of the Court of Appeals ruling, this is what happened:

Bowen's client, Ms. Clark, was a white woman who claimed racial discrimination and other claims against her employer. The trial court granted judgment for the employer based on papers submitted by each party without needing to go to trial. The trial judge said there was no evidence of any racial discrimination. She then filed an appeal and Mr. Bowen was her attorney.

After reviewing William Bowen, Esq.'s legal brief for the appeal, the Court of Appeal had these scathing comments:

- Bowen had forfeited his client's arguments for the appeal.

- The legal brief did not include material facts and underlying evidence with citations to the record.

- The arguments were incomplete.

- The arguments were conclusory.

- The legal briefs fall well short of the mark.

- Only a single citation to the first page of the "facts" was provided.

- Attorney William Bowen's brief only dealt superficially with the facts.

- Bowen made no attempt to summarize any of the declarations submitted in connection with the motion before the trial court.

- He did not address the evidentiary objections sustained by the trial court.

- In the entire argument section only three page citations to the record were made.

- The reply brief does not grapple with the employer's arguments.

- The reply brief did not address the employer's evidence.

- The reply brief did not include any citations to the record.

- Bill Bowen's client further forfeited any claim there was error by making only conclusory arguments.

Regarding the race discrimination claim, the court of appeal said Bowen for his client had failed to present any "substantial evidence from which a rational trier of fact could reasonably infer any adverse employment action was based on discriminatory animus against Caucasians."

There was no evidence that a rational person could reasonably infer discrimination against white people.

The unanimous court of appeal then affirmed the trial court's ruling for the employer. Bowen lost.





Lawzilla Commentary: Yikes. In our opinion this may be the worst commentary about an attorney's appellate brief we have ever seen from a court of appeal.

The statements from the judges are atrocious. This appears to not simply be legal malpractice or negligence, but incompetence.

Based on this ruling we would not recommend attorney William Bowen for any case.

William Bowen (Bill Bowen) was admitted to the California Bar in 2004. Bar Number 229938.

Bowen and Nguyen, LLP
2540 Douglas Boulevard Suite 200
Roseville, California 95661

Law School: William and Mary




Note: There may be more than one California attorney named William Bowen. This page is about William L. Bowen. If in doubt check the bar number to know which attorney you are dealing with.