County Pharma Chief’s Second Job ‘Presented a Potential Conflict of Interest’

A county investigation into its top pharmacy official found that she failed to fully disclose a second gig that presented a potential conflict of interest. 

Investigators with the county’s Office of Ethics and Compliance found that Dr. Emily Do, who has served as the county’s full-time chief pharmacy officer since 2019, did not fully disclose that she was working as a partner at a law firm that advises pharmaceutical companies. She has since left the New York-based firm. 

County spokesperson Tim McClain confirmed that Do remains the county’s chief pharmacy officer overseeing county pharmacy practices and standards. It’s unclear if she was disciplined, or forced to leave the second job, because McClain did not answer those questions from Voice.  

The county’s investigation into Do’s second job began in June, after an anonymous tipster alleged that Do had a potentially problematic second job as a partner and patent attorney at Dilworth & Barrese.  

Voice of San Diego reported on Do’s second job in October. At the time, a county spokesperson claimed “no incompatible activities were identified” based on the information Do had provided per county policy. But records show the ethics office had already begun its investigation into Do’s second and interviewed Do and her supervisor, county Medical Care Services Director Jamie Beam.  

Investigators found that Do had “consistently engaged in outside legal work while simultaneously employed by the county.” 

This outside work involved three separate law firms.  One was a four-year gig at a Virginia law firm she said she spent about eight hours a week on, her own law office and the New York-based pharmaceutical law firm. Do said she spent about eight hours a week working for the New York firm, often attending after-hours networking events. 

The county ethics office found Do failed to fully disclose the details of some of her outside employment.  

Namely, investigators noted that Do had reported her role at Dilworth & Barrese in April 2025 on a county disclosure form but simply identified the firm as “D&B” and “labeled her duties as ‘business development, intellectual property’ with no further explanation or description.” 

In a September letter to the county, a managing partner at Dilworth & Barrese, LLP wrote that Do had been a contract employee since April 1, 2025, and had “earned or accrued $131.25 as per the terms of our agreement.” 

In its report, the county ethics office noted that this “limited income” coupled with Do’s title as partner and role with the county raised questions.   

“A reasonable person reviewing these facts could conclude that Dilworth & Barrese, LLP brought [Do] on as partner to parlay her role as chief pharmacy officer into building up clientele on the promise that will add their products to the county formulary list and/or use her experience as chief pharmacy officer to help clients become vendors at other public entities,” the office wrote in its summary report.In an interview with the ethics office, Do said she had a fee-sharing arrangement based on clients she brought to the New York firm and did not disclose her county role during networking events for the law firm. 

“[Do] reported she maintains her position at the county separate from her law practice. She stated she does not practice ‘pharmacy law’ because she did not want to create a conflict,” an investigator wrote.  

Do said that her work as a pharmacist sometimes came up in conversation and that people she met during networking events might “see my LinkedIn” and note her county role. 

“But I don’t go and tell people I’m a chief pharmacy officer because the purpose of this networking is to tell people that I’m a patent attorney,” Do told the county ethics office. 

Until it came down last week, Do’s bio on the Dilworth & Barrese website described her as a patent attorney who “works with independent inventors, healthcare and pharmaceutical companies to protect their intellectual property interests in the United States and abroad.” It did not mention her county role. 

Do told the ethics office she would recuse herself if a law firm client “brought ‘technology or anything that comes in front of the county.’” 

But she refused to share a list of clients with county investigators who wanted to rule out potential conflicts of interest. She told the county she had checked California Bar Association rules and decided she couldn’t. 

“I checked the bar rules, and looks like I can’t provide client’s identity, it’s part of the confidentiality that I am obligated to follow,” Do wrote in a Sept. 17 message to the ethics office. 

In an interview summary, an investigator recounted Do saying she didn’t have any current or previous clients tied to the county.  

The ethics office was unable to verify this absent a client list. 

Do told the ethics office she was focused on supporting clients seeking patents or trademarks while her county role focused “on healthcare delivery,” minimizing potential conflicts. 

“The two areas are separate, and you know, I know who the clients are,” Do said, according to the county ethics report. “If they happen to be, if I have to make a decision at the county related to whatever clients I have in the law practice, you know, I recuse myself. Of course, that’s just the expectation and don’t have any, you know, intellectual property matters in front of the county.” 

In a separate interview, Do’s boss for the past two years told the ethics office that her outside work did not appear to be impacting her performance. 

Though Beam said Do attends “a lot of conferences” on personal time, she said Do was “very driven and very focused.” She said Do also quickly responded to requests and though she had worked from home often until recently, she was now in the office “most of the time.”  

“Beam explained that [Do] has not recused herself from any county business because of her outside employment, and she was not on any sort of source selection committees,” the ethics office wrote. 

But the county ethics office decided Do’s law firm job still represented a “structural conflict of interest.”  

“The nature of the work [Do] performs at her secondary employment conducting business development and marketing represents a potential and perceived conflict of interest in violation of county policies,” the ethics office wrote in its report. “The investigator could not verify whether [Do] has clients who manufacture products prescribed to county patients, clients who are adverse to the county in litigation and/or whether she used her title as chief pharmacy officer to secure clients for her law firm employers.” 

Do did not respond to messages from Voice seeking comment on the outcome of the investigation or the status of her role at Dilworth & Barrese. 

McClain, the county spokesperson, noted that the county “continuously reviews its policies and procedures for opportunities to ensure it attains the highest ethical standards in serving the public.” 

McClain in November shared a draft document that county staff were crafting to help managers in the county’s Health and Human Services Agency assess potential conflicts. McClain didn’t acknowledge whether the situation with Do spurred that effort. He did not respond to a questions from Voice about whether the document had been finalized or the county was implementing other specific changes to minimize potential conflicts. 

“HHSA regularly looks at policies and procedures to assist managers,” he wrote.