Case Number(s): 01-O-04948-RMT
In the Matter of: Ana Maria Patino, Bar # 86606, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Diane J. Meyers, Bar # 146643,
Counsel for Respondent: David A. Clare, Bar # 44971,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted May 31, 1979.
2. The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.
3. All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The stipulation consists of 11 pages, not including the order.
4. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".
6. The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."
7. No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
8. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):
<<not>> checked. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
checked. Costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2007 and 2008. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.)
<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.
IN THE MATTER OF: Ana Maria Patino, State Bar No. 86606
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 01-O-04948-RMT
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Facts
1. Prior to May 25, 2001, Respondent was a subscriber to Claralaw.net ("Claranet"), a private subscription service, operated under the auspices of the California Public Defenders Association ("CPDA). Membership as a subscriber is limited to licensed criminal defense attorneys who must obtain permission from Claranet and sign a license to use the Claranet service. Prior to being admitted as a member with subscriber privileges, applicants must complete a membership form ("agreement form"). The agreement form requires the applicant to give personal information to Claranet. The applicant then must sign an agreement that the information is accurate and that the applicant agrees to conform with the rules of Claranet.
2. On May 25, 2001, Claranet notified Respondent that she was suspended from using Claranet and that her service had been cancelled because she had violated the rules of, and her agreement with, Claranet.
3. On or before June 12, 2001, Respondent obtained the personal information of Lianna Figueroa ("Figueroa"), a member in good standing with the State Bar of California.
4. On or about June 12, 2001, Respondent obtained a "Claranet Subcribers Services Agreement Form" ("form") and without Figueroa’s permission or knowledge, Respondent completed the form, using Figueroa’s identity and personal information and signed Figueroa’s name to the form. Respondent did this in order to apply for, and obtain from CPDA, a membership in Claralaw.net.
5. On June 13, 2001, Respondent purchased a Washington Mutual money order, number 972803261, payable to CPDA for $145. Without Figueroa’s permission or knowledge, Respondent signed the name "Lianna Figueroa" on the money order in the designated area entitled "purchaser’s signature", and used the money order to obtain services from Claranet.
6. Once Respondent gained access to Claranet on June 16, 2001, she continued to use Figueroa’s name without Figueroa’s permission or knowledge by signing Respondent’s Claranet e-mail as "Lianna Figueroa" on June 16, June 28, July 2, July 10 and July 25, 2001.
7. On or about August 27, 2001, Respondent completed a "Claranet Agreement Form-Terms and Conditions Agreement" ("agreement"), and without Figueroa’s permission or knowledge, used Figueroa’s identity and personal information, and signed Figueroa’s name to the agreement in order to obtain the subscription service from CPDA.
8. On August 27, 2001, Respondent purchased a Washington Mutual money order, number 110706519, payable to CPDA for $99. Without Figueroa’s permission or knowledge, Respondent signed the name "Lianna Figueroa" on the money order in the designated area entitled "purchaser’s signature", and used the money order to obtain services from Claranet.
9. On August 30, 2001, Respondent used Figueroa’s name without Figueroa’s permission or knowledge by signing Respondent’s Claranet e-mail as "Lianna Figueroa"
Conclusion of Law
By using Figueroa’s identity and personal information and by signing Figueroa’s name on the form, agreement, money orders, and Claranet e-mail, without Figueroa’s permission or knowledge, to obtain services from CPDA, Respondent committed acts involving moral turpitude in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was December 20, 2005.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.3 provides that culpability of a member of an act of moral turpitude toward a court, client or another person shall result in actual suspension or disbarment depending upon the extent to which the victim of the misconduct is harmed and depending upon the magnitude of the act of misconduct and the degree to which it relates to the member’s acts within the practice of law.
In In the Matter of Mitchell (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 332, an attorney was found culpable of misrepresenting his educational background on his resume over an approximate three-year period. The attorney did not correct or attempt to correct his misrepresentations during a job interview. The attorney’s misconduct was aggravated by two other instances where the attorney had sent a false resume to two other law firms and by the attorney’s untruthful statements to the State Bar in response to interrogatories. The attorney had no prior record of discipline, but only had been an attorney for approximately five years when his misconduct began. The prospective employers suffered no harm from the misconduct. At the time of the misconduct, the attorney’s judgment was clouded because he was concerned about his ability to support his family. A sixty-day actual suspension, a one-year stayed suspension, and a one-year probation was recommended by the Review Department.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Criminal charges were dismissed against Respondent after she demonstrated remorse and acknowledged her misconduct by apologizing to Figueroa, performing community service, and paying a fine. Respondent’s misconduct did not significantly harm Figueroa or Claranet. Prior to Respondent’s misconduct, Respondent had used Claranet to seek advice from experienced and knowledgeable lawyers in criminal law. Respondent viewed Claranet as a vital and invaluable tool for her as a sole practitioner. Respondent decided to use Figueroa’s name to regain access to the Claranet service because she was concerned with the possible effect on her clients that losing the service would have. Respondent did not intend to harm Figueroa. Respondent’s misconduct did not affect any client or the courts. Respondent’s misconduct was aberrational. Respondent has not engaged in further misconduct since these events.
Respondent has demonstrated a significant period of reputable practice and community service, not only before, but after, the occurrence of her misconduct. (ln the Matter of Klein (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 1, 12.) Respondent has performed, and continues to perform substantial pro bono services in the general and legal communities. Among her pro bono activities, she lectures Hispanic students in continuation high schools and other high schools on a variety of topics including self-improvement, getting out of gangs, and the opportunities for Hispanics to receive college scholarships. Respondent also mentors Hispanic women students at Mountain View, Santa Ana and Santiago High Schools in Orange County through the League of United Latin American Citizens. She has mentored approximately two such students each year for the past five years approximately.
Respondent’s prior discipline is over ten years old and the prior misconduct occurred in 1990. As such, the prior discipline should be given lesser weight. (See, e.g., In the Matter of Whitehead (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar. Ct. Rptr. 354, 360, where a hearing referee concluded that the attorney’s prior discipline for an event that occurred twelve years prior to the proceeding before the referee was so remote in time and minimal in nature that imposition of greater discipline based thereon would be manifestly unjust.)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 01-O-04948-RMT
In the Matter of: Ana Maria Patino
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitation and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.
Signed by:
Respondent: Ana Maria Patino
Date: January 5, 2006
Respondent’s Counsel: David A. Clare
Date: January 5, 2006
Deputy Trial Counsel: Diane J. Meyers
Date: January 6, 2006
Case Number(s): 01-O-04948-RMT
In the Matter of: Ana Maria Patino
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 135(b), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 953(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Platel
Date: January 6, 2006
[Rule 62(b); Rules Proc.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles, on January 9, 2006, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
DAVID CLARE, ESQ.
4675 MACARTHUR COURT STE 1250
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
DIANE MEYERS, A/L, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 9, 2006.
Signed by:
Rose M. Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court