Case Number(s): 02-O-11534; 02-O-13905; 05-O-00327-RAP
In the Matter of: John T. Coates, Bar # 207175, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Eli D. Morgenstern, Bar # 190560,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: April 12, 2005.
<<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 June 2, 2000.
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 12 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):
checked. Costs added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2006, 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.
9. The parties understand that:
<<not>> checked. (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
<<not>> checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 02-O-00527-RAP; 02-O-13905; 05-O-00327-RAP
In the Matter of: John T. Coates
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: John T. Coates
Date: April 5, 2005
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Eli D. Morgenstern
Date: April 5, 2005
Case Number(s): 02-O-00527-RAP; 02-O-13905; 05-O-00327-RAP
In the Matter of: John T. Coates
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:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AND THE REPROVAL IMPOSED.
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department are vacated.
Page 2, (8)(a) -Delete check mark from box.
Page 2, (9)(c) - Add check mark to box.
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.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Platel
Date: April 6, 2005
IN THE MATTER OF: John T. Coates, State Bar No. 207175
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 02-O-11534; 02-O-13905; 05-O-00327-RAP
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 05-O-00327
Facts
1. On or about June 17, 2004, Respondent entered into a Stipulation as to Facts and Agreement in Lieu of Discipline (the "Agreement") with the State Bar, agreeing that the Agreement constituted the appropriate disposition of State Bar Case Nos. 02-O-11534 and 02-O-13905.
2. Under the terms of the Agreement, effective June 22, 2004, Respondent was required to complete six (6) hours of classes in attorney-client relations and legal ethics above and beyond the Minimum Continuing Legal Education requirements within six (6) months or by the compliance due date of December 22, 2004. Respondent was also required to complete State Bar Ethics School by December 22, 2004.
3. The Agreement required that Respondent submit to the Office of Probation proof of completion of the six (6) hours of MCLE classes in attorney-client relations and legal ethics and of State Bar Ethics School.
4. On or about June 24, 2004, the Office of Probation sent Respondent a letter reminding him of the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
5. On or about December 22, 2004, Respondent failed to submit to the Office of Probation proof of completion of the six (6) hours of MCLE classes in attorney-client relations and legal ethics and of State Bar Ethics School.
6. On or about January 5, 2005, the Office of Probation sent Respondent a letter reminding him again of the terms and conditions of the Agreement and requesting that Respondent contact the Office of Probation.
7. In or about April 2005, Respondent submitted proof of completion of the six (6) hours of MCLE classes in attorney-client relations and legal ethics to the Office of Probation. To date, Respondent has failed to provide to the Office of Probation proof of completion of the State Bar Ethics School.
Legal Conclusions
By falling to complete six (6) hours of MCLE classes in attorney-client relations and legal ethics by December 22, 2004, and by never attending the State Bar Ethics School, and by failing to timely submit to the Office of Probation proof of completion of the six (6) hours of MCLE classes in attorney-client relations and legal ethics, and by never submitting to the Office of Probation proof of completion of the State Bar Ethics School, Respondent wilfully failed to keep all agreements made in lieu of disciplinary prosecution with the State Bar in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(1).
Case No. 02-O-11534
Facts
1. On or about October 27,2001, Leslie Kassoy ("Kassoy") retained Respondent to prepare immigration papers for Kassoy’s two sons so that the sons would be allowed to leave China and come to the United States. Kassoy paid Respondent $800 advanced attorney fees and $220 filing fees.
2. On or about February 24, 2002, Kassoy telephoned Respondent to inquire about the status of the immigration papers. At that time, Respondent advised Kassoy that be would complete the immigration papers.
3. Thereafter, Respondent failed to complete the immigration papers and take any legal action on behalf of Kassoy’s sons. Between April 23, 2002 and September 8, 2003, Respondent refunded the advanced attorney fees and the filing fees to Kassoy.
Legal Conclusions
By failing to complete the immigration papers and take any legal action on behalf of Kassoy’s sons, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
Case No. 02-O-13905
Facts
1. On or about March 2001, Vladimir Svidersky ("Svidersky") retained Respondent to represent Svidersky in an immigration matter before the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS"). Svidersky paid Respondent $1,500 in advanced attorney fees.
2. From in or about May 2001 through June 2001, Svidersky telephoned Respondent on several occasions, each time leaving a message requesting a return call from Respondent. On or about June 24, 2001, Svidersky sent Respondent a letter, inquiring as to the status of his immigration matter. At no time did Respondent respond to Svidersky’s calls or correspondence.
3. On or about November 11, 2002, Respondent returned Svidersky’s client file to Svidersky.
4. On or about July 29, 2003, Respondent refunded the $1,500 advanced attorney fees to Svidersky.
Legal Conclusions
By failing to represent Svidersky in his immigration matter before the INS and take any legal action on behalf of Svidersky, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
By wilfully failing to respond to Svidersky’s calls and correspondence, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was April 5, 2005.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of April 5, 2005, the estimated prosecution costs in tiffs matter are approximately $3,608.09. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does not include State Bar Court costs which will be included in any final cost assessment. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
The costs shall be paid in equal parts and shall be added to the membership fees for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standards
Standard 2.4(b) of the Standards For Attorney Sanctions For Professional Misconduct, Title IV of the Rules of Procedure ("Standards") provides that: ’~Culpability of a member of wilfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of wilfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client."
[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 April 12, 2005, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING, filed April 12, 2005
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:
JOHN T COATES ESQ
555 PACIFIC COAST HWY #218
LONG BEACH, CA 90806
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ELI MORGENSTERN ESQ, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on April 12, 2005.
Signed by:
Angela Owens-Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court