Case Number(s): 02-O-15328-LMA
In the Matter of: Joyce C. Sasse, Bar # 107592, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Tammy M. Albertsen-Murray, Bar # 154248,
Counsel for Respondent: Doron Weinberg, Bar # 46131,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
<<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 December 9, 1982.
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 10 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. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: . (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
<<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.
Further to C.(4) above, respondent has exhibited remorse and a recognition of wrongdoing, but under circumstances other than those described in C.(4). Specifically, she has demonstrated remorse for her misconduct throughout her dealings with the State Bar.
Further to C.(2) and C.(5) above, respondent did return inappropriately withdrawn funds in restitution to John Wood, but under circumstances other than those described in C,(2) and C.(5).
Respondent has voluntarily stipulated to the imposition of discipline, thus relieving the State Bar and the State Bar Court of additional expenditure of resources.
Facts.
Respondent and John Wood, her then-husband, were engaged in contentious divorce proceedings. On January 9, 2001, Mr. Wood filed a petition for dissolution from respondent in a matter styled Wood v. Sasse Wood, Contra Costs Superior Court, case number D01-00205. Among their joint assets was a rental property located in San Leandro. The joint assets also included Sanwa and Mt. Diablo bank accounts that held funds relating to the rental property.
In March, 2001 (and again later, in April, 2003), the Court in the dissolution matter issued orders requiring the parties to use the listed bank accounts solely for the benefit of the jointly-owned rental property. Respondent was given primary control over the accounts. Notwithstanding the court’s orders, in December, 2001 respondent issued checks and/or made withdrawals totaling over $32,000.00 out of both bank accounts for purposes other than for the benefit of the rental property.
Prior to May 2003, Woods sought a contempt order against respondent for her improper withdrawal of funds. On May 5, 2003, the court conducted a contempt hearing. On May 13, 2003, the court issued its Decision re: contempt (hereinafter, "Decision"). In its Decision, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) there was a valid specific mandatory order that prohibited respondent from using the property accounts for her own use and benefit; (2) respondent had knowledge of and stipulated to the order; (3) respondent had the ability to comply with the order; (4) and respondent willfully failed to comply with the order by issuing the check for $389.881 to Ellis Brooks, withdrawing and converting funds to the cashier’s check for $9,356.932 and withdrawing and converting funds to the cashier’s check for $23,355.99.3 [Footnote 1: The Decision erroneously listed the amount of the check as $839.88 when the correct amount is $389.88; Footnote 2: The Decision erroneously lists the date of the withdrawal as December 11, 2003, when the correct date is December 11, 2001; Footnote 3: The Decision erroneously lists the amount of the check as $25,358.98 when the correct amount is $23,355.99.] The Court found respondent guilty of three counts of contempt and fined respondent $500 for each count, or a total of $1,500.00.
On July 23, 2001, respondent paid the $1,500 fine.
Following the contempt proceedings, respondent returned all improperly withdrawn funds to the bank accounts.
Conclusions of Law.
Respondent failed to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice, in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(b), when she committed three counts of contempt in violation of the Superior Court orders.
Respondent improperly withdrew and removed funds that also belonged to Woods when she removed the following amounts from the San Leandro accounts for her own use and benefit: check for $389.88 to Ellis Brooks, cashier’s check for $9,356,93 and cashier’s check for $23,355.99. Respondent has since repaid and returned those improperly withdrawn and removed funds to the bank accounts at issue. However, by improperly withdrawing and removing funds from the San Leandro accounts, respondent committed acts of moral turpitude, in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6106.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was August 2, 2007.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No.: 02-O-15328, Count: Three, Alleged Violation: Bus. and Prof. Code, section 6068(a) [Failure to Comply with Laws]
Case No.: 02-O-15328, Count: Four, Alleged Violation: Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 4-100(A) [Failure to Deposit Client Funds in Trust Account]
Case No.: 07-O-10519, Alleged Violation: Investigation Matter - not yet filed - has been closed.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standards 2.3 and 2.6, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California; In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of August 2, 2007, the costs in this matter are $ 3,959.80. 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.
Case Number(s): 02-O-15328-LMA
In the Matter of: Joyce C. Sasse
<<not>> checked. a. Unless Respondent has been terminated from the Lawyer Assistance Program (“LAP”) prior to respondent’s successful completion of the LAP, respondent must comply with all provisions and conditions of respondent’s Participation Agreement with the LAP and must provide an appropriate waiver authorizing the LAP to provide the Office of Probation and this court with information regarding the terms and conditions of respondent’s participation in the LAP and respondent’s compliance or non-compliance with LAP requirements. Revocation of the written waiver for release of LAP information is a violation of this condition. However, if respondent has successfully completed the LAP, respondent need not comply with this condition.
checked. b. Respondent must obtain psychiatric or psychological help/treatment from a duly licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker at respondent’s own expense a minimum of four (4) times per month and must furnish evidence to the Office of Probation that respondent is so complying with each quarterly report. Help/treatment should commence immediately, and in any event, no later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of the discipline in this matter. Treatment must continue for (se period of probation) days or (see period of probation) months or (see period of probation) years or, the period of probation or until a motion to modify this condition is granted and that ruling becomes final.
If the treating psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker
determines that there has been a substantial change in respondent’s condition,
respondent or Office of the Chief Trial Counsel may file a motion for modification
of this condition with the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court, pursuant
to rule 5.300 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. The motion must be
supported by a written statement from the psychiatrist, psychologist, or
clinical social worker, by affidavit or under penalty of perjury, in support of
the proposed modification.
checked. c. Upon the request of the Office of Probation, respondent must provide the Office of Probation with medical waivers and access to all of respondent’s medical records. Revocation of any medical waiver is a violation of this condition. Any medical records obtained by the Office of Probation are confidential and no information concerning them or their contents will be given to anyone except members of the Office of Probation, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, and the State Bar Court, who are directly involved with maintaining, enforcing or adjudicating this condition.
Other:
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 02-O-15328-LMA
In the Matter of: Joyce C. Sasse
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: Joyce C. Sasse
Date: September 13, 2007
Respondent’s Counsel: Doron Weinberg
Date: September 27, 2007
Deputy Trial Counsel: Tammy M. Albertsen-Murray
Date: September 27, 2007
Case Number(s): 02-O-15328-LMA
In the Matter of: Joyce C. Sasse
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 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Pat McElroy
Date: October 9, 2007
[Rule 5.27(b); Rules Proc.; Rule 5.27(B); 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 San Francisco, on October 9, 2007, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
DORON WEINBERG
523 OCTAVIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
TAMMY ALBERTSEN-MURRAY, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on October 9, 2007.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court