Case Number(s): 03-O-01392-5
In the Matter of: Suzanne Rand-Lewis, Bar # 126219, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Ashod Mooradian, Bar # 194283
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: March 24, 2010
<<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 11, 1986.
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 9 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. costs added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
<<not>> checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: Costs to paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following three billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.)
<<not>> checked. costs waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. costs entirely waived.
None
None
IN THE MATTER OF: Suzanne Rand-Lewis, SBN 126219
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 03-O-01392-DFM
A. WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY:
The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on February 21, 2007 and the facts and/or conclusions of law contained in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The parties further waive the right to the filing of a Notice of Disciplinary Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
B. FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Suzanne Rand-Lewis ("Respondent") admits that the following facts are true and that she is culpable of the following violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct specified herein.
Stipulations of the Parties regarding the Notice of Disciplinary Charges ("NDC"):
1. Pursuant to Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, rule 262(e)(1) and in the interests of justice, the State Bar hereby dismisses with prejudice Count One of the NDC, which alleged a violation of section 6068(d) of the Business and Professions Code.
2. Pursuant to Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, rule 262(e)(1) and in the interests of justice, the State Bar hereby dismisses with prejudice Count Four of the NDC, which alleged a violation of section 6106 of the Business and Professions Code.
3. Pursuant to Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, rule 262(e)(1) and in the interests of justice, the State Bar hereby dismisses with prejudice Count Five of the NDC, which alleged a violation of section 6106 of the Business and Professions Code.
4. The parties have agreed that Count Three of the NDC, which alleged a violation of section 6068(d) of the Business and Profession Code, will be amended to allege a violation of rule 5-200(B) of the Rules of Professional Conduct only,
Facts:
5. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on December 11, 1986, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.
6. On January 13, 2003, Respondent caused to be filed .a document entitled "Declaration of Gloria Gallegos" in a civil matter entitled Gallegos v. Republic/Charness.
7. Although the declaration purported to have been signed by her client Gloria Gallegos, in fact, Gallegos had not signed the declaration. Rather, Gallegos’ name was signed by Respondent. Further, the declaration bore no indication that it had been signed by anyone other than by Gallegos herself.
8. It is Respondent’s contention that Gallegos’ name was signed by Respondent to the declaration based upon Gallegos’ request and a special power of attorney agreement between Respondent and Gallegos, her client.
9. The State Bar makes no determination regarding Respondent’s state of mind when Gallegos’ name was signed by Respondent on the declaration without indicating that it had been signed by anyone other than by Gallegos herself. Nor does the State Bar acknowledge that Gallegos requested that Respondent sign her name, as Respondent contends.
Conclusions of Law:
10. In presenting a matter to a tribunal, Respondent caused to be filed the Declaration of Gloria Gallegos when Gallegos’ name had been actually signed by Respondent and when the declaration bore no indication that it had been signed by anyone other than by Gallegos herself in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 5-200(B).
C. AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Applicable Standards:
Standard 1.3 provides in relevant part that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings are the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys; and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession
Standard 2.10 provides that culpability of a member "...of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in these standards or of a wilful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3."
Aggravation and Mitigation
There are no aggravating circumstances in this matter. However, pursuant to Standard 1.2(e)(i), Respondent is entitled to mitigation for absence of any prior record of discipline. Specifically, Respondent had been practicing law for seventeen years with no prior record of discipline before the misconduct in this matter occurred. Also, Respondent is entitled to mitigation for good faith pursuant to Standard 1.2(e)(ii).
Therefore, based on the stipulated facts and conclusion of law herein and the presence of mitigating circumstances, a one (1) year stayed suspension from the practice of law is a level of discipline consistent with the applicable standards.
D. PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph A. (7) was March 17, 2010.
E. COSTS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of November 18, 2009, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $4,938.50. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only. 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.
If Respondent fails to pay any installment within the time provided herein or as may be modified by the State Bar Court pursuant to section 6068.10, subdivision (c), the remaining balance of the costs is due and payable immediately and enforceable both as provided in Business and Professions Code, section 6140.7 and as a money judgment unless relief has been granted under rule 286 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 03-O-01392-DFM
In the Matter of: Suzanne Rand-Lewis
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: Suzanne Rand-Lewis
Date: 3/18/2010
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Ashod Mooradian
Date: 3-18-2010
Case Number(s): 03-O-01392-DFM
In the Matter of: Suzanne Rand-Lewis
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: Richard A. Platel
Date: 03-23-10
[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 March 24, 2010, 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:
SUZANNE E. RAND-LEWIS, ESQ.
5990 SEPULVEDA BLVD STE 330
SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91411
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ASHOD MOORADIAN, ESQ., Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 24, 2010.
Signed by:
Rose Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court