Case Number(s): 03-O-02401-JMR, 04-O-15650
In the Matter of: G. Scott Christenson, Bar # 135434, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Cydney Batchelor, Bar # 114637
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: Program Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
Filed: December 19, 2007
<<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 August 15, 1988.
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. However, except as otherwise provided in rule 804.5(c) of the Rules of Procedure, if Respondent is not accepted into the Alternative Discipline Program, this stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on the Respondent or the State Bar.
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, except for Probation Revocation proceedings. 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." See attached
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law". See attached
6. 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.
7. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7 and will pay timely any disciplinary costs imposed in this proceeding.
8.
Additional aggravating circumstances:
None
Additional mitigating circumstances:
See attached.
IN THE MATTER OF: G. SCOTT CHRISTENSON
CASE NUMBERS: 03-O-02401; 04-0-15650
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the State Bar Act and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 03-O-2401 (Vera)
Facts:
1. In June 2002, respondent was employed by Alejandro and Trinidad Vera (herein, "the Vera family") to represent Mark Vera (herein, "Mr. Vera") in a criminal appeal matter.
2. Respondent failed to prepare or enter into a written fee agreement. However, the Vera family paid respondent $10,000.00 over time in advanced attorney fees for the representation ($2000.00 on June 9, 2002; $1000.00 on August 4, 2002; $7,000.00 on July 2, 2002).
3. In late June or early July 2002, respondent visited Mr. Vera in custody. That was the only time that respondent ever spoke to Mr. Vera or communicated with him, and respondent provided no further legal services on behalf of Mr. Vera.
4. Beginning in August 2002 until he filed a complaint about respondent with the State Bar in May 11, 2003, Mr. Vera wrote several letters to respondent to request a status report on his criminal appeal and for an accounting of the funds that the Vera family paid for the representation. Respondent failed ever to reply, or to provide an accounting.
5. Respondent also failed to refund the unearned $10,000.00 in attorney fees to the Vera family or to Mr. Vera.
Conclusions of Law:
By repeatedly failing to complete the legal services for Mr. Vera, respondent failed to perform with competence the legal services for which he was employed, in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A). By willfully failing to respond to Mr. Vera’s numerous letters from August 2002 to May 2003, respondent failed to respond to Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A). By willfully failing to respond to Mr. Vera’s numerous letters from August 2002 to May 2003, respondent failed to respond to reasonable status inquiries from his client, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m). By willfully failing to provide an accounting to Mr. Vera upon his repeated request, respondent failed to render appropriate accounts to a client regarding all funds of the client coming into his possession, in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 4-100(B)(3). By willfully failing to refund to Mr. Vera or the Vera family any portion of the $10,000.00 advanced attorney fee that he had not earned, respondent failed to refund unearned fees to his client, promptly or at all, in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(D)(2).
Case No. 04-0-15650 (Noble):
Facts:
1. In December 2003, respondent was employed by Jesse Noble to represent him in two criminal cases, one involving "Proposition 36" and one involving a driving under the influence charge.
2. Respondent quoted Mr. Noble a flat fee of $500.00 to represent him on the Proposition 36 case, and a flat fee of $1500.00 to represent him on the DUI case. Respondent failed to provide or enter into a written fee agreement with Mr. Noble.
3. On December 10, 2003, Mr. Noble paid respondent $1000.00 in advanced attorney fees. On December 11, 2003, respondent appeared with Mr. Noble in court on the Proposition 36 case, and Mr. Noble was remanded into custody.
4. Since Mr. Noble was in custody, on January 12, 2004, Mr. Noble’s father paid respondent an additional $1000.00 in attorney’s fees on his son’s behalf.
5. Respondent thereafter appeared in court again with Mr. Noble on the Proposition 36 case, and resolved that matter for his client.
6. However, respondent failed to provide any legal services at all on the DUI case. Respondent also failed to appear at two court appearances on the case (March 26, 2004; April 7, 2004). At an appearance on May 16, 2004, Mr. Noble asked the court to terminate respondent’s services; the court removed respondent as counsel of record at that time.
7. From January 2004 until May 13, 2004, Mr. Noble and his father left numerous telephone messages for respondent to inquire about the status of the DUI case, and to request that respondent appear in court at the next hearing. Mr. Noble’s father also went to respondent’s office a couple times to try to talk to him, to no avail. Mr. Noble also wrote respondent a letter to that effect. Respondent failed to respond to any of their efforts to communicate with him.
8. On May 14, 2004, Mr. Noble wrote to respondent to inform him that he had
8. On May 14, 2004, Mr. Noble wrote to respondent to inform him that he had employed another attorney, and to request a refund of the unearned $1500.00 attorneys fees on the DUI case. Respondent failed to reply, or to refund the unearned fees.
Conclusions of Law:
By repeatedly failing to appear in court with Mr. Noble on the DUI case, or to perform any legal services on that case, respondent failed to perform with competence the legal services for which he was employed, in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3110(A). By willfully failing to respond to Mr. Noble and his father’s numerous telephone calls, Mr. Noble’s father’s visits to respondent’s office, and Mr. Noble’s letters, respondent failed to respond to reasonable status inquiries from his client, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m). By willfully failing to refund to Mr. Noble or his father any portion of the $1500.00 advanced attorney fee that he had not earned on the DUI case, respondent failed to refund unearned fees to his client, promptly or at all, in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(D)(2).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(6), was July 25, 2006.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Facts Supporting Aggravating Circumstances:
Prior record of discipline: As noted in the stipulation, respondent has one prior record of discipline.
Multiple acts of misconduct: As set forth above, the misconduct involved two different clients.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Candor and cooperation: Respondent has been completely candid and cooperative with the State Bar during the resolution of these cases.
Delay in Finalizing Stipulation: Through no fault of Respondent, through a lack of resources, the State Bar delayed finalizing the stipulation that would have resulted in Respondent being enrolled in the State Bar Court alternative discipline program in a timely manner. As a result, Respondent has already been participating in LAP for over one and one-half years at the time this stipulation was executed. In addition, it should be noted that the discipline became effective on June 26, 2005, and the last act of misconduct in the two cases memorialized herein occurred on May 14, 2004 (although some of the violations herein are ongoing).
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Additional Mitigating Circumstances:
Participation in Lawyer’s Assistance Program: On October 8, 2004, Respondent voluntarily contacted the State Bar Lawyer Assistance Program to address his mental health condition. On October 21, 2004, Respondent voluntarily signed a pre-enrollment evaluation plan with LAP. Respondent was then assessed and monitored for a period of time by LAP. On February 24, 2005, Respondent signed a long-term participation plan with LAP. He has remained in full compliance with LAP ever since his first contact.
RESTITUTION.
Respondent waives any objection to immediate payment by the State Bar Client Security Fund upon a claim or claims for the principal amounts of restitution set forth below.
In accordance with the timetable set forth in the Alternative Discipline Contract to be executed between the State Bar Court and Respondent on the captioned cases, Respondent must make restitution as follows:
Alejandro and Trinidad Vera, or the Client Security Fund if it has paid, in the principal amount of $10,000.00, plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from August 1, 2002, until paid in full and furnish satisfactory evidence of restitution to the State Bar Office of Probation
Jesse Noble, or the Client Security Fund if it has paid, in the principal amount of $500.00, plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from May 15, 2004, until paid in full and furnish satisfactory evidence of restitution to the State Bar Office of Probation.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 03-O-2401-JMR; 04-O-15650
In the Matter of: G. Scott Christenson
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitations and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Respondent enters into this stipulation as a condition of his/her participation in the Program. Respondent understands that he/she must abide by all terms and conditions of Respondent’s Program Contract.
If the Respondent is not accepted into the Program or does not sign the Program contract, this Stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on Respondent or the State Bar.
If the Respondent is accepted into the Program, upon Respondent’s successful completion of or termination from the Program, this Stipulation will be filed and the specified level of discipline for successful completion of or termination from the Program as set forth in the State Bar Court’s Statement Re: Discipline shall be imposed or recommended to the Supreme Court.
G. SCOTT CHRISTENSON
Date: 7/25/06
CYDNEY BATCHELOR
Date: 7/25/06
Case Number(s): 03-O-02401; 04-O-15650
In the Matter of: G. Scott Christenson
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 stipulation as to facts and law is APPROVED.
checked. The stipulated facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below.
<<not>> checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department are vacated
On page 7, under Restitution, in case no. 04-O-15650 (Noble matter) the reference to $500 is deleted and replaced with $1,500. In that matter, respondent must make restitution of $1,500 plus interest as specified.
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; or 3) Respondent is not accepted for participation in the Program or does not sign the Program Contract. (See rule 135(b) and 802(d), Rules of Procedure.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Joann M. Remke
Date: 9/5/06
[Rule 630(b), Rules Proc. of State Bar; 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, I served a true copy of the following document(s):
CONFIDENTIAL STATEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSITIONS AND
ORDERS
CONTRACT AND WAIVER FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE BAR
COURT’S ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE PROGRAM
STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
as follows:
By PERSONAL SERVICE by delivering the documents in a sealed envelope or package
clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, addressed as follows:
G. SCOTT CHRISTENSON
180 HOWARD STREET, 6th FLR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
By PERSONAL SERVICE by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
CYDNEY BATCHELOR
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
180 HOWARD STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California, on September 5, 2006.
Laine Silber
Case Administrator
State Bar Court
[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 San Francisco, on March 11, 2008, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
DECISION AND ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS
STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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:
G SCOTT CHRISTENSON
2069 EDGEWOOD DR
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
MARK HARTMAN, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on March 11, 2008.
Signed by:
Lauretta Cramer
Case Administrator
State Bar Court