Case Number(s): 03-0-02545; 03-0-04082; 04-0-13606; 05-0-02475; 05-O-03032
In the Matter of: Robert M. Ball, Bar # 138482, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Christine Souhrada, Bar # 228256
Counsel for Respondent: Susan Lynn Margolis, Bar # 104629
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: November 9, 2006
<<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 7, 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.
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.
<<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 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.
Respondent has no prior record of discipline during eighteen years of practice. Also see Section V of the Attachment to Stipulation re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.
Case Number(s): 03-0-02545, 03-0-04082, 04-0-13606, 05-0-02475, 05-0-03032
In the Matter of: Robert M. Ball A Member of the State Bar
checked. a. Within 90s days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
<<not>> checked. b. Within days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
<<not>> checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
in the Matter of Robert M. Ball
Case nos. 03-0-02545, 03-0-04082, 04-0-13606, 05-0-02475, 05-0-03032
I. Facts and Conclusions of Law:
Wright case
Facts:
1. In late 2001, Michael Wright ("Wright") met with Respondent to discuss legal representation in two separate matters: a legal malpractice claim, and a claim for defamation and interference with a prospective business advantage. After discussing the matters, Respondent agreed to represent Wright in both cases at a rate of $300 per hour and $3,000 in advanced legal fees.
2. On May 23, 2002, the court scheduled a status conference for July 29, 2002, in the Wright action. On May 23, 2002, the court served notice of the status conference on Respondent and he received the notice.
3. On July 29, 2002, due to a calendaring mistake involving a client with a similar name, Respondent failed to appear at the status conference.
4. On July 29, 2002, the court continued the status conference to September 30, 2002. Thereafter, opposing counsel served notice of the September 30, 2002 continued status conference on Respondent and he received the notice.
5. On September 30, 2002, Respondent failed to appear for the continued status conference. On September 30, 2002, the court scheduled an order to show cause re dismissal ("OSC") for November 27, 2002, because of Respondent’s failure to appear at the September 30, 2002 continued status conference. On September 30, 2002, the court served notice of the November 27, 2002 OSC on Respondent and he received the notice.
6. On November 25, 2002, Respondent signed a substitution of attorney and provided it to Wright’s new attorney Vincent Davis ("Davis").
7. On November 27, 2002, Davis filed the substitution of attorney with the court and the court discharged the OSC.
Legal Conclusions:
8. By failing to appear at the July 29, 2002 and September 30, 2002 status conferences, Respondent acted in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
Montgomery Case
Facts:
9. On January 26, 2000, Vita Montgomery ("Montgomery") employed Respondent to represent her in an appeal pending before the Civil Service Commission ("Montgomery matter"). Montgomery had filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission alleging that she was wrongfully terminated by her employer, the City of Los Angeles. Respondent told Montgomery that he would represent her for $2,000 in advanced legal fees. On this day, Montgomery paid Respondent $2,000 in advanced legal fees for his services and $250 for the initial consultation. Montgomery told respondent at the outset that she wanted her job back.
10. Loyst Fletcher ("Fletcher"), an associate attorney in Respondent’s law office initially handled Montgomery’s case. In April 2001, Fletcher informed Montgomery that the City of Los Angeles had offered to resolve this matter by allowing Montgomery to return to work. Montgomery then told Fletcher that she had changed her mind and was not interested in returning to work because of the way that she was mistreated by the City of Los Angeles.
11. On April 23, 2001, Fletcher sent a letter to the Civil Service Commission indicating that Montgomery did not want to return to work and would be forwarding a demand soon.
12. In May 2001, Fletcher informed Montgomery that he no longer worked in Respondent’s law firm and that Respondent would continue handling her case.
13. Thereafter Respondent failed to communicate with Montgomery about the status of her case.
14. After failing to receive any communications from Respondent, in November 2002, Montgomery called Respondent to discuss her case. Respondent and Montgomery discussed that her case had been administratively closed. Respondent informed Montgomery that he was going to consult with a specialist who assists employees in civil service matters later that day to discuss how to revive her case, and that Respondent would call her back that same night after speaking with the specialist. Respondent did not call Montgomery.
15. After failing to receive any communications from Respondent, in March 2003, Montgomery called Respondent to inquire about her case. Respondent told her that he would look at her file and call the specialist, and then he would call her back. Respondent did not get back to Montgomery.
16. On October 8, 2003, the State Bar opened an investigation, case no. 03-004082, pursuant to a complaint filed by Montgomery ("Montgomery complaint").
17. On November 17, 2003, a State Bar Investigator wrote to Respondent regarding the Montgomery complaint. On December 8, 2003, the investigator wrote to Respondent again regarding the Montgomery complaint.
18. Both the November 17, 2003 and December 8, 2003 letters were placed in sealed envelopes addressed to Respondent at his State Bar of California membership records address. The letters were mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, by depositing for collection by the United States Postal Service in the ordinary course of business on or about the date on each letter. The United States Postal Service did not return the investigator’s letters as undeliverable or for any other reason. Respondent received these letters.
19. The investigator’s letters requested that Respondent respond in writing to specified allegations of misconduct being investigated by the State Bar in the Montgomery complaint. Respondent did not respond to the investigator’s letters or otherwise communicate with the investigator.
Legal Conclusions:
20. By failing to respond to Montgomery’s telephone calls, Respondent failed to respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
21. By not providing a written response to the allegations in the Montgomery complaint or otherwise cooperating in the investigation of the Montgomery complaint, Respondent failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i).
II. Supporting Authority:
Standard 2.4(b) of the Standards For Attorney Sanctions For Professional Misconduct states:
"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."
Standard 2.6 addresses violations of Business and Professions Code section 6068 and mandates "disbarment or suspension depending on 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."
Standard 1.3 sets forth the purposes of discipline as follows: "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. Rehabilitation of a member is a permissible object of a sanction imposed upon the member but only if the imposition of rehabilitative sanctions is consistent with the above-stated primary purposes of sanctions for professional misconduct."
III. Dismissals:
The parties respectfully request that the Court dismiss the following in the interest of justice: Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
IV. Estimate of Costs:
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of October 24, 2006, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $5,120.45. 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.
V. Additional Mitigating Circumstances:
Respondent asserts that he would testify as follows were respondent called to testify in this matter:
Mr. Ball is a 1988 graduate of the University of Southern California Gould School of Law and Economics where he finished near the top of his class. Upon graduation he worked for Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker in Los Angeles, one of the largest law firms in the country.
He has been in practice for 18 years and has no prior record of discipline.
He is a respected professional in the legal community. He has received many awards, including the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Los Angeles District Office Director’s Award in appreciation and recognition of Distinguished Public Service, the Association of Black Personnel in City Government Appreciation Award, and the Coalition for Employment and Economic Development Appreciation Award, to name a few. He is a member of the California State Bar criminal, labor, and employment law sections.
He made headlines in the case of Degrate v. Eaton Corporation where he won a verdict of close to $1.25 million for a homeless man suing his employer after taking the case just a few days before trial. This accomplishment was featured on NBC Dateline and in numerous newspapers and magazines.
He has also created new law in his field, such as in the landmark California Supreme Court decision of Fermino v. Fedco (1994) 7 Cal.4th 701, which expanded the rights of all California employees to sue employers and set the standard for employer-employee relationships in the California workplace.
In another decision; Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1074, he established the rights of all Californians who work for state or local government to pursue statutory claims without being required to go through employer red tape.
He is currently wrapping up a multi-million dollar settlement in a class action suit on behalf of LAUSD bus drivers.
Mr. Ball has received national exposure for his representation of clients and has been featured on Dateline NBC as well as being a guest on the Today Show, Larry King Live, Good Morning America, CBS This Morning, as well as on local television and radio news. He was a commentator during the O. J. Simpson trial. Articles about his cases have appeared in USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Daily Journal, Newsweek, Time, and Jet Magazine, as well as other publications.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 03-0-02545, 03-O-4082, 04-O-13606, 05-O-02475, and 05-O-03032
In the Matter of: Robert M. Ball
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: Robert M. Ball
Date: 10/24/06
Respondent’s Counsel: Susan Lynn Margolis
Date: 11/1/06
Deputy Trial Counsel: Christine Souhrada
Date: 11/2/06
Case Number(s): 03-O-02545, 03-O-04082, 04-O-13606, 05-O-02475, and 05-O-3032
In the Matter of: Robert M. Ball
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: 11/02/06
[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 November 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:
SUSAN L MARGOLIS ATTORNEY AT LAW
MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS LLP
2000 RIVERSIDE DR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90039
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Christine A. Souhrada, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on November 9, 2006.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court