Case Number(s): 03-O-04678
In the Matter of: Morgan Howard Dean King, Bar # 50887, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Wonder J. Liang, Bar #184357,
Counsel for Respondent: Lindsey K. Slatter, Bar # 72692,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
Filed: December 27, 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 January 5, 1972.
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 13 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).
<<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.
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.
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.
Case Number(s): 03-O-04678
In the Matter of: Morgan Howard Dean King, SBN: 50887
<<not>> checked. a. Within 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.
checked. b. Within 0 days/ 0 months/ one 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 3 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.
Other:
IN THE MATTER OF: Morgan Howard Dean King, State Bar No. 50887
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 03-O-04678
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Facts:
1. On or about June 17, 1998, Maurice and Roselyn Chester (“the Chesters”) each singed a notarized Post Nuptial Agreement. Under the terms of the agreement the Chesters retained their separate properties. Specifically, Maurice Chester retained his business known as Nay Area Lease, and Roselyn Chester retained her business P&R Financial Systems, Inc. (d.b.a. Cal-State Funding).
2. On or about December 22, 2002, Wallace Rosenberg (“the Rosenberg matter”) filed a Complaint for Breach of Contact against Maurice Chester and Roselyn Chester, in a matter entitled Rosenberg v. Chester, in the San Mateo County Superior Court, case no. CLJ427633. The Complaint was served on Roselyn Chester on or about December 18, 2002.
3. On or about January 15, 2003, Kenneth Brehnan (“the Brehnan matter”) filed a complaint for Breach of Contract/Warranty, Fraud, Conversion, Statutory Violations and Relief, and Equitable Relief against Maurice Chester and Roselyn Chester, in a matter entitled Kenneth Brehnan, as trustee of the Kenneth & Ilinka Brehnan Living Trust v. Maurice Chester, individually and d.b.a. Bay Area Lease, Roselyn Irene Chester (a.k.a. Rose I Chester, Marcia L. Chester (a.k.a. Maurice L. Riner). P&R Financial Systems, Inc. et al., in the San Mateo County Superior Court, case no. CIV428591.
4. In or about January 2003, Maurice Chester employed respondent to file a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition on his behalf and on behalf of his business, Bay Area Lease.
5. On or about January 24, 2003, respondent filed Maurice Chester’s Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California (Oakland), case no 03-40453. The Chapter 7 Bankruptcy was discharged.
6. On or about February 6, 2003, default was entered against Roselyn Chester in the Rosenberg matter.
7. On or about February 13, 2003, Roselyn Chester employed respondent to represent her in the Rosenberg and Brehnan matters. She paid Respondent $5,000 to represent her in both civil matters.
8. On or about March 5, 2003, the Rosenberg matter was heard. Neither respondent nor Roselyn Chester appeared at the hearing. The court entered judgment against Roselyn Chester for the total amount of $21,037.79.
9. On or about March 19, 2003, Kevin Frederick (“Frederick”) attorney in the Rosenberg matter served respondent with an Application and Order for Appearance and Examination for Enforcement of Judgment (“OEX”), scheduled for April 10, 2003.
10. On or about April 1, 2003, Roselyn Chester was served with the OEX.
11. On or about April 9, 2003, respondent wrote Frederick a letter acknowledging that he represented Roselyn Chester in the Rosenberg matter, that respondent would be fitting a Motion to Set Aside Default, and respondent took the blame for not filing an answer to the compliant in a timely manner. Respondent also confirmed Fredrick’s agreement to take the OEX off calendar.
12. On or about April 17, 2003, respondent sent Frederick a draft of the Motion to Set Aside Default. However, respondent did not file the Motion to Set Aside Default with the Court in April, May, June or July 2003.
13. On or about May 28, 2003, Frederick wrote respondent a letter informing him that if he did not receive the moving papers to set aside his judgment (including a hearing date) in the Rosenberg matter by close business on June 4, 2003, he would reschedule the OEX of Roselyn Chester.
14. On or about June 25, 2003, having not filed his motion to set aside, respondent was served with notice of the OEX set for July 30, 2003.
15. Between on or about June 25, 2003 to on or about July 29, 2003, respondent advised Roselyn Chester that there was no need for her to appear at the OEX.
16. On or about July 30, 2003, Roselyn Chester and respondent did not to appear a the OEX.
17. On or about August 12, 2003, respondent filed a Motion to Set Aside Default but did not include a proposed answer.
18. On or about August 26, 2003, Frederick filed an Opposition to Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment.
19. On or about September 4, 2003, Respondent and Roselyn Chester appeared at the OEX.
20. On or about September 15, 2003, respondent filed a proposed answer for Roselyn Chester via facsimile with the Court.
21. On or about September 16, 2003, a hearing on the Motion for Relief from Default and Judgment was held. Respondent failed to appear. The Court denied Roselyn Chester’s Motion for Relief from Default and Judgment.
22. On or about October 2, 2003, Roselyn Chester’s bank, California Bank and Trust, informed her that her account had been debited in the amount of $21, 096.72, plus a $50 processing fee.
Conclusion of Law:
By failing to exercise due diligence in determining the status of the proceedings in the Rosenberg matter, by failing to promptly file the motion to set aside default and by failing to appear at the July 30, 2003 OEX, respondent recklessly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Profession Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(&), was November 7, 2005.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of November 7, 2005, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $1,983.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only 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 cost in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.7(a) of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provides that “if a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of one prior imposition of discipline as defined by standard 1.2(f), the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceedings shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding unless the prior discipline is imposed was so remote in time to the current proceeding and the offense for which it was imposed was so minimal in severity that imposing greater discipline in the current proceeding would be manifestly unjust.”
Standard 2.4(b) of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provides that “culpability of a member of willfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of willfully 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.”
Respondent admits that the above facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 03-O-04678
In the Matter of: Morgan Howard Dean King, SBN: 50887
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: Morgan D. King
Date: November 28, 2005
Respondent’s Counsel: Lindsay K. Slatter
Date: November 28, 2005
Deputy Trial Counsel: Wonder J. Liang
Date: November 29, 2005
Case Number(s): 03-O-04678
In the Matter of: Morgan Howard Dean King, SBN: 50887
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department are vacated.
On page 2, under section B(1)(b), the court notes that respondent’s prior of discipline was effective March 16, 2000.
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: Joann M. Remke
Date: December 27, 2005
[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 December 27, 2005, 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:
LINDSAY K. SLATTER
FISHKIN & SLATTER LLP
369 PINE ST #627
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
WONDER LIANG, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on December 27, 2005.
Signed by:
Laine Silber
Case Administrator
State Bar Court