Case Number(s): 03-O-4707
In the Matter of: S. Michael Love, Bar # 54004, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Charles T. Calix,
Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1000
Bar # 146853
Counsel for Respondent: Steven G. Amundson,
White, Oliver, Amundson & Gallagher
550 West C Street, Suite 950
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 239-0300
Bar # 73501
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
Filed: November 29, 2011 State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
<<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 14, 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):
<<not>> checked. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
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.
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.
<<not>> 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.
C. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
(1) No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many
years of practice coupled with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.
Respondent was admitted December 14, 1972 and has no prior record of discipline.
(2) Candor/Cooperation: Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and
cooperation with the victims of the member’s misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings;
Once Respondent became aware of the problems caused by his misconduct, he
immediately and profusely apologized to Shirley. After Frank filed a lawsuit against Respondent and Respondent was required to withdraw from representing Shirley, Respondent did everything that he could do to assist her.
(7) Good Faith Respondent acted in good faith.
When Respondent discovered that Harold S. Bottomley, III ("Bottomley"), had
transferred the one-half ownership interest in Warner Springs Ranch that Respondent and his spouse (collectively the ."Loves") had given to Bottomley to Allen, Respondent should have requested that Allen return the interest to Bottomley, but did not do so because he believed that it would be discourteous to have done so and because the Loves’ believed that the one-half ownership interest had no value because they were paying monthly maintenance fees even though they were not using the recreational facilities.
(11) Good character: Respondent’s good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his misconduct.
Respondent served three years with the United States Marine Corps, including 13 months in Vietnam as an Infantry Platoon and Company Commander. Respondent was wounded in combat, was awarded a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star, and left the Marine Corps as a Captain.
Respondent has practiced family law in the same firm since he began practicing law in 1972 and has been a certified specialized in family law since 1980. He has served a Pro Tem for the Superior Court for more than 15 years and as a Pro Tem Settlement Conference Judge for the Superior Court, Family Law Division for more than 20 years. He volunteered his service to the San Diego County Bar Association, the Family Law Bar, and the Family Law Bench, and has served on various continuing legal education panels.
In 1997, Respondent was presented with the 11th Annual Norby Award by the San Diego Family Law Judiciary, which is awarded by the judiciary for service to the bench.
In October 2011, Respondent was named the Best Lawyers’ 2012 San Diego Family Law Lawyer of the Year, which is a honor bestowed on only a single lawyer in each specialty in each community.
If called upon to testify, present and retired judicial officers, his law partners and
employees, co-counsel, opposing counsel, and clients would unanimously testify to
Respondent’s superlative good character, including but not limited to his decency, respectfully treatment of everyone, and his calming and pleasant demeanor, and his honesty and integrity.
Case Number(s): 03-O-04707
In the Matter of: S. Michael Love
Nolo Contendere Plea Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition
The terms of pleading nolo contendere are set forth in the Business and Professions Code and the Rules of Procedures of the State Bar. The applicable provisions are set forth below:
Business and Professions Code § 6085.5 Disciplinary Charges; Pleas to Allegations
There are three kinds of pleas to the allegations of a notice of disciplinary charges or other pleading which initiates a disciplinary proceeding against a member:
(a) Admission of culpability.
(b) Denial of culpability.
(c) Nolo contendere, subject to the approval of the State Bar Court. The court shall ascertain whether the member completely understands that a plea of nolo contendere will be considered the same as an admission of culpability and that, upon a plea of nolo contendere, the court will find the member culpable. The legal effect of such a plea will be the same as that of an admission of culpability for all purposes, except that the plea and any admissions required by the court during any inquiry it makes as to the voluntariness of, or the factual basis for, the pleas, may not be used against the member as an admission in any civil suit based upon or growing out of the act upon which the disciplinary proceeding is based.
Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule 5.56. Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition
“(A) Contents. A proposed stipulation to facts, conclusions of law, and disposition must comprise:
[¶] . . . [¶]
(5) a statement that the member either:
(a) admits the truth of the facts comprising the stipulation and admits culpability for misconduct; or
(b) pleads nolo contendere to those facts and misconduct;
[¶] . . . [¶]
(B) Plea of Nolo Contendere. If the member pleads nolo contendere, the stipulation must also show that the member understands that the plea is treated as an admission of the stipulated facts and an admission of culpability.”
I, the Respondent in this matter, have read the applicable provisions of Business and Professions Code section 6085.5 and rule 5.56 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. I plead nolo contendere to the charges set forth in this stipulation and I completely understand that my plea will be considered the same as an admission of culpability except as stated in Business and Professions Code section 6085.5(c).
Signed by:
Respondent: S. Michael Love
Date: November 22, 2011
IN THE MATTER OF: S. MICHAEL LOVE
CASE NUMBER(S): 03-0-04707
S. Michael Love ("Respondent") pleads nolo contendere to the following facts and violations. Respondent completely understands that the plea for nolo contendere shall be considered the same as an admission of the stipulated facts and of his culpability of the statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct specified herein.
FACTS
1. On or about January 30, 1982, Frank E. Rogozienski ("Frank") and Shirley L.
Rogozienski ("Shirley," collectively the "Rogozienskis") were married.
2. On or about, October 27, 1997, the Rogozienskis separated.
3. On or about October 30, 1997, Shirley filed a petition for dissolution in the San Diego Superior Court ("Superior Court") titled In re the Marriage of Shirley L. Rogozienski and Frank E. Rogozienski, Case No. D440154 ("In re Rogozienski").
4. On or about July 29, 1998, the Rogozienskis stipulated to attorney James D. Allen ("Allen") serving as a temporary judge for all purposes in In re Rogozienski pursuant to Rule 244 of the California Rules of Court.
5. On or about August 4, 1998, the Superior Court approved and ordered Allen to serve as the temporary judge in In re Rogozienski. On or about August 4, 1998, Allen signed the oath to serve as the temporary judge in In re Rogozienski.
6. Between in or about 1999 and in or about late 2004, Respondent was one of the lead attorneys representing Shirley in In re Rogozienski.
7. From approximately August 4, 1998 until approximately March 27, 2003, Allen issued decisions that affected the characterization and distribution of the property interests of the Rogozienskis in In re Rogozienski.
8. As of December 2001, Respondent and his spouse (Respondent and his spouse are collectively referred to as the "Loves") had owned a either two one-half ownership interests or a one-half ownership interest in Warner Springs Ranch since March 1984. Warner Springs Ranch was a time share resort property that permitted owners to use the recreational facilities at the ranch, including but not limited to golf, tennis, horseback riding, and hiking. A one-half ownership interest permitted owners
to use the facilities during odd numbered or even number months. A full ownership interest permitted owners to use the facilities year round.
9. As of December 2001, the Loves were no longer using the recreational facilities at Warner Springs Ranch and were interested in divesting themselves of their two one-half ownership interests (which constituted a full interest that permitted the Loves to use the facilities year round) to avoid paying the monthly maintenance fees.
10. In December 2001, the Loves attended a Christmas Party at Allen’s home (the "Christmas Party"). The attendees included persons from Allen’s office and members of the San Diego family law legal community. While at the party, the Loves met Harold S. Bottomley, III ("Bottomley"), and his spouse (Bottomley and his spouse are collectively referred to as the "Bottomleys"). The Bottomleys told the Loves that Bottomley had .recently played golf at the Warner Springs Ranch and that the Bottomleys were considering becoming owners. The Loves told the Bottomleys that the Loves had two one-half ownership interests that they were no longer using and wanted to know if the Bottomleys would be interested in assuming their interests at no cost to the Bottomleys.
11. Between the Christmas Party and on or about February 8, 2002, Respondent and Bottomley discussed the Loves’ interests in Warner Springs Ranch. Bottomley told Respondent that the Bottomleys were remained interested in assuming the Loves’ two one-half interests, but were concerned about paying the monthly maintenance fees. Bottomley asked Respondent if the Loves would be willing to transfer only one of one-half interests to them. Love told Bottomley that the Loves wanted to give their interests away, but did not want to have to give them away twice. Bottomley told Love that he understood and wanted the interests.
12 Between the Christmas Party and on or about February 8, 2002, Bottomley told Respondent that Bottomley was trying to get Allen to take one of the one-half interests in Warner Springs Ranch. Respondent told Bottomley that Allen was a temporary judge sitting on one of Respondent’s cases and that Respondent could not be involved with Allen. Bottomley indicated to Respondent that Bottomley understood Respondent’s concern.
13. Between the Christmas Party and on or about February 8, 2002, Bottomley asked Respondent if it was possible to convert one of the one-half interests in Warner Springs Ranch so that the two one-half interests could be used during the same months. In response to Bottomley’s question, Respondent called and spoke with the President of the Board of Directors ("Board") of the Warner Springs Ranch. The President told Respondent that the Board had not approved similar requests in the
past, but there were three new members on the Board and to submit a letter to the Board. Respondent prepared and sent a letter to the Board requesting that it allow the conversion of one of the one-half interests so that the two one-half interests could be used during the same months.
14. Between the Christmas Party and on or about February 8, 2002, the Board rejected Respondent’s request. After the Board rejected the request, the President called and spoke with Respondent. The President told Respondent that Warner Springs Ranch offered the option of upgrading one-half ownership interests to full ownership interests for $850. Respondent conveyed the information about the upgrade option to Bottomley.
15. Between the Christmas Party and on or about February 8, 2002, Respondent and Bottomley agreed that the Loves would Quitclaim as a gift a one-half interest in Warner Springs Ranch to the Bottomleys and would Quitclaim as a gift the other one-half interest to Bottomley alone.
16. On or about February 22, 2002, Respondent and/or Bottomley recorded the Quitclaim Deeds transferring one of the Love’s one-half ownership interest in Warner Springs Ranch to the Bottomleys, and transferring the Love’s other one-half ownership interest to Bottomley. The Quitclaim Deeds state that the Loves made a gift of their two on-half interests to Bottomley, which was the intent of the Loves and the Bottomleys.
17. Between on or about February 22, 2002 and on or about March 18, 2002, Allen called Respondent’s office and left a message for Respondent to the affect that Allen was attempting to obtain a title policy for the one-half ownership interest in Wamer Springs Ranch that Allen had received from Bottomley and inquired if Respondent had paid off a lien of the interest
18. On or about March 18, 2002, Bottomley and/or Allen recorded the Quitclaim Deed transferring the one-half ownership interest in Warner Springs Ranch that Bottomley had received from the Loves to Allen.
19. On or about May 20, 2002, Allen recorded the Grant Deed for the one-half ownership interest in Warner Springs Ranch that Allen had received from Bottomley to the Warner Springs Ranch. The one-half ownership interest in Warner Springs Ranch had value.
20. When Respondent discovered that Bottomley had transferred the one-half ownership interest in Warner Springs Ranch to Allen, Respondent should have requested that Allen return the interest to Bottomley, but did not do so because: Respondent believed that it would be discourteous to have done so; the Loves’ believed that the one-half ownership interest had no value because they were paying monthly maintenance fees even though they were not using the recreational facilities;
Respondent believed that no one aware of the facts would consider the transfer of the one-half ownership interest to have been made in an attempt to influence Allen in his capacity as the temporary judge in In re Rogozinski," and the transfer of the one-half ownership interest was not made in an attempt to influence Allen in his capacity as the temporary judge in In re Rogozinski.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
21. By this conduct, Respondent indirectly gave a thing of value to a temporary judge where no personal or family relationship exists such that gifts are customarily given and exchanged in violation of rule 5-300(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was November 22, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
Standard 2.10 of the Standards for Attomey Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provides as follows:
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.
Case Number(s): 03-O-04707
In the Matter of: S. Michael Love
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: S. Michael Love, Steven G. Amundson and Charles T. Calix
Respondent: S. Michael Love
Date: November 22, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel: Steven G. Amundson
Date: November 22, 2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Charles T. Calix
Date: November 28, 2011
Case Number(s): 03-O-04707
In the Matter of: S. Michael Love
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.
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 5.58 (E) & (F), 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: Richard A. Honn
Date: 11/28/11
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; 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 Los Angeles, on November 29, 2011, 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:
Steven G. Amundson
White, Oliver, Amundson and Gallagher
550 West C Street, Suite 950
San Diego, California 92101
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Charles Calix, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California on November 29, 2011.
Signed by:
Angela Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court