State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

STAYED SUSPENSION; NO ACTUAL SUSPENSION

 

Case Number(s): 04-H-11844-RAP

In the Matter of: Leslie Walker VanAntwerp, III, Bar # 112696, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Diane J. Meyers, Bar # 146643

Counsel for Respondent: JoAnne Earls Robbins, Bar # 82352

Submitted to: assigned judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office

Filed: March 30, 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.

A. Parties' Acknowledgments:

1.    Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted January 13, 1984.

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 and order consist of 14 pages.

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 to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: (hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 282, 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.

 

B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.

checked. (1)            Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)].

checked. (a)            State Bar Court case # of prior case 01-O-04248, 02-O-12099

checked. (b)            Date prior discipline effective April 3, 2003

checked. (c)            Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations:

 

Business and Professions Code sections 6068 (m) and 6068 (o) (2); rule 3-110 (A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

checked. (d)            Degree of prior discipline public reproval

<<not>> checked. (e)            If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below or a separate attachment entitled “Prior Discipline”. .

<<not>> checked. (2) Dishonesty:  Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct. 

<<not>> checked. (3) Trust Violation:  Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property.

<<not>> checked. (4) Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

<<not>> checked. (5) Indifference:  Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his or her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (6) Lack of Cooperation:  Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings. 

 checked. (7)           Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:  Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct. See attachment to Stipulation at p. 9.

 <<not>>checked. (8) No aggravating circumstances are involved.

Additional aggravating circumstances:

 

C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigating circumstances are required.

<<not>> checked. (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.

<<not>> checked. (2) No Harm:  Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the misconduct. 

 <<not>>checked. (3) Candor/Cooperation:  Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings. Respondent cooperated fully throughout this matter.

<<not>> checked. (4) Remorse:  Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct. 

<<not>> checked. (5) Restitution:  Respondent paid $  on  in restitution to  without the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.

<<not>> checked. (6) Delay:  These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed.  The delay is not attributable to Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

<<not>> checked. (7) Good Faith:  Respondent acted in good faith.

 <<not>>checked. (8) Emotional/Physical Difficulties:  At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct.  The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.

 <<not>>checked. (9) Family Problems:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature.

<<not>> checked. (10) Severe Financial Stress:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and which were directly responsible for the misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (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/her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (12) Rehabilitation:  Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.

<<not checked>> (13) No mitigating circumstances are involved.

Additional mitigating circumstances:

 

See attachment to stipulation at p. 10.

D. Discipline:

 checked. (1)           Stayed Suspension:

 checked (a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.
 <<not>>checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii) Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
<<not>> checked. ii.         and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.
<<not>> checked. iii.        and until Respondent does the following: .
checked. (b)             The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

checked. (2)            Probation:  Respondent must be placed on probation for a period of two years, which will commence upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter.  (See rule 953, California Rules of Court.)

 

E. Additional Conditions of Probation:

 checked. (1)           During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.

 checked. (2)           Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

 checked. (3)           Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with Respondent's assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.

 checked. (4)           Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.


In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.

<<not>> checked. (5) Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance. During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested, in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must cooperate fully with the probation monitor.

 checked. (6)           Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has complied with the probation conditions.

 <<not>>checked. (7) Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.

checked. No Ethics School recommended.  Reason: See attachment at p. 10.

<<not>> checked. (8) Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office of Probation.

<<not>>checked. (9)  The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:       

<<not>> checked. Substance Abuse Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Law Office Management Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Medical Conditions.

 <<not>>checked. Financial Conditions.

 

F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

checked. (1)            Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination:  Respondent must provide proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation within one year.  Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule 951 (b), California Rules of Court, and rule 321 (a)(1) & (c), Rules of Procedure.

 checked. No MPRE recommended.  Reason: See attachment at p. 10.

 <<not>>checked. (2) Other Conditions:

 


ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

 

IN THE MATTER OF: LESLIE WALKER VAN ANTWERP III

 

CASE NUMBER(S): 04-H- 11844-RMT

 

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

 

Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.

 

Facts

 

1. On or about March 6, 2003, Respondent entered into a Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition ("Stipulation") with the State Bar of California in case numbers 01-O-04248 and 02-0-12099.

 

2. On or about March 13, 2003, the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court filed an order approving the Stipulation and imposing a public reproval with conditions set forth in the Stipulation ("reproval order").

 

3. On or about March 13, 2003, the reproval order was properly served by mail upon Respondent.

 

4. Pursuant to the March 13, 2003 reproval order, Respondent was ordered to comply with the following conditions for a period of one year:

 

a. to comply with the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct;

 

b. to report to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), within 10 days, all changes of information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code;

 

c. to submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation each January 10, April 10, July 10 and October 10 of the condition period attached to the reproval, certifying under penalty of perjury whether he has complied with the State Bar Act, Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of the reproval during the preceding calendar quarter and to file a final report containing the same information no earlier than twenty days prior to the expiration of the condition period attached to the reproval and no later than the last day of said period;

 

d. to pay restitution to Julian Estrada, or the Client Security Fund if appropriate, in the amount of $1,100, plus 10% interest per annum accruing from April 1, 2002 until paid in full, and provide proof of same to the Office of Probation within nine months of the effective date of the disciplinary order;

 

e. to attend State Bar Ethics School ("Ethics School"), pass the test given at the end, and provide satisfactory proof of same to the Office of Probation within one year of the effective date of the disciplinary order; and

 

f. to take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE") and to provide satisfactory proof of same to the Office of Probation within one year of the effective date of the disciplinary order.

 

5. The March 13, 1003 reproval order became effective on April 3, 2003.

 

6. On or about April 28, 2003, Probation Deputy Eddie Esqueda ("Esqueda") of the Office of Probation sent a letter to Respondent in which he reminded Respondent of the terms and conditions of his reproval imposed pursuant to the reproval order. In the April 28, 2003 letter, Esqueda specifically advised Respondent regarding his obligations to file quarterly reports commencing July 10, 2003; submit proof of payment of restitution by January 3, 2004; submit proof of successful completion of Ethics School by April 3, 2004; and submit proof of successful passage of the MPRE by April 3, 2004. Enclosed with the April 28, 2003 letter to Respondent were, among other things, copies of the relevant portion of the Stipulation setting forth the conditions of Respondent’s reproval; an MPRE schedule/information sheet; a quarterly report instruction sheet; a quarterly report form specially tailored for Respondent to use in submitting his quarterly reports; and an information sheet regarding submitting proof of payment of restitution.

 

7. Respondent received the April 28, 2003 letter from Esqueda.

 

8. Respondent failed to timely file with the Office of Probation the quarterly reports that were due no later than July 10, 2003, October 10, 2003, and January 10, 2004. The quarterly report that was due no later than July 10, 2003 was not received by the Office of Probation until July 14, 2003. The quarterly report that was due no later than October 10, 2003 was not received by the Office of Probation until October 16, 2003. And, the quarterly report that was due no later than January 10, 2004 was not received by the Office of Probation until January 28, 2004.

 

9. Respondent failed to timely file with the Office of Probation the final report that was due no later than April 3, 2004. The final report was not received by the Office of Probation until April 12, 2004.

 

10. Although Respondent timely paid restitution to his former client, Julian Estrada, he failed to timely submit to the Office of Probation proof of having paid the restitution, which proof was due no later than January 3, 2004. Respondent did not provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of said restitution until January 28, 2004.

 

11. Respondent failed to timely complete Ethics School and provide proof of same to the Office of Probation, which was to have been completed by April 3, 2004. Respondent tardily completed Ethics School on April 8, 2004.

 

12. Respondent failed to timely take and pass the MPRE and provide proof of same to the Office of Probation, which was to have been completed by April 3, 2004.

 

13. Respondent did take and pass the MPRE on August 13, 2004, which was the very next opportunity to do so.

 

Conclusions of Law

 

14. By failing to timely file the required quarterly reports and final report, failing to timely submit proof of payment of restitution, failing to timely complete Ethics School, and by failing to timely take and pass the MPRE and provide proof of same to the Office of Probation, Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the reproval order.

 

15. By failing to comply with the terms and conditions of the reproval order, Respondent wilfully violated rule 1-1 l 0 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

 

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

 

The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was March 16, 2006.

 

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

FACTS SUPPORTING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

Multiple Acts of Misconduct

 

Respondent belatedly filed three quarterly reports, his final report, and proof of his restitution payment; and belatedly completed Ethics School and the MPRE.

 

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

Respondent was cooperative with the State Bar during this proceeding and expressed remorse for his untimely compliance with the reproval conditions.

 

STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL EXCLUSION.

 

The protection of the public and the interest of justice does not require completion of Ethics School as Respondent attended Ethics School on April 8, 2004 and passed the test given. (See In the Matter of Johnson (Review Dept. 2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 179, 193.)

 

MULTISTATE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EXAMINATION EXCLUSION.

 

The protection of the public and the interest of justice does not require passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination as Respondent took and passed the August 13, 2004 MPRE. (See In the Matter of Carr (Review Dept.1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 108, 119.)

 

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

 

A. The Standards

 

Standard 1.3 provides that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings and imposing sanctions for professional misconduct are "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys; mad the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession."

 

Standard 1.6(a) provides that the appropriate sanction for an act of professional misconduct shall be the sanction set forth in the standards for the particular misconduct found. If aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, a greater degree of discipline than the appropriate sanction shall be imposed or recommended. (Standard 1.6(b)(i).) If mitigating factors outweigh aggravating factors, a lesser degree of discipline than the appropriate sanction shall be imposed or recommended. (Standard 1.6(b)(ii).)

 

Standard 2.9 provides that culpability of a member of wilfully failing to comply with the terms and conditions of a reproval shall result in suspension.

 

Standard 1.7(a) provides that if a member is found culpable of misconduct and has a prior record of one imposition of discipline, the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding unless the prior was remote in time and the offense for which it was imposed was so minimal that it would be manifestly unjust to impose greater discipline in the current proceeding.

 

The Supreme Court gives the Standards "great weight," and will reject a recommendation consistent with the Standards only where the Court entertains "grave doubts “as to its propriety. (In re Naney (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 186, 190; In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal. 4~ 81, 91, 92.) Further, although the Standards are not mandatory, it is well established that the Standards may be deviated from only when there is a compelling, well-defined reason to do so. (See Aronin v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 276, 291; Bates v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 1056, 1060, fn. 2.)

 

B. The Case Law

 

1. Conroy v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 799.

Conroy failed to take and pass the Professional Responsibility Examination ("PRE") as a condition of a private reproval within one year of the effective date of the reproval. Conroy tardily took and passed the PRE at the next available opportunity, before the State Bar filed the reproval violation proceeding. Conroy defaulted at the Heating Department level and was found culpable of a wilful violation of rule 9-101 of the former Rules o f Professional Conduct, the precursor to rule 1-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

 

The Supreme Court deemed Conroy’s belated passage of the PRE at the next available opportunity to be an "extenuating factor," but not "significant mitigation." In aggravation, the Court found that Conroy had the one prior private reproval; that he failed to appreciate the seriousness of the charges and the importance of participating in the State Bar proceedings by defaulting; and that by suggesting on review that his misconduct was a mere technical lapse, he had failed to show remorse for his misconduct. On balance, the Supreme Court concluded that aggravating circumstances significantly outweighed mitigating circumstances and imposed a one-year suspension from practice, stayed, with a one-year period of probation on terms and conditions including a sixty-day actual suspension.

 

2. In the Matter of Meyer (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 697. Meyer violated conditions attached to a private reproval by filing one probation report late, failing to file two other probation reports, and by not certifying his completion of six hours of continuing legal education. In aggravation, Meyer had two prior impositions of discipline (both private reprovals); committed multiple acts of misconduct; showed indifference toward rectification of his misconduct; and failed to cooperate in the proceedings by not filing a pretrial statement; failing to attend three pretrial hearings; and defaulting at the time of trial. There were no circumstances in mitigation. The Review Department concluded that Meyer’s misconduct called for a higher level of discipline than had been imposed by the Supreme Court in Conroy v. State Bar, supra, 51 Cal. 3d 799, and recommended the imposition of a two-year suspension from practice, execution stayed, and a three-year probation on terms and conditions including a 90-day actual suspension.

 

3. In the Matter of Stansbury (Review Dept. 2000) 4 Cat. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 103. Stansbury was publicly reproved in a matter in which he defaulted in the State Bar Court.  Conditions attached to the reproval included Ethics School attendance and payment of restitution to a former client. Stansbury was alleged to have violated both the Ethics School and restitution conditions. He did not answer the notice of disciplinary charges, and his default was entered in the second case, as it had been in the first. The State Bar sought review of the Hearing Department’s default decision due to a disagreement with the Hearing Department’s application of the then recently enacted rule 205 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. The Review Department conducted its review de novo, including the recommended discipline. The Review Department found in aggravation that Stansbury had a prior record of discipline and demonstrated a contemptuous attitude toward the disciplinary proceeding by allowing his default to be entered. The Review Department concluded that In the Matter of Meyer, supra, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 697, provided an apt comparison and recommended the imposition of a two-year suspension from practice, stayed, with a 90-day actual suspension and until several ancillary conditions were met.

 

Conroy, Meyer and Stansbury are more egregious than the current case because they involve a defaulting and/or a non-cooperative attorney. Therefore, it is appropriate to impose less discipline in the current case than that imposed in Conroy, Meyer and Stansbury. The attorney in Meyer had two prior impositions of discipline and presented no mitigating factors. Here, Respondent has only one prior discipline and there are mitigating factors including his cooperation, remorse, his belated passage of the MPRE at the next opportunity; and his recognition of wrongdoing.

 


SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 04-H-11844

In the Matter of: Leslie Walker Van Antwerp, III

 

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: Leslie Walker Van Antwerp, III

Date: 17 March 2006

 

Respondent’s Counsel: JoAnne Earls Robbins

Date: March 20, 2006

 

Deputy Trial Counsel: Diane J. Meyers

Date: 3/22/06

 


ORDER

Case Number(s): 04-H-11844

In the Matter of: Leslie Walker Van Antwerp, III

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: 03/24/06


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[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 30, 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:

 

Joanne Earls Robbins

Karpman & Associates

9200 Sunset Blvd PH #7

Los Angeles, CA  90069

 

checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:

 

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 30, 2006.

 

Signed by:

Johnnie Lee Smith

Case Administrator

State Bar Court