Case Number(s): 04-N-11360-PEM; 03-O-03715
In the Matter of: Michael Francis Galligan, Bar # 53572, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Sherrie B. McLetchie, Bar # 85447
Counsel for Respondent: Joseph A. Galligan, Bar # 22397
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
<<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 13, 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 11 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. until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. (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.
00-O-13635, effective June 16, 2002, public reproval, rule 3-110 (A) and Business and Profession Code § 6068(i).
Note: No rule 955 compliance required because respondent has been continuously suspended since his April 30, 2004 filing.
DISMISSAL
Case number 03-0-3715.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
The State Bar Office of the Chief Trial Counsel represents and warrants that:
Count One - 04-N-11360
Facts:
1. On January 12, 2004, the California Supreme Court ordered, among other things, in In re Michael Francis Galligan on Discipline, case number S120130, that Michael Francis Galligan ("respondent") be suspended from the practice of law for 90 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate his actual suspension pursuant to rule 205 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, and that he comply with the provisions of subdivisions (a) and (e) of rule 955, California Rules of Court within in 30 and 40 days, respectively, after the effective date of the order. The effective date of the order was February 11, 2004. The Clerk of the California
Supreme Court served respondent by mail at his State Bar official membership records address with a copy of the January 12, 2004 order.
2. According to the terms of the Supreme Court order, respondent was required to comply with the provisions of subdivision (a) of rule 955 no later than March 12, 2004, and with the provisions of subdivision (e) of rule 955 no later than March 22, 2004.
3. By letter dated February 10, 2004, the Probation Unit of the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel reminded respondent of his obligation to comply with rule 955 and enclosed a copy of the January 12, 2004 Supreme Court order and the text of rule 955. The February 10, 2004 letter was sent to respondent’s State Bar official membership records address.
4. Respondent did not submit a declaration attesting to his compliance with the provisions of subdivision (a) of rule 955 by March 22, 2004. He did, however, submit such a declaration on April 30, 2004 - 39 days late.
Conclusion of Law:
By not timely complying with the provisions of the January 12, 2004 Supreme Court order requiring him to comply with rule 9.55, respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6103.
FACTS SUPPORTING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Candor/Cooperation
Respondent exhibited cooperation with the State Bar by entering into this Stipulation.
Remorse
When respondent learned from a letter from the State Bar that he had missed the deadline to file an affidavit of compliance with the previsions of rule 955(a), California Rules of Court, as ordered by the January 12, 2004 Supreme Court order, he immediately contacted the assigned probation deputy, obtained a copy of the State Bar Court ride 955 compliance form, completed it and personally delivered it to the California Supreme Court and transmitted a copy by facsimile to the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel. When - two days later- respondent learned that he was supposed to file the compliance form with the State Bar Court, rather than the Supreme Court, he personally delivered and filed the compliance form with the State Bar Court.
Good Faith
After failing to file the first two quarterly reports due in case number 00-O-13635, after contact with the assigned probation deputy, respondent filed subsequent quarterly reports. Respondent represents that at the time of his actual suspension from the practice of law pursuant to the effective date of the January 12, 2004 Supreme Court order in S120130 (03-H-491), he was not practicing law, had no clients, and was not
attorney of record in any court. Respondent further represents that he has had several opportunities to make motions to return to the active practice of law, but has delayed taking such action (other than the February 10, 2006 rule 205 motion) because he was unwilling to put the public at risk because of the mental health issues with which he has had to deal.
Severe Financial Stress
Respondent had been a homeowner since 1997 when, due to respondent’s inability to maintain his income level, he and his wife were required to sell their home. The family’s net worth in excess of $250,000 was dissipated by 2001. Respondent was unable to continue to afford medical treatment, which he sought in 2000, because the treatment (mental health) was not covered under his medical policy. By January 2004, respondent was unable to afford the cost of living in traditional housing and was living in an office/warehouse among boxes and furniture stacked from floor to calling and surviving on gross income of less than $600 per month.
Rehabilitation
In November 2003 respondent renewed his attempt to obtain medical assistance from Kaiser Hospital, this time through his ex-wife’s medical plan. Kaiser doctors were able to diagnose the mental health issues which afflicted respondent. Thereafter, respondent began a course of treatment as directed and prescribed by the Kaiser physicians which continues to date. Additionally, respondent voluntarily enrolled in the State Bar’s Lawyer Assistance Program. He has continued active participation for more than two years to date. Further, respondent has been treating with a psychotherapist as directed for approximately one year. Respondent represents that retesting by Kaiser in January 2006 demonstrated significant improvement in respondent’s mental condition.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was June 19, 2006.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of June 19, 2006, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,621.95. 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.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.6(b) ["disbarment or suspension"] of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct applies.
PARTIES WAIVE TIME FOR STATE BAR COURT REVIEW
Because respondent wishes to expedite this resolution, to the extent possible, the parties hereby waive any and all time for Review Department review and administrative processing by the State Bar Court.
MEDICAL CONDITIONS
The following conditions are based on the report of Paul Y. Klein, Psy.D., J.D., dated April 3, 2006:
1) Respondent shall not work for or with family members, specifically his father, brothers, or sister.
2) Respondent shall not allow his work environment to become disorganized.
3) Respondent shall maintain a consistent work schedule.
4) Respondent shall work no more than 20 hours per week and no more than six hours per day for the first four months after he actually resumes the practice of law.
5) During the first four months after respondent actually resumes the practice of law, respondent shall be monitored by an attorney probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and conditions of probation with the probation monitor prior to resuming the actual practice of law to establish a manner and schedule of compliance. Prior to the commencement of the four-month period, Respondent must furnish to the monitor sections VII and VIII of Dr. Klein’s report. 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 and meet with the monitor no less than two times per month. One of the two meetings per month may be by telephone. In each quarterly report due within the four-month period, the probation monitor shall declare under penalty of perjury that he or she has monitored respondent’s successful compliance with his conditions of probation, including observable medical conditions.
6) Respondent shall continue to take his prescribed psychiatric medication during the period of his probation.
RESPONDENT’S STANDARD 1.4(C)(ii) REQUIREMENT
Respondent is currently suspended from the practice of law until he satisfactorily proves to the State Bar Court his rehabilitation, present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the general law pursuant to standard 1.4(.)(ii) of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct as a result of the discipline imposed against him in In re Michael Francis Galligan, Supreme Court case number S120130 (03-H-491). The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel will take into account successful compliance by respondent with all conditions of probation, including medical conditions, stipulated to in this matter, in determining whether to support or oppose a petition for relief from actual suspension by respondent. However, the requirements for relief from actual suspension are broader than mere compliance with probation conditions.
Case Number(s): 04-N-11360-PEM
In the Matter of: Michael Francis Galligan
checked. a. Unless Respondent has been terminated from the Lawyer Assistance Program (“LAP”) prior to respondent’s successful completion of the LAP, respondent must comply with all provisions and conditions of respondent’s Participation Agreement with the LAP and must provide an appropriate waiver authorizing the LAP to provide the Office of Probation and this court with information regarding the terms and conditions of respondent’s participation in the LAP and respondent’s compliance or non-compliance with LAP requirements. Revocation of the written waiver for release of LAP information is a violation of this condition. However, if respondent has successfully completed the LAP, respondent need not comply with this condition.
checked. b. Respondent must obtain psychiatric treatment from a duly licensed psychiatrist at respondent’s own expense a minimum of 4 times per month (Except as excused in advance by the psychiatrist not to exceed four times per year) and must furnish evidence to the Office of Probation that respondent is so complying with each quarterly report. Help/treatment should commence immediately, and in any event, no later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of the discipline in this matter. Treatment must continue for the period of probation or until a motion to modify this condition is granted and that ruling becomes final. The psychiatrist shall submit a written report on a monthly basis to the Office of Probation regarding respondent’s compliance with this condition of probation.
If the treating psychiatrist determines that there has been a substantial
change in respondent’s condition, respondent or Office of the Chief Trial
Counsel may file a motion for modification of this condition with the Hearing
Department of the State Bar Court, pursuant to rule 550 of the Rules of
Procedure of the State Bar. The motion must be supported by a written statement
from the psychiatrist by affidavit or under penalty of perjury, in support of
the proposed modification.
checked. c. Upon the request of the Office of Probation, respondent must provide the Office of Probation with medical waivers and access to all of respondent’s medical records. Revocation of any medical waiver is a violation of this condition. Any medical records obtained by the Office of Probation are confidential and no information concerning them or their contents shall be given to anyone except members of the Office of Probation, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, and the State Bar Court, who are directly involved with maintaining, enforcing or adjudicating this condition.
Other: See Additional Medical Conditions on Page 10.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 04-N-11360-PEM
In the Matter of: Michael Francis Galligan
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: Michael Francis Galligan
Date: June 28, 2006
Respondent’s Counsel: Joseph A. Galligan
Date: June 28, 2006
Deputy Trial Counsel: Sherrie B. McLetchie
Date: June 30, 2006
Case Number(s): 04-N-11360-PEM
In the Matter of: Michael Francis Galligan
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: Joann M. Remke
Date: 7/21/06
[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 San Francisco, on July 21, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
JOSEPH ABEL GALLIGAN
GALLIGAN & BISCAY
630 N SAN MATEO DR
SAN MATEO, CA 94401
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
SHERRIE MCLETCHIE, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on July 21, 2006.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court