Case Number(s): 04-O-10070
In the Matter of: Thomas J. Hastert, Bar # 143101, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Esther Rogers, Bar # 148246
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: assigned judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: December 11, 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 11, 1989.
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 10 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 to be paid in equal amounts 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.
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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Thomas J. Hastert
CASE NUMBER(S): 04-0-10070
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:
Count One
Statement of Facts
Debra Newby is the owner of MGM Investigations & Collections, Inc., a collection agency. In or about July 2001, Newby employed respondent to represent MGM Investigations & Collections, Inc. Beginning in or about mid-2003, respondent and Newby entered into an arrangement regarding those collections matters for which Newby initiated formal litigation. In order to limit the attorney’s fees respondent charged, Newby and respondent agreed that Newby would prepare the complaint and respondent would review and sign the complaint. Thereafter, respondent agreed that Newby could call herself respondent’s paralegal, although she was not employed by respondent in that capacity. In her capacity as "paralegal," Newby sent out correspondence and negotiated settlements. Other than reviewing and signing the complaint and summons, respondent did not have any involvement in many of the cases in which his name appeared as attorney of record.
If the defendant failed to answer the complaint, then respondent permitted Newby to complete the default process by completing the request for entry of default, signing respondent’s name to the request for entry of default and filing the request. Newby filed and signed requests for entry of default judgment on several cases without respondent’s knowledge or supervision.
In several other cases, Newby also completed requests for dismissal, computations of attorney’s fees and acknowledgments of satisfaction of judgments, signed respondent’s name to the documents and filed them without respondent’s knowledge or consent.
Newby practice law when she engaged in the above-described conduct.
Conclusions of Law
By permitting Newby to practice law, respondent aided and abetted the unauthorized practice of law in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(A).
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Standard 1.2(e)(i). No Prior Record. Respondent was admitted in 1989 and has no prior record of discipline.
Standard 1.2(e)(v). Cooperation. Respondent agreed to the imposition of discipline without requiring a hearing.
Standard 1.2(e)(vi). Good Character. Respondent provided three letters attesting to his good character.
Standard 1.2(e)(vii). Recognition of Wrongdoing. As soon as respondent learned that the State Bar considered his conduct unethical, respondent took the following steps to cease allowing Newby to sign any documents on his behalf.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was December 6, 2006.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of December 6, 2006, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,000. 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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 04-O-10070
In the Matter of: Thomas J. Hastert
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: Thomas J. Hastert
Date: 12-1-06
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Esther Rogers
Date: 12/6/06
Case Number(s): 04-O-10070
In the Matter of: Thomas J. Hastert
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.
<<not>> 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 125(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: Robert M. Talcott
Date: 12/11/06
[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 December 11, 2006, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING PUBLIC REPROVAL
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:
THOMAS J. HASTERT
LAW OFC THOMAS J HASTERT
522 BRUNSWICK RD
GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ESTHER ROGERS, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 11, 2006.
Signed by:
Tammy R. Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court