Case Number(s): 04-O-10784-1, 05-O-3394
In the Matter of: Norma M. Molinar, Bar # 120911, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Wonder J. Liang, Bar # 184357
Counsel for Respondent: Jonathan Arons, Bar # 111257
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
Filed: December 26, 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 10, 1985.
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 12 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 prior to February 1 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.
Case Number(s): 04-O-10784, et al.
In the Matter of: Norma M. Molinar SBN 120911 A Member of the State Bar
<<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 days/ six (6) months/ 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 three (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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Norma M. Molinar, SBN 120911
CASE NUMBER(S); 04-O-10784, ET AL.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Facts: Case Number 04--0-10784:
1. In or around May 1995, Adolfo and Nemelyn Caparas ("Caparas") attended a seminar organized by a company called U.S. Immigrant Services Network and met with the owner of the company Chris Aranda ("Aranda") regarding Caparas being out of status since in or around September 1990. Aranda advised Caparas to stay in United States for at least seven years and then file for Suspension of Deportation resulting in obtaining their legal immigrant status.
2. By in or around October 1996, Caparas had lived in the United States for nearly seven years. On or about October 23, 1996, Caparas met with Aranda in an office and orally agreed to pay Aranda $3,000.00 per application totaling $10,000. Caparas paid Aranda the initial retainer of $500.00 to pursue an application for Suspension of Deportation. From in or around 1996 through in or around 1997, Caparas met with Aranda in an office shared with respondent at the Flood Building at 870 Market Street, Suite 1162, in San Francisco. Aranda met with and collected the necessary documents from Caparas.
3. On or about March 25, 1997, Caparas and respondent executed an Application For Asylum and for Withholding of Deportation ("Asylum Application"). At all pertinent times prior to March 25, 1997, Caparas understood that respondent was their attorney although they never met her until on or about March 25, 1997.
4. At the time of the execution of the Asylum Application, respondent met with Caparas and explained that the asylum petition process was the method to get their case before the Immigration Court. She failed to ensure their full and complete understanding of the risks of an unsuccessful petition.
5. On or about March 31, 1997, Elpidio Seletaria, Jr., a legal assistant from U.S. Immigration Services Network, (“Seletaria") on behalf of respondent, submitted Caparas’ Asylum Applications with supporting documents by mail to the U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service ("US INS"). In addition, two Notices of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative of Caparas were executed by respondent and submitted.
6. Thereafter, Caparas were informed by respondent that they needed to provide affidavits from people in the Philippines to support that they were being persecuted.
7. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IlRIRA") became effective on April 1, 1997.
8. Following their asylum interview in which their asylum application was not granted, on or about October 28, 1997, they were ordered to appear for Removal Proceedings before an Immigration Judge.
9. After the January 23, 2003 Removal Heating, the Immigration Judge ordered the following:
-That Caparas be removed from the United States to the Philippines;
-That Caparas’ asylum applications were not granted;
-That Adolfo Caparas’ withholding of removal application was denied; and
-That Caparas’ appeal was due by February 24, 2003.
10. On or about February 3, 2003, respondent and Caparas executed a fee agreement for purposes of pursuing the appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals and Review ("BIA"). Caparas agreed to pay respondent a total of $4,000 with an initial retainer of $2,000 and the remaining $2,000 to be paid in monthly installments of $250.
11. On or about the same date, respondent prepared a Notice of Appeal dated February 3, 2003. However, the Notice of Appeal was not received by the BIA until March 3, 2003.
12. On or about June 2, 2003, the BIA issued its decision denying Caparas’ appeal on the grounds that the Notice of Appeal was untimely. Respondent had thirty days to file a motion for reconsideration -- due on July 2, 2003.
13. In or around June 2003, respondent prepared a "Motion to Reopen After Dismissal of Respondents’ Appeal for Untimeliness." The BIA construed respondent’s motion as a motion for reconsideration. However, the motion for reconsideration was not received by the BIA until July 3, 2003. The BIA denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration on the grounds that it too was untimely.
14. Respondent did not inform Caparas that their appeals were denied.
15. On or about December 9, 2003, Adolfo Caparas received a November 19, 2003 notice from the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") informing him that no further administrative relief was available and ordered him to report for deportation by December 16, 2003.
16. Caparas did not discover the denial of their appeal until Adolfo received the November 19, 2003 letter from DHS on or about December 9, 2003.
Conclusions of Law: Case Number 04-0-10784:
By failing to discuss the risks, implications, or consequences of filing an Asylum Application especially on the eve of the effective date of the ILRIRA, by failing to timely file the notice of appeal and the motion for reconsideration, respondent recklessly failed to perform legal services with competence, in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By failing to inform Caparas that their appeals were denied, respondent failed to keep her clients reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services, in violation of section 6068(m) of the Business and Professions Code.
Facts: Case Number 05-0-3394:
17. On or about February 1, 2002, J. Refugio Aramburo Pina ("Aramburo"), a native of Mexico, called respondent’s office to obtain legal status under the "ten-year" rule. He spoke to Maria De Lourdes Garcia-Rangel ("Lourdes"), a legal assistant and "Hispanic client coordinator," and arranged to meet with respondent on February 4, 2002.
18. On or about February 4, 2002, Aramburo went to respondent’s office expecting to meet with respondent but instead met with Lourdes. At the meeting, Aramburo entered into a fee agreement executed by Lourdes on behalf respondent. Lourdes gave Aramburo a list of documents to obtain such as utility bills, tax returns, pay stubs, etc.
19. Aramburo paid respondent $1,700 and installments of $300 per month totaling $6,000.
20. On or about February 25, 2002, Aramburo met with Lourdes in respondent’s office. Lourdes explained to Aramburo that respondent’s office would be filing an application for political asylum on his behalf. Aramburo only has a sixth grade education and did not understand nor was it explained to him how he would qualify for political asylum or what persecution meant.
21. Lourdes did not adequately explain the application to Aramburo. Nonetheless, Aramburo signed the application for political asylum as instructed.
22. On or about March 13, 2002, Aramburo had his first meeting with respondent. Respondent informed Aramburo that there was no formal asylum for Mexicans, however, the asylum application was a means to get his case before an Immigration Judge under the "ten-year" rule.
23. On or about June 18, 2002, respondent and Aramburo attended a hearing at which time respondent withdrew Aramburo’s asylum application and informed the court that Aramburo will seek relief by applying for Cancellation of Removal.
24. On or about April 28, 2003, the Immigration Judge denied Aramburo’s application for Cancellation of Removal but granted him voluntary departure.
25. On or about May 15, 2003, Aramburo entered into a fee agreement with respondent to pursue an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals and Review ("BIA"). Aramburo paid respondent an initial fee of $1,000 with $300 per month payments totaling $3,500.
26. On or about January 3, 2005, Aramburo met with respondent and discovered for the first time that the BIA had denied his appeal back on July 28, 2004.
Conclusions of Law: Case Number 05-0-3394:
By failing to discuss the risks, implications, or consequences of filing an asylum application, respondent recklessly failed to perform legal services with competence, in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By failing to inform Aramburo that his appeal was denied, respondent failed to keep his clients reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services, in violation of section 6068(m) of the Business and Professions Code.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was November 9, 2006.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of November 9, 2006, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,602.00. 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 2.4(b) provides that culpability of a member of wilfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of wilfully 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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 04-O-10784, et al.
In the Matter of: Norma M. Molinar SBN 120911
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: Norma M. Molinar
Date: 11/27/2006
Respondent’s Counsel: Jonathan I. Arons
Date: November 27, 2006
Deputy Trial Counsel: Wonder J. Liang
Date: 11/27/06
Case Number(s): 04-O-10784, et al.
In the Matter of: Norma M. Molinar SBN 120911
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: Pat McElroy
Date: Dec. 26, 2006
[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 26, 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:
JONATHAN IRWIN ARONS
LAW OFC JONATHAN I ARONS
101 HOWARD ST #310
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
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 26, 2006.
Signed by:
Laine Silber
Case Administrator
State Bar Court