Case Number(s): 04-O-10806, 04-O-11100, 04-O-11339, 04-O-11738, 04-O-12937, 05-O-00938
In the Matter of: Thomas G. Hrounda, Bar # 193984, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Eli D. Morgenstern, Bar # 190560,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar # 193984,
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – 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 January 3, 1998.
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 15 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 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2006, 2007 and 2008. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, 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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Thomas G. Hrouda, State Bar No. 193984
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-O-10806 ET AL.
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:
1.) Case No. 04-O-10806
1. On or about February 22, 2002, Mary Eply ("Eply") employed Respondent to represent her in objecting to a foreclosure sale of her house ("foreclosure matter").
2. On or about February 26, 2002, Respondent filed a Complaint on behalf of Eply in the Riverside Superior Court.
3. In or about March 2002, the foreclosure sale of Eply’s house was rescinded. Eply asked Respondent to continue to represent her in obtaining damages.
4. Between on or about January 27, 2003 and on or about September 23, 2003, Respondent communicated to Eply that he was going forward on an action to recover damages in the foreclosure matter. Respondent also informed Eply that hearing for a Motion For Summary Judgment (MSJ) brought the opposing party was going to be heard on October 28, 2003.
5. On or about October 8, 2003, Respondent told Eply that after analyzing all of the evidence he had determined she had no legally recoverable damages. Respondent also told Eply he would not oppose the MSJ.
6. On or about October 28, 2003 Respondent failed to appear at the MSJ hearing. The MSJ was granted and the foreclosure matter was ultimately dismissed without prejudice.
7. On or about December 23, 2003, Eply demanded that Respondent return her file to her.
8. Respondent failed to return the file.
LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
By failing to return the file to Eply, Respondent failed, upon termination of employment to promptly release to a client, at the request of a client, all client papers in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
By failing to appear at the MSJ heating, Respondent failed to perform legal services in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
2.) Case No. 04-O-11100
1. On or about April 24, 2003, Dona Garrison ("Garrison") employed Respondent to represent her in a real estate matter. Specifically Respondent was to file a "Partition of Property by Sale" on behalf of Garrison.
2. Immediately accepting employment, Respondent ceased performing work on Garrison’s behalf, effectively abandoning his client. At no time did Respondent inform Garrison that he was withdrawing from employment.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
By failing to inform Garrison of his intent to withdraw from representing her in the real estate matter, Respondent failed, upon termination of employment, to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his client in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2).
3.) Case No. 04-O-11339
1. On or about June 17, 2003, Kevin Miller ("Miller") employed Respondent to represent him as a defendant in a civil matter.
2. On or about July 18, 2003 Respondent attended a Status Conference in the civil matter.
3. On or about November 17, 2003 Respondent and Miller met with each other to discuss Millers’s responses to discovery that were due November 23, 2003.
4. Immediately after meeting with Miller on or about November 17, 2003, Respondent ceased performing work on Miller’s behalf, effectively abandoning his client. At no time did Respondent inform Miller that he was withdrawing from employment.
5. On or about February 19, 2004, Miller mailed a letter to Respondent which Respondent received. In the letter, Miller terminated Respondent’s services.
6. On or about March 8, 2004, Miller’s new attorney, Franklin Adams ("Adams") mailed a letter to Respondent which Respondent received. In the letter Adams identified himself as Miller’s new attorney in the civil matter and requested that the file be made available to him.
7. Respondent failed to either return the file or make the file available to Adams.
LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
By failing to inform Miller of his intent to withdraw from representing him in the civil matter, Respondent failed, upon termination of employment, to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his client in violation of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2).
By failing to return the file to either Miller or Adams, Respondent failed, upon termination of employment to promptly release to a client, at the request of a client, all client papers in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
4.) Case No. 04-O-11738
1. On or about December 19, 2003, Keith Murray ("Murray") employed Respondent to represent him as a defendant in a civil matter.
2. On or about April 19, 2004, Murray sent Respondent a letter via facsimile transmittal to Respondent, which Respondent received. In his letter, Murray terminated Respondent’s services and demanded that Respondent return the file to his new counsel. In the letter, Murray also provided the name and address of his new attorney.
3. Respondent failed to return any portion of the file to either Murray or his new
counsel.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
By failing to return the file to Murray or Murray’s new counsel, Respondent failed, upon termination Of employment to promptly release to a client, at the request of a client, all client papers in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
5.) Case No. 04-O-12937
1. On or about May 29, 2003, Richard Maier ("Maier") employed Respondent to represent the Maier’s company, the Maier Group, in a breach of contract action. On that date Maier paid Respondent $3,100 for his legal fees.
2. On or about June 9, 2003, Respondent filed a Complaint on behalf of the Maier Group in the Riverside Superior Court.
3. Between on or about July 21, 2003 and on or about November 22, 2003, Maier sent four messages by email to Respondent which Respondent received. In each of the email messages, Maier requested a status of the breach of contract action. Respondent failed to respond to the email messages.
4. On or about May 5, 2004, Maier mailed a letter to Respondent which Respondent received. In the letter, Maier terminated Respondent’s services and demanded a refund of the unearned portion of the $3,100 in fees.
5. On or about August 18, 2004, Respondent mailed an accounting of the fees to Maier. The accounting stated that Respondent’s fees and costs had amounted to $2,076.16.
6. Respondent failed to refund the difference between the $2,076.16 he had earned and the $3,100 he had been paid.
7. Respondent did not cam $1,023.84 in advance fees paid by Maier.
LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
By failing to respond to Maier’s requests for the status of his breach of contract action, Respondent failed to respond to his client’s reasonable status inquiries in a matter in which he agreed to provide legal services in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m)
By failing to refund $1,023.84 to Maier, Respondent failed to refund unearned fees in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
6.) Case No. 05-O-00938
1. On or about April 25, 2003, Margie Hernandez ("Hernandez") and Enrique Cruz ("Cruz") employed Respondent to represent them as defendants in a civil matter. On that date, Hernandez and Cruz each paid Respondent $1,550 for advanced fees.
2. Subsequent to accepting employment, Respondent ceased performing work on Hernandez’s and Cruz’s behalf, effectively abandoning his clients. At no time did Respondent inform Hernandez or Cruz that he was withdrawing from employment.
3. Respondent did not earn the $1,550 in advance fees paid by Hernandez or the $1,550 in advanced fees paid by Cruz. Respondent failed to refund any fees paid by Hernandez or Cruz.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
By failing to inform Hernandez or Cruz of his intent to withdraw from representing them in the civil matter, Respondent failed, upon termination of employment, to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his client in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2).
By failing to refund $1,550 to Hernandez and $1,550 to Cruz, Respondent failed to refund unearned fees in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page one, paragraph A.(7), was by letter dated August 12, 2005.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of August 12, 2005, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $5,509.21. Respondent 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.
Harris v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 1082:
An attorney who had been admitted to practice ten years before the misconduct occurred neglected a personal injury matter for over four years, doing virtually nothing on the case beyond filing it and serving the defendant shortly before the running of the statute of limitations and disobeying a court order in violation of Business and Professions Code 6103. The court also found there was little, if any, recognition of wrongdoing on the part of the attorney of her wrongdoing and no remorse. The court suspended attorney Harris for 3 years, stayed, and placed her on probation for 3 years with 90 days actual suspension. Harris no had record of prior discipline.
Less discipline is warranted in this matter because there were mitigating circumstances at the time of the misconduct.
Matthew v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 784:
An attorney failed to perform competently and failed to return unearned fees in two (2) separate client matters. In a third client matter, the attorney was employed by a client to prepare a living trust, which he failed to complete until four years after retention. The Supreme Court ordered that the attorney be actually suspended for sixty (60) days as a condition of probation.
Lester v. State Bar (1976) 17 Cal.3d 547:
An attorney was found to have wilfully failed to perform legal services in four (4) matters in which he was retained, failed to communicate and failed to refund fees until forced to do so. He showed no mitigation. The attorney received six months actual suspension.
FINANCIAL CONDITIONS, RESTITUTION.
Within sixty (60) days from the effective date of discipline in this matter, respondent must make restitution to Richard Maier, or the Client Security Fund if it has paid, in the principal amount of $1,023 plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from October 1, 2004 and furnish satisfactory evidence of restitution to the Probation Unit. Respondent shall include in each quarterly report required herein satisfactory evidence of all restitution payments made by him or her during that reporting period.
FINANCIAL CONDITIONS, RESTITUTION.
Within sixty (60) days from the effective date of discipline in this matter, respondent must make restitution to Margie Hernandez, or the Client Security Fund if it has paid, in the principal amount of $1,550 plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from April 25, 2003 and furnish satisfactory evidence of restitution to the Probation Unit. Respondent shall include in each quarterly report required herein satisfactory evidence of all restitution payments made by him or her during that reporting period.
FINANCIAL CONDITIONS, RESTITUTION.
Within sixty (60) days from the effective date of discipline in this matter, respondent must make restitution to Enrique Cruz, or the Client Security Fund if it has paid, in the principal amount of $1,550 plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from April 25, 2003 and furnish satisfactory evidence of restitution to the Probation Unit. Respondent shall include in each quarterly report required herein satisfactory evidence of all restitution payments made by him or her during that reporting period.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 04-O-10806, et al.
In the Matter of: Thomas G. Hrouda
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 G. Hrouda
Date: August 18, 2005
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Eli D. Morgenstern
Date: August 22, 2005
Case Number(s): 04-O-10806, et al.
In the Matter of: Thomas G. Hrouda
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:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
Page 2, (8) Amended to read “2007, 2008 and 2009”
Page 6, (10) Check box – Financial Conditions
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: August 30, 2005
[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 August 31, 2005, 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:
THOMAS G. HROUDA ESQ
4505 ALLSTATE DR #221
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
THOMAS G. HROUDA ESQ
PO BOX 7061
MORENO VALLEY, CA 92552
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ELI MORGENSTERN ESQ, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on August 31, 2005.
Signed by:
Angela Owens-Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court