State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

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

PUBLIC REPROVAL

 

Case Number(s): 04-O-11523-RAH; 04-O-15844 [Investigation matter]

In the Matter of: Aftab A. Malik, Bar # 171926, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Fumiko Kimura, Bar # 208763

Counsel for Respondent: Bar #

Submitted to: settlement judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles

Filed: September 15, 2005

  <<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 December 1, 1994.

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):

(a) <<not>> checked. costs added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).

(b) <<not>> checked. case ineligible for costs (private reproval).

(c)  checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts for the following membership years: 2006; 2007; 2008 (hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.) 

(d)<<not>> checked. costs waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".

(e)<<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.

 

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

<<not>> checked. (1) Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)].

<<not>> checked. (a)          State Bar Court case # of prior case .
<<not>> checked. (b)          Date prior discipline effective .
<<not>> checked. (c)           Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations:
<<not>> checked. (d)          Degree of prior discipline  
<<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.

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

Additional aggravating circumstances:

 

Respondent did not begin participating until after the Notice of Disciplinary Charges was filed in 04-O-11523, et al.

 

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

 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. (10 years of practice without any discipline when the misconduct occurred.)

<<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 with the victims of his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings. 

<<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) 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. (10) 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. (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: 

 

D. Discipline:

<<not>> checked. (1) Private reproval (check applicable conditions, if any, below):

<<not>> checked. (a) Approved by the Court prior to initiation of the State Bar Court proceedings (no public disclosure).
<<not>> checked. (b)Approved by the Court after initiation of the State Bar Court proceedings (public disclosure).

or

 checked. (2)           Public reproval (Check applicable conditions, if any below)

 

E. Conditions Attached to Reproval:

 checked. (1)           Respondent must comply with the conditions attached to the reproval for a period of One (1) year

 checked. (2)           During the condition period attached to the reproval, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.

 checked. (3)           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. (4)           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. (5)           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 the condition period.

<<not>> checked. (6) 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 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 monitor.

 checked. (7)           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.

 checked. (8)           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 State Bar Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.

<<not>> checked. No Ethics School recommended.  Reason:

<<not>> checked. (9) 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. (10) 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 of the effective date of the reproval. 

 checked. No MPRE recommended.  Reason: Not required in this case for the protection of the public.  See In the matter of Respondent G (Review Dept. 1992), 2 Cal. St. Bar Ct. Rptr. 181.

<<not>> checked. (11) 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:


ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

 

IN THE MATTER OF: Aftab Alam Malik

 

CASE NUMBER: 04-O-11523-RAH; 04-0-15844 [Investigation Matter]

 

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 

 

Aftab Alam Malik ("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:

 

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on December 1, 1994, and was a member at all times pertinent to these charges.

 

04-O-11523-RAH

 

Facts

 

On or about April 9, 2004, the State Bar opened an investigation, case number 04-O-11523, pursuant to a complaint filed by Chad Brown ("the Brown matter").

 

On or about April 20, 2004 and May 10, 2004, State Bar Investigator Celeste Pasillas wrote to Respondent regarding the Brown matter. The investigator’s letters were placed in sealed envelopes correctly addressed to Respondent at his State Bar membership records address at the time, 10440 Pioneer Blvd. #6B, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670-8240. The letters were properly mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, by depositing for collection by the United States Postal Service in the ordinary course of business. The United States Postal Service did not return the investigator’s letters as undeliverable or for any other reason.

 

The investigator’s letters requested that Respondent respond in writing to specified allegations of misconduct being investigated by the State Bar in the Brown matter. Respondent did not respond to the investigator’s letters or otherwise communicate with the investigator.

 

Conclusions of Law

 

By not providing a written response to the allegations in the Brown matter or otherwise cooperating in the investigation of the Brown matter, Respondent failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i).

 

DISMISSALS

 

The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:

 

Case No. 04-O-11523; Count One; Alleged Violation RPC 3-110(A);

 

Case No. 04-O-11950; Count Three; Alleged Violation RPC 3-110(A);

 

Case No. 04-O-11950; Count Four; Alleged Violation RPC 3-700(D)(2);

 

Case No. 04-0-11950; Count Five; Alleged Violation B&PC 6068(i)

 

04-0-15844 [Investigation Matter]

 

Facts

 

On August 20, 2004, the Honorable William J. Elfving, of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara presiding in the matter of Spire v. Creative Artist Network, Inc., et al., case number 1-01-CV-797121, signed an order setting aside and vacating the defaults and default judgments entered against Defendants Creative Artists Network, Inc., A Creative Day, Inc., and Sason Parandian. In the order, the civil court ordered Respondent to pay the sanctions to the Plaintiff in the amount of $4,535.67. The Plaintiff’s counsel served this order upon Respondent at his official membership records address by first class mail and by facsimile, and the proof of service was filed with the civil court on August 24, 2004.

 

Thereafter, the Plaintiff’s counsel prepared a notice of entry of order and served it upon Respondent by first class mail, at his official membership records address on August 25, 2004, which was filed with the civil court on August 27, 2004. However, Respondent did not pay the sanctions to the Plaintiff until July 2005, which was shortly after Respondent communicated with the State Bar and was told to comply with the civil court’s order and pay the sanctions.

 

Respondent failed to report the sanctions to the State Bar. The State Bar communicated with Respondent and informed him that he had a duty to report the sanctions to the State Bar pursuant to the Business and Professions Code, section 6068(o)(3). However, Respondent did not report the sanctions to the State Bar.

 

Conclusions of Law

 

By failing to report to the State Bar in writing within 30 days of the time Respondent had knowledge of the imposition of the court-ordered sanctions against Respondent, Respondent wilfully violated the Business and Professions Code, section 6068(o)(3).

 

WAIVER OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES

 

It is agreed by the parties that the investigative matter designated as case number 04-0-15844 shall be incorporated into the within stipulation. The parties waive the issuance of a Notice of Disciplinary Charges and the fight to a formal hearing and any other procedure necessary with respect to this investigative matter in order to accomplish the objectives of this stipulation.

 

PENDING PROCEEDINGS

 

The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A (6), was September 12, 2005.

 

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

 

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of September 12, 2005, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $4,273.00. 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

 

Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, Title IV of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California ("Standard")

 

Standard 1.3 states that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar of California and of sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgment of a member’s professional misconduct are the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession. Rehabilitation of a member is a permissible object of a sanction imposed upon the member but only if the imposition of rehabilitative sanctions is consistent with the above-stated primary purposes of sanctions for professional misconduct.

 

Standard 2.6(a) states that a violation of the Business and Professions Code, section 6068 shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm to the victim.

 

Case Law

 

In In the Matter of Respondent Y (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 862, the respondent was found culpable of violating sections 6103 and 6068(o)(3) of the Business and Professions Code for failing to comply with the court order to pay the $1,000.00 sanctions and failing to report the sanctions to the State Bar respectively. The respondent received a private reproval and was ordered to attend the State Bar’s Ethics School and take a professional responsibility examination.

 


 

 

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

 

Case Number(s): 04-O-11523-RAH, 04-O-15844 [Investigation matter]

In the Matter of: Aftab A. Malik

 

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:  Aftab A. Malik

Date: 9-12-2005

 

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

 

Deputy Trial Counsel: Fumiko Kimura

Date: 9-12-2005

 

 


ORDER

Case Number(s): 04-O-11523-RAH, 04-O-15844 {Investigation Matter}

In the Matter of: Aftab A. Malik

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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.

 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.

 

Page 2, (8) (c) is modified to read: 2007; 2008; 2009

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.) 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: Richard A. Platel

Date: 09/13/05


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 September 15, 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:

 

AFTAB A MALIK

ATTORNEY AT LAW

433 N CAMDEN DR STE 600

BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 4410

 

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

 

Fumiko Kimura, Enforcement, Los Angeles

 

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on September 15, 2005.

 

Signed by:

Milagro del R. Salmeron

Case Administrator

State Bar Court