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