Case Number(s): 04-O-12439 and 04-O-15782
In the Matter of: Drago Campa, Bar # 170057, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Christine Souhrada, Bar # 228256,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State bar Court Clerks Office Los Angeles.
Filed: March 16, 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 April 8, 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 11 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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: . (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, 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.
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.
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.
<<not>> 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-12439 and 04-O-15782
In the Matter of: Drago Campa
<<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/ months/ 1 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 3 hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in 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.
Other:
IN THE MATTER OF: Drago Campa, State Bar No. 170057
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-O-12439; 04-O-15782
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. FACTUAL HISTORY
In or about January 2003, Maria Galvez ("Galvez") employed Respondent to represent her in a Workers’ Compensation case. On or about February 10, 2003, Respondent filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board ("WCAB") entitled, Maria Galvez v. Advance Building Maintenance, lnc., et al, Case Number LAO 0822938, on behalf of Galvez (the "Galvez matter").
On or about April 22, 2003, a representative of Respondent’s office appeared before the WCAB at a hearing on behalf of Galvez, The Judge set a mandatory settlement conference for June 23, 2003 in the Galvez matter. Subsequent to the heating, the WCAB properly served Respondent with notice of the mandatory settlement conference.
On or about June 23, 2003, Respondent appeared at the WCAB for the mandatory settlement conference in the Galvez matter, but informed opposing counsel that he could not stay and left the hearing without informing the Judge. The mandatory settlement conference was then taken off calendar and the Judge set a trial date of September 18, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. at the WCAB in the Galvez matter. The Judge also ordered Respondent to appear in person at the trial of the Galvez matter to show cause why sanctions should not issue for his frivolous conduct in prematurely leaving the mandatory settlement conference without the Judge’s permission. Subsequent to the hearing, the Court properly served Respondent with notice of the trial date and the order to show cause in the Galvez matter.
On or about June 30, 2003, opposing counsel filed and properly served Respondent with a Notice of Hearing for the trial date of September 18, 2003 in the Galvez matter. On or about July 14, 2003, Respondent sent a letter to Galvez informing her of the trial date and reminding her that she was to appear on September 18, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. at the WCAB. Respondent did not respond to the WCAB’s order, did not appear in person to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him as ordered by the court, and did not appear for the trial in the Galvez matter on September 18, 2003. Respondent did not notify Galvez, opposing counsel or the Court that he would not be appearing at the September 18, 2003 trial. The Judge continued the trial to January 22, 2004.
On or about September 19, 2003, Galvez filed a Substitution of Attorney with the WCAB, substituting herself in pro per in place of Respondent.
B. LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
By failing to remain in Court for the mandatory settlement conference of June 23, 2003 and failing to appear at the September 18, 2003 trial of Galvez’s matter, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-110(A). By not responding to the WCAB’s order that he appear to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him, Respondent wilfully disobeyed a court order requiting him to do act in the course of his profession which he ought in good faith to do, in wilful violation of Business & Professions Code Section 6103.
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
Standard 2.6 of the Standards Pertaining to Sanctions for Professional Misconduct Found or Acknowledged in Original Disciplinary Proceedings states that "culpability of a member of a violation of [Business & Professions Code Section 6103] shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any to the victim[.]" Justification for departure from Standard 2.6 in this case may be found in the fact that Respondent had a good faith, although incorrect, view that the Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions was a mere jurisdictional prerequisite to the imposition of a monetary sanction which did not actually require his appearance in the event he did not contest, and was willing to pay, the threatened sanctions.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was March 14, 2006.
DISMISSALS
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No.: 04-O-12439, Count: Two, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-700(A)(2)
Case No.: 04-O-15782, Count: One, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-100(B)(4).
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 04-O-12439 and 04-O-15782
In the Matter of: Drago Campa
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: Drago Campa
Date: March 14, 2006
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Christine Souhrada
Date: March 14, 2006
Case Number(s): 04-O-12439 and 04-O-15782
In the Matter of: Drago Campa
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.
On Page 3, paragraph C.(1), checked the box of “No Prior Discipline:”
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: Richard Honn
Date: March 15, 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 Los Angeles, on March 6, 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 Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
DRAGO CAMPA
CONTRERAS CAMPA LLP
3600 WILSHIRE BLVD #900
LOS ANGELES, CA 90010
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 16, 2006.
Signed by:
Angela Ownes-Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court