Case Number(s): 04-O-12448-1
In the Matter of: John Murcko, Bar # 47008, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Erica Dennings, Bar # 145755
Counsel for Respondent: Jonathan Irwin Arons, Bar # 111257
Submitted to: Assigned Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
Filed: January 11, 2007
<<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 June 26, 1970.
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 9 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.
(1) Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in California on June 26, 1970 and has no prior record of discipline.
(3) Respondent cooperated throughout the disciplinary proceedings.
(8) Respondent was diagnosed with a serious illness in July 2004. Between November 2004 and April 2005, respondent had three surgeries to address the illness. While undergoing these various treatments, respondent was tired, in pain some of the time, and distracted from his practice of law. As of April 2006, respondent’s health is good, he has reduced the time he practices to five hours per day, and he employs a legal assistant and office staff to provide support on his cases.
IN THE MATTER OF: John Murcko
CASE NUMBER(S): 04-0-12448, 06-0-10688
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Case number 04-0-12448
Respondent represents tenants in landlord tenant matters in Alameda County.
From in or about 2000 through 2003, respondent filed at least eight challenges for cause pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.8 against Judge James Richman, accusing him of being biased in favor of landlords. Richman, an Alameda County Superior Court judge was assigned to the Law and Motion Department. One case in which respondent filed such a challenge was Dan Lieberman v. Maria Galvez, Alameda County Superior Court case number 2001-29857.
On or about October 30, 2001, in the Budderman v. Crier matter. Alameda County Superior Court case number 2001-19702, respondent filed a declaration stating that on September 7, 2001, Budderman told him "Judge Richman is on his side and will always help him." He also stated that it is his understanding that Judge Richman is receiving payment from Budderman and he should open up all of his accounts to show all monies received from Marvin Budderman and his attorneys in return for his rulings to help this slumlord in the city of Oakland.
In the same case, respondent filed a declaration from Clairmont Moore. In his declaration Moore stated that he had witnessed landlord Budderman telling respondent that "Judge Richman is on his payroll and is always willing to help him out."
The challenges for cause filed in the Lieberman and Budderman cases were denied.
In or about 2003, respondent left numerous voice mail messages for Judge Richman in the Alameda County Superior Court Department 31 contested tentative ruling voicemail box. The messages amounted to personal tirades against Judge Richman and accused him of not following the law and being a sycophant of or on his knees for, landlords. Respondent left these messages at odd hours of the night or early morning. The messages were full of invective and personal animosity toward Judge Richman.
The Presiding Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court conducted a thorough investigation into letters and petitions lodged by respondent concerning Judge Richman. The investigation did not reveal any evidence of bias on the part of Judge Richman.
Conclusions of Law
By accusing Judge Richman of being biased and receiving payments from landlords to rule in their favor without obtaining any evidence to corroborate his allegations and by leaving messages attacking Judge Richman personally, respondent failed to maintain the respect due to the court of justice and judicial officers in willful violation of section 6068(b) of the Business and Professions Code.
Case number 06-0-10688
On April 2, 2004 respondent filed a lawsuit on behalf of fourteen tenants against a landlord seeking damages resulting from breach of the warranty of habitability for in buildings leased from defendants. Damika Hill, at al. v. Benedict Ezeokoli, et al. Alameda Superior Court case number WG04-148803.
On April 5, 2005, respondent and defense counsel agreed in writing to submit the case to, binding arbitration.
At the time respondent signed the agreement to submit the case to binding arbitration, respondent had informed his clients that there would be arbitration, but he did not tell them it was binding arbitration or the effect of binding arbitration, in particular, that they were waiving their right to a jury trial.
On April 11, 2005 Judge Horace Wheatley approved the stipulation for binding arbitration.
The matter proceeded to arbitration on April 18 and 19, and May 2, 2005. At the onset of the arbitration Judge Ballachey, the arbitrator, explained the final and binding nature of the proceedings and referred to the proceedings as final and binding throughout the proceedings.
On July 1, 2005, Judge Ballachey issued an award in favor of defendants.
On July 25, 2005, respondent filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award on behalf of his clients arguing that his clients had never agreed to binding arbitration. On July 27, 2005, Defendants moved to confirm the award.
To support his motion to vacate the arbitration award respondent submitted a declaration from all fourteen clients asserting under penalty of perjury that they had not given the respondent authority to stipulate to binding arbitration, were not aware of any stipulation for binding arbitration, did not agree to binding arbitration, and were never told by the respondent that they were waiving their right to a jury trial.
On November 16, 2005. the Court denied the motion to vacate the arbitration award and confirmed the defendants’ motion to confirm the award.
Conclusions of Law
By not informing his clients that he agreed to binding arbitration on their behalf or explaining the effects of binding arbitration to his clients, respondent recklessly failed to perform legal services competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Procedure.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was December 4, 2006.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 04-O-12448, 06-O-10688
In the Matter of: John Murcko (#47008)
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: John Murcko
Date: 12/12/06
Respondent’s Counsel: Jonathan I. Arons
Date: December 18, 2006
Deputy Trial Counsel: Erica L.M. Dennings
Date: 19 December 2006
Case Number(s): 04-O-12448; 06-O-10688
In the Matter of: John Murcko
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: Jan 11, 2007
[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 January 11, 2007, 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 , 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:
ERICA DENNINGS, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on January 11, 2007.
Signed by:
Lauretta Cramer
Case Administrator
State Bar Court