Case Number(s): 04-O-13740, 04-O-10660, 05-O-00992, 05-0-02536, 06-O-10031, 06-O-10098, 06-O-10099, 06-0-10726
In the Matter of: Keith Jordan, Bar # 171267, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Robin B. Brune, Bar # 149481
Counsel for Respondent: Jonathan I. Arons, Bar # 111257
Submitted to: Settlement 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 June 7, 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 17 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. until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.
<<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.)
checked. costs waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. costs entirely waived.
IN THE MATTER OF: Keith Jordan
CASE NUMBER(S): 04-0-13740, et al.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Case No. 04-O-13740
On or about October 30, 1997, an immigration judge terminated Rajendra Prakash’s ("Prakash") deportation proceedings and reinstated an order of exclusion. Prakash, represented by attorney Vickie Steinheimer ("Steinheimer"), timely filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). Steinheimer died in 2001 while Prakash’s appeal was pending. On May 6, 2002, Prakash’s appeal was dismissed. The dismissal was sent to Steinheimer’s office. Prakash did not receive notice of and was not informed of the dismissal.
On or about November 10, 2002, Prakash employed respondent to review his file and consult with him about the status of his case. Prakash paid respondent $500.00. Respondent told Prakash he would review his file with someone else and get back to him. Respondent also told Prakash that he would look into renewing his work permit, but never got back to Prakash.
Respondent reviewed the file, but did not take any steps to determine the status of the case, such as calling the INS. Respondent never informed Prakash that the Board denied his appeal or that the time for filing a further appeal had passed.
Conclusions of Law
By not taking steps to determine the status of Prakash’s appeal, and by not informing Prakash that his appeal had been dismissed, respondent failed to perform legal services in wilful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 05-0-00992
On May 13, 2004, Mikhail Uryevich ("Uryevich") employed respondent to file an application for political asylum. Uryevich was a Russian native and had been working in the U.S. on an H1-B visa, which is valid for six years. Uryevich’s visa was set to expire later in 2004. Uryevich paid respondent $5,000.00 as a flat fee.
Although respondent’s strategy concerning the political asylum application was to wait enough time for some other viable option to transpire, i.e. Uryevich marrying a U.S. citizen or his employer sponsoring him for a green card, respondent did not believe Uryevich had a good case for political asylum.
Subsequently, respondent prepared the political asylum application. Respondent told Uryevich that he conducted research on the internet regarding country conditions in Russia and possible experts. However, respondent did not provide copies of the articles themselves or the titles to Uryevich.
Respondent never filed the political asylum application or took any other steps to help Uryevich obtain legal status in the U.S.
On or about September 3, 2004, Uryevich lost his legal status in the U.S. and was ordered to leave the country.
On or about October 1, 2004, Uryevich discharged respondent and asked for his file materials and a refund of fees. Respondent refunded $2,500, representing one half of the fees paid.
Conclusions of Law
By not filing the political asylum application or pursuing another method for legalizing Uryevich’s status in the U.S., respondent failed to perform, in wilful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, role 3-110(A).
Case No. 05-0-02536
On or about October 11, 2004, Petra Perez ("Perez") employed respondent to file a motion to reopen a cancellation of removal application. Perez and her son, Efrain Estrada, were in removal proceedings before the BIA. Perez paid respondent $600.00 towards a total fiat fee of $3,750.00.
The BIA dismissed Perez’s appeal on or about December 10, 2004. The motion to reopen was therefore due by March 10, 2005. Respondent did not take steps to determine when a motion to reopen would be due, such as placing the date on his calendar. Perez met with respondent on December 27, 2004. Thereafter, Perez called respondent to determine the status of her case, but respondent failed to return the phone calls. Respondent failed to file a motion to reopen.
Conclusions of Law
1. By not filing a motion to reopen, respondent failed to perform, in wilful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, role 3-110(A).
2. By not returning Perez’s telephone calls, respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
Case No. 06-0-10726
Mario Ramirez ("Ramirez") retained respondent sometime in September, 2004, to try and reopen his INS appeal. The contract called for a flat fee of $5,000. The client paid respondent $3,000. The deadline for the appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was ninety days from August 12, 2004, until November 10, 2004, to appeal.
Respondent failed to timely file the appeal. He filed in July of 2005. The appeal was rejected due to respondent’s untimeliness. Respondent then sought to bring an appeal based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. He did not, though, mention his own malfeasance, but tried to attribute the delay to prior counsel, without making the required State Bar complaint. He also filed it July 2005, which was untimely. Therefore, respondent’s claim was rejected.
Conclusions of Law
1. By not timely filing the appeal on Ramirez’s behalf, respondent failed to perform, in wilful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
2. By failing to advise his client that the appeal was untimely, respondent failed to keep his client reasonably informed of significant matters pertaining to the legal matter for which he was retained, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
3. By filing an untimely appeal, respondent provided no services of value to the client, and failed to promptly return the unearned fee, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
Case No. 06-0-10099
Margarito Rios paid respondent a flat fee of $3,500.00 and hired him on or about November 16, 2004 to file an appeal. Respondent failed to file the petition for review after being hired to do so. Respondent admits to failing to file the petition. New counsel, Sean Olender, was hired May 31, 2005 and discovered that their appeal was dismissed on February 25, 2005 because the appellate brief was not filed in a timely fashion.
Conclusions of Law
1. By failing to timely file an immigration appeal, respondent failed to perform, in wilful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
2. By failing to advise the client that he missed the deadline and the appeal was dismissed, respondent failed to keep his client informed of significant developments in the legal matter for which he was retained, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
3. By missing his deadline, respondent provided no services of value to the client, and failed to promptly return unearned fees, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
Case No. 06-0-10031
Raja Aftab Akbar ("Akbar") hired respondent in March of 2004 to file an appeal for a denial of asylum. The fee agreement called for a flat fee of $3,000.00. The client made payments towards this fee and paid a total of $1,200. The appeal was denied in March of 2005.
The client was denied a work permit on or about September 28, 2005 and became concerned about his asylum case. In October, 2005, Akbar contacted respondent, and met with respondent outside the courthouse in San Jose. Respondent told Akbar that his case was still pending but that his chances were not good. Respondent gave the client a copy of the Notice of Appeal and told him to re-file the Application for Employment and include a copy of the Notice of Appeal. In fact, the appeal had already been denied.
Due to respondent’s malfeasance, the client’s time period to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit passed.
Conclusions of Law
1. By failing to timely advise the client of the results of the pending immigration matter, respondent failed to keep the client reasonably informed of significant matters related to the matter for which respondent was hired to perform legal services, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
2. By failing to properly advise the client regarding the Notice of Appeal, respondent failed to perform, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3110(A).
Case No. 06-0-10098
Clients Pastor Perez (a.k.a. Enciso) and Andrea Lopen (a.k.a. Andrea Enciso) paid respondent $2500.00 to file an appeal, and hired respondent in February 2004. Respondent failed to timely file the appeal. In June 2005, the clients were notified they should be deported.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to timely file the appeal, respondent failed to perform, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-! 10(A).
Case No. 04-0-10660
This matter was referred by Jennifer Barnes, Bar Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review. After conducting an inquiry, respondent was admonished for failing to appear at four scheduled hearings, in three separate client matters. He failed to appear on June 10, and September 23, 2003 in the Matter of Elda and Dora Avila-Morales, he failed to appear in the Matter of Taurino and Maria Esperanza-Rocha on September 22, 2003, and he failed to appear in the Matter of Mohani Mohani on September 24, 2003.
Conclusions of Law
1. By failing to make his scheduled court-ordered appearances in the above-entitled matters, respondent failed to perform, in wilful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was November 8, 2006.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of 12/20/06, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $ 6,992.58. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does not include State Bar Court costs which will be included in any final cost assessment. 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.
In the Matter of Valnoti (Review Dept. 2002) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 498
Gadda v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 344
In the Matter of Brockway (2006 W.L. 1360438) Cal. Bar. Ct. May 15, 2006
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Standard 1.2(b)(ii) - Multiple Acts or Pattern
Standard 1.2(b)(iv) - Significant Harm
FACTS SUPPORTING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Respondent demonstrates a pattern of misconduct with over five failures to perform in immigration matters, and demonstrates multiple acts
Several of respondent’s clients face deportation due to respondent’s failures to perform, including client Akbar and clients Pastor Perez (a.k.a. Enciso) and Andrea Lopen.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Standard 1.2(e)(v) - Candor and Cooperation
Standard 1.2(e)(vii) - Remorse and Recognition of Wrongdoing
FACTS SUPPORTING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
In the Enciso Perez matter, respondent refunded $2,125.00 to the clients prior to State Bar involvement.
In the Petra Perez matter, respondent refunded $600.00 to the client before State Bar involvement.
In the Mikhail Uryevich matter, respondent refunded $2,500 to the client before State Bar involvement (representing one half of the fee he collected).
Respondent showed candor and cooperation by reaching an early stipulation in this matter.
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.
VARIANCE FROM NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND WAIVER OF NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES IN THE INVESTIGATORY MATTERS.
Respondent waives any variance between the language in this Stipulation and the Notice of Disciplinary Charges. In addition to the matters as set forth in the Notice of Disciplinary Charges, this Stipulation incorporates five additional investigatory matters. As to these matters, respondent waives his right to an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference, Notice of Disciplinary Charges, and rights attendant to a Notice of Disciplinary Charges, in order to resolve this matter by Stipulation.
Case Number(s): 04-O-13740, et seq.
In the Matter of: Keith G. Jordan
a. Restitution
checked. Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund (“CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
1. Payee: Rajendra Prakash
Principal Amount: $500.00
Interest Accrues From: 11/1/02
2. Payee: Mario Ramirez
Principal Amount: $3,000.00
Interest Accrues From: 9/1/04
3. Payee: Margarito Rios
Principal Amount: $3,500.00
Interest Accrues From: 12/1/04
4. Payee: Raja Akbar
Principal Amount: $1,200.00
Interest Accrues From: 3/1/05
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than .
checked. Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
1. Payee/CSF (as applicable) Rajendra Prakash
Minimum Payment Amount $100.00
Payment Frequency monthly
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable) Mario Ramirez
Minimum Payment Amount $200.00
Payment Frequency monthly
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable) Margarito Rios
Minimum Payment Amount $100.00
Payment Frequency monthly
4. Payee/CSF (as applicable) Raja Akbar
Minimum Payment Amount $100.00
Payment Frequency monthly
<<not>> checked.
1. If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated as a “Trust Account” or “Clients’ Funds Account”;
b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:
i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.
c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
2. If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate described above.
3.
The requirements
of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of
Professional Conduct.
<<not>> checked. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 04-O-13740, et seq.
In the Matter of: Keith G. Jordan
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: Keith G. Jordan
Date: 12/26/2006
Respondent’s Counsel: Jonathan I. Arons
Date: December 27, 2006
Deputy Trial Counsel: Robin B. Brune
Date: 12/21/2006
Case Number(s): 04-O-13740, et seq.
In the Matter of: Keith G. Jordan
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.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates 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 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.)
1. On page 5, section E(7), an "x" is inserted in front of the box re: respondent’s responsibility to answer fully, promptly and truthfully any inquiries of the Office of Probation.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Pat McElroy
Date: January 29, 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 Los Angeles, on January 31, 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 Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
JONATHAN I ARONS
LAW OFFICE JONATHAN I ARONS
101 HOWARD STREET #310
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ROBIN BRUNE, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 31, 2007.
Signed by:
Angela Owens-Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court