Case Number(s): 04-O-14215
In the Matter of: William Jarblum, Bar # 190424, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Monique T. Miller, Bar # 212469,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
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 2, 1997.
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 16 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. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2007 and 2008. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.)
<<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.
Case Number(s): 04-O-14215
In the Matter of: William Jarblum
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: Pulse –LINK, Inc.
Principal Amount: $100,000
Interest Accrues From: May 27, 2004
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
<<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) Pulse-LINK, Inc.
Minimum Payment Amount: $16,666.60
Payment Frequency: Every 6 months
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
<<not>> checked. 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.
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.
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.
Case Number(s): 04-O-14215
In the Matter of: William Jarblum
<<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/ 2 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 12 hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, 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: William Jarblum, State Bar No. 190424
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-O-14215
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.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Case No. 04-0-14215
FACTS
1. From in or about June 2000 to June 2003, Respondent was employed as corporate counsel and escrow agent for Pulse-LINK, Inc. As escrow agent for Pulse-LINK funds sent by investors, Respondent controlled Pulse-LINK Escrow Account, Account No. 1500211837, held at Signature Bank in New York (the "escrow account").
2. On or about October 16, 2002, Respondent received the sum of $1,999,960 from investors by wire transfer to the escrow account.
3. As of March 17, 2003, Respondent remitted $1,200,000 of the investors’ funds to Pulse-LINK, leaving about $805,724.12, including earned interest, in the escrow account.
4. On or about April 10, 2003, the investors requested that Respondent release $800,000 from the escrow account to Pulse-LINK.
5. On or about April 15, 2003, Respondent sent Pulse-LINK the following email: "I am arranging wire transfer of $700,000 today. I beg your indulgence on the last $100,000 as I work out some issues here." Thereafter, Respondent sent Pulse-LINK $705,724.12.
6. On or about May 2, 2003, attorney Eli W. Mansour sent Respondent a letter on behalf of Pulse-LINK, requesting the immediate delivery by wire transfer of the outstanding $100,000. Respondent failed to promptly deliver the outstanding funds to Pulse-LINK.
7. As of June 12, 2003, the outstanding $100,000 was no longer in the escrow account. Between on or about November 29, 2002, and June 12, 2003, Respondent had either transferred the funds to his personal account or used the money for his own benefit.
8. In or about June 2003, Pulse-LINK filed suit against Respondent to collect the $100,000. On or about May 27, 2004, the court rendered a judgment pursuant to stipulation of the parties, awarding $150,000 to Pulse-LINK.
9. On or about July 1, 2005, Respondent paid Pulse-LINK an initial $50,000 toward the judgment.
LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
10. By failing to promptly deliver $100,000 of the investors’ funds to Pulse-LINK as requested by Pulse-LINK, Respondent failed to promptly deliver funds in the possession of Respondent which the client is entitled to receive in wilful violation of rule 4-100(B)(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
11. By transferring $100,000 of the investors’ funds into his personal account or using the money for his personal benefit, Respondent failed to maintain client funds in a trust account in wilful violation of rule 4-100(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
As of October 14, 2005, the disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), there are no additional State Bar investigations pending against Respondent.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
Standards of Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, Title IV, of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California (hereinafter "Standard(s)"):
Standard 2.2(a) provides for disbarment for wilful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property. Only if the property or funds misappropriated is insignificantly small or if the most compelling mitigating circumstances predominate, shall disbarment not be imposed. In those latter cases, the discipline shall be at least one-year actual suspension, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
Case Law:
In Murray v. State Bar (1985), 40 Cal.3d 575, petitioner’s discipline arose out of his mishandling of $26,339 trust funds in his representation of an estate. His misconduct included unilaterally determining his fees and, without court approval, withdrawing that amount from the trust account, withdrawing money from the account for personal use, and disbursing monies from the trust account to heirs of the estate without obtaining a court order for distribution. Petitioner also failed to remit the remaining trust funds to the executors and to account for his disposition of the funds.
The Supreme Court adopted the disciplinary recommendations of the State Bar Review department which recommended that the attorney receive 2 years stayed suspension and 2 years probation with one year actual suspension. Petitioner did not have any prior discipline.
In In the Matter of Elliott (Review Dept. 1996) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 541, Respondent did not hold a client’s settlement proceeds in his client trust account, misappropriated $4,000, and did not promptly pay the client. Respondent did not have any previous discipline. Because Respondent failed to answer the notice of disciplinary charges, the hearing was a default hearing.
The Review Department recommended 5 years stayed suspension and 5 years probation with 2 years actual suspension and until Respondent makes restitution and complies with standard 1.4(c)(ii).
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
No Prior Discipline: Respondent was admitted to ~he Bar of the State of New York on February 22, 1971. There were no disciplinary complaints against him in thirty-four years of practice in New York.
Emotional Difficulties: In or about 1990, Respondent separated from his first wife, Susan Jarblum. The separation lasted a year and a half and resulted in an acrimonious and bitter divorce in January 1992. In July 1994, Respondent moved to California. The move was difficult because Respondent could no longer see his daughters, then ten and twelve years old, on a regular basis, but necessary to promote more civility in Respondent’s interaction with his ex-wife for the good of the children who took the divorce very hard.
Shortly after Respondent’s move to California, Respondent’s widowed mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease. From 1997 until she died in January 2001, Respondent’s mother required 24 hour a day nursing care and was being fed by a tube. Respondent and his sister, an Appellate Division Judge in New York, shouldered the financial responsibility of her health care costs which were extensive. For four years and at least once a month, Respondent commuted from California to New York to visit his mother.
At about the time Respondent’s mother passed away, and while Respondent was still suffering from the emotional distress resulting from witnessing his mother’s deterioration and the long coast-to-coast commuting, Respondent’s sister was diagnosed with myelofibrosis, a bone marrow disorder. Respondent was very close to his sister who was the last person of his generation in his family left after his mother died. Respondent offered to be a bone marrow transplant donor, but he was not compatible. Respondent’s sister ultimately succumbed to the bone marrow disorder in January 2005.
Severe Financial Stress: In the early 1990’s, Respondent had an acrimonious divorce which left him financially strapped. First, subsequent to the separation, Respondent relinquished the family home to his family and paid all the costs of the divorce proceedings. Then, because of his financial success in the late 80’s and early 90’s, the divorce decree, which was not dischargeable in bankruptcy, called for large alimony and child support payments. One of the provisions of the divorce decree, a common one in Bergen County New Jersey, was that the children should not be deprived of what was expected in the community because of the divorce. In addition, Respondent was required to pay for college education at any private college of his children’s choice. At the time of Respondent’s misconduct, he had two daughters in private colleges, Duke University and Lehigh University, with a collective obligation of approximately $75,000 per year, plus the continuing obligation of child support.
Respondent is not offering the foregoing as a justification or an excuse, but as an explanation as to how the emotional stress of witnessing his mother’s then his sister’s deterioration and the financial stress of all his obligations clouded his judgment.
Character References: In October 2005, Perry S. Galler ("Mr. Galler"), the managing partner of Phillips Nizer, a full service law firm based in New York City that has been in business for more than 75 years, wrote a letter of recommendation to the State Bar on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Galler found that Respondent had exhibited the highest professional standards in his handling of numerous complex transactions involving large amounts of monies for his clients.
In 1996, Judith Kaye, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, wrote one of Respondent’s recommendations in his application for admission to the State Bar of California.
Respondent contends that his mishandling the Pulse-LINK is out of character. He admitted to Pulse-LINK his misconduct prior to the initiation of any disciplinary proceedings.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of October 14, 2005, the estimated prosecution costs in this master are approximately $1,992.04. 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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 04-O-14215
In the Matter of: William Jarblum, State Bar No.: 190424
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: William Jarblum
Date: October 14, 2005
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Monique T. Miller
Date: October 17, 2005
Case Number(s): 04-O-14215
In the Matter of: William Jarblum, State Bar No.: 190424
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 DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> 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.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Robert M. Talcott
Date: October 25, 2005
[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 October 26, 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:
WILLIAM JARBLUM, ESQ.
433 N. CAMDEN DR #888
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
MONIQUE MILLER, A/L, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on October 26, 2005.
Signed by:
Rose M. Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court