Case Number(s): 05-H-02862-RAP
In the Matter of: Lawrence E. Sargent, Bar # 134604, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Fumiko D. Kimura, Bar # 208763
Counsel for Respondent: Ira M. Salzman, Bar # 82774
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: October 25, 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 June 14, 1988
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):
<<not>> checked. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2007; 2008. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 282, 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): 05-H-02862-RAP
In the Matter of: Lawrence E. Sargent
checked. a. Within one (1) year 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 one and one half 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.) ***See below.
<<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.
*** Respondent is to take six (6) hours of MCLE in law office management and six (6) hours of MCLE in legal ethics.
IN THE MATTER OF: Lawrence E. Sargent, State Bar No. 134604
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 05-H-02862-RAP
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Lawrence E. Sargent ("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 June 14, 1988, and was a member at all times pertinent to theses charges.
05-H--02862-RAP
Facts
On February 20, 2004, Respondent entered into a Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition ("Stipulation") with the State Bar of California in case number 03-O-03387.
On March 22, 2004, the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court filed an order approving the Stipulation and imposing the reproval with conditions set forth in the Stipulation (the "reproval order").
Pursuant to the March 22, 2004 reproval order, Respondent was ordered to comply with the following terms and conditions, among others:
a. to comply with the conditions attached to the reproval for a period of one (1) year;
b. to comply with the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct during the condition period attached to the reproval;
c. to submit to the Office of Probation written quarterly reports on January 10, April 10, July 10 and October 10 during the condition period attached to the reproval, certifying under penalty of perjury whether he has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of the repoval during the preceding calendar quarter and to file a final report no earlier than 20 days prior to the last day of the condition period and no later than the last day of the condition period; and
d. to complete six (6) hours of participatory continuing legal education courses in legal ethics above those required for his license and provide proof of completion within one (1) year of the effective date of the order approving the stipulation to the Office of Probation of the State Bar.
The March 22, 2004 reproval order became effective on April 12, 2004.
On May 19, 2004, Probation Deputy Eddie Esqueda of the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reminded Respondent of the terms and conditions of his reproval imposed pursuant to the March 22, 2004 reproval order. In the May 19, 2004 letter, Mr. Esqueda specifically advised Respondent regarding his obligations to file quarterly reports, with the first report due on July 10, 2004, and to attend six (6) participatory hours of MCLE Ethics courses. Enclosed with the May 19, 2004 letter to Respondent were, among other things, copies of the relevant portion of the Stipulation setting forth the conditions of Respondent’s reproval; a Quarterly Report Instructions sheet; and a Quarterly Report form specially tailored for Respondent to use in submitting his quarterly reports.
Mr. Esqueda’s May 19, 2004 letter to Respondent was mailed on May 19, 2004 via the United States Postal Service, first class postage prepaid, in a sealed envelope addressed to Respondent at his official State Bar membership records address. The May 19, 2004 letter was not returned as undeliverable or for any other reason by the United States Postal Service.
Respondent filed his first quarterly report on July 9, 2004 as required. Thereafter, Respondent failed to timely file the remaining three quarterly reports that were due on October 10, 2004, January 10, 2005 and April 10, 2005. He also failed to file his final report due on April 12, 2005.
On March 11, 2005, Mr. Esqueda telephoned Respondent at his office telephone number he provided to the State Bar Membership Records and left a message for Respondent concerning the missing quarterly reports. Mr. Esqueda requested Respondent to submit the overdue reports immediately. Respondent failed to respond to Mr. Esqueda’s telephone message.
Respondent did not file with the Office of Probation the quarterly reports that were due on October 10, 2004, January 10, 2005, April 10, 2005, and the final report due on April 12, 2005.
Respondent did not provide the Office of Probation with proof of completion of six (6) participatory hours of MCLE courses in legal ethics as required by the reproval order.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to timely file the quarterly reports due on October 10, 2004, January 10, 2005 and April 10, 2005, and the final report due on April 12, 2005, and failing to provide proof of completion of the required MCLE courses, Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the March 22,-2004 reproval order, in wilful violation of role 1-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A (7), was October 17, 2005.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of September 15, 2005, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,296.00. 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 1.7(a) states that if a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of one prior imposition of discipline as defined by standard 1.2(0, the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding unless the prior discipline imposed was so remote in time to the current proceeding and the offense for which it was imposed was so minimal in severity that imposing greater discipline in the current proceeding would be manifestly unjust.
Standard 2.9 states that culpability of a member of a wilful violation of rule 1-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct shall result in suspension.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-H-02862-RAP
In the Matter of: Lawrence E. Sargent
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: Lawrence E. Sargent
Date: October 18, 2005
Respondent’s Counsel: Ira M. Salzman
Date: October 18, 2005
Deputy Trial Counsel: Fumiko D. Kimura
Date: October 19, 2005
Case Number(s): 05-H-02862-RAP
In the Matter of: Lawrence E. Sargent
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.
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: Richard A. Platel
Date: October 20, 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 25, 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:
IRA M SALZMAN
600 S LAKE AVE #410
PASADENA, CA 02862
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 October 25, 2005.
Signed by:
Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator
State Bar Court