Case Number(s): 05-H-04322-RAP
In the Matter of: Gregory John Khougaz, Bar # 107530, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Fumiko Kimura, Bar # 208763
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: assigned judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: April 28, 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 January 24, 1983.
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.
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 added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
<<not>>checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: for the following two membership years (hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 282, 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.
Case Number(s): 05-H-04322-RAP
In the Matter of: Gregory John Khougaz
<<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 1 year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than 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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Gregory J. Khougaz
CASE NUMBER: 05-H-04322-RAP
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent admits that the following facts are tree and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on January 24, 1983, and was a member at all times pertinent to these charges.
On or about November 16, 2004, Respondent entered into a Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition ("Stipulation") with the State Bar of California in Case Number 03-0-04272.
On or about November 23, 2004, the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court filed an Order Approving the Stipulation and imposing upon Respondent a public reproval with conditions ("Reproval Order"). The Reproval Order informed Respondent that failure to comply with the conditions attached to the reproval could constitute cause for separate disciplinary proceedings for wilful breach of rule 1-110 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
On or about November 23, 2004, the Stipulation and Reproval Order were properly served by mail upon Respondent at his State Bar membership records address. The Reproval Order became effective on December 15, 2004.
Pursuant to the Reproval Order, Respondent was required to comply with certain terms and conditions attached to the public reproval, including:
to submit to the Office of Probation written quarterly reports on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the condition period attached to the reproval, certifying under penalty of perjury that he has complied with all provisions of the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct during the preceding calendar quarter or part thereof covered by the report and to file a final report no earlier than 20 days prior to the expiration of the condition period attached to the reproval and no later than the last day of said period.
On or about December 9, 2004, Probation Deputy Lydia G. Dineros ("Ms. Dineros") of the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California wrote a letter to Respondent in which she reminded Respondent of the terms mad conditions of the public reproval pursuant to the November 23, 2004 Reproval Order. In the December 9, 2004 letter, Ms. Dineros specifically advised Respondent that his first required quarterly report was due on Aril 10, 2005 and quarterly thereafter. Enclosed with the December 9, 2004 letter to Respondent was a copy of the portion of the Stipulation setting forth the conditions of Respondent’s reproval and a Quarterly Report form specifically tailored for Respondent to use to submit his quarterly reports.
Respondent received the December 9, 2004 letter from Ms. Dineros. Respondent, however, failed to submit his quarterly reports which were due to be submitted by April 10, 2005, July 10, 2005, and October 10, 2005.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to submit the April 10, 2005, July 10, 2005, and October 10, 2005 quarterly reports, Respondent failed to comply with the conditions of the public reproval, in wilful violation of rule 1-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A (7), was April 19, 2006.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of April 19, 2006, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $4,569.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only. 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 the degree of discipline 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 provides that culpability of a member of a wilful violation of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct, shall result in suspension.
Case Law
In the Matter of Posthuma (1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 813. The attorney failed to comply with a condition attached to a private reproval by failing to timely take and pass the California Professional Responsibility Examination. The attorney received a public reproval for this violation.
Conroy v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 799. The attorney failed to comply with a condition of prior discipline requiring him to take and pass the Professional Responsibility Examination ("PILE") within a prescribed period. The attorney was previously privately reproved for three unrelated acts of misconduct. The sole mitigating circumstance was his late passage of the PRE. The aggravating circumstances were 1) prior record of discipline 2) his failure to participate in the State Bar Court proceedings, and 3) lack of remorse and failure to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his action. The attorney was actually suspended for sixty (60) days.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-H-04322-RAP
In the Matter of: Gregory John Khougaz
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: Gregory John Khougaz
Date: 4/20/06
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Fumiko Kimura
Date: 4/20/06
Case Number(s): 05-H-04322-RAP
In the Matter of: Gregory John Khougaz
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: Richard A. Platel
Date: 04-27-06
[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 April 28, 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:
GREGORY JOHN KHOUGAZ
2917 SANTA MONICA BLVD
SANTA MONICA CA 90404
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 April 28, 2006.
Signed by:
Angela Owens-Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court