Case Number(s): 05-O-00982; 05-O-03433
In the Matter of: Daniel Scott Glaser, Bar # 172056, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Katherine D. Kinsey, Bar # 183740
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: assigned 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 December 1, 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 15 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 284, Rules of Procedure.
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following two (2) billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order (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.
Case Number(s): 05-O-00982; 05-O-03433
In the Matter of: Daniel S. Glaser
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: Client Security Fund
Principal Amount: $1,000
Interest Accrues From: January 6, 2005
2. Payee: David R. Lucchese
Principal Amount: $2,890
Interest Accrues From: April 8, 2005
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) CSF
Minimum Payment Amount $100
Payment Frequency monthly
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable) David R. Lucchese
Minimum Payment Amount $160.55
Payment Frequency monthly
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
<<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”;
In the Matter of: Daniel Scott Glaser Case Numbers: 05-0-00982; 05-0-03433
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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, Daniel Scott Glaser, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on December 1, 1994, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.
Case no. 05-0-00982
1. In 2002, Respondent was the attorney of record for Matthew Girardi in a medical malpractice matter entitled Girardi vs. St. John’s Health Center et. al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case no. SC068356 (the "medical malpractice matter"). The court scheduled trial in the medical malpractice matter for January 22, 2003. Respondent received proper notice of the trial date.
2. In November 2002, Respondent contacted Dr. James Norman ("Dr. Norman") to discuss retaining Dr. Norman as a medical expert in the medical malpractice matter. However, Respondent did not formally retain Dr. Norman as an expert in the medical malpractice matter.
3. In December 2002, Respondent filed an expert witness list on behalf of Girardi with the court in the medical malpractice matter and served the list on opposing counsel in the medical malpractice matter. In the expert witness list, Respondent listed Dr. Norman as an expert.
4. Dr. Norman contends that by December 2002, he had informed Respondent that he would not be an expert in the medical malpractice matter.
5. On January 10, 2003, Respondent submitted Plaintiff’s Witness List to the court in the medical malpractice matter. In the witness list, Respondent listed Dr. Norman as a potential witness.
6. Respondent admits that by mid- January 2003, he was aware that Dr. Norman would not be an expert in the medical malpractice matter. In January 2003, Respondent’s client, Matthew Girardi, also became aware Dr. Norman would not be an expert.
7. On January 21, 2003, Respondent filed a motion and declaration requesting a forty-five day continuance of the trial in the medical malpractice matter. In his motion, Respondent contended he needed the continuation because of the "unexpected unavailability of Plaintiff’s designated expert [Dr. Norman]."
8. On January 21, 2003, the court granted Respondent’s request for a continuance. The trial in the medical malpractice matter was continued to June 16, 2003. The court scheduled the final status conference for June 6, 2003, which was later rescheduled by the court to June 9, 2003.
9. On June 9, 2003, defense counsel in the medical malpractice matter filed a motion to exclude Dr. Norman as a witness in the medical malpractice matter based on plaintiff’s repeated failure to produce Dr. Norman for deposition.
10. On June 9, 2003, the court held the final status conference in the medical malpractice matter. At the June 9, 2003 hearing, the court ordered Respondent to call defense counsel within twenty-four hours to advise defense counsel when in the following four days Dr. Norman would be available for a deposition.
11. By June 16, 2003, Respondent had not produced Dr. Norman for a deposition, and on June 16, 2003, the court granted the defendant’s motion to exclude Dr. Norman and continued the trial date in the medical malpractice matter to September 2, 2003.
12. On July 17, 2003, Respondent filed a motion to augment plaintiff’s expert witness list. The defendants in the medical malpractice matter opposed the motion.
13. On August 7, 2003, the court in the medical malpractice matter denied Respondent’s motion to augment the plaintiff’s expert witness list.
14. On August 26, 2003, Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration asking the court to reconsider its denial of plaintiff’s motion to augment his witness list.
15. On or about September 2, 2003, the court in the medical malpractice matter denied Respondent’s motion for reconsideration.
16. On or about November 14, 2003, the parties in the medical malpractice matter filed a Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment (the "stipulation"). Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, the parties agreed that in the absence of an expert witness on plaintiff’s behalf, there was not a reasonable likelihood that plaintiff could prevail in the medical malpractice matter. As a result, the parties stipulated that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants.
Conclusions of Law
By misrepresenting to the court and to opposing counsel that he had retained an expert in the medical malpractice matter when he had not and by misrepresenting to the court and opposing counsel in his January 21, 2003 declaration that a trial continuance was necessary because of the expert’s schedule, Respondent committed acts involving moral turpitude or dishonesty in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
Case no. 05-0-03433
The LeMaile-Williams matter
1. On January 23, 2004, Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of Robert. L LeMaile-Williams and Machara LeMaile-Williams entitled Robert L. LeMaile-Williams.et. al. v. Robert Sanford M.D. et. al.. Los Angeles County Superior Court case no. SC309482 (the "medical malpractice action").
2. On or about October 21, 2004, Dr. Robert Sanford ("Dr. Sanford") filed a motion for summary judgment in the medical malpractice action. The hearing on the summary judgment motion was scheduled for January 6, 2005. Respondent received proper notice of the summary judgment motion and hearing.
3. On January 6, 2005, Respondent had not filed opposition to the summary judgment motion and filed a motion asking the court to extend the time to respond to Dr. Sanford’s motion on the grounds he had miscalendared the due date for opposition.
4. On January 6, 2005, the court found that there was inexcusable neglect on the part of Respondent for not filing opposition to the summary judgment motion and sanctioned Respondent $1,000. The court ordered Respondent to pay the sanctions to the County of Los Angeles by January 12, 2005. The court also ordered Respondent to pay $1,000 to the Client Security Fund of the State Bar of California by January 12, 2005. Finally, the court ordered Respondent to pay $850 in sanctions to defendant, Dr. Sanford by January 12, 2005. Respondent was present in court and received proper notice of the sanction orders.
5. On or about January 6, 2005, the court in the medical malpractice action also ordered Respondent to file and serve the opposition to the motion for summary judgment by 3:00 p.m. that day. The court continued the hearing regarding the motion for summary judgment to January 11, 2005.
6. On January 6, 2005, Respondent made an oral request for a stay of enforcement of the court’s sanction orders, which was denied by the court.
7. On January 6, 2005, Respondent filed and served opposition to Dr. Sanford’s motion for summary judgment.
8. Respondent failed to report the $2,850 in sanctions to the State Bar of California and failed to pay the sanction by January 12, 2005 as ordered.
9. On January 11, 2005, the court held a hearing in the medical malpractice action. At the January 11, 2005 heating, the court granted Dr. Sanford’s motion for summary judgment.
10. On June 1, 2005, based on Respondent’s failure to pay the sanctions ordered on January 6, 2005, the court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") and set the OSC hearing for June 15, 2005 regarding Respondent’s failure to pay sanctions. The court’s June 1, 2005 order was properly served on Respondent. Respondent received the court’s June 1, 2005 order.
11. On June 15, 2005, Respondent appeared at the OSC hearing regarding his failure to pay sanctions. On or about June 15, 2005, the court ordered Respondent to pay the sanctions by June 27, 2005. Respondent was present in court and received proper notice of the new sanction due date. Nevertheless, Respondent failed to pay the sanctions by June 27, 2005.
12. On or about August 22, 2005, Respondent paid $1,000 in sanctions to Los Angeles Superior Court.
13. On or about October 28, 2005, counsel for Dr. Sanford wrote Respondent advising him that they were waiving the $850 in sanctions that had been ordered paid to them in the medical malpractice action.
14. To date, Respondent has not paid the $1,000 to the Client Security Fund of the State Bar of California.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to comply with the January 6, 2005 court order requiring Respondent to pay $2,850 in sanctions by January 12, 2005, Respondent wilfully disobeyed or violated a court order in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.
By failing to report to the State Bar of California within 30 days of the court’s order that a court had imposed sanctions against him in the amount of $2,850, Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6068(o)(3).
The Cueto matter
1. On or about August 18, 2003, Peter J. McNulty ("McNulty") of the McNulty Law Group filed a complaint on behalf of Allison Cueto in a matter entitled Allison Cueto. a minor v. Cheryl Hamilton M.D.. et. al.. Solano County Superior Court case no. FCS022709 (the "civil action”). Respondent, an associate with the McNulty Law Group, was the attorney assigned to the civil action.
2. On March 30, 2004, the defendants in the civil action filed a mandatory settlement conference statement.
3. On April 1, 2004, the defendants in the civil action filed a trial management conference report.
4. As of April 4, 2004, Respondent had not filed a Mandatory Settlement Conference Statement and had not filed a Trial Management Conference Report on Cueto’s behalf.
5. On April 4, 2004, the court held a trial management conference in the civil action. Respondent did not appear but rather sent another attorney to appear on Cueto’s behalf.
6. On April 4, 2004, the court found that there was no good reason why plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at the mandatory settlement conference. As a result, on April 4, 2004, the court ordered McNulty to appear on April 8, 2004 and show cause why the court should not terminate the civil action due to counsel’s failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference, failure to file a trial management conference report and failure to file a settlement conference statement.
7. On April 5, 2004, Respondent filed a declaration in response to the order to show cause in the civil action. In his April 5, 2004 declaration, Respondent informed the court that he was the attorney assigned to handle the civil action and explained that he had hired an attorney in Solano to appear on his behalf so the client would not incur the extra expense. Respondent also requested that if sanctions are imposed, that they be imposed against him and not the client.
8. On April 8, 2005, Respondent appeared at the order to show cause in the civil action. On April 8, 2005, the court imposed $1,000 in sanctions against Respondent for failing to appear at the mandatory settlement conference. The court also imposed $500 in sanctions against Respondent for failing to file and serve a trial management conference statement. Further, the court imposed attorney costs in the amount of $2,890 payable to opposing counsel in the civil action. The court ordered that all sanctions and costs be paid no later than June 13, 2005. Respondent was present in court and received proper notice of the sanctions order.
9. Respondent failed to report the imposition of sanctions to the State Bar of California and failed to pay the sanctions by June 13, 2005 as ordered.
10. On or about January 4, 2006, the court in the civil action granted Respondent’s request for an extension to June 30, 2006 to pay the $1,500 sanctions to the court in the civil action.
11. To date, Respondent has not paid the $2,890 owed to opposing counsel in the civil action.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to comply with the April 8, 2004 court order requiring Respondent to pay sanctions and costs by June 13, 2005, Respondent wilfully disobeyed or violated a court order in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.
By failing to report to the State Bar of California within 30 days of the court’s order that a court had imposed sanctions against him in an amount over $1,000, Respondent wilfully violated Business and Profession Code section 6068(o)(3).
Supporting Authority
Standard 2.3 provides that an act of moral turpitude, fraud, or intentional dishonesty toward a court or client shall result in actual suspension or disbarment depending upon the extent of the harm to the victim, the magnitude of the act of misconduct and the degree to which it relates to the practice of law.
Mitigation - Family Problems
Respondent was hired by the McNulty Law Firm in March 2000. At the time he was hired, Respondent was the only associate and the firm had approximately 50 to 75 active matters. However, in the last few years, the firm has moved toward handling national class action matters while also handling individual matters. Respondent contends he was put under a tremendous amount of stress by the number of cases the firm was handling. While one other young associate was hired by the firm, Respondent contends that he was handling a majority of the active matters and was overwhelmed by the workload during the period of misconduct. As a result, Respondent resigned from the McNulty Law Firm in March 2006.
Also, on July 25, 2003, Respondent’s wife initiated divorce proceedings against Respondent. The parties were married in November 1994 and have two minor children. Respondent contends the divorce proceedings caused a great deal of strain. The judgment in the divorce proceedings was filed on December 15, 2005.
In addition, Respondent also contends that the unexpected death of his brother in law, Steven Fuld, on October 10, 2003 contributed to Respondent’s anxiety and stress. Re*pendent had been close to Fuld for over twenty years.
In December 2003, Respondent suffered a spike in his blood pressure and sought the treatment of a physician. The doctor temporarily put Respondent on Zoloft citing "the severe stress and anxiety he has undergone."
Other Mitigating, Factors
Respondent has no prior record of discipline in over eleven (11) years of practice.
Pending Proceedings
The disclosure date referred to on Page 1, paragraph A. (6), was made on May 15, 2006.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-O-00982
In the Matter of: Daniel Scott Glaser
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: Daniel S. Glaser
Date: 5/15/2006
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Katherine D. Kinsey
Date: 5/15/06
Case Number(s): 05-O-00982; 05-O-03433
In the Matter of: Daniel Scott Glaser
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: May 23, 2006
[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 May 24, 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:
DANIEL S GLASER
2754 WOODHAVEN DR
LOS ANGELES CA 90068
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
KATHERINE KINSEY, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on May 24, 2006.
Signed by:
Angela Owens-Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court