Case Number(s): 05-O-01227
In the Matter of: James Martin Coose, Bar # 154099, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Anthony Garcia, Bar # 171419
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
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 October 3, 1991.
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 13 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 in the three 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-01227 (Inv. Case 06-O-13307)
In the Matter of: James Martin Coose
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: James Martin Coose
Principal Amount: $500
Interest Accrues From: October 18, 2004
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than 6 months after the effective date of the Supreme Court in this matter.
<<not>> 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)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
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.
<<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.
IN THE MATTER OF: JAMES MARTIN COOSE
CASE NUMBERS: 05-0-01227 (investigative case no. 06-0-13307)
A. 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 Rules of Professional conduct.
FACTS
Case no. 05-0-01227, The Barajas matter
1. On September 13, 2002, Joshua and Maria Barajas (the Barajas) met with Phillip Harris (Harris), a non-attorney and owner of Budget Legal Centers (BLC), at an office shared by Harris and Respondent. The Barajas agreed to pay $500 for Harris to prepare and for Respondent to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition (bankruptcy petition). The Barajas also agreed to make future payments of $900 to BLC in order to have Respondent prepare and file a Motion to Avoid Lien on their property (lien matter).
2. On September 13, 2002, Joshua Barajas signed Respondent’s Attorney-Client Retainer Agreement for the preparation and filing of the bankruptcy petition.
3. Between September 13, 2002 and September 15, 2002, the Barajas paid $500 to BLC as fees for the bankruptcy petition.
4. On October 29, 2002, Joshua Barajas signed Respondent’s Attorney-Client Retainer Agreement for the lien matter.
5. Between October 29, 2002 and November 29, 2002, the Barajas paid $900 to BLC as fees for the lien matter.
6. On December 5, 2002, Respondent met with the Barajas and they signed bankruptcy petition forms in preparation for filing the bankruptcy petition.
7. At the meeting, Respondent and the Barajas discussed information regarding the Barajas’ employment that Respondent insisted must be included in the bankruptcy petition. Respondent asked Barajas to provide the necessary information to him. Barajas never provided that information to Respondent.
8. On or about January 10, 2003, Harris/BLC paid Respondent $500 for his work on Bankruptcy Petition with its check number 1148. Neither Respondent nor BLC ever told the Barajas that BLC or Harris would pay Respondent on the Barajas’ behalf, and the Barajas never consented, in writing, that Harris or BLC could pay Respondent on their behalf.
9. Respondent never filed the Barajas’ bankruptcy petition, or the lien matter. Respondent never returned any advanced fees paid to him by or on behalf of the Barajas.
10. The Barajas, at some point, returned to BLC and their bankruptcy petition was filed by another attorney, and their debts were discharged on September 9, 2003.
11. In October 2004, Mr. Barajas sent a letter to Respondent demanding a return of his unearned fees. Respondent never returned the Barajas’ unearned fees.
12. Respondent owes $500 to the Barajas as restitution for failure to refund his unearned fees. The parties acknowledge that there is evidence showing that Barajas paid $1,400 to BLC. But there is no evidence that Harris/BLC paid any more than $500 to Respondent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
13. By accepting, from Harris/BLC, the fees paid by the Barajas to Harris/BLC for legal services, Respondent accepted without the informed written consent of his client, compensation for representing a client from one other than the client in wilful violation of Rules Professional Conduct, rule 3-310 (F)(3).
14. By accepting, from Harris/BLC, any part of the legal fees paid by the Barajas to a nonlawyer to complete legal services for the Barajas, Respondent shared legal fees with a non-lawyer in wilful violation of Rules Professional Conduct, rule 1-320 (A).
15. By failing to return the Barajas unearned fees, Respondent wilfully violated Rules Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
Case no. 06-0-13307, the Probation matter
16. On April 14, 2005, the California Supreme Court, in case no. S131119 (State Bar case no. 04-0-10538) suspended Respondent for one year, stayed the suspension and placed Respondent on two-years of probation. Respondent was also ordered to file quarterly reports with the State Bar Office of Probation, complete Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam, and the State Bar ethics school by May 14, 2006.
17. Respondent filed two of his quarterly reports late and failed to file the quarterly report that was due on April 10, 2006. In addition, Respondent failed to complete the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam and the State Bar ethics school by May 14, 2006.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
18. By not complying with the Supreme Court’s Orders in case no. S131119 (State Bar case no. 04-0-10538), Respondent failed to obey a lawful court order in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code § 6103.
B. PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to on page one, paragraph A.(7), was August 15, 2006.
C. SUPPORTING AUTHORITIES
In re Arnoff (1978) 22 Cal.3d 740 was a disciplinary proceeding based on the attorney’s conviction of conspiracy to commit capping. The relationship between Arnoff and a layperson who effectively controlled Arnoff’s law office lasted for about two years and involved about 500 personal injury cases. Arnoff agreed to split fees with the layperson but there was insufficient evidence that Arnoff knew that the layperson was making kickbacks to doctors for referrals to Arnoff. Arnoff had no prior discipline in 20 years of law practice and suffered from heavy emotional pressures during that time. Arnoff presented positive evidence of rehabilitative treatment. The Supreme Court suspended him for two years.
In In the Matter of Kroff (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 838, Kroff improperly solicited accident victims was committed over a period of about 18 months. It was accompanied by other serious misconduct including misrepresentations to the prospective clients and failures to account properly for their funds. Kroff had a prior suspension for serious misconduct including commission of acts of moral turpitude. On our recommendation, the Supreme Court imposed a five-year suspension stayed, on conditions including a three-year actual suspension.
In the Matter of Scapa & Brown, supra, 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 635, in which an 18-month actual suspension was ordered. We noted that in Scapa & Brown, the attorneys hired laypersons to solicit clients, divided legal fees with them and attempted to enforce an unconscionable fee provision for a minimum attorney fee in the case of discharge but that these activities lasted only six months
Like the cases cited above, Respondent shared fees with a non-attorney. However, in each of the reported cases the attorneys shared fees in hundreds of cases of lengthy periods of time. Respondent only shared fees in one matter involving one client. Therefore, actual suspension of six months is fair and just.
D. DISMISSALS
The State Bar moves the court to dismiss the following counts in the interest of justice:
Count One;
Count Two;
Count Six;
E. COSTS
Costs in these matters are estimated to be between $2,400 and $2,900. The State Bar has agreed to allow Respondent to pay costs, in equal amounts in the three billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-O-01227 (Inv. Case 06-O-13307)
In the Matter of: James Martin Coose
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: James Martin Coose
Date: 9/6/06
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Anthony Garcia
Date: 9/8/6
Case Number(s): 05-O-01227 (Inv. Case 06-O-13307)
In the Matter of: James Martin Coose
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. Patel
Date: 9/12/06
[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 September 15, 2006, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING ACTUAL SUSPENSION
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:
JAMES M. COOSE
LAW OFC MARTIN COOSE
2933 JACARANDA AVE
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ANTHONY GARCIA, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on September 15, 2006.
Signed by:
Tammy R. Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court