State
Bar Court of California
Hearing
Department
STIPULATION
RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
ACTUAL SUSPENSION
Case Number(s): 05-O-01952-RMT
In the Matter of: Lewis Robert Titus, Jr., Bar # 58486, A
Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Eric H. Hsu, Bar # 213039
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: assigned judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office
Los Angeles
Filed: April 26, 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.
A. Parties' Acknowledgments:
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California,
admitted December 20, 1973.
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 11 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
membership years: The next 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.
B. Aggravating
Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for
Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating
circumstances are required.
checked. (1) Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]
checked. (a) State Bar Court
case # of prior case BM5285/86-G-19570 (Supreme Court Case No. S008362)
checked. (b) Date prior
discipline effective March 17, 1989
checked. (c) Rules of
Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: Respondent pleaded guilty to
carrying a concealed firearm, carrying a loaded firearm and reckless driving.
In this conviction matter, it was determined that Respondent’s misconduct did
not involve moral turpitude but warranted discipline.
checked. (d) Degree of prior
discipline Public Reproval with duties
<<not>> checked. (e) If
Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided
below. .
<<not>> checked. (2) Dishonesty: Respondent's misconduct
was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment,
overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional
Conduct.
<<not>> checked. (3) Trust Violation: Trust funds or
property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the
client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct
toward said funds or property.
<<not>> checked. (4) Harm: Respondent's misconduct harmed
significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.
<<not>> checked. (5) Indifference: Respondent demonstrated
indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his
or her misconduct.
<<not>> checked. (6) Lack of Cooperation: Respondent
displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her misconduct or
to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings.
<<not>> checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:
Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or
demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.
<<not>> checked. (8) No aggravating circumstances are
involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances:
None
C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting
mitigating circumstances are required.
<<not>>
checked. (1) No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of
discipline over many years of practice coupled with present misconduct which is
not deemed serious.
<<not>>
checked. (2) No Harm: Respondent did not harm the client or person who was
the object of the misconduct.
<<not>>
checked. (3) Candor/Cooperation: Respondent displayed spontaneous candor
and cooperation with the victims of his/her misconduct and to the State Bar
during disciplinary investigation and proceedings.
<<not>>
checked. (4) Remorse: Respondent promptly took objective steps
spontaneously demonstrating remorse and recognition of the wrongdoing, which
steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct.
<<not>>
checked. (5) Restitution: Respondent paid $ on in restitution to without
the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.
<<not>>
checked. (6) Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were excessively
delayed. The delay is not attributable to Respondent and the delay prejudiced
him/her.
<<not>>
checked. (7) Good Faith: Respondent acted in good faith.
<<not>>
checked. (8) Emotional/Physical Difficulties: At the time of the stipulated
act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional
difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish
was directly responsible for the misconduct. The difficulties or disabilities
were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug
or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or
disabilities.
<<not>>
checked. (9) Severe Financial Stress: At the time of the misconduct,
Respondent suffered from severe financial stress which resulted from
circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control
and which were directly responsible for the misconduct.
<<not>>
checked. (10) Family Problems: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent
suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than
emotional or physical in nature.
<<not>>
checked. (11) Good Character: Respondent's good character is attested to by a
wide range of references in the legal and general communities who are aware of
the full extent of his/her misconduct.
<<not>>
checked. (12) Rehabilitation: Considerable time has passed since the acts of
professional misconduct occurred followed by convincing proof of subsequent
rehabilitation.
<<not>>
checked. (13) No mitigating circumstances are involved.
Additional mitigating circumstances:
Respondent
fully cooperated with the State Bar after this proceeding was commenced.
D.
Discipline:
checked. (1) Stayed Suspension:
checked.
(a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six
(6) months
<<not>>
checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar
Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning
and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii) Standards for Attorney
Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
<<not>>
checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the
Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.
<<not>>
checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following: .
checked.
(b) The above-referenced suspension is stayed.
checked. (2) Probation: Respondent must be placed on probation for a
period of One (1) year which will commence upon the effective date of the
Supreme Court order in this matter. (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court.)
checked. (3) Actual Suspension:
checked.
(a) Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State
of California for a period of thirty (30) days
<<not>>
checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar
Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning
and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney
Sanctions for Professional Misconduct
<<not>>
checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the
Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.
<<not>>
checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following:
E. Additional Conditions of Probation:
<<not>>
checked. (1) If Respondent is actually suspended for two years or more, he/she
must remain actually suspended until he/she proves to the State Bar Court
his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the
general law, pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions
for Professional Misconduct.
checked.
(2) During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the
provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.
checked.
(3) Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report
to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of
Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all
changes of information, including current office address and telephone number,
or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the
Business and Professions Code.
checked.
(4) Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of
discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation and schedule a
meeting with Respondent's assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and
conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation,
Respondent must meet with the probation deputy either in-person or by
telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must promptly meet with
the probation deputy as directed and upon request.
checked.
(5) Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the
Office of Probation on each January 10,
April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must
state whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of
Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding
calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there are any proceedings
pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number
and current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less
than 30 days, that report must be submitted on the next quarter date, and cover
the extended period.
In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same
information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the
period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.
<<not>>
checked. (6) Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must
promptly review the terms and conditions of probation with the probation
monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance. During the period of
probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested,
in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of
Probation. Respondent must cooperate fully with the probation monitor.
checked.
(7) Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent
must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any inquiries of the Office of
Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are
directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent
is complying or has complied with the probation conditions.
checked.
(8) Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline
herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof
of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given
at the end of that session.
<<not checked>> No Ethics School recommended. Reason:
<<not>>
checked. (9) Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in
the underlying criminal matter and must so declare under penalty of perjury in
conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office of Probation.
<<not>>
checked. (10) The following conditions are attached hereto and
incorporated:
<<not>> checked. Substance
Abuse Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Law Office
Management Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Medical
Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Financial
Conditions.
F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:
checked. (1) Multistate Professional Responsibility
Examination: Respondent must provide proof of passage of the Multistate
Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the
National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation during the
period of actual suspension or within one year, whichever period is longer.
Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing
until passage. But see rule 951(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 321
(a)(1) & (c), Rules of Procedure.
<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended. Reason:
<<not>> checked. (2) Rule 955, California Rules of
Court: Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 955, California
Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of
that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective
date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.
<<not>> checked. (3) Conditional Rule 955,
California Rules of Court: If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90
days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of rule 955, California
Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of
that rule within 120 and 130 calendar days, respectively, after the effective
date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.
<<not>> checked. (4) Credit for Interim Suspension
[conviction referral cases only]: Respondent will be credited for the period
of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual
suspension. Date of commencement of interim suspension:
<<not>> checked. (5) Other Conditions:
ATTACHMENT
TO
STIPULATION
RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
In The Matter
Of: Lewis Robert Titus, Jr.
Case Number:
05-O-01952-RMT
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW.
Respondent
admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violating
the specified statute.
1. Lewis R.
Titus (“Respondent”) was admitted to the practice of law in the State of
California on December 20, 1973, was a member at all times pertinent to these
charges, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.
2. On
February 15, 2005, Respondent opened a personal checking account, number
268002258 at HSBC Bank (“the checking account”).
3. Between February
15, 2005 and April 2005, the date the checking account was closed, Respondent
wrote the following personal checks against insufficient funds, including:
Post Date
03/01/05; Check # 105; Amount $7,500; Balance in CTA on post date -$8,291;
Post Date
03/04/05; Check # 108; Amount $1,500; Balance in CTA on post date -$2,491;
Post Date
03/08/05; Check # 126; Amount $1,000; Balance in CTA on post date -$1,791;
Post Date
03/11/05; Check # 111; Amount $5,000; Balance in CTA on post date -$4,541;
Post Date
03/18/05; Check # 148; Amount $500; Balance in CTA on post date -$1,001;
Post Date
04/27/05; Check # 124; Amount $346; Balance in CTA on post date -$501.00
4. None of
the checks set forth above was paid by the bank.
5. On
February 22, 2005, Respondent made a $295 deposit in the checking account.
This was the only deposit made into the checking account.
6. Respondent
issued the checks set forth in paragraph 4, above, when he was grossly
negligent as to the fact that there were insufficient funds in the checking
account.
II.
Conclusion of Law
By repeatedly
issuing checks drawn upon the checking account when he was grossly negligent as
to the fact that there were insufficient funds in the checking account,
Respondent committed acts involving moral turpitude, in wilful violation of
California Business and Professions Code section 6106.
PENDING
PROCEEDINGS,
The disclosure
date referred to, on page one, paragraph A(7), was April 13, 2006.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING
DISCIPLINE
Standard 1.7
(a) provides that, where a member has a record of no prior imposition of Discipline,
the degree of discipline 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 2.3
provides that culpability of a member of an act of moral turpitude, fraud, or intentional
dishonesty toward a court, client or another person shall result in actual suspension
or disbarment, depending on the gravity of harm.
Where an
attorney was found to have written multiple bad checks, the Supreme Court has found
such continued conduct to be an act of moral turpitude. (ln the Matter of Heiser
(Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 47, 54. Moreover, attorneys have
been found culpable even when the checks were written on personal accounts for
non-legal expenses. (Supra,)
In Heiser, the
attorney was found culpable of two counts of section (sections refer to the
California Business and Professions Code) 6106 violation by issuing a series of
seven checks drawn against both a personal checking account and a closed client
trust account over a period of approximately 10 months. Heiser had written
those checks for personal expenses totaling $5,428. Heiser was also found
culpable of violating former rule 8-101 (A) of the California rules of
Professional Conduct, by using his client trust accounts for personal
purposes. Additionally, Heiser violated subdivisions (i) and (j) of section
6068 by failing to cooperate with the State Bar in its investigation and
failing to maintain his current office address with the State Bar. Heiser
defaulted in the proceeding.
Although no
evidence on mitigation was presented, the referee noted that Heiser had no
prior record of discipline and the misconduct did not involve clients as the
checks at issue were presented to satisfy personal debts. The Review
Department recommended one year of stayed suspension, two years of probation,
conditioned on six months of actual suspension and other probation conditions
including restitution.
Here,
Respondent issued a series of six checks drawn against a personal checking
account over approximately two months and that account has been closed since
April 2005. None of these checks were paid by the bank. Although Respondent has
one prior imposition of discipline, it was a public reproval for misconduct not
related to the handling of entrusted funds in any way. Therefore, the level of
discipline set forth in this Stipulation is consistent with the Standards and
case law.
WAIVER OF VARIANCE
BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY
The parties
hereby waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on
November 9, 2005, and the facts and conclusions of law contained in this
stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice
of Disciplinary Charges. The parties further waive the right to the filing of a
Notice of Disciplinary Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not
included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-O-01952-RMT
In the Matter of: Lewis Robert Titus, Jr.
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: Lewis
Robert Titus, Jr.
Date: 4/21/06
Respondent’s
Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial
Counsel: Eric H. Hsu
Date: April
24, 2006
ORDER
Case Number(s): 05-O-01952-RMT
In the Matter of: Lewis Robert Titus, Jr.
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: 4/26/06
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
[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 26, 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:
LEWIS ROBERT
TITUS, JR.
940 E
COLORADO BLVD # 624
PASADENA, CA
91106
checked.
by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of
California addressed as follows:
ERIC
HSU, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby
certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California,
on April 26, 2006.
Signed by:
Tammy R.
Cleaver
Case
Administrator
State Bar
Court