Case Number(s): 05-O-02322-RAH
In the Matter of: Sean L. Andrews, Bar # 171711, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Eli D. Morgenstern, Bar # 190560,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: April 12, 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 October 3, 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 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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts: Costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following billcycles following the effective date of the Disciplinary Order: 2007, 2008, 2009. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, 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.
9. The parties understand that:
<<not>> checked. (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
<<not>> checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
IN THE MATTER OF: Sean Lymus Andrews, State Bar No. 136207
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 05-P-02322-RAH
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violating the specified rule of professional conduct.
General Background
1. In or about February or March 2004, complaining witness Lynn Bethurum ("Bethurum") discovered that all three credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union) were reporting inaccurate information concerning his credit.
2. At or about this time, Bethurum contacted all three credit reporting agencies as well as the creditors that he believed were responsible for the errors. Bethurum also sent written dispute requests to all three credit reporting agencies in conformity with their respective procedures.
3. Neither the creditors nor the credit reporting agencies cooperated with him, and the inaccurate information remained on his credit reports.
4. Bethurum subsequently retained attorney Edward Jamison ("Jamison") to assist him with his dispute with the credit reporting agencies. Bethurum granted Jamison power of attorney to represent him in connection with the dispute.
5. Jamison once again sent written dispute requests on Bethurum’s behalf to the credit reporting agencies; nonetheless, the credit reporting agencies refused to correct the inaccurate information.
6. In approximately November 2004, Jamison recommended to Bethurum that he file a complaint against TransUnion and the other credit reporting agencies, because they refused to correct the inaccurate information regarding his credit history.
7. Prior to November 2004, Respondent worked for Jamison on a contract basis. In or about November 2004, Jamison suggested to Bethurum that Respondent might be able to prepare a complaint against TransUnion and the other credit reporting agenices on behalf of Bethurum.
Facts Supporting Misconduct
8. On November 4, 2004, Bethurum and Jamison met with Respondent. Respondent agreed to prepare a complaint against TransUnion and the other reporting agencies on Bethurum’s behalf for an advanced fee. A retainer agreement was never prepared.
9. Jamison owed Bethurum some money; consequently, he agreed to pay the advanced fee on behalf of Bethurum.
10. On or about November 4, 2004, Jamison issued Respondent a check drawn from his law firm’s general account in the sum $1,500. The check represented advanced fees for Bethurum’s credit dispute matter as well as other unrelated legal matters that Respondent had agreed to work on with Jamison. Jamison also provided Respondent with documents regarding Bethurum’s credit dispute, including the letters that had previously been written to the credit reporting agencies and Bethurum’s creditors, as well documents supporting Bethurum’s claim that his credit reports contained errors.
11. By accepting an advanced fee to prepare the complaint on behalf of Bethurum, Respondent owed Bethurum a fiduciary duty to perform the specified legal services on his behalf and to communicate with him.
12. Between November 22, 2004, and January 3, 2005, Respondent sent Bethurum a series of e-mails to explain the delay in preparing the complaint. Respondent did not prepare the complaint during that time period. Bethurum repeatedly contacted Respondent to find out what was delaying the preparation of the complaint during that time period.
13. Commencing in November 2004, Respondent began experiencing personal and medical problems; and in January 2005, Respondent was hospitalized. In January 2005, Respondent informed Bethurum and Jamison that he would not be able to complete the matter. Respondent returned all of Bethurum’s documents to Jamison.
14. Subsequently, Bethurum resolved his credit dispute without filing a lawsuit.
Conclusion of Law
By failing to complete the preparation of the complaint for Bethurum, by delaying the return of Bethurum’s file materials for over two months, and by failing to promptly notify Bethurum of his medical condition, Respondent violated the fiduciary duty that he owed to Bethurum, and thereby intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in violation rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct 3-110(A).
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND THE INSTANT STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
The parties waive any variance between the facts and conclusions of law in the Notice of Disciplinary Charges ("NDC’) filed on January 25, 2006, and the facts and/or conclusions of law contained in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive any variance between the basis for the action agreed to in this agreement mad the charges set forth in the NDC. Finally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was March 6, 2006.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Alleged Violation:
Case No.: 05-O-02322, Count: TWO, Alleged Violation: rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of March 6, 2006, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,296. 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
Standard 2.4(b) of the Standards For Attorney Sanctions For Professional Misconduct, Title IV of the Rules of Procedure ("Standards") provides that culpability of a member of wilfully failing to perform services in an individual matter not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-O-02322-RAH
In the Matter of: Sean L. Andrews
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: Sean L. Andrews
Date: March 22, 2006
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Eli D. Morgenstern
Date: March 27, 2006
Case Number(s): 05-O-02322-RAH
In the Matter of: Sean L. Andrews
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department 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.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: April 6, 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 April 12, 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:
SEAN L ANDREWS ESQ
LAW OFC SEAN L ANDREWS
PO BOX 64343
LOS ANGELES, CA 90064-0343
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Eli D. Morgenstern, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on April 12, 2006.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court