Case Number(s): 05-O-02401-JMR; 06-O-10094-JMR
In the Matter of: Janet Ann Galeno, Bar # 114814, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Mark Hartman, Bar # 114925,
Counsel for Respondent: Ephraim Margolin, Bar # 32582,
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
<<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 3, 1984.
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 14 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):
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.
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: . (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) 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. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.
Case Number(s): 05-O-02401-JMR; 06-O-10094-JMR
In the Matter of: Janet Ann Geleno, State Bar No.: 114814
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: Robert and Katherine Krause
Principal Amount: $1,500.00
Interest Accrues From: December 5, 2001
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 sixty days after the effective date of the California Supreme Court order in the current cases.
<<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: JANET ANN GALENO, State Bar No. 114814
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 05-O-02401-JMR; 06-O-10094
FACTS
Case Number 05-O-02401-JMR
From September 2001 onwards, respondent was not entitled to practice law in California bemuse of her failure to comply with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement.
In December 2001, respondent met with Robert E. and Katherine Krause ("the Krauses"), At the meeting, respondent identified herself as a lawyer entitled to practice law in California. The Krauses paid respondent an attorney’s fee of $1,500,00 for legal advice concerning the creation era living trust and for the preparation of legal documents related to the living trust. The Krauses also provided respondent with the original deed to a timeshare property they owned.
In February 2002, respondent sent the Krauses an invoice for professional services. The invoice was produced on letterhead identifying respondents an attorney at law.
On August 16, 2002, the California Supreme Court issued order number S108829, effective September 4, 2002. Order number S108829 suspended respondent from the practice of law in California for failure to pay her State Bar membership dues.
On September 10, 2002, respondent met with the Krauses; and they executed the legal documents related to the living trust.
By 2005, respondent’s professional relationship with the Krauses had ended, In May 2005, Mrs. Krause sent respondent a letter asking her to return the original deed to the timeshare property. Respondent received this letter, but did not promptly return the deed.
In May 2005, the State Bar opened an investigation pursuant to a complaint filed by Mrs. Krause (the Krause complaint").
On June 15, 2005, State Bar Investigator Crystal Velazco (“Velazco”) sent respondent an initial letter regarding the Krause complaint. This letter asked respondent to respond in writing to allegations of misconduct in the Krause complaint Respondent received Velazco’s initial letter and asked for an extension of time to respond substantively to the letter.
On June 29, 2005, Velazco sent respondent a second letter confirming that respondent had until July 13, 2005, to provide a substantive response to the Krause complaint investigation. Respondent received Velazco’s second letter.
On July 13, 2005, respondent faxed Velazco a note stating that she was attempting to hire a lawyer to represent hex in relation to the State Bar investigation of the Krause complaint. Respondent also stated that she would contact Velazco once she had secured representation. The note did not include any substance response to the allegations under investigation in relation to the Krause complaint. The State Bar subsequently received no notice that respondent had secured representation.
On July 26, 2005, Velazco sent respondent a third letter asking her to confirm that she had secured representation or to provide a substantive response to Velazco’s initial letter concerning the Krause complaint. Respondent received Velazco’s third letter, but did not respond to it.
Case Number 06-O-10094
In November 2004, respondent signed a stipulation regarding facts, conclusions of law, and disposition ("the prior stipulation") in State Bar case number 03-O-02448. In the prior stipulation, respondent agreed to the following discipline: a one-year stayed suspension and a one-year probation, conditioned on a thirty-day actual suspension. The prior stipulation specified the following requirements as conditions of probation: (1) that respondent must file quarterly reports ("the reporting requirement") and (2) that she must pay restitution of $1,000 plus interest to Francisca Guevarra not later than ninety days after the effective date of the discipline in case number 03-O-02448 ("the restitution requirement").
On December 17, 2004, the State Bar Court filed an order approving the stipulation and recommending the agreed-upon discipline.
On May 12, 2005, the California Supreme Court filed order number S131532, In re Janet Ann Galeno on Discipline, ("the Supreme Court order") in State Bar case number 03-O-02448. The Supreme Court order imposed the agreed-upon discipline, including the reporting and restitution requirements, and became effective as of June 11, 2005. Respondent was properly served with, and she received, a copy of the Supreme Court order.
Respondent did not file the quarterly reports due as of October 10, 2005, and January 10, 2006. Nor did she pay the restitution due as of September 9, 2005.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Case Number 05-O-02401-JMR
Respondent wilfully violated section 6068, subdivision (a) of the Business and Professions Code by failing to support the laws of California insofar as she engaged in the unauthorized practice of law ("UPL”) in violation of sections 6125 and 6126 of the Business and Professions Code. Respondent engaged in UPL as follows: (1) she held herself out to the Krauses in 2001 and 2002 as entitled to practice law when she was not entitled to practice law and (2) she practiced law in the Krause matter in 2001 and 2002 (i.e., by giving legal advice pertaining to the creation of a living trust and by preparing the legal documents related to the living trust) when she was not entitled to practice law.
Respondent wilfully violated rule 4-200(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by charging and collecting an illegal fee as follows: she charged and collected an attorney’s fee of $1,500.00 in the Krause matter for legal services performed while she was not entitled to practice law in California.
Respondent wilfully violated rule 3-700(D)(l) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property as follows: she did not promptly return the original timeshare deed to Mrs. Krause after Mrs. Krause asked for the deed in her letter of May 5, 2005.
Respondent wilfully violated section 6068, subdivision (i) of the Business and Professions Code by failing to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against her as follows: she did not provide a substantive response to the allegations under investigation in relation to the Krause complaint as requested by State Bar Investigator Velazco.
Case Number 06-O-10094
Respondent wilfully violated section 6103 of the Business and Professions Code by disobeying a court order requiring her to do acts connected with her profession which she ought in good faith to have done as follows: she failed to file the quarterly reports due as of October 10, 2005 and January 10, 2006, and to pay the restitution due as of September 9, 2005.
ESTIMATED PROSECUTION COST
The estimated prosecution cost of State Bar case number 05-O-02401-JMR and case number 06-O-10094 (”the current cases") is $2,915.00. This sum is only an estimate. If the current stipulation is rejected or if relief from the current stipulation is granted, the prosecution the current cases may increase because of the cost of further proceedings.
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
The Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, Tide IV, Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standards 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 2.6, and 2.7 support the discipline recommended in the current stipulation.
DATE OF DISCLOSURE OF ANY PENDING INVESTIGATION OR PROCEEDING
On January 18, 2006, the State Bar faxed respondent’s counsel a letter disclosing any pending investigation or proceeding not resolved by this stipulation.
ETHICS SCHOOL
California Supreme Court order number S131532 requires that by June 11, 2006, respondent must complete a session of Ethics School and must provide proof of attendance and passage of the test given at the end of the session- If respondent complies with this requirement, such compliance shall also satisfy the Ethics School requirement recommended in the current stipulation.
MULTISTATE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EXAMINATION
California Supreme Court order number S131532 requires that by June 11, 2006, respondent must provide proof that she has passed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"). If respondent complies with tiffs requirement, such compliance shall also satisfies the MPRE requirement recommended in the current stipulation.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-O-02401-JMR; 06-O-10094-JMR
In the Matter of: Janet Ann Geleno, State Bar No.: 114814
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: Janet Ann Geleno
Date: February 20, 2006
Respondent’s Counsel: Ephraim Margolin
Date: February 20, 2006
Deputy Trial Counsel: Mark Hartman
Date: February 26, 2006
Case Number(s): 05-O-02401-JMR; 06-O-10094-JMR
In the Matter of: Janet Ann Geleno, State Bar No.: 114814
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:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
On Page 4, under "Discipline," an "x" is inserted in the box next to paragraph (1)(b), clarifying that the above-referenced suspension is stayed.
On page 7, under =Financial Conditions," the “x" in the second box under “Restitution" is deleted, removing the requirement that respondent pay the restitution no later than 60 days after the effective date of discipline. The recommended discipline is 90 days actual suspension and until respondent pays the restitution. Accordingly, if respondent fails to timely pay the restitution, she will remain on actual suspension. The court finds the "and until" provision provides sufficient public protection.
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: Joann M. Remke
Date: February 24, 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 San Francisco, on February 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
EPHRAIM MARGOLIN
240 STOCKTON ST 4TH FL
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
MARK HARTMAN, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on February 24, 2006.
Signed by:
George Hue
Case Administrator
State Bar Court