Case Number(s): 05-O-02729
In the Matter of: Larry M. Bakman, Bar # 88964, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Gordon l. Grenier, Bar # 225430,
Counsel for Respondent: Michael G. Gerner, Bar # 65906,
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: March 13, 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 November 29, 1979.
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 10 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).
checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<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.
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.
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: Larry M. Bakman, State Bar No. 88964
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 05-O-02729
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 Rules of Professional conduct.
Statement of Facts:
In or about February 2002, Rick Rubin employed Respondent to attempt to recover his funds $11,400 which were being held in escrow in relation to a real property transaction. Rubin ultimately paid Respondent $6189 in advanced fees.
On July 21, 2003, Respondent represented Rubin at mediation, but no settlement was reached. On or about October 2004, Rubin requested and received his file. Between March 2006 and June 2005, Rubin requested that Respondent provide him with an accounting on four different occasions. Rubin complained to the State Bar in June 2005. Respondent ultimately Rubin’s accounting to the State Bar on September 15, 2005.
Conclusion of Law:
By failing to provide Rubin with a timely accounting of his services, Respondent violated rule 4-100(B)(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.10 states that culpability of a member of a violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in the standards shall reset in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due, regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3.
Standard 1.7(a) provides that the degree of discipline shall be greater than 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 discpline in the current proceeding would be manifestly unjust.
In In the Matter of Hanson (Review Dept. 1994) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 703, the respondent, in a single client matter, failed to refund promptly an unearned legal fee and failed to take responsible steps to avoid prejudice to a client prior to withdrawal from representation. The respondent had a prior private reproval approximately nineteen years earlier, but the court found this prior to be remote and minimal in nature. As such, the court did not award it significant weight in aggravation. The Respondent received a public reproval.
The instant case is somewhat similar to Hanson. Respondent’s original misconduct, while more recent then that in Hanson, took place approximately 12 years ago. Additionally, the facts in the instant case are less egregious then those of Hansom. As such, a private reproval is the appropriate resolution.
LACK OF HARM
While Respondent’s failure t timely account was understandably frustrating to his clients, it did not result in measurable harm.
DISMISSALS
The State Bar requests the Court dismiss the following in the interest of justice:
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-O-02729
In the Matter of: Larry M. Bakman
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: Larry M. Bakman
Date: March 6, 2006
Respondent’s Counsel: Michael G. Gerner
Date: March 6, 2006
Deputy Trial Counsel: Gordon L. Grenier
Date: March 9, 2006
Case Number(s): 05-O-02729
In the Matter of: Larry M. Bakman
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 125(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: Robert M. Talcott
Date: March 9, 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 March 13, 2006, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING PRIVATE REPROVAL
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:
Michael Galen Gerner
10100 Santa Monica Blvd #30
Los Angeles, CA 90067
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
GORDON L. GRENIER, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 13, 2006.
Signed by:
Tammy R. Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court