State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

ACTUAL SUSPENSION

Case Number(s): 05-0-03170; 05-0-03634; 05-0-04248

In the Matter of: Jason S. Guetzkow, Bar # 191280, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Mark Hartman, Bar # 114925

Counsel for Respondent: Bar #

Submitted to: settlement judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco

Filed: August 11, 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 9, 1997.

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 15 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."  See pages 7 to 11.

5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".  See pages 8 to 12.

6. The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."  See page 13.

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.  See page 12.

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 two 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.

<<not>> checked. (1) Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]

<<not>> checked. (a)          State Bar Court case # of prior case .

<<not>> checked. (b)          Date prior discipline effective .

<<not>> checked. (c)           Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations:

<<not>> checked. (d)          Degree of prior discipline  

<<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. 

 checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:  Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.  See page 12.

<<not>> checked. (8) No aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances:

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.

 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. See page 12.

<<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: 

D. Discipline:

 checked. (1)          Stayed Suspension:

 checked. (a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year

<<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 two (2) years which will commence upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter.  (See rule 953, Calif. Rules of Ct.)

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 ninety (90) 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.

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 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) & (E), Rules of Procedure.

<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended.  Reason:

 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:

In the Matter of JASON S. GUETZKOW, No. 191280, A Member of the State Bar.

 Case Nos. 05-0-03170; 05-0-03634; 05-0-04248

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DISPOSITION

STATE BAR CASE NUMBER 05-0-03170

Facts

1. On July 26, 2004, Robert and Marge Pospishek (’’the Pospisheks") paid respondent $700.00 to prepare documents to establish a living trust. On September 1, 2004, respondent sent the Pospisheks a draft of the trust documents for them to review and an invoice showing an outstanding balance of $525.00. The Pospisheks noted several errors in the trust documents and tried to contact respondent by telephone without success.

2. From September 2004 through mid-January 2005, the Pospisheks called respondent on eight to ten occasions to try to discuss the errors noted in the trust documents. Respondent returned the Pospisheks’ calls once, in October 2004, to schedule a meeting which the Pospisheks were not available to attend. Thereafter, respondent did not return any of the Pospisheks’ telephone messages requesting a return call.

3. On January 19, 2005, the Pospisheks sent respondent a letter terminating his employment. In this letter, they also requested a refund of the $700.00 advance fee.

4. The Pospisheks did not receive a reply to their letter of January 19, 2005. Accordingly, on March 15, 2005, they sent respondent a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested. In this second letter, they asked respondent to refund the $700.00 advance fee and enclosed a copy of their January 19, 2005. The certified mail return receipt for the March 15, 2005, letter was signed by "A. Piorito" of respondent’s office and was returned to the Pospisheks.

5. The Pospisheks did not receive a refund or any communication from respondent. On September 8, 2005, Robert Pospishek went to respondent’s former office at 51 E. Campbell Avenue, Campbell, California, and discovered from the receptionist that respondent no longer had an office at that address.

6. Respondent did not inform the Pospisheks that he had moved his office out of 51 E. Campbell Avenue. Nor did he inform them where he had moved to or how they could contact him.

7. By moving his office without informing the Pospisheks of his new address, respondent constructively terminated his employment with the Pospisheks. Respondent did not inform the Pospisheks of his intent to withdraw from representation or take any other steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the Pospisheks.

8. Respondent did not correct and finalize the draft trust documents which he sent to the Pospisheks on September 1, 2004. Nor did he earn the $700.00 advance fee paid by the Pospisheks.

9. The Pospisheks filed a complaint about respondent with the State Bar. On October 24, 2005, and on November 4, 2005, State Bar Investigator Laura Sharek ("Sharek") wrote letters to respondent regarding the Pospisheks’ matter. In these letters, Sharek requested that respondent respond in writing to specified allegations of misconduct. Respondent did not reply to Sharek’s letters.

10. On February 22, 2006, respondent sent a letter to the Pospisheks enclosing a $700.00 check.

Conclusions of Law

11. Respondent recklessly and repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence insofar as (1) he failed to respond to the Pospisheks’ telephone calls to discuss the errors in the draft trust documents and (2) he failed to correct and finalize the draft trust documents. He thus wilfully violated rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

12. Respondent failed to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments in their matter insofar as he failed to inform the Pospisheks of his new office address and contact information. He thus wilfully violated section 6068, subdivision (m) of the Business and Professions Code.

13. Respondent failed upon termination of employment, to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his clients insofar as (1) he failed to inform the Pospisheks of his intent to withdraw from representation and (2) he failed to take any other steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to them. He thus wilfully violated rule 3-700(A)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

14. Respondent failed upon termination of employment, to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned insofar as he took more than a year to return the $700.00 advance fee to the Pospisheks. He thus wilfully violated rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

15. Respondent failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation insofar as he failed to provide a written reply to Sharek’s letters about the allegations of misconduct in the Pospisheks’ matter. He thus wilfully violated section 6068, subdivision (i) of the Business and Professions Code.

STATE BAR CASE NUMBER 05-0-03634

Facts

16. Joseph Lowe ("Lowe") sought respondent’s help when his mother, Antoinette Lowe, required assistance with estate matters. Joseph Lowe had a power of attorney to oversee his mother’s affairs. On January 2, 2003, Joseph Lowe hired respondent to provide legal assistance with Antoinette Lowe’s estate matters.

17. On June 6, 2003, Joseph Lowe also hired respondent to handle issues related to the death of his sister, Catherine Lowe, and his appointment as guardian of his niece. Catherine Lowe’s death left Joseph Lowe as the trustee of her estate, including the San Filippo Revocable Trust, and as the guardian of his niece, Lilla San Filippo.

18. Respondent substantially completed Annette Lowe’s estate matters. In the San Filippo estate and guardianship cases ("San Filippo cases"), he filed pleadings and appeared at a hearing in September 2003. After June 2004, however, respondent stopped all work on the San Filippo cases.

19. Starting in September 2004, respondent stopped replying to Joseph Lowe’s telephone calls and letters. Joseph Lowe left a number of telephone messages for respondent and sent him a number of e-mails requesting status updates and legal guidance about the San Filippo cases. Respondent did not reply to these telephone messages and e-malls.

20. On November 15, 2004, and on January 3, 2005, Joseph Lowe sent respondent letters requesting status updates and legal guidance about the San Filippo cases. Respondent did not reply to these letters.

21. Joseph Lowe eventually concluded that respondent had abandoned him and his mother as clients. On April 12, 2005, Antoinette Lowe sent respondent a letter terminating respondent as her attorney. On May 16, 2005, Joseph Lowe sent respondent a letter terminating respondent’s employment with regard to the San Filippo cases. These termination letters requested the return to Joseph Lowe of all papers and property related to Annette Lowe’s estate matters and to the San Filippo cases. Although Joseph Lowe received a few documents related to the San Filippo cases, the complete files were not returned.

22. On June 27, 2005, Joseph Lowe sent respondent another letter asking for the return of the complete files. Respondent did not reply to this letter.

23. Joseph Lowe later spoke with respondent by telephone. Respondent stated that he would return the complete files for Antoinette Lowe’s estate matters and for the San Filippo cases. Respondent, however, did not do so.

24. Joseph Lowe filed a complaint about respondent with the State Bar. On February 2, 2006, and March 8, 2006, Sharek wrote letters to respondent regarding Antoinette Lowe’s estate matters and the San Filippo cases. In these letters, Sharek requested that respondent respond in writing to specified allegations of misconduct. Respondent did not reply in writing to Sharek’s letters.

Conclusions of Law

25. Respondent recklessly and repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence insofar as (1) he stopped working on the San Filippo cases after June 2004 and (2) he failed to respond to Joseph Lowe’s telephone messages, e-mails, and letters requesting legal guidance about the San Filippo cases. He thus wilfully violated rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

26. Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client insofar as he failed to respond to Joseph Lowe’s telephone messages, e-mails, and letters requesting status updates about the San Filippo cases. He thus wilfully violated section 6068, subdivision (m) of the Business and Professions Code.

27. Respondent failed upon termination of employment, to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his clients insofar as (1) he failed to inform Joseph Lowe of his intent to withdraw from representation and (2) he failed to take any other steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to Joseph Lowe in the San Filippo cases. He thus wilfully violated rule 3-700(A)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

28. Respondent failed upon termination of employment, to release promptly all client papers and property at the request of the client insofar as he did not return the complete files for Annette Lowe’s estate matters and for the San Filippo cases. He thus wilfully violated rule 3700(D)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

29. Respondent failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation insofar as he failed to provide a written reply to Sharek’s letters about the allegations of misconduct in Antoinette Lowe’s estate matters and the San Filippo cases. He thus wilfully violated section 6068, subdivision (i) of the Business and Professions Code.

STATE BAR CASE NUMBER 05-0-04248

Facts

30. On July 28, 2003, Liza Clary ("Clary") hired respondent to represent her in a probate case ("Clary case"). He performed some services for her, but did not complete the work on her case.

31. From May 2004 to October 2005, Clary left a number of telephone messages for respondent and sent him a number of e-mails requesting status updates. Respondent did not reply to these telephone messages and e-malls.

32. From May 2004 to October 2005, Clary sent respondent five letters requesting status updates. Respondent did not reply to these letters.

33. In October 2005, Clary hired another attorney, Joseph R. Faria ("Faria") to represent her in the Clary case. On October 28, 2005, Clary sent respondent a letter terminating his employment. In this termination letter, she informed respondent that she had hired Faria. She enclosed a substitution of attorney with the termination letter and asked respondent to sign and return it. Respondent did not reply to the termination letter and did not return a signed substitution of attorney.

34. Faria sent respondent a letter requesting Clary’s file. Faria enclosed a substitution of attorney and asked respondent to sign and return it. Respondent did not reply to Faria’s letter, did not forward Clary’s file, and did not return a signed substitution of attorney.

35. Clary filed a complaint about respondent with the State Bar. On October 14, 2005, and October 31, 2005, Sharek wrote letters to respondent regarding the Clary case. In these letters, Sharek requested that respondent respond in writing to specified allegations of misconduct. Respondent did not reply in writing to Sharek’s letters.

Conclusions of Law

36. Respondent recklessly failed to perform legal services with competence insofar as he failed to complete work on the Clary case. He thus wilfully violated rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

37. Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client insofar as he failed to respond to Clary’s telephone messages, e-mails, and letters requesting status updates. He thus wilfully violated section 6068, subdivision (m) of the Business and Professions Code.

38. Respondent failed upon termination of employment, to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his clients insofar as he failed to return a signed substitution of attorney. He thus wilfully violated rule 3-700(A)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

39. Respondent failed upon termination of employment, to release promptly all client papers and property at the request of the client insofar as he did not forward the file for the Clary case to Faria after Faria requested it. He thus wilfully violated rule 3-700(D)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

40. Respondent failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation insofar as he failed to provide a written reply to Sharek’s letters about the allegations of misconduct in the Clary case. He thus wilfully violated section 6068, subdivision (i) of the Business and Professions Code.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Respondent’s misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing and significantly harmed his clients, whose matters were delayed and were not properly handled.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

During the period of his misconduct, respondent suffered from depression. He has seen a doctor. With the help of medication, his depression is now under control.

DATE OF DISCLOSURE OF ANY PENDING INVESTIGATION OR PROCEEDING

On July 20, 2006, the State Bar faxed respondent a letter disclosing any pending investigation or proceeding not resolved by this stipulation.

ESTIMATED PROSECUTION COST

The estimated prosecution cost of State Bar case numbers 05-0-03170, 05-0-03634, and 05-0-04248 ("the current cases") is $4,161.23. This sum is only an estimate. If the current stipulation is rejected or if relief from the current stipulation is granted, the prosecution cost of the current cases may increase because of the cost of further proceedings.

RESTRICTIONS WHILE ON ACTUAL SUSPENSION

1. During the period of actual suspension, respondent shall not:

Render legal consultation or advice to a client;

Appear on behalf of a client in any hearing or proceeding or before any judicial officer, arbitrator, mediator, court, public agency, referee, magistrate, commissioner, or hearing officer;

Appear as a representative of a client at a deposition or other discovery matter.

Negotiate or transact any matter for or on behalf of a client with third parties;

Receive, disburse, or otherwise handle a client’s funds; or

Engage in activities which constitute the practice of law.

2. Respondent shall declare under penalty of perjury that he or she has complied with this provision in any quarterly report required to be filed with the Probation Unit, pertaining to periods in which the respondent was actually suspended from the practice of law.

SUPPORTING AUTHORITY

The Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, Title IV, Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standards 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 2.4, and 2.6 support the discipline recommended in the current stipulation. See also Farnham v. State Bar (1976) 17 Cal.3d 605.

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 05-0-03170, 05-0-03634, 05-0-04248

In the Matter of: Jason S. Guetzkow No. 191280 A Member of the State Bar

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: Jason S. Guetzkow

Date: 7/25/06

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Donald Steedman

Date: 8/1/6

ORDER

Case Number(s): 05-0-03170, 05-0-03634, 05-0-04248

In the Matter of: Jason S. Guetzkow No. 191280, A Member of the State Bar

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 935(a), California Rules of Court.)

Signed by:

Judge of the State Bar Court:  Pat McElroy

Date:  August 11, 2006

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 San Francisco, on August 11, 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 , California, addressed as follows:

JASON S. GUETZKOW

3115 WORTHINGTON ST NW

WASHINGTON, DC 20015

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 August 11, 2006.

Signed by:

Laine Silber

Case Administrator

State Bar Court