Case Number(s): 05-O-03387
In the Matter of: Michael E. Manning, Bar # 149757, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Shari Sveningson, Bar # 195298
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: assigned judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
<<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 4, 1990.
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 13 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: next 2 membership years (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.
Respondent has 2 more incidents of prior discipline, one of which ran concurrently with the discipline imposed in 05-PM-00949. See page 9.
See page 10, discussion of Standard 1.7 (b).
IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL EDWIN MANNING
CASE NUMBER(S): 05-O-03387
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND STIPULATION
The parties waive any variance between Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed December 22, 2005 and the stipulated facts/conclusions of law contained in this Stipulation
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/or Rules of Professional Conduct:
FACTS
1. By order filed September 11, 2003, the Supreme Court placed Respondent on two years probation with certain conditions in case no. S116448 (Stale Bar Court case no. 97-0-18651). Respondent received notice of this order.
2. By order filed May 4, 2005, in case no. 05-PM-00949, the State Bar Court granted the State Bar’s motion to revoke Respondent’s probation in Supreme Court case no. S116448 and ordered Respondent to be placed on involuntary inactive status pursuant to Business and Professions Code, section 6007(d).
3. Pursuant to the State Bar Court’s order in case no. 05-PM-00949, Respondent remained on involuntary inactive status from May 7, 2005, until June 22, 2005. Respondent was not entitled to practice law during that time period.
4. From October 4, 2004, until on or about December 8, 2005, Respondent was the attorney for record for Ruth D. Thomas ("R. Thomas") in the case of the Marriage of Thomas, case no. BD 414 198, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles ("the Thomas matter’’).
5. On May 12, 2005, Respondent filed a Request for Trial Setting Family Law in the Thomas matter, signed by Respondent on May 10, 2005.
6. On or about May 24, 2005, Respondent sent R. Thomas legal correspondence relating to the Thomas matter, by and through his legal assistant. Said correspondence was in the form of a letter signed by "Jennifer Wood Legal Assistant," and on Respondent’s letterhead. Said correspondence included a set of Form Interrogatories relating to the Thomas matter and instructed R. Thomas to provide responses to the interrogatories.
7. Respondent remained attorney of record in the Thomas matter throughout his period of involuntary inactive status, from May 7, 2005, until June 22, 2005.
8. Respondent did not inform R. Thomas that he was not eligible to file the Request For Trial Setting Family Law in the Thomas matter on May 12, 2005. At no time did Respondent inform R. Thomas that he was not entitled to practice law during the period of his inactive status effective May 7, 2005 through June 22, 2005.
LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
By filing a Request for Trial Setting Family Law on May 12, 2005, by sending legal correspondence to R. Thomas on May 24, 2005, and by remaining as attorney of record in the Thomas matter during a period of involuntary inactive status, Respondent violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a), by holding himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law when he was not an active member of the State Bar in violation of Business and Professions Code, sections 6125 and 6126.
By failing to inform R. Thomas he was not eligible to file the Request For Trial Setting Family Law since his status had been changed to inactive, Respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was by letter dated June 12, 2006.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No. 05-0-03387; Count TWO; Alleged Violation Business and Profession Code, section 6068(k);
Case No. 05-0-03387; Count FOUR; Alleged Violation Business and Profession Code, section 6068(i)
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of Jane 12, 2006, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $3,654, Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does not include State Bar Court costs which will be included in any final cost assessment. 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.
PRIOR DISCIPLINE
04-0-12616 (S136102)
Date effective: November 17, 2005 [ran concurrently with discipline imposed in 05-PM-0049
(S 116448)]
Violations: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), Business & Professions Code, sections 60680) and 6068(m)
Degree of discipline: one year suspension, stayed, two years probation, 45 days actual suspension
PRIOR DISCIPLINE, Continued
97-0-18651 (S116448)
Date effective: October 11, 2003
Violations: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A) and 4-100(B)(3), Business & Professions Code, section 6068(m)
Degree of discipline: one year suspension, stayed, two years probation
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.6 provides, in pertinent part, that "Culpability of a member of a violation of any of the following provisions of the Business and Professions Code shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on 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: (a) Sections 6067 and 6068;...(d) Sections 6125 and 6126;...."
Standard 17(a) provides, that "If a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of one prior imposition of discipline as defined by standard 1.2(0, the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that 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 1.7(b) provides, that "If a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of two prior impositions of discipline as defined by standard 1.2(0, the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be disbarment unless the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate.
Disbarment is not warranted in this matter. The current misconduct occurred during the same time period as the misconduct in case no. 05-PM-00949. In that case Respondent failed to file quarterly reports with the Office of Probation in the year 2005. As a result Respondent was placed on involuntary inactive enrollment status from May 7, 2005 through June 21, 2005. The misconduct in this matter was a result of practicing law while on that period of involuntary inactive status.
In the Matter of Raymond E. Mapps (1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr 1:
The respondent’s multiple instances of misconduct occurred during the same period of time and the respondent attributed them to the same circumstances he was in at that time. The court found this to be properly considered in mitigation.
In In the Matter of Gordon Roy Johnston (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 585, the attorney failed to inform the client that the attorney had been suspended for failure to pay bar dues and that the clients personal injury case had been dismissed due to the attorneys failure to prosecute. The Review Department recommended discipline consisting of a 1 year stayed suspension, 2 years probation, and a 60 day actual suspension.
In Taylor v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 424, the attorney practiced law while on suspension for failure to pay bar due. In another matter, the attorney had failed to prosecute a clients personal injury matter. The attorney also had been admitted to practice in 1965 and had no prior record of discipline. The California Supreme Court imposed discipline consisting era three month actual suspension.
In In the Matter of Trousil (Review Dept. 1990) the attorney appeared in court on a bankruptcy matter, at the request of the client, while suspended on another disciplinary matter. The attorney had three priors but there was extensive mitigation as the attorney suffered from bipolar mood disorder (manic depressive syndrome) which had been brought under control through treatment which included medication. The Review Department recommended discipline of a two year stayed suspension, two years probation with thirty days actual suspension.
In In the Matter of Mason (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 639, the attorney appeared in court, as counsel for petitioner in a domestic relations matter, while the attorney was suspended on another disciplinary matter. The Review Department recommended discipline consisting era three year stayed suspension, three years probation, and a 90 day actual suspension.
In the instant case, greater discipline is warranted because Respondent has three instances of prior discipline.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-O-03387
In the Matter of: Michael E. Manning
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: Michael E. Manning
Date: 6/15/06
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Shari Sveningson
Date: 6/15/06
Case Number(s): 05-O-03387
In the Matter of: Michael E. Manning
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: 6-15-06
[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 June 19, 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:
MICHAEL E. MANNING, ESQ.
LAW OFCC MICHAEL E. MANNING
970 VILLAGE OAKS DR. #103
COVINA CA 91724-0609
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
SHARI SVENINGSON, A/L, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on June 19, 2006.
Signed by:
Rose M. Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court