Case Number(s): 05-O-03930, 05-O-04464
In the Matter of: William R. Kiefer, Bar # 202048, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Geri von Freymann, Bar # 97937
Counsel for Respondent: Erica Ann Tabachnick, Bar # 94324
Submitted to: Assigned Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: November 30, 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 June 14, 1999.
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 9 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 added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts for the following 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.
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.
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: William R. Kiefer
CASE NUMBER(S): 05-0-03930, 05-0-04464
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
05-0-03930
1. On November 29, 2004, Maria Fernando Solano (hereinafter "Solano") employed Respondent William R. Kiefer to represent her in immigration proceedings. On November 15, 2004, an order of deportation had been issued. There was a thirty day period in which to file an appeal. On November 29, 2004, Respondent and Solano signed a retainer agreement and Solano made an initial payment of $1,000.00 to Respondent.
2. Respondent employed Abel Soto (hereinafter "Soto") as an administrative assistant/translator at his office located at 8925 Sepulveda Blvd. Ste 206, North Hills. Solano’s contacts with Respondent’s office were made through Soto. Soto represented to Solano that her matter was being timely processed. Respondent maintained another office at 10068 Magnolia Ave. Riverside. Respondent was not in the North Hills office on a daily basis. Respondent failed to adequately supervise Soto and failed to monitor the activity on her immigration matter.
3. Solano ultimately confronted Respondent about the lack of personal attention to her immigration case and about the failure to keep her informed of the progress of her appeal. Solano terminated Respondent’s employment. Respondent refunded the $1,000.00 fee to Solano.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to adequately supervise Soto throughout the representation of Solano, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in violation of role 3-110(A), of the Rules of Professional Competence.
05-0-04464
1. On January 10, 2005, Jose and Rosa Valdizon (hereinafter "Valdizon") were referred to the law offices located at 8925 Sepulveda Blvd. Ste. 206, North Hills for representation in an immigration matter. The Valdizons met with Soto who represented that he was a lawyer working with Respondent. After being assured that their immigration matter would be handled under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act ("NACARA"), the Valdizons employed the law office and made payments to Soto.
2. While Respondent was in his Riverside office, Soto made use of the immigration computer program to file documents with Respondent’s name appearing as attorney of record. Soto never advised Respondent of the initial interview with the Valdizons nor did he advise him that he had taken on the immigration matter as his own.
3. In August 2005, Valdizon appeared unannounced in Respondent’s. Riverside office. The visit was prompted by receipt of a denial notice under NACARA. Respondent had no recognition of the clients nor of their case. After a search of his records, and his meeting with them, he realized that the clients had ’retained’ Soto.
4. Respondent made a refund of $1,500.00 of the money taken by Soto to Valdizon.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to adequately supervise Soto, by maintaining an office in North Hills where he was unable to present, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in violation of rule 3-110(A), of the Rules of Professional Competence.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was October 11, 2006.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provides that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings and imposing sanctions for professional misconduct are "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys; and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession."
Standard 2.4 (b) provides that culpability of a member of wilfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of wilfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
In this stipulation, Respondent has stipulated to two violations of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for failing to supervise Abel Soto. In the Solano matter, Respondent accepted the client and knew of the client’s immigration case, but failed to timely perform the services for which he was employed. In the Valdizon matter, the Respondent was unaware that Soto was engaging in conduct that exceeded his role of office administrator/translator and that included accepting clients and fees without the Respondent’s presence in the office.
Respondent issued a cease and desist letter to Soto. On February 3, 2006, Respondent made a complaint of identity theft to the Los Angeles Police Department. Respondent had any signs referring to himself removed from the North Hills office. On January 27, 2006, Respondent letters to his clients advising them that his only office location was in Riverside.
The issuance of a public reproval in this matter is within the range of discipline prescribed by the standards as set forth above. In light of the remedial steps that Respondent has taken, the return of fees to the clients, and for his candor and cooperation with the State Bar, a public reproval is appropriate in this case to further the purposes of standard 1.3 to protect the public, the courts and the profession.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-O-03930, 05-O-04464
In the Matter of: William R. Kiefer
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: William R. Kiefer
Date: 10-26-06
Respondent’s Counsel: Erica Ann Tabachnick
Date: 10/30/06
Deputy Trial Counsel: Geri von Freymann
Date: 11/1/06
Case Number(s): 05-O-03930
In the Matter of: William R. Kiefer
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing Department are vacated.
1. On page 1, after “Submitted to””, insert “Assigned Judge”; and,
2. On page 2, paragraph (8), after "[X] costs to be paid in equal amounts for the following membership years:", insert "2008, 2009 and 2010".
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: 11/29/06
[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 November 30, 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:
ERICA A TABACHNICK ATTORNEY AT LAW
900 WILSHIRE BLVD #1000
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Geraldine P. VonFreymann, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on November 30, 2006.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court