State
Bar Court of California
Hearing
Department
STIPULATION
RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING DISBARMENT; ORDER OF
INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT
Case Number(s): 06-C-15477-RAP, 07-O-10099, 10-N-11171
In the Matter of: Daniel Patrick Willsey, Bar # 143772, A
Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Mia R. Ellis, Deputy Trial
Counsel
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213-765-1380
Bar # 228235,
Counsel for Respondent: Burke W. Willsey, 9741 Wheatland
Avenue #2
Shadow Hills, CA 91040
818-273-9449
Bar # 68510,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s
Office Los Angeles.
Filed: August 31, 2012.
<<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 11, 1989.
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 12 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.
Costs are awarded to the State Bar.
<<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.
ORDER OF INACTIVE ENROLLMENT:
The parties are aware that if this stipulation is approved, the judge will
issue an order of inactive enrollment under Business and Professions Code
section 6007, subdivision (c)(4), and Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule
5.111(D)(1).
B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for
Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts
supporting aggravating circumstances are required.
checked.
(1)
Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)].
checked.
(a)
State Bar Court case # of prior case 99-H-10199.
checked.
(b)
Date prior discipline effective September 24, 1999.
checked.
(c)
Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: Business and
Professions Code Section 6103 and Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110.
checked.
(d)
Degree of prior discipline Nine (9) months suspension, stayed, two (2) years
probation
checked.
(e)
If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided
below.
State Bar Case numbers 97-C-12009 and
98-O-01477, effective date: June 10, 1998, for violations of Business and
Professions Code Section 6068(I), arising from Respondent’s failure to comply
with conditions of his Agreement in Lieu of Discipline and 6068(a), arising
from Respondents conviction for violating Vehicle Code sections 16028(a} (proof
of financial responsibility} and 23103 (reckless driving} in relation to an
alcohol related motor vehicle stop. Degree of discipline was one (1) year
private reproval.
<<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.
checked.
(4)
Harm: Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public
or the administration of justice. See Stipulation Attachment at page 10.
<<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
Stipulation Attachment at page 11.
<<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.
<<not>>
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.
<<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: See Stipulation Attachment at page 11.
D. Discipline: Disbarment.
E. Additional Requirements:
<<not>> checked. (1)
Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court: Respondent must comply with the
requirements of rule 9.20, 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. (2)
Restitution: Respondent must make restitution to in the amount of $
plus 10 percent interest per year from . If the Client
Security Fund has reimbursed for all or any portion of the principal
amount, respondent must pay restitution to CSF of the amount paid plus
applicable interest and costs in accordance with Business and Professions Code
section 6140.5. Respondent must pay the above restitution and furnish
satisfactory proof of payment to the State Bar's Office of Probation in Los
Angeles no later than days from the effective date of the Supreme Court
order in this case..
<<not>> checked. (3)
Other: .
Attachment language (if any):.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: Daniel P.
Willsey, State Bar No. 143772
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER:
06-C-15477, 07-O-10099, 10-N-1171
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.
Case No. 06-C-15477 (Conviction
Proceedings)
PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING:
- This is a
proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and
Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
- On December
23, 2009, Respondent was convicted of violating California Penal Code Section
191.5(a) [gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated], a felony.
- On June 11,
2010, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order
pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6102 that Respondent be
suspended from the practice of law effective June 25, 2010, pending final
disposition of this disciplinary matter. The Review Department further
ordered that Respondent comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of
Court. Respondent has remained on interim suspension since June 25, 2010.
- On or about
April 6, 2011, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an
order referring the matter to the Hearing Department pursuant to rule
9.10(a) of the California Rules of Court, for a hearing and decision
recommending discipline to be imposed in the event that the Hearing
Department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s
felony conviction involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting
discipline.
FACTS:
- On November
14, 2006, Sheriff’s Deputy William J. Hudnall (Deputy Hudnall) was driving
west-bound on Highway 178 in Kern County, California, along with a
passenger, Grace Brown ("Brown"). Respondent was driving east
bound on Highway 178.
- Respondent’s
vehicle crossed into the oncoming traffic lane.
- Deputy
Hudnall’s 2003 Ford Explorer was hit head-on by the eastbound vehicle
driven by Respondent.
- Deputy
Hudnall’s vehicle went over an embankment and he died at the scene.
- Brown was
injured.
- During the
course of the investigation it was determined that Respondent was under
the influence of a controlled substance, amphetamine/cocaine. In an
inventory search of the Respondent’s vehicle, a small bindle of
methamphetamine was located in Respondent’s day planner. A loaded and
cocked 12 gage shotgun was also found in Respondent’s vehicle.
- On June 14,
2007, Kern County District Attorney’s office filed an Information alleging
that the Respondent, on November 14, 2006, committed the following crimes:
a. Count one: unlawfully killing
Deputy Hudnall without malice aforethought in violation of Vehicle Code Section
23152 or 23153, a felony, and the killing was the proximate result of an or act
of passing in the opposite lane in an unsafe manner in violation of Penal Code
section 191.5(A), a felony, and with the enhancement that Respondent caused
bodily injury to Brown, in violation of California Vehicle Code section 23558;
b. Count two: willfully and unlawfully
and while under the influence of alcohol or drug drive a vehicle and in so
driving did an act forbidden by law or neglect in violation of Vehicle Code
section 21751, passing in the opposite land in an unsafe manner, which
proximately caused bodily injury to Deputy Hudnall, in violation of Vehicle Code
section 23153(a), a felony and with the enhancements that Respondent caused
bodily injury to Brown, in violation of California Vehicle Code section 23558
and great bodily injury to Deputy Hudnall within the meaning of Penal Code
section 12022.7 and also causing the above offense to be a serious felony
within the meaning of Penal Code section 1192.7(C)(8);
c. Count three: willfully and
unlawfully transport, import into the State of California, sell, furnish,
administer, or give away, or offer to transport, import into the State of
California, sell, furnish, administer, or give away, or attempt to import into
the State of California a controlled substance: methamphetamine in violation of
Health and Safety Code section 11379(a), a felony, with the enhancement that he
was personally armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense,
within the meaning of Penal Code Section 12022(C);
d. County four: willfully and
unlawfully possess a substance containing methamphetamine while armed with a
loaded, operable firearm in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11370.1
(a), a felony;
e. Count five: willfully and
unlawfully have in his immediate possession an operable, loaded firearm,
short-barreled shotgun while unlawfully under the influence of methamphetamine
in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11550(E), a felony.
f. Count six: willfully and unlawfully
manufacture or cause to be manufactured, import into the State of California,
keep for sale, or offer or expose for sale, or give, lend or possess an
instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a short-barreled shotgun in
violation of Penal Code section 12020(A)(1), a felony;
g. Count seven: willfully and
unlawfully possess a loaded firearm which was capable of being concealed upon
his person while not being listed with the Department of Justice as the
registered owner of that firearm, in violation of Penal Code section
12025(B)(6), a felony.
- On December
23, 2009, Respondent pled nolo contendere to Count One, a violation Penal
Code section 191.5, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, a
felony. All other charges were dismissed.
- Respondent
was sentenced to six years in state prison. He was further ordered to make
restitution to Carrie Hudnall, Deputy Hudnall’s wife, Brown, and Kern
County Sheriff’s Department for their losses incurred.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW:
- The facts
and circumstances surrounding the above-described violation(s) involved
moral turpitude.
Case No. 07-O-10099 (State Bar
Investigation)
FACTS:
- From July
1, 2006 to December 29, 2006, Respondent was the authorized signatory on
his client trust account (CTA) at City National Bank, identified as
account number xxxxx3746.1 [Footnote 1: The complete account
number has been omitted due to privacy concerns.]
- During the
aforementioned period, Respondent held in his CTA funds for his clients,
including advances for fees, costs, and expenses.
- On
September 4, 2006, Respondent issued check number 2114, in the amount of
$300, which was drawn against funds in the CTA, to Dewey Davido for body
work concerning an automobile described as "2000 Sebring."
- On
September 11, 2006, Respondent deposited check number 097, a check for
advance fees from client Glen F. Casaburi, into his CTA. The check was
returned for insufficient funds. After September 29, 2006, Respondent did
not maintain client trust account ledgers for his clients, maintain a
written account journal for his CTA, or reconcile his CTA. From October 2,
2006 to October 13, 2006, Respondent issued five (5) checks that were
returned and unpaid, due to insufficient funds in the CTA.
- On
September 22, 2006, Respondent issued check number 2117, in the amount of
$150, which was drawn against funds in the CTA, to the My Way Lounge, a
sports bar.
- From
September 23, 2006 to September 28, 2006, Respondent issued five checks,
drawn against funds in the CTA, to Vons, a grocery store.
- On October
2, 2006, Respondent issued check number 2127 in the amount of $130.21,
which was drawn against funds in the CTA, to Rosemont Pet Hospital.
- On October
5, 2006, Respondent issued check number 2131 in the amount of $31.44,
which was drawn against funds in the CTA, to Ralphs, a grocery store.
- None of the
aforementioned checks were issued on behalf of a client or in connection
with a client matter. Rather, they were issued for Respondent’s personal
expenses.
- On January
11, 2007, the State Bar opened an investigation, case number 07-O-10099.
- On February
13, 2007 and March 6, 2007, a State Bar investigator wrote to Respondent
regarding the subject CTA checks. The letters were sent to Respondent’s
State Bar membership records address at the time. The letters were not
returned by the United States Postal Service for any reason. Respondent
received the letters but did not respond.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW:
- By issuing
checks drawn against funds in the CTA for personal expenses, Respondent
commingled funds in a trust account, in wilful violation of rule 4-100(A)
of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
- By failing
to maintain client trust account ledgers for his clients after September
29, 2006, by failing to maintain a written account journal for his CTA at
any time after September 29, 2006, and by failing to maintain monthly
reconciliations of his CTA after September 29, 2006, Respondent failed to
maintain, and to preserve for five years from final appropriate
disposition, complete records of all client funds coming into Respondent’s
possession, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule
4100(B)(3).
- By failing
to provide a written response to the State Bar as requested, Respondent
willfully failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary
investigation pending against Respondent in violation of Business and
Professions Code section 6068(i).
Case No. 10-N-11171 (State Bar
Investigation)
FACTS:
- On June 11,
2010, the Review Department of the State Bar Court of the State of
California filed a suspension order in case No. 06-C-15477, effective June
25, 2010 (hereinafter "June 11, 2010, 9.20 Order"). The June 11,
2010, 9.20 Order included a requirement that Respondent comply with rule
9.20, California Rules of Court, by performing the acts specified in
subdivisions(a) and (c) within 30 and 40 days, respectively, after the
effective date of Respondent’s suspension order. The Review Department
properly served upon Respondent a copy of the June 11, 2010, 9.20 Order.
Respondent received the Order.
- On August
5, 2010, Respondent filed a motion to continue time for compliance with
the Order. On August 6, 2010, the State Bar filed a non-opposition.
- On August
23, 2010, the Review Department granted Respondent’s motion. Respondent
was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 by performing the acts specified in
subdivisions (a) and (c) within 30 and 40 days, respectively, after the
effective date of the August 23, 2010 Order. The Review Department
properly served upon Respondent a copy of the August 23, 2010, Order.
- On September
23, 2010, Respondent filed a motion for further order to continue time for
compliance with the 9.20 Order. The State Bar did not oppose the motion.
- On October
12, 2010, the Review Department granted Respondent’s motion. Respondent
was ordered to comply with rule 9.20, by performing the acts specified in
subdivisions (a) and (c) within 30 days after the effective date of the
October 12, 2010, 9.20 Order. Respondent received the Order.
- The Review Department’
s October 12, 2010, 9.20 Order became effective on November 11, 2010,
thirty days after the order was filed.
- On January
3, 2011, Respondent’s Counsel, Burke Willsey, filed a declaration with the
Court that Respondent mailed him an executed copy of the 9.20 compliance
declaration but Burke Willsey delayed filing it with the Court until
certified mail receipts were returned indicating that the parties had
received the notices.
- On January
3, 2011, the 9.20 compliance declaration was filed with the Court.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW:
- By failing
to file a declaration of compliance with rule 9.20 in conformity with the
requirements of rule 9.20(c), Respondent failed to timely comply with the
provisions of the Review Department’s October 12, 2010 9.20 Order,
requiring compliance with Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court.
AGGRAVATION
AND MITIGATION
AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES.
Prior
Record of Discipline:
This is discussed on page two of the Stipulation. Prior discipline is an
aggravating factor. (Standard 1.2(b)(i).)
Harm: Standard 1.2(b)(iv) applies as
Respondent’s misconduct resulted in the death of Deputy Hudnall and injury to
Brown, as well as at the irreparable damage to the lives of the victims’ family
and friends.
Multiple/Pattern
of Misconduct: The
misconduct stipulated herein constitutes multiple acts as there are three
matters with multiple acts of misconduct. However, this misconduct does not
constitute a pattern. Standard 1.2(b)(ii) (See Bledsoe v. State Bar (1991) 52
Cal.3d 1074 [defining pattern of misconduct].)
MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES.
Pre-trial
Stipulation:
Respondent is entitled to mitigation for entering into a full stipulation with
the Office of Chief Trial Counsel prior to the trial, thereby saving State Bar Court
time and resources. (ln re Downey (2009) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 151,156; In
the Matter of Van Sickle (Rev. Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980,
993-994). However, the facts in the matters could have been proven by
documentary evidence. Also, Respondent’s cooperation is tempered by the fact
that he did not provide a
written
response to the State Bar during the investigation of case number 07-0-10099.
Thus, Respondent’s cooperation is entitled to some, but not great, weight in
mitigation.
DISMISSALS
In case
number 07-0-10099, the parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss Count
Two, Business and Professions Code Section 6106.
DISCUSSION
OF AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
The Court
looks first to the Standards when setting discipline; the Standards are to be
given great weight and followed whenever possible. (In re Silverton (2005) 36
Cal.4th 81, 91-92; In the Matter of Sullivan (Rev. Dept. 2010) 5 Cal. State Bar
Ct. Rptr. 189, 195.) Where there are two or more acts of misconduct in a single
proceeding, and different sanctions apply, the sanction imposed shall be the
more or most severe of the different applicable sanctions. (Standard 1.6(a).)
A number of
the Standards apply to the misconduct in these matters, all of which call for
disbarment: 1.7(b), 2.6, 3.2, and California Rule 9.20. Respondent has two
prior records of discipline, at least one involving alcohol (State Bar case
number 99-H-10199 and 98-O-01477), and a history of violating probation
conditions (State Bar case number 99-H-10199 and 97-C-12009). There is no
evidence of compelling mitigation to justify deviating from the Standards.
While Respondent’s cooperation is entitled to some weight in mitigation, in
balancing the misconduct and factors in aggravation, the parties submit that
disbarment is the appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct
committed by Respondent and is adequate to protect the public, courts and the
legal profession.
PENDING
PROCEEDINGS.
The
disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was August 22, 2012.
COSTS OF
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent
acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent
that as of August 22, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are $6,988.40.
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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 06-C-15477; 07-O-10099; 10-N-11171
In the Matter of: Daniel Patrick Willsey
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:
Daniel P. Willsey
Date: August
24, 2012
Respondent’s
Counsel: Burke Willsey
Date: August
24, 2012
Deputy Trial
Counsel: Mia R. Ellis
Date: August
24, 2012
DISBARMENT ORDER
Case Number(s): 06-C-15477; 07-O-10099; 10-N-11171
In the Matter of: Daniel Patrick Willsey
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
with 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
5.58 (E) & (F), 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 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Respondent
is ordered transferred to involuntary inactive status pursuant to Business and
Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4). Respondent’s inactive
enrollment will be effective three (3) calendar days after this order is served
by mail and will terminate upon the effective date of the Supreme Court’s order
imposing discipline herein, or as provided for by rule 5.111(D)(2) or the Rules
of Procedure of the State Bar of California, or as otherwise ordered by the
Supreme Court pursuant to its plenary jurisdiction.
Signed by:
Judge of the
State Bar Court: Donald F. Miles
Date: August
29, 2012
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule
5.27(B); 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 August 31, 2012, 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:
BURKE W. WILLSEY
9741 WHEATLAND AVE #2
SHADOW HILLS, CA 91040
checked. by interoffice mail through a
facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as
follows:
Mia R. Ellis, Enforcement ,
Los Angeles
I hereby
certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles,
California, on August 31, 2012.
Signed by:
Johnnie Lee
Smith
Case
Administrator
State Bar
Court