Case Number(s): 06-N-10791, 06-O-12534
In the Matter of: Michael W. Coopet, Bar # 111063, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Gordon L. Grenier, Bar # 225430
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 12, 1983.
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: for the three (3) 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.
Respondent has displayed candor and cooperation with the State Bar during the disciplinary proceedings.
IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL W. COOPET
CASE NUMBER(S): 06-N-10791, 06-0-12534
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.
Case No. 06-N-10791
Statement of Facts:
1. On September 9, 2005, the California Supreme Court filed Order No. S135175 ("Suspension Order") requiring that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year, that execution of the suspension be stayed, that Respondent be placed on probation for two years on condition that he be actually suspended for sixty days and until he makes restitution to Bradley Oakes and provide proof of payment to the Office of Probation of the State Bar.
2. Pursuant to the September 9, 2005 Supreme Court order, Respondent was ordered to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 955, subdivisions (a) and (c) if he was actually suspended for 90 days or more. The Supreme Court further ordered Respondent to perform the acts specified in the subdivisions (a) and (c) of rule 955 within 120 and 130 days, respectively, after the effective date of October 9, 2005.
3. On September 9, 2005, the Clerk of the California Supreme Court properly served upon Respondent a copy of the Suspension Order. Respondent received a copy of the Suspension Order.
4. Respondent failed to provide to the Office of Probation proof of payment of restitution to Bradley Oakes. Therefore, Respondent remained actually suspended for more than 90 days. Accordingly, by February 16, 2006, Respondent should have filed with the Clerk of the State Bar Court an affidavit showing that he had fully complied with rule 955.
5. On September 21, 2005, a probation deputy of the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California wrote a letter to Respondent reminding Respondent of the terms of the discipline imposed pursuant to the Suspension Order. In this September 21, 2005 letter, the probation deputy advised Respondent that the California Supreme Court had ordered him to comply with rule 955 and that the affidavit required by rule 955 was due no later than February 16, 2006. This letter was properly mailed to Respondent’s membership-records address and was received at that address.
6. On February 9, 2006, a probation deputy of the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California wrote a letter to Respondent regarding his failure to comply with the terms of his probation. Enclosed with this letter was a copy of the September 21, 2005 letter. This February 9, 2006 letter was properly mailed to Respondent’s membership-records address and was received at that address.
7. Respondent did not file with the Clerk of the State Bar Court a declaration stating compliance with rule 955 by February 16, 2006. Nearly three months later, on May 11, 2006, Respondent attempted to file a declaration of compliance with rule 955. Respondent’s May 11, 2006 filing was rejected by the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California due to form. Respondent’s declaration of compliance with rule 955 was ultimately filed on June 5, 2006.
Conclusion of Law:
8. By failing to timely file with the Clerk of the State Bar Court a declaration of compliance with role 955 as required by the Suspension Order, Respondent wilfully violated an order of the court requiring him to do an act connected with Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to do in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.
Case No. 06-0-12534
Statement of Facts:
9. On September 9, 2005, the California Supreme Court filed an Order in Case No. S 135175 (State Bar Court Case No. 04-O-12716) that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, that execution of suspension be stayed, and that Respondent be placed on probation for two (2) years subject to the conditions of probation recommended by the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court in its Decision filed on September 9, 2005, including sixty (60) days actual suspension and until payment of specified restitution.
10. Pursuant to the September 9, 2005 California Supreme Court Order, Respondent was ordered to submit to the Probation Unit written quarterly reports each January 10, April 10, July 10 and October 10 of each year or part thereof during which the probation is in effect, certifying under penalty of perjury that he has complied with all provisions of the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct and all other conditions of his probation during the preceding calendar quarter or part thereof covered by the report and to file a final report no later than sixty days prior to the expiration of the probation period.
11. On September 9, 2005, the Clerk of the California Supreme Court properly served upon Respondent a copy of the September 9, 2005 Order. This order became effective on October 9, 2005.
12. On September 21, 2005, Probation Deputy Lydia G. Dineros ("Ms. Dineros") of the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation") wrote a letter to Respondent in which she reminded Respondent of the terms and conditions of his suspension and probation imposed pursuant to the September 9, 2005 California Supreme Court Order. In this September 21, 2005 letter, Ms. Dineros specifically advised Respondent regarding his obligation to timely submit quarterly reports beginning January 10, 2006. Enclosed with Ms. Dineros’ September 21, 2005 letter to Respondent were, among other things, a copy of the September 9, 2005 California Supreme Court Order, a copy of the relevant portion of the Hearing Department’s May 16, 2005 Decision setting forth the conditions of Respondent’s probation, a Quarterly Report Instructions sheet, and a Quarterly Report form specially tailored for Respondent to use in submitting his quarterly reports and final report.
13. Ms. Dineros’ September 21, 2005 letter was properly mailed to Respondent’s membership-records address and was received at that address.
14. On or about February 9, 2006, Ms. Dineros wrote a letter to Respondent advising him that the Office of Probation had not received his first quarterly report due no later than January 10, 2006, and reminding him of his obligation to timely submit quarterly reports during the period of the probation.
15. Ms. Dineros’ February 9, 2006 letter to Respondent was properly mailed to Respondent’s membership-records address and was received at that address.
16. On June 8, 2006, Respondent filed with the Office of Probation the quarterly reports that were due on January 10 and April 10, 2006.
Conclusion of Law:
17. By failing to comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary probation imposed pursuant to a court disciplinary order, Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code sections 6068(k) and 6103.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
Standard 2.6(b) provides that culpability of a member of violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103 shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, with due regard for the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in Standard 1.3.
In Shapiro v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 251, the California Supreme Court suspended the respondent for two years, stayed on condition of a one year actual suspension. This case involved a 955 violation consolidated with one count of abandoning a client in a civil matter. The respondent was unclear whether it was necessary to file an affidavit under Rule 955 and sought advice from his probation monitor. The monitor gave respondent inaccurate information, which he later corrected. Respondent attempted to file a 955 affidavit, but the affidavit was rejected by the Court due to form. Thereafter, respondent delayed 3 months before hiring counsel who filed a proper 955 affidavit. In the consolidated matter, respondent was found culpable of abandoning a client in a civil matter which resulted in a default entering against the client. Although the default was later set aside by new counsel, the client had to pay a $1,500 sanction to reinstate the lawsuit.
In In the Matter of Friedman (Review Department 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 527, the respondent was minimally late (14 days) to file his 955 affidavit, filing it before the State Bar Court’s referral order was issued. The respondent accepted responsibility for his own error, participated in the 955 disciplinary proceeding and cooperated with the State Bar. The Review Department balanced all relevant factors and imposed a 30 day suspension to underline to the respondent the seriousness of his duties to comply with all aspects of court orders.
The conduct involved in the instant case is more severe than Friedman, but less egregious than Shapiro. Unlike Shapiro, Respondent does not have any new misconduct involving client matters. Respondent has now filed his 955 affidavit and quarterly reports. Additionally, Respondent has accepted responsibility for his misconduct.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Respondent has displayed candor and cooperation with the State Bar during the disciplinary proceedings.
QUARTERLY REPORTING CONDITION
As Respondent is already subject to quarterly reporting requirements in Case No. S135175, Respondent is not required to submit separate quarterly reports under the current case numbers. For each reporting period, Respondent may submit a single quarterly report for both the instant Case and Case No. S135175.
Upon completion or termination of Case No. S135175, Respondent will continue to file quarterly reports under the current case numbers as necessary.
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 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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s):
In the Matter of:
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 W. Coopet
Date: 08/03/06
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Gordon L. Grenier
Date: 8-14-06
Case Number(s): 06-N-10791, 06-O-12534
In the Matter of: Michael W. Coopet, Member #: 111063
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: 8/14/06
[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 August 15, 2006, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING ACTUAL SUSPENSION
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 WARREN COOPET
16761 VIEWPOINT LN #190
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92674
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
GORDON GRENIER, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on August 15, 2006.
Signed by:
Tammy R. Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court