Case Number(s): 06-O-10918
In the Matter of: Eugene Belitsky, Bar # 191162, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Maria J. Oropeza, Bar # 182660
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
Filed: May 25, 2007
<<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 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 10 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 added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<not>> checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 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.
Respondent may ask the probation department to consider another ethics course in lieu of Ethics School in Washington D.C., which covers the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act.
IN THE MATTER OF: Eugene Belitsky, Bar No. 191162
CASE NUMBER(S): 06-O-10918 ET AL.
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.
Statement of Facts: Count Two (Case No. 06-O-10918)
1. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1), by failing to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property, as follows:
2. On November 18, 2004 respondent was hired by Julia Reznikov ("Reznikov") to represent her in a marriage dissolution matter.
3. On November 18, 2004, respondent received the sum of $2,000.00 in advanced attorney’s fees from Reznikov.
4. Respondent prepared several documents that Reznikov submitted to the opposing party that were the result of negotiations between the parties.
5. On August 25, 2005, Reznikov sent a message to respondent via electronic mail terminating his services and requesting a return of her client file.
6. Respondent received the electronic mail and the request for the return of Reznikov’s client file. Respondent did not respond to Reznikov’s request.
7. On October 17, 2005, Reznikov wrote to respondent via first class mail and via electronic mail, requesting the return of her client file.
8. Reznikov’s October 17, 2005 first class mall letter was returned to Reznikov.
9. Respondent received the electronic mail letter request dated October 17, 2005 from Reznikov.
10. Respondent did not respond to Reznikov’s request for the return of her client file.
11. To date, respondent has not returned the client file to Reznikov.
Conclusions of Law: Count Two (Case No. 06-O-10918)
12. By falling to return to Reznikov, her client file as requested by her August 25, 2005, electronic mail, and her October 17, 2005 electronic mail, respondent failed to promptly release all client papers and property to the client as requested upon termination of employment, a wilful violation of rule 3-700(D)(1 ) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Statement of Facts: Count Four (Case No. 06-0°10918)
13. Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 60680) by failing to comply with the requirements of section 6002.1, which requires a member of the State Bar to maintain on the official membership records of the State Bar, the member’s current office address and telephone number or, if no office is maintained, the address to be used for State Bar purposes or purposes of the agency charged with attorney discipline, as follows:
14. From November 4, 2004 through January 3, 2007, respondent’s official membership records address was 388 Beale Street, #1202, San Francisco, CA 94105, ("the Beale Street address")
15. As of October 17, 2005, respondent had abandoned the Beale Street address as his official membership records address, and ceased to receive mail directed at the Beale Street address.
16. Respondent did not attempt to effectuate a change of his official membership records address within 30 days of vacating the Beale Street address.
17. At no time during October 17, 2005 through January 2, 2007 did respondent attempt to change or effectuate an official membership records address change with the State Bar of California.
18. On January 3, 2007, respondent submitted an official membership records address change notification to the State Bar of California.
Conclusions of Law: Count Four: Case No. 06-0-10918)
19. By failing to change his official membership records address within 30 days of vacating the Beale Street Address, respondent failed to maintain an official membership records address where he could be reached for State Bar purposes pursuant to Business and Professions Code §6002.1 (a)(1), a wilful violation of Business and Professions Code §6068 (J).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was April 11, 2007.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No. 06-0-10918; Count One; Alleged Violation 3-110(A)
Case No. 06-0-10918; Count Three; Alleged Violation 3-700(D)(2)
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of April 11, 2007, the costs in this matter are $2,331.50. 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.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
In In Re Ronald Robert Silverton (2005) Supreme Court Order $123042, the Supreme Court stated that the standards are entitled to great weight and that the State Bar Court should follow the guidance of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions whenever possible (Supra. Slip opinion pg. 14).
Standard 2.6 states in pertinent part "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." Subsection (a) cites to Business and Professions code section 6068.
Standard 2.10 states in pertinent part "Culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in these standards or a of a wilful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to 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."
Decisions of the Supreme Court and the Review Department involving abandonment of a client’s case with no prior record of attorney’s misconduct have typically resulted in discipline ranging from no actual suspension to 90 days of actual suspension. (ln the Matter of Nunez (Rev. Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 196, 206.)
In the Matter of Sullivan (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 608, an attorney did not promptly release a client’s papers where the attorney failed to turn over the client’s file for six months after a request from the client’s new counsel. The Review Department imposed a sixty days actual suspension in the Sullivan matter, however he was also found to have violated rules 3-110(A) in four client matters.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
FINANCIAL CONDITIONS, RESTITUTION.
Respondent has returned to Reznikov the sum of $1,000.00 representing her refund of unearned fees.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 06-O-10918
In the Matter of: Eugene Belitsky, Bar No. 191162
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: Eugene Belitsky
Date: 4/23/07
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Maria J. Oropeza
Date: 4/27/07
Case Number(s): 06-O-10918
In the Matter of: Eugene Belitsky, Bar No. 191162
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 court dates in the Hearing Department are vacated.
Paragraph 11 of the statement of facts on page 6 of the stipulation is deleted and in its place the following is added: "11. Respondent returned the client file to Reznikov on May 3, 2007."
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 125(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: George Scott
Date: 5/24/07
[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 May 25, 2007, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
EUGENE VICTOROVICH BELITSKY
1207 PARK RD NW APT 202
WASHINGTON, DC 20010
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
MARIA OROPEZA, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on May 25, 2007.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court