Case Number(s): 06-O-11142, 08-O-13908(INV), 08-O-14346(INV)
In the Matter of: David Rule Yardley, Bar # 89927, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Jean Cha, Bar # 228137,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement 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 November 29, 1979.
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 16 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 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 3 billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.)
<<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.
IN THE MATTER OF: DAVID RULE YARDLEY, State Bar No. 89927
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-O-11142, 08-O-13908, 08-O-14346
Case No. 06-O-11142
Facts
1. On September 6, 1990, a petition for dissolution of marriage was filed on behalf of Hayk Bazik ("Hayk") against his spouse, Zhenia Bazik ("Zhenia"), in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles ("Superior Court"), titled Hayk Bazik v. Zhenia Bazik, Case No. ED 000940 ("Bazik v. Bazik").
2. On April 16, 2001, Hayk employed Respondent to substitute into Bazik v. Bazik in place of his then attorney of record.
3. On May 8, 2001, the attorney representing Zhenia, Phyllis A. Walker of Holmes & Holmes ("Walker"), filed an "Order to Show Cause for Modification of Child Support, Spousal Support & Attorney Fees and Costs" ("OSC re Modification") in Bazik v. Bazik.
4. On June 28, 2001, Respondent filed a "Responsive Declaration to Order to Show Case or Notice of Motion," which responded to the OSC re Modification in Bazik v. Bazik.
5. On November 28, 2001, Respondent failed to appear for the OSC re Modification in Bazik v. Bazik.
6. On January 24, 2002, February 28, 2002, and March 5, 2002, Respondent, Walker, and Robert K. Holmes of Holmes & Holmes ("Holmes") appeared for the bifurcated trial and OSC re Modification in Bazik v. Bazik. The Superior Court heard testimony and issued a "Statement of Intended Decision" on March 18, 2002.
7. On May 9, 2002, Walker filed a "Motion for Joinder" in Bazik v. Bazik. The motion noticed a hearing date of July 3, 2002. Respondent received a copy of the motion.
8. On June 10, 2002, Walker filed a "Motion to Release Balance of Verdugo Bank Funds" ("Motion to Release Funds") and "Motion to Reinstate Order to Show Cause for Modification of Child and Spousal Support" ("Motion to Reinstate OSC") in Bazik v. Bazik. The motions noticed a hearing date of July 3, 2002.
9. Respondent did not file a response to the Motions for Joinder, Release, or to Reinstate OSC.
10. On July 3, 2002, Respondent failed to appear for the hearings on the motions in Bazik v. Bazik. The Superior Court issued an OSC re Sanctions for Failure to Appear to be heard on August 2, 2002.
11. On July 10, 2002, Walker filed a "Notice of Order to Show Cause to Appear and for Sanctions against David R. Yardley" in Bazik v. Bazik. The hearing date was noticed for August 2, 2002.
12. On July 29, 2002, Respondent filed a "Responsive Declaration" to the Motion to Release Funds in Bazik v. Bazik. The response identified a hearing date of August 2, 2002, but as not timely filed.
13. On July 30, 2002, Respondent filed a "Responsive Declaration" to the Motion to Reinstate OSC in Bazik v. Bazik. The response identified a hearing date of August 2, 2002, but was not timely filed.
14. On August 2, 2002, Respondent failed to appear for the hearings on the motions in Bazik v. Bazik.
15. On August 6, 2002, a copy of the proposed "Order After Hearing (Joinders, Reinstatement OSC, Release Funds)" was served on Respondent in Bazik v. Bazik.
16. On August 29, 2002, the Superior Court signed the "Order After Hearing (Joinders, Reinstatement OSC, Release Funds)" in Bazik v. Bazik.
17. On October 11, 2002, the Court continued the OSC re Modification for November 7, 2002.
18. On August 4, 5, 6, and 7, 2003, Respondent, Walker and Holmes appeared for the trial in Bazik v. Bazik. The trial was continued to September 30, 2003 at 8:30 a.m.
19. On September 30, 2003, Respondent and his client failed to appear for the trial at 8:30 a.m. or 1:30 p.m. in Bazik v. Bazik. Walker and her client appeared at 8:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., and the Superior Court called Respondent and left four messages on his voice message system requesting that he contact the Court. The Court issued an OSC re Failure to Appear for Trial and Sanctions for November 3, 2003.
20. On October 7, 2003, the Superior Court issued an "Order and OSC re Failure to Appear for Trial and Sanctions" for November 3, 2003 in Bazik v. Bazik.
21. On Friday, October 31, 2003, Respondent filed a "Response to OSC for Failure to Appear for Trial and for Sanctions" in Bazik v. Bazik. The response was untimely filed.
22. On Monday, November 3, 2003, Respondent and Holmes appeared for the OSC re Sanctions, OSC re Evidentiary Sanctions, and trial setting conference in Bazik v. Bazik. The Superior Court continued the OSC re Sanctions and trial setting conference until November 14, 2003.
23. On November 14, 2003, Respondent failed to appear for the OSC re Sanctions, OSC re Evidentiary Sanctions, and trial setting conference in Bazik v. Bazik. Holmes appeared and the Superior Court issued an OSC re Sanctions for December 19, 2003.
24. On November 21, 2003, the Superior Court issued an "Order and Order to Show Cause for Failure to Appear at Mandatory Settlement Conference, Sanctions and Notice of New Trial Date" in Bazik v. Bazik.
25. On November 25, 2003, Walker filed a declaration seeking attorney fees and costs of $7,175 for Respondent’s failures to appear in Bazik v. Bazik.
26. On December 19, 2003, Respondent failed to appear for the OSC re Sanctions in Bazik v. Bazik. Hayk, Zhenia, and Holmes appeared and the Superior Court issued an order imposing sanctions of $7,175 against Respondent payable to Holmes. The Court referred the matter to the State Bar and "admonished [Hayk] to pursue obtaining new counsel,"
27. On December 19, 2003, Holmes filed a proposed "Order After Hearing" in Bazik v. Bazik and served it on Respondent.
28. On January 5, 2004, the Superior Court signed the proposed "Order After Hearing" in Bazik v. Bazik. That same day, subsequent counsel substituted in for Yardley by leave of court.
29. To date, Respondent has not paid the Court ordered sanctions of $7,175 to Holmes.
30. Respondent did not report the imposition of the Court ordered sanctions of $7,175 to Holmes to the State Bar.
31. Between on April 17, 1997 and on October 11,2006, Respondent’s then official State Bar membership records address was P.O. Box 2763, Malibu, California, 90265 (the "Malibu P.O. Box").
32. On January 23, 2006, the State Bar opened an investigation, Case No. 06-O-11142, pursuant to a complaint filed by Holmes (the "Holmes matter").
33. On April 3 and 18, 2006, a State Bar Investigator prepared letters to Respondent regarding the Holmes matter. The letters requested that Respondent provide a written response addressing whether the sanctions were paid and when. The letters were placed in sealed envelopes correctly addressed to the Respondent at the Malibu P.O. Box. The letters were properly mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, by depositing for collection by the U.S. Postal Service in the ordinary course of business.
34. The letters were returned by the U.S. Postal Service with the notations "Return. to Sender [¶] Moved -Left No Address," "Return to Sender [¶] Box Closed - No Order" and "Return to Sender [¶] Attempted - Not Known [¶] Unable to Forward."
Conclusions of Law
35. By failing to pay the court ordered sanctions, Respondent willfully disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to do or forbear in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6103.
36. By failing to report the Court ordered sanctions to the State Bar within 30 days of December 19, 2003, Respondent willfully failed to report to the agency charged with attorney discipline, in writing, within 30 days of the time Respondent had knowledge of the imposition of any judicial sanctions against Respondent in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(o)(3).
37. By failing to make appearances, file timely responses and appear for the trial, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
38. 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, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6068(j).
Case No. 08-0-13908 (INV.)
Facts
39. From February 29, 2008 through July 1, 2008, Respondent wrote 18 checks out of his Client Trust Account, Bank of America account number xxxxx-xx187, for personal
expenses.
40. At the time there were no client funds held in the CTA account.
Conclusion of Law
41. By using his CTA for his personal expenses, Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A), by depositing or commingling funds belonging to Respondent in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import.
Case No. 08-0-14346 (INV.)
Facts
42. In May 2008, Giovanna Campos hired Respondent to represent her in a personal injury claim arising out of an auto accident. On May 12, 2008, Respondent sent a letter of representation to a Liberty Mutual adjustor on behalf of Campos.
43. On July 1, 2008, Respondent’s status was changed from active to inactive.
44. On August 16, 2008, Respondent was suspended for failure to pay child support.
45. On September 10, 2008, Respondent submitted a lengthy settlement packet to Liberty Mutual. At the time, Respondent was administratively suspended for failure to pay child support and MCLE noncompliance.
46. On September 23, 2008, Respondent faxed a letter to Liberty Mutual requesting the speedy resolution to the claim.
47. On October 28, 2008 the Liberty Mutual claims adjuster advised Respondent of his inactive status.
48. On December 8, 2008, Respondent was reinstated for MCLE compliance. However, Respondent learned that he would remain inactive until he resolved the child support matter.
49. On April 7, 2009, Respondent received a release from child support restrictions on his license.
50. On April 14, 2009, Respondent’s suspension was terminated and he was returned to active status.
Conclusion of Law
51. By performing acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law while not entitled to practice law, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code sections 6125 and 6126.
Other Circumstances
From June 2003 through December 2003, Respondent became ill with a serious case of shingles which recurred and broke out across his face and body. Not only was it unsightly but it caused serious debilitating physical pain. At that time, Respondent delegated the task of contacting the court to his part time clerk. Respondent was reckless in supervising whether his clerk actually contacted the court.
In 2002, Respondent was undergoing personal family problems and his wife left with his son and moved out of state. During the latter half of 2002, Respondent was between states trying to obtain custody of his son through informal negotiations with his wife. Respondent neglected his office and relied on his part-time assistant to contact the court and request continuances due to family emergencies, but failed to follow up with his assistant and failed to follow up with the court and opposing counsel in Bazik v. Bazik.
Due to stress and other health problems, shingles returned again sporadically. In September 2003 through October 2003, Respondent’s case of shingles was debilitating.
On January 5, 2004, judgment was entered in favor of creditor Holmes against debtor Respondent. In view of Respondent’s financial condition and in light of other terms and conditions, no disciplinary purpose would be further served by requiring repayment of the sanction in the Bazik matter as a condition of probation since a civil judgment is outstanding.
In 2004, Respondent took a hiatus from practicing law to assist and care for his friend who .was dying from a terminal illness and living at another address. Respondent failed to regularly check his membership records mailing address.
When Respondent used his client trust account for personal expenses he did not hold client funds, it was during a period of time where his general account had been closed when checks were not paid due to nonsufficient funds caused by forged checks. Due to the incident, Respondent had difficulty finding a bank that would open a new account for him.
On July 1, 2008, a notice was sent to Respondent at his official membership records address, advising him of his not entitled status due to failure to comply with his MCLE requirements. That notice was returned to sender. On August 20, 2008, State Bar Member Services sent notice to Respondent at his official membership records address regarding his suspension for non compliance with child support obligations. The letter was returned to sender on September 16, 2005. Respondent did not receive written notice of his inactive status.
Sometime in September 2008, Respondent correctly presumed his status would be changed to inactive status in September 2008 due to his MCLE noncompliance. Respondent completed his MCLE in September 2008. Respondent incorrectly presumed that he was compliant with his MCLE requirements once he sent in proof of MCLE compliance in September 2008. Other than the two September 2008 letters Respondent immediately halted all other activities constituting the practice of law. After the improper conduct was brought to Respondent’s attention by Liberty Mutual, Respondent immediately ceased all correspondence and representation of clients. His client found new counsel and was not harmed. (Std. 1.2(e)(vii).) In October 2008, due to financial difficulties, Respondent was not able to pay for the noncompliance fee and the reinstatement fee. From October 2008 through April 15, 2009, Respondent had no clients.
In November 2008, after learning that he would not be reinstated to active status until he paid fees and penalties, Respondent requested relief and waiver of fees and penalties associated with reinstatement after MCLE noncompliance which was granted.
Aggravation
Respondent has a prior 1996 private reproval in case no. 95-C-12454 which resulted from a DUI conviction arising out of a January 1995 incident. The discipline is given diminished aggravating weight as it was many years ago and did not involve clients or client funds. (Std. 1.2(b)(i).)
Mitigation
Respondent has suffered from several ailments over the years, especially severe facial shingles varicella-zoster virus, causing severe debilitating headaches, extreme sensitivity to light, flu-like symptoms, and painful skin rash. The severe shingles Respondent experienced in 2003 contributed to his failure to perform in the Bazik matter. The shingles outbreaks have not recurred since early 2004. (Std. 1.2(e)(iv).)
Respondent suffers from severe financial difficulties. His client-base has diminished due to his health issues and he could not afford to pay the sanctions order. Respondent is destitute. Respondent lost his law office, vehicle, and his home due to his financial hardship. Respondent’s present focus is on regaining the basic necessities.
Respondent has been candid and cooperative. (Std. 1.2(e)(v); Silva-Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1071, 1079; Pineda v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 753, 760.) Respondent served as a volunteer in his community by performing pro bono work until his financial circumstances prevented him from participating. (Calvert v. State Bar (1991) 54 Cal.3d 765,785.)
Respondent has provided two character reference letters from an attorney and a nonprofit charity where Respondent had volunteered many hours of service. (Std. 1.2(e)(vi).) These letters attested to his character, integrity and honesty even with the knowledge of the misconduct and believe that the conduct was due to his extenuating circumstance and error and will not recur. (Std. 1 o2(e)(vi).)
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND
STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY.
The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on December 4, 2008 and the facts and/or conclusions of law contained in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The parties further waive the right to the filing of a notice of Disciplinary Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was November 20, 2009.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of November 20, 2009, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $3,654.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it might not include State Bar Court costs that will be included in any final cost assessment (see Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068.10(c)) or taxable costs (see C.C.P. section 1033.5(a)), 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. It is also noted that if Respondent fails to pay any installment of disciplinary costs within the time provided herein or as may be modified by the State Bar Court pursuant to section 6086.10, subdivision(c), the remaining balance of the costs is due and payable immediately unless relief has been granted under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 286). The payment of costs is enforceable both as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
The purposes of 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. (Std. 1.3; In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 205, Std. 1.3; Tarver v. State Bar (1984) 37 Cal.3d 122, 133,207 Cal.Rptr. 302, 688 P.2d 911; Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 103, 111 .) In order to properly fulfill the purposes of lawyer discipline, we must review the nature and extent of the facts and circumstances. ,surrounding the misconduct. The determination of discipline involves an analysis of the standards and on balance with any mitigation and aggravation. (Std. 1.6(b). Segal v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1077, 1089; Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302, 1310-11.)
Suspension falls within the standards. (Std. 2.4(b) for failure to perform - reproval to suspension; Std. 2.6 for violations of Business and Professions Code sections 6103, 6126, 6068 suspension to disbarment.) Standard 2.2(b) provides for at least a three month actual suspension for commingling in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
In In the Matter of Johnston (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 585, the attorney was suspended from the practice of law for failure to pay his annual membership fees while he was representing a single client in a personal injury case. The attorney did not inform the client of his suspension and misled her into believing that he was actively working on the case. The Review Department found the attorney culpable of violating section 6106 by misleading the client into believing that he was working on her case and, additionally, found him culpable of failing to communicate with the client and failing to competently perform the legal services for which he was retained. The attorney was also found culpable of failing to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation. In mitigation, the attorney had no record of prior discipline in 12 years of practice. The Review Department recommended that the attorney be actually suspended from the practice of law for a period of 60 days.
In In the Matter of Doran (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 871, the attorney deposited personal funds in his client trust accounts and used those accounts for his personal expenses during a three year period. The Review Department recommended a six month actual suspension.
In In the Matter of Koehler (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 615, the attorney improperly used his trust account as a personal account, and committed other acts of misconduct. The Review Department recommended a six month actual suspension. (Id. at 628.)
Here, Respondent’s misconduct was more serious than the attorney in Johnston and as related to the commingling matter was less serious than the attorneys in Doran and Koehler. Thus, six months actual suspension is appropriate.
Case Number(s): 06-O-11142, 08-O-13908, 08-O-14346
In the Matter of: David Rule Yardley
a. Restitution
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund (“CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
1. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than .
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
1. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
<<not>> checked. If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
<<not>> checked.
1. If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated as a “Trust Account” or “Clients’ Funds Account”;
b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:
i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.
c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
2. If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate described above.
3. The requirements of this condition are
in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct.
checked. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 06-O-11142, 08-O-13908, 08-O-14346
In the Matter of: David Rule Yardley
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: David R. Yardley
Date: November 23, 2009
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Jean Cha
Date: November 23, 2009
Case Number(s): 06-O-11142, 08-O-13908, 08-O-14346
In the Matter of: David Rule Yardley
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 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.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: George Scott
Date: December 8, 2009
[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 December 16, 2009, 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:
DAVID RULE YARDLEY
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID R YARDLEY
21243 PACIFIC COASRT HWY
MALIBU, CA 90265
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number . No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Jean Hee Cha, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 16, 2009.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court