State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

PROGRAM FOR RESPONDENTS WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE OR MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

Case Number(s): 06-O-11360,

In the Matter of: Jill Adrian Reza, Bar # 223552, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: David T. Sauber, Deputy Trial Counsel

1149 S. Hill St

Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299

Tel: (213) 765-1252

Bar # 178554,

Counsel for Respondent: Arthur L. Margolis,

Margolis & Margolis

2000 Riverside Drive

Los Angeles, CA 90039

Tel: (323) 963-8996

Bar # 57703,

Submitted to: Program Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles .

Filed: April 20, 2009.

  <<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 9, 2002.

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. However, except as otherwise provided in rule 804.5(c) of the Rules of Procedure, if Respondent is not accepted into the Alternative Discipline Program, this stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on the Respondent or the State Bar.

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, except for Probation Revocation proceedings. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals."  The stipulation consists of 7 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. 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.

7. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7 and will pay timely any disciplinary costs imposed in this proceeding.

B.   Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.

<<not>> checked. (1) Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)].

<<not>> checked. (a)    State Bar Court case # of prior case **.

<<not>> checked. (b)    Date prior discipline effective **.

<<not>> checked. (c)    Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: **

<<not>> checked. (d)    Degree of prior discipline **.

<<not>> checked. (e)    If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below. **.

<<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. **

<<not>> checked. (4) Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice. **

<<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.

<<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:

- Respondent is taking steps to treat her mental health issues.

- Respondent has no other instances of discipline.

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: Jill Ardian Reza, State Bar No. 223552

STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-O-11360

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she is culpable of violating the specified statutes, which constitute causes for discipline in these matters.

I. Facts.

1. Respondent Jill Adrian Raza (Respondent) was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on December 9, 2002, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.

2.  On October 19, 2004, Respondent and her husband filed a lawsuit entitled Jill Reza and Guy Reza v. Kevin Parker, D.C., an individual; Irvine Family Health Center, a business entity unknown; and Does 1 through 50 in the Orange County Superior Court, case number 04CCI0518 (the “lawsuit”). In the lawsuit, Respondent and her husband alleged causes of action for professional negligence, lack of informed consent, and loss of consortium.

3. In essence, the lawsuit alleges that the chiropractic neck manipulation caused the diagnosed dissection in Respondent’s vertebral artery leading to the brain resulting in a stroke that has left Respondent with permanent physical injuries. Respondent and her husband sought, among other forms of relief, special and compensatory damages, including lost wages and loss of future earning capacity. All defendants denied the allegations in the lawsuit.

4. In May 2005, Respondent was offered a short-term opportunity to perform contract legal services for a former client New Century Mortgage Corporation, a subsidiary of New Century Financial Corporation (hereafter “New Century”).

5. On June 1, 2005, Respondent and New Century entered into an agreement whereby New Century would pay Respondent $75 per hour for her services.

6. Respondent submitted invoices to New Century from May 24, 2005, through September 30, 2005, in the combined amount of $48,450 for approximately 646 hours of work.

7. During the course of discovery in the lawsuit, the defendants took Respondent’s deposition during three sessions held on March 4, 2005, July 5, 2005, and September 14, 2005. Respondent was represented by her attorney. Counsel for the various defendants in the lawsuit also appeared at the depositions.

8. Prior to her September 14, 2005, deposition, Respondent was sworn in by the deposition officer. During said deposition, counsel for one of the defendants in the lawsuit asked Respondent what her current sources of income were. Respondent responded that she received income from a Fortis disability policy, from her adjunct teaching at Vanguard University and Whittier Law School, and from her husband’s income. Defendant’s counsel asked Respondent if she was receiving any other source of income. Respondent responded, “No.” Respondent’s responses during the September 14, 2005 deposition were false because Respondent had received income from New Century as described above.

9. On February 8, 2006, the State Bar opened an investigation in this case, based on a State Bar complaint filed by Attorney Steven D. Hunt, counsel for one of the defendants in the lawsuit, alleging that Respondent may have made misrepresentation during her September 14, 2005 deposition (the “deposition matter”).

10. On April 18, 2006, an investigator for the State Bar sent Respondent a letter regarding the deposition matter. The letter requested that Respondent respond in writing to specific allegations of misconduct in that Respondent gave apparently false deposition testimony.

11. On April 22, 2006, Respondent mailed a letter to the State Bar expressing shock and outrage that Mr. Hunt would make the allegations outlined in the investigator’s letter. Respondent claimed that Mr. Hunt had a vendetta against her and her attorney. She claimed that the video surveillance of her entering the New Century office was meaningless. Respondent claimed that she did work for a temporary agency at the end of September 2005, for which she was paid only $300, Nowhere in her April 22, 2006 response did Respondent acknowledge that she was a contract attorney the temporary agency she referred to was owned by her husband. Nowhere in her response did Response acknowledge that she gave false answers under oath during her September 14, 2005 deposition.

II. Conclusions of Law.

Count One

By making material misrepresentations while under oath during her September 14, 2005 deposition, Respondent committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 6106.

Count Two

By making material omissions in her April 22, 2006 letter in response to the State Bar investigation, Respondent committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 6106.

PENDING PROCEEDS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page two, paragraph A (6), was September 18, 2007.

WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY

The parties hereby waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on May 17, 2007, and the facts and conclusions of law contained in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges relating to cases, which are the subject matter of this stipulation.

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 06-O-11360

In the Matter of: Jill Adrian Reza

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.

Respondent enters into this stipulation as a condition of his/her participation in the Program. Respondent understands that he/she must abide by all terms and conditions of Respondent’s Program Contract.

If the Respondent in not accepted into the Program or does not sign the Program contract, this Stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on Respondent or the State Bar.

If the Respondent is accepted into the Program, upon Respondent’s successful completion of or termination from the Program, this Stipulation will be filed and the specified level of discipline for successful completion of or termination from the Program as set forth in the State Bar Court’s Statement Re: Discipline shall be imposed or recommended to the Supreme Court.

Signed by:

Respondent: Jill A. Reza

Date: January 31, 2008

Respondent’s Counsel: Arthur L. Margolis

Date: February 1, 2008

Deputy Trial Counsel: David T. Sauber

Date: February 1, 2008

ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE PROGRAM ORDER

Case Number(s): 06-O-11360

In the Matter of: Jill Adrian Reza

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 conclusions of law is APPROVED.

<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below.

<<not>> checked. All dates in the Hearing Department are vacated.

At page 5, PENDING PROCEEDINGS

By agreement of the parties in open court, the disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph A(6), is amended to be May 21, 2008.

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; or 3) Respondent is not accepted for participation in the Program or does not sign the Program Contract the file date. (See rule 135(b) and 802(b), Rules of Procedure.)

Signed by:

Judge of the State Bar Court: Donald F. Miles

Date: June 18, 2008

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 April 20, 2009, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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:

ARTHUR LEWIS MARGOLIS, ESQ.

MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS

2000 RIVERSIDE DR

LOS ANGELES, CA 90039

checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:

DAVID SAUBER, ESQ. Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on April 20, 2009.

Signed by:

Rose Luthi

Case Administrator

State Bar Court