Case Number(s): 06-O-11558
In the Matter of: John T. Coates, Bar # 207175, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Paul T. O’Brien, Bar # 171252
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: December 12, 2006
<<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 June 2, 2000
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):
<<not>> checked. costs added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
<<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.
IN THE MATTER OF: JOHN T. COATES
CASE NUMBER(S): 06-0-11558
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
1. On April 12, 2005, Respondent was publicly reproved in Case No. 05-O-00327-RAP for a period of one year ("the reproval"). As a condition of his reproval, Respondent was required to comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct. On May 15, 2006, the reproval was modified by the State Bar Court to extend the reproval period to September 2, 2006.
2. On January 3, 2005, Caroline Gunawan ("Gunawan") and her employer, Conway Cooke of Cooke & Associates ("Cooke"), employed Respondent to represent her in applying for an extension of her H-1B visa ("the application"). Her then-current visa was set to expire on February 1, 2005.
3. On January 5, 2005, Cooke paid Respondent $450 as attorneys fees and $185 as advanced costs for filing the application. The check for $185 was made payable to the USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services).
4. Between January 6 and June 9, 2005, Gunawan made multiple attempts to contact Respondent, in order to obtain status information about the application. Respondent did not provide any response to Gunawan until June 9, 2005, upon his receipt of a fax from USCIS of a copy of a rejection of her application. Respondent correctly informed her that the application had been rejected due to a failure to include a $750 processing fee and an 1-129W petition.
5. On June 13, 2005, Gunawan provided Respondent with a check for $750 for the processing fee, made payable to the USCIS, in order to resubmit the application. Again, the check was issued by Cooke.
6. Thereafter, Respondent did not re-submit the application with the I-129W and the check for $750.
7. Between June 14 and August 24, 2005, Gunawan made three more calls to Respondent’s office in order to obtain status information about the application. Respondent did not provide any response to Gunawan until August 24, 2005. He informed her at that time that the initial check for $185 to file the application had been returned as stale dated, more than 90 days old.
8. On August 25, 2005, Gunawan provided Respondent with a new check for $185 for the filing fee for the application.
9. Thereafter, Respondent did not re-submit the application with the 1-129W and the checks for $185 and $750.
10. Between October 14 and October 20, 2005, Gunawan learned that the $750 check from Cooke had not been negotiated. As a result, she made several calls to Respondent in order to obtain status information about the application. Respondent replied with assurances that he would send the USCIS a letter on October 24, 2005, confirming that Gunawan’s application was originally filed in January 2005, and requesting a receipt for the $750.
11. Respondent did not send the USCIS the promised letter. Instead, on October 20, Respondent sent a letter to Gunawan assuring her that she need not worry, as the application had been filed and the payment had been submitted. In fact, Respondent merely assumed that Gunawan’s application had been properly resubmitted, along with the checks, and at no time did he exercise reasonable diligence in confirming that his office staff had properly performed its assigned tasks.
12. On October 21, 2005, Cooke sent a letter to Respondent by facsimile, requesting all the paperwork filed with the INS (USCIS) in furtherance of the application, as well as reminding Respondent that he agreed to obtain a receipt from the USCIS for the $750 paid for the processing fee. Respondent received the fax letter.
13. On November 1, 2005, Gunawan employed new counsel, Daniel Hanlon and Hanlon & Greene ("Hanlon"), to take over the processing of her H-1B visa application from Respondent. Between November 2, 2005 and January 11, 2006, Hanlon sent Respondent three letters in an effort to obtain information about the then-current status of the application and to obtain Gunawan’s file. Respondent received each of the three letters, but did not respond until January 12, 2006, when he called and scheduled an appointment to meet with Hanlon.
14. On January 20, 2006, Respondent met with Hanlon, admitted his failure to complete the services he had been employed to perform, refunded the $450 advanced attorneys fees and $185 filing fee, and agreed to cooperate in any attempt to reopen the application for Gunawan’s H-1B visa. Gunawan had been unaware until that time that Respondent had not, in fact, re-filed the application after it was rejected.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
15. By not submitting a completed 1-129W petition and a check for $750 with Gunawan’s original application; by not timely informing Gunawan to Cooke that the application filing fee had been rejected; by not re-submitting the application mad completed 1-129W with the checks for $185 and $450; by not adequately supervising his office staff to ensure it had properly performed assigned tasks; and by not exercising any reasonable diligence before erroneously representing to his clients that the application had been resubmitted, Respondent failed to perform services with competence, in wilful violation of rule 3-110(A), Rules of Professional Conduct.
16. By not providing his clients with the paperwork they requested from his file, Respondent failed to provide documents reasonably necessary to stay informed about significant developments in the processing of the application, in wilful violation of rule 3-500, Rules of Professional Conduct.
17. By violating roles 3-110(A) and 3-500, Rules of Professional Conduct, Respondent failed to comply with all conditions of his reproval in Case No. 05-0-00327, et al., in wilful violation of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was October 20, 2006.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of October 20, 2006, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $1,983.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does not include State Bar Court costs 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.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
STANDARDS FOR ATTORNEY SANCTIONS
To determine the appropriate level of discipline, the standards provide guidance. Drociak v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1085; In the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119. A disciplinary recommendation must be consistent with the discipline in similar proceedings. See Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302. Also, the recommended discipline must rest upon a balanced consideration of relevant factors. In the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119.
Pursuant to Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar of California and of sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgment of a member’s professional misconduct are the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys and the protection of public confidence in the legal profession.
Standard 1.7(a) supports an increase of the level of discipline from the discipline imposed in a prior proceeding. [Respondent was publicly reproved in 2005 for failing to perform services with competence in two immigration matters, and for violating the terms of an agreement in lieu of discipline by failing to attend Ethics School in a timely manner.]
Standard 2.4(b) calls for reproval or suspension for failing to communicate with a client, depending on the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client. [Respondent’s misconduct delayed his clients’ visa application, but did not cause other harm.]
OTHER AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
In the Matter of Aguiluz (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 32: A two year suspension, stayed, was ordered where an attorney failed to perform and abandoned a client’s case. [While the respondent in that matter had no prior record of discipline, there were other aggravating factors not present here, and less in the way of mitigation.]
In the Matter of Respondent G (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal State Bar Ct. Rptr. 175: A private reproval was imposed where the violation was deemed a minor incident of failure to perform services with competence (but which was followed by the respondent’s candor and cooperation).
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 06-O-11558
In the Matter of: John T. Coates
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: John T. Coates
Date: 11/10/06
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Paul T. O’Brien
Date: 11/27/06
Case Number(s): 06-O-11558
In the Matter of: John T. Coates
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: Richard A. Honn
Date: 12/8/06
[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 December 12, 2006, 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:
JOHN T COATES ESQ
555 E PACIFIC COAST HWY #218
LONG BEACH, CA 90806
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Paul T. O’Brien, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 12, 2006.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court