Case Number(s): 06-O-12006
In the Matter of: Kristine Adams, Bar # 213819, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Christine Souhrada, Bar # 2282586,
Counsel for Respondent: Paul Virgo, Bar # 67900,
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 June 5, 2001.
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 11 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: three 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: Kristine Adams, State Bar No. 213819
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-O-12006
I. Facts
1. On April 8, 2005, Respondent as Of Counsel with the law corporation of Madison Harbor, entered into a legal services agreement with Leon Jones ("Jones"), a visual artist, in which Respondent agreed to, and did, provide legal services to Jones in connection with Jones’s art. Specifically, Respondent wrote three letters on Jones’s behalf to locate some of his property. Respondent never received any payment for writing the letters.
2. On April 15, 2005, Respondent and Jones entered into an artist management agreement. If called to testify, Respondent would testify that Madison Harbor was to separately enter into a contract for the legal services,
3. Between April 2005 and Fall 2005, Jones provided Respondent with several pieces of art that he had created, including nine ell paintings from a "Liberal Arts Collection." If called to "testify, Respondent would testify’ that Respondent worked daily on management projects for Jones, that Respondent conceived of the "Liberal Arts Collection" and designed the paintings; that Jones’ girlfriend helped design some of the pieces; and that Jones painted the pieces. Jones provided the art to Respondent for safekeeping and pursuant to the artist management agreement. If called to testify, Respondent would testify that the paintings were also kept with her because Jones confessed a gambling problem and did not want access to them, and Respondent and Jones determined a need to protect the property from that vice.
4, In December, 2005, Jones retrieved all of his paintings except for the Liberal Arts Collection, Jones requested but did not receive the Liberal Arts Collection. If called to testify, Respondent would testify that the Liberal Arts Collection paintings remained with Respondent at this time pursuant to the safekeeping agreement and artist management agreement, and because they were waiting to be sold, Respondent would also testify that beginning in the late Fall, Jones began acting like someone else, and he was erratic, angry, and untruthfully accusing Respondent of never doing work for him. At trial Respondent would call two witnesses to testify to this behavior. Respondent would testify that she was very disturbed by it and had genuine concern that she needed to continue safekeeping the property due to Jone’s behavior.
5. In late December Jones e-mailed Respondent that he wanted the Liberal Arts paintings. Respondent e-mailed back that she would meet with him but that she was sick at the time and could not do it immediately.
6, If called to testify, Respondent would testify that she sent a letter to Jones on January 16, 2006 in which she addressed many outstanding issues regarding the sudden change in Jones’s demeanor and attitude toward her, the artist management agreement, the need to meet and address his pick-up of the paintings, whether Jones and Respondent were going to sell the paintings, the need for Jones to repay an advance she had given him for future work that he never did, and related matters.
7. In January 2006, Jones contacted the Arts Arbitration and Mediation Services of California Lawyers for the Arts ("AAMS") and asked AAMS to facilitate mediation with Respondent concerning the return of the Liberal Arts Collection. On January 31, 2006. a representative of AAMS called Respondent and spoke with her. The representative also wrote to Respondent regarding Jones’ claim that he could not contact Respondent received the letter, but did not participate in the proposed mediation. If called to testify, Respondent would testify that the reason she did not participate was that she felt the AAMS representative was acting as an advocate for Jones, that the AAMS letter claimed that Respondent owed money to Jones (which was not true), that Respondent had already sent Jones a letter to arrange for a meeting to address the paintings and related matters; and that Respondent was always available for Jones to contact.
8. On January 31, 2006, Jones sent Respondent an e-mail informing Respondent that because he had not heard from her for over 30 days, he assumed she no longer wanted to represent him. Jones asked Respondent to release him from their Management Agreement. Respondent received Jones’ e-mail, but did not respond to him. If called to testify, Respondent would testify that 30 days had not passed, that she had in January 2006 attempted to address with Jones the management arrangement, and related matters.
9. On February 2, 2006, an AAMS representative called and spoke to Respondent. That same day, AAMS sent another letter to Respondent offering AAMS’s assistance in resolving the matter with Jones.
10. On February 17, 2006, Jones sent Respondent a certified letter in which he asked her to return the Liberal Arts Collection. Respondent did not respond to Jones. Although he letter was delivered to Respondent’s correct address. If called to testify, Respondent would testify that she did not receive the letter. Additionally, the postal documents indicate that the letter was, signed for by someone else - not respondent. If called to testify, Respondent would testify that she does not know who that person is, and that Respondent’s address at the time was located in a mixed-use building in L.A. with nine floors and hundreds of units.
11. On March 7, 2006, an AAMS representative again wrote to Respondent. If called to testify, Respondent would testify that she does not recall receiving this letter.
12. On April 20, 2008, after an early settlement conference before a settlement judge in this disciplinary matter, at which the judge recommended Respondent return the paintings, Respondent returned the Liberal Arts Collection to Jones. Respondent was contacted by a State Bar Investigator by way of letter over two years ago concerning claims made by Jones. Respondent replied to the investigator in full, attaching details and documents. Respondent did not hear from the State Bar until approximately two years later. If called to testify, Respondent would testify that she received absolutely no communication of any sort from Jones after she was contacted by the State Bar Investigator two years ago. Respondent never received any payment for the management work. Jones, does not claim he contacted Respondent after he complained to the State Bar.
II. Conclusions of Law
13. By failing to return the Liberal Arts Collection to Jones despite Jones’s repeated requests that she do so, Respondent failed to deliver promptly, as requested by a client, any securities or other properties in Respondent’s possession which the client is entitled to receive, in wilful violation of rule 4-100(B)(4), Rules of Professional Conduct.
III. Supporting Authority
Standard 2.2 of the Standards for professional conduct, state:
(b) Culpability of a member of commingling of entrusted :funds or property with personal property or the commission of another violation of rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct, none of which offenses result in the wilful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in at least a three month actual suspension from the practice of law, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
IV. Dismissals
The parties respectfully request that the the Court dismiss count 2 (Business and Professions Code, section 6106) with prejudice in the interest of justice.
V. Estimate of Costs of Disciplinary Proceedings
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of September 15, 2008, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $3,654.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be granted, rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 06-O-12006
In the Matter of: Kristine Adams
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: Kristine Adams
Date: September 26, 2008
Respondent’s Counsel: Paul Jean Virgo
Date: September 26, 2008
Deputy Trial Counsel: Christine Souhrada
Date: September 26, 2008
Case Number(s): 06-O-12006
In the Matter of: Kristine Adams
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 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Donald F. Miles
Date: September 26, 2008
Re-signed by: Donald F. Miles*
[*Resigned after receipt of original signature page from respondent]
Date: October 2, 2008
[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 October 2, 2008, 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:
PAUL JEAN VIRGO ESQ
PO BOX 67682
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-0682
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Christine A. Souhrada, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on October 2, 2008.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court