Case Number(s): 06-O-13672
In the Matter of: IVAN BARRY SCHWARTZ, Bar # 153264, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: MONIQUE T. MILLER, Deputy Trial Counsel, State Bar of California, 1149 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90015-2299, 213-765-1486, Bar # 212469
Counsel for Respondent: DAVID CAMERON CARR, Law Office of David Cameron Carr, 3333 CaminoDel Rio S Ste 215, San Diego, CA, 92108, 619-696-0526, Bar# 124510
Submitted to: Program 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, 1991.
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.
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 ("NDC") filed on October 29, 2008 in Case No. 06-O-13672, 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 the case that is the subject matter of this stipulation.
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.
FACTS
1. At all times relevant herein, Respondent maintained a client trust account at U.S. Bank, account number 1-618-4316-8592 (the "CTA").
2. In October 2001, Taunia Davies ("Davies") retained attorney Grant Lynd ("Lynd") to represent her and her minor child, Jalen, in a civil case arising out of an automobile accident that occurred on October 12, 2001 (the "first personal injury case"). In September 2002, Respondent was associated into Davies’s first personal injury case, and Respondent assumed responsibility for prosecuting the case to its conclusion. Mercury Insurance ("Mercury") was the insurer of the opposing party in the first personal injury case.
3. In July 2003, Davies and Jalen were involved in a second automobile accident (the "second personal injury case"). Respondent represented Davies and Jalen in a civil action arising out of the second personal injury case. Wawanesa was the insurer of the opposing party in the second personal injury case.
4. Rancho Physical Therapy ("RPT") was a third party lienholder whom Davies agreed to reimburse for medical services rendered to her out of any settlement funds she would receive from either or both of her personal injury cases. Health Care Recoveries ("HCR") was a third part lienholder whom Davies agreed to reimburse for medical claims benefits paid on her behalf by HCR out of any settlement funds she would receive from either or both of her personal injury cases. There were no liens or other payments to be made to third parties out of Jalen’s settlement proceeds from either of the two personal injury cases.
5. In October 2003, the first personal injury case was settled. On October 8, 2003, Mercury issued two checks in settlement of Davies’s and Jalen’s first personal injury case, totaling $8,750.00, as follows: a check in the amount of $7,500.00, payable to Davies, Respondent, Lynd, and HCR ("Davies’s $7,500.00 settlement check"); and a check in the amount of $1,250.00, payable to Davis as Parent/Guardian of Jalen Davies, a minor, Respondent, and Lynd ("Jalen’s $1,250.00 settlement check").
6. On October 31, 2003, Respondent deposited Davies’s $7,500.00 settlement check and Jalen’s $1,250.00 settlement check into his CTA, for a total deposit of $8,750.00.
7. On October 31, 2003, Respondent withdrew $2,000.00 by check no. 3933, drawn on his CTA, in attorney’s fees in the Davies matter, leaving a balance of $6,750.00 of Davies’ and Jalen’s settlement funds in the CTA. On and after October 31, 2003, Respondent was required to maintain at least $6,750.00 in his CTA on behalf of Davies and Jalen.
8. After withdrawing his attorney’s fees on October 31, 2003, and until December 15, 2003, Respondent made no other disbursements from his CTA to, or on behalf of, Davies or Jalen.
9. On December 15, 2003, the balance in Respondent’s CTA fell below $6,750.00, to $761.77.
10. Respondent converted at least $5,988.23 of Davies’s and Jalen’s funds ($6,750.00 [total of Davies’s and Jalen’s settlement funds on deposit on October 31, 2003] - $761.77 [ending balance on December 15, 2003, before any disbursements made to, or on behalf of, either Davies or Jalen] = $5,988.23) to his own use and purpose.
11. HCR had paid approximately $12,749.70 in medical claims benefits on behalf of Davies, for medical services Davies received between October 2001 and September 2003. Respondent received copies of HCR’s itemized claims payouts on behalf of Davies, totaling approximately $12,749.70, from HCR in September 2003. On October 24, 2003, Kenneth Haffner of HCR sent Respondent a fax, informing Respondent that he (Haffner) had authority to accept $982.50 in full satisfaction of HCR’s lien in Davies’s personal injury matter. Respondent received Mr. Haffner’s fax.
12. Respondent and Davies had agreed that Respondent would pay HCR’s and RPT’s liens out of Davies’s settlement proceeds held in trust by Respondent.
13. After depositing Davies’s $7,500.00 settlement check in his CTA on October 31, 2003, Respondent did not pay HCR until February 3, 2004, when he issued check no. 3961, drawn on his CTA, in the amount of $982.50, payable to HCR, in full satisfaction of HCR’s lien.
14. In March 2005, the second personal injury case was settled. On March 11, 2005, Wawanesa issued two checks in settlement of Davies’s and Jalen’s second personal injury case, totaling $8,600.00, as follows: a check in the amount of $6,800.00, payable to Davies and Respondent ("Davies’s $6,800.00 settlement check"); and a check in the amount of $1,800.00, payable to Daryl and Taunia Davies as Parents of Jalen Davies, [a] Minor, and Respondent ("Jalen’s $1,800.00 settlement check").
15. On March 11, 2005, Respondent deposited Davies’s $6,800.00 settlement check into his CTA.
16. On April 19, 2005, Respondent deposited Jalcn’s $1,800.00 settlement check into his CTA.
17. On July 21, 2006, Respondent issued two CTA checks to RPT, checks nos. 4271 for $5,000 and 4272 for $2,700, or a total of $7,700, or $98.50 more than the $7,601.50 total of Davies’s remaining funds.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
18. By not maintaining at least $6,750.00 in his CTA on behalf of Davies and Jalen from October 31 through December 15, 2003, Respondent failed to maintain client funds in a trust account, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
19. Respondent with gross negligence misappropriated Davies’s and Jalen’s settlement funds, willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
20. By not paying HCR’s lien out of Davies’s settlement funds, held in trust by Respondent for that purpose, for over three (3) months after Respondent deposited Davies’s settlement funds in his CTA, Respondent failed to pay client funds as requested by his client, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(4).
21. By issuing RPT check no. 4272, drawn on his CTA, which included approximately $98.50 of Respondent’s own funds, Respondent commingled funds belonging to Respondent with client funds, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
RULE 133 NOTICE OF PENDING PROCEEDINGS
Respondent was notified in writing of any pending investigations not included in this stipulation, pursuant to Rule 133(12), on December 4, 2009.
Case Number(s): 06-O-13672
In the Matter of: IVAN BARRY SCHWARTZ Bar No. 153264
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitations and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts and 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 is 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, this Stipulation will be filed and will become public. Upon Respondent’s successful completion of or termination from the Program, the specified level of discipline for successful completion of or termination from the Program as set forth in the State Bar Court’s Confidential Statement of Alternative Dispositions and Orders shall be imposed or, recommended to the Supreme Court.
Signed by: IVAN BARRY SCHWARTZ, DAVID CAMERON CARR, MONIQUE T. MILLER
Respondent: IVAN BARRY SCHWARTZ
Date: 12/08/2008
Respondent’s Counsel: DAVID CAMERON CARR
Date: 12/08/2008
Deputy Trial Counsel: MONIQUE T. MILLER
Date: 12/09/2008
Case Number(s): 06-O-13672
In the Matter of: IVAN BARRY SCHWARTZ
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 stipulation as to facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED.
<<not >> checked. The stipulation as to facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below.
<<not >> checked. All court dates, in the Hearing Department 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; or 3) Respondent is not accepted for participation in the Program or does not sign the Program Contract. (See rule 135(b) and 802(a), Rules of Procedure.)
Signed by: Donald Miles
Judge of the State Bar Court: Donald Miles
Date: 12/17/2009
Case Number(s): 08-O-13868
In the Matter of: IVAN BARRY SCHWARTZ, Bar # 153264, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: MONIQUE T. MILLER, Deputy Trial Counsel, State Bar of California, 1149 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90015-2299, 213-765-1486, Bar # 212469
Counsel for Respondent: DAVID CAMERON CARR, Law Office of David Cameron Carr, 3333 Camino Del Rio S Ste 215, San Diego, CA, 92108, 619-696-0526, Bar# 124510
Submitted to: Program 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, 1991
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 6 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.
Additional aggravating circumstances:
Additional mitigating circumstances:
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 ("NDC") filed on May 19, 2009 in Case No. 08-O-13868, 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 the case that is the subject matter of this stipulation.
INCORPORATION OF PRIOR STIPULATION
This stipulation is an addendum intended to supplement the Stipulation re: Facts and Conclusions of Law in Case No. 06-O-13672, which the parties lodged with this Court on December 9, 2008 (the "Prior Stipulation"). The Prior Stipulation is also incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN CASE NO. 08-O-13868
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.
FACTS
1. On July 18, 2005, Respondent was employed by Maria Navarrete ("Navarrete") to file a medical malpractice action on her behalf. The medical malpractice action arose out of personal injuries to Navarrete which occurred on June 3, 2005. Due to her diminished capacity, Navarrete authorized Respondent to communicate with her family members regarding her case, including providing them with status updates.
2. Beginning in August 2005 and continuing through December 2007, a member of Navarrete’s family would contact Respondent by telephone or in person on behalf of Navarrete on at least a monthly basis to inquire about the status of Navarrete’s case. During these contacts, Respondent led the family members to believe that he was working on Navarrete’s case.
3. On June 3, 2006, the statute of limitations expired on filing a medical malpractice action on behalf of Navarrete. Respondent never filed a malpractice action on behalf of Navarrete.
4. On June 9, 2006, Respondent sent a Notice of the Intention To Bring Action Based on Professional Negligence to Sharp Healthcare Memorial Hospital. In this Notice Respondent specifies that on eptember 15, 2006, he would be filing an action for damages based upon Sharp’s negligence in providing professional health care services to Navarrete. Subsequent to this letter Respondent failed to take any further action on behalf of Naverrete.
5. On December 7, 2007, Respondent met with Navarrete and members of her family. At this meeting Respondent told Navarrete that he had failed to file a complaint prior to the statute of limitations expiring.
6. On multiple occasions between August 2005 and December 2007, Respondent told Navarrete’s daughter Maria that he had filed a medical malpractice action in court on behalf of Navarrete. These statements were false and Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing they were false at the time he made these statements.
7. On July 18, 2005, Respondent and Navarrete signed a contingency fee agreement prepared by Respondent. The agreement provided that Respondent would collect 33 1/3 percent of any amount collected prior to the filing of a suit and 40 percent of any amount collected after the filing of a suit.
8. Respondent’s fee agreement violates Business and Professions Code, section 6146, which prohibits, in pertinent part, entering a contingency fee agreement in a medical malpractice action in excess of the following: 40% of the first $50,000 recovered; 33 1/3% of the next $50,000 recovered; 25% of the next $500,000 recovered; and 15% of any amount on which the recovery exceeds $600,000.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
9. By failing to provide any legal services of value to Navarrete for which he was hired, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
10. By misrepresenting to Navarrete’s daughter that a medical malpractice action had been filed in court, Respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, in willful violation of Business & Professions Code section 6106.
11. By failing to comply with the fee agreement provisions of Business and Professions Code section 6146, Respondent entered into an illegal fee agreement with Navarrete, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, 4-200(A).
RULE 133 NOTICE OF PENDING PROCEEDINGS
Respondent
was notified in writing of any pending investigations not included in this
stipulation, pursuant to Rule 133(12), on August 7, 2009.
Case Number(s): 08-O-13868
In the Matter of: IVAN BARRY SCHWARTZ Bar No. 153264
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitations and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts and 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 is 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, this Stipulation will be filed and will become public. Upon Respondent’s successful completion of or termination from the Program, the specified level of discipline for successful completion of or termination from the Program as set forth in the State Bar Court’s Confidential Statement of Alternative Dispositions and Orders shall be imposed or, recommended to the Supreme Court.
Signed by: IVAN BARRY SCHWARTZ, DAVID CAMERON CARR, MONIQUE T. MILLER
Respondent: Ivan Berry Schwartz
Date: 08/19/2009
Respondent’s Counsel: David Cameron Carr
Date: 08/19/2009
Deputy Trial Counsel: Monique T. Miller
Date: 08/21/2009
Case Number(s): 08-O-13868
In the Matter of: IVAN BARRY SCHWARTZ Bar # 153264
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 stipulation as to facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED.
<<not >> checked. The stipulation as to facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below.
<<not >> checked. All court dates, in the Hearing Department 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; or 3) Respondent is not accepted for participation in the Program or does not sign the Program Contract. (See rule 135(b) and 802(a), Rules of Procedure.)Signed by: Donald Miles
Judge of the State Bar Court: Donald Miles
Date: 12/17/2009
Case Number(s): 08-O-14600
In the Matter of: IVAN BARRY SCHWARTZ, Bar # 153264, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: MONIQUE T. MILLER, Deputy Trial Counsel, 1149 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90015-2299, 213-765-1486, Bar # 212469
Counsel for Respondent: DAVID CAMERON CARR, Law Office of David Cameron Carr, 3333 Camino Del Rio S Ste 215, San Diego, CA, 92108, 619-696-0526, Bar# 124510
Submitted to: Program 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, 1991
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 6 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.
Additional aggravating circumstances: ** .
Additional mitigating circumstances: Respondent was directed by his client Pathfinders, Inc., to assist Ms. Lee in obtaining the dismissal of the default judgment that Pathfinders held against her.
IN THE MATTER OF: IVAN BARRY SCHWARTZ State Bar No. 153264
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-O-14600
WAIVER OF ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES
The parties hereby waive the issuance of a Notice of Disciplinary Charges relating to the case that is the subject matter of this stipulation.
INCORPORATION OF PRIOR STIPULATION
This stipulation is an addendum intended to supplement the Stipulation re: Facts and Conclusions of Law in Case No. 06-O-13672, which the parties lodged with this Court on December 9, 2008, and the Stipulation re: Facts and Conclusions of Law in Case No. 08-O-13868, which the parties lodged with this Court on August 21, 2009 (the "Prior Stipulations"). The Prior Stipulations are also incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN CASE NO. 08-O-14600
FACTS:
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.
1. In December 1994, Pathfinders of San Diego ("Pathfinders") obtained a default judgment against Anne Yeung Lee ("Lee").
2. In May 1995, Lee satisfied the judgment. Pathfinders filed a full acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment.
3. In 2005, Lee discovered the Pathfinders’ judgement was still on her record while Lee was trying to refinance a property. Thereafter, Lee asked Pathfinders to remove the judgment from her record.
6. Pathfinders of San Diego directed Lee to Respondent, who had a prior legal, professional and personal relationship with Pathfinders, in getting the judgment removed.
7. On September 9, 2005, Respondent accepted $500 from Lee. On September 27, 2009, Respondent filed a stipulation setting aside Pathfinders’ default judgment against Lee, then obtained a dismissal of the 1993 action.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
8. Respondent accepted representation of a client without first providing written disclosure of his prior legal, professional and personal relationship with another party in the same matter, in willful violation of Rules of Professional conduct rule 3 -310(B)(1).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(6), was October 15, 2009.
Case Number(s): 08-O-14600
In the Matter of: IVAN BARRY SWARTZ Bar # 153264
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitations and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts and 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 is 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, this Stipulation will be filed and will become public. Upon Respondent’s successful completion of or termination from the Program, the specified level of discipline for successful completion of or termination from the Program as set forth in the State Bar Court’s Confidential Statement of Alternative Dispositions and Orders shall be imposed or recommended to the Supreme Court.
Signed by: IVAN BARRY SWARTZ, DAVID CAMERON CARR, MONIQUE T. MILLER
Respondent: IVAN BARRY SWARTZ
Date: 10/21/2009
Respondent’s Counsel: DAVID CAMERON CARR
Date: 10/28/2009
Deputy Trial Counsel: MONIQUE T. MILLER
Date:
10/27/2009
Case Number(s): 08-O-14600
In the Matter of: IVAN BARRY SCHWARTZ, Bar # 153264
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 stipulation as to facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulation as to facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below.
<<not>> checked. All court dates, in the Hearing Department 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; or 3) Respondent is not accepted for participation in the Program or does not sign the Program Contract. (See rule 135(b) and 802(a), Rules of Procedure.)
Signed by: Donald Miles
Judge of the State Bar Court: Donald Miles
Date: 12/17//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 18, 2009, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Case No.06-O-13672)
STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Case No.08-O-13868)
STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Case No.08-O-14600)
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 C. CARR
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID CAMERON CARR
3333 CAMINO DEL RIO S STE 215
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
<<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:
MONIQUE MILLER, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 18, 2009.
Signed by: Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court