Case Number(s): 06-O-13792-DEM, 06-O-13797, and 06-O-14825-DFM
In the Matter of: LAWRENCE VICTOR HARRISON, Bar # 202689, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: BRANDON K. TADY, Bar # 83045,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Assigned 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 9, 1999.
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: three (3) billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order on this matter. (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: LAWRENCE VICTOR HARRISON, State Bar No. 202689
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-O-13792-DEM, 06-O-13797, and 06-O-14825-DFM
STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS.
A. The Fabian vs. Cimino Matter, case number: 06-O-13792-DFM (Counts Three and Four of the NDC),
1. Respondent represented Peter Cimino in Brett Fabian vs. Peter Cimino, case no. CV148705 ("Fabian vs. Cimino").
2. The parties in Fabian vs. Cimino participated in a Court Trial. On or about September 30, 2005, the Court entered judgment in Fabian v. Cimino in favor of Plaintiff Fabian and against defendant Cimino. Thereafter, Cimino asked Respondent to pursue an Appeal of the judgment in favor of Plaintiff Fabian, According to Respondent, he told Cimino he needed to retain local counsel to pursue the appeal.
3. On March 28, 2006, a Notice of Appeal in Fabian v. Cimino was filed with the Sixth District Court of Appeal. Respondent believes he filed the Notice of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal listed Respondent as counsel of record for Cimino and it included Respondent’s law office address and telephone number for service of notices from the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court. According to Respondent, he told Cimino that, although he filed the Notice of Appeal, he would need to retain local counsel to further work on the appeal.
4. After the Notice of Appeal was filed, Cimino spoke with Respondent and told him he would file a substitution of attorney substituting other counsel for Respondent.
5. Respondent did not prepare or sign a substitution of attorney and he remained the attorney of record for Cimino’s Appeal. Respondent did not file a motion to withdraw or seek leave of Court to be relieved as Cimino’s attorney of record for the Appeal.
6. On April 3, 2006, the Office of the Clerk of the Court of Appeal (the "Office of the Clerk") mailed a letter to Respondent at his office address. The letter stated that Respondent failed to tender the filing fee of $655 regarding Fabian v. Cimino, and must deposit that sum within 15 days or the appeal would be dismissed. Respondent received the letter. Respondent did not pay the filing fee because he believed Cimino would pay it. Respondent did not respond to the letter from the Court of Appeal. He did not tell Cimino about the letter or send him a copy of the letter.
7. On April 13, 2006, the Superior Court mailed a letter to Respondent at his office address. The letter stated that Respondent failed to file the required notice designating the reporter’s transcript regarding Fabian v. Cimino, and the court would dismiss the appeal if the notice was not received within 15 days. Respondent received the letter. Although Respondent was the attorney of record for Cimino, Respondent did not respond to the letter because he thought Cimino would respond to it. Respondent did not tell Cimino about the letter or send him a copy.
8. On April 14, 2006, the Office of the Clerk mailed a letter to Respondent at his office address. The letter stated that Respondent failed to file the required Civil Case Information Statement regarding Fabian v. Cimino, and the court would impose sanctions if it were not received within 15 days. Respondent received the letter. Although Respondent was the attorney of record for Cimino, Respondent did not respond to the letter because he thought Cimino would respond to it. Respondent did not tell Cimino about the letter or send him a copy.
9. On April 20, 2006, the Court of Appeal dismissed Fabian v. Cimino for failure to tender the filing fee. The Order dismissing the Appeal was served on Respondent by mail to his office address. Respondent received the Order. Respondent did not tell Cimino the Appeal was dismissed or send him a copy of the Order.
10. On June 20, 2006, the Court of Appeal’s Order dismissing the Appeal in Fabian v. Cimino became final. Thereafter, the Office of the Clerk issued a remittitur that Fabian was to recover his costs on appeal in Fabian v. Cimino. Respondent did not tell Cimino about the remittitur or send him a copy of it.
11. On August 4, 2006, the State Bar opened an investigation, Case No. 06-0-13792, pursuant to a complaint filed by Cimino (the "Cimino matter").
12. On September 28, 2006 and October 30, 2006, a State Bar Investigator prepared letters to Respondent that requested that Respondent provide a written response to allegations in the Cimino matter on or before October 12, 2006, and November 13, 2006, respectively. The letters were placed in sealed envelopes correctly addressed to the Respondent at his then current State Bar membership records address. 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. The letters were not returned by the United States Postal Service. Respondent received the letters.
13. Respondent did not provide a complete written or oral response to the State Bar Investigator’s letters.
B. The William Windham Matter, case number 06-O-13 797-DFM (Counts Five, Six, and Seven of the NDC).
14. Between March 22, 2005 and June 11, 2007, Respondent’s official membership address was 4121 Mission Inn Avenue, Riverside, California 92501 (the "Mission address").
15. On October 7, 2004, a petition for dissolution was filed in pro per by Salvador Cortez ("Salvador") in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino ("Superior Court"), titled Salvador Cortez v. Maria Luisa Cortez, Case No. RFLRS043415 ("Cortez v. Cortez").
16. On July 13, 2005, Maria Luisa Cortez ("Maria") employed attorney William Windham ("Windham") to substitute into Cortez v. Cortez as her attorney of record in place of herself.
17. On November 1, 2005, Respondent appeared by telephone as counsel for Salvador for a Mandatory Settlement Conference ("MSC") set for Cortez v. Cortez. Salvador, Maria, and Windham did not appear. The Superior Court continued the MSC to March 7, 2006. Respondent received notice of the MSC on March 7, 2006.
18. On March 7, 2006, Salvador, Maria, and Windham appeared for the MSC in Cortez v. Cortez. Respondent appeared by telephone via his secretary and informed the court that he was ill. The Superior Court continued the MSC to April 11, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. Respondent received notice of the MSC on April 11, 2006.
19. On March 8, 2006, Respondent filed a substitution of attorney listing himself as the attorney of record in place of In pro per Salvador in Cortez v. Cortez.
20. On April 11, 2006, Salvador, Maria, and Windham appeared at 8:30 a.m. for the MSC in Cortez v. Cortez. Respondent did not appear. The Court called Respondent’s law office and Respondent’s secretary told the Court that Respondent had an appearance in a court in Riverside. The Superior Court continued the MSC to June 20, 2006, and reserved the imposition of sanctions of $1,500 against Respondent for failure to appear on April 11, 2009.
21. On April 11, 2006, Windham mailed a letter to Respondent at the Mission address that stated that the Superior Court had set an OSC re the imposition of sanctions of $1,500 for failure to appear on April 11, 2006. Respondent received the letter.
22. On April 11, 2006, Windham filed and served on Respondent at the Mission address a notice that the hearing had been continued to June 20, 2006, and that the Superior Court had reserved the imposition of sanctions of $1,500 against Respondent for failure to appear. Respondent received the notice.
23. On June 20, 2006, Windham appeared for the MSC in Cortez v. Cortez. Respondent did not appear. The Superior Court continued the hearing to September 5, 2006, imposed Sanctions of $1,500 to be paid forthwith by Respondent to Windham for failure to appear on April 11, 2006, and issued an OSC re the imposition of sanctions of $750 against Respondent for failure to appear on June 20, 2006. Respondent received notice of the MSC, the imposition of sanctions, and the OSC.
24. On June 23, 2006, Windham mailed a letter to Respondent at the Mission address that stated that the Superior Court had imposed sanctions of $1,500 upon Respondent for failure to appear on April 11, 2006, and enclosed a copy of the minute order. Respondent received the letter.
25. On June 23, 2006, Windham filed and served on Respondent at the Mission address a notice that the hearing had been continued to September 20, 2006, and that the Superior Court had reserved the imposition of sanctions of $750.00 against Respondent for failure to appear. Respondent received the notice.
26. In mid-July of 2006, Windham spoke with Respondent about payment of the $1,500 in sanctions. Respondent told Windham that he would be filing a motion to reconsider the sanctions.
27. On March 28, 2007, Respondent filed a Motion to Reconsider ("Motion") the sanctions of $1,500. The Court granted the Motion, in part, and ordered Respondent to pay sanctions of $999.00. The Court also ordered Respondent to pay attorney’s fees to Windham of $750.00.
28. Respondent did not pay the sanctions or the attorney’s fees to Windham.
29. Respondent did not report the sanctions of $1,500.00 to the State Bar within 30 days of the date Respondent had knowledge of the sanctions.
30. On August 15, 2006, the State Bar opened an investigation, Case No. 06-0-13797, pursuant to a complaint filed by Windham (the "Windham Matter").
31. On or about September 25, 2006 and November 1, 2006, a State Bar Investigator prepared letters to Respondent that requested that Respondent provide a written response to allegations in the Windham Matter on or before October 10, 2006, and November 15, 2006, respectively. The letters were placed in sealed envelopes correctly addressed to the Respondent at his then State Bar membership records address, i.e., the Mission address. 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. The letters were not returned by the United States Postal Service. Respondent received the letters.
32. On or about December 12, 2006, Respondent called the State Bar investigator and told her, in part, that he was in the process of obtaining documents for his response.
33. Respondent did not provide a written or oral response to the State Bar investigator’s letters dated October 10, 2006 and November 15, 2006.
C. The Vincent Audelo Matter (Count Nine of the NDC).
34. On or about August 15, 2006, the State Bar opened an investigation, Case No. 06-014725, pursuant to a complaint filed by Vincent Audelo (the "Audelo matter").
35. On or about October 29, 2006 and January 29, 2007, a State Bar Investigator prepared letters to Respondent that requested that Respondent provide a written response to allegations in the Audelo matter on or before November 13, 2006, and February 12, 2007, respectively. The letters were placed in sealed envelopes correctly addressed to the Respondent at his then State Bar membership records address, i.e., the Mission address. 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. The letters were not returned by the United States Postal Service. Respondent received the letters.
36. Respondent did not provide a written or oral response to the Investigator’s letters.
STATEMENT OF STIPULATED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
A. The Fabian vs. Cimino matter, case number 06-O-13792-DFM.
37. By failing to tell Cimino about the letters from the Court of Appeal and the letter from the Superior Court, by failing to send Cimino copies of these letters, by failing to file a properly signed substitution of attorney or a notice to withdraw as Cimino’s counsel when he knew he was still the attorney of record for the Appeal, and by permitting the appeal of Fabian v. Cimino to be dismissed, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failing to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110 (A) (Count Three).
37. By failing to provide a complete response to the State Bar investigator’s letters requesting information and documents concerning the allegations in the Cimino matter or otherwise cooperate in the investigation of the Cimino matter, Respondent willfully failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation in violation of B&P Code, section 6068(i) (Count Four).
B. The William Windham matter, case number 06-O-13797.
38. By failing to appear for the OSC on June 20, 2006 and to pay the reduced sanctions of $999.00 and attorney’s fees of $750.00 to Windham, Respondent willfully disobeyed or violated orders 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 violation of California Business and Professions Code, section 6103 (Count Five).
39. By failing to report to the State Bar the imposition of sanctions of $1,500 within 30 days of June 20, 2006, 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 violation of B&P Code, section 6068 (o) (Count Six).
40. By failing to provide a response to the State Bar investigator’s two letters requesting information and documents about the allegations in the Windham matter or otherwise cooperating in the investigation of the Windham matter, Respondent willfully failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation in violation of B&P Code, section 6068(i) (Count Seven).
C. The Vincent Audelo Matter, case number 06-O-14725.
41. By failing to provide a response to the State Bar investigator’s letters requesting information and documents concerning the allegations in the Audelo matter or otherwise cooperating in the investigation of the Audelo matter, Respondent willfully failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation in violation of B&P Code, section 6068 (i) (Count Nine).
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY
The parties waive any variance in the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on June 26, 2008 and the facts contained in the Stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The parties further waive the right to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The parties also acknowledge the Court granted the State Bar’s Motion to Amend the Notice of Disciplinary Charges; but, this matter was resolved before the Amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges was filed.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(6), was December 4, 2009.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Alleged Violation:
Case No.: 06-0-13792-DFM, Count: One, Alleged Violation: Business and Professions Code, section 6106.
Case No.: 06-0-13792-DFM, Count: Two, Alleged Violation: Business and Professions Code, section 6106.
Case No.: 06-O-14825-DFM, Count: Eight, Alleged Violation: Business and Professions Code, section 6068 (m).
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of December 3, 2009, the prosecution costs in this matter are $ 9655.71. 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.
Standard 1.3 provides that the purposes of the 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.
Standard 1.7 (a) provides that where a member has one prior imposition of State Bar discipline, the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding.
Standard 2.4 provides that culpability of a member for failing to perform services in an individual matter shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
Standard 2.6 provides that culpability of a member for violating Business and Professions Code, section 6068 shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in Standard 1.3. The stipulated discipline of 60 days actual suspension, two years stayed suspension, and two years probation is consistent with these Standards.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 06-O-13792-DEM, 06-O-13797, and 06-O-14825-DFM
In the Matter of: Lawrence Victor Harrison
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: Lawrence Victor Harrison
Date: December 4, 2009
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Bradon K. Tady
Date: December 4, 2009
Case Number(s): 06-O-13792-DEM, 06-O-13797, and 06-O-14825-DFM
In the Matter of: Lawrence Victor Harrison
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: December 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 21, 2009, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING ACTUAL SUSPENSION
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:
LAWRENCE V. HARRISON
1272 BEE BALM RD
HEMET, CA 92545
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
BRANDON TADY, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 21, 2009.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court