Case Number(s): 06-O-14900
In the Matter of: Rasheed Shabazz Alexander, Bar # 208645, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: William F. Stralka, Bar # 56147
Counsel for Respondent: Darryl Lynn Exum, Bar # 152063
Submitted to: Assigned Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: March 6, 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.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted November 21, 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 9 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):
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.
None.
None.
IN THE MATTER OF: Rasheed Shabazz Alexander
CASE NUMBER: 06-O-14900
PENDING PROCEEDINGS:
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was February 2, 2009.
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.
Case No. 06-0-14900
1. On September 13, 2006, in the immediate view and presence of the San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Arthur A. Harrison, Respondent committed the following acts of misconduct:
2. During direct examination of his client in a jury trial (People v. Pulliam, FSB-48983), the Respondent, after the court sustained the prosecutor’s objection, did proceed to argue with the court’s ruling, did shout at the court, and did loudly proclaim in the jury’s presence, five separate times that the court was unfair to his client, and did proclaim in the jury’s presence, five separate times that the court was unfair to his client, and did proclaim even in the face of the court’s admonitions, that the court was not letting the client tell his story.
3. Outside of the presence of the jury, the court addressed the issue of Respondent’s arguing with the court. The court expressly admonished Respondent: "When I rule on objections, I noted that you’ve made facial expressions that appear to be quizzical in the court. You’ve raised your eyebrows, [and] acted surprised. I don’t appreciate it. It is contemptuous, and I will tell you not to do such things when I make rulings. I don’t want you to argue with me, and I want you to follow the court’s directives that you limit your area of inquiry to the appropriate areas of character testimony."
4. This conduct was carried out during trial, and with the jury present and in a place where juror’s could not help but hear counsel’s statements. Respondent’s conduct had the direct effect of impugning the integrity of the court and of the trial and the entirety of the justice system. The court feared the conduct had the additional effect of depriving the opposing party of a fair trial and of perhaps causing a gross miscarriage of justice.
5. After due consideration, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent was guilty of contempt of court in violation of section 1209 of the California Code of Civil Procedure as follows:
Subsection (a)1. - Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding court, tending to interrupt the due course of trial;
Subsection (a)3. - Misbehavior in office, or violation of duty by an attorney;
Subsection (a)5. - Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court;
Subsection (a)8. - Any other unlawful interference with proceedings of a court; and
Subsection (b) - Engaging in speech, in the immediate presence of the court while in session, in such a manner as to actually interfere with its proceedings.
6. Respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000. He failed to timely report the matter to the State Bar.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
By engaging in improper colloquies with the court, including shouting at the court regarding its rulings in the presence of the jury, and by contemptuously challenging the court’s rulings employing disrespectful facial expressions in response to its rulings in the presence of the jury, respondent failed to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(b).
By not reporting in writing within 30 days of the time the attorney has knowledge to the agency charged with attorney discipline, the imposition of judicial sanctions against the attorney in the amount of $1,000, Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(o)(3).
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, 1090; In the Matter of Sampson, (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119, 134. A disciplinary recommendation must be consistent with the discipline in similar proceedings. See Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302, 1310-1311. Also, the recommended discipline must rest upon a balanced consideration of relevant factors. In the Matter of Sampson, (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119, 135.
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 2.6 provides that a violation of 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.
Cases
In the Matter of Respondent Y (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 862. The review department concluded that respondent was required by the State Bar Act to report the sanctions ordered by the trial court. Respondent’s duty to report the sanctions to the State Bar under Bus. & Prof. Code, section 6068(o)(3) commenced from the time he knew the sanctions were ordered, regardless of the pendency of any appeal. The court also found that respondent violated section 6103 by failing to pay the sanctions order. The review department adopted the trial court discipline of a private reproval and added the condition that respondent pay the court ordered sanctions.
Ramirez v. State Bar (1980) 28 Cal.3d 402.
Respondent engaged in defamatory and disrespectful statements contained in pleadings and other court papers filed in the federal court of appeals and the United States Supreme Court. Respondent claimed in a foreclosure action that was reversed by the appellate court, that the justices acted "unlawfully" and "illegally" and were "parties to the theft" of property belonging to respondent’s clients. The Supreme Court ordered the attorney suspended from practice for one year - stayed, one year probation, and thirty days actual suspension.
In the Matter of Anderson (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 775.
The State Bar trial court found that in 100 written statements by respondent, respondent violated his statutory duty to maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers when he made statements that impugned the integrity and honesty of the judges on the court in which his client’s matter was pending.
The trial court imposed a discipline of one-year probation, two years stayed suspension, and sixty-day actual suspension. The matter was sent back to the trial court by the review department for additional findings, because the trial judge, at pre-trial, erroneously ruled that the State Bar did not have the burden of proof to prove that the respondent’s statements were false.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of January 29, 2009, the prosecution costs in this matter are $1,983. 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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 06-O-14900
In the Matter of: Rasheed Shabazz Alexander
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: Rasheed Shabazz Alexander
Date: 2-6-09
Respondent’s Counsel: Daryl L. Exum
Date: 2/6/09
Deputy Trial Counsel: William F. Stralka
Date: 02-20-09
Case Number(s): 06-O-14900
In the Matter of: Rasheed Shabazz Alexander
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: Richard A. Platel
Date: 03-04-09
[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 March 6, 2009, 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:
DARRYL L EXUM
4129 MAIN ST #20S
RIVERSIDE CA 92501
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
WILLIAM STRALKA, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 6, 2009.
Signed by:
Angela Owens-Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court