Case Number(s): 06-O-15034; 07-O-11030; 08-O-11087
In the Matter of: Paul F. Fegen, Bar # 31680, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Michael J. Glass, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299
(213) 765-1254
Bar #102700,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Paul F. Fegen
9025 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
(310) 286-1111
Bar# 31680
Submitted to: Assigned Judge
Filed: May 4, 2011 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 6, 1961.
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 10 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 are awarded to the State Bar.
<<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.
9.
ORDER OF INACTIVE ENROLLMENT:
The parties are aware that if this stipulation is approved, the judge will
issue an order of inactive enrollment under Business and Professions Code
section 6007, subdivision (c)(4), and Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule
5.111(D)(1).
Additional mitigating circumstances: Respondent practiced law for 44 years (1961 to 2005) with an unblemished record. Respondent also originated a subleasing concept (called "Fegen Suites") which revolutionized the practice of law for solo practitioners and small firms by providing the amenities of a large law firm at a nominal shared cost. At its height, Respondent had 250 leased floors totalling 7.5 million square feet in 26 states with 600 employees and 10,000 tenants. Respondent provided concessions to newly admitted attorneys by allowing them to establish themselves for as low as $50 per month.
Respondent was also honored for his contributions to the legal profession with a Los Angeles City Council Resolution signed by Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley.
Respondent suffered significant business and emotional pressures which led to his losing his business, home, and savings.
Respondent, age 76, has been cooperative, candid and forthright with the State Bar. During the period of the stipulated misconduct, Respondent was distracted from his law practice, which he left in favor of pursuing an emerging career as a professional magician for private parties and charities.
Attachment language (if any)
IN THE MATTER OF: PAUL F. FEGEN
CASE NUMBER(S); 06-O-15034; 07-O-11030; 08-O-11087
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.
Case No. 06-O-15034 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. On June 15, 2005, Respondent filed a Complaint in the Orange County Superior Court, on behalf of his client, Stephanie Chert entitled Stephanie Chen vs. Thrifty Car Rental, et al., Case No.05CC07255("the Chen case’).
2. In the Chen case, Respondent failed to appear at a Case Management Conference on November 28, 2005. As a result of Respondent’s failure to appear at the Case Management Conference, an Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal was scheduled for January 3, 2006. Respondent failed to appear at the Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal on January 3, 2006, and the court dismissed the Chen case.
3. On June 22, 2006, Respondent filed a Motion to Vacate the Dismissal of the Chen case. In Respondent’s Declaration, Respondent indicated that he had failed to appear at the Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal due to personal problems regarding the foreclosure of his home, misplacement of the file, and calendaring errors.
4. On July 17, 2006, the court granted Respondent’s Motion to Vacate the Dismissal of the Chen case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
5. By failing to advise the court that Respondent could not appear, or by failing to arrange to have other counsel appear on Respondent’ s behalf at the Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with
competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
Respondent: Paul F. Fegen Disbarment
Case No. 07-O-11030 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. On February 24, 2006, Respondent filed a Complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court, on behalf of his client, Patricia Cordova ("Ms. Cordova"), entitled Patricia Cordova v. Thomas Valeutti, et al., Case No. BC348033 ("the Cordova Case’).
2. Respondent failed to timely respond to discovery directed to his client, Ms. Cordova. The defendant’s counsel filed various motions to compel the responses. The motions were granted and on September 18, 2006, sanctions were imposed against Respondent and Ms. Cordova in the amount of $670.00. Respondent provided defendant’s counsel with the responses at the hearing on September 18, 2006. On January 2, 2007, sanctions were imposed against Respondent and Ms. Cordova in the amount of $500.00. Respondent provided defendant’s counsel with the responses at the hearing on January 2, 2007.
3. Respondent failed to inform Ms. Cordova that any sanctions had been imposed against her.
4. Although Respondent made a payment of $500 to defendant’s counsel with regard to the sanctions, Respondent failed to pay the $670 balance due on the sanctions owed to defendant’s counsel.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
5. By failing to inform Ms. Cordova that sanctions had been imposed against her on September 18, 2007, and on January 2, 2007, Respondent failed to inform his client of a significant development in a matter for which he had agreed to provide legal services in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
6. By failing to pay the complete amount of the sanctions ordered against him to date, Respondent wilfully disobeyed a court order requiring him to do an act connected with or in the courts of Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith have done in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.
Case No. 08-O-11087 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. In or about January 2007, Greg Ruji ("Mr. Ruji") and Napavan Ravirlyapnyo ("Ms.
Ravirlyapnyo") employed Respondent to represent them in a lawsuit filed against them, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, entitled James J. Tabacca v. Greg Ruji, et al. , Case No. PC039791 ("the Ruji case).
2. On October 18, 2007, Respondent failed to appear at a court ordered Mandatory Settlement Conference. On December 12, 2007, Respondent failed to appear at an Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
7. By failing to appear at the Court Ordered Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 18, 2007, and by failing to appear at the Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions on December 12, 2007, Respondent wilfully disobeyed a court order requiring him to do an act connected with or in the courts of Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith have done in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was April 26, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.7(b) provides that "If a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of two prior impositions of discipline as defined by Standard 1.2(f), the degree of discipline in the current proceeding shall be disbarment unless the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate.
Standard 2.4(b) provides that "Culpability of a member of wilfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of wilfully failing to communicate with a client 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, in pertinent part, that "Culpability of a member of a violation of any of the following provisions of the Business and Professions Code 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:
(a) Sections 6067 and 6068;
(b) Sections 6103 through 6105;..."
Under Standard 1.2(b), "Circumstances which shall be considered aggravating include:
(i) the existence of prior record of discipline and the nature and extent of that
record (see also standard 1.7);
(ii) that the current misconduct found or acknowledged by the member
evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of
misconduct; In regard to application of standard 1.7(b), in Gary v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal. 3d 820, the Court noted that disbarment was appropriate when Respondent had three prior impositions of discipline. In Gary, Respondent was found culpable of misconduct in two client matters involving failure to perform. Respondent was admitted to the Bar in 1971. He received a private reproval in 1978 for commingling
and failure to return trust funds to a client. In 1981, Respondent received 2 years probation for wilful neglect, failure to return unearned fees to a client, and misappropriation of $650 from another client. In 1985, Respondent received 2 years probation and a 9 month actual suspension for misappropriation of $2,667.00 from a client and violation of probation for not abstaining from alcohol or participating in an alcohol recovery program.
In Gary, id. at 828-829, the court noted that "Each of the prior disciplinary orders provided him an opportunity to reform his conduct to the ethical strictures of the profession. His culpability [here] sadly indicates either his unwillingness or inability to do so."
In Greenbaum v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 543, 551, the court upheld a finding of disbarment by the Review Department based on standard 1.7(b) where a Respondent was found to have three prior impositions of discipline. In Greenbaum, the Respondent was admitted in 1968. In 1976, Respondent received 4 years probation and 3 months actual suspension for misappropriation of $11,000.00. In 1980, Respondent received an additional 2 years of probation for commingling $1,200.00 and $35.00. In the third matter, between 1977 and 1980, Respondent was found culpable of failing to account and commingling in a probate matter. The Hearing Panel recommended a 1 year actual suspension. The Review Department recommended discipline consisting of disbarment based on standard 1.7(b) as this was Respondent’s third imposition of discipline. The Supreme Court upheld the Review Department’s recommendation of disbarment.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of April 26, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $6, 255.54. 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.
Case Number(s): 06-O-15034, et al.
In the Matter of: Paul F.Fegen
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: Paul F.Fegen
Date: April 26, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Michael J. Glass
Date: April 26, 2011
Case Number(s): 06-O-15034, et al.
In the Matter of:
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.
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 5.58 (E) & (F), 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.)
Respondent is ordered transferred to involuntary inactive status pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4). Respondent’s inactive enrollment will be effective three (3) calendar days after this order is served by mail and will terminate upon the effective date of the Supreme Court’s order imposing discipline herein, or as provided for by rule 5.111(D)(2) or the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, or as otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court pursuant to its plenary jurisdiction.
Signed by:
Richard A. Honn
Judge of the State Bar Court
Date: May 3, 2011
[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 Los Angeles, 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 F FEGEN ESQ
9025 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 500
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Michael J. Glass, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on May 4, 2011.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court