Case Number(s): 07-C-11004-PEM, 08-C-13237-PEM
In the Matter of: Gary W. Loftis, Bar # 235816, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Mark P. Hartman, Bar # 114925,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
Filed: May 7, 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 March 11, 2005.
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 are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: . (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
<<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. The parties understand that:
<<not>> checked. (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
IN THE MATTER OF: Gary W. Loftis, State Bar No. 235816
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-C-11004, 08-C-13237
FACTS
Respondent admits that the following facts are true:
Case No. 07-C-11004
1. On October 24, 2006, respondent was arrested by the Menlo Park Police Department for driving under the influence of alcohol.
2. A blood test determined that respondent’s blood alcohol level was 0.19 percent.
3. On January 10, 2007, respondent was charged in San Mateo County Superior Court with misdemeanor violations of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a) [driving under the influence of alcohol]; section 23152, subdivision (b) [driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher]; and section 22578 [blood alcohol content of 0.15 percent or higher within the meaning of California Vehicle Code Section 23578].
4. On January 28, 2008, respondent entered a no contest plea to violating Vehicle Code 23152, subdivision (b). The other charges were dropped.
5. Respondent was sentenced to two days in jail and placed on formal probation for three years.
Case No. 08-C-13237
1. On October 4, 2007, respondent caused a two vehicle non-injury collision.
2. A blood test determined that respondent’s blood alcohol level was 0.18 percent.
3. Shortly thereafter, respondent was charged in Maxicopa County Dreamy Draw Justice Court, Arizona, with misdemeanor violations of Arizona Revised Statutes section 28-1381A1 [driving under the influence of alcohol]; section 28-1381A2 [driving with a blood alcohol of 0.08 percent or higher] ;] and section 28-1382A [blood alcohol content of 0.15 percent or more within two hours of driving or being in actual control of the vehicle when the alcohol content results from alcohol consumed either before or while driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle].
4. On January 17, 2008, respondent entered a guilty plea to violating Arizona Revised Statutes section 28-1382A. The other charges were dismissed.
5. Respondent was sentenced to ten days in jail and placed on formal probation for three years.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Respondent admits that in case number 07-C-11004 and case number 08-C-13237 ("the current cases"), he is culpable of misconduct warranting discipline.
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
Authorities supporting the imposition of a public reproval in the current cases include the following:
(1) Pursuant to section 6100 of the Business and Professions Code, the Supreme Court has inherent authority to discipline attorneys for misconduct.
(2) Pursuant to standard 3.4 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, conviction of a crime which involves misconduct warranting discipline, but not moral turpitude, shall result in a sanction depending on the nature and extent of the misconduct.
(3) In In re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal.3d 487, the Supreme Court imposed a public reproval when an attorney had two drunk driving convictions (the second while on probation for the first) and no prior discipline.
DATE OF DISCLOSURE OF ANY PENDING INVESTIGATION OR PROCEEDING
On April 3, 2009, the State Bar sent a disclosure letter by e-mail to respondent. In this letter, the State Bar advised him of any pending investigations or proceedings against him.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Respondent has completed an in-patient alcohol treatment program in Arizona.
Case Number(s): 07-O-11004-PEM, 08-C-13237
In the Matter of: Gary W. Loftis, State Bar No.: 235816
checked. a. Respondent must abstain from use of any alcoholic beverages, and shall not use or possess any narcotics, dangerous or restricted drugs, controlled substances, marijuana, or associated paraphernalia, except with a valid prescription.
checked. b. Respondent must attend at least four meetings per month of:
checked. Alcoholics Anonymous
<<not>> checked. Narcotics Anonymous
<<not>> checked. The Other Bar
<<not>> checked. Other program
As a separate reporting requirement, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance during each month, on or before the tenth (10th) day of the following month, during the condition or probation period.
checked. c. Respondent must select a license medical laboratory approved by the Office of Probation. Respondent must furnish to the laboratory blood and/or urine samples as may be required to show that Respondent has abstained from alcohol and/or drugs. The samples must be furnished to the laboratory in such a manner as may be specified by the laboratory to ensure specimen integrity. Respondent must cause the laboratory to provide to the Office of Probation, at the Respondent’s expense, a screening report on or before the tenth day of each month of the condition or probation period, containing an analysis of Respondent’s blood and/or urine obtained not more than ten (10) days previously.
checked. d. Respondent must maintain with the Office of Probation a current address and a current telephone number at which Respondent can be reached. Respondent must return any call from the Office of Probation concerning testing of Respondent’s blood or urine within twelve (12) hours. For good cause, the Office of Probation may require Respondent to deliver Respondent’s urine and/or blood sample(s) for additional reports to the laboratory described above no later than six hours after actual notice to Respondent that the Office of Probation requires an additional screening report.
checked. e. Upon the request of the Office of Probation, Respondent must provide the Office of Probation with medical waivers and access to all of Respondent’s medical records. Revocation of any medical waiver is a violation of this condition. Any medical records obtained by the Office of Probation are confidential and no information concerning them or their contents will be given to anyone except members of the Office of Probation, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, and the State Bar Court who are directly involved with maintaining, enforcing or adjudicating this condition.
Other:
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 07-O-11004-PEM, 08-C-13237
In the Matter of: Gary W. Loftis
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.
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, upon Respondent’s successful completion of or termination from the Program, this Stipulation will be filed and the specified level of discipline for successful completion of or termination from the Program as set forth in the State Bar Court’s Statement Re: Discipline shall be imposed or recommended to the Supreme Court.
Signed by:
Respondent: Gary W. Loftis
Date: April 9, 2009
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Mark P. Hartman
Date: April 20, 2009
Case Number(s): 07-O-11004-PEM, 08-C-13237
In the Matter of: Gary W. Loftis, State Bar No.: 235816
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 conclusions of law is APPROVED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition 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(b), Rules of Procedure.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Pat McElroy
Date: May 6, 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 San Francisco, on May 7, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
GARY W. LOFTIS
7700 E SPEEDWAY BLVD APT 1211
TUSCON, AZ 85710
GARY W. LOFTIS
PO BOX 1430
MENLO PARK, CA 94026
<<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:
MARK HARTMAN, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on May 7, 2009.
Signed by:
George Hue
Case Administrator
State Bar Court