Case Number(s): 07-C-12351-PEM
In the Matter of: Edward W. Scott, IV, Bar # 138521, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Tammy M. Albertsen-Murray, Bar # 154248,
Counsel for Respondent: Kathleen Ewins, Bar # 154365,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
Filed: February 9, 2010.
<<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 December 9, 1988.
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):
<<not>> checked. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
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.
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.
<<not>> 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.
Respondent has no prior discipline in over 19 years of practice as of the time of the misconduct.
Respondent agreed to the imposition of discipline, thus relieving the State Bar and State Bar Court from expenditure of additional resources and expenses.
Case Number(s): 07-C-12351-PEM
In the Matter of: Edward W. Scott, IV
<<not>> checked. a. Unless Respondent has been terminated from the Lawyer Assistance Program (“LAP”) prior to respondent’s successful completion of the LAP, respondent must comply with all provisions and conditions of respondent’s Participation Agreement with the LAP and must provide an appropriate waiver authorizing the LAP to provide the Office of Probation and this court with information regarding the terms and conditions of respondent’s participation in the LAP and respondent’s compliance or non-compliance with LAP requirements. Revocation of the written waiver for release of LAP information is a violation of this condition. However, if respondent has successfully completed the LAP, respondent need not comply with this condition.
checked. b. Respondent must obtain psychiatric or psychological help/treatment from a duly licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker at respondent’s own expense a minimum of one (1) times per month and must furnish evidence to the Office of Probation that respondent is so complying with each quarterly report. Help/treatment should commence immediately, and in any event, no later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of the discipline in this matter. Treatment must continue for days or months or years or, the period of probation or until a motion to modify this condition is granted and that ruling becomes final.
If the treating psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker
determines that there has been a substantial change in respondent’s condition,
respondent or Office of the Chief Trial Counsel may file a motion for
modification of this condition with the Hearing Department of the State Bar
Court, pursuant to rule 5.300 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. The
motion must be supported by a written statement from the psychiatrist,
psychologist, or clinical social worker, by affidavit or under penalty of
perjury, in support of the proposed modification.
checked. c. 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: Pursuant to Settlement Judge, the waiver contemplated in paragraph (c) above extends to any and all mental health professional(s) who consult(s), treat(s) or otherwise examine(s) respondent in connection with compliance with this probation condition.
IN THE MATTER OF: Edward W. Scott, IV State Bar No. 138521
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-C-12351-PEM
Respondent pleads nolo contendere to the following facts and violations. Respondent understands that the plea of nolo contendere shall be considered the same as an admission of the stipulated facts and of his culpability of the statutes and/ or Rules of Professional Conduct specified herein.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FACTS.
On or about June 3, 20078, respondent engaged in criminal conduct, the victim of which was a minor child.
On June 11, 2007, following a report by the child’s school of suspected child abuse, respondent was arrested and booked for a violation of Penal Code section 273d(a). By way of criminal complaint filed June 11, 2007 in Superior Court case number CC768996, respondent was charged with one count of a violation of Penal Code section 273d(a).
On January 29, 2008, respondent pled no contest to one count of violating Penal Code section 273a(b), a misdemeanor. The Court sentenced respondent to four years’ formal probation, including one year of parenting classes and 80 hours of volunteer work, as well as payment of related fines and fees.
On October 29, 2009, Santa Clara Superior Court heard and granted respondent’s motion filed pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4 related to the underlying criminal matter, resulting in the expungement of his criminal conviction.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
The facts and circumstances surrounding respondent’s violation of California Penal Code section 273a(b) [willful infliction or harm or injury to child, a misdemeanor] do not involve moral turpitude, but so constitute other misconduct warranting discipline by virtue of and pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
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 satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF PROBATION UN THE UNDERLYING CRIMINAL MATTER.
Respondent filed a successful motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4 in the underlying criminal matter, thereby expunging his conviction and terminating any further underlying criminal probation requirements.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 07-C-12351-PEM
In the Matter of: Edward W. Scott, IV
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: Edward W. Scott, IV
Date: January 28, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel: Kathleen M. Ewins
Date: January 27, 2010
Deputy Trial Counsel: Tammy M. Albertsen-Murray
Date: February 1, 2010
Case Number(s): 07-C-12351-PEM
In the Matter of: Edward W. Scott, IV
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
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. (See rule 125 (b), Rules of Procedure.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Lucy Armendariz
Date: February 8, 2010
[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 February 9, 2010, 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:
KATHLEEN M. EWINS
LONG & LEVIT LLP
465 CALIFORNIA ST 5FL
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
<<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:
Tammy Albertsen-Murray, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on February 9, 2010.
Signed by:
George Hue
Case Administrator
State Bar Court