Case Number(s): 07-H-14221
In the Matter of: Miguel A. Chacon, Bar # 99469 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Treva R. Stewart, Bar # 239829,
Counsel for Respondent: Douglas L. Rappaport, Bar # 136194,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
<<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 1, 1981.
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 11 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 billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (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.
*** See Attachment for MPRE requirement
IN THE MATTER OF: MIGUEL CHACON, State Bar No. 99469
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-H-14221-PEM
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Procedural Background
This proceeding arises out of respondent’s failure to comply with conditions of a reproval. The State Bar filed and served the Notice of Disciplinary Charges ("NDC") on January 31, 2008. The response to the NDC was filed on February 13, 2008.
Facts
On June 30, 2006, respondent signed a Stipulation wherein he admitted professional misconduct and agreed to a public reproval in case number 05-0-04023. The conditions attached to the public reproval required respondent to, inter alia, contact the Office of Probation by September 14, 2006; pay restitution by October 10, 2006; take and pass the MPRE by August 15, 2007; file quarterly reports on October 10, 2006, January 10, 2007, April 10, 2007, and August 15, 2007; consult with Rita DeAngelis by October 14, 2006 to develop a law office management plan; submit a sworn statement of compliance with the law office management plan by October 25, 2006; submit a report from Rita DeAngelis stating compliance with the law office management plan with each quarterly report; state compliance with the law office management plan with each quarterly report, and put all attorney/client agreements in writing and state compliance with same in each quarterly report.
On October 29, 2007, the Office of Probation referred respondent for non-compliance with conditions of his reproval. A Notice of Disciplinary Charges ("NDC") was filed on January 31, 2008. The NDC alleged that respondent violated rule 1-110(A) by failing to timely contact the Office of Probation and pay restitution and failing to take and pass the MPRE, file quarterly reports, consult with Rita DeAngelis to develop a law office management plan, submit a sworn statement of compliance with the law office management plan, submit a report from Rita DeAngelis stating compliance with the law office management plan with each quarterly report, state compliance with the law office management plan with each quarterly report and put all attorney/client agreements in writing and state compliance with same in each quarterly report.
Legal Conclusion
By failing to: timely contact the Office of Probation, timely pay restitution, timely take and pass the MPRE, file quarterly reports, timely consult with Rita DeAngelis to develop a law office management plan, submit a sworn statement of compliance with the law office management plan, submit a report from Rita DeAngelis stating compliance with the law office management plan with each quarterly report, state compliance with the law office management plan with each quarterly report and put all attorney/client agreements in writing and state compliance with same in each quarterly report, respondent willfully violated rule 1-110(A).
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY
The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on January 31, 2008 and the facts and/or conclusions of law contained in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Facts Supporting Aggravating Circumstances.
Respondent has a prior record of discipline as described in standard 1.2(b)(i).
Pursuant to standard 1.2(b)(ii), respondent’s failure to comply with numerous conditions of his reproval constitute multiple acts of wrongdoing.
Pursuant to standard 1.2(b)(v), respondent has demonstrated an indifference toward rectifying his misconduct. Despite reminders from the Office of Probation and requests from OCTC, respondent has failed to (1) timely provide proof of payment of restitution (respondent belatedly provided proof of payment of restitution), (2) file the required reports, (3) provide proof of compliance with the development and implementation of a law office management plan (respondent has provided proof of belated compliance with development of law office management plan) or (4) timely take and pass the MPRE (respondent has registered for the November 8, 2008 examination): Before filing of disciplinary charges in the current case, other than payment of restitution, respondent made no effort to comply with his probation conditions.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Respondent paid restitution, therefore, there was no client harm.
During the probationary period, respondent suffered family problems related to separation and divorce from his wife of 12 years.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.9 (wilful violation of rule 1-110 shall result in suspension).
Standard 1.7(a) (record of one prior imposition of discipline requires imposition of greater discipline in current proceeding).
The following cases support discipline in this case:
In the Matter of Meyer (Rev. Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 697. 90 day actual suspension imposed.
Conroy v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 799. 60 day actual suspension imposed.
In the Matter ofPosthuma (Rev. Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 813). Public reproval imposed.
RESTRICTIONS WHILE ON ACTUAL SUSPENSION.
1. During the period of actual suspension, respondent shall not:
A. Render legal consultation or advice to a client;
B. Appear on behalf of a client in any hearing or proceeding or before any judicial officer, arbitrator, mediator, court, public agency, referee, magistrate, commissioner, or hearing officer;
C. Appear as a representative of a client at a deposition or other discovery matter;
D. Negotiate or transact any matter for or on behalf of a client with third parties;
E. Receive, disburse, or otherwise handle a client’s funds; or
F. Engage in activities which constitute the practice of law.
2. Respondent shall declare under penalty of perjury that he or she has complied with this provision in any quarterly report required to be filed with the Probation Unit, pertaining to periods in which the respondent was actually suspended from the practice of law.
LAW OFFICE MANAGEMENT CONDITION:
1. Within 60 days of the effective date of the discipline herein, respondent must submit a law office management plan developed in consultation with Rita DeAngelis of Law Office Management, 660 Market Street #200, San Francisco, CA 94104, (415) 397-4039. In every written quarterly report submitted to the Office of Probation, respondent must state under penalty of perjury whether he complied with the law office management plan.
In addition, he must attach to every written quarterly report a report from Ms. DeAngelis stating that she has reviewed respondent’s practice and that respondent is in compliance with the law office management plan.
2. Fee Agreement Condition:
Respondent must put all attorney-client fee agreements in writing. Respondent must
state under penalty of perjury whether he complied with this condition in the written
quarterly reports submitted to the Office of Probation.
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.
MPRE
Respondent must provide proof of passage of the November 8, 2008 Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation within 30 days of release of examination results. Failure to pass the November 8, 2008 MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 321(a)(1) & (e), Rules of Procedure.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was August 15, 2008.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the. Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of August 15, 2008, the estimated costs in this matter are $2,296.00. 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): 07-H-14221
In the Matter of: Miguel Chacon
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: Miguel Chacon
Date: September 5, 2008
Respondent’s Counsel: Douglas L. Rappaport
Date: September 5, 2008
Deputy Trial Counsel: Treva R. Stewart
Date: September 16, 2008
Case Number(s): 07-H-14221
In the Matter of: Miguel Chacon
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: Lucy Armendariz
Date: September 23, 2008
[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 September 24, 2008, 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:
DOUGLAS L. RAPPAPORT
LAW OFC DOUGLAS L RAPPAPORT
260 CALIFORNIA ST#1002
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
TREVA R. STEWART, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on September 24, 2008
Signed by:
Lauretta Cramer
Case Administrator
State Bar Court