Case Number(s): 07-O-10106 and 09-O-15521
In the Matter of: Douglas Vicent Melson, Bar # 147345, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Charles T. Calix, 1149 South Hill Street
Los Angles, CA 90015-2299
(213) 765-1000
Bar # 146853,
Counsel for Respondent: Paul J. Virgo, Century Law Group
5200 West Century Blvd, Suite 345
Los Angeles, CA 90045
(310) 642-6900
Bar # 67900,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – 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 11, 1990.
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 14 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: Costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following two (2) 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.) 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.
Case Number(s): 07-O-10106 and 09-O-15521
In the Matter of: Vincent Douglas Melson
a. Restitution
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund (“CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
1. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than .
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
1. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
<<not>> checked. 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.
checked.
1. If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated as a “Trust Account” or “Clients’ Funds Account”;
b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:
i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.
c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
2. If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate described above.
3. The requirements of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct.
checked. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
Case Number(s): 07-O-10106 and 09-O-15521
In the Matter of: Vincent Douglass Melson
checked. a. Within days/ months/ one (1) years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
checked. b. Within days/ months/ one (1) years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than twelve (12) hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for three (3) year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
Other:
IN THE MATTER OF: Douglas Vincent Melson, State Bar No. 147345
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-O-10106 and 09-O-15521
Douglas Vincent Melson ("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.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Facts - Case No. 07-0-10106 (Valenzuela)
1. On or about December 6, 1995, Juan Valenzuela ("Valenzuela") was charged with two counts of murder and one count of assault with a dangerous weapon in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles ("Superior Court"), in People v. Juan Valenzuela, Case No. NA025820 ("People v. Valenzuela").
2. On or about September 3, 1997, Valenzuela was convicted of all three counts in People v. Valenzuela. Thereafter, Valenzuela was sentenced to life in state prison without the possibility of parole.
3. On or about January 29, 1999, Valenzuela’s mother, Dora Lopez ("Lopez"), hired Respondent to prepare a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Writ") for Valenzuela. Lopez paid $5,000 to Respondent to represent Valenzuela.
4. Prior to March 2003, Valenzuela authorized his sister, Brenda Valenzuela ("Brenda"), to discuss the Writ with Respondent, and Respondent discussed the Writ with Brenda.
5. On or about March 3, 2003, Respondent mailed a draft copy of the Writ to Valenzuela. However, Respondent did not file the Writ or inform Valenzuela, Lopez or Brenda that he had not filed the Writ.
6. Between on or about July 9, 2003, and on or about May 2, 2007, Respondent did not perform any work on the Writ or communicate with Valenzuela, Lopez or Brenda.
7. Between in or about January 2005 and in or about December 2006, Brenda called Respondent every two to three months to obtain a status report for Valenzuela. Brenda was not able to speak with Respondent and left messages stating her name, telephone number, and request that Respondent provide her with a status report on behalf of Valenzuela. Respondent received the messages.
8. Respondent did not provide a status report to Valenzuela, Lopez or Brenda, or otherwise communicate with Valenzuela, Lopez or Brenda in response to the messages requesting a status report.
9. On or about September 14, 2007, Respondent filed the Writ that he had mailed to Valenzuela on or about March 3, 2003.
Conclusions of Law - Case No. 07-0-10106 (Valenzuela)
10. By failing to respond to the messages requesting status reports between in or about January 2005 and in or about December 2006, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m)
11. By failing to file the Writ and/or perform any legal work of value on the Writ between on or about July 9, 2003 and on or about May 2, 2007, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failing to perform legal services with competence in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(a).
Facts - Case No. 09-0-15521 (Turner)
12. On or about December 3, 1999, a motion to establish paternity was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles ("Superior Court"), in the matter titled Frank Turner v. Melonka Turner, Case No. BD076221 ("Turner v. Turner").
13. Between on or about May 3, 2007 and on or about April 23, 2009, Respondent maintained a client trust account at Washington Mutual Bank, Account No. ***-****’6081 ("CTA"). 1 [The account number has been redacted to protect the account and account holder]
14. On or about May 9, 2007, Frank Turner ("Turner") hired Respondent to represent him in obtaining the release of an abstract of judgment that had been recorded on his real property in Turner v. Turner and that was preventing the disbursement of funds from the escrow to Turner. Turner paid Respondent $2,500 to represent him.
15. On or about May 25, 2007, Respondent deposited a check from Turner’s escrow company for $8,000 for funds from Turner’s sale of real property payable to "Douglas V. Melson in Trust for Frank Turner" into his CTA. Respondent was required to maintain the sum of $8,000 in his CTA on behalf of Turner.
16. Thereafter and without paying any of the funds to Turner or on behalf of Turner, Respondent withdrew funds from the CTA for personal use causing the balance to fall below $8,000 on repeated dates, including but not limited to, the following:
Date: 05/31/2007, Balance: $6,100.41
Date: 06/20/2007, Balance: $5,500.00
Date: 07/02/2007, Balance: $2,500.00
Date: 07/03/2007, Balance: $1,500.00
Date: 07/16/2007, Balance: $100.00
17. Respondent dishonestly or with gross negligence misappropriated $7,900 of the $8,000 in funds he was to hold in trust for Turner. The account number has been redacted to protect the account and account holder.
18. On or about February 3, 2010, Respondent paid $8,300 on behalf of Turner to the State Disbursement Unit.
Conclusions of Law - Case No. 09-0-15521 (Turner)
19. By not maintaining the sum of $8,000 received on behalf of Turner in his CTA, Respondent failed to maintain client funds in his trust account in willfully violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A)
20. By misappropriating $7,900 of the funds he held in trust for Turner, Respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was November 1, 2010.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of August 27, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are $1,983.00. 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.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.2 of the "Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct" ("Standards") states that
(a) Culpability of a member of willful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in disbarment. Only if the amount of funds or property misappropriated is insignificantly small or if the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate, shall disbarment not be imposed. In those latter cases, the discipline shall not be less than a one-year actual suspension, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
(b) Culpability of a member of commingling of entrusted funds or property with personal property or the commission of another violation of rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct, none of which offenses result in the willful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in at least a three month actual suspension from the practice of law, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
Standard 2.3 states that
Culpability of a member of an act of moral turpitude, fraud, or intentional dishonesty toward a court, client or another person or of concealment of a material fact to a court, client or another person shall result in actual suspension or disbarment depending upon the extent to which the victim of the misconduct is harmed or misled and depending upon the magnitude of the act of misconduct and the degree to which it relates to the member’s acts within the practice of law.
In In re Silverton, (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 92, the Supreme Court held that the Standards are entitled to great weight and the State Bar Court should follow their guidance whenever possible.
In McKnight v. State Bar (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1025, the respondent failed to notify his client of his receipt of settlement funds, failed to promptly pay settlement funds, entered into a business transaction with his client without obtaining informed written consent, and misappropriated $8,665 in trust funds belonging to his client. The Supreme Court approved a five year suspension, stayed, and seven year probation with conditions including a one year actual suspension.
In In the Matter of Robins (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 708, the respondent stipulated to misappropriating $20,000 held in trust to pay medical liens and failing to promptly pay funds upon demand. The Review Department recommended a two year suspension, stayed, and three year probation with conditions including a one year actual suspension.
The parties submit that it would be unjust to apply the mandatory disbarment imposed by Standard 2.2(a) in this matter, because compelling mitigating circumstances predominate, including but not limited to severe family problems caused by his ex-wife’s separating their children from him and her attempts wife to alienate their affection, Respondent’s remorse for his misconduct, and candor/cooperation. The parties further submit that the intent and goals of Standard 1.3 are met in this matter by the imposition of the alternative discipline imposed by Standard 2.2(a) of a one-year stayed actual suspension with appropriate probationary conditions articulated herein, including that Respondent comply with Financial Conditions and Law Office Management Conditions.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 07-O-10106 and 09-O-15521
In the Matter of: Douglas Vincent Melson
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: Douglas Vincent Melson
Date: October 30, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel: Paul J. Virgo
Date: October 20, 2010
Deputy Trial Counsel: Charles T. Calix
Date: November 1, 2010
Case Number(s):07-O-10107 and 09-O-15521
In the Matter of: Douglas Vincent Melson
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:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
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.
On page 1 of the stipulation, in the style of the case, the name "Vicent" is deleted, and the name "Vincent" is substituted in its place.
On page 5 of the stipulation, the "X" in box E(1) is deleted to remove the conditional standard 1.4(c)(ii) requirement. (The conditional standard 1.4(c)(ii) requirement is inappropriate because no "and until" condition is attached to respondent’s one-year suspension which could cause respondent to be "actually suspended for two years or more.")
In the caption at the top of page 7 of the stipulation, the name "Vincent Douglas Melson" is deleted, and the name "Douglas Vincent Melson" is substituted in its place.
In the caption at the top of page 9 of the stipulation, the name "Vincent Douglas Melson" is deleted, and the name "Douglas Vincent Melson" is substituted in its place.
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. Honn
Date: November 19, 2010