Case Number(s): 07-O-10140, 08-O-12879
In the Matter of: Gerald I Sugarman, Bar # 84730, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Timothy G. Byer, DTC, Bar # 172472, 1149 S. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90015, 213-765-1325
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent, Gerald I. Sugarman, 1136 Grand Avenue, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420, Bar # 84730
Submitted to: Assigned Judge, State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: August 15, 2011
<<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 12, 1978
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 added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
<<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.
(Effective
January 1, 2011)
IN THE MATTER OF: Gerald I. Sugarman, State Bar No. 84730
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-O-10140, 08-O-12879
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specifies statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 07-0-10140 (Complainants: Jacqueline, Joshua, and Amber Leonard)
FACTS:
1. On August 5, 2005, Joshua and Amber Leonard employed Respondent to represent them in a personal injury matter.
2. On February 17, 2007, Respondent’s associate attorney, Robert Sack, was suspended from practice. Respondent either knew or reasonably should have know that Sack had been suspended from practice, but continued to employ Sack as a paralegal on the Leonard’s matter after that date and did not disclose Sack’s suspension to the State Bar or to the Leonards, in writing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
3. By not disclosing to the State Bar and to the Leonards, in writing, his employment of Sacks as a paralegal, Respondent employed a member he knew or reasonably should have known was disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member, without serving upon the State Bar written notice of the employment, including a full description of such person’s current bar status, and without serving similar written notice upon each client on whose specific matter such person will work prior to or at the time of employing such person to work on the client’ s specific matter, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-31 I(D).
Case No. 08-0-12879 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
4. Prior to February 17, 2007, Respondent became employed by Ramicka Smith and Douglas Smith and represented them in a personal injury matter.
5. On February 17, 2007, Respondent’s associate attorney, Robert Sack, was suspended from practice. Respondent either knew or reasonably should have know that Sack had been suspended from practice, but continued to employ Sack as a paralegal on the Smiths’ matter after that date and did not disclose Sack’s suspension to the State Bar or to the Smiths, in writing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
6. By not disclosing to the State Bar and to the Smiths, in writing, his employment of Sacks as a paralegal, Respondent employed a member he knew or reasonably should have known was a disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member, without serving upon the State Bar written notice of the employment, including a full description of such person’s current bar status, and without serving similar written notice upon each client on whose specific matter such person will work, prior to or at the time of employing such person to work on the client’s specific matter, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-311 (D).
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct: Respondent’s failure to disclose his employment of Sack to the Leonards, the Smiths, and the State Bar demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Harm: Respondent’s failure to disclose Sack’s suspension to the Leonards or the Smiths in writing did not result in harm to his clients’ matters.
Candor/Cooperation: Respondent agreed to settle this matter at a very early stage in the disciplinary proceedings.
1.2(e)(v).) (Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, Standard
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.7(a) 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 one prior imposition of discipline as defined by standard 1.2(f), the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding unless the prior discipline imposed was so remote in time to the current proceeding and the offense for which it was imposed was so minimal in severity that imposing greater discipline in the current proceeding would be manifestly unjust."
Respondent’s prior discipline was by no means "minimal in severity," but deviation from 1.7(a), as with any Standard, may be appropriate where its application would be manifestly unjust. In re."Ronald Robert Silverton, (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81. Deviation from the increased level of discipline described in Standard 1.7(a) is justified in this instance, given the remoteness in time between Respondent’ s prior instance of discipline and the minimal severity of his current misconduct. Were it not for his prior misconduct, committed approximately 18 years ago, his current misconduct would justify no more than a reproval. To increase Respondent’s discipline to a level greater than that imposed in his prior instance would essentially require his disbarment, a result that is manifestly unjust under the circumstances.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was June 30, 2011.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of July 5, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $3,689.00. 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.
Case Number(s): 07-0-10140, 08-0-12879
In the Matter: Gerald I. Sugarman
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: Gerald I. Sugarman, Timothy G. Byer
Respondent: Gerald I. Sugarman
Date: 07/21/2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Timothy G. Byer
Date: 07/26/2011
Case Number(s): 07-O-10140, 08-O-12879
In the Matter of: Gerald I. Sugarman
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 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.)
Signed by: Richard A. Platel
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Platel
Date:
08/08/2011
[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, August 15, 2011, 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:
GERALD I. SUGARMAN
1136 GRAND AVE
ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420
<<not>> checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Timothy G. Byer, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on August 15, 2011.
Signed by: Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator: Johnnie Lee Smith
State Bar Court