Case Number(s): 07-O-10246, 08-O-13647, 09-O-12770, 09-O-13230, 09-O-13603
In the Matter of: Walter Steven Martinez, Bar # 153163, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Anthony Garcia, Deputy Trial Counsel, Office of Chief Trail Counsel, 1149 S. Hill St. 10th Flr, Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299, 213-765-1089 Bar # 171419,
Counsel for Respondent: David Alan Clare, 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 800, Long Beach, CA 90802, (562) 624-2837, Bar # 44971,
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 6, 1991.
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 15 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: 2013, 2014. (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)
Actual Suspension
Case Number(s): 07-O-10246, 08-O-13647, 09-O-12770, 09-O-13230, 09-O-13603
In the Matter of: Walter Steven Martinez
a. Restitution
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: Ba Nguy
Principal Amount: $6,225
Interest Accrues From: September 23, 2008
2. Payee: Nga Lam
Principal Amount: $6,325
Interest Accrues From: September 23, 2008
3. Payee: Kim Dang
Principal Amount: $9,200
Interest Accrues From: August 8, 2008
4. Payee: Huy Dang
Principal Amount: $10,300
Interest Accrues From: August 8, 2008
5. Payee: Jimmy Nguyen
Principal Amount: $4,500
Interest Accrues From: January 25, 2009
checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than December 31, 2013.
<<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.
<<not>> 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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Walter Steven Martinez, State Bar: 153163
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: No. 07-O-10246, 08-O-13647, 09-O-12770, 09-O-13230, 09-O-13603
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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.
Case No. 07-O-10246 (Complainant: Daisie Tran ("Daisie")
FACTS:
1. During all relevant times, Respondent maintained a permanent law office in Upland, California.
2. In April 2005, Respondent opened a branch law office, the Law Offices of Walter Martinez, located at 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite K, Westminster, California ("the Law Offices of Walter Martinez"). The Law Offices of Walter Martinez office handled personal injury cases only. All of the matters described) herein occurred at the Law Offices of Walter Martinez.
3. Between April 2005 and January 2009, the daily operations of the Law Offices of Walter Martinez were carried out by Lisa Tran ("Tran") and Jimmy Vo ("Vo").
4. Tran and Vo were not attorneys, but they engaged in activities that constituted the practice of law for the Law Offices of Walter Martinez, with no attorney input or oversight.
5. Respondent not personally aware of the of acts of misconduct that are described herein, but Respondent was grossly negligent in not knowing that Tran and/or Vo were engaging in activities that constituted the practice of law in each of the following matters.
6. At all times relevant to these matters Respondent maintained a client trust account at Cal National Bank, account no.* * 5910 ("CTA").
7. On April 20, 2005, Daisie Tran ("Daisie") employed the Law Offices of Walter Martinez to represent her in a personal injury matter. She met with Vo, who signed her up as a client of the Law Offices of Walter Martinez. Daisie agreed that that the Law Offices of Walter Martinez would receive a contingent fee for its legal services. Vo conducted Daisie’s intake and signed her up as a client of the Law Offices of Walter Martinez with no attorney supervision or oversight.
8. Mercury Insurance Co. ("Mercury") represented the other side in Daisie’s legal matter.
9. In July 2006, Vo negotiated and settled Daisie’s personal injury matter with Mercury. Vo settled Daisie’s; matter with no attorney supervision or oversight.
10. On July 27, 2006, Mercury issued a settlement check in the amount of $1,000 payable to Daisie and the Law Offices of Walter Martinez and mailed the check to the Law Offices of Walter Martinez.
11. The settlement check was received by the Law Offices of Walter Martinez and was deposited into a general account not Respondent’s CTA.
12. On October 18, 2006, Vo delivered $500 cash to Daisie as her portion of the settlement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
13. By Respondent’s failure to supervise Vo, Respondent allowed Vo to engage in activities that constituted the practice of law without attorney input or oversight, thereby aiding the unlawful practice of law in willful violation of California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(A).
14. By not depositing Daisie’s settlement funds into his CTA, Respondent willfully violated California Rues of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
Case No. 08-O-13647 (Complainant: Orange County District Attorney)
FACTS:
15. In March 2007, the Orange County District Attorney began an undercover investigation of the Law Offices of Walter Martinez.
16. On March 12, 2007, two Orange County investigators ("investigators") created paperwork to make it look as if they had been in an automobile accident ("the accident"). Their paperwork created the impression they were the injured, not-at-fault, ,p, arties in the accident. Their paperwork included information that Infinity Insurance Company (Infinity") insured the at-fault party. Infinity was a willing participant in the undercover investigation.
17. On March 27, 2007, the investigators went to the Law Offices of Walter Martinez where they presented their paperwork to Tran. They sought to employ the Law Offices of Walter Martinez as their representative in the personal injury matter involving the accident.
18. At the Law Offices of Walter Martinez, Tran signed up the investigators as clients of the Law Offices of Walter Martinez. Tran and the investigators agreed that that the investigators would receive fifty percent of any settlement funds paid by Infinity and that the Law Offices of Walter Martinez would retain the remaining fifty percent as its fee for legal services, and to pay costs including the investigators’ medical bills. Tran conducted the investigators’ intake and signed them up as clients of the Law Offices of Walter Martinez with no attorney supervision or oversight.
19. Between September 2007, and December 2007, Tran negotiated and settled the investigators claims with Inifinity. Tran settled the investigator’s claims with no attorney supervision or oversight.
20. On January 25, 2008, Infinity drafted settlement checks payable to the investigators and to the Law Offices of Walter Martinez and mailed them to the Law Offices of Walter Martinez. Upon receipt, Tran deposited the settlement checks into Respondent’s CTA.
21. On September 29, 2008, Tran gave the investigators checks from Respondent’s CTA that represented their 50 percent share of the settlement proceeds.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
22. By Respondent’s failure to supervise Tran, Respondent allowed Tran to engage in activities that constituted the practice of law without attorney input or oversight, thereby aiding the unlawful practice of law in willful violation of California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(A).
Case No. 09-O-12770 (Complainants: Ba Nguy and Nga Lam ("Nguy and Lam"))
FACTS:
23. On April 30, 2008, Ba Nguy and Nga Lam ("Nguy and Lam") employed the Law Offices of Walter Martinez to represent them in a personal injury matter.
24. At the Law Offices of Walter Martinez, Vo signed up Nguy and Lam, as clients of the Law Offices of Walter Martinez. Nguy and Lam agreed that Respondent would receive a 50 percent contingent fee for his legal services, and that Respondent would pay the bills generated by Nguy and Lams’s treating physicians. Vo conducted Nguy and Lam’s intake and signed them up as clients of the Law Offices of Walter Martinez with no attorney supervision or oversight.
25. The at-fault driver in the accident was represented by InterInsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California ("AAA").
26. Between May 2008 and August 2008, Nguy and Lam received treatment for their injuries at the Duong Chiropractic Center ("chiropractor"). The chiropractor’s bills totaled $4,703 for Lam and $4,460 for Nguy.
27. In August 2008 and September 2008, Vo negotiated and settled Nguy and Lam’s claims against AAA’ insured. Vo settled Nguy and Lam’s claims with no attorney supervision or oversight.
28. On September 9, 2008, AAA issued a check to payable to Nguy and the Law Offices of Walter Martinez, for medical expenses, in the amount of $1,225. That same day, AAA issued a check payable to Lam and the Law Offices of Walter Martinez for medical expenses in the amount of $1,325. AAA mailed the checks to the Law Offices of Walter Martinez. Respondent’s office received the checks, but the checks were not deposited into Respondent’s CTA.
29. On September 23, 2008 AAA issued a settlement check payable to Nguy and the Law Offices of Walter Martinez in the amount of $5,000. That same day, AAA issued a settlement check payable to Lam and the Law Offices of Walter Martinez in the amount of $5,000. AAA mailed the checks to the Law Offices of Walter Martinez. Respondent office received the checks but the checks were not deposited into Respondent’s CTA.
30. On December 29, 2008 Vo met with Nguy and Lam in the Law Offices of Walter Martinez and asked them to sign releases so that they could receive their money. Nguy and Lam signed releases and Vo told them that he would have their share of the settlement in "few weeks". Nguy and Lam never received their share of the settlement funds.
31. The chiropractor was never paid for the services it rendered to Nguy and Lam.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
32. By failing to pay Nguy and Lam’s bills for services rendered by their chiropractor, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
33. By Respondent’s failure to supervise Vo, Respondent allowed Vo to engage in activities that constituted the practice of law without attorney input or oversight, thereby aiding the unlawful practice of law in without violation of California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(A).
34. By not depositing Nguy and Lam’s settlement funds into his CTA, Respondent willfully violated California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
Case No. 09-O-13230 (Complainant: Jimmy Nguyen)
FACTS:
35. On September 6, 200.8, Jimmy Nguyen ("Nguyen") employed the Law Offices of Walter Martinez to represent him in a personal injury matter. The at-fault party was insured by Mercury Insurance Company ("Mercury").
36. At the Law Offices of Walter Martinez, Nguyen met with Vo, who signed him up as a client. Vo conducted Nguyen’s intake and signed him up as a client of the Law Offices of Walter Martinez with no attorney supervision or oversight.
37. In January 2009, Vo negotiated and settled Nguyen’s claim against Mercury’s insured. Vo settled Nguyen’s claim with no attorney supervision or oversight.
38. On January 27, 2009, Mercury issued a settlement check payable to Nguyen and the Law Offices of Walter Martinez in the amount of $4,500. Mercury mailed the check to the Law Offices of Walter Martinez. Respondent’s office received the check, but it was not deposited into Respondent’s CTA.
39. On February 2, 2009, the Superior Court assumed jurisdiction over the Law Office of Walter Martinez. Pursuant to the court’s jurisdiction, the California State Bar entered the Law Office of Walter Martinez, seized all client files therein, froze the bank accounts used by the Law Office of Walter Martinez, and shut down the Law Office of Walter Martinez.
40. Nguyen never received any portion of the settlement funds.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
41. By Respondent’s failure to supervise Vo, Respondent allowed Vo to engage in activities that constituted the practice of law without attorney input or oversight, thereby aiding the unlawful practice of law in willful violation of California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(A).
42. By not depositing Nguyen’s settlement funds into his CTA, Respondent willfully violated California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
Case No. 09-O-13603 (Complainant: Kim Dang ("Kim") and Huy Dang ("Huy"))
FACTS
43. On January 7, 2008, Kim Dang ("Kim") and Huy Dang ("Huy") employed the Law Offices of Walter Martinez to represent them in a personal injury matter. Kim and Huy’s injuries were caused by a hit and run driver. They had uninsured motorist coverage with their insurance carrier, Infinity Insurance Company ("Infinity").
44. At the Law Offices of Walter Martinez, Vo signed up Kim and Huy as clients of the Law Offices of Walter Martinez. Nguy and Lam agreed that Respondent would receive a contingent fee for his legal services. Vo conducted Kim and Huy’s intake and signed them up as clients of the Law Offices of Walter Martinez with no attorney supervision or oversight.
45. In May 2008, Vo negotiated and settled Kim and Huy’s claims against Infinity. Vo settled Kim and Huy’s claims with no attorney supervision or oversight.
46. On May 8, 2008, Infinity issued a check in the amount of $9,200 payable to Kim and the Law Offices of Walter Martinez. Infinity mailed the check to the Law Offices of Walter Martinez.
47. On May 8, 2008, Infinity issued a check in the amount of $10,300 payable to Huy and the Law Offices of Walter Martinez. Infinity mailed the check to the Law Offices of Walter Martinez.
48. On May 23, 2008, both Kim and Huy’s settlement checks were deposited into Respondent’s CTA.
49. From March 2008 through January 2009 Kim and Huy repeatedly called the Law Offices of Walter Martinez seeking an update on the status of their matter. They were not told that their cases had settled.
50. In January 2009, Vo called Kim and Huy and told them to come to the office to pick up their share of the settlement.
51. On February 2, 2009, the Superior Court assumed jurisdiction over the Law Office of Walter Martinez. Pursuant to the court’s jurisdiction, the California State Bar entered the Law Office of Walter Martinez, seized all client files therein, froze the bank accounts used by the Law Office of Walter Martinez, and ~hut down the Law Office of Walter Martinez.
52. When Kim and Huy went to the Law Office of Walter Martinez, they found it had been shut down.
53. To date, Kim and Huy have not received their settlement funds.
CONCLUSION OF LAW:
54. By Respondent’s failure to supervise Vo, Respondent allowed Vo to engage in activities that constituted the practice of law without attorney input or oversight, thereby aiding the unlawful practice of law in willful violation of California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(A).
Case Nos. 07-O-10246, 08-O-13647, 09-O-12770, 09-O-13230, 09-O-13603
FACTS
55. Between April 2005 and January 2009, the daily operations of the Law Offices of Walter Martinez were carried out by Tran and Vo.
56. Tran and Vo were not attorneys, but they engaged in activities that constituted the practice of law for the Law Offices of Walter Martinez, with no attorney input or oversight.
57. Respondent was grossly negligent in not knowing that Tran and/or Vo were engaging in activities that constituted the practice of law in each of the preceding matters.
58. Respondent was grossly negligent in not knowing that Tran and/or Vo were not handling client funds in a manner that was consistent with Respondent’s legal and ethical obligations.
CONCLUSION OF LAW:
59. By Respondent’s failure to supervise Vo and Tran, Respondent allowed Vo and Tran to engage in the activities that constituted the practice of law without attorney input or oversight over their activities, and allowed them to mishandle client funds, thereby willfully, or with gross negligence, violating California Business and Professions Code section 6106.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was September 6, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standards
Standard 2.2(b)which states that culpability of a member of a violation of rule 4-100 of the Rules of Professional Conduct that does not include misappropriation shall result in at least a three month suspension.
Standard 2.3, which states that culpability of a member of an act of moral turpitude, fraud or intentional dishonesty shall result in actual suspension or disbarment depending on the extent of harm, the magnitude of the misconduct, and the degree to which it relates to the practice of law.
Standard 2.10 states a member’s culpability of a wilful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct ("Rule") not specified in the prior Standards (this definition includes Rule 3-700(D)(1)) shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or harm to the victim with due regard to the purposes o imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3.
Case Law
In the Matter of Nelson, 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 178 (1990)
Nelson was found culpable of forming a partnership for the practice of law with a non-lawyer, dividing legal fees with his non-lawyer, using the non-lawyer as a runner and a capper, two counts of moral turpitude, failing to convey a settlement offer to a client, failing to notify a client of the receipt of client funds, and improper withdrawal. The review department suspended Nelson for six months, citing his extensive mitigation. Respondent, like Nelson, allowed Tran and Vo to run the Law Offices of Walter Martinez without adequate supervision. Respondent’s failure to supervise Tran and Vo led to multiple instances of misconduct.
Nelson stipulated to many of the facts underpinning the misconduct in his case. Likewise, Respondent is accepting responsibility for his failure to supervise and stipulating to the misconduct in the present case.
ADDITIONAL STIPULATION REGARDING RESTITUTION
The parties stipulate Respondent will receive restitution credit for any payments to the former clients of the Law Office of Walter Martinez, named on the attached "Financial Conditions", that are made from the frozen trust account and business accounts at California National Bank that were used by the Law Office of Walter Martinez.
Case Number(s): 07-O-10246, 08-O-13647, 09-O-12770, 09-O-13230, 09-O-13603
In the Matter of: Walter Steven Martinez
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: Walter Steven Martinez
Date: September 19, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel: David Alan Clare
Date: September 22, 2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Anthony J. Garcia
Date: September 23, 2011
Case Number(s): 07-O-10246, 08-O-13647, 09-O-12770, 09-O-13230, 09-O-13603
In the Matter of: Walter Steven Martinez
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.
1. In the caption on page 1 of the Stipulation, “Settlement Judge” is deleted after “Submitted to”.
2. On page 4 of the Stipulation, an “X” is inserted in the box at paragraph D.(2).
3. On page 12 of the Stipulation, at numbered paragraph 44, line 2, “Nguy and Lam” is deleted, and in its place is inserted “Kim and Huy”
4. On page 13 of the Stipulation, Standard 2.10, line 2, “Rule 3-700(D)(1)” is deleted, and in its place is inserted “Rule 1-300(A)”.
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: October 12, 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 October 13, 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:
DAVID ALAN CLARE
DAVID A CLARE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
444 W OCEAN BLVD STE 800
LONG BEACH, CA 90802
<<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:
Anthony J. Garcia, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on October 13, 2011.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court