Case Number(s): 07-O-10508
In the Matter of: Steven Moore, Bar # 186179, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Robin Brune, Bar # 149481,
Counsel for Respondent: Kevin Gerry, Bar # 129690,
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 11, 1986.
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 12 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. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.
<<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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Steven Moore, State Bar No. 186179
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-O-10508
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he/she is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
From September 18, 2006 through December 28, 2006, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for failure to pay his annual bar dues. He nonetheless continued to represent the District Attorney. During this time frame, he was assigned to, and appeared in court on behalf of the District Attorney, on at least forty felony eases, including one felony trial, People v. Thompson, which involved charges of child molestation.
On or about November/December 2005, respondent relocated from the Santa Cruz District Attorney’s office to the Santa Clara District Attorney’s office. He did not update his membership records address after he relocated.
The Santa Cruz District Attorney did periodically sent him large brown envelopes which contained his forwarded mail. He initially opened these envelopes. However, he soon decided that the material was primarily junk mail, he would discard the large brown envelopes, unopened. He did not receive the notices of his late Bar dues or his impending suspension, which were mailed to him by the State Bar on November 15, 2005; February 22, 2005; May 26, 2005; and August 16, 2005. Respondent surmises that this material was in the large brown envelopes of his forwarded mail, but that he discarded them.
Respondent become aware of a problem with his 2006 dues when a member of the Santa Clara clerical support staff, assigned to pay the 2007 dues for the attorneys, discovered that he had not paid the 2006 dues. Once informed, he immediately paid these dues on December 28, 2006. However, respondent took no action at that time to ascertain the status of his license and he remained unaware of his suspension until his employer, informed him in January 2007.
Respondent assumed that if he was going to be suspended, the State Bar would personally serve him with a court order of suspension. During the course of these proceedings, he realized this was an error.
Conclusions of Law
1. By appearing in court on behalf of the District Attorney of Santa Clara, when suspended for non-payment of his bar dues, respondent practiced law when he was not licensed to do so, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, sections 6068(a) and 6125/6126 of the Business and Professions Code.
2. By failing to update his membership records address when he relocated from the Santa Cruz District Attorney’s Office to the Santa Clara District Attorney’s office, respondent failed to maintain his current address with the State Bar pursuant to Business and Professions Code, section 6002.1., and thereby violated Business and Professions Code, section 60680).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was February 1, 2008.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of February 1, 2008, the 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.
Standards
Standard 2.6 Culpability of a member of a violation of any of the following provisions of the Business and Professions Code shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any to the victim with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in Standard 1.3. Subsection (d) of Standard 2.6 refers to 6125 and 6126. Standard 1.3 confirms that the primary purposes of discipline is to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession, and the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession.
Standard 2.10 Culpability of a member of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in these standards or of a wilful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense.
In this case, respondent was suspended for a non-disciplinary mason (failure to pay bar dues) and the respondent has no actual knowledge of the suspension.
The closest ease, Trousil, involved one appearance in a bankruptcy case when the attorney was suspended for non-payment of bar dues. However, he then had a second appearance in the same case after he was suspended for disciplinary reasons. Trousil had an extensive disciplinary history, including three priors, and significant mitigation, including a recent diagnosis and treatment for bi-polar disorder, Trousil received two years of suspension, stayed, two years of probation, and one month of actual suspension. In the Matter of Trousil (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 229.
In general, the case law concerning the unauthorized practice of law ranges from six months actual suspension to disbarment. (See In Re Nancy (1990) 51, Cal. 3d 186 (disbarment, held himself out on resume, when not entitled to practice.); Morgan v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 598 (disbarment, undertook representation in family law matter practiced for at least two months when not entitled, had prior disciplinary history); In the Matter of Taylor (Review Dept. 1991) I Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 563 (disbarment, undertook representation of three clients for a four month period while suspended, prior disciplinary history); In re Cadwell v. State Bar, (1975) 15 Cal.3d 762 (five year interim suspension, held himself out to another lawyer and negotiated a property settlement for a period of five months while suspended, prior disciplinary history) Farnham v. State Bar, (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 605 (six months actual suspension, undertook representation of two clients for a period of three months while suspended, prior disciplinary history.); Arm v. State Bar, (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 763 (18 months actual suspension, failed to disclose impending suspension to court and client, prepared legal papers while suspended, prior disciplinary history.); In the Matter of Robert Wyrick, (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 83. (six month actual suspension, acted as an arbitrator for a period of eight months while suspended from the practice of law, prior disciplinary history).
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Standard 1.2(b)(iv)
FACTS SUPPORTING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
As a result of respondent’s misconduct, the defendant in the child molestation trial, in which respondent obtained the conviction, People v. Thompson is appealing his conviction. Therefore, the government must expend time and effort to defend the appeal.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Standard 1.2(e)(v) candor and cooperation
Standard 1.2(e)(vi)good character
FACTS SUPPORTING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Respondent provided six character reference letters from several professional colleagues, friends, and his fiancé, a physician. They are all aware of his misconduct and vouch for his character. In addition, respondent’s prior supervisor at the Santa Clara District Attorney’s office indicated that he was an excellent attorney.
Respondent has been candid and cooperative with the State Bar.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/CIRCUMSTANCES.
As a result of respondent’s misconduct, the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office initiated internal disciplinary action against him, which resolved with a confidential agreement in which respondent terminated his employment with the office.
During the course of respondent’s employment with the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office, he was promoted from an Attorney llI to an Attorney IV.
Respondent was suspended for one day, September 16, 2004, for his late dues payment that year.
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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 07-O-10508
In the Matter of: Steven Moore
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: Steven Moore
Date: February 22, 2008
Respondent’s Counsel: Kevin Gerry
Date: February 25, 2008
Deputy Trial Counsel: Robin Brune
Date: February 25, 2008
Case Number(s): 07-O-10508
In the Matter of: Steven Moore
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: March 5, 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 March 6, 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:
KEVIN P. GERRY
433 N. CAMDEN DR., 4TH FLOOR
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ROBIN BRUNE, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on March 6, 2008..
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court