Case Number(s): 07-O-10673-RAH; 07-O-14748-RAH; 08-N-13547-RAH; 09-C-10280-RAH
In the Matter of: Crane Stephen Landis, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent), Bar # 205057
Counsel For The State Bar: Larry DeSha, Bar # 117910
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
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 December 12, 1999.
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 13 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 284, Rules of Procedure.
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2011, 2012, and 2013 (hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.)
<<not>> checked. costs waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. costs entirely waived.
Respondent will delay the termination of his present actual suspension by delaying the filing of his motion under rule 205 of the Rules of Procedure. The filing date will be after the effective date of the actual suspension imposed by the California Supreme Court for this stipulation.
When Respondent presents his proof to the State Bar Court pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), he will also present evidence satisfactory to the court from a treating psychotherapist regarding Respondent’s then current medical status and prognosis. This evidence shall be based upon an examination conducted no earlier than 30 days from the date Respondent files his motion under rule 631 of the Rules of Procedure.
Attachment language begins here (if any):
ATTACHMENT TO STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: CRANE STEPHEN LANDIS
CASE NO.: 07-O-10673-RAH
FACTS:
1. On November 7, 2005, Respondent filed a lawsuit to collect the unpaid balance on a promissory note. This was Los Angeles Superior Court case no. EC041787.
2. On March 27, 2006, Respondent failed to appear in court for the case management conference. Respondent had notice of the conference, but he did not notify opposing counsel or the court that he would fail to appear.
3. On May 12, 2006, the court ordered Respondent to pay $725.00 to opposing counsel for Respondent’s failure to appear at the case management conference on March 27, 2006. Respondent paid promptly.
4. On June 23, 2006, the court granted defendants’ motion to compel discovery, and ordered Respondent to pay discovery sanctions of $1,500.00 to opposing counsel. Respondent was present and later saw the written order, but he has never paid the $1,500.00. He did not notify his clients of the order to respond to discovery.
5. On July 27, 2006, Respondent failed to appear in court for the continued case management conference. Respondent had notice of the conference, but he did not notify opposing counsel or the court that he would fail to appear.
6. On August 24, 2006, the court clerk entered the default of Respondent’s clients to a cross-complaint. Respondent timely received both the request for entry of default and the notice of entry of default, but he took no action and he failed to notify his clients of the entry of their default.
7. On September 1, 2006, Respondent appeared in court for the hearing re sanctions. The court ordered the complaint dismissed and set a date for a prove-up hearing for the cross-complaint. Respondent did not notify his clients that their case had been dismissed, nor that a judgment would soon be entered against them.
8. On October 23, 2006, one of the clients informed Respondent that he had learned of the dismissal of his lawsuit and the pending judgment for defendants. Respondent promised prompt corrective action, but he filed nothing.
9. On November 6, 2006, the clients hired new counsel for the case. On February 9, 2007, the court granted new counsel’s motion for relief from default under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court vacated the dismissal of the complaint and the entry of default for the cross-complaint.
10. As part of the order for relief, the court ordered Respondent to pay a sanction of $1,000.00 to the State Bar’s Client Security Fund. Respondent received the order promptly, but he did not report it to the State Bar and he has never paid any part of the $1,000.00.
11. On April 3, 2007, the State Bar sent Respondent a letter requesting an explanation for his failure to represent his clients properly in the case, and his failure to report the sanction of $1,000.00. Respondent received the letter, but he made no reply. On May 21, 2007, the State Bar repeated its requests. Respondent received the second letter, but he made no reply.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. By failing to pay the discovery sanction of $1,500.00 ordered on June 23, 2006, failing to pay the default relief sanction of $1,000.00 ordered on February 9, 2007, and failing to comply with order of June 23, 2006 to answer discovery, Respondent disobeyed orders of the court to do acts connected with his profession, which he ought in good faith to do, in willful violation of section 6103 of the Business and Professions Code.
2. By failing to report the judicial sanctions of $1,000.00, as ordered on February 9, 2007, to the State Bar within 30 days thereafter, Respondent willfully violated section 6068(o)(3) of the Business and Professions Code.
3. By failing to appear in court on March 27, 2006 and July 27, 2006, allowing his client’s lawsuit to be dismissed, allowing his clients’ default to be taken on the cross-complaint, and failing to take action to get the dismissal and default set aside, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
4. By failing to inform his clients of the order of June 23, 2006 to respond to discovery, and of the court orders of September 1, 2006 dismissing their lawsuit and entering their default in the cross-complaint against them, Respondent failed to keep his clients reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which he had agreed to provide legal services, in willful violation of section 6068(m) of the Business and Professions Code.
5. By failing to reply to the letter requests sent by the State Bar on April 3, 2007 and May 21, 2007, Respondent failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation pending against him, in willful violation of 6068(i) of the Business and Professions Code.
CASE NO.: 07-O-14748-RAH
FACTS:
1. As of September 4, 2007, the State Bar prosecutor ("DTC") assigned to case no. 07-O-10330-RAH was aware that Respondent’s membership records address was invalid, and the DTC had been given a new address by Respondent where he would receive mail. That same day, the DTC sent a letter about another case to Respondent at this new address, which Respondent received. Neither the DTC nor Respondent notified the State Bar Court of Respondent’s new address.
2. On September 20, 2007, the State Bar Court enrolled Respondent as an involuntarily inactive member of the State Bar of California pursuant to section 6007(e) of the Business and Professions Code, due to his failure to file a Response to the Notice of Disciplinary Charges in case no. 07-0-10330-RAH.
3. On September 20, 2007, the State Bar Court served the notice of default and inactive status on Respondent’s official State Bar membership records address. The notice was returned to the State Bar Court by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable at that address.
4. On October 17, 2007, while on inactive status, Respondent appeared in criminal court for a pretrial hearing for a client. The hearing was continued until October 29, 2007, at which time Respondent appeared again for the client and represented the client for entry of a plea and sentencing. Respondent advised his client on how to complete the Misdemeanor Advisement of Rights, Waiver, and Plea Form, which the client then signed and Respondent signed as his attorney.
5. On October 18, 2007, the DTC and Respondent met to discuss State Bar disciplinary issues.
6. On October 24, 2007, the DTC sent a letter to Respondent at his new address, and Respondent received the letter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. By appearing in open court on October 17, 2007 and October 29, 2007 on behalf of a client, and by providing that client with legal advice as to plea, while on inactive status and not eligible to practice law, Respondent willfully violated sections 6125 and 6126 of the Business and Professions Code and thereby failed to support the laws of this state in willful violation of section 6068(a) of the Business and Professions Code.
CASE NO.: 08-N-13547-RAH
FACTS:
1. On May 13, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued its disciplinary order no. S 161736, which placed Respondent on an actual suspension for 90 days and until he filed a motion for relief from his default pursuant to rule 205 of the Rules of procedure. The order was properly served and was received by Respondent. Respondent has yet to file such a motion.
2. The California Supreme Court order required Respondent to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court, which required him to file a Compliance Declaration with the Clerk of the State Bar Court no later than July 22, 2008.
3. Respondent did not file his Compliance Declaration until September 18, 2008, which was 58 days later than the deadline ordered by the California Supreme Court.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. By filing his Compliance Declaration 58 days late, Respondent willfully violated rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
DISMISSALS:
The State Bar requests dismissal of case no. 09-C-10280-RAH, on the grounds of furtherance of justice. [Rule 262(e)(1).] This is a conviction referral matter for four counts of the unauthorized practice of law. Discipline has already been imposed in case no. 07-0-10037-RAH for the first two counts. The other two counts are the subject of case no. 07-O-14748-RAH included in this stipulation.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. Harm to client. Respondent’s failure to prosecute the collection case resulted in a delay of nine months, from May 2006 until February 2007, due to dismissal and reinstatement of the case. [Standard 1.2(b)(iv).]
2. Harm to administration of justice. Respondent’s failure to appear at court hearings on March 27, 2006 and July 27, 2006 required the court to schedule additional hearings, consider motions from opposing counsel, impose appropriate sanctions, and eventually, provide Respondent’s client with relief from default. [Standard 1.2(b)(iv).]
3. Multiple Acts of Misconduct. There are seven separate counts of misconduct filed in this matter. Moreover, Count One is for two distinct violations separated by more than eight months. Count Three is for four separate acts of misconduct. Count Four is for two acts of misconduct separated by more than three months. The present charges thus cite at least 12 acts of misconduct. [Standard 1.2(b)(ii).]
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. Candor/Cooperation. On February 17, 2010, Respondent signed a Stipulation of Facts which admitted nearly all facts material to the four cases filed against him. This would have greatly reduced the time for trial from three days to one day. Respondent has now stipulated to all material facts and all conclusions of law in the filed charges. [Standard 1.2(e)(v).]
2. Emotional/Physical Difficulties. Respondent has produced written statements from a psychiatrist and a medical doctor that he suffers from Major Depression Disorder, Recurrent, Severe (DSM code 296.33), complicated by anxiety, which are at times debilitating, and that Respondent was in fact debilitated by an unusual major depressive episode at the time of the offenses charged herein in 2006 - 2008. On February 13, 2010, Respondent was examined by the psychiatrist, who pronounced him "able to function well in all spheres." Both doctors have expressed in writing their willingness to testify as to the factors causing Respondent’s debilitation at the times of his offenses and their opinions that he is no longer disabled. [Standard 1.2(e)(iv).]
WAIVER OF VARIANCE:
The parties waive any variance between the two Notices of Disciplinary Charges filed on October 24, 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. The parties further waive the right to the filing of Notice of Disciplinary Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY:
Rule 9.20(d) of the California Rules of Court specifies that the suspended member’s failure to comply with rule 9.20 is a cause for disbarment or suspension.
"A willful violation of this rule is, by definition, deserving of strong disciplinary measures." Lydon v. State Bar (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1181, 1187
Attorney Lydon had been disciplined with an actual suspension of three years. His proof of compliance with rule 955 [predecessor of rule 9.20] was due to be filed no later than August 14, 1986. The California Supreme Court referred him for a disciplinary hearing on September 24, 1986, when he was only 41 days late in compliance. He was disbarred.
Disbarment is not warranted here because Attorney Lydon was in a period of a much longer actual suspension, and did not have the mitigating factors present here.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS:
The disclosure date referred to on page 2, paragraph A.(7), was February 24, 2010.
COSTS:
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of February 24, 2010, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $4,892.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only.
If Respondent fails to pay any installment within the time provided in paragraph A.(8) above or as modified by the State Bar Court pursuant to section 6068.10 (c), the remaining balance of costs will be due and payable immediately and enforceable as a money judgment unless relief is granted under rule 286 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 07-O-10673-RAH, 07-O-14748-RAH, 08-N-13547-RAH, 09-C-10280-RAH
In the Matter of: Crane Stephen Landis
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: Crane Stephen Landis
Date: February 24, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Larry DeSha
Date: February 24, 2010
Case Number(s): 07-O-10673-RAH, 07-O-14748-RAH, 08-N-13547-RAH, 09-C-10280-RAH
In the Matter of: Crane Stephen Landis
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: Donald F. Miles
Date: 2/24/10
[Rule 62 (b), Rules Proc.; 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 February 24, 2010, 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:
CRANE S LANDIS ESQ
2524 25TH ST
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Ernest Larry DeSha, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on February 24, 2010.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court