Case Number(s): 07-O-11010
In the Matter of: Susan L. London, Bar # 153081, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Margaret P. Warren, Bar # 108774
Counsel for Respondent: Susan L. Margolis, Bar # 104629
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: August 27, 2009
<<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 11 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. costs added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<not>> checked. costs 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 next three (3) billing cycles following the effective date of the State Bar Court’s disciplinary order herein. (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.
9. The parties understand that:
<<not>> checked. (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
Case Number(s): 07-O-11010
In the Matter of: Susan L. London, No. 153081 A Member of the State Bar
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.
<<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: Susan L. London, No. 153081
CASE NUMBER: 07-O-11010
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY
The parties hereby waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed in this matter on February 10, 2009 in Case No. 07-0-11010, and the facts and conclusions of law contained in this stipulation. The parties further waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges and the right to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she is culpable of violations of the specified Rule of Professional Conduct:
Case No. 07-0-11010
Facts:
1. In August 2002, Richard Lay, a letter carrier for the United States Postal Service ("USPS"), hired Respondent on a contingency basis to represent him in a civil matter arising out of a dog bite he sustained in the course and scope of his employment. Lay’s medical bills were paid through the USPS, who had a statutory lien on any recovery Lay might make in his civil case. Lay’s medical bills totaled $567.91. Respondent knew that the USPS had paid Lay’s medical bills, and knew that the USPS had a statutory lien on any settlement or judgment Lay might obtain in his case.
2. In December 2003, Respondent settled Lay’s case for $3,501.00. The payees of the check included Respondent, Lay, and the USPS. The settlement check was properly endorsed by all payees and properly deposited in Respondent’s CTA in January 2004.
3. At the time Mr. Lay’s case was pending in Respondent’s office, Respondent had a client whose name was very similar to Mr. Lay’s, and who also had a pending dog-bite claim. Respondent relied on the paralegal working for her at that time to monitor clients’ files and to keep track of (among other things) clients’ outstanding medical bills and physicians’ reports. Respondent’s paralegal confused Mr. Lay’s case with that of another, similarly-named client who had had certain medical procedures that required further documentation before settlement. The paralegal incorrectly attributed those procedures to Mr. Lay. Respondent did not notice this mistake, despite the fact that she had already settled Lay’s case and deposited his settlement funds into her client trust account.
4. Respondent admits and acknowledges that she did not adequately supervise her then-paralegal, and did not properly monitor her client files and records, which, had she done so, would have alerted her far sooner to the fact that she should have disbursed Mr. Lay’s settlement proceeds immediately after depositing them in her client trust account in January 2004.
5. It was not until the State Bar contacted Respondent by letter dated April 17, 2007, after Mr. Lay had complained to the State Bar, that Respondent realized she should have disbursed funds to Mr. Lay and the USPS in January 2004. Respondent then promptly paid USPS’s lien and Mr. Lay in mid-2007. At all times between depositing Lay’s settlement proceeds in January 2004 and the dates she paid USPS’s lien and Mr. Lay in June 2007, Respondent properly maintained Mr. Lay’s settlement funds in her trust account.
Legal Conclusions
6. By failing to adequately supervise a non-attorney employee and by failing to properly monitor her client files and records, which resulted in a three-year delay in disbursing settlement funds to Mr. Lay and payment of the USPS’s statutory lien in Lay’s case, Respondent willfully violated rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was August 13, 2009.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No. 07-O-11010; Count 1; Alleged Violation rule 4-100(B)(4), RPC;
Case No. 07-O-11010; Count 2; Alleged Violation section 6068(m), Bus. & Prof. Code;
Case No. 07-O-11010; Count 3; Alleged Violation section 6068(m), Bus. & Prof. Code;
Case No. 07-O-11010; Count 4; Alleged Violation rule 4-100(B)(4), RPC;
Case No. 07-O-11010; Count 5; Alleged Violation rule 4-100(B)(3), RPC
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of August 13, 2009, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $3,654.00. 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.
DISCUSSION RE STIPULATED DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct ("Standards") provides that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings are the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys; and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession. Standard 1.3 further provides that rehabilitation of a member is a permissible object of disciplinary sanctions.
Standard 2.4 (b) provides that culpability of a member of wilfully failing to perform services in an individual matter shall result in reproval or suspension depending on the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
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-11010
In the Matter of: Susan L. London, No. 153081
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: Susan L. London
Date: 8/18/09
Respondent’s Counsel: Susan L. Margolis
Date: 8/20/09
Deputy Trial Counsel: Margaret P. Warren
Date: 8/24/09
Case Number(s): 07-O-11010
In the Matter of: Susan L. London, No. 153081
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department are vacated.
After this stipulation was submitted to the Court, the parties notified the Court that the box for paragraph E. (ii) [Law Office Management Conditions] had been inadvertently checked. No such endorsement was included with the Stipulation; nor was it intended by the parties that such would be included.
Accordingly, at the direction of the parties, that “check” has seen deleted from the original Stipulation and is not a part of either the final Stipulation or this order.
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 125(b), Rules of Procedure.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Donald F. Miles
Date: 8/26/09
[Rule 62(b) 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 August 27, 2009, 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:
SUSAN LYNN MARGOLIS
MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS LLP
2000 RIVERSIDE DR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90039
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Margaret P. Warren, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on August 27, 2009.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court