State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

ACTUAL SUSPENSION

Case Number(s): 07-O-11209, 08-O-13826

In the Matter of: Michael Wayne Champ Bar #95784 a Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel for the State Bar: Mia R. Ellis, Deputy Trial Counsel, 1149 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015, 213-765-1380, Bar # 228235

Counsel for Respondent:  In Pro Per Respondent, Michael Wayne Champ, Champ and Associates, 21550 Oxnard Street, Third Floor, Woodland Hills, CA 91367, Bar # 95784

Submitted to: Settlement Judge, State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles

Filed: July 30, 2010

<<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.

A.  Parties' Acknowledgments:

1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 16, 1980.

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 5.130, 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.

B.  Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.

<<not>> checked. (1) Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]

<<not>> checked. (a)          State Bar Court case # of prior case

<<not>> checked. (b)          Date prior discipline effective

<<not>> checked. (c)           Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations:

<<not>> checked. (d)          Degree of prior discipline  

<<not>> checked. (e)          If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below.

<<not>> checked. (2) Dishonesty:  Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct.

<<not>> checked. (3) Trust Violation:  Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property.

checked. (4) Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

<<not>> checked. (5) Indifference:  Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his or her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (6) Lack of Cooperation:  Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings. 

<<not>> checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:  Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (8) No aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances:

C.  Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigating circumstances are required.

checked. (1)                    No Prior Discipline:  Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice.

not>> checked. (2)         No Harm:  Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the misconduct. 

not>> checked. (3)         Candor/Cooperation:  Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims of his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings. 

not>> checked. (4)         Remorse:  Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct. 

not>> checked. (5)         Restitution:  Respondent paid $   on   in restitution to   without the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.

not>> checked. (6)         Delay:  These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed.  The delay is not attributable to Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

not>> checked. (7)         Good Faith:  Respondent acted in good faith.

not>> checked. (8)         Emotional/Physical Difficulties:  At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct.  The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.

<<not>> checked. (9)    Severe Financial Stress:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and which were directly responsible for the misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (10) Family Problems:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature.

<<not>> checked. (11) Good Character:  Respondent's good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (12) Rehabilitation:  Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.

<<not>> checked. (13) No mitigating circumstances are involved.
Additional mitigating circumstances:

D. Discipline:

checked. (1)           Stayed Suspension:

checked. (a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years.

<<not>> checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii) Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

<<not>> checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.

<<not>> checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following: .

checked. (b) The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

checked. (2) Probation:  Respondent must be placed on probation for a period of two years, which will commence upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter.  (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court.)

checked. (3) Actual Suspension:

checked. (a) Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period of 30 days.

<<not>> checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct

<<not>> checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.

<<not>> checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following: .

E. Additional Conditions of Probation:

<<not>> checked. (1) If Respondent is actually suspended for two years or more, he/she must remain actually suspended until  he/she proves to the State Bar Court his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the general law, pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

checked. (2)                 During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.

checked. (3)                 Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

checked. (4)                 Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with Respondent's assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.

checked. (5)                 Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.

                                       In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.

<<not>> checked. (6) Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance. During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested, in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must cooperate fully with the probation monitor.

checked. (7)                 Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has complied with the probation conditions.

checked. (8)                 Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
No Ethics School recommended.  Reason: .

<<not>> checked. (9) Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office of Probation.

<<not>> checked. (10)        The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:

<<not>> checked. Substance Abuse Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Law Office Management Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Medical Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Financial Conditions.

F.   Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

checked. (1)                Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination:  Respondent must provide proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation during the period of actual suspension or within one year, whichever period is longer.  Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) & (E), Rules of Procedure.
<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended.  Reason: .

<<not>> checked. (2)         Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (3)         Conditional Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90 days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 120 and 130 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (4)         Credit for Interim Suspension [conviction referral cases only]:  Respondent will be credited for the period of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual suspension. Date of commencement of interim suspension:

<<not>> checked. (5)         Other Conditions:

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: Michael W. Champ

CASE NUMBER(S): ET AL. 07-O-11209 and 08-O-13826

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.

Facts: Case Number 07-O-11209

1. On February 8, 2002, Beverly and Don Thomas ("Thomas") employed Respondent for representation in their construction defect claim against Standard Pacific Corporation ("Standard").

2. On September 11, 2002, Respondent filed a complaint for damages on behalf of Thomas in the Ventura County Superior Court entitled, Don Thomas and Beverly Thomas v. Standard Pacific Corporation, case number SC033907.

3. On August 7, 2003, Standard’s attorney served discovery propounded to Thomas on Respondent. Respondent forwarded the discovery to Thomas, but did not inform Thomas of the deadline to respond to the discovery. From September 2003 to August 2004 approximately, Thomas repeatedly requested assistance from Respondent to complete the discovery. Respondent did not provide assistance to Thomas in responding to the discovery or respond to Thomas requests, except to tell Thomas to do the best they could to respond to the discovery. Consequently, Thomas did not provide completed discovery responses to Respondent.

4. On September 30, 2003, Standard’s attorney sent a letter to Respondent in which she requested that Thomas’s responses to the discovery, without objections, be served by October 13, 2003. In the letter, Standard’s attorney offered to extend the time to provide the discovery responses upon Respondent’s request. Respondent did not respond to the letter or make any request for an extension to respond to the discovery on behalf of Thomas.

5. On November 19, 2003, Standard’s attorney filed motions to compel Thomas’s responses to the discovery. The court set a hearing on the motions for December 16, 2003. On or about November 14, 2003, Standard’s attorney served the motions to compel and notice of the December 16, 2003 hearing on Respondent. Respondent received the motions and notice of the December 16, 2003 hearing.

6. On December 16, 2003, the court held the hearing on the motions to compel discovery. Respondent did not appear at the hearing and did not file any opposition or response to the motions on behalf of Thomas. The court granted the motions and ordered Thomas to serve responses, without objections, by December 30, 2003.

7. On January 29, 2004, Standard’s attorney filed a motion for terminating sanctions against Thomas as no responses to the discovery were served. The court set a hearing on the motion for February 25, 2004. Attached to the motion was a copy of the minute order from the December 16, 2003 hearing reflecting that the court had ordered Thomas to serve responses to the discovery by December 30, 2003. On January 29, 2004, Standard’s attorney served the motion for terminating sanctions on Respondent and notice of the February 25, 2004 hearing on Respondent. Respondent received the

motion and notice of the February 25, 2004 hearing.

8. On February 25, 2004, the court held a hearing on the motion for terminating sanctions. Respondent did not appear for the hearing and did not serve any response to the discovery or response or opposition to the motion on behalf of Thomas. The court granted defendant’s motion for a terminating sanction and dismissed the action. On February 25, 2004, Standard’s attorney served notice of the court’s ruling on the motion for terminating sanctions and dismissal of the action on Respondent. Respondent received the notice.

9. Respondent did not inform Thomas about the motions to compel discovery, the December 16, 2003 hearing on the motions, or the court’s ruling on the motions.

10. Respondent did not inform Thomas about the motion for terminating sanctions, the

February 25, 2004 hearing on the motion, the court’s ruling on the motion, or the court’s dismissal.

11. On February 13, 2007, the State Bar of California opened an investigation identified as case number 07-O-11209 concerning a complaint submitted against Respondent by Thomas.

12. On July 23, 2007, a State Bar investigator sent a letter to Respondent regarding its

investigation of Thomas’s complaint at his membership records address of 21550 Oxnard Street, F1. 3,

Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7105. Respondent received the letter.

13. In the July 23, 2007 letter, the investigator requested a response to the allegations raised by Thomas’s complaint by August 6, 2007. Respondent did not respond to the letter.

Conclusions of Law

By not assisting Thomas in responding to the discovery, by not responding to or opposing Standard’s motions to compel the discovery responses, by not responding to or opposing Standard’s motion for terminating sanctions, and by allowing the action to be dismissed, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).

By not informing Thomas about the motions to compel discovery, the December 15, 2003 hearing, the court’s ruling on the motions to compel discovery, the motion for terminating sanctions, the February 25, 2004 hearing, the court’s ruling on the motion for terminating sanctions and the dismissal of the action, Respondent wilfully failed to keep a client reasonably informed significant developments in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).

By not providing a written response to the allegations raised by Thomas’s complaint, Respondent wilfully failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i).

Facts: Case Number 08-O-13826

1. In March 2005, Taraneh Salke ("Salke") employed Respondent for representation in a personal injury claim against Medi-Spa on a contingency fee basis.

2. On At/gust 24, 2005, Respondent filed a personal injury lawsuit on behalf of Salke in the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled, Taraneh Salke v. Medi-Spas International, Inc., case number LC072372 (the "action").

3. In April 2006, Respondent obtained a default judgment in the action for $142,456.70 on behalf of Salke.

4. In January 2007, Respondent obtained a writ of execution in the action for $149,079.70 on behalf of Salke (the "writ").

5. In March 2007, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s office collected $10,031 on the writ.

6. On April 3, 2007, the County of Los Angeles issued a $10,021 check payable to

Respondent’s law firm, Champ & Associates, with the funds collected on the writ.

7. On April 4, 2007, Respondent deposited the $10,021 check into his client trust account at Bank of America.

8. Respondent contends that on April 27, 2007, he sent Salke a letter regarding his receipt of the check. The letter explained that Respondent held the money in his client trust account as Medi-Spa has filed for bankruptcy and the funds may be subject to the debtor’s estate and the money may be ordered returned to the trustee for use and distribution.

9. In June 2007, Salke left a message for Respondent in which she requested that Respondent forward a copy of the client file to her in order to determine the status of her matter. Respondent did not respond to Salke’s message.

10. In July 2007, Salke left several telephone messages for Respondent and sent a letter to Respondent in which she requested the status of her matter. Respondent did not respond to Salke’s messages or letter.

11. In October 2007, Salke left several telephone messages for Respondent and sent a letter to Respondent, in which she requested the status of her matter. Respondent did not respond to Salke’s messages.

12. In May 2009, Salke terminated Respondent’s employment and requested that Respondent return an executed substitution of attorney form provided by Salke and that Respondent release her client file.

13. On September 2, 2008, the State Bar of California opened an investigation identified as case number 08-O-13826 concerning a complaint submitted against Respondent by Salke.

14. On October 10, 2008 and October 28, 2008, a State Bar investigator sent letters to

Respondent regarding its investigation of Salke’ s complaint at his membership records address of 21550 Oxnard Street, F1. 3, Woodland Hills, CA 91367. In the October 10, 2008 and October 28, 2010 letters,

the investigator requested responses to the allegations raised by Salke’s complaint. Respondent did not respond to the letters.

15. On April 15, 2010, Respondent signed the substitution of attorney form.

16. On April 15, 2010, Respondent sent Salke a check for $4,334.60.

17. On July 1, 2010, Respondent sent Salke an accounting of fees.

18. On July 2, 2010, Salke picked up her file.

Conclusions of Law

By not releasing any of the $10,021 to Salke, Respondent wilfully failed to pay promptly, as requested by a client, any funds in Respondent’s possession which the client was entitled to receive in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(4).

By not responding to Salke’s messages and letter, Respondent wilfully failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).

By not returning an executed substitution of attomey form and by not releasing the client file to Salke, Respondent wilfully failed upon termination of employment, to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his client, including complying with rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2)..

By not providing a written response to the allegations raised by Salke’s complaint, Respondent wilfully failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i).

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(6), was July 2, 2010

DISMISSALS.

The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:

Case No. 07-O-11209, Count Three, Alleged Violation 6106

Case No. 08-O- 13826, Count Five, Alleged Violation 4-100(B)( 1 )

Case No. 08-O-13826, Count Seven, Alleged Violation 4-100(B)(3)

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of July 2, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are $4,340.12. 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.

Standard 2.2(b) - culpability of a member of commingling on entrusted funds or property with personal property or the commission of another violation of rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct, none of which offenses result in the wilful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in at least a three months actual suspension from the practice of law, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.

Standard 2.4 - culpability of a member of willfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of wilfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.

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 harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard

1.3: sections 6068.

Standard 2.10 - culpability of a member of a violation 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 or the harm.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

Respondent’s misconduct caused harm to his client in case number 07-O-11209 because case was dismissed.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

Respondent has cooperated with the State Bar to the extent that he has stipulated to facts and degree of discipline.

Attachment Page 10

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-11209 and 08-O-13826

In the Matter of: Michael Wayne Champ

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: Michael Wayne Champ

Date: July 13, 2010

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Mia R. Ellis

Date: July 16, 2010

ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER

Case Number(s): 07-o-11209 and 08-O-13826

In the Matter of: Michael Wayne Champ

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:

Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn

Date: July 27, 2010

Actual Suspension Order

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[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 July 30, 2010, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

                                    STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND

                                    DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING ACTUAL SUSPENSION          

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:

                                    MICHAEL WAYNE CHAMP

                                    CHAMP & ASSOCIATES

                                    21550 OXNARD ST FL 3

                                    WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 - 7105

checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:

                                    MIA ELLIS, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on July 30, 2010.

Signed by:

Tammy Cleaver

Case Administrator

State Bar Court