Case Number(s): 07-O-11536
In the Matter of: Cheryl Chambers, Bar # 189577, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Susan I. Kagan, Deputy Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 538-2037
Bar # 214209
Counsel for Respondent: Samuel C. Bellicini,
Fishkin & Slatter, LLP
1111 Civic Dr Ste 215
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 944-5600
Bar # 152191
Submitted to: Assigned Judge
Filed: July 12, 2011 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 June 3, 1997.
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 9 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. Costs are awarded to the State Bar.
<<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.
9.
ORDER OF INACTIVE ENROLLMENT:
The parties are aware that if this stipulation is approved, the judge will
issue an order of inactive enrollment under Business and Professions Code
section 6007, subdivision (c)(4), and Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule
5.111(D)(1)
Respondent has no prior record of discipline. See page 7.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Facts
1. In 2001, Respondent was hired by Elias and Ceola Bowie ("the Bowies") to handle their estate planning. Soon thereafter, Respondent drafted the "Elias and Ceola Bowie Living Trust" ("Bowie Trust") on behalf of the Bowies. Respondent’s aunt, Yvonne Swift ("Swift"), was designated as trustee of the Bowie Trust. Respondent was designated as successor trustee of the Bowie Trust. On October 2, 2001, the Bowie’s San Francisco home was transferred into the Bowie Trust.
2. In January 2005, Elias Bowie died and the Bowie Trust became irrevocable. In September 2005, Ceola Bowie’s health deteriorated and she was placed in an assisted living facility. Soon thereafter, based on Respondent’s suggestion, Swift decided to renovate the Bowie’s San Francisco home, sell it and place the profits into the Bowie Trust for the care of Ceola Bowie and the benefit of the beneficiaries of the Bowie Trust. Swift asked Respondent to handle the renovation and sale of the Bowie’s San Francisco home.
3. In December 2005, Swift and Respondent obtained a loan from World Savings Bank on behalf of the Bowie Trust to pay for renovations to the Bowie’s San Francisco home. At the same time, Swift and Respondent opened a bank account at World Savings Bank on behalf of the Bowie Trust and were designated as co-trustees of the World Savings Bank account. At all relevant times herein, Respondent was a fiduciary of the funds in the World Savings Bank account held on behalf of the Bowie Trust. At all relevant times herein, all account statements for the World Savings Bank account were sent to Respondent.
4. In December 2005, the $196,000.00 loan for renovations to the Bowie San Francisco home was deposited into the World Savings Bank account. Thereafter, the $196,000.00 was used to renovate the Bowie’s San Francisco home. From December 2005 through September 2006, respondent oversaw and paid for the renovations to the Bowie’s San Francisco home from the $196,000.00 loan in the World Savings Bank Account.
5. In September 2006, the Bowie’s San Francisco home was sold for $1,225,000.00. On October 3, 2006, Respondent wired transferred $845,888.94 in funds from the sale of the Bowie’s San Francisco home into the World Savings Bank account on behalf of the Bowie Trust.
6. From October 2006 until Ceola Bowie’s death on August 29, 2008, Respondent properly used funds from the World Savings Bank account to pay for Ms. Bowie’s care.
7. From October 5, 2006, through April 16, 2008, unbeknownst to Swift, Respondent made numerous withdrawals from the funds held in the World Savings Account for her own use and benefit. In total, Respondent misappropriated $800,000.00 from the funds held in the World Savings Bank account on behalf
of the Bowie Trust for her own use and benefit, in breach of her fiduciary duties.
8. Upon learning of Respondent’s misappropriation, Swift filed a complaint on behalf of the Bowie Trust against Respondent in the matter, Swift v. Chambers, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG08418326 ("Swift v. Chambers"). In 2011, the parties entered into a settlement in the Swift v. Chambers case wherein Respondent agreed to repay $257,500.00 of the $800,000.00 misappropriated from the Bowie Trust.
9. To date, Respondent has repaid $3,250.00 of the $800,000.00 misappropriated from the Bowie Trust.
Conclusions of Law
By misappropriating $800,000.00 in funds from the Bowie Trust for her own use and benefit in breach of her fiduciary duties, Respondent committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in willful violation of section 6106 of the Business and Professions Code.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A (7), was May 25, 2011.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent acknowledges that the State Bar has informed respondent that as of May 25, 2011, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $3,236.03. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does not include State Bar Court costs which will be included in any final cost assessment. 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.
FACTS SUPPORTING AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Standard 1.2(b)(iii). Respondent’s misconduct was surrounded by bad faith and dishonesty.
Standard 1.2(b)(iv). Respondent’s misconduct caused significant harm to the beneficiaries of the Bowie Trust.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Standard 1.2(e)(v). Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation to the State Bar during the disciplinary proceedings.
Standard 1.2(e)(vii). Respondent displayed remorse for her misconduct.
Respondent has been practicing law since 1997, and has no prior record of discipline.
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
Standard 2.2(a) requires disbarment for the willful misappropriation of entrusted funds.
Standard 2.3 requires an actual suspension or disbarment for a respondent that has committed an act of moral turpitude. Respondent committed multiple acts of moral turpitude.
Disbarment is the proper discipline for misappropriation, even when the respondent has no prior record of discipline. (See In re Abbott (1977) 19 Cal.3d 249 [disbarment for misappropriation of over $29,000; no prior record of discipline]; Kaplan v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1067 [disbarment for misappropriation of approximately $30,000 and lying to the State Bar; no prior record of discipline]; Chang v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 114 [disbarment for misappropriation of over $7,000; no prior record of discipline]; Kelly v. State Bar (1988) 45 Cal.3d 649 [disbarment for misappropriation of approximately $20,000; no prior record of discipline]; In the Matter of Spaith (Review Dept. 1996) 3 Cal.State Bar Ct.Rptr. 511 [disbarment for misappropriation of approximately $40,000 in one client matter; no prior record of discipline]; In the Matter of Keuker (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal.State Bar Ct.Rptr. 583 [disbarment for misappropriation of approximately $66,000 in one client matter; no prior record of discipline].)
Based on Respondent’s misappropriation of $800,000.00 from the Bowie Trust for her own use and benefit and in violation of her fiduciary duties, disbarment is the appropriate level of discipline in this matter.
Case Number(s): 07-O-11536
In the Matter of: Cheryl Chambers
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: Cheryl Chambers
Date: 6/10/11
Respondent’s Counsel: Samuel C. Bellicini
Date: June 14, 2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Susan I. Kagan
Date: 6/15/11
Case Number(s): 07-O-11536-PEM
In the Matter of: Cheryl Chambers
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.)
Respondent Cheryl Chambers is ordered transferred to involuntary inactive status pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4). Respondent’s inactive enrollment will be effective three (3) calendar days after this order is served by mail and will terminate upon the effective date of the Supreme Court’s order imposing discipline herein, or as provided for by rule 5.111(D)(2) or the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, or as otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court pursuant to its plenary jurisdiction.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Patricia McElroy
Date: July 11, 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 San Francisco on July 12, 2011 I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND
ORDER APPROVING; ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT
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;
SAMUEL C. BELLICINI
FISHKIN & SLATER, LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
checked by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
SUSAN I. KAGAN, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on July 12, 2011.
Signed by:
Lauretta Cramer
Case Administrator
State Bar Court