Case Number(s): Inv. No. 07-O-11547
In the Matter of: Pal A. Lengyel-Leahu, Bar # 147153, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Kevin B. Taylor, State Bar of California
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA
213 765-1630
Bar # 151715,
Counsel for Respondent: Ellen A. Pansky, 1010 Sycamore Ave, Unit 308
South Pasadena, CA 91030
213 626-7300
Bar # 77688,
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 June 11, 1990.
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):
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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Pal A. Lengyel-Leahu, State Bar No. 147153
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-O-11547
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 set forth below.
INVESTIGATION No. 07-O-11547
Facts
During the year 2006, Respondent’s legal practice was exclusively one of criminal defense. Respondent represented a large number of clients and had a very busy trial calendar during that year.
While Respondent was an active member of the State Bar of California in 2006, he was not an active member of any other bar in the United States. Nonetheless, in 2006, Respondent was retained by many clients to represent and defend them in criminal proceedings outside of California. Therefore, in order to represent those out of state clients, Respondent sought admission to practice law in those other states on a pro hac vice basis.
In seeking pro hac vice admission, Respondent’s practice was to file a petition or application (hereinafter "petition") for admission with the court presiding over his client’s case. These petitions generally called for the same information and required Respondent to verify that information or otherwise sign the petition under penalty of perjury. The petitions were accompanied by Respondent’s supporting declaration and required him to affirm that he had read and would abide by the local rules of the jurisdiction to which he sought admission.
In no fewer than seven matters, Respondent caused verified pro hac vice petitions to be submitted to a court without having first reviewed and executed the moving papers. Instead, Respondent directed his secretary, who was also a notary public, to complete the verified petitions, simulate his signature on the documents and notarize the signature.
In these cases, Respondent did not sign his supporting declarations either. Instead, Respondent directed his secretary to simulate his signature on the declarations, some of which stated that they were executed under penalty of perjury.
Respondent further directed his secretary to file those petitions with the court without his prior review.
Respondent’s secretary complied with Respondent’s direction regarding the simulated signatures and notarization and then filed the documents with the courts without his prior review.
Respondent directed his secretary to follow this procedure, and she did, with pro hac vice petitions filed in the courts of Colorado, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas. Many of these petitions were granted by the court.
These petitions did not advise the court in any manner that the signatures which purported to be by Respondent were in fact simulations affixed by his secretary.
Respondent explains that in 2006 he followed the above-described practice of having his secretary execute pro hac vice petitions for him because his legal practice was extraordinarily busy and he was travelling very frequently. As a consequence, Respondent did not always have time to visit his office to sign the petitions.
While Respondent recognizes the wrongfulness of his conduct, he explains that at the time he engaged in the conduct he did not believe that he was misleading a court because the information contained in the petitions was correct.
Legal Conclusion
Respondent caused verified pro hac vice petitions and supporting declarations to be filed with courts throughout the United States bearing simulated signatures and false notarizations. In so doing, Respondent misrepresented to those courts that the signatures on the subject documents were his own original signatures. Respondent thereby maintained causes confided to him by employing means inconsistent with the truth in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(d).
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Respondent has no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the practice of law in California on June 11, 1990.
The misconduct which is the subject of this stipulation occurred in the year 2006. The State Bar has no evidence of Respondent having engaged in related misconduct before or after that time period.
There is no evidence that any of Respondent’s clients were harmed by his misconduct. Additionally, Respondent states that the court granted his pro hac vice petitions in every case in which he made a personal appearance at the hearing on same.
Respondent recognizes the wrongfulness of his conduct. Similarly, Respondent expressed regret for the manner in which he handled the pro hac vice process and was very cooperative with the State Bar in the resolution of this matter.
DISCUSSION RE DISCIPLINE
Standard 1.3 of the Standards For Attorney Sanctions For Professional Misconduct provides guidance as to the imposition of discipline and interpretation of specific Standards. That Standard states that the primary purpose of discipline is the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession.
Standard 2.6 provides that a violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(d) shall result in disbarment or suspension depending upon the gravity of the offense and the harm, if any, to the victim of the misconduct.
As to harm, Respondent recognizes that courts have to rely on the sworn statements of attorneys and that conduct such as his undermines the courts’ confidence and ability in this regard. However, there is no evidence that any of Respondent’s clients were harmed by his misconduct.
Case law suggests that a short period of actual suspension is appropriate in this matter.
In the case of Hallinan v. State Bar (1948) 33 Cal. 2d 246, the Supreme Court imposed a 90 day actual suspension upon the respondent for his simulating his client’s signature on a release and not advising the opposing party that the signature was not that of the client. The Court found that the respondent’s conduct constituted a deception leading the opposing counsel to believe that the client had personally signed the release.
Given Respondent’s mitigation, including the fact that he cooperated with the State Bar in resolving this matter without the State Bar having to file a notice of disciplinary charges and litigate the case, Respondent’s discipline in this matter should be less than that imposed in Hallinan.
Based upon the above, the parties submit that the agreed upon discipline in this matter is consistent with the Standards and, with the agreed upon probationary conditions, will satisfactorily serve to protect the public.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was September 28, 2010.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of, September 28, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,000. 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.
Case Number(s): Inv. Nos. 07-O-11547
In the Matter of: Pal A. Lengyel-Leahu
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: Pat A. Lengyel-Leahu
Date: October 22, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel: Ellen A. Pansky
Date: October 25, 2010
Deputy Trial Counsel: Kevin B. Taylor
Date: October 28, 2010
Case Number(s): Inv. Nos. 07-O-11547
In the Matter of: Pal A. Lengyel-Leahu
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: Richard A. Platel
Date: November 10, 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 Los Angeles, on November 10, 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:
ELLEN A PANSKY
1010 SYCAMORE AVE UNIT 308
SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number . No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
KEVIN TAYLOR, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on November 10, 2010.
Signed by:
Angela Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court