Case Number(s): 07-O-12476; 08-O-12263
In the Matter of: FREDRIC JAY GREENBLATT, Bar # 92672, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Ashod Mooradian, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1004
Bar # 194283
Counsel for Respondent: CENTURY LAW GROUP, LLP
Edward O. Lear, Esq.
5200 West Century Blvd., Suite 345
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Bar # 132699
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: February 23, 2011.
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 May 30, 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 14 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 added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
<<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.
Case Number(s): 07-O-12476;08-O-12263
In the Matter of: FREDRIC JAY GREENBLATT
Nolo Contendere Plea Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition
The terms of pleading nolo contendere are set forth in the Business and Professions Code and the Rules of Procedures of the State Bar. The applicable provisions are set forth below:
Business and Professions Code § 6085.5 Disciplinary Charges; Pleas to Allegations
There are three kinds of pleas to the allegations of a notice of disciplinary charges or other pleading which initiates a disciplinary proceeding against a member:
(a) Admission of culpability.
(b) Denial of culpability.
(c) Nolo contendere, subject to the approval of the State Bar Court. The court shall ascertain whether the member completely understands that a plea of nolo contendere will be considered the same as an admission of culpability and that, upon a plea of nolo contendere, the court will find the member culpable. The legal effect of such a plea will be the same as that of an admission of culpability for all purposes, except that the plea and any admissions required by the court during any inquiry it makes as to the voluntariness of, or the factual basis for, the pleas, may not be used against the member as an admission in any civil suit based upon or growing out of the act upon which the disciplinary proceeding is based.
Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule 5.56. Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition
“(A) Contents. A proposed stipulation to facts, conclusions of law, and disposition must comprise:
[¶] . . . [¶]
(5) a statement that the member either:
(a) admits the truth of the facts comprising the stipulation and admits culpability for misconduct; or
(b) pleads nolo contendere to those facts and misconduct;
[¶] . . . [¶]
(B) Plea of Nolo Contendere. If the member pleads nolo contendere, the stipulation must also show that the member understands that the plea is treated as an admission of the stipulated facts and an admission of culpability.”
I, the Respondent in this matter, have read the applicable provisions of Business and Professions Code section 6085.5 and rule 5.56 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. I plead nolo contendere to the charges set forth in this stipulation and I completely understand that my plea will be considered the same as an admission of culpability except as stated in Business and Professions Code section 6085.5(c).
Signed by:
Respondent: Fredric Jay Greenblatt
Date: February 1, 2011
IN THE MATTER OF: FREDRIC JAY GREENBLATT, State Bar No. 92672
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-O-12476;08-O-12263
A. WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY:
The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges ("NDC") filed on July 7, 2010, 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 a Notice of Disciplinary Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges. This stipulation is the controlling document as to all charges herein.
B. FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
FREDRIC JAY GREENBLATT ("Respondent") pleads nolo contendere to the following facts andviolations. Respondent completely understands that the plea for nolo contendere shall be considered the same as an admission of the stipulated facts and of his or her culpability of the statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct specified herein.
Facts Supporting Culpability:
1. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on May 30, 1980, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.
2. On August 10, 2005, Respondent filed a complaint in Riverside County Superior Court, case no. INC 052721, originally entitled Ramirez, et al. v. Century Crowell Communities, et al. ("Ramirez Case") on behalf of Plaintiffs, alleging restraint of trade, racketeering and related claims against three groups of defendants, a housing developer, a company which provided interior upgrades in the homes and a company that installed pools in the homes.
3. In September 2005, a defendant propounded requests for admissions, special interrogatories and form interrogatories ("Written Discovery Requests") on all plaintiffs in the Ramirez case.
4. In October 2005, Respondent sent a letter to Plaintiffs enclosing this questionnaire, requesting that they complete it and then return the completed questionnaires.
5. In November 2005, Respondent sent Plaintiffs a letter enclosing four undated and/or blank discovery verification forms and requested that each plaintiff sign and return the signed verifications in the self-addressed and stamped envelope. Subsequently, Respondent, by and through his office staff, completed responses to the Written Discovery Requests, attached the previously signed discovery verifications and served them upon the propounding party.
7. Prior to service of the responses to the Written Discovery Requests, Plaintiffs were not provided an opportunity review the responses to the Written Discovery Requests.
8. In addition, it was not disclosed to Plaintiffs that the pre-signed and pre-dated verifications were attached to the responses to the Written Discovery Requests.
9. In January 2006, Respondent, by and through his office staff, served the Amended Responses to the Written Discovery Requests along with the altered pre-signed verifications upon the propounding party.
10. Prior to service of the Amended Responses upon the propounding party, Plaintiffs were not provided an opportunity to review the Amended Responses to the Written Discovery Requests.
11. In addition, it was not disclosed to Plaintiffs that altered pre-signed verifications were attached to the Amended Responses to the Written Discovery Requests.
12. The Amended Responses to the Written Discovery Requests provided corrected responses on several important issues than had the original responses to the Written Discovery Requests.
13. The pre-signed and pre-dated verifications were altered by adding a description of what was being verified (when the original was blank) and by changing the date by using whiteout and then writing a different and/or new date than that originally written in by the Plaintiffs.
Conclusion of Law:
14. By requesting that the Ramirez Case Plaintiffs sign undated blank discovery verification forms, when Plaintiffs had not yet reviewed the discovery responses which they were being requested to verify were truthful, Respondent violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106 with gross negligence.
C. FACTS SUPPORTING AGGRAVATION.
1. Respondent’s misconduct harmed the administration of justice. [Footnote: 1 – Standard 1.2 (b)(iv).] Respondent’s "...use of presigned verifications posed a threat to the administration of justice in that unverified information in discovery responses might be inaccurate, and the opposing party might rely on that information .... ,,2 [Footnote: 2 – Drociak v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1085, 1088.]
D. FACTS SUPPORTING MITIGATION.
1. Respondent has no prior record of discipline and had. been admitted to the practice of law in California for over twenty-five (25) years when the misconduct herein occurred. [Footnote: 3 – Standard 1.2(e)(i).
2. Respondent has exhibited candor and cooperation with the State Bar of California. [Footnote: 4 – Standard 1.2 (e)(v).] During the pendency of this matter, Respondent cooperated with the State Bar, informally providing information that assisted the State Bar in its understanding of Respondent’s misconduct herein. Finally, Respondent also cooperated in that he has stipulated to facts, conclusions of law and level of discipline.
3. Respondent has expressed remorse to the State Bar for his misconduct and acknowledged his wrongdoing.[Footnote: 5 – Standard 1.2(e)(vii)] The State Bar is satisfied that Respondent’s remorse is genuine and is corroborated by Respondent’s cooperation and candor in this matter. The Respondent’s act of misconduct herein were acts of gross negligence, but not dishonesty.
4. Respondent’s good character has been attested to by attorneys and non-attorney members of the general community who have known Respondent for as long as (30) years and are aware of the full extent of Respondent’s misconduct, would still hold that Respondent has good character and believe that Respondent will not commit any misconduct in the future. One declaration also attests to Respondent’s charitable contributions of time and resources for his community. [Footnote:6 – Standard 1.2 (e)(vi).]
E. AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Applicable Standards:
Standard 2.3 provides that culpability of a member of art act of moral turpitude, fraud, or intentional dishonesty toward a court, client or another person or of concealment of a material fact to a court, client or another person shall result in actual suspension or disbarment depending upon the extent to which the victim of the misconduct is harmed or misled and depending upon the magnitude of the act of misconduct and the degree to which it relates to the member’s acts within the practice of law.
However, in this matter, Respondent was grossly negligent and therefore it is appropriate to deviate from the application of Standard 2.3.
Aggravating & Mitigating Circumstances:
Standard 1.2(b) provides for a greater degree of sanction set forth in the standards where aggravating circumstances exist. First, pursuant to Standard 1.2(b)(iv), Respondent’s "...use of presigned verifications posed a threat to the administration of justice in that unverified information in discovery responses might be inaccurate, and the opposing party might rely on that information .... "
Standard 1.2(e) provides for a more lenient degree of sanction than set forth in the standards where mitigating circumstances exist. First, pursuant to Standard 1.2(e)(i), Respondent has no prior record of discipline and had been admitted to the practice of law in California for over twenty-five (25) years when the misconduct herein occurred.
Second, pursuant to Standard 1.2(e)(v), during the pendency of this matter, Respondent cooperated with the State Bar, informally providing information that assisted the State Bar in its understanding of Respondent’s misconduct herein. Finally, Respondent also cooperated in that he has stipulated to facts, conclusions of law and level of discipline.
Third, pursuant to Standard 1.2(e)(vii), Respondent has expressed remorse to the State Bar for his misconduct and acknowledged his wrongdoing. The State Bar is satisfied that Respondent’s remorse is genuine and is corroborated by Respondent’s cooperation and candor in this matter
Fourth, pursuant to Standard 1.2(e)(vi), Respondent’s good character has been attested to by attorneys and non-attorney members of the general community who have known Respondent for as long as (30) years and are aware of the full extent of Respondent’s misconduct, would still hold that Respondent has good character and believe that Respondent will not commit any misconduct in the future. One declaration also attests to Respondent’s charitable contributions of time and resources for his community.
Caselaw:
In Drociak v. State Bar, an attorney was actually suspended for 30 days for using presigned verifications without consulting the client.[Footnote: 7- Id. at p. 820] Attorney Drociak was retained by a client involved in a personal injury action in March 1985.[ Footnote: 8 – Drociak, supra. 52 Cal. 3d at p. 1087.] As was attorney Drociak’s custom with many of his clients, he had his client sign a number of undated, blank verification forms.[Footnote: 9 – Ibid.]
In March 1986, Drociak filed a complaint on. his client’s behalf. [Footnote: 10 – Ibid] When the defendant sought discovery through interrogatories and a request for documents, Drociak wrote to his client requesting she visit his office to prepare answers to the discovery requests. [Footnote: 11 – Ibid.] Between May and August 1986, Drociak wrote four such letters to his client but received no reply. Drociak told defendant’s counsel that he had "temporarily lost contact" with his client. [Footnote 12: Ibid.].
After receiving a number of extensions for discovery and still being unable to contact his client, attorney Drociak consulted the case file and answered the interrogatories himself, attaching one of his client’s presigned verifications.[Footnote: 13 – Ibid.] Subsequently, attorney Drociak again used one of his client’s presigned verifications to respond to the Defendant’s request for production of documents. [Footnote: 14 – Ibid.]. Finally, when the client failed to appear for trial, the matter was dismissed in November 1986. [Footnote: 15 – Ibid.]. In late 1986 or early 1987, the client’s husband, appeared at Drociak’s office to discuss his wife’s suit. [Footnote: 16 – Ibid.]. When Drociak told him the case had been dismissed because of the client’s failure to cooperate, the husband informed Drociak that the client had been dead since October 1985. [Footnote:17 – Id. at pp. 1087-88.].
The Court adopted the finding that Drociak did not know of his client’s death until
approximately the time of his conversation with the husband. [Footnote: 18 – Id. at p. 1088.] The Court also adopted the finding that the opposing counsel became aware of the fact that the client was dead in July 1986, but inexplicably declined to mention this to Drociak or the civil trial court. [Footnote: 19 – Ibid.].
F. PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph A. (7) was January 25, 2011.
G. COSTS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of January 25, 2011, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $5,674.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only. 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.
H. DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No. Count Alleged Violation
Case No.: 07-O-12476; 08-O-12263, Count: One, Alleged Violation: Rule 1-320(B);
Case No.: 07-O-12476; 08-O-12263, Count: Two, Alleged Violation: Rule 1-310
Case Number(s): 07-O-12476; 08-O-12263
In the Matter of: FREDRIC JAY GREENBLATT
checked. a. Within (90) days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
checked. b. Within days/ months/ one (1) years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than six (6) hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for one (1) year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
Other:
Case Number(s): 07-O-12476; 08-O-12263
In the Matter of: FREDRIC JAY GREENBLATT
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: Fredric Jay Greenblatt
Date: February 1, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel: Edward O. Lear
Date: February 3, 2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Ashod Mooradian
Date: February 3, 2011
Case Number(s): 07-O-12476; 08-O-12263
In the Matter of: FREDRIC JAY GREENBLATT
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: February 18, 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 February 23, 2011, 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:
EDWARD LEAR
CENTURY LAW GROUP
5200 CENTURY BLVD. STE 345
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by ovemight 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:
ASHOD MOORADIAN, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on February 23, 2011.
Signed by:
Angela Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court