State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE PROGRAM

Case Number(s): 07-O-12539

In the Matter of: Ira Cohen, Bar # 79888, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Monique T. Miller, Bar # 212469

Counsel for Respondent: Bar #

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

Filed: December 18, 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.

A.      Parties' Acknowledgments:

1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted June 23, 1978.

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. However, except as otherwise provided in rule 804.5(c) of the Rules of Procedure, if Respondent is not accepted into the Alternative Discipline Program, this stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on the Respondent or the State Bar.

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, except for Probation Revocation proceedings. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals."  The stipulation consists of 6 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. 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.

7. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7 and will pay timely any disciplinary costs imposed in this proceeding.

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.

<<not>> 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:  

Respondent’s failure to prosecute Zavala’s complaint for unlawful detainer caused Zavala to incur approximately $10,000 sanctions to set aside default judgment entered against Zavala.

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

<<not>> checked. (1) No Prior Discipline:  Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.

<<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.

 checked. (13)        No mitigating circumstances are involved.

Additional mitigating circumstances:

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF:          Ira Cohen, Bar # 79888 

CASE NUMBER:                 07-O-12539

WAIVER OF ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES

The parties hereby waive the issuance of a Notice of Disciplinary Charges relating to the case that is the subject matter of this stipulation.

INCORPORATION OF PRIOR STIPULATION

This stipulation is an addendum intended to supplement the Stipulation re: Facts and Conclusions of Law in Case No. 03-0-00950, which the parties lodged with this Court on November 17, 2004, and the Stipulation re: Facts and Conclusions of Law in Case Nos. 05-0-04634 and 06-0-10677, which the parties lodged with this Court on March 14, 2008 (the "Prior Stipulations"). The Prior Stipulations are also incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN CASE NO. 07-0-12539

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

1. In May 2004, Tiburcio Zavala ("Zavala") employed Respondent to defend Zavala in an action brought by a relative of Zavala, entitled Natividad Zavala v. Tiburcio Zavala and Gloria Zavala, Ventura County Superior Court Case No. SC046974 (the "Zavala matter.")

2. On May 24, 2004, Respondent filed an unverified answer to the verified complaint in the Zavala matter.

3. In June 2004, Zavala employed Respondent to file an Unlawful Detainer against Natividad Zavala. Respondent failed to file the complaint for unlawful detainer.

4. On October 6, 2004, Natividad’s counsel, Anthony Rista ("Rista"), filed and sent Zavala’s counsel ("Respondent") a notice of taking deposition and to produce documents, records and other tangible things. Respondent did not inform Zavala of the deposition notice.

5. On October 21, 2004, the court issued an order of filing of case management statements to the parties in the Zavala matter.

6. On November 29 and December 20, 2004, Rista filed and served Respondent with a motion to compel Zavala’s attendance at deposition. Respondent did not inform Zavala of the November and December motions to compel attendance at deposition.

7. On December 23, 2004, the court ordered sanctions against Zavala for failure to file a case management statement and set a mandatory appearance for Zavala. Respondent did not inform Zavala of the sanctions order.

8. On February 14, 2005, Rista filed and served Respondent with a motion for sanctions for disobedience of a prior court order. Respondent did not inform Zavala of this motion for sanctions.

9. On March 17, 2005, the court entered a default against Zavala. On March 21, 2005, Rista filed and served Respondent with the notice of the default order. Respondent did not inform Zavala of the default order.

10. On May 6, 2005, Rista filed and served Respondent with a lis pendens. Respondent did not inform Zavala of the lis pendens.

11. On June 14, 2005, Rista filed and served Respondent with a request for entry of court judgment together with supporting documents. Respondent did not inform Zavala of the request for entry of court judgment.

12. On June 16, 2005, a default hearing was held. Respondent did not appear on behalf of Zavala. On July 18, 2005, the court entered judgment after default against Zavala.

13. Subsequent to July 2005, Zavala learned of the entry of judgment after default through family members and hired new counsel, John Brown ("Brown"). In August 2005, Brown sent Respondent two letters, enclosing a substitution of attorney form. Respondent did not respond to Brown’s letters.

14. In September 2005, Brown filed a motion to relieve Respondent as counsel, and set aside the default and default judgment. In January 2006, Brown’s motion was granted after Zavala paid approximately $10,000 sanctions.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

15. By failing to: file a verified answer to the complaint in the Zavala matter; to file a complaint for unlawful detainer on behalf of Zavala; to inform Zavala of the opposing party’s discovery requests, the motion for sanctions, request for entry of judgment, and the court’s judgment after default; and to appear at the default hearing on behalf of Zavala, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).

16. By failing to inform Zavala of the opposing party’s discovery requests, the motion for sanctions, request for entry of judgment, and the court’s judgment after default, Respondent willfully failed to keep his client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which he had agreed to provide legal services, in violation of Business and Professions code section 6068(m).

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(6), was October 2, 2009.

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 07-O-12539

In the Matter of: Ira Cohen

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: Ira Cohen

Date: 10-28-09

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Monique T. Miller

Date: Oct. 28, 2009

ORDER

Case Number(s): 07-O-12539

In the Matter of: IRA Cohen

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 stipulation as to facts and  law is APPROVED.

<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below.

<<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; or 3) Respondent is not accepted for participation in the Program or does not sign the Program Contract. (See rule 135(b) and 802(d), Rules of Procedure.)

Signed by:

Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn

Date:  12/14/09

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[Rule 62(b), Rules 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 December 18, 2009, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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:

IRA COHEN ESQ

LAW OFC IRA COHEN

28030 DOROTHY DR STE 301

AGOURA HILLS, CA  91301

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

Monique T. Miller, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 18, 2009.

Signed by:

Julieta E. Gonzales

Case Administrator

State Bar Court

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 April 1, 2010, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

DECISION AND ORDER FILING AND SEALING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS;

STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, CASE NO. 03-O-00950;

STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, CASE NOS. 05-O-04634 and 06-O-10677; and

STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, Inv. #07-O-12539

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:

IRA COHEN ESQ

LAW OFC IRA COHEN

28030 DOROTHY DR STE 301

AGOURA HILLS, CA  91301

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

Monique T. Miller, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on April 1, 2010.

Signed by:

Julieta E. Gonzales

Case Administrator

State Bar Court