Case Number(s): 07-O-12849
07-O-13141
In the Matter of: Jeanne Marie Rowzee, Bar #141784, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Diane J. Meyers, 1149 S. Hill St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1000
Bar #146643
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Jeanne Marie Rowzee
92 Corporate Park #C203
Irvine, CA 92606
(949) 660-9212
Bar# 141784
Submitted to: Assigned Judge
<<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 October 12, 1989.
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 16 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):
<<not>> 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.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2012 and 2013. (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.
checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct: Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s misconduct involves multiple violations of rule 4-]O0(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and section 6]06 of the Business and Professions Code and two violations of section 6068(i) of the Business and Professions Code.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she is culpable of the
following violations:
Case Nos. 07-0-12849 and 07-0-13141
FACTS
1. At all times mentioned herein, Respondent maintained a client trust account at Washington Mutual Bank ("WMU"), account number xxxxxx4300 (the "CTA").1
2. Between April and August 2007, Respondent repeatedly and regularly deposited personal funds into the CTA and paid personal expenses from the CTA.
3. The following items issued by Respondent from the CTA were returned unpaid due to insufficient available funds in the CTA at the time of presentment:
Presentment Date 05-29-07, Amount $530.00, Available Balance $ 124.12
Presentment Date 05-29-07, Amount $643.39, Available Balance $ 124.12
4. On May 30, 2007, Respondent deposited a $5,000 check, identified as number 9274, issued by Respondent from her personal checking account into the CTA.
5. On June 1, 2007, WMU returned check number 9274 unpaid. Respondent knew that WMU would return check 9274 unpaid, as she knew that she did not have sufficient funds in her account to honor the check.
6. Respondent did not wait a sufficient time for check numbers 9274 to clear before withdrawing funds against the check. Consequently, the following item and check issued by Respondent from the CTA were returned unpaid due to insufficient available funds in the CTA at the time of presentment, caused by the return of check number 9274:
Presentment Date 06-01-07, Check No. None, Amount $ 643.39
Presentment Date 06-01-07, check No. 258, Amount $ 560.00
7. Respondent deposited the following checks issued by Respondent from her
personal checking accounts into the CTA:
The full account number is omitted for privacy purposes.
, Check No. Amount
Date of Deposit 06-01-07, Check No. 4272, Amount $ 5,000.00
Date of Deposit 06-05-07, Check No. 71402, Amount $ 4,850.00
Date of Deposit 06-07-07, Check No. 4391, Amount $ 4,975.00
Date of Deposit 06-11-07, Check No. 71403, Amount $ 5,750.00
Date of Deposit 06-13-07, Check No. 2093, Amount $ 2,500.00
8. On June 13, 2007, Respondent deposited a $2,926.34 check, identified as number
53808787, from Wells Fargo Bank.
9. On June 14, 2007, Respondent deposited check number 263 for $7,500, issued by
Respondent from a joint personal checking account she held with Patricia Elliot ("Elliot"), into the CTA.
10. On June 6, 2007, WMU returned check number 4272 unpaid.
11. On June 11, 2007, WMU returned check number 71402 unpaid.
12. On June 13, 2007, WMU returned check number 4391 unpaid, bringing the ending
balance in the CTA on June 13, 2007 to negative $632.13.
13. On June 15, 2007, WMU returned check number 71403 unpaid.
14. On June 18, 2007, WMU returned check number 53808787 unpaid.
15. On June 19, 2007, WMU returned check number 2093 unpaid.
16. On June 20, 2007, WMU returned check number 263 unpaid, bringing the ending
balance in the CTA on June 20, 2007 to negative $13.47.
17. Respondent knew that WMU would return check numbers 263, 2093, 4272, 4391,
71402 and 71403 unpaid, as she knew that she did not have sufficient funds in her accounts to honor the checks.
18. Respondent did not wait a sufficient time for check numbers 263, 2093, 4272, 4391, 71402, 71403 and 53808787 to clear before withdrawing funds against the checks. Consequently, the following items and checks from the CTA were returned unpaid due to insufficient available funds in the CTA at the time of presentment, caused by the return of check numbers 263, 2093, 4272, 4391, 71402, 71403 and 53808787:
Presentment Date ,Check No. Amount
Presentment Date 06-18-07, Check No. None, Amount $1,095.41
Presentment Date 07-03-07, Check No. 120, Amount $15.00
Presentment Date 07-05-07, Check No. None, Amount $3,000.00
Presentment Date 07-05-07, Check No. 99, Amount $689.00
Presentment Date 07-05-07, Check No. 99, Amount $135.00
Presentment Date 07-05-07, Check No. 99, Amount $262.00
Presentment Date 07-05-07, Check No. 165, Amount $24.00
Presentment Date 07-06-07, Check No. 176, Amount $50.00
Presentment Date 07-11-07, Check No. None, Amount $ 3,000.00
19. Respondent deposited the following checks issued by Respondent from a joint
personal checking account she held with Elliot into the CTA:
Date of Deposit Check No. Amount
Date of Deposit 07-17-07, Check No. 306, Amount $10,000.00
Date of Deposit 07-18-07, Check No. 311, Amount $10,000.00
Date of Deposit 07-19-07, Check No. 314, Amount $ 7,500.00
20. On July 20, 2007, WMU returned check number 306 unpaid, bringing the ending
balance in the CTA on July 20, 2007 to negative $4,300.47.
21. On July 23, 2007, WMU returned check number 311 unpaid.
22. On July 23, 2007, Respondent deposited a $45,000 check, identified as number 264, issued by Elliott to Respondent into the CTA.
23. On July 25, 2007, WMU returned check number 314 unpaid.
24. On July 27, 2007, WMU returned check number 264 unpaid, bringing the ending
balance in the CTA on July 27, 2007 to negative $16,821.47.
25. Respondent knew that WMU would return check numbers 306, 311 and 314 unpaid, as she knew that she did not have sufficient funds in her accounts to honor the checks.
26. Respondent did not wait a sufficient time for check numbers 264, 306, 311 and 314
to clear before withdrawing funds against the checks. Consequently, the following checks from the CTA were returned unpaid due to insufficient available funds in the CTA at the time of presentment, caused by the return of check numbers 264, 306, 311, 314:
Presentment Date Check No. Amount
Presentment Date 07-25-07, Check No. 185, Amount $ 250.00
Presentment Date 07-26-07, Check No. 99, Amount $1,303.00
Presentment Date 07-27-07, Check No. 165, Amount $ 24.00
Presentment Date 07-30-07, Check No. 176, Amount $ 50.00
Presentment Date 07-31-07, Check No. 9981, Amount $ 503.00
Presentment Date 07-31-07, Check No. 9991, Amount $ 453.00
27. Respondent issued the items and checks referenced above when she knew that there were insufficient available funds in the CTA to cover the items and checks.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By repeatedly and regularly depositing personal funds into the CTA and by paying
personal expenses from the CTA between April and August 2007, Respondent deposited or commingled funds belonging to Respondent in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import, in wilful violation of rule 4-100(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. By issuing the items and checks when she knew that there were insufficient available funds in the CTA to cover the items and checks, Respondent committed acts involving moral turpitude, in wilful violation of section 6106 of the Business and Professions Code.
FACTS
1. On July 23, 2007, the State Bar of California ("State Bar") opened an investigation
identified as case number 07-0-12849 concerning the insufficient funds activity in the CTA between May 29 and July 27, 2007.
2. On or about August 9, 2007, a State Bar investigator sent a letter to Respondent
regarding its investigation of the insufficient funds activity in the CTA between May 29 and July 27, 2007 at her membership records address of 92 Corporate Park, #C203, Irvine, CA 92606 (the "membership records address"). The letter was mailed in a sealed envelope by first class mail, postage prepaid, by depositing for collection by the USPS in the ordinary course of business. The letter was not returned to the State Bar by the USPS as undeliverable or for any other reason. Respondent received the letter.
3. In the August 9, 2007 letter, the investigator requested an explanation for the
insufficient funds activity in the CTA between May 29 and July 27, 2007 by August 23, 2007. Respondent did not respond to the investigator’s letter.
4. On or about August 27, 2007, a State Bar investigator sent a letter to Respondent
regarding its investigation of the insufficient funds activity in the CTA between May 29 and July 27, 2007 at the membership records address. The letter was mailed in a sealed envelope by first class mail, postage prepaid, by depositing for collection by the USPS in the ordinary course of business. The letter was not returned to the State Bar by the USPS as undeliverable or for any other reason. Respondent received the letter.
5. In the August 27, 2007 letter, the investigator requested an explanation for the
insufficient funds activity in the CTA between May 29 and July 27, 2007 by September 10, 2007. Respondent did not respond to the investigator’s letter.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. By not providing a response to the investigator’s letters, Respondent failed to
cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent, in wilful violation of section 6068(i) of the Business and Professions Code.
Case No. 07-O-13141
FACTS
1. On August 14, 2007, the State Bar of California ("State Bar") opened an investigation identified as case number 07-0-13141 concerning the insufficient funds activity in the CTA on July 30 and 31, 2007.
2. On or about August 21, 2007, a State Bar investigator sent a letter to Respondent
regarding its investigation of the insufficient funds activity in the CTA on July 30 and 31, 2007 at her membership records address of 92 Corporate Park, #C203, Irvine, CA 92606 (the "membership records address"). The letter was mailed in a sealed envelope by first class mail, postage prepaid, by depositing for collection by the USPS in the ordinary course of business. The letter was not returned to the State Bar by the USPS as undeliverable or for any other reason. Respondent received the letter.
3. In the August 21, 2007 letter, the investigator requested an explanation for the
insufficient funds activity in the CTA on July 30 and 31, 2007 by August 31, 2007. Respondent did not respond to the investigator’s letter.
4. On or about September 11, 2007, a State Bar investigator sent a letter to Respondent regarding its investigation of the insufficient funds activity in the CTA on July 30 and 31, 2007 at the membership records address. The letter was mailed in a sealed envelope by first class mail, postage prepaid, by depositing for collection by the USPS in the ordinary course of business. The letter was not returned to the State Bar by the USPS as undeliverable or for any other reason. Respondent received the letter.
5. In the September 11, 2007, the investigator requested an explanation for the
insufficient funds activity in the CTA on July 30 and 31, 2007 by September 21, 2007.
Respondent did not respond to the investigator’s letter.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. By not providing a response to the investigator’s letters, Respondent failed to
cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent, in wilful violation of section 6068(i) of the Business and Professions Code.
Case Number(s): 07-O-12849, et al.
In the Matter of: Jeanne Marie Rowzee
a. Restitution
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund (“CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
1. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
1. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
<<not>> checked. 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.
checked.
1. If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated as a “Trust Account” or “Clients’ Funds Account”;
b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:
i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.
c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
2. If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate described above.
3. The requirements of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct.
checked. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
Case Number(s): 07-O-12849, et al.
In the Matter of: Jeanne Marie Rowzee
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: Jeanne Marie Rowzee
Date: March 16, 2011
Case Number(s): 07-O-12849, et al.
In the Matter of: Jeanne Marie Rowzee
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: Jeanne Marie Rowzee
Date: March 16, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Diane J. Meyers
Date: April 5, 2011
Case Number(s): 07-O-12849, et al.
In the Matter of: Jeanne Marie Rowzee
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:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
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.
Page 5: the following language is added after Paragraph 27: "28. Between April and August 2007, Respondent paid personal expenses from the CTA."
Page 13-14: Financial Conditions, subp. C [Client Funds Certificate]: This condition of probation is deleted. There is no evidence that Respondent’s mishandling of her client trust account involved client funds, properties, or securities.
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: Donald F. Miles
Date: April 29, 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 April 29, 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:
JEANNE M. ROWZEE
92 CORPORATE PARK #C203
IRVINE, CA 92606
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
DIANE MEYERS, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on April 29, 2011.
Signed by:
Rose Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court