State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

ACTUAL SUSPENSION

Case Number(s): 07-O-13329; 07-O-13827; 08-O-13980; 09-O-18923; 09-O-12664; 09-O-17424; and 10-O-03257

In the Matter of: Manuel Angel Gonzalez, Bar # 219130, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Eli D. Morgenstern, The State Bar of California

Office of the Chief Trial Counsel

1149 S. Hill Street

Los Angeles, CA 90015

Tel: (213) 765-1334

Bar # 190560,

Counsel for Respondent: MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ

1901 1st Avenue, Suite 156

San Diego, CA 92101

Tel: (760) 533-1354

Bar #219130

Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.

Filed: December 7, 2010.

<<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 04/29/02.

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 22 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 three billing cycles following the effective date of the Superior Court Order. See page 19 for additional discussion re: Costs. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure)

<<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.

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.

checked. (4) Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice. See page 19 for further discussion re: Harm.

<<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. 

checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:  Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct. See page 19 for further discussion re: Multiple/ Pattern of Misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (8) No aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances: .

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. 

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. See page 19 for further discussion re: Candor/ Cooperation.

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. See page 19 for further discussion re: Remorse.

<<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.

<<not>> checked. (13) No mitigating circumstances are involved.
Additional mitigating circumstances: 

D. Discipline:

checked. (1)           Stayed Suspension:

checked. (a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

<<not>> checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii) Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

<<not>> checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.

<<not>> checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following: .

checked. (b) The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

checked. (2) Probation:  Respondent must be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years, which will commence upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter.  (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court.)

checked. (3) Actual Suspension:

checked. (a) Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period of sixty (60) days.

<<not>> checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct

<<not>> checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.

<<not>> checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following: .

E. Additional Conditions of Probation:

<<not>> checked. (1)   If Respondent is actually suspended for two years or more, he/she must remain actually suspended until  he/she proves to the State Bar Court his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the general law, pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

checked. (2)                  During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.

checked. (3)                  Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

checked. (4)                  Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with Respondent's assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.

checked. (5)                  Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.
In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.

<<not>> checked. (6)   Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance. During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested, in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must cooperate fully with the probation monitor.

checked. (7)                  Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has complied with the probation conditions.

checked. (8)                  Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
No Ethics School recommended.  Reason:

<<not>> checked. (9)   Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office of Probation.

checked. (10)                The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:

<<not>> checked. Substance Abuse Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Law Office Management Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Medical Conditions.

checked. Financial Conditions.

F.  Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

checked. (1)                  Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination:  Respondent must provide proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation during the period of actual suspension or within one year, whichever period is longer.  Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) & (E), Rules of Procedure.
<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended.  Reason: .

checked. (2)                  Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (3)   Conditional Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90 days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 120 and 130 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (4)   Credit for Interim Suspension [conviction referral cases only]:  Respondent will be credited for the period of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual suspension. Date of commencement of interim suspension: .

<<not>> checked. (5)   Other Conditions: .

Attachment language (if any):.

FINANCIAL CONDITIONS

Case Number(s): 07-O-13329; 07-O-13827; 08-O-13980; 09-O-18923; 09-O-12664; 09-O-17424; and 10-O-03257

In the Matter of: Manuel Gonzalez

a. Restitution

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: William Warren

   Principal Amount: $3,000

   Interest Accrues From: no interest

2. Payee: Edilberto Rodriquez

   Principal Amount: $3,000

   Interest Accrues From: no interest

3. Payee: Maria Isabel Mojica-Roman

   Principal Amount: $2,750

   Interest Accrues From: no interest

4. Payee: Roberto Julian- Garcia

   Principal Amount: $2,525

   Interest Accrues From: no interest

5. Payee: Gerardo Montoya aka Gerardo Munoz or Lorena Munoz

   Principal Amount: $3,500

   Interest Accrues From: no interest

<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than **.

b. Installment Restitution Payments

<<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) William Warren

   Minimum Payment Amount $110.00

   Payment Frequency**

2. Payee/CSF (as applicable) Edilberto Rodriquez

   Minimum Payment Amount $110.00

   Payment Frequency by no later than the 15^th day of each month

3. Payee/CSF (as applicable) Maria Isabel Mojica-Roman

   Minimum Payment Amount $110.00

   Payment Frequency no later than the 15^th day of each month

4. Payee/CSF (as applicable) Roberto Julian- Garcia

   Minimum Payment Amount $110.00

   Payment Frequency no later than the 15^th day of each month

5. Payee/CSF (as applicable) Gerardo Montoya aka Gerardo Munoz or Lorena Munoz

   Minimum Payment Amount $110.00

   Payment Frequency no later than the 15^th day of each month

<<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.

c. Client Funds Certificate

<<not>> 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.

d. Client Trust Accounting School

<<not>> 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.

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: Manuel Angel Gonzalez, State Bar No. 219130

STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-O-13329; 07-O-13827; 08-O-13980; 09-O-18923; 09-O-12664; 09-O-17424; and 10-O-03257

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 Rules of Professional Conduct.

Case No. 07-0-13329

Facts

1. On May 22, 2007, William Warren ("Warren") employed Respondent to assist him in obtaining resident visas for his three step-children. On or about May 22, 2007, Warren paid Respondent $3,000 as a flat fee for his legal services.

2. At no time did Respondent file a Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative ("Form G-28") on behalf of Warren’s step-children with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

3. At no time did Respondent prepare or file an application to obtain visas for Warren’s three step-children.

4. On August 5, 2007, Warren sent a facsimile to Respondent terminating his employment and informing Respondent that he intended to appear at his office on or about August 10, 2007, at approximately 4:00 p.m. to collect his step-children’s files and a refund of the $3,000 that he had paid to Respondent. Respondent received the facsimile. Respondent did not respond to it.

5. On August 10, 2007, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Warren appeared at Respondent’s office. The office was closed. Warren did not meet with Respondent.

6. At no time has Respondent provided Warren with an accounting for the $3,000 he received from Warren.

7. Respondent did not provide any services of value on behalf of Warren and did not earn any of the $3,000 in advanced attorney fees that he received from Warren.

8. At no time did Respondent refund any of the $3,000 he received from Warren.

9. At no time did Respondent release the client file to Warren.

Conclusions of Law

By failing to provide Warren with an accounting, Respondent failed to render appropriate accounts to a client regarding all funds coming into his possession, in willful violation of rule 4100(B)(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

By failing to provide Warren with a refund of any portion of the $3,000 that Warren paid him for his legal services, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

By failing to provide Warren with the client file, Respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property, in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(1).

Case No. 07-0-13827

Facts

1. On July 18, 2005, Edilberto Rodriguez ("Rodriguez") hired Respondent to set aside two criminal convictions in the San Diego County Superior Court, case numbers CR 120390 and CR 125220. Noemi Rodriguez, Rodriguez’s wife, paid Respondent a total of $3,000 as advanced fees for his legal services.

2. On January 13, 2006, Respondent caused to be filed on behalf of Rodriguez a motion to vacate one of Rodriguez’s two criminal convictions in the San Diego County Superior Court, case number 125220. The motion to vacate incorrectly identified the conviction. The hearing on the motion was set to be held on or about April 11, 2006.

3. On April 11, 2006, the hearing on the motion to set aside Rodriguez’s conviction in San Diego County Superior Court case number 125220 was taken off the court’s calendar at Respondent’s request. Thereafter, Respondent took no further action to have the motion heard by the court.

4. At no time did Respondent file a motion to set aside Rodriguez’s criminal conviction in San Diego County Superior Court case number 120390.

5. In or about May 2006, Rodriguez terminated Respondent’s employment. At the time that Rodriguez terminated Respondent’s employment, Respondent had not provided any services of value on behalf of Rodriguez. Respondent did not earn any of the advanced fees that Noemi Rodriguez had paid to him for his legal services.

6. After Rodriguez terminated Respondent, he employed attorney Francisco Aldana ("Aldana"), who filed motions to set aside Rodriguez’s two convictions in San Diego County Superior Court case numbers CR120390 and CR125220. On or about November 9, 2006, the court granted the motion to set aside Rodriguez’s criminal convictions.

7. On June 5, 2007, Aldana mailed a letter to Respondent requesting a refund of the attorney fees that Noemi Rodriguez had paid to Respondent. Respondent received the letter. Respondent did not respond to the letter.

8. On August 7, 2007, Aldana sent Respondent an e-mail requesting that Respondent contact him by no later than on or about August 8, 2007, at 4:30 p.m. to resolve the issue regarding Respondent’s failure to return the attorney fees that Noemi Rodriguez had paid to him. Respondent did not respond to the e-mail.

9. At no time did Respondent provide Aldana, Rodriguez, or Noemi Rodriguez with an accounting or a refund of any of the attorney fees that Noemi Rodriguez had paid to him.

Conclusions of Law

By failing to provide Rodriguez with an accounting, Respondent failed to render appropriate accounts to a client regarding all funds coming into his possession, in willful violation of rule 4100(B)(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

By failing to refund to Rodriguez or Noemi Rodriguez any portion of the advanced fee that Noemi Rodriguez paid to him for his legal services, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2).

Case No. 08-0-13980

Facts

1. In or about February 2006, Luis Flores-Cortes ("Flores-Cortes") employed Respondent to represent him in a redetermination hearing and in removal proceedings before the Immigration Court for a flat fee of $4,500. On or about February 15, 2006, Flores-Cortes’s family member wired Respondent a down payment of $1,500.

2. On March 31, 2006, Respondent appeared at a redetermination hearing on behalf of Flores-Cortes. The court set a bond at $3,000. On or about April 3, 2006, Flores-Cortes’s family posted the bond, and Flores-Cortes was released from custody.

3. On April 7, 2006, Flores-Cortes wired Respondent a second payment of $1,000. Thereafter, Flores-Cortes made payments of $200 per month to Respondent until the remaining balance of the $4,500 fee was paid on May 1, 2007.

4. On April 3, 2008, Respondent and Flores-Cortes appeared at a master calendar hearing in the matter titled, In the Matter ofLuis A. Flores-Cortes, case number A 091 738 565 ("Flores-Cortes removal proceedings"). The court acknowledged that it had received Flores-Cortes’s completed application for cancellation of removal, and set a hearing date for on or about September 3,.2008. The court also ordered that Respondent submit proof of Flores-Cortes’ s updated biometrics, i.e., finger prints, by July 2, 2008. The court further ordered that Respondent submit proof that Flores-Cortes’s lawful permanent resident wife and United States citizen son had filed Forms I-130, Petitions for Alien Relative, on Flores-Cortes’s behalf by July 2, 2008.

5. On April 22, 2008, at the direction of Respondent’s staff, Flores-Cortes purchased a money order in the sum of $80 and mailed it to Respondent so that Respondent could obtain a biometrics appointment for Flores-Cortes. Respondent received the money order.

Page 11

6. Between in or about May 2008 and on or August 2008, Flores-Cortes and his wife left several messages with Respondent’s office staff inquiring about the status of his biometrics appointment and requesting that the Petitions for Alien Relative. Respondent received the messages. Respondent did not respond to them.

7. At no time did Respondent obtain a biometrics appointment on behalf of Flores-Cortes as ordered by the court on April 3, 2008. At no time did Respondent file the Petitions For Alien Relative.

8. On July 25, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") filed a Notice of Non-Compliance and Motion for Order of Removal with the court ("motion for order of removal"). Respondent received a copy of the motion for order of removal. Respondent did not inform Flores-Cortes that DHS had filed the motion for order of removal, and Respondent did not respond to the motion on behalf of Flores-Cortes. 9. In or about August 2008, Flores-Cortes’s wife had a telephone conversation with Maribel

Guillen ("Guillen"), Respondent’s assistant. Flores-Cortes inquired about Flores-Cortes’s updated fingerprints and the Petitions For Alien Relative, neither of which had been completed. The next day, Respondent’s staff member telephoned Flores-Cortes and asked him questions in order to complete the Petitions For Alien Relative. Midway through the call, Respondent’s staff member told Flores-Cortes that she needed to end the telephone call and that they would have to continue the call at a later time in order to complete the petitions. The staff member never called back to complete the Petitions For Alien Relative.

10. On August 26, 2008, the court granted the motion for order .of removal. The court deemed Flores-Cortes’s application for cancellation of removal abandoned and vacated the September 3, 2008 hearing date. The court granted Flores-Cortes voluntary departure, conditioned upon his payment of a voluntary departure bond within five business days of the order. Respondent received a copy of the order. Respondent did not advise Flores-Cortes of the order.

11. On September 2, 2008, Flores-Cortes drove from his home in Stockton, California to Respondent’s office in San Diego, California. On September 2, 2008, at approximately 1:00 p.m., he arrived at Respondent’s office and found that the office was closed. Flores-Cortes then telephoned Guillen. Guillen informed Flores-Cortes for the first time that the court had cancelled the September 3, 2008, hearing.

12. On September 3, 2008, as a precaution, Flores-Cortes appeared at the immigration court. The clerk of the immigration court advised Flores-Cortes that the court had cancelled his hearing. The clerk provided Flores-Cortes with copies of the motion for order of removal and the court’s August 26, 2008 order.

13. On September 3, 2008, Respondent telephoned Flores-Cortes and his wife and spoke with Mrs. Flores-Cortes. Respondent did not explain his inaction. Respondent failed to advise Mr. Flores-Cortes or his wife that September 3, 2008, was the last day on which Flores-Cortes could pay the voluntary departure bond.

14. Flores-Cortes did not pay the bond, and the court’s order converted into an order of removal.

15. On September 15, 2008, Flores-Cortes employed new counsel. On September 23, 2008, new counsel filed a pleading on behalf of Flores-Cortes captioned, "Unopposed Motion to Substitute Counsel, Reopen Removal Proceedings, and Stay Removal Due to Grossly Ineffective Assistance of Counsel." The motion was granted.

Conclusions of Law

By failing to obtain a biometrics appointment and file the Petitions for Alien Relative on behalf of Flores-Cortes as ordered by the Immigration Court, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

By failing to respond to Flores-Cortes’s telephone calls between in or about May 2008 and August 2008, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).

By failing to inform Flores-Cortes of the DHS’s motion for order of removal, and the court’s August 26, 2008 order, Respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).

Case No. 09-0-18923

Facts

1. In or about June 2007, Respondent represented Jose Alcantara ("Alcantara") in a criminal matter titled, People of the State of California v. Jose Alcantara, San Diego County Superior Court case number CD206733 (the "criminal matter"). The criminal matter was tried before a jury. At the conclusion of the trial in the criminal matter, the jury found Alcantara guilty of violating several criminal offenses.

2. On February 12, 2009, April 22, 2009, and June 20, 2009, Alcantara wrote letters to Respondent informing Respondent that he was preparing a writ of habeas corpus and needed to review his client file. Respondent received the letters. At no time did Respondent respond to the letters or otherwise provide Alcantara with his client file. Conclusions of Law

By failing to provide Alcantara with the client file, Respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers, in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Case No. 09-0-12664

Facts

1. On June 15, 2005, an immigration court granted Maria Isabel Mojica-Roman’s ("Mojica-Roman") application for cancellation of removal pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") § 240A(b)(1) in a matter titled, In the Matter of Maria Isabel Mojica-Roman, case number A97-469-479 (the "Mojica-Roman immigration matter"). The government appealed the decision of the immigration court in the Mojica-Roman immigration matter to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). On August 30, 2006, the BIA reversed the immigration judge’s grant of cancellation of removal and remanded the Mojica-Roman immigration matter to the immigration court for entry of a removal order.

2. In or about November 2006, after the Mojica-Roman immigration matter was remanded, Mojica-Roman employed Respondent to represent her in the Mojica-Roman immigration matter. In or about November 2006, Mojica-Roman paid Respondent $2,000 in advanced attorney fees.

3. On November 3, 2006, the Immigration Court in the Mojica-Roman immigration matter ordered Mojica-Roman removed as required by the decision of the BIA.

4. Thereafter, Respondent filed an appeal with the BIA on behalf of Mojica-Roman on the grounds that the BIA’s remand order failed to address Mojica-Roman’s application for voluntary departure under INA § 240B(b)(1). On October 1, 2007, the BIA sustained the appeal and remanded the Mojica-Roman immigration matter to the immigration court for consideration of Mojica-Roman’s application for voluntary departure. On October 21, 2007, Mojica-Roman paid Respondent an additional $2,500.

5. On February 12, 2008, Respondent appeared on behalf of Mojica-Roman at a master calendar hearing in the Mojica-Roman immigration matter. Mojica-Roman also appeared. At the hearing, the Immigration Court set a filing deadline of on or about April 14, 2008, for Respondent to brief the scope of the BIA’s remand order in the Mojica-Roman immigration matter. The Immigration Court also set the next master calendar hearing for May 30, 2008.

6. At no time did Respondent file a brief with the immigration court in the Mojica-Roman immigration matter on or before the April 14, 2008 deadline.

7. On May 30, 2008, Respondent appeared on behalf of Mojica-Roman at the May 30, 2008 master calendar hearing. Mojica-Roman also appeared. Respondent submitted a late brief and a motion to continue the May 30, 2008, calendar hearing. The Immigration Court refused to accept the brief, denied the motion for continuance, granted Mojica-Roman’s application for voluntary departure, and ordered that Mojica-Roman was required to depart the United States by July 29, 2008, unless she filed an appeal with the BIA on or before June 30, 2008, which would stay the requirement to depart the united States until a decision on the appeal was made. The Immigration Court also ordered that Mojica-Roman post a $500 bond if she decided to appeal.

8. On June 4, 2008, Mojica-Roman paid the voluntary departure bond as a condition of the grant of voluntary departure. On June 13, 2008, Mojica-Roman paid Respondent $1,250 to file an appeal on her behalf and provided him the required filing fee. Respondent also charged Mojica-Roman an additional $1,500 for his representation on appeal which she paid in monthly installments.

9. At no time did Respondent file an appeal with the BIA on behalf of Mojica-Roman in the Mojica-Roman immigration matter. At no time did Respondent inform Mojica-Roman that he had failed to file an appeal on her behalf. At no time did Respondent perform any services of value on behalf of Mojica-Roman in the Mojica-Roman immigration matter with respect to the appeal of the immigration court’s May 30, 2008 order. At no time did Respondent earn any of the $2,750 that Mojica-Roman paid him to prosecute the appeal of the immigration court’s May 30, 2008 order in the Mojica-Roman immigration matter.

10. Between in or about July 2008, and in or about December 2008, Mojica-Roman telephoned Respondent office’s numerous times inquiring about the status of the appeal in the Mojica-Roman immigration matter, and each time Respondent’s employees assured her that "everything was fine." At no time did Respondent respond to any Mojica-Roman’s telephone calls between in or about July 2008, and in or about December 2008.

11. On December 10, 2008, Mojica-Roman’s friend telephoned her and explained that immigration officer’s visited the friend’s house and were looking for Mojica-Roman.

12. On December 11, 2008, Mojica-Roman telephoned Respondent and explained to him that her friend had told her that immigration officers were looking for and she did not understand why.

13. On or about December 11, 2008, Respondent filed a motion to reopen and/or reconsider the Mojica-Roman immigration matter with the BIA. The motion was procedurally and substantively deficient. The motion was procedurally deficient because the BIA did not have jurisdiction to consider it. The motion was substantively deficient because it did not satisfy the statutory requirements to warrant, reopening. The motion was denied.

14. On or about December 30, 2008, Mojica-Roman met with another attorney and learned for the first time that Respondent had never filed an appeal in the Mojica-Roman matter.

Conclusions of Law

By failing to file an appeal of the Immigration Court’s May 30, 2008 order, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

By failing to inform Mojica-Roman that he had failed to file an appeal on her behalf in the Mojica-Roman immigration matter, Respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).

By failing to return the $2,750 that he had been paid to pursue an appeal on behalf of Mojica-Roman, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2).

Case No. 09-0-17424

Facts

1. On January 3, 2008, Respondent substituted in as counsel of record on behalf of Roberto Julian-Galicia ("Julian-Galicia") in removal proceedings before the Immigration Court titled, In the Matter of Roberto Julian Galicia, case number A 072 673 575 (the "Julian-Galicia immigration matter"). On January 3, 2008, Respondent also moved the court for a continuance. The Immigration Court continued the Julian-Galicia immigration matter to March 13, 2008.

2. On or about March 13, 2008, Respondent and Julian-Galicia appeared for the Julian-Galicia immigration matter. Respondent requested another continuance. The Immigration Court granted Respondent’s request and continued the Julian-Galicia immigration matter to May 22, 2008. The Immigration Court also ordered Respondent to file an application for cancellation of removal by no later than May 22, 2008. The Immigration Court warned Respondent that if he did not file an application for cancellation of removal on behalf of Julian-Galicia by May 22, 2008, the Court would entertain a motion by the government that it should be denied as abandoned.

3. On April 22, 2008, the Court re-scheduled the May 22, 2008 hearing in the Julian-Galicia immigration matter to July 17, 2008.

4. On July 17, 2008, Respondent and Julian-Galicia appeared for the hearing in the Julian-Galicia immigration matter. On or about July 17, 2008, Respondent submitted an application for cancellation of removal for certain nonpermanent residences (the "application for cancellation of removal") on behalf of Julian-Galicia. The Immigration Court determined that the application for cancellation of removal was incomplete. The Court also noted that the application for cancellation of removal did not contain the required index. The Immigration Court granted Respondent’s request for additional time to complete the application for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Court ordered that Respondent submit any and all applications for relief on behalf of Julian-Galicia, all supporting documents, and proof of biometrics by no later than August 18, 2008. The Immigration Court also set a merits hearing date for the Julian-Galicia immigration matter for November 14, 2008.

5. Respondent did not file any applications for relief or proof of biometrics, or seek an extension of time to do so, on behalf of Julian-Galicia by the Immigration Court’s deadline of August 18, 2008. At no time did Respondent inform Julian-Galicia that he had failed to file any applications for relief or proof of biometrics on his behalf.

6. On October 28, 2008, the Immigration Court in the Julian-Galicia immigration matter, upon a motion made by the government, ordered that Julian-Galicia’s application for cancellation of removal, and any and all other applications for relief, be denied as abandoned. The Immigration Court also ordered that Julian-Galicia be removed from the United States to Guatemala. The Immigration Court’s October 28, 2008 order was properly served on Respondent. Respondent received a copy of the order.

7. At no time did Respondent inform Julian-Galicia that the Immigration Court denied as abandoned Julian-Galicia’s application for cancellation of removal, because Respondent failed to file any applications for relief on his behalf.

8. In or about November 2008, Respondent telephoned Julian-Galicia. Respondent stated that Julian-Galicia was unable to convince the immigration court that Julian-Galicia had a good case, and so the Immigration Court denied the application for cancellation of removal. Respondent stated to Julian-Galicia that he could appeal the Immigration Court’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. At no time did Respondent explain to Julian-Galicia the grounds for the appeal.

9. On November 26, 2008, Respondent filed a notice of appeal of the Immigration Court’s October 28, 2008, decision denying Julian-Galicia’s application for cancellation of removal as abandoned and finding him removable. On January 28, 2009, Respondent filed a brief with the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") on behalf of Julian-Galicia in the Julian-Galicia immigration matter.

10. On or about September 16, 2009, the BIA filed and properly served its decision dismissing Julian-Galicia’s appeal of the immigration court’s October 28, 2008, decision. Respondent and Julian-Galicia received a copy of the decision.

11. Julian-Galicia paid Respondent no less than $5,137 for his legal services in connection with his representation in the Julian-Galicia immigration matter. Of that $5,137, Julian-Galicia paid Respondent approximately $2,525 to appeal the immigration court’s October 28, 2008 decision.

12. Respondent did not perform any services of value on behalf of Julian-Galicia. Respondent did not earn any of the attorney fees that Julian-Galicia paid to him.

13. In or about September 2009, Julian-Galicia telephoned Respondent asking him to interpret the BIA’s September 16, 2009 decision. At no time did Respondent explain to Julian-Galicia that the BIA upheld the immigration court’s decision denying Julian-Galicia’s application for cancellation of removal as abandoned and finding him removable. Instead, Respondent offered to file an appeal of the BIA’s decision with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals if Julian-Galicia agreed to pay Respondent $5,000. Julian-Galicia never communicated with Respondent again after in or about September 2009.

14. On or about October 7, 2009, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested Julian-Galicia.

Conclusions of Law

By failing to file any applications for relief or proof of biometrics, or seek an extension of time to do so, on behalf of Julian-Galicia by the Immigration Court’s deadline of August 18, 2008, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

By failing to inform Julian-Galicia that he had failed to: (i) file any applications for relief or the biometrics on Julian-Galicia’s behalf by the immigration court’s deadline of on or about August 18, 2008; (ii) inform Julian-Galicia that on or about October 28, 2008, the immigration court filed a decision ordering that Julian-Galicia’s application for cancellation of removal be denied as abandoned, because he had failed to file any applications for relief on Julian-Galicia’s behalf; and (iii) explain to Julian-Galicia that the BIA upheld the immigration court’s decision denying Julian-Galicia’s application for cancellation of removal as abandoned and finding him removable, because he had failed to file any applications for relief on Julian-Galicia’s behalf, Respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).

By failing to refund the $2,525 that Julian-Galicia paid to him to prosecute the frivolous appeal of the Immigration Court’s order that Julian-Galicia’s application for cancellation of removal be denied as abandoned, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2).

Case No. 10-O-3257

Facts

1. On or about September 29, 2009, Gerardo Montoya ("Montoya") employed Respondent to represent him in an immigration matter for a flat fee of $5,000. On or about September 29, 2009, Lorena Munoz ("Munoz"), Montoya’s wife, paid Respondent $2,500. Munoz also provided Respondent with documents that were pertinent to Montoya’s immigration matter.

2. In or about November 2009, Montoya terminated Respondent.

3. Respondent did not meet with Montoya, file any documents with the immigration court on his behalf, or otherwise perform any legal services of value on behalf of Montoya. Respondent did not earn any of the $2,500 that Munoz paid to him for his legal services.

4. In or about November 2009, Munoz spoke with Respondent on the telephone at least two times and requested a refund of the $2,500 that she had paid to him. Respondent did not provide her with an accounting or a refund.

5. On or about January 11,2010, Munoz mailed a letter to Respondent via certified mail on behalf of Montoya requesting Montoya’s client file and an accounting of the $2,500 that she had paid to him. Respondent received the letter. At no time did Respondent respond to the letter, or otherwise provide Montoya or Munoz with an accounting, a refund of any portion of the fees that Munoz had paid to him, or the client file.

Conclusions of Law

By failing to provide Montoya or Munoz with an accounting, Respondent failed to render appropriate accounts to a client regarding all funds or other properties coming into Respondent’s possession in willful violation of rule 4-100(B)(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

By failing to provide Montoya or Munoz with a refund of any portion of the $2,500 that Montoya paid him for his legal services, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

By failing to provide Montoya with his client file, Respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property, in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page 1, paragraph A(7), was October 14, 2010.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of October 14, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $6965. The costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following three billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court Order.

If Respondent fails to pay any installment within the time provided herein or as may be modified by the State Bar Court pursuant to section 6086.10, subdivision (c), the remaining balance of the costs is due and payable immediately and enforceable both as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment unless relief has been granted under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 286.)

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.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

1. Multiple Acts of Misconduct

Respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct in seven client matters. This is an

aggravating circumstance. (Std. 1.2(b)(ii).)

2. Harm

By failing to refund unearned fees to Warren (Case No. 07-O-13329), Rodriguez (Case No. 07-0-13827), Mojica-Roman (Case No. 09-0-12264), Julian-Galicia (Case No. 09-0-17424), and Montoya (Case No. 10-0-03257), Respondent caused harm to his former clients. When an attorney causes harm to his clients, it is an aggravating circumstance. (Std. 1.2(b)(iv).)

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

1. Candor and Cooperation

Respondent is entitled to significant mitigation for entering into this stipulation. (Std. 1.2(e)(v).)

2. Remorse

Respondent’s has expressed genuine remorse for his misconduct. (Std. 1.2(e)(vii). During the prosecution of this matter, Respondent admitted to his culpability, and expressed remorse for his misconduct. Respondent intends to make amends for his misconduct by making the restitution ordered pursuant to this stipulation.

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

1. Standards

Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct ("Standards") provides in pertinent part that, "IT]he primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings.., are the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession." (Std 1.3.)

Standards 2.2(b), 2.4(b), 2.6(a), and 2.10 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct ("Standards") apply to this proceeding.

Standard 2.2(b) provides that a violation of rule 4-100(B)(3) shall result in a three month actual suspension.

Standard 2.4(b) provides, in pertinent part, that: "Culpability of a member of willfully failing to perform services in an individual matter.., shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client."

Standard 2.6(a) provides, in pertinent part, that culpability of a member of a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m) shall result in disbarment or suspension depending upon the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim.

There is no standard specifically applicable to a violation of rule 3-700(D)(1) or rule 3-700(D)(2). Accordingly, the applicable standard is Standard 2.10. Standard 2.10 provides in pertinent part that, "[C]ulpability of a member.., of a willful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3."

In consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s misconduct, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances that are present, and case law, the parties submit that the intent and goals of the Standards are met in these matters by the imposition of a two year stayed suspension, and two years probation with conditions including a 60-day actual suspension.

2. Case Law

Under case law, a failure to render appropriate accountings for client funds has resulted in discipline in the range of stayed suspension to 60 days actual suspension. (See, In the Matter of Fonte (Review Dept. 1’994) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 751 [60-day actual suspension for failure to account for fees and conflicts in two client matters where attorney had 25 years with no discipline]; In the Matter of Cacioppo (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 128 [six-month stayed suspension for failure to render a proper accounting of settlement funds and failing to communicate, where attorney had prior public reproval]; and In the Matter of Lazarus (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 387 [two-month stayed suspension for failure to notify client of receipt of settlement funds and failure to renter an accounting of settlement funds].)

STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.

Because Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, he may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 07-O-13329; 07-O-13827; 08-O-13980; 09-O-18923; 09-O-12664; 09-O-17424; and 10-O-03257

In the Matter of: Manuel Angel Gonzalez

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: Manuel A. Gonzalez

Date: November 16, 2010

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Eli D. Morgenstern

Date: November 18, 2010

ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER

Case Number(s): 07-O-13329; 07-O-13827; 08-O-13980; 09-O-18923; 09-O-12664; 09-O-17424; and 10-O-03257

In the Matter of: Manuel Angel Gonzalez

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 4: The box for Paragraph D(2) [Probation] is deemed checked.

Page 4: Paragraph D(3) [Actual Suspension] The period of actual suspension is increased from 60 days to 120 days.

Page 7: the box for Financial Conditions paragraph b [ Installment Restitution Payment] is deemed checked.

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: Donald F. Miles

Date: December 6, 2010

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 December 7, 2010, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING ACTUAL SUSPENSION

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:

MANUEL A. GONZALEZ

LAW OFC MANUEL A GONZALEZ

1901 1^ST AVE  Ste 156

SAN DIEGO, CA 92101

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

ELI D. MORGENSTERN, enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 7, 2010.

Signed by:

Tammy Cleaver

Case Administrator

State Bar Court