Case Number(s): 07-O-14357
In the Matter of: Henry Alan Pattiz, Bar # 44073, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Rizamari C. Sitton, State Bar of California
1149 S Hilt St
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Tel: (213) 765-1364
Fax: (213) 765-1383
Bar # 138319,
Counsel for Respondent: Martin S. Rudoy,
15303 Ventura Blvd, Ste 900
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Tel: (818) 380-3088
Fax: (818) 380-3044
Bar # 201988,
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 29, 1967.
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 15 pages, not including the order.
4. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".
6. The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."
7. No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
8. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):
checked. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: . (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.
See, Attachment 1, Statement of Facts, pages 8-12.
See, Attachment 2, Conclusions of Law, page 13.
See, Attachment 3, Supporting Authority, page 14.
IN THE MATTER OF: Henry Alan Pattiz, State Bar No. 44073
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-O-14357
Respondent acknowledges and stipulates that the following facts are true:
COUNT ONE
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a)
[Failure to Comply With Laws - Unauthorized Practice]
1. During the period from September 18, 2006, through until September 22, 2008, Respondent was suspended from the practice of law pursuant to order of the California Supreme Court due to his failure to pay State Bar member fees. Respondent knew that he was suspended during the period from September 18, 2006, until September 22, 2008.
2. During the period from October 24, 2006, through until October 13, 2008, Respondent Was not entitled to practice of law pursuant to order of the State Bar Court in case no. 06-AE-14189-RAP which involuntarily enrolled Respondent as an inactive member of the Bar for failure to pay a fee arbitration award. Respondent knew that he was involuntary enrolled inactive to practice law during the period from October 24, 2006, until October 15, 2008.
3. As a result of his overlapping suspensions from practice, Respondent was not entitled to practice law for over two years between September 18, 2006 and October 15, 2008.
4. On July 1 I, 2006, Robert Krieger employed Respondent to represent him in negotiations concerning certain stock purchases. Krieger paid Respondent $7,000 as advanced attorney’s fees.
5. When Respondent was suspended from the practice of law on September 18, 2006, he did not inform Krieger of the suspension. When Respondent was enrolled inactive to practice law on October 24, 2006, he did not inform Krieger of the inactive enrollment. Respondent never informed Krieger of the suspension nor of the inactive enrollment.
6. Respondent represented Krieger in negotiations until March 19, 2007, after Krieger discovered that Respondent was not entitled to practice law, and after Krieger terminated Respondent.
7. Between September 18, 2006, and March 19, 2007, Respondent held himself out to Krieger as an attorney entitled to practice law.
8. During his representation of Krieger, Respondent held himself out to opposing counsel, Rosser Cole ("Cole"), as entitled to practice law. On October 24, 2006, Respondent delivered an email to Cole summarizing the terms of a counter proposal for the distribution of monetary proceeds and ended the email by identifying himself as "Henry A. ’Hap’ Pattiz, Attorney at Law." Further emails on this subject were exchanged between Respondent and opposing counsel on October 26, 2006.
9. Thereafter, Respondent represented Krieger by engaging in negotiations on his behalf to negotiate a Deal Point Memorandum. On December 14, 2006, Respondent sent an email to Cole to confirm that Cole had received his draft of the Understanding of Agreement. Other details of the ongoing negotiation were discussed in this email.
10. On January 17, 2007, Respondent sent a billing statement to Krieger for services rendered between June 2006 and December 2006. The statement indicates that during these months Respondent worked 95.5 hours on Kreiger’s matter. The statement was delivered on letterhead reading "Henry A. Pattiz, Law Offices."
11. On January 24, 2007, Respondent sent a letter to attorney Sanford K. Rubin, counsel for Krieger’s mother and trustee, requesting the signature of Krieger’s mother on the Understanding of Agreement and describing the additional work that needed to be accomplished to conclude the negotiation of a pay out to his client. Respondent’s letterhead read "Henry A. Pattiz, Attorney at Law." Respondent signed the letter as "Henry A. Pattiz, Attorney at Law."
12. On February 21, 2007, Krieger paid Respondent $24,000 in additional fees.
13. On March 6, 2007, Respondent sent a letter to Krieger explaining the status of negotiations and describing the remaining steps to be taken to conclude the stock purchase transaction. Respondent also noted that from February 25, 2007 and March 5, 2007, he had billed an additional nine hours of time as well as six hours of stafftime. Respondent’s correspondence was written on letterhead that read "Henry A. Pattiz, Law Offices."
14. On March 13, 2007, Respondent wrote to Phyllis Pollock, another California attorney also representing Krieger in the stock purchase-transaction. In this correspondence Respondent delivered certain draft documents and discussed the progress of negotiations. Respondent’s correspondence contained the letterhead "Henry A. Pattiz, Law Offices.
15. On March 15, 2007, Respondent wrote to Krieger informing him that most of the necessary documents had been completed. Respondent also noted that between March 5, 2007 and March 15, 2007, he expended just under 40 hours in attorney time. Respondent’s letter was written on letterhead reading "Henry A. Pattiz, Law Offices."
16. On March 16, 2007, Respondent sent a billing statement to Krieger for services rendered during the month of February 2007. The statement indicates that in February 2007, Respondent worked 17.7 total hours on Krieger’s matter. The statement was delivered on letterhead reading "Henry A. Pattiz, Law Offices."
COUNT TWO
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i)
[Failure to Cooperate in State Bar Investigation]
17. On October 24, 2007, the State Bar opened an investigation, case no. 07-014357, pursuant to a complaint filed by Robert Krieger (the "Krieger complaint").
18. On January 3, 2008, State Bar Investigator Denise Ventura mailed a letter to Respondent at his address on file with the State Bar Membership Records regarding the Krieger complaint. The letter requested that Respondent provide a written response to the allegations arising out of the Krieger complaint by a certain date. Respondent received the letter.
19. Respondent did not provide a written response to the January 3, 2008, letter and he did not otherwise address the allegations in the Krieger complaint.
20. On January 22, 2008, Investigator Ventura mailed another letter to Respondent at his State Bar membership records address, reminding him to respond to the specific allegations of misconduct being investigated by the State Bar in the Krieger matter. Respondent received the letter.
21. Respondent did not provide a written response to the January 22, 2008, letter and he did not otherwise address the allegations in the Krieger matter.
22. On February 1, 2008, Investigator spoke with Respondent by telephone and asked whether he had received her January 3, 2008, and January 22, 2008, letters; Respondent said he had not received the letters~ Respondent provided Investigator Ventura with his facsimile number, and on February 1, 2008, investigator Ventura faxed a copy of the January 3, 2008, letter to Respondent which Respondent later confirmed he received.
23. On February 20, 2008, Investigator Ventura spoke with Respondent by telephone and Respondent informed her that he was in the midst of hiring an attorney to represent him in the State Bar’s investigation. Respondent agreed to send Investigator Ventura a letter confirming the fact that he was seeking counsel. Respondent never sent the investigator a letter confirming that he was seeking counsel.
24. On February 22, 2008, Investigator Ventura wrote to Respondent. In the letter, the investigator confirmed the substance of their February 20, 2008, telephone conversation, and she agreed to extend to March 5, 2008, the time within which Respondent must provide a written response to the allegations of misconduct. 25.- At no time did Respondent provide a written response to the allegations in the Krieger matter, as repeatedly requested by the Investigator, and Respondent did not otherwise participate in the State Bar investigation.
Respondent admits, and the parties stipulate, that by his conduct described in the attached
Statement of Facts, Respondent is culpable of violations of the following Rules of
Professional Conduct.
COUNT ONE
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a)
[Failure to Comply With Laws - Unauthorized Practice]
By representing Krieger, and by holding himself out to Krieger and others as eligible to practice law, when he was not an active member of the State Bar and he was not otherwise entitled to practice law, Respondent violated Business and Professions Code sections 6125 and 6126, and thus he failed to support the laws of this state, in willful violation Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
COUNT TWO
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i)
[Failure to Cooperate in State Bar Investigation]
By not providing a written response to the State Bar investigator’s letters, by not providing substantive responses to the allegations arising out of the Krieger complaint, and by not otherwise participating in the investigation of the allegations in the Krieger matter, Respondent failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(i).
Culpability of a member of a violation of Section 6068 of the Business and Professions Code shall resulting disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3. Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, Standard 2. 6.
In Farmham vs. State Bar (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 605, the respondent was found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by giving legal advice and preparing legal papers for a client during the period of time he was suspended for nonpayment of membership fees. In addition, he willfully deceived clients, avoided their efforts to communicate with him and eventually abandoned their cases. The respondent had a prior record of discipline. The Supreme Court imposed two years suspension, the execution of which was stayed, and two years probation, with the condition that respondent be actually suspended for six months.
In In the Matter of Mason (1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 639, the respondent, while suspended as a result of a prior discipline, made a court appearance in a family law matter, and he did not disclose to the court or to opposing counsel that he had been suspended. Respondent was actually suspended for three months.
Case Number(s): 07-O-14357
In the Matter of: Henry Alan Pattiz
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: Henry Alan Pattiz
Date: October 29, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel: Martin S. Rudoy
Date: October 29, 2010
Deputy Trial Counsel: Rizamari C. Sitton
Date: November 2, 2010
Case Number(s): 07-O-14357
In the Matter of: Henry Alan Pattiz
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 5.58 (E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: November 30, 2010
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and
County of Los Angeles, on November 30, 2010, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
MARTIN S. RUDOY
LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN S. RUDOY
SHERMAN OAKS GALLERIA
15303 VENTURA BLVD STE 900
SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. **, with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at **, California, addressed as follows: **
<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at **, California, addressed as follows: **
<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number **. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows: **
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Rizamari C. Sitton, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on November 30, 2010.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court