State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

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

STAYED SUSPENSION; NO ACTUAL SUSPENSION

Case Number(s): 07-O-14893, 09-O-14777,09-O-15479, 09-O-15892, 09-O-15893, 09-O-15933, 09-O-16206, 09-O-16249,09-O-16496, 09-O-17693, 09-O-18646, 09-O-18867, 09-O-19089, 10-O-00009, 10-190, 10-O-191, 10-O-192 and 10-O-193

In the Matter of: Robert Yousefian, Bar # 166396, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Murray B. Greenberg, Supervising Trial Counsel

1149 South Hill Street

Los Angeles, CA 90015

(213) 765-1258

Bar # 142678

Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent

ROBERT YOUSEFIAN

1927 West Glenoaks Blvd.

Glendale, CA 91201

(818) 848-5297

Bar # 166396

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

Filed: November 16, 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 December 1,1993.

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 13 pages, not including the order.

4. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."

5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".

6. The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."

7. No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.

8. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):

checked. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.

<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: .  (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.)  If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.

<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".

<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.

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 or a separate attachment entitled “Prior Discipline”. .

<<not>> checked. (2)   Dishonesty:  Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct. 

<<not>> checked. (3)   Trust Violation:  Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property.

<<not>> checked. (4)   Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

<<not>> checked. (5)   Indifference:  Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his or her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (6)   Lack of Cooperation:  Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings. 

checked. (7)             Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:  Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.

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

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

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.

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. 

checked. (4)            Remorse:  Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct. 

<<not>> checked. (5) Restitution:  Respondent paid $  on  in restitution to  without the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.

<<not>> checked. (6) Delay:  These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed.  The delay is not attributable to Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

<<not>> checked. (7) Good Faith:  Respondent acted in good faith.

<<not>> checked. (8) Emotional/Physical Difficulties:  At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct.  The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.

<<not>> checked. (9) Severe Financial Stress:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and which were directly responsible for the misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (10) Family Problems:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature.

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 three 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: .

The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

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

E. Additional Conditions of Probation:

checked. (1)            During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.

checked. (2)            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. (3)            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. (4)            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. (5) 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. (6)            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. (7)            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.

<<not>> checked. No Ethics School recommended.  Reason:

checked. (8)            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. (9)            The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:           

<<not>> checked. Substance Abuse Conditions.

checked. Law Office Management Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Medical Conditions.

<<not>> 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 within one year.  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:

<<not>> checked. (2) Other Conditions: .

Attachment language (if any): .

LAW OFFICE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS

Case Number(s): 07-O-14893, et.seq.

In the Matter of: Robert Yousefian

checked. a. Within days/ three months/  years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.

checked. b. Within days/  months/ one years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than  hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)

checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for one year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.

Other: 

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: ROBERT YOUSEFIAN, State Bar No. 166396

STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-O-14893; et.seq.

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

1. Respondent admits that the following facts are true and he is culpable of violations of specific statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 07-0-14893

2. On or about December 13, 2006, Ruben Kadimyan (Kadimyan) employed Respondent to represent him in a personal injury matter. Respondent’s office received a bill from the Los Angeles Fire Department for $636.50, which had been reduced by MediCal and paid off. One of Respondent’s employees, unbeknownst to him, altered the bill and submitted it to the insurance company to receive the $636.50. When Respondent discovered the alteration, he took steps to return the check to the insurance company.

3. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 09-0-14777

4. On March 11, 2009, Carolee Waters ("Waters") employed Respondent to handle her bankruptcy matter and paid his office $499.00 in legal fees. Waters was told by Greg, a staff member of Respondent’s office that her case would be filed within a week. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the necessary documents. Over the next three months, Waters made several phone calls and e-mails inquiring about her case without an adequate response. No work had been completed on her case. Waters decided to terminate Respondent’s services and requested a refund. On November 17, 2009, Respondent refunded the $499.00 and returned Waters documents.

5. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 09-0-15479

6. On July 10, 2009, Eliseo Ayala ("Ayala") employed Respondent to handle his bankruptcy matter and paid his office $499.00 in legal fees. Ayala was told by Greg, a staff member of Respondent’s office, that the bankruptcy documents would be prepared in one day, but that Ayala would be responsible for filing the papers in court. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the necessary documents, which was not done. Ayala did not hear from Greg and although he sent the information required to fill in the documents, he did not receive them for almost two months. On October 6, 2009, Respondent refunded $499.00 to Ayala for legal fees and an additional $361.31 for Ayala’s expenses.

7. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 09-0-15892

8. On April 21, 2009, Jonay Bishop ("Bishop") employed Respondent to handle his bankruptcy matter and paid his office $499.00 in legal fees. Bishop had his daughter, Michelle, deal with Respondent’s office on his behalf. Michelle was told by Greg, a staff member of Respondent’s office, that the necessary papers would be prepared within a week. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the papers. Although Respondent’s office was initially responsive, they failed to prepare the papers for Bishop. After August 2009, Michelle was not able to receive a response to her status inquiries on Bishop’s behalf. On October 22, 2009, Respondent refunded $499.00 to Bishop for legal fees.

9. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 09-0-15893

10. On June 23, 2009, Daniel Forrest ("Forrest") employed Respondent to handle his bankruptcy matter and paid his office $499.00 in legal fees. Forrest was told by Greg, a staff member of Respondent’s office, that the necessary papers would be prepared within a week and a notice of a stay would be sent to his creditors. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the papers. Forrest contacted Respondent’s office on several occasions between June 23, 2009 and July 31, 2009 without receiving a status update. On July 31, 2009, Forrest received a draft bankruptcy petition with some follow up questions which Forrest immediately answered. Subsequently, Forrest made several phone calls and sent e-mails to Respondent’s office without a response. On September 15, 2009, Forrest terminated Respondent’s services. On September 28, 2009, Respondent refunded $499.00 in legal fees to Forrest.

11. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 09-0-15933

12. On July 17, 2009, Stephanie Rodgers ("Rodgers") employed Respondent to handle her bankruptcy matter and paid his office $499.00 in legal fees. Rodgers was told by Greg, a staff member of Respondent’s office, that the necessary papers would be prepared within a few days. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the papers. Rodgers contacted the office on several occasions, but was unable to obtain a status update on her case. On August 19, 2009, Rodgers sent a certified letter to Respondent’s office terminating his services and requesting, a refund. On September 28, 2009, Respondent refunded $499.00 in legal fees to Rodgers.

13. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 09-0-16206

14. On July 22, 2009, Ashwin Saephan ("Saephan") employed Respondent to handle her and her mother’s bankruptcy matters and paid his office $948.00 in legal fees. Saephan was told by Greg, a staff member of Respondent’s office, that the necessary papers would be prepared very quickly and probably within a few days. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the papers. Saephan contacted the office on several occasions, but was unable to obtain a status update on her case. On August 21, 2009, Saephan received a draft of a bankruptcy petition from Respondent’s office and was told to return it with any necessary corrections. Saephan returned the papers but did not hear from Respondent’s office and on September 18, 2009, terminated Respondent’s services. On October 13, 2009, Respondent refunded $499.00 in legal fees to Saephan.

15. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 09-0-16249

16. On August 10, 2009, Roy Starler ("Starler") employed Respondent to handle his bankruptcy matter and paid his office $499.00 in legal fees. Starler was only able to communicate with Greg, a staff member of Respondent’s office, and no work was done on his case. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the bankruptcy documents; however, no papers were prepared for Starlet. On September 9, 2009, Starler filed a complaint with the State Bar. On October 27, 2009, Starlet received a refund of the $499.00 from Respondent after going to his office.

17. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 09-0-16496

18. On June 16, 2009, Khadijeh Kassab ("Kassab") employed Respondent to handle her bankruptcy matter and paid his office $499.00 in legal fees. Kassab was told by Greg, a staff member of Respondent’s office, that the necessary papers would be prepared within a few days. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the papers. Kassab contacted Respondent’s office on several occasions between June 16, 2009 and July 23, 2009, but was unable to obtain a status update on her case. No work was performed on Kassab’s case by Respondent or his staff. On July 23, 2009, Kassab contacted Respondent’s office terminating his services and requesting a refund. On November 17, 2009, Respondent refunded $499.00 in legal fees to Kassab.

19. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 09-0-17693

20. On May 12, 2009, Roland Salcedo ("Salcedo") employed Respondent to handle his bankruptcy matter and paid his office $499.00 in legal fees. Salcedo was told by Greg, a staff member of Respondent’s office, that the necessary papers would be prepared within a few days. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the papers and failed to do any work on Salcedo’s behalf. On September 16, 2009, Salcedo contacted Respondent’s office terminating his services and requesting a refund. On November 17, 2009, Respondent refunded $499.00 in legal fees to Salcedo.

21. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 09-0-18646

22. On January 20, 2009, Timothy Stuetz ("Stuetz") employed Respondent to handle his bankruptcy matter and paid his office $499.00 in legal fees. Stuetz provided Respondent’s office with his financial information. He was told by a member of Respondent’ s staff that he would be contacted in order to complete the bankruptcy petition. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the papers and failed to do any work on Stuetz’s behalf. On November 6, 2009, Stuetz complained to the State Bar after not receiving a return call from Respondent as to the status of his case. On February 9, 2010, Respondent refunded $499.00 in legal fees to Stuetz.

23. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 09-0-18867

24. On July 8, 2009, Robert Borge ("Borge") employed Respondent to handle his bankruptcy matter and paid his office $499.00 in legal fees. Borge provided Respondent’s office with his financial information. Borge left several phone messages requesting a status update, but did not receive a return call from Respondent’s office until late August 2009. He was told by a member of Respondent’s staff that they would be completing the paperwork for his bankruptcy matter. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the papers and failed to do any work on Borge’s behalf. On November 6, 2009, Borge complained to the State Bar and on February 2, 2010, Respondent refunded $499.00 in legal fees to Borge.

25. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 09-0-19089

26. On August 7, 2009, Doctor Kitajima ("Kitajima") employed Respondent to handle his son’s bankruptcy matter and paid his office $499.00 in legal fees. Kitajima provided Respondent’s office with his son’s financial information. On August 27, 2009, Respondent’s office sent Katajima an e-mail indicating they would complete the necessary paperwork for his son’s bankruptcy matter and send it to him the next day. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the papers and failed to do any work on Katajima’s behalf. On November 16, 2009, Katajima complained to the State Bar and on February 9, 2010, Respondent refunded $499.00 in legal fees to Katajima.

27. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 10-O-00009

28. On February 20, 2009, Benjamin Roth ("Roth") employed Respondent to handle his bankruptcy matter. Roth paid Respondent $100.00 and subsequently paid an additional $399.00 on June 22, 2009. Respondent’s office staffwas given the responsibility to prepare the papers and failed to do any work on Roth’s behalf. On August 5, 2009, Roth requested a status update from Respondent’s office. He did not receive a response to his request. On September 25, 2009, Roth requested a status update on his case from Respondent’s office, but he did not receive a response. On September 28, 2009, Roth sent a letter to Respondent’s office requesting a refund of the legal fees paid. On March 1, 2010, Respondent refunded $499.00 in legal fees to Roth.

29. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 10-O-00190

30. On April 29, 2009, Cesar Vega ("Vega") employed Respondent to handle his bankruptcy matter and paid his office $499.00 in legal fees. Vega was told by a staff member of Respondent’s office that the necessary papers would be prepared within a few days. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the papers and failed to do any work on Vega’s behalf. On December 21, 2009 Vega filed a complaint with the State Bar after not being able to obtain a status update from Respondent’s office. On January 21, 2010, Respondent refunded $499.00 in legal fees to Vega.

31. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 10-O-00191

32. On June 22, 2009, Kristen Lindsay ("Lindsay") employed Respondent to handle her bankruptcy matter and paid his office $499.00 in legal fees. Lindsay was told by Greg, a staff member of Respondent’s office, that the necessary papers would be prepared within a week. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the papers and failed to do any work on Lindsay’s behalf. On December 29, 2009, Lindsay filed a complaint with the State Bar and on January 11, 2010, Respondent refunded $499.00 in legal fees to Lindsay.

33. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 10-O-00192

34. On July. 16, 2009, Mario and Norma Dominguez ("Dominguez") employed Respondent to handle their bankruptcy matter and paid his office $499.00 in legal fees. On August 28, 2009, Respondent’s office sent the Dominguez’s a draft of their bankruptcy petition with instructions to make any corrections and send it back to Respondent’s office. The Dominguez immediately sent the paperwork back with additional information, but did not hear back from Respondent’s office despite several phone calls to his staff requesting a status update. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the papers and failed to do any additional work on Dominguez’s behalf. On January 7, 2010, Dominguez filed a complaint with the State Bar and on February 2, 2010, Respondent refunded $499.00 in legal fees to Dominguez.

35. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

CASE NO. 10-O-00193

36. In February 2009, Lamia Issa ("Issa") employed Respondent for $499.00 to represent her in her bankruptcy matter. Respondent’s office staff was given the responsibility to prepare the bankruptcy documents, but failed to complete the work. In July 2009, Issa terminated Respondent’s services and requested a refund of the legal fees. On February 19, 2010, Respondent refunded $499.00 in legal fees to Issa.

37. By failing to properly supervise his staff, Respondent wilfully failed to competently perform legal services in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was October 27, 2010. Respondent has no pending investigations as of that date.

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 07-O-14893, et.seq.

In the Matter of: Robert Yousefian

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: Rober Yousefian

Date: October 28, 2010

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Murray B. Greenberg

Date: November 1, 2010

STAYED SUSPENSION ORDER

Case Number(s): 07-O-14893, et.seq.

In the Matter of: Robert Yousefian, State Bar No.: 166396

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.

1. On page 1, in the caption listing case numbers, “10-190” is deleted, and in its place is inserted “10-O-190”; and

2. On page 5 of the stipulation, the “X” in the box next to paragraph E.(8) is deleted. (No underlying criminal matter was identified.)

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: November 10, 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 November 16, 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:

ROBERT YOUSEFIAN

1927 W GLENOAKS BLVD

GLENDALE, CA 91201

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

MURRAY GREENBERG, ESQ., Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on November 16, 2010.

Signed by:

Rose Luthi

Case Administrator

State Bar Court