Case Number(s): 08-C-13623; 09-C-11053; 09-C-11055; 09-C-11056; 09-C-11057; 09-C-11058; 10-C-05914
In the Matter of: Mansour Sig Haddad, Bar # 172061, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Michael J. Glass, Margolis & Margolis LLP
2000 Riverside Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90039
(323) 953-8996
Bar # 102700,
Counsel for Respondent: Susan Margolis, Margolis & Margolis
2000 Riverside Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90039
(323) 953-4740
Bar # 104629,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
<<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 2, 1994.
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 18 pages, not including the order.
4. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".
6. The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."
7. No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
8. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):
<<not>> checked. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: prior to February 1 in three billing cycles following the effective date of the discipline. (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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Mansour Sig Haddad, State Bar No. 172061
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-C-13623; 09-C-11053; 09-C-11055; 09-C-11056; 09-C-11057; 09-C-11058; 10-C-05914
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent Mansour Sig Haddad ("Respondent") admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violation of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 09-C-11055
1. On February 23, 2009, Respondent was convicted of one count of violating Penal Code section 647(0 (Public Intoxication), a misdemeanor.
2. In the underlying matter, on November 11, 2008, Respondent had been drinking and was sitting on a bench in front of a store. Respondent had previously been inside the store and made a female employee of the store uncomfortable. The store owner called the police. Respondent was arrested for violating Penal Code section 647(f) (Public Intoxication).
3. On February 23, 2009, Respondent was sentenced to 10 days in jail with credit for 8 days served. Respondent was also fined $320.00 with credit for $300.00 ($50.00 per day times 6 days credit for time served) and $20.00 of the fine suspended. Probation was denied.
Conclusions of Law
4. By being convicted of violating Penal Code section 647(f) (Public Intoxication), a misdemeanor, Respondent wilfully violated a law of this state in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
5. Respondent’s conviction for violating Penal Code section 647(f)(Public Intoxication), a misdemeanor, also constitutes conviction of a crime involving other misconduct warranting discipline.
Case No. 09-C-11056
1. On February 23, 2009, Respondent was convicted of one count of violating Penal Code section 647(t") (Public Intoxication), a misdemeanor.
2. In the underlying matter, on November 5, 2008, Respondent was parked and slumped over in the driver’s seat of his vehicle. Respondent had a bottle of wine between his legs. Respondent was asked by a police officer to exit the vehicle. Respondent smelled of alcohol, stumbled, and had slurred speech. Respondent was arrested for violating Penal Code section 647(f) (Public Intoxication).
3. On February 23, 2009, Respondent was sentenced to 10 days in jail with credit for 8 days served. Respondent was also fined $320.00 with credit for $300.00 ($50.00 per day times 6 days credit for time served) and $20.00 of the fine suspended. Probation was denied.
Conclusions of Law
4. By being convicted of violating Penal Code section 647(0 (Public Intoxication), a misdemeanor, Respondent wilfully violated a law of this state in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
5. Respondent’s conviction for violating Penal Code section 647(f)(Public Intoxication), a misdemeanor, also constitutes conviction of a crime involving other misconduct warranting discipline.
Case No. 09-C-11057
1. On February 23, 2009, Respondent was convicted of one count of violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence). A second count of violating Vehicle Code section 23152(b) (Driving a Vehicle with a Blood Alcohol Level of 0.08% or More) was dismissed as part of a plea bargain. The Criminal Complaint also alleged that within ten years of the aforementioned offense, Respondent committed a violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(a) on January 10, 2008, and was duly convicted thereof on February 20, 2008, in the San Luis Obispo Superior Court. (See Case No. 09-C-11058, infra. Page 9(Attachment Page 3) ).
2. In the underlying matter, on January 3, 2009, Respondent was involved a non-injury automobile accident, in which Respondent’s vehicle rear ended a vehicle driven by Arturo Tabueunca. Respondent’s Blood Alcohol Concentration was 0.36.
3. On September 9, 2009, Respondent was sentenced to 3 years probation, 30 days in jail, completion of a Second Offender Program, and a $2100 fine.
Conclusions of Law
4. By being convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence), a misdemeanor, Respondent willfully violated a law of this state in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
5. Respondent’s conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence), a misdemeanor, also constitutes conviction of a crime involving other misconduct warranting discipline.
Case No. 09-C-11058
1. On February 20, 2008, Respondent was convicted of one count of violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence). A second count of violating Vehicle code section 23152(b) (Driving a Vehicle with a Blood Alcohol Level of 0.08% or More) was dismissed as part of a plea bargain.
2. In the underlying matter, on January 10, 2008, Respondent was driving a 2008 Toyota Corolla which was involved in a one vehicle accident on northbound Orcutt Road near Biddle Ranch Road in San Luis Obispo County. Respondent’s vehicle approached a curve in the road and spun out striking a wooden sign post and a utility pole. Respondent’s Blood Alcohol Concentration was 0.32.
3. On February 20, 2008, Respondent was sentenced to 3 years probation, 8 days in jail, a 9 month first alcohol offender program, a $1,755.00 fine and various fees.
4. On February 23, 2009, Respondent admitted to a violation of his probation due to Respondent’s failure to obey all laws during the period of his probation.
5. On September 9, 2009, Respondent’s probation was modified and reinstated. Respondent was also sentenced to 62 days in County Jail, with credit for time served of 42 days.
Conclusions of Law
6. By being convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence), a misdemeanor, and violating his probation, Respondent willfully violated a law of this state in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
7. Respondent’s conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence), a misdemeanor, and violating his probation, also constitutes conviction of a crime involving other misconduct warranting discipline.
Case No. 10-O-05914
1. On July 19, 2010, Respondent was convicted on one count of violating Vehicle Code Section 23152(b) (Driving With a Blood Alcohol Content of 0.08% or higher), with priors, a misdemeanor. Respondent also admitted a violation of his probation from his February 20, 2008, conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence) (Case No. 09-C-11058) and his February 23, 2009, conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence) (Case No. 09-O-11057).
2. In the underlying matter, on May 1, 2010, Respondent was driving a 2008 BMW northbound on Chorro Street in San Luis Obispo. A university police officer observed Respondent’s car swerving to the left and right, crossing over the double yellow lines in the center of the road as well as the white lines on the right side of the road. The officer initiated a traffic stop and arrested Respondent after failed field sobriety tests. Respondent’s Blood Alcohol concentration was 0.27.
3. On August 23, 2010, Respondent was sentenced to 180 days in custody, a five year suspended sentence, with a stay of execution until October 25, 2010, so that Respondent can apply for home detention, a $2,190 fine, completion of a second offender program, driving privilege revoked for 3 years, and Respondent was designated a habitual traffic offender. Respondent’s probation was reinstated in his February 20, 2008, conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence) (Case No. 09-C-11058) and his February 23, 2009, conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence) (Case No. 09-O-11057).
Conclusions of Law
4. By being convicted of violating one count of Vehicle Code section 23152(b) (Driving With a Blood Alcohol Content of 0.08% or Higher), with priors, a misdemeanor, and by violating the terms of his probation in connection with his prior DUI’s, Respondent wilfully violated a law of this state in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
5. Respondent’s conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 23152(b) (Driving With a Blood Alcohol Content of 0.08% or Higher), with priors, a misdemeanor, and by violating the terms of his probation in connection with his prior DUI’s, also constitutes conviction of a crime involving other misconduct warranting discipline.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(6), was August 31, 2010.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court dismiss the following conviction referral matters in the interest of justice:
Case No.: 08-C-13623, Underlying Charges Dismissed: Respondent’s February 23, 2009, conviction of one count of violating Health and Safety Code section 11350(a)(Possession of a Controlled Substance), a felony, was dismissed on February 23, 2010, pursuant to Penal Code section 1210.1 (e)(1), following Respondent’ s successful completion of the Proposition 36 (Penal Code section 1210.1) Program.
Case No.: 09-C-11053, Underlying Charges Dismissed: Respondent’s March 4, 2009, conviction of one count of violating Health and Safety Code section 11550(a)(Under the influence of a Controlled Substance), a misdemeanor, was dismissed on February 23, 2010, pursuant to Penal Code section 1210.1 (e)(1), following Respondent’s successful completion of the Proposition 36 (Penal Code section 1210.1) Program.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of August 31, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are $13,346.00. 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.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING.
Case No. 09-C-11055
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On February 23, 2009, respondent was convicted of violating Penal Code section 647(f) (Public Intoxication), a misdemeanor.
3. On September 10, 2009, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues: For a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the hearing department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation of Penal Code section 647, subdivision f, of which respondent was convicted, involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
Case No. 09-C-11056
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On February 23, 2009, respondent was convicted of violating Penal Code section 647(f)(Public Intoxication), a misdemeanor.
3. On September 10, 2009, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues: For a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the hearing department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation of Penal Code section 647, subdivision f, of which respondent was convicted, involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
Case No. 09-C-11057
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On February 23, 2009, respondent was convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence), a misdemeanor.
3. On September 10, 2009, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues: For a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the hearing department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a), of which respondent was convicted, involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
Case No. 09-C-11058
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On February 20, 2008, respondent was convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a)(Driving Under the Influence), a misdemeanor.
3. On January 8, 2010, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues: For a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the heating department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a)(driving under the influence), of which respondent was convicted, involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
Case No. 10-C-05914
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On July 19, 2010, respondent was convicted of violating Vehicle Code Section 23152(b) (Driving With a Blood Alcohol Content of 0.08% or higher), with priors, a misdemeanor. Respondent also admitted a violation of his probation from his February 20, 2008, conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence) (Case No. 09-C-11058) and his February 23, 2009, conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence) (Case No. 09-0-11057).
3. On October 14, 2010, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues: For a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event the hearing department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b) (driving with blood alcohol level of 0.08% or more), of which respondent was convicted, involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 3.4 provides that "Final conviction of a member of a crime which does not involve moral turpitude inherently or in the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime’s commission but which does involve other misconduct warranting discipline shall result in a sanction as prescribed under part B of these standards appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct found to have been committed by the member."
In re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 487-While Respondent was on probation for a prior April, 1984 DUI conviction, in November 1986 Respondent received a second DUI conviction. The Supreme Court imposed discipline consisting of a public reproval and three years probation with conditions. In aggravation the court found that Respondent made no attempts to show rehabilitative efforts and maintained she had no alcohol abuse problem.
In re Carr (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 1089-Respondent pied nolo contendere to two counts of violating Vehicle Code sections 23152(a)(DUI) with one incident in 1983 and the other in 1984. The Supreme Court imposed discipline consisting of a 2 year stayed suspension, 5 years probation with conditions including a 6 month actual suspension and until Respondent complied with standard 1.4(e)(ii).
In the Matter of Carr (1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 108-Respondent received three criminal convictions, not involving moral turpitude, consisting of an August 1985 conviction for driving with a suspended license due to a prior DUI conviction, a January 1986 conviction for being under the influence of PCP, and an August 1986 conviction for driving with knowledge of a suspended license. The Review Department recommended discipline consisting of a 2 year stayed suspension, 2 years probation with conditions including a 6 month actual suspension and until Respondent complies with standard 1.4(c)(ii).
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
FACTS SUPPORTING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Under standard 1.2(b)(ii), Respondent’s current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing as in Case No. 09-C-11055, on February 23, 2009, Respondent was convicted of violating Penal Code section 647(0 (Public Intoxication), a misdemeanor, with the underlying offense occurring on November 11, 2008.
In Case No. 09-C-11056, on February 23, 2009, Respondent was convicted of violating Penal Code section 647(t") (Public Intoxication), a misdemeanor, with the underlying offense occurring on November 5, 2008.
In Case No. 09-C-11057, on February 23, 2009, Respondent was convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence), a misdemeanor, with the underlying offense occurring on January 3, 2009.
In Case No. 09oC-11058, on February 20, 2008, Respondent was convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence), a misdemeanor, with the underlying offense occurring on January 10, 2008. On February 23, 2009, Respondent admitted to a violation of his probation due to Respondent’s failure to obey all laws during the period of his probation.
In Case No. 10-C-05914, on July 19, 2010, Respondent was convicted of violating Vehicle Code Section 23152(b) (Driving With a Blood Alcohol Content of 0.08% or higher), with priors, a misdemeanor. Respondent also admitted a violation of his probation from his February 20, 2008, conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a)(Driving Under the Influence)(Case No. 09-C-11058) and his February 23, 2009, conviction for violating Vehicle Code Section 23152(a)(Driving Under the Influence)(Case No. 09-0-11057).
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Respondent has no prior record of discipline.
Respondent has met with several San Luis Obispo County Superior Court judges who hear criminal cases. Respondent has offered his services as a liaison to any criminal defendants who want to get sober, but need assistance in doing so. Respondent is working with one such defendant fight now, assisting his public defender by providing legal services on a pro bono basis and facilitating the defendant’s access to AA meetings while the defendant is in jail.
Respondent has also spoken to inmates about recovery and about his own story, and plans to continue to do this 12-step outreach work in the future.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
OTHER CONDITIONS NEGOTIATED BY THE PARTIES.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE CONDITIONS
Abstinence:
Respondent shall abstain from use of any alcoholic beverages, and shall not consume or possess any narcotics, dangerous or restricted drugs, controlled substances, marijuana, or associated paraphernalia, except with a valid prescription.
Reporting Abstinence:
Respondent shall report his compliance with this condition (i.e. Abstinence) by statement under penalty of perjury in each written quarterly report to the Office of Probation required pursuant to this order.
Submit to Examination:
Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the discipline in this matter, if Respondent has not already done so, Respondent shall submit to a medical examination by Dr. Daniel M. Gordon, M.D., of San Luis Obispo, CA, or a doctor certified by the American Society of Addiction Medicine, to be mutually agreed upon by Respondent and the State Bar or as ordered by the Court. Dr. Gordon or the Doctor mutually agreed upon by Respondent and the State Bar or as ordered by the Court ("Doctor") shall conduct an evaluation and issue a report to the Office of Probation and include/address the following:
1. Provide an evaluation, pursuant to DSM-IV-TR, to determine a diagnosis, if any, of Respondent’s condition regarding alcohol;
The evaluation may include the performance of standardized tests in oral or written form; interviews with Respondent; review of records relating to his medical condition, criminal proceedings, criminal probation records, State Bar disciplinary records, alcohol treatment or recovery records; and other information provided by the State Bar and/or Respondent.
No physically invasive procedures may be performed without prior consent of Respondent or upon a court order. The Doctor will advise Respondent and/or the State Bar if any physically invasive procedure is required.
2. For any condition regarding alcohol which is diagnosed by the Doctor a determination should be made as to whether the Doctor recommends any treatment to address that condition, and the Doctor should state in specific terms the Doctors’ recommendations for how Respondent should be tested, monitored, and/or treated.
Compliance with Recommended Treatment:
Respondent shall comply with all treatment conditions recommended by the Doctor, either as originally set forth or as may be modified thereafter.
Respondent shall report his compliance with these conditions by statement under penalty of perjury in each written quarterly report to the Office of Probation and he shall provide such satisfactory proof of his compliance as the Office of Probation may request.
Random Blood/Urine Tests:
Respondent must select a licensed medical laboratory approved by the Office of Probation. Respondent must furnish to the laboratory blood and/or urine samples as may be required to show that Respondent has abstained from alcohol and/or drugs. The samples must be furnished to the laboratory in such a manner as may be specified by the laboratory to ensure specimen integrity. Respondent must cause the laboratory to provide to the Office of Probation, at the Respondent’s expense, a screening report on or before the tenth day of each month of the condition or probation period, containing an analysis of Respondent’s blood and/or urine obtained not more than ten (10) days previously.
Respondent must maintain with the Office of Probation a current address and a current telephone number at which Respondent can be reached. Respondent must return any call from the Office of Probation Concerning testing of Respondent’s blood or urine within twelve (12) hours. The Office of Probation may require Respondent to deliver Respondent’s urine and/or blood sample(s) for additional reports to the laboratory described above no later than six hours after actual notice to Respondent that the Office of Probation requires an additional screening report.
Consent for Release of Treatment and Recovery Information:
Respondent shall provide a written consent to all alcohol or drug recovery or treatment providers, including testing facilities, who provide services as identified in these Substance Abuse Conditions to release information to the Office of Probation regarding his treatment, compliance, and status.
Copy of this Stipulation to all Treatment Providers:
Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of discipline in this matter, Respondent shall deliver a copy of this stipulation to all treatment providers who provide services to him described in these Substance Abuse Conditions.
Reporting Consent and Delivery of Stipulation:
Respondent shall report his compliance with the condition of providing consent to release treatment and recovery information and his delivering of this Stipulation to treatment providers, by statement under penalty of perjury in each written quarterly report to the Office of Probation required pursuant to this order and he shall provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of his compliance if requested.
Costs are Responsibility of Respondent:
Respondent shall be responsible for the prompt and timely payment of all costs associated with these Substance Abuse Conditions, including, without limitation, the cost of examination(s), testing, treatment, or therapy, and any all other costs related to these Substance Abuse Conditions.
Modification of Conditions:
Modification of these conditions shall be pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, rule 550 et seq.
Case Number(s): 08-C-13623;09-C-11053;09-C-11055;09-C- 11056; 09-C-11057;09-C-11058; 10-C-05914
In the Matter of: Mansour Sig Haddad
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: Mansour Sig Haddad
Date: September 8, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel: Susan Marglois
Date: September 9, 2010
Deputy Trial Counsel: Michael Glass
Date: October 15, 2010
Case Number(s): 08-C-13623;09-C-11053;09-C-11055;09-C- 11056; 09-C-11057;09-C-11058; 10-C-05914
In the Matter of: Mansour Sig Haddad
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.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (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: October 22, 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 San Francisco, on October 26, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
SUSAN LYNN MARGOLIS
MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS LLP
2000 RIVERSIDE DR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90039
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
MICHAEL J. GLASS, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on October 26, 2010.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court