Case Number(s): 08-C-14029-RAP
In the Matter of: Steven John Roberts, Bar # 128829, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Bita Shasty, Bar # 225177,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Bar #
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: April 23, 2009.
<<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 June 17, 1987.
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 9 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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: Three billing cycles following the effective date of the Public Reproval. (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.
9. The parties understand that:
<<not>> checked. (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
IN THE MATTER OF: Steven John Roberts, State Bar No. 128829
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-C-14029-RAP
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6106 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On November 18, 2008, respondent was convicted of violating California Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b).
3. On February 18, 2009, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues: hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the hearing department finds that the facts and circumstances surround the violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b) involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent Steven John Roberts ("Respondent") admits that the following facts are true and that he violated Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b), as set forth below, and that said conduct involved other misconduct warranting discipline.
FACTS
On September 2, 2008, at approximately 12:54 a.m., Detective Hoyte of the San Diego Police Department was driving an unmarked police vehicle westbound SR-94 at 30th Street in the # 1 lane. Detective Hoyt was traveling approximately 65 mph with the flow of traffic. Respondent drove his vehicle behind Detective Hoyte and began to tailgate him. Detective Hoyte called for a cover unit and advised that the driver of a silver four door 2004 Hyundai Elantra CA/5GHG054 was tailgating him. Detective Hoyte told the cover unit that the driver appeared to be agitated and requested uniformed patrol officers to conduct a traffic stop.
Sergeant P.R. Rorrison, Officer J.E. Kremer and Officer Joseph Smith responded. As Sergeant Rorrison approached 11th Avenue and "A" Street, he saw that the signal light for traffic traveling north on 11th Avenue at "A" street was a sold red light. Respondent passed the limit line and the red signal light without making a full and complete stop.
Respondent was pulled over and contacted by Sergeant Rorrison and Detective Hoyte who obtained his driver’s license. A records check at the scene revealed that Respondent had a Driving Under the Influence conviction on January 31, 2002. Detective Hoyte and Officer Smith both smelled the odor of alcohol coming from the interior of Respondent’s vehicle. Officer Smith asked Respondent if he had had anything to drink. Respondent told him "I had 8 wines."
Respondent was then given the following Standard Field Sobriety Test (SFST) for drinking and driving: the nystagmus test, one leg stand test, walk and turn test, and standing alphabet count test. Respondent performed poorly during these tests and was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b), Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol while having 0.08 percent or more by weight, of alcohol in his blood. Respondent chose to do a blood test to determine his Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). The results showed that Respondent had a BAC of 0.21, over two and one-half times above the legal limit.
On November 18, 2008, Respondent pled "No Contest" to Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b). The court ordered that Respondent be placed on 5 years of summary probation, serve 96 hours of work release, enroll in and complete the SB 38 program (an 18 month alcohol program), perform 9 days of Public Work Service, and pay $2378 in fines.
Respondent had a prior conviction on January 31, 2002, where he pled to and was convicted of a violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a), in case no. CN139687.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
The parties stipulate that the facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s violation of California Vehicle Code, section 23152(b), did not involve moral turpitude, but did involve other conduct warranting discipline. Respondent acknowledges that by the conduct described above, he failed to support the laws of the State of California in wilful violation of California Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was April 8, 2009.
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF PROBATION IN UNDERLYING CRIMINAL MATTER.
Respondent shall comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and shall so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report required to be filed with the Office of Probation.
FACTORS IN MITIGATION
Respondent promptly performed all court-ordered requirements. Additionally, Respondent is attending four to five AA meetings on a weekly basis, attending weekly meetings at "The Other Bar" and volunteering at AA meetings. Respondent has submitted proof of completion of 122 AA meetings in addition to other documents in support of his efforts at rehabilitation and his court-ordered probation requirements.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.3, Title IV, Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, provides that the primary purposes of the disciplinary system 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."
Standard 3.4 states that "[f]inal 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."
The parties further submit that the intent and goals of Standard 1.3 are met in this matter by the imposition of a public reproval with probationary conditions articulated herein, including that Respondent attend Ethics School and take the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 08-C-14029-RAP
In the Matter of: Steven John Roberts, State Bar No.: 128829
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: Steven John Roberts
Date: April 17, 2009
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Bita Shasty
Date: April 20, 2009
Case Number(s): 08-C-14029-RAP
In the Matter of: Steven John Roberts, State Bar No.: 128829
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department 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 125(b), Rules of Procedure.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Platel
Date: April 21, 2009
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles, on April 23, 2009, 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:
STEVEN J. ROBERTS
ROBERTS LAW GROUP
6817 CAMINITO SUENO
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
BITA SHASTY, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on April 23, 2009.
Signed by:
Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator
State Bar Court