Case Number(s): 08-C-14103, 10-C-1341
In the Matter of: Susan L. Hornsby, Bar # 216920, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Erica L.M. Dennings, Bar # 145755
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: Assigned Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
Filed: August 05, 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.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 4, 2001.
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 12 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 added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<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 284, Rules of Procedure.)
<<not>> checked. costs waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
checked. costs 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.
see attachment
IN THE MATTER OF: Susan L. Hornsby, State Bar No. 216920
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-C-14103, 10-C-1341
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Case no. 08-C-14103
Procedural Background: This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 951 of the California Rules of Court. On October 20, 2008, respondent pied nolo contendere to a misdemeanor violation of one count of Vehicle Code .section 23152(b), driving while having a .08% or higher blood alcohol, with an admitted allegation re: Vehicle Code section 23578, driving while having a. 15% or higher blood alcohol. On March 12, 2010, the Review Department of the State Bar issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department for a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the facts and circumstances surrounding the conviction involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
Facts: On July 23, 2008, at approximately 4:51 p.m., respondent was driving on a street near downtown Redding, California, in an unsafe manner, including making sudden stops that caused drivers behind her to slam on their brakes, straddling between two lanes, crossing the double yellow line into oncoming traffic, and failing to stop at a stop sign. Respondent had consumed one alcoholic beverage at approximately 9 a.m. that morning. Respondent was stopped in her car by the Redding Police Department. After submitting to several field sobriety tests, which she failed, respondent was arrested for driving under the influence. Respondent’s blood alcohol level was. 19% one hour after her arrest.
On September 8, 2008, respondent was charged by complaint with misdemeanor violations of Vehicle Code section 23152(A), driving while intoxicated, and Vehicle Code section 23152(B), driving while having a .08% or higher blood alcohol with the special allegation of Vehicle Code section 23578, driving while having a. 15% or higher blood alcohol. On October 20, 2008, respondent pled nolo contendere to a misdemeanor violation of one count of Vehicle Code section 23152(B). Respondent was placed on conditional, revocable community release for a period of 36 months, ordered to serve twelve days in jail, report to a sheriff’s work release facility, to complete a 9 month alcohol treatment program, and to pay a fine. Respondent was also ordered not to possess, consume or use alcohol, not to drive with any measurable amount of alcohol in her system, not to enter places where alcohol is primarily sold, and to submit to chemical testing at the request of any Peace Officer for the use of alcohol. Respondent was required to have an ignition interlock device in her car.
Conclusions of Law: The facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s violation of California Vehicle Code section 23152(b) does not involve moral turpitude, but does involve other conduct warranting discipline. Respondent acknowledges that by the conduct described herein, she willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
Case no. 10-C-1341
On January 20, 2010, respondent pled nolo contendere to misdemeanor violations of Vehicle Code sections 23152(b), driving while having a .08% or higher blood alcohol, 14601.2(A), driving when privilege suspended-prior DUI conviction, and 23247(E), operating a vehicle without a functioning interlock device. On April 23, 2010, the Review Department of the State Bar issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department for a heating and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the facts and circumstances surrounding the conviction involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
Facts: On November 8, 2009, approximately 2:00 p.m., respondent was driving eastbound on Whitmore Road. She allowed the car to drift out of the eastbound lane and down the hill on the edge of the road. Respondent ran into some buses before the car stopped. After the police officer came to the scene, he administered field sobriety tests. Respondent admitted to having consumed some beer prior to the accident. At one point, respondent squatted down on the ground, lost her balance, and fell forward, striking her face on the ground, causing a minor cut to her lip. After administering some field sobriety tests, the police officer arrested respondent for driving under the influence.
Respondent submitted to a blood test at 3:41 p.m. Respondent’s blood alcohol level was 19%. The registration sticker on respondent’s car was altered to look like a 2010 sticker, when, in fact the last year of registration was 2006 with no fees on file.
On December 14, 2009, respondent was charged by complaint with misdemeanor violations of Vehicle Code sections 23152(A), driving while intoxicated, 23152(B), driving while having a .08% or higher blood alcohol, 14601.2(A), driving when privilege suspended-prior DUI conviction, 23247(E), operating a vehicle without a functioning interlock device, and 23154(A), DUI Probationer driving with a blood alcohol .01% or more, and 4462(B), present evidence of registration of wrong vehicle, with the special allegation of Vehicle Code section 23540, prior DUI conviction. On January 29, 2010, respondent pled nolo contendere to misdemeanor violations of Vehicle Code sections 23152(b), driving while having a .08% or higher blood alcohol, 14601.2(A), driving when privilege suspended-prior DUI conviction, and 23247(E), operating a vehicle without a functioning ignition interlock device. Respondent was placed on sixty months formal probation, ordered to serve 20 days in jail, ordered to complete an 18 month alcohol treatment program and to pay fines. Respondent was also ordered not to possess, consume or use alcohol, not to drive with any measurable amount of alcohol in her system, not to enter places where alcohol is primarily sold, and to submit to chemical testing at the request of any Peace Officer for the use of alcohol. Respondent was required to have an interlock device in her car for a period of three years. Respondent was ordered not to operate a vehicle without an interlock device.
Conclusions of Law: The facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s violation of California Vehicle Code section 23152(b), 14601.2(A), and 23247(E), do not involve moral turpitude, but do involve other conduct warranting discipline. Respondent acknowledges that by the conduct described herein, she willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A. (6) was July 8, 2010.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Multiple instances/pattern of misconduct
Respondent’s two convictions constitute multiple instances of misconduct.
Additional Aggravating Circumstances
High blood alcohol level
Respondent had a blood alcohol level of. 19% each time she drove under the influence.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct 1.2(e)(i), 1.2(v), 2.6(a), 3.4; In re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal.3d 487; and see generally In Re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81.
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF PROBATION IN UNDERLYING CRIMINAL MATTERS.
Respondent shall comply with all conditions of her probation that were imposed in the underlying criminal matters, and shall so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report required to be filed with the State Bar Office of Probation.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation; therefore, she may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit toward her required number of MCLE credits.
ELECTION NOT TO REQUEST STATE BAR COURT’S ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE PROGRAM.
By signing this stipulation, Respondent acknowledges that she was provided information about the State Bar Court’s Alternative Discipline Program, that she was offered the opportunity to request referral to and participation in that program, and that she has elected not to do so.
Case Number(s): 08-C-14103, 10-C-1341
In the Matter of: SUSAN L. HORNSBY (#216920)
checked. a. Respondent must abstain from use of any alcoholic beverages, and shall not use or possess any narcotics, dangerous or restricted drugs, controlled substances, marijuana, or associated paraphernalia, except with a valid prescription.
<<not>> checked. b. Respondent must attend at least 8 meetings per month of:
<<not>> checked. Alcoholics Anonymous
<<not>> checked. Narcotics Anonymous
<<not>> checked. The Other Bar
checked. Other program Attendance At Abstinence Based Self-Help Group
Respondent shall attend at least eight (8) meetings per month of an abstinence based sell-help group of her own choosing, including, inter alia, Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Life Ring, S.M.A.R.T., S.O.S. Other self-help maintenance programs are acceptable if they include: (i) a subculture to support recovery (meetings); and (ii) a process of personal development that does not have financial barriers. (See O’Conner v. Calif. (C.D. Calif. 1994) 855 F. Supp. 303 [No first amendment violation where probationer given choice between AA and secular program].) The program called "Moderation Management" is not acceptable because it allows participant to continue to consume alcohol.
Before respondent attends the first sell help group meeting, she shall contact the Office of Probation and obtain approval for the program that he has selected. Thereafter, on a quarterly basis with her quarterly and final written reports, respondent shall provide documentary proof of attendance at the meetings of the approved program to the Office of Probation, in a form acceptable to the Office of Probation.
As a separate reporting requirement, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance during each month, on or before the tenth (10th) day of the following month, during the condition or probation period.
checked. c. Respondent must select a license 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.
checked. d. 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. For good cause, 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.
checked. e. Upon the request of the Office of Probation, Respondent must provide the Office of Probation with medical waivers and access to all of Respondent’s medical records. Revocation of any medical waiver is a violation of this condition. Any medical records obtained by the Office of Probation are confidential and no information concerning them or their contents will be given to anyone except members of the Office of Probation, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, and the State Bar Court who are directly involved with maintaining, enforcing or adjudicating this condition.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 08-C-14103, 10-C-1341
In the Matter of: Susan L. Hornsby (#216920)
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: Susan L. Hornsby
Date: 7-17-10
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Erica L.M. Dennings
Date: 3 August 2010
Case Number(s): 08-c-14103, 10-C-1341
In the Matter of: Susan L. Hornsby (#216920)
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.
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: Lucy Armendariz
Date: August 4, 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 August 5, 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 LUCILLE HORNSBY
1707 SHELTER COVE DR
GREENWOOD, CA 95635
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ERICA DENNINGS, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on August 5, 2010.
Signed by:
Laine Silber
Case Administrator
State Bar Court
.