Case Number(s): 08-C-14289; 10-C-01395
In the Matter of: Andrew Benjamin Aames, Bar #117380, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Jean Cha, Deputy Trial Counsel, 1149 S. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015, (213) 765-1000, Bar# 228137
Counsel for Respondent: A. Benjamin Aames, 4540 Paulhan Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90041, Bar # 117380
Submitted to: Settlement Judge, State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: March 29, 2011.
<<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 February 5, 1985.
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 11 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: 2012, 2013, & 2014. (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.
Attachment language (if any):
IN THE MATTER OF: Andrew Benjamin Aames, State Bar No.:117380
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-C-14289 & 10-C-01395
Respondent admits the facts set forth in the stipulation are true and that he is culpable of misconduct warranting discipline.
Case No. 08-C-14289
1. On September 9, 2008, Respondent, at the age of 53, visited a neighbor’s garage sale at their invitation and spent some time speaking to his neighbor’s daughter, then-aged 15 years old, who appeared to him to be age 18. Before parting ways and returning home, Respondent held the 15-year-old girl by the waist and leaned in to kiss her on the cheek, but she managed to step away before Respondent actually made contact with her face.
2. Respondent was charged and convicted with one count of annoying or molesting a child under the age of 18 in violation of Penal Code section 647.6, subdivision (a)(1). A jury found Respondent guilty on the sole count, and a trial court placed Respondent on probation for three years including 120 days in County jail.
3. A violation of Penal Code section 647.6(a) (Annoy/Molest Child Under the Age of 18 Years), a misdemeanor. Case No. 10-C-01395
4. On October 17, 2009, at about 10:30 p.m., Respondent and Mrs. Aames1, his wife and mother of two daughters, were arguing in their home for approximately fifteen minutes. During their argument, Respondent threatened to have Mrs. Aames legally evicted and forcibly removed from their home once their divorce filed by Respondent eight months earlier was finalized. When Respondent and Mrs. Aames had nothing further to say to one another, Mrs. Aames retired to their daughter’s bedroom and spent the night on their daughter’s bedroom floor where their daughter was sleeping. [Footnote 1: The name “Mrs. Aames” is used in lieu of the victim’s real name.]
5. On the following day, Mrs. Aames went to a local hospital complaining that Respondent had assaulted her. Mrs. Aames reported injuries to her neck, shoulder, and wrist. A sexual assault response team exam was conducted. The police were called to the hospital and an incident report was completed.
6. On February 1, 2010, a felony complaint was filed with the Riverside County Superior Court, People v. Andrew Benjamin Aames, case no. RIF10-000372. Respondent was charged with violating probation in case no. RIM519498, violating Penal Code section 262(a)(1), a felony, for spousal rape, and violating Penal Code section 273.5(a), a felony, inflicting corporal injury on a spouse.
7. On August 3, 2010, as part of a plea agreement, Respondent pled guilty to a one-count violation of Penal Code section 236, false imprisonment, a felony. That same day, Respondent was sentenced to 36 months’ probation with conditions to obey all laws, be committed to custody of the Riverside County Sheriff for 240 days with credit for time served for 53 days plus 48 pursuant to Penal Code section 4019 for a total of 100 days, 20 hours of community service and fees, restitution to the victim, and a 52-week domestic violence group counseling program, among other things.
8. Respondent’s misconduct involved acts warranting discipline.
AUTHORITIES.
The purpose of State Bar disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the attorney, but to protect the public, to preserve public confidence in the profession, and to maintain the highest possible professional standards for attorneys. (Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 103, 111; Cooper v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1016, 1025; Std. 1.3.)
The determination of discipline begins "by looking to the purpose of sanctions for attorney misconduct." (In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 205.) The chief purposes of State Bar disciplinary proceedings are to protect the public, courts, and legal profession, to maintain the highest possible professional standards for attorneys, and to preserve public confidence in the legal profession. (Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, title IV, Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, Std. 1.3.) In determining the appropriate level of discipline, the court looks to the standards for guidance, then to case law. (Drociak v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1095, 1090; In the Matter of Koehler (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 615, 628.)
Standard 1.6 provides that the appropriate sanction for the misconduct found must be balanced with any mitigating and aggravating circumstances, with due regard for the purposes of imposing discipline.
Standard 3.2 provides for disbarment where the crime involves moral turpitude or at least two years’ actual suspension if there is compelling mitigation.
In In re Safran (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 134, an attorney in his mid-20’s was convicted of two counts of violating Pen. Code § 647(a) was disciplined with three years’ stayed suspension, three years’ probation and no actual suspension under intensive supervision in a plan of psychiatric care. Safran demonstrated remorse, candor and professionalism regarding the practice of law. Here, the misconduct was more serious because of the 38-year age difference between the victim and Respondent. Therefore, actual suspension is warranted.
In In re Hickey (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 571, an attorney convicted of a violation of Pen. Code § 12025(b) (carrying a concealed weapon), and had failed to give notice of withdrawal from representation of a client matter in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct former rule 2-111, was disciplined with three years’ stayed suspension, three years’ probation, and 30 days’ actual suspension and was the result of alcoholism from which he had recovered and marital difficulties that had been resolved. Respondent’s mitigation is more limited than that in Hickey and his culpability involves two separate criminal convictions.
In examining the totality of the circumstances (In re Larkin (1989) 48 Cal.3d 236) in both criminal matters, fifteen (15) months’ actual suspension is sufficient to protect the public.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was March 3,2011.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of March 3, 2011, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $5,517.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it might not include State Bar Court costs that will be included in any final cost assessment (see Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068.10(c)) or taxable costs (see C.C.P. section 1033.5 (a)), which will be included in any final cost assessment. 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. It is also noted that if Respondent fails to pay any installment of disciplinary costs within the time provided herein or as may be modified by the State Bar Court pursuant to section 6086.10, subdivision(c), the remaining balance of the costs is due and payable immediately unless relief has been granted under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.134). The payment of costs is enforceable both as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment.
ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar of
California Ethics School as part of this stipulation, Respondent will receive
Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of
this course.
Case Number(s): 08-C-14289 & 10-C-01395
In the Matter of: Andrew Benjamin Aames
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: Andrew B. Aames
Date: March 9, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel: in Pro Per
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Jean Cha
Date: March 9, 2011
Case Number(s): Andrew Benjamin Aames
In the Matter of: 08-C-14289 & 10-C-01395
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.
Page 6, Section F. (4) – Place an “X” in the box. The commencement date of interim suspension is November 29, 2010.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 5.58 (E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Platel
Date: March 25, 2011
[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 March 29, 2011, 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:
A BENJAMIN AAMES ESQ
4540 PAULHAN AVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Jean H. Cha, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 29, 2011
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court