Case Number(s): 08-J-13191
In the Matter of: Ronald G. Finch, Bar # 70822, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Melanie J. Lawrence, Bar # 230102
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: January 21, 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 December 22, 1976.
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 10 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.
<<not>> checked. costs 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".
<<not>> checked. costs entirely waived.
IN THE MATTER OF: Ronald Grady Finch
CASE NUMBER(S): 08-J-13191
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY:
The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on October 9, 2008, and the facts and/or conclusions of law contained in this stipulation and waive the issuance of an Amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The parties further waive the right to the filing of an Amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
A. FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct:
Facts:
1. On June 29, 2004, by Order of the Immigration Court, Sendy Gonzalez-Lopez ("Gonzalez-Lopez") was ordered removed in abstentia from the United States.
2. In March 2006, Gonzalez-Lopez hired Respondent to represent her in an attempt to reverse the Order of Removal. On March 13, 2006, Respondent filed a Motion to Reopen Gonzalez-Lopez’s case.
3. An Individual Hearing on the merits of Ms. Gonzalez-Lopez’s Motion to Reopen was scheduled for May 15, 2007.
4. Respondent knew of the scheduled date on which the hearing on the merits of Gonzalez-Lopez’s Motion to Reopen was to be held.
5. Respondent thereafter failed to notify Gonzalez-Lopez of the May 15, 2007, Individual Hearing date to be held in her matter.
6. Respondent and Ms. Gonzalez-Lopez were given until January 24, 2007, to file an Application for Cancellation of Removal to accompany Gonzalez-Lopez’s Motion to Reopen.
7. Respondent failed to notify Gonzalez-Lopez of the deadline to file the Application for Cancellation of Removal.
8. On March 5, 2007, approximately six weeks after the deadline to do so, Respondent filed the Application for Cancellation of Removal on behalf of Gonzalez-Lopez.
9. On March 6, 2007, as a result of Respondent’s late filing of the Application for Cancellation of Removal, the Immigration Judge denied Gonzalez-Lopez’s Motion to Reopen.
10. As a result of Respondent’s late filing of Gonzalez-Lopez’s application, the Immigration Court deemed that Gonzalez-Lopez had abandoned her request for Cancellation of Removal.
11. Respondent was admitted to the State Bar of Arizona on October 11, 1975 and has at all times, been a member of the State Bar of Arizona.
12. On May 5, 2005, Respondent received an Informal Reprimand from the State Bar of Arizona for violating Rule 42, Ariz. R. S. Ct., by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Respondent knew he had been reprimanded but did not report the imposition of discipline in Arizona to the California State Bar in writing or otherwise, within 30 days.
Conclusions of Law:
By failing to notify Gonzalez-Lopez of the date of the Individual Hearing on her Motion to Reopen, failing to notify Gonzalez-Lopez of the deadline to file the Application for Cancellation of Removal and then, filing the Application for Cancellation of Removal approximately six weeks late resulting in denial of the Application and the Immigration Court deeming the request for Cancellation of Removal, abandoned, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By knowing he had been disciplined in Arizona and then failing to report the imposition of discipline to the California State Bar in writing, within 30 days, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6068(o)(6).
B. AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
Where a member has one prior record of discipline, the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding unless the prior discipline imposed was so remote in time to the current proceeding and the offense for which it was imposed was so minimal in severity that imposing greater discipline in the current proceeding would be manifestly unjust. (Std. 1.7(a).)
Culpability of a member of willfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of willfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client. (Std. 2.4(b).)
Culpability of a member for a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068 shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline. (Std. 2.6(a).)
Aggravating Circumstances:
Respondent has one prior record of discipline which was imposed by the Arizona State Bar May 5, 2005. That prior record did not come to the attention of the California State Bar until the instant proceedings were reported to the California State Bar.
Mitigating Circumstances:
Respondent self-reported the misconduct in the Gonzalez-Lopez matter to the Arizona State Bar.
Respondent has attempted to rectify the consequences of his misconduct and continues to represent Gonzalez-Lopez in a pending Motion to Reopen her case before the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Respondent has cooperated with both the Arizona State Bar and the California State Bar in the investigation and resolution of these proceedings.
Case Law:
In Van Sloten v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 921, an attorney with no prior record of discipline was ordered suspended for six months, stayed, and placed on one year of probation for misconduct in one client matter. The attorney represented a client in a marital dissolution case and performed work on the matter for five months. Thereafter he failed to communicate with his client, take action on the matter, or withdraw. His inattention to the matter spanned one year. In aggravation, the attorney lacked appreciation for the disciplinary process and the charges against him.
C. COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of January 6, 2009, the costs in this matter are estimated at $1,636.00. 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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 08-J-13191
In the Matter of: Ronald G. Finch
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: Ronald G. Finch
Date: 1/9/08
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Melanie J. Lawrence
Date: 1/16/09
Case Number(s): 08-J-13191
In the Matter of: Ronald G. Finch
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: Ronald Platel
Date: 01-21-09
[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; 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 January 21, 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:
RONALD GRADY FINCH ESQ
5425 EAST SANDRA TERRACE
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85254
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Melanie J. Lawrence, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 21, 2009.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court