Case Number(s): 08-O-10097
In the Matter of: John R. Schiro, Bar # 86394, a Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel for the State Bar: Hugh G. Radigan, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015
213-765-1206
Bar #94251
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
John R. Schiro
4804 Laurel Canyon Blvd.
Suite 356
Studio City, California 91607
Bar# 86394
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
<<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 May 31, 1979.
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: Two billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (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: John R. Schiro
CASE NUMBER(S): 08-O-10097
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.
Case No. 08-O-10097 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. On March 16,2007, Respondent entered into a Stipulation regarding Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition with the State Bar of California in case number 05-0-03399 (the "Stipulation").
2. On March 21, 2007, the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court filed an Order approving the Stipulation and recommending the disposition set forth in the Stipulation to the California Supreme Court.
3. On July 13, 2007, the California Supreme Court issued an order (S152571), effective on August 12, 2007, actually suspending Respondent from the practice of law for 30 days.
4. On July 13, 2007, the California Supreme Court properly served a copy of its July 13, 2007 order on Respondent at his State Bar membership records address. Respondent received the California Supreme Court’s July 13, 2007 order.
5. The July 13, 2007 California Supreme Court Order became effective on August 12, 2007. Respondent was actually suspended and not entitled to practice law from August 12, 2007 to September 11, 2007. Respondent stipulated to the discipline in his State Bar matter and was aware of his actual suspension.
6. On July 13, 2007, Respondent, on behalf of his client MaIka Fogel ("Fogel"), filed a Notice to Quit against Stacy Fruhman in MaIka Fogel v. Stacy Ilene Fruhman, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, case no. 07U00530 (the "unlawful detainer action"). Fruhman hired attorney Richard Lubetzky ("Lubetzky") to represent her in the unlawful detainer action.
7. On August 13, 2007, while Respondent was actually suspended from the practice of law, Respondent appeared at a deposition as counsel for Fogel.
On August 14, 2007, while Respondent was actually suspended from the practice of law, Respondent sent a letter to Lubetzky regarding the unlawful detainer action. The heading on the August 14, 2007 letter from Respondent identified Respondent as "John R. Schiro, Esq., Attorney at Law".
On August 17, 2007, while Respondent was actually suspended from the practice of law, Respondent appeared in court as Fogel’s counsel in the unlawful detainer action. The hearing in the unlawful detainer action was continued to August 28, 2007.
10. On August 28, 2007, while Respondent was actually suspended from the practice of law, Respondent appeared in court as Fogel’s counsel at trial in the unlawful detainer action.
11. On August 31, 2007, while Respondent was actually suspended from the practice of law, Respondent sent a letter to Lubetzky concerning the unlawful detainer action .The heading of the August 31, 2007 letter from Respondent identified Respondent as "John R. Schiro, Esq., Attorney at Law."
12. Pursuant to the July 13, 2007 California Supreme Court Order, Respondent was ordered to comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.
13. On September 7, 2007, a Probation Deputy with the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California wrote Respondent outlining the terms and conditions of his actual suspension and probation imposed pursuant to the July 13,2007 Califomia Supreme Court Order.
14. In the September 7, 2007 letter, the Probation Deputy specifically advised Respondent that the California Supreme Court order was effective August 12, 2007 and that pursuant to the Order, Respondent had been placed on actual suspension for period a thirty days. Enclosed with the letter to Respondent was a copy of the September 7, 2007 California Supreme Court Order. The Probation Deputy’s September 7, 2007 letter to Respondent was properly mailed to Respondent at his official State Bar membership records address. Respondent received the September 7, 2007 letter with its enclosures.
15. On October 10, 2007, Respondent signed, under penalty of perjury, his October 10,2007 quarterly report stating that "[during the preceding calendar quarter, I have complied with all provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct." On or about October 17, 2007, Respondent submitted the October 10, 2007 quarterly report to the Office of Probation for filing.
16. At the time that Respondent completed and signed his October 10, 2007 quarterly report, he knew, or was grossly negligent in not knowing, that he had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during the preceding calendar quarter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
17. By holding himself as an attorney entitled to practice law in California when he was not an active member of the State Bar of California and by practicing law when he was not an active member of the State Bar of Califomia, Respondent failed to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a), by advertising and holding himself out as practicing law when he was not an active member of the State Bar in violation of
Business and Professions Code sections 6125 and 6126.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on Page 2, paragraph A(7), was March 23, 2011
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attomey Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provides in pertinent part that, "It]he primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings ...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." The following Standards apply to these matters:
Standard 1.6(a) provides that, "The appropriate sanction for an act of professional misconduct shall be that set forth in the following standards for the particular act of misconduct found or acknowledged. If two or more acts of professional misconduct are found or acknowledged in a single disciplinary proceeding, and different sanctions are prescribed by these standards for said acts, the sanction imposed shall be the more or most severe of the different applicable sanctions."
Standard 1.6(b)(i) provides for a greater degree of discipline than the appropriate sanction where aggravating circumstances are found to surround the complained of misconduct. In the case at bar there exists no mitigation of consequence existent at the operative period of Respondent’s misconduct in the unlawful detainer matter.
Standard 1.7(a) provides that the degree of discipline to be imposed herein shall be greater than that imposed on the member within his prior discipline unless the prior was remote in time and the offense minimal in severity. Respondent’s prior discipline is neither remote in time nor of minimal severity.
Standard 2.3 provides for actual suspension or disbarment for those acts of moral turpitude, fraud, intentional dishonesty towards a court and concealment of material facts to a court, client or other person. Respondent is charged with one count of moral turpitude herein associated with his misrepresentation under oath within a quarterly report to the Probation Department that his conduct was in compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct when it was not.
Standard 2.6 provides for disbarment or suspension depending upon the gravity of the offense or harm where culpability for violation of sections 6068(a) is found.
The Standards should be followed whenever possible. In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 81, 92. Based on the Standards and applicable case law, and in consideration of the facts and circumstances present, the parties submit that the intent and goals of the Standards are met in this matter by the imposition a period of ninety days actual suspension, one year stayed suspension and two years probation.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No. Count Alleged Violation
08-0-10097 Three Business and Professions Code section 6068(d)
08-0-10097 Two Business and Professions Code 6106
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of March 23, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2296.00. 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.
Case Number(s): 08-O-10097
In the Matter of: John R. Schiro
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: John R. Schiro
Date: March 29, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Hugh G. Radigan
Date: March 30, 2011
Case Number(s): 08-O-10097
In the Matter of: John R. Schiro
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(2) Place checkmark in box
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: April 13, 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 April 14, 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:
JOHN RAMSEY SCHIRO
4804 LAUREL CANYON BLVD #356
STUDIO CITY, CA 91607
Checked by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
HUGH RADIGAN, ESQ., Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on April 14, 2011
Signed by:
Rose Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court