State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

ACTUAL SUSPENSION

Case Number(s): 08-O-10238; 08-O-10249; 08-O-10783; 08-O-11443; 08-O-13996  

In the Matter of: Corecia J. Woo, Bar # 214544, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Robert A. Henderson, Bar # 173205, Deputy Trial Counsel, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, 415-538-2385

Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent, Corecia J. Woo, P.O. Box 4574, Auburn, CA 95604, (916) 295-4372, Bar# 214544

Submitted to: Settlement Judge, STATE BAR COURT CLERK’S OFFICE SAN FRANCISCO.

Filed:  August 24, 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.

A.  Parties' Acknowledgments:

1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted September 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 13 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. 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.

<<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 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.

B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.

checked. (1) Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]

checked. (a)                  State Bar Court case # of prior case 06-O-12824

checked. (b)                  Date prior discipline effective November 20, 2007

checked. (c)                  Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: rule 3-700(D)(2): section 6106.

checked. (d)                  Degree of prior discipline one-year stayed, two-years probation on condition of 90-days actual suspension from the practice of law.

<<not>> checked. (e)    If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below.

<<not>> checked. (2) Dishonesty:  Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct.

<<not>> checked. (3) Trust Violation:  Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property.

<<not>> checked. (4) Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

<<not>> checked. (5) Indifference:  Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his or her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (6) Lack of Cooperation:  Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings. 

<<not>> checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:  Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (8) No aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances:

C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigating circumstances are required.

<<not>> checked. (1)    No Prior Discipline:  Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.

<<not>> checked. (2)    No Harm:  Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the misconduct.

checked. (3)                    Candor/Cooperation:  Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims of his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings. Respondent cooperated with the State Bar in the investigation and preparation of this stipulation

checked. (4)                    Remorse:  Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct. Respondent attempted to resign from the State Bar, in recognition of her misconduct. The resignation was rejected by the Supreme Court.

<<not>> checked. (5)    Restitution:  Respondent paid $ on  in restitution to without the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.

<<not>> checked. (6)    Delay:  These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed.  The delay is not attributable to Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

<<not>> checked. (7)    Good Faith:  Respondent acted in good faith.

<<not>> checked. (8)    Emotional/Physical Difficulties:  At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct.  The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.

<<not>> checked. (9)    Severe Financial Stress:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and which were directly responsible for the misconduct.

checked. (10) Family Problems:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature. There were illnesses in respondent’s family at the time of the misconduct. The illnesses were grave and contributed to her lack of attention to her practice.

<<not>> checked. (11) Good Character:  Respondent's good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (12) Rehabilitation:  Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.

<<not>> checked. (13) No mitigating circumstances are involved.

Additional mitigating circumstances:

D. Discipline:

checked. (1)           Stayed Suspension:

checked. (a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five-years. Respondent will receive credit for the time spent on "not-entitled" status after tendering her Resignation with Charges Pending on October 16, 2008.

checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii) Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

<<not>> checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.

<<not>> checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following:

checked. (b) The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

checked. (2) Probation:  Respondent must be placed on probation for a period of five-years, which will commence upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter.  (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court.)

checked. (3) Actual Suspension:

checked. (a) Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period of five-years. Respondent will receive credit for the time spent on "not-entitled" status after tendering her Resignation with Charges Pending on October 16, 2008.

checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct

<<not>> checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.

<<not>> checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following:

E. Additional Conditions of Probation:

checked. (1)                  If Respondent is actually suspended for two years or more, he/she must remain actually suspended until he/she proves to the State Bar Court his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the general law, pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

checked. (2)                  During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.

checked. (3)                  Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

checked. (4)                  Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with Respondent's assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.

checked. (5)                  Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.
In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.

<<not>> checked. (6)   Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance. During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested, in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must cooperate fully with the probation monitor.

checked. (7)                  Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has complied with the probation conditions.

checked. (8)                  Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.

<<not>> checked No Ethics School recommended.  Reason:

<<not>> checked. (9)   Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office of Probation.

<<not>> checked. (10) The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:

<<not>> checked. Substance Abuse Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Law Office Management Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Medical Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Financial Conditions.

F.  Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

checked. (1)                 Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination:  Respondent must provide proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation during the period of actual suspension or within one year, whichever period is longer.  Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) & (E), Rules of Procedure.

<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended.  Reason:

checked. (2)                  Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (3)   Conditional Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90 days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 120 and 130 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (4)   Credit for Interim Suspension [conviction referral cases only]:  Respondent will be credited for the period of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual suspension. Date of commencement of interim suspension:

checked. (5)                  Other Conditions: It is the intention of the parties that Respondent receive credit to the term of actual suspension from the date she tendered her Resignation with Charges Pending on October, 2008.

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: Corecia J. Woo, State Bar No. 214544

STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-O-10238; 08-O-10249; 08-O-10783; 08-O-11443; 08-O-13996

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.

Case No. 08-O-10238 (Complainant: Arthur Pillado)

FACTS:

1. On May 21, 2007, Arthur Pillado ("Pillado") hired respondent to represent him in a family law matter, Pillado v. Pillado, Sacramento Superior Court case no. 07FL02994. Pillado paid respondent $3,820 in advanced fees and costs.

2. In July 2007, respondent provided Pillado with the opposing party’s interrogatories. Pillado timely provided respondent with the requested information. Respondent failed to respond to the opposing party’s interrogatories.

3. On November 1, 2007, respondent wrote Pillado informing him that she would no longer be representing him and including a refund of $1,000.

4. On November 13, 2007, Pillado wrote a letter to respondent, which was received by respondent, demanding an accounting of the advanced fees and costs and his client file.

5. On November 20, 2007, respondent was suspended from the practice of law by the Supreme Court.

6. On November 30, 2007, Pillado wrote a letter to respondent, which respondent received, renewing his request for an accounting and his file. Subsequently Pillado spoke with respondent regarding his demand for an accounting and the file. Pillado confirmed the conversation by letter dated December 14, 2007.

7. On December 22, 2007, Pillado received his file.

8. On January 10, 2008, Pillado received from respondent an accounting and further refund of advanced fees and costs.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

9. By failing to return the file to Pillado until December 22, 2007 and by failing to refund unearned fees and costs until January 10, 2008, respondent willfully improperly withdrew from employment with a client in violation of California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(A).

10. By failing to provide an accounting to Pillado from November 13, 2007 through January 9, 2008, respondent willfully failed to promptly render appropriate accounts to a client for funds of the client in violation of California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3).

Case No. 08-O-10249 (Complainant: Elaine Carter)

FACTS:

11. On January 3, 2004, Elaine Carter ("Carter") was involved in an auto accident.

12. On January 8, 2005, Carter hired respondent to represent her in a plaintiff’s personal injury case stemming from the January 3, 2004 accident. Carter had earlier provided to respondent information received from the defendant’s insurer, State Farm, and its claim representatives.

13. On January 14, 2005, State Farm wrote Carter to inform her that as she had been unreachable they would place her claim on inactive status. Carter promptly provided the letter to respondent.

14. On May 31, 2005, Carter faxed respondent regarding her inability to communicate with respondent.

15. On August 3, 2005, Carter’s chiropractor who had treated her subsequent to the January 3, 2004, accident sent his medical report and bill to respondent. Respondent received the information.

16. On December 13, 2005, respondent informed Carter that respondent had all the documentation from the chiropractor, the adjuster and the insurance company.

17. On December 30, 2005, respondent filed Elaine Carter vs. Sia Vue, Sacramento County Superior Court case no. 05AM10891. Thereafter respondent never made contact with a State Farm representative regarding the claim. On November 21, 2006, a Case Management Conference ("CMC") and Order to Appear in Carter’s case was set for February 1, 2007. The court mailed this to respondent. Respondent did not file a CMC statement, nor did she appear. Shortly thereafter the court set an Order to Show Cause re: Failure to Appear, for March 29, 2007. The court mailed this to respondent. On March 29, 2007, respondent failed to appear. The court dismissed Carter’s case. The court mailed its Order dismissing the matter to respondent. Respondent received all of the communications from the court regarding the CMC, the OSC and the dismissal shortly after they were sent.

18. In October 2007, Carter attempted to communicate with respondent by telephoning respondent’s office. Carter did not receive a return telephone call from respondent. In November 2007, Carter was told by someone in respondent’s office that respondent was closing her practice. Shortly thereafter respondent’s office telephone was disconnected.

19. At no time did respondent inform Carter that her case had been dismissed due to her failure to appear at the March 29, 2007 OSC.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

20. By failing to communicate with State Farm, by failing to appear at the CMC, by failing to appear at the OSC and by allowing the court to dismiss case no. 05AM10891 for failure to appear at the March 29, 2007 OSC, respondent intentionally, recklessly and repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).

21. By failing to inform Carter of the dismissal of case no. 05AM10891, respondent willfully failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which she had agreed to provide legal services in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).

Case No. 08-O-10783 (Complainant: Martine)

FACTS:

22. On April 3, 2007, Jacqueline Martine ("Martine") hired respondent to represent Martine in a family law matter. Martine’s father paid respondent $2,500 in advanced fees for the representation. On September 13, 2007, respondent filed a Notice of Motion for Modification of Child Custody, Child Support, Visitation, Spousal Support, Attorney Fees and Costs in Martine v. Martine S-DR-0029792. The hearing on the Motion was set for October 30, 2007.

23. On October 30, 2007, the matter was called. Opposing counsel and party did not appear. The matter was continued to December 4, 2007. After the hearing respondent told Martine that she would no longer be able to represent her in the matter.

24. On or about November 16, 2007, successor counsel for Martine wrote a letter to respondent. Successor counsel asked respondent to sign a Substitution of Attorney, asked for a complete billing for services and accounting of the advanced fees and asked for the client file. Respondent received the letter shortly after it was mailed. Respondent never signed the Substitution of Attorney form, never provided the billing, never provided the accounting and never provided the file.

25. On March 20, 2008, Martine wrote to respondent asking for an accounting for the $2,500 in advanced fees and refund of unearned fees. Shortly thereafter respondent received this letter. After receipt respondent still did not provide the requested accounting or refund.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

26. By failing to provide Martine’s file to successor counsel, by failing to sign the Substitution of Attorney form, and by failing to refund unearned fees, respondent improperly withdrew from employment with a client in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(A).

27. By failing to provide an accounting to Martine upon request from November 16, 2007, through at least March 20, 2008, respondent failed to promptly render appropriate accounts to a client for funds of the client coming into respondent’s possession in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3).

Case No. 08-O-11443 (Complainant: Brown)

FACTS:

28. On December 6, 2006, Damon Brown ("Brown") hired respondent to represent him in a personal injury matter. Shortly thereafter respondent received from Brown the signed retainer agreement, Attorney Designation form and Authorization to Release Medical Records and Billing.

29. Between December 6, 2006, and June 5, 2007, respondent failed to respond to several messages left by Brown regarding the matter.

30. On June 5, 2007, respondent e-mailed Brown. In her e-mail she stated: "We are good to go on your case. I will need to grab your file and give you a more detailed assessment, but I wanted to respond to you quickly."

31. On June 26, 2007, Brown e-mailed respondent requesting a status update on the matter. On that same day respondent replied: "No news is good. I have not heard anything yet, but will notify you promptly when I do."

32. On July 23, August 20, August 28, September 4, September 11, September 18, October 22, 2007, Brown e-mailed respondent requesting a status update on his matter. Shortly thereafter respondent received these e-mails, but did not reply at any time.

33. On November 20, 2007, respondent was suspended from the practice of law. Respondent never informed Brown of the suspension.

34. On March 19, 2008, Brown filed a complaint against respondent with the State Bar of California.

35. Respondent took no action whatsoever on behalf of Brown.

36. Respondent never advised Brown that she had failed to take action on his claim.

37. Respondent never advised Brown that the Statute of Limitations had run on Brown’s claim.

38. By failing to take any action whatsoever on behalf of Brown from December 6, 2006 through at least March 18, 2008, respondent constructively terminated her employment with Brown. Respondent did not inform Brown of her intent to withdraw from representation or take any other steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to Brown.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

39. By failing to take any action on behalf of Brown from December 6, 2006, through March 19, 2008, respondent intentionally, recklessly, and repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).

40. By failing to inform Brown that she had taken no action, that the Statute of Limitations had run, that she had been suspended from the practice of law, and by failing to respond to Brown’s various requests for a status update, respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services and failed to respond to reasonable status inquiries in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).

41. By failing to give Brown notice of her termination of employment with Brown, respondent improperly withdrew from employment with a client in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(A).

Case No. 08-O-13996 (Complainant: Lac)

FACTS:

42. In February 2006, Nelson Lac hired respondent to represent him and his construction company Universe Construction Inc. in a dispute involving a building contract,

43. On May 16, 2006, Puran Chand and Sofie T. Meza ("Chand") filed suit against Universe Construction, Nelson T. Lac ("Lac") in case no. 06AS02027.

44. On August 29, 2006, respondent filed Lac’s response in case no. 06AS02027.

45. On September 13, 2006, counsel for Chand served respondent with Plaintiff s Request for Admissions ("RFA"). Shortly thereafter respondent received the RFA.

46. On September 19, 2006, a Case Management Conference ("CMC") was set by the court for November 30, 2006. Shortly thereafter respondent received notice of the CMC. On November 30, 2006, respondent was sanctioned $150 for failing to file a CMC statement in case no. 06AS02027.

47. On March 26, 2007, counsel for Chand filed his Motion for Order that Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions be Deemed Admissions. The hearing on the Motion was set for May 2, 2007. On May 2, 2007, the court adopted the tentative ruling the RFAs were deemed admissions. Respondent never filed a response to the March 26, 2007 Motion, nor did she appear on May 2, 2007. On May 2, 2007, the court sanctioned respondent $290. Shortly thereafter respondent received notice of the ruling and sanction.

48. On November 2, 2007, respondent filed with the court her Notice of Suspension. On November 19, 2007, respondent substituted out of case no. 06AS02027. 49. On March 28, 2008, respondent was ordered to appear on June 19, 2008, regarding her failure to pay the November 30, 2006 sanction in the amount of $150.

50. Respondent never informed Lac that she had been suspended from the practice of law.

51, Respondent never informed Lac that she had received RFAs.

52. Respondent never informed Lac that she had failed to respond to the RFAs.

53. Respondent never informed Lac that Chand’s Motion to Deem the RFAs Admitted had been granted.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

54. By failing to attend the CMC, by failing to respond to the Requests for Admission and by failing to respond to the Motion to Deem the RFAs Admissions, respondent intentionally, recklessly, and repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).

55. By failing to inform Lac of her suspension, by failing to inform Lac of the RFAs; by failing to inform Lac that she had failed to respond to the RFAs and the Motion to Deem the RFAs admitted, respondent failed to inform a client of significant developments relating to the employment in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).

56. By failing to pay the sanctions ordered by the court on November 30, 2006 and May 2, 2007, respondent failed to obey a court order in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was July 26, 2011

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

Standard 2.4(a) - Culpability of a member of a pattern of willfully failing to perform services demonstrating the member’s abandonment of the causes in which he or she was retained shall result in disbarment.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of July 26, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $6,365. 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-O-10238; 08-O-10249; 08-O-10783; 08-O-11443; 08-O-13996

In the Matter of: Corecia J. Woo, Bar # 214544

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: Corecia J. Woo, & Robert A. Henderson

Respondent: Corecia J. Woo

Date: 08/11/2011

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Robert A. Henderson

Date: 08/15/2011

ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER

Case Number(s): 08-O-10238; 08-O-10249; 08-O-10783; 08-O-11443; 08-O-13996

In the Matter of: Corecia J. Woo

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.

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 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: Lucy Armendariz

Judge of the State Bar Court: Lucy Armendariz

Date: August 24, 2011

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[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 24, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:

CORECIA J. WOO

LAW OFFICES OF CORECIA J. WOO

PO BOX 4574

AUBURN, CA 95604

checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:

ROBERT A. HENDERSON, Enforcement, San Francisco

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on August 24, 2011.

Signed by: Bernadette C.O. Molina

Case Administrator: Bernadette C.O. Molina

State Bar Court