Case Number(s): 08-O-10410
In the Matter of: Judith Lasch Hubert, Bar # 93982, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Erin McKeown Joyce, Deputy Trial Counsel
State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street.
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299
(213) 765-1356
Bar # 149946
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Judith Lasch Hubert
879 El Camino Road West
San Bernardino, CA 92405
Bar # 93982
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: November 24, 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 16, 1980.
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):
<<not>> checked. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2012 and 2013. (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: Judith Lasch Hubert, State Bar No. 93982
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-O-10410
PENDING PROCEEDINGS:
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph A.(7), was November 1, 2010.
FACTS
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she is culpable of violations of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A) and Business and Professions Code section 6103 as follows:
1. John Almager Jaimez (the "decedent") died intestate on October 31, 1990. The decedent was never married and had no children.
2. On February 1, 1991, Respondent filed letters of administration on behalf of Susan Castrol the decedent’s niece (the "Jaimez matter").
3. On March 21, 1991, Castro was ordered by the court to establish a blocked account. No blocked account was ever established. Respondent was at the hearing where the order to establish the blocked account issued.
4. Respondent undertook only minimal work on preparation of the final inventory and appraisal in the Jaimez matter over the next fourteen years.
5. On June 27, 2005, Respondent filed a final inventory and appraisal with the court on behalf of Castro in the Jairnez matter. The final inventory was not approved by the court.
6. On February 22, 2007, the court held a conference to determine the status of the Jaimez matter. At that hearing Respondent appeared and requested more time to file the corrected final inventory and appraisal in the Jaimez matter. The court continued the matter to May 3, 2007.
7. At the hearing on May 3, 2007, Respondent appeared, but failed to file the corrected final inventory and appraisal. The court ordered Respondent to file the final Inventory and appraisal no later than July 9, 2007, and continued the status conference to August 9, 2007.
8. Respondent failed to comply with the court’s order to file the final inventory and appraisal by July 9, 2007.
9. At the hearing on August 9, 2007, the court continued the status conference until October 4, 2007, to afford Respondent additional time to file the final inventory and appraisal. Respondent appeared at the hearing.
10. By the time of the hearing on October 4, 2007, Respondent still had not filed the final inventory and appraisal. Respondent appeared at the hearing. The court continued the status conference to November 29, 2007. The court ordered Respondent to give notice to all heirs of the November 29, 2007 status conference.
11. At the hearing on November 29, 2007, several heirs appeared and stated that they did not receive timely notice of the hearing. Respondent was also present at the hearing. The court continued the status conference to allow the heirs who appeared time to retain their own attorneys. The matter was continued to December 11, 2007. At the hearing the court removed Castro as the administrator and appointed the Public Administrator to administer the Jaimez estate.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By failing to complete the administration of the decedent’s estate in the Jaimez matter from February 1991 until November 2007, when Castro was removed as the administrator of the state and a special administrator was appointed, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A).
By failing to comply with the court’s order of May 3, 2007 to file the corrected final inventory and appraisal, Respondent violated an order of the court requiring her to do or forbear an act connected with or in the court of her profession, which she ought in good faith to do or forbear, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
STANDARDS FOR ATTORNEY SANCTIONS
To determine the appropriate level of discipline, the standards provide guidance. Drociak v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1085; In the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119. A disciplinary recommendation must be consistent with the discipline in similar proceedings, See Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302. Moreover, the recommended discipline must rest upon a balanced consideration of relevant factors. In the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119.
Pursuant to Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar of California and of sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgment of a member’s professional misconduct 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. Rehabilitation of a member is a permissible object of a sanction imposed upon the member but only if the imposition of rehabilitative sanctions is consistent with the above-stated primary purposes of sanctions for professional misconduct.
Pursuant to Standard 1.5 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
Reasonable duties or conditions fairly related to the acts of professional misconduct and surrounding circumstances found or acknowledged by the member may be added to a recommendation or suspension or; pursuant to rule 9.19, California Rules of Court, to a reproval. Said duties may include, but are not limited to, any of the following:
1.5(b): a requirement that the member take and pass an examination in professional responsibility;
1.5(d): a requirement that the member undertake educational or rehabilitative work at his or her own expense regarding one or more fields of substantive law or law office management;
1.5(f): any other duty or condition consistent with the purposes of imposing a sanction for professional misconduct as set forth in standard 1.3. "
Pursuant to Standard 2.6 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
Culpability of a member of a violation of any of the following provisions of the Business and Professions Code 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 set forth in standard 1.3:
(b) Sections 6103 through 6105 ....
Pursuant to Standard 2.4(b) of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
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 on the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
The stipulated discipline in this matter of a one year stayed suspension, with a one year probation is appropriate in this matter. In the Matter of Kaplan (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 635. Respondent has acknowledged violating Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A) and Business and Professions Code section 6103 in the Jaimez matter.
The stayed suspension agreed between the parties should adequately address Respondent’s admitted misconduct.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS:’
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of November 1, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,033.00. 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-10410
In the Matter of: Judith Lasch Hubert
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: Judith Lasch Hubert
Date: November 9, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Erin McKeown Joyce
Date: November 15, 2010
Case Number(s): 08-O-10410
In the Matter of: Judith Lasch Hubert
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: Richard A. Honn
Date: November 23, 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 Los Angeles, on November 24, 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 Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
JUDITH LASCH HUBERT ATTORNEY AT LAW
879 EL CAMINO RD W
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Erin M. Joyce, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on November 24, 2010.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court