Case Number(s): 08-O-10543; 08-O-13112; 08-O-13620; 09-H-18783
In the Matter of: Janet May Oldfield, Bar # 80488, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Eli D. Morgenstern, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles CA 90015
Tel: (213) 765-1334
Bar # 190560
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Janet May Oldfield
1111 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 121
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Tel: (760) 778-1761
Bar # 80488
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: November 30, 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 19, 1994 .
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 14 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: three (3) billing cycles following the effective date of the Superior Court Order. See Page 11 for a full discussion re costs. (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.
Case Number(s): 08-O-10543; 08-O-13112; 08-O-13620; 09-H-18783
In the Matter of: Janet May Oldfield
checked. a. Within 90 days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
<<not>> checked. b. Within days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
<<not>> checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
Other:
IN THE MATTER OF: JANET MAY OLDFIELD, State Bar No. 80488
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: Case Number(s): 08-O-10543; 08-O-13112; 08-O-13620; 09-H-18783
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 Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 08-0-10543
Facts
1. On August 7, 2007, Robert Audell ("Audell") employed Respondent to represent him in a pending marital dissolution matter titled, Robert A. Audell v. Donna M. Audell, Santa Barbara County Superior Court case number 1198450 (the "Audell marital dissolution matter"). On or about August 7, 2007, Audell paid Respondent $4,000 in advanced attorney fees, which Respondent was to bill against at the rate of $245 per hour.
2. On November 2, 2007, the parties signed a marital settlement agreement in the Audell marital dissolution matter. On November 19, 2007, the court in the Audell dissolution matter approved the marital settlement agreement.
3. On November 19, 2007, the judgment in the Audell marital dissolution matter was entered. The marital settlement agreement was attached to it.
4. On December 6, 2007, Respondent mailed Audell conformed copies of the marital settlement agreement, the judgment, and the notice of entry of judgment (collectively, the "final documents") in the Audell marital dissolution matter. Respondent also mailed Audell a Statement of Professional Services (the "statement"). Respondent mailed the final documents and the statement to Audell’s P.O. Box in La Quinta, California. Audell never received the final documents or the statement.
5. On December 8, 2007, Audell’s ex-wife informed him that the judgment had been entered in the Audell marital dissolution matter.
6. On December 14, 2007, Audell mailed Respondent a letter seeking to confirm that the Audell marital dissolution matter was final. In the letter, Audell also requested an accounting and a refund of the unearned portion of the advanced attorney fees that he paid to Respondent, as well as the release of his client file. The letter was received by. Respondent’s office staff. Respondent did not respond to it.
7. On January 14, 2008, Audell mailed Respondent a letter via certified mail requesting a refund of the unearned portion of the advanced attorney fees that he paid to Respondent. The letter was received by Respondent’s office staff. Respondent did not respond to it.
8. In October 2010, in conjunction with these disciplinary proceedings, Respondent mailed Audell a Statement of Professional Services and his file.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to respond to Audell’s status inquiry in his December 14, 2007 letter, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068.
By failing to provide Audell with a subsequent statement to his new address until October 2010, Respondent failed to render a prompt accounting, in willful violation of rule 4-100(B)(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By failing to provide Audell with his client file until October 2010, Respondent failed to release promptly, to the client, the client file, in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 08-0-13112
Facts
1. On May 21, 2002, Constance Cameron, formally Constance Parkins ("Parkins") employed Respondent to represent her in a marital dissolution titled, Robert W. Parkins v. Constance K. Parkins, Riverside County Superior Court case number IND 072661 (the "Parkins marital dissolution matter").
2. On September 10, 2003, the parties filed a stipulated partial judgment in the Parkins marital dissolution matter. Pursuant to the stipulated partial judgment, Parkins was entitled to one-half of her ex-husband’s interest in his monthly retirement benefits from the Public Employees’ Retirement System ("PERS") attributable to her ex-husband’s employment during the period from the date of their marriage to the date of their separation.
3. By January 2004, Parkins’s ex-husband, with his counsel’s consent, had agreed to work directly with Respondent in assisting her with obtaining a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") regarding the division of his PERS benefits with Parkins. The proposed QDRO would require PERS to provide Parkins directly with her interest in her ex-husband’s benefits.
4. On February 20, 2004, the notice of entry of judgment in Parkins marital dissolution matter was filed.
5. By no later than October 2004, Parkins moved to Toledo, Ohio. Between September 15, 2005, and January 9, 2008, Parkins spoke with Respondent on the telephone on the following dates: November 2, 2005, March 13, 2006, August 15, 2006, October 20, 2006, February 21, 2007, May 3, 2007, July 12, 2007, October 3, 2007, and January 9, 2008. Each time Respondent stated to Parkins that she was working on the QDRO.
6. At no time did Respondent prepare and file the QDRO regarding the division of the PERS benefits on behalf of Parkins in the Parkins marital dissolution.
7. On September 17, 2008, a notice of withdrawal of attorney of record was filed with the court in the Parkins marital dissolution matter removing Respondent as counsel of record on behalf of Parkins.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to prepare and file the QDRO regarding the division of the PERS benefits on behalf of Parkins in the Parkins marital dissolution, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in wilful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 08-0-13620
Facts
1. On March 20, 2007, Richard Prather ("Prather") employed Respondent to transfer title to a condominium located on Indian land in Palm Springs into his wife’s irrevocable trust. On March 20, 2007, Prather paid Respondent $675 in advanced attorney fees.
2. On March 21, 2008, Prather signed two of the three documents needed to complete the transfer of title of the condominium.
3. At no time did Respondent record the appropriate transfer documents on behalf of Prather.
4. On June 10, 2008, June 20, 2008, and July 1, 2008, attorney Peter Fels ("Fels"), on behalf of Prather, telephoned Respondent and left messages with her receptionist inquiring about the status of Respondent’s work to transfer the condominium to Prather’s wife’s irrevocable trust (the " trust matter"). Respondent did not respond to the messages.
5. On July 1, 2008, Fels mailed a letter to Respondent on behalf of Prather inquiring about the status of the trust matter. The letter was received by Respondent’s office staff. Respondent did not respond to it.
6. On July 21, 2008, Fels mailed a letter to Respondent on behalf of Prather inquiring about the status of the trust matter. The letter was received by Respondent’s office staff. Respondent did not respond to the letter.
7. On July 30, 2008, Fels mailed a letter to Respondent via certified mail terminating her employment by Prather on Prather’s behalf and requesting that she return Prather’s client file either to Prather or to him. The letter was received by Respondent’s office staff. Respondent did not respond to it or otherwise provide Prather or Fels with Prather’s client file.
8. On September 29, 2010, in conjunction with these disciplinary proceedings, Respondent mailed a refund to Fels on behalf of Prather in the sum of $700, which represented the advanced fee plus additional expenses incurred by Prather. On September 29, 2010, Respondent also returned Prather’s file to Fels.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to record the appropriate transfer documents on behalf of Prather, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in wilful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By failing to respond to Fels’s telephone messages and letters on behalf of Prather, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
By failing to provide Fels with Prather’s client file until September 2010, Respondent failed to release promptly, to the client, the client file, in wilful violation of rule 3-700(D)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 09-H-18783
Facts
1. On March 17, 2008, Respondent entered into a Stipulation Re: Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition and Order Approving Private Reproval ("Reproval") with the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California (the "State Bar") in case number 06-0-14944.
2. On April 9, 2008, the State Bar Court filed an Order approving the Reproval and imposing a private reproval on Respondent. On April 9, 2008, the State Bar Court properly served the Order approving the Reproval on Respondent. Respondent received the Order approving the Reproval.
3. On May 9, 2008, the Reproval became effective. Pursuant to the Order approving the Reproval, Respondent was required to comply with certain conditions of the Reproval for a period of one year.
4. As a condition of the Reproval, Respondent was required to submit written quarterly reports to the State Bar’s Office of Probation on July 10, 2008, October 10, 2008, January 10, 2009, April 10, 2009, and a final report due on April 30, 2009.
5. Respondent did not submit the quarterly reports due on January 10, 2009, April 10, 2009, and the final report due on April 30, 2009.
6. On October 1, 2010, in conjunction with these disciplinary proceedings, Respondent submitted to the Office of Probation the quarterly reports due on January 10, 2009, April 10, 2009, and the final report due on April 30, 2009. With the filing of these reports, Respondent satisfied all of the conditions attached to the Reproval
Conclusions of Law
By failing to file timely the quarterly reports due on January 10, 2009, April 10, 2009, and April 30, 2009, Respondent failed to comply with conditions attached to a reproval, in wilful violation of Rule 1-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page 1, paragraph A(7), was October 22, 2010.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of October 22, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are $3,945. The costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following three billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court Order.
If Respondent fails to pay any installment 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 and enforceable both as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment unless relief has been granted under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 286.)
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.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
I. Prior Discipline
Respondent has been discipline on one prior occasion. A prior record of discipline is an aggravating circumstance. (Std. 1.2(b)(i).)
On April 9, 2008, Respondent was privately reproved in Case No. 06-0-14944. The reproval became effective on May 9, 2008.
The discipline resulted from Respondent’s stipulation in State Bar Court to having failed to adequately respond to a client’s status inquiry in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m). The misconduct occurred in 2006.
2. Multiple Acts of Misconduct
Respondent committed misconduct in three different client matters. Respondent also failed to comply with the conditions attached to a reproval. Respondent’s multiple acts of misconduct are an aggravating circumstance. (Std. 1.2(b)(ii).)
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
1. Candor and Cooperation
Respondent is entitled to mitigation for entering into this stipulation. (Std. 1.2(e)(v).)
OTHER FACTORS IN CONSIDERATION.
Although Respondent accepts full responsibility for the misconduct committed in the instant matters, Respondent has represented to the State Bar that Respondent’s failure to adequately communicate with the complainants herein was partially attributable to inadequate office staff. Respondent has further represented to the State Bar that she has addressed this issue, and now employs competent support staff.
Respondent seeks to acknowledge the importance of proper law office management by accepting the Law Office Management Condition attached to this stipulation.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
1. Standards
Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct ("Standards") "The 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."
Standard 1.7(a) provides that if discipline has been imposed on a member on one prior occasion, 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.
The parties submit that there is no justification for departure from Standard 1.7(a) in the instant proceeding.
Standards 2.2(b), 2.4(b), 2.6(a), and 2.9 apply to this proceeding.
Standard 2.2(b) provides that a violation of rule 4-100(B)(3) shall result in a three month actual suspension.
Standard 2.4(b) provides, in pertinent part, that: "Culpability of a member of willfully failing to perform services in an individual matter.., shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client."
Standard 2.6(a) provides, in pertinent part, that culpability of a member of a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m) shall result in disbarment or suspension depending upon the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim.
2. Case Law
Under case law, a failure to render appropriate accountings for client funds has resulted in discipline in the range of stayed suspension to 60-days actual suspension. (See, In the Matter of Fonte (Review Dept. 1994) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 751 [60-day actual suspension for failure to account for fees and conflicts in two client matters where attorney had 25 years with no discipline]; In the Matter of Cacioppo (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 128 [six-month stayed suspension for failure to render a proper accounting of settlement funds and failing to communicate, where attorney had prior public reproval]; and In the Matter of Lazarus (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 387 [two month stayed suspension for failure to notify client of receipt of settlement funds and failure to render an accounting of settlement funds].)
In In the Matter of Posthurna (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 813, 818 the attorney had been privately reproved in an earlier criminal conviction referral proceeding following his conviction of misdemeanor sexual battery. As a condition of his reproval, the attorney was required to take and pass the CPRE. (Id. at p. 816.) The attorney failed to comply with this condition before the expiration of the extended deadline. (Id. at p. 817.) The Review Department found that there were no mitigating circumstances and one aggravating circumstance: the attorney’s prior record of discipline. (Id. at pp. 820-821.)
The Review Department held that the appropriate level of discipline was a public reproval. (Id. at p. 822.) The Review Department did not apply Standard 2.9, because the Court determined that suspension would have been excessive in light of the attorney’s participation in the proceeding, and acknowledgment, albeit begrudgingly, of his obligation to comply with State Bar Court orders. (Id.)
Considering the facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s misconduct, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances that are present, the parties submit that the intent and goals of the’ Standards are met in these matters by the imposition of a two year stayed suspension, and two years probation.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, she may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
Case Number(s): 08-O-10543; 08-O-13112; 08-O-13620; 09-H-18783
In the Matter of: Janet May Oldfield
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: Janet May Oldfield
Date: November 10, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Eli D. Morgenstern, DTC.
Date: November 15, 2010
Case Number(s): 08-O-10543; 08-O-13112; 08-O-13620; 09-H-18783
In the Matter of: Janet May Oldfield
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 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 30, 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 30, 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:
JANET MAY OLDFIELD
1111 E TAHQUITZ CYN WAY
STE 121
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number . No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Eli D. Morgenstern, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on November 30, 2010.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court