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-10688 & 10-O-04883

In the Matter of: Paul Nathan Taylor Bar # 199022 a Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel for the State Bar: Jean Cha Deputy Trial Counsel

1149 S. Hill Street

Los Angeles, CA 90015

(213) 765-1000

Bar # 228137

Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent

Paul Nathan Taylor

9595 Wilshire Blvd, 9th Fl

Beverly Hills, CA 90212

(310) 274-8523

Bar # 199022

Submitted to: Settlement Judge

Filed: April 5, 2011, State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles

<<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

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  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: 2012, 2013 and 2014.  (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.

<<not>> checked. (1) Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]

<<not>> checked. (a)          State Bar Court case # of prior case

<<not>> checked. (b)          Date prior discipline effective

<<not>> checked. (c)           Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act   violations:

<<not>> checked. (d)          Degree of prior discipline  

<<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.

checked. (4) Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice. Respondent’s misconduct deprived Subosinghe of his settlement funds.

<<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 has agreed to discipline without requiring a hearing. (Std. ].2(e)(v); Silva-Vidor v. State Bar (] 989) 49 Cal.3d 1071, 1079; Pineda v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 753, 760.)

not>> 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. 

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. On February 17, 2009, Respondent slipped and fell on the stairs of his home while carrying his newborn son and in order to protect his son fell flat on his back on the steps injuring his spine and ribs and was treated for a severe tear of cartilage between his and spine. Due to this injury and accompanying pain, Respondent did not appear at the February 20, 2009 arraignment in the Ramos matter. Respondent acknowledges that he should have informed the court of his injury and regrets the harm that was caused to Ramos. In February 2010, Respondent was diagnosed with a mitral valve prolapsed (left chamber of the heart does not close properly) and atria fibrillation (which can cause stroke) and was checked into his hospital

        Actual Suspension

        intensive care unit. After receiving treatment, Respondent’s medical conditions related to his heart are under surveillance and under control.

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. In early 2008, Respondent lost 80% of his practice’s work when a corporate client’s business failed and the value of their stock crashed. Respondent had invested his retirement in that company’s stock. Respondent tried to expand his law practice but due to the economic downturn was forced to relocate to Nevada which has a much lower cost of living (by approximately 36% according to salary.cam). In February 2009, Respondent suffered a soft tissue spinal and rib injury that has diminished his ability to work and contributed to his financial strife. March 4, 2011, Respondent had successful corrective back surgery. Due to Respondent’s financial situation, he has not been able to make restitution.

<<not>> 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. During the time of the misconduct, Respondents wife was suffering from severe debilitating health issues that required many hours of supervision and at lest two emergency room visits which distracted Respondent from his responsibilities and caused great distress in their personal lives from mid-2006 through early 2010. Those factors have since been reconciled once the Respondent, his wife and their son moved to be closer to his wife’s mother in Nevada at the end of 2008 and Respondent’s wife’s illness is now under control. (Std. 1.2(e)(viii).) In the Summer of 2009, respondents father was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer and was given 3 months to live. Due to the stressors in Respondent’s personal life, Respondent was distracted by factors that contributed to the misconduct. (Std. 1.2(e)(iv).) Due to the relocation, Respondent commuted to Los Angeles for most of 2009 and 2010 to work an average of three days out of the week at his law office and to spend time with and assist his ailing father. However, chemotherapy with holistic methods were successful and the cancer is in remission from late 2010. These compounded circumstances caused extreme emotional stress and financial difficulty and contributed to Respondents inability to repay Subosinghe.

<<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. Respondent has provided character references from a cross-section of members in the legal and general community. These references attest to his character, truthfulness, integrity, skill and dedication as a lawyer and honesty even with the knowledge of the misconduct and belief that the conduct was aberrational and will not recur. (Std. ].2(e)(vi).)

<<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: Respondent has done a sizeable amount of pro bona and charitable work in the community. For eight years, despite his financial stress, he has provided clients with discounted legal services and has represented clients in 40 pro bona matters to conclusion. Evidence of pro bona work and community service is a factor in mitigation. (Std. 1.2(e) (vii); Rose v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 646, 667; In the Matter of Spaith (Review Dept. 1996) 3 CaI State Bar Ct. Rptr. 511,521 .) In 2006, Respondent spent long hours caring for and tending to the needs of his ill wife and inadequately supervised his staff person in cataloging disbursements. Respondent learned of the CTA dip in 2008. Respondent failed to take steps to ensure that Subasinghe received his disbursement. By the time the

        Actual Suspension

        missing funds were brought to Respondent’s attention, he lacked the funds to replenish the account and make restitution to Subasinghe. Respondent’s delay in payment was not intentional and Respondent has no lines of credit and has not been able to qualify for a loan with a lending institution. Respondent is contrite and regrets being unable to make restitution sooner, due to his dire financial straits. The violation related to Respondent’s client trust account did not arise from corruption or venality on Respondent’s part. Inadequate tracking of disbursements began in July 2006 when Respondent’s wife’s illness peaked. (Cf. Lawlorn v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1357, 1368.) Since January 2008, Respondent has in, corrective measures in his office to avoid a recurrence of CTA problems. (Bradpiece v. State Bar (1974) 10 Cal.3d 742, 747-748.) Respondent has implemented a monthly reconciliation system that includes reconciling individual client matters and maintaining ledgers in each client file. (In the Matter of Taggart (Review Dept. 2001} 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 302, 312.)

D. Discipline:

checked. (1)           Stayed Suspension:

checked. (a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of .

<<not>> 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 two 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 90 days.

<<not>> 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:

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

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.

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: In the event that Respondent passes an MPRE after the date of the parties’ execution of this stipulation and before the effective date of the discipline in these matters, Respondent will not be obligated to take the MPRE again, to be in compliance with Item F. (1) if he provides proof of passage of the MPRE to the Office of probation within 6 months of the effective date of the discipline.

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: PAUL NATHAN TAYLOR, 199022

CASE NUMBERS: 08-0-10688 & 10-O-04883

Respondent admits the facts set forth in the stipulation are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and Rules of Professional Conduct.

08-0-10688 - Subasinghe Matter

FACTS

1. In August 2005, Prasanna Subasinghe ("Subasinghe") employed Respondent on a 33-I/3 percent contingency fee basis to represent him in personal injury claims arising from an automobile accident on August 22, 2005.

2. In July 2006, Respondent settled Subasinghe’s claims with Progressive Insurance ("Progressive") for $6,250.

3. On July 26, 2006, Respondent deposited a $6,250 settlement draft issued by Progressive on July 20, 2006 into his client trust account at Citibank, account number

xxxxxx8952 (the "CTA")1, bringing the balance in the CTA to $6,250.01.

4. From the $6,250 settlement, Respondent was entitled to $2,083.33 (or 33-1/3 percent of $6,250) as his fee. Subasinghe was entitled to the balance of $4,166.67 from the settlement funds.

5. On October 26, 2006, and without disbursing any of the $4,166.67 due to Subasinghe, the balance in the CTA fell to $144.34, or $4,022.33 below the $4,166.67 that should have remained in the CTA on behalf of Subasinghe.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

6. By failing to adequately supervise a staff person and his client trust account and failing to maintain $4,166.67 in the CTA on behalf of Subasinghe between August 24, and  The full account number is omitted for privacy purposes.

Actual Suspension

October 26, 2006, Respondent was grossly negligent in failing to maintain the balance of funds received for the benefit of a client and deposited in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).

10-O-04883 - Soto Matter

FACTS

7. In December 2009, Reye Soto ("Soto") employed Respondent to file an amended cross-complaint by January 19, 2010 on behalf of Soto and Soto’s company, Westlake Pool and Landscape ("Westlake"), in an action pending in the Ventura County Superior Court and entitled, Charles Burtzloff v. Westlake Pool and Landscape, et al., case number 56-200900337584-CU-BC-SIM (the "Burtzloff action"). Soto and Westlake were represented in the Burtzloff action by the law firm of Ramey & De Blanc.

8. Respondent did not file the first amended cross-complaint in the Burtzloff action by

January 19, 2010.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

9. By failing to file the amended cross-complaint in the Burtzloff action by January 19, 2010, Respondent failed to perform legal services with competence, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).

AUTHORITIES.

The purpose of State Bar disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the attorney, but to protect the public, to preserve public confidence in the profession, and to maintain the highest possible professional standards for attorneys. (Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 103, 111; Cooper v. State Bar 0987)43 Cal.3d 1016, 1025; Std. 1.3.)

Standard 2.2(b) provides that a violation of rule 4-100 shall result in at least a three-month suspension, irrespective of mitigation circumstances. The standards are guidelines (Drociak v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1085, 1090; In the Matter of Koehler (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 615,628) and afforded great weight (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 9192), but they are not applied in a talismanic fashion (In the Matter of Van Sickle (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 994). In the Matter of McKiernan (Review Dept. 1995) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 420, an attorney was actually suspended for 90 days for misconduct in a single matter which involved his commingling and prolonged inattention and failure to supervise the account over an 18-year period and gross neglect of his CTA and his issuance of two checks when he knew that there were insufficient funds to cover them. In the Matter of Silver (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal State Bar Ct. Rptr. 902, an attorney was actually suspended for 90 days for three counts of misconduct involving failing to maintain $4,800 in his CTA constituting moral turpitude when he was grossly negligent in handling his CTA for four years. In aggravation the court found harm to the client and in mitigation he had no prior discipline, was cooperative, and had good moral character.

Here, a great deal of mitigation surrounds the misconduct and actual suspension of 90 days is sufficient to protect the public.

DISMISSALS.

The following counts were dismissed in the interest of justice.

Case No. 08-O-10688:

Count One, Rule 4-100(B)(1), Rules of Professional Conduct

Count Three, Section 6106, Business and Professions Code

Count Four, Section 6068(m), Business and Professions Code

Count Five, Rule 4-100(B)(3), Rules of Professional Conduct

Count Six, Rule 4-100(B)(4), Rules of Professional Conduct

Count Seven, Section 6068(i), Business and Professions Code

Case No. 09-0-15309

Count Eight, Section 6068(m), Business and Professions Code

Count Nine, Section 6068(m), Business and Professions Code

Count Ten, Rule 3-110(A), Rules of Professional Conduct

Count Eleven, Rule 3-700(D)(2), Rules of Professional Conduct

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was March 9, 2011.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that he was informed that as of March 9, 2011, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $4,892.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it might not include State Bar Court costs (see Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068.10(c)) or taxable costs (see C.C.P. section 1033.5(a)), which will be included in any final cost assessment. Respondent further acknowledges that if this stipulation is rejected or if relief from the stipulation is granted, the costs may increase due to further proceedings. Note that if Respondent fails to pay any installment of disciplinary costs within the time provided herein or as may be modified by the State Bar Court pursuant to section 6086.10, subdivision(e), the remaining balance of the costs is due and payable immediately unless relief has been granted under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.130 (old rule 286)). Payment of costs is enforceable as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment.

ETHICS SCHOOL & CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNTING SCHOOL.

Because Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar of California Ethics School and Client Trust Accounting School as part of this stipulation, Respondent will receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of these courses.

FINANCIAL CONDITIONS

Case Number(s): 08-O-10688

In the Matter of: Paul Nathan Taylor

a. Restitution

<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund (“CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.

1. Payee: Prasanna Subasinghe

   Principal Amount: $4,1667.67

   Interest Accrues From: July 26, 2006

2. Payee:

   Principal Amount:

   Interest Accrues From:

3. Payee:

   Principal Amount:

   Interest Accrues From:

4. Payee:

   Principal Amount:

   Interest Accrues From:

<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than.

b. Installment Restitution Payments

<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.

1. Payee/CSF (as applicable)

   Minimum Payment Amount

   Payment Frequency

2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)

   Minimum Payment Amount

   Payment Frequency

3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)

   Minimum Payment Amount

   Payment Frequency

4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)

   Minimum Payment Amount

   Payment Frequency

<<not>> checked. 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.

c. Client Funds Certificate

<<not>> checked.  

1. If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:

a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated as a “Trust Account” or “Clients’ Funds Account”;

b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:

i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:

1. the name of such client;

2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;

3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client; and,

4. the current balance for such client.

ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:

1. the name of such account;

2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,

3. the current balance in such account.

iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,

iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.

c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that specifies:

i. each item of security and property held;

ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;

iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;

iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,

v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.

2. If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate described above.

3. The requirements of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct.

d. Client Trust Accounting School

checked. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 08-O-10688

In the Matter of: Paul Nathan Taylor

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: Paul Nathan Taylor

Date: March 22, 2011

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Jean Cha

Date: March 23, 2011

ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER

Case Number(s): 08-O-10688

In the Matter of: Paul Nathan Taylor

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 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: (illegible) Scott

Date: April 3, 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 Los Angeles, on April 5, 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:

                              PAUL N. TAYLOR

                              9595 WILSHIRE BLVD 9TH FL

                              BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212

                              PAUL NATHAN TAYLOR

                              4533 HEAVENLY LOVE WAY

                              LAS VEGAS, NV 89147

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

Jean Hee Cha, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on April 5, 2011.

Signed by:

Johnnie Lee Smith

Case Administrator

State Bar Court