Case Number(s): 08-O-10962 [08-O-13999; 09-O-11688; 09-O-15972]
In the Matter of: Lisa R. Alexholland, Bar # 224000, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Susan I. Kagan, Deputy Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 538-2037
Bar #214209,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Lisa R. Alexholland
3700 E 12th St Ste 1A
Oakland, CA 94601
(510) 532-3700
Bar # 224000
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office.
Filed: January 11, 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.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted January 1, 2003.
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 16 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.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Case No. 08-0-10962 [The Williams matter]
Facts
1. On March 12, 2007, respondent was hired by Alex Williams ("Williams") to represent Williams in the family law matter, West v. Williams, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RF06273713 ("family law matter"). Specifically, Williams hired respondent to help him obtain joint legal and physical custody of his children and a reduction of child support. On March 12, 2007, Williams paid respondent advanced attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,500.00. On March 15, 2007, Williams paid respondent advanced attorney’s fees in the amount of $450.00, for a total payment of $2,950.00 to respondent as advanced attorney’s fees.
2. On March 19, 2007, a hearing was held in the family law matter. Respondent sent attorney, George Holland, Jr., to appear at the hearing on behalf of Williams. Thereafter, respondent failed to perform any work on behalf of Williams in the family law matter.
3. From March 19, 2007, through February 14, 2008, Williams left telephone messages with respondent requesting an update on the status of the family law matter. Respondent received Williams’ telephone messages, but failed to respond to them.
4. On May 2, 2007, a judgment was entered in the family law matter. Soon thereafter, respondent received a copy of the judgment. At no time did respondent notify Williams of the judgment.
5. On February 14, 2008, Williams sent a letter to respondent terminating respondent’s services and requesting a refund of unearned fees. Soon thereafter, respondent received Williams’ February 14, 2008 letter. Respondent did not perform any services of value on behalf of Williams. Respondent did not earn any portion of the advanced fees paid by Williams. On November 7, 2008, respondent refunded $542.00 to Williams. Respondent still owes Williams $2,408.00 in unearned fees. To date, respondent has failed to pay any portion of the $2,408.00 in unearned fees to Williams.
Conclusions of Law
1. By failing to perform any work on behalf of Williams in the family law matter aside from sending another attorney to specially appear at the hearing on March 19, 2007, respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. By failing to respond to Williams’ telephone calls requesting an update on the status of his family law matter, respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services in willful violation of section 6068(m) of the Business and Professions Code.
3. By failing to notify Williams of the May 2, 2007 judgment in the family law matter, respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services in willful violation of section 6068(m) of the Business and Professions Code.
4. By failing to refund $2,408.00 in unearned fees to Williams, respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 08-O-13999 [State Bar Investigation]
Facts
Caldwell v. Long
1. Prior to July 31, 2007, respondent was hired by Lori Caldwell ("Caldwell") to represent Caldwell in the matter, Caldwell v. Long, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RF06-274593. Thereafter, respondent became attorney of record on behalf of Caldwell in Caldwell v. Long.
2. On August 8, 2007, a hearing was held in Caldwell v. Long. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing. On August 9, 2007, the court in Caldwell v. Long issued an order requiring respondent to pay sanctions within 10 days of the order for her failure to appear at the August 8, 2007 hearing. Soon thereafter, respondent received a copy of the court’s August 9, 2007 order, but failed to pay the sanctions by August 19, 2007.
3. On November 2, 2007, the court in Caldwell v. Long issued an order requiring respondent to show cause why the sanctions should not be increased for her failure to timely pay the sanctions and ordered respondent to appear at an OSC hearing on November 16, 2007. Soon thereafter, respondent received the court’s November 2, 2007 order.
4. On November 16, 2007, an OSC hearing was held in Caldwell v. Long. Respondent appeared at the hearing. At the hearing, the court lowered the amount of sanctions and ordered respondent to pay sanctions to the opposing party. Respondent had notice of the sanction, but failed to pay the sanction. To date, respondent has failed to pay the sanction.
Morales v. Lopez
5. Prior to September 5, 2007, respondent was hired by Jose Lopez ("Lopez") to represent Lopez in the matter, Morales v. Lopez, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RF06-286789. Thereafter, respondent became attorney of record on behalf of Lopez in Morales v. Lopez.
6. On October 29, 2007, the court in Morales v. Lopez scheduled a hearing to take place on November 20, 2007. Soon thereafter, respondent received notice of the November 20, 2007 hearing.
7. On November 20, 2007, a hearing was held in Morales v. Lopez. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing. On the same date, the court issued an order requiring respondent to pay sanctions to opposing counsel within 10 days of the order and ordered respondent to appear at an OSC hearing on December 11, 2007, and to show cause why no further sanctions should be imposed. Soon thereafter, respondent received a copy of the court’s November 20, 2007 order, but failed to pay the sanctions by November 30, 2007.
8. On December 11, 2007, an OSC hearing was held in a hearing was held in Morales v. Lopez. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing. On the same date, the court issued an order requiring respondent to pay sanctions to opposing counsel within 30 days of the order. Soon thereafter, respondent received a copy of the court’s December 11, 2007 order, but failed to pay the sanctions by January 11, 2008.
9. As of March 17, 2008, respondent failed to pay the sanctions ordered by the court. On March 17, 2008, the court issued an order requiring respondent to pay sanctions to opposing counsel. Soon thereafter, respondent received the court’s March 17, 2008 order, but failed to pay the sanctions. As of August 22, 2008, respondent failed to pay the sanctions ordered by the court. On August 22, 2008, the court issued an order requiring respondent to pay sanctions to opposing counsel. Soon thereafter, respondent received the court’s August 22, 2008 order, but failed to pay the sanctions. As of May 19, 2009, respondent failed to pay the sanctions ordered by the court. On May 19, 2009, the court issued an order requiring respondent to pay sanctions to opposing counsel. Soon thereafter, respondent received the court’s May 19, 2009 order, but failed to pay the sanctions.
10. On September 1, 2009, a hearing was held in Morales v. Lopez. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing. On September 4, 2009, the court issued a bench warrant against respondent and ordered respondent to appear at a hearing on October 27, 2009. Soon thereafter, respondent received a copy of the court’s September 4, 2009 order.
11. On October 27, 2009, a hearing was held in Morales v. Lopez. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing. On the same date, the court issued an order requiring respondent to pay sanctions to opposing counsel. Soon thereafter, respondent received a copy of the court’s October 27, 2009 order. Thereafter, respondent paid the court-ordered sanctions to opposing counsel.
Sanchez v. Parris
12. Prior to November 20, 2007, respondent was hired by Jahmila Parris ("Parris") to represent her in the matter, Sanchez v. Parris, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RF06-293129, and became attorney of record on behalf of Parris in Sanchez v. Parris.
13. On November 20, 2007, a hearing was held in Sanchez v. Parris. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing. On the same date, the court issued an order requiring respondent to pay sanctions to opposing counsel within 10 days of the order. Soon thereafter, respondent received a copy of the court’s November 20, 2007 order, but failed to pay the sanctions by November 30, 2007. To date, respondent has failed to pay the sanctions.
Conclusions of Law
1. Caldwell v. Long." By failing to pay sanctions on or before August 19, 2007, in violation of the court’s August 9, 2007 order, and by failing to pay sanctions, in violation of the court’s November 16 2007 order, respondent wilfully disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring her to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of respondent’s profession which she ought in good faith to do or forbear in violation of section 6103 of the Business and Professions Code.
2. Morales v. Lopez: By failing to pay sanctions on or before November 30, 2007, in violation of the court’s November 20, 2007 order, by failing to appear at the OSC on December 11, 2007, in violation of the court’s November 20, 2007 order, by failing to pay sanctions on or before January 11, 2008, in violation of the court’s December 11, 2007 order, by failing to pay sanctions, in violation of the court’s March 17, 2008 order, by failing to pay sanctions, in violation of the court’s August 22, 2008 order, by failing to pay the sanctions, in violation of the court’s May 19, 2009 order, by failing to appear at the hearing on October 27, 2009, in violation of the court’s September 4, 2009 order, and failing to pay sanctions, in violation of the court’s September 4, 2009 order, respondent wilfully disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring her to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of respondent’s profession which she ought in good faith to do or forbear in violation of section 6103 of the Business and Professions Code.
3. Sanchez v. Parris: By failing to pay sanctions on or before November 30, 2007, in violation of the court’s November 20, 2007 order, respondent wilfully disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring her to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of respondent’s profession which she ought in good faith to do or forbear in violation of section 6103 of the Business and Professions Code.
Case No. 08-O-11688 [The Webster matter]
Facts
1. On July 17, 2008, Kelli Webster ("Webster"), in pro per, filed a petition for dissolution in the matter, Johnson v. Johnson, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RF08398714 ("family law matter). On September 15, 2008, Webster hired respondent to finalize the family law matter. Specifically, Webster hired respondent to prepare a stipulation and judgment, to have Webster and her husband, Anthony Johnson ("Johnson"), to sign the documents before a notary and to file the documents with the court. On the same date, Webster paid respondent $1,000.00 as advanced fees in the family law matter. Thereafter, respondent failed to perform any work on behalf of Webster in the family law matter.
2. From September 15, 2008, through February 24, 2009, Webster left telephone messages with respondent requesting an update on the status of the family law matter. Respondent received Webster’s telephone messages, but failed to respond to them.
3. On February 24, 2009, Webster sent an e-mail to respondent requesting a refund of unearned fees. Soon thereafter, respondent received Webster’s e-mail. On the same date, respondent sent an e-mail to Webster promising to complete the assignment. Thereafter, respondent failed to perform any work on behalf of Webster in the family law matter.
4. On March 3, 2009, Webster sent an e-mail to respondent requesting an update on the status of the family law matter and a refund of unearned fees. Soon thereafter, respondent received Webster’s e-mail, but failed to respond to it and failed to provide a refund.
5. It was not until in or about 2010, and only after the State Bar became involved in the matter, that respondent refunded $1,000.00 to Webster.
Conclusions of Law
1. By failing to perform any work on behalf of Webster in the family law matter, respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. By failing to respond to Webster’s telephone calls and e-mail requesting an update on the status of her family law matter, respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services in willful violation of section 6068(m) of the Business and Professions Code.
3. By failing to refund $1,000.00 in unearned fees to Webster for more than one year after Webster first requested a refund, and only after the State Bar became involved in the matter, respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 09-O-15972 [The Gonzalez matter]
Facts
1. On February 4, 2009, respondent was hired by Alex Gonzalez ("Gonzalez") to assist him in a loan modification matter ("loan matter"). On the same date, Gonzalez paid respondent $750.00 as advanced fees in the loan matter. On February 10, 2009, Gonzalez paid respondent $750.00 as advanced fees in the loan matter. In total, Gonzalez paid respondent $1,500.00 as advanced attorney’s fees in the loan matter.
2. Thereafter, respondent failed to perform :any services of value on behalf of Gonzalez in the loan matter.
3. From February 10, 2009, through July 5, 2009, Gonzalez left telephone messages with respondent requesting an update on the status of the loan matter. Respondent received Gonzalez’ telephone messages, but failed to respond to them.
4. On July 5, 2009, Gonzalez faxed a letter to respondent terminating respondent’s services, requesting a refund of unearned fees and requesting return of his client file. Soon thereafter, respondent received Gonzalez’ letter, but failed to provide a refund of unearned fees and failed to return the client file to Gonzalez. On August 30, 2009, Gonzalez faxed a letter to respondent again requesting return of Gonzalez’ client file. Soon thereafter, respondent received Gonzalez’ letter, but failed to return the client file to Gonzalez. To date, respondent has failed to refund unearned fees to Gonzalez and has failed to return the client file to Gonzalez.
Conclusions of Law
1. By failing to perform any services of value on behalf of Gonzalez in the loan matter, respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. By failing to respond to Gonzalez’ telephone calls requesting an update on the status of his loan matter, respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services in willful violation of section 6068(m) of the Business and Professions Code.
3. By failing to refund $1,500.00 in unearned fees to Gonzalez, respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
4. By failing to return the client file to Gonzalez, respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph A (7) was December 2, 2010.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL
Because respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent acknowledges that the State Bar has informed respondent that as of December 2, 2010, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $3,840.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does not include State Bar Court costs which will be included in any final cost assessment. 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.
FACTS SUPPORTING AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Standard 1.2(b)(ii). Respondent’s 14 counts of misconduct represent multiple acts of wrongdoing.
Standard 1.2(b)(iv). Respondent’s misconduct caused significant harm to her clients.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Standard 1.2(e)(iv). Respondent suffered from extreme difficulties in her personal life which expert testimony would establish were directly responsible for the misconduct and have since been resolved. During the time of the misconduct, respondent was in the midst of a divorce. Respondent has since resolved these issues.
Standard 1.2(e)(v). Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation to the State Bar during the disciplinary proceedings.
Standard 1.2(e)(vii). Respondent displayed remorse for her misconduct.
Respondent has been practicing law since 2003, and has no prior record of discipline.
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
Standard 2.4(b) requires reproval or suspension for a respondent who has wilfully failed to perform services in which he was retained.
Standard 2.6 requires that a violation of Business and Professions Code sections 6068(m) and 6103 shall result in disbarment or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purpose of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3.
Standard 2.10 requires that a violation of any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct not specified in the standards (e.g., rules 3-700(D)(1), 3-700(D)(2)) shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purpose of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3.
Generally, discipline for failing to perform ranges from reproval to suspension. (See In the Matter of Aguiluz (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 32 [one-year stayed suspension for abandonment in single client matter; no prior record of discipline]; Van Sloten v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 921 [six-month stayed suspension for abandonment in single client matter; no prior record of discipline]; Harris v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 1082 [90-day actual suspension for abandonment in single client matter; no prior record of discipline].)
Based on the standards and case law, a 60-day actual
suspension with a three-year probationary period will meet the purposes of
attorney discipline.
Case Number(s): 08-O-10962 [ 08-O-13999; 09-O-11688; 09-O-15972]
In the Matter of: Lisa R. Alexholland
a. Restitution
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: Alex Williams
Principal Amount: $2,408.00
Interest Accrues From: 3/17/07
2. Payee: Alex Gonzalez
Principal Amount: $1,500.00
Interest Accrues From: 2/10/09
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than one year from the effective date of discipline herein
In the Alex Gonzalez matter (Case No. 09-O-15972), respondent must either pay restitution ($1,500.00, plus interest) within the time limits set forth above, or offer Mr. Gonzalez the option of participating in binding fee arbitration. If Mr. Gonzalez agrees to participate in binding fee arbitration, respondent must participate in binding arbitration within three (3) months of the effective date of discipline herein and must comply with the arbitration order within thirty (30) days of its issuance. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of compliance with the arbitration order to the Office of Probation not later than one year from the effective date of discipline herein..
<<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.
<<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.
<<not>> 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-10962 {08-O-13999; 09-O-11688; 09-O-15972]
In the Matter of: Lisa R. Alexholland
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: Lisa R. Alexholland
Date: December 15, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel: N/A
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Susan I. Kagan
Date: December 15, 2010
Case Number(s): 08-O-10962 {08-O-13999; 09-O-11688; 09-O-15972]
In the Matter of: Lisa R. Alexholland
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: Patricia Mc Elroy
Date: January 11, 2011
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and
County of San Francisco, on January 11, 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:
LISA R. ALEXHOLLAND
3700 E. 12 TH ST STE 1A
OAKLAND, CA 94601
<<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:
Susan Kagan, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on January 11, 2011.
Signed by:
George Hue
Case Administrator
State Bar Court