Case Number(s): 08-O-11054, 08-O-10113, 08-O-13683, 09-H-13756
In the Matter of: Terry R. Collins, Bar # 225677, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Mark Hartman, Bar #114925,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
<<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 June 9, 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 284, 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.
CASE NO. 08-0-10113 (THE DAVIS MATTER)
Facts
1. On November 11, 2005, respondent was hired by Chris Davis ("Davis") to represent him in a child custody matter involving Davis’ minor son. On the same date, Davis advised respondent that Davis’ mother, Myrtis Davis, was authorized to act on Davis’ behalf in relation to respondent’s representation of Davis in the child custody matter.
2. On November 14, 2005, Myrtis Davis, paid respondent $2,500 as advanced fees for respondent’s representation of Davis. On April 17, 2006, Myrtis Davis paid respondent $5,200 as advanced fees for respondent’s representation of Davis. At no time before accepting the $2,500 or the $5,200 from Myrtis Davis did respondent obtain Davis’ informed written consent to his mother paying respondent’s legal fees for his representation.
3. As of October 5, 2006, respondent had completed the legal work Davis had hired him to perform.
4. On October 5, 2006, Myrtis Davis sent a letter to respondent requesting an accounting and refund of unearned fees. Soon thereafter, respondent received the October 5, 2006 letter but failed to provide an accounting.
5. On November 1, 2006, Davis, through Myrtis Davis, sent a letter to respondent requesting an accounting and refund of unearned fees. Soon thereafter, respondent received the November 1, 2006 letter, but failed to provide an accounting.
6. On November 27, 2006, Myrtis Davis sent a letter to respondent requesting an accounting and refund of unearned fees. Soon thereafter, respondent received the November 27, 2006 letter, but failed to provide an accounting.
7. On December 18, 2006, Myrtis Davis sent a letter to respondent requesting an accounting and refund of unearned fees. Soon thereafter, respondent received the December 18, 2006 letter, but failed to provide an accounting.
8. To date, respondent has failed to provide an accounting to Davis.
Conclusions of Law
1. By accepting payment of his legal fees from Myrtis Davis for his representation of Davis without Davis’s informed written consent, respondent accepted compensation for representing a client from one other than the client without the client’s informed written consent, in wilful violation of rule 3-310(F) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. By failing to provide an accounting to Davis after Davis requested him to provide one, respondent failed to render appropriate accounts to a client regarding all funds coming into respondent’s possession, in wilful violation of rule 4-100(B)(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
CASE NO. 08-O-11054 (THE LAWSON-BRASWELL MATTER)
Facts
1. On July 6, 2007, Nikol Lawson-Braswell ("Lawson-Braswell") hired respondent to represent her in an estate planning matter. Specifically, respondent was hired to draft a living will and trust for Lawson-Braswell. On the same date, Lawson-Braswell paid respondent $3,000 in advanced fees.
2. From October 2007 through December 2007, Lawson-Braswell called the telephone number provided by respondent and left several voicemail messages requesting respondent to schedule a meeting to discuss the estate planning matter. Respondent received Lawson-Braswell’s voicemail messages, but failed to schedule a meeting, or otherwise contact Lawson-Braswell and discuss the estate planning matter with Lawson-Braswell.
3. On February 11, 2008, Lawson-Braswell sent a letter by certified mail to respondent terminating his services and requesting a refund of unearned fees. Soon thereafter, respondent received the February 11, 2008 letter, but failed to respond to it and failed to provide a refund to Lawson-Braswell.
4. At the time respondent’s employment was terminated, respondent had not earned any portion of the advanced fee paid by Lawson-Braswell.
5. On March 3, 2008, the State Bar opened an investigation in this matter pursuant to a complaint ("complaint") filed by Lawson-Braswell.
6. On April 1, 2008, State Bar Investigator, Amanda Gormley ("Gormley"), sent respondent a letter regarding the allegations in the complaint, including the failure to promptly refund unearned fees. Soon thereafter, respondent received Gormley’s April 1, 2008 letter.
7. It was not until May 28, 2009, more than a year after his client’s request and only after the State Bar became involved in the matter, that respondent provided a refund to Lawson-Braswell in the amount of $3,000.
Conclusions of Law
1. By not refunding the $3,000 to Lawson-Braswell until May 28, 2009, respondent failed, upon termination of employment, to refund unearned fees promptly to a client, in wilful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. By failing to respond to Lawson-Braswell’s telephone calls, respondent failed to respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (m).
CASE NO. 08-O-13683 (THE BELL MATTER)
Facts
1. On March 7, 2008, Ramon Bell ("Bell") hired respondent to represent him in the dissolution/child custody matter, Bell v. Bell, San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. FAMSS703731 ("dissolution matter").
2. On March 7, 2008, respondent substituted in as counsel for Bell in the dissolution matter.
3. On March 14, 2008, opposing counsel in the dissolution matter served written discovery on respondent. Soon thereafter, respondent received the written discovery, but failed to respond to it.
4. On March 27, 2008, opposing counsel in the dissolution matter served additional written discovery on respondent. Soon thereafter, respondent received the additional written discovery, but failed to respond to it.
5. On May 9, 2008, at the request of the parties in the dissolution matter, the Court continued pretrial and trial dates to June 27, 2008 and July 8, 2008, respectively.
6. On May 21, 2008, opposing counsel in the dissolution matter filed a motion to compel discovery and request for sanctions in the amount of $790 against Bell ("motion to compel"). Respondent received a copy of the motion to compel, but failed to file a response to it.
7. On May 21, 2008, a hearing on the motion to compel was scheduled to take place on June 24, 2008, in the dissolution matter. Soon thereafter, respondent received notice of the June 24, 2008 hearing date.
8. On June 24, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the motion to compel in the dissolution matter. Respondent failed to attend the June 24, 2008 hearing. On the same date, the Court issued an order granting the motion to compel and imposing sanctions against Bell. In the June 24, 2008 order, the Court ordered Bell to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of $750 to opposing counsel as a discovery sanction in the dissolution matter. In the June 24, 2008 order, the Court also ordered respondent to respond to discovery within 15 days of the order. Soon thereafter, respondent received notice of the Court’s June 24, 2008 order, but failed to notify Bell about the Court’s June 24, 2008 order requiring Bell to pay sanctions and failed to comply with the Court’s June 24, 2008 order compelling discovery.
9. On June 27, 2008, the pretrial conference was held in the dissolution matter. Respondent failed to appear for the pretrial conference. On the same date, the Court ordered respondent to appear for a hearing on August 11, 2008, on the issue of sanctions against respondent for his failure to appear at the pretrial conference on June 27, 2008. Soon thereafter, respondent received notice of the August 11, 2008 hearing.
10. On July 25, 2008, Bell terminated respondent’s services and respondent substituted out of the dissolution matter.
11. On August 11, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the issue of sanctions against respondent for his failure to appear at the pretrial conference on June 27, 2008. Respondent failed to appear at the August 11, 2008 hearing. On the same date, the Court imposed sanctions against respondent in the amount of $250. Soon thereafter, respondent received notice of the Court’s August 11, 2008 order, but failed to pay the sanction.
12. As a requirement for this stipulation, respondent paid the $250 sanction.
Conclusions of Law
1. By failing (1) to respond to two sets of written discovery, (2) to file a response to the opposing counsel’s motion to compel discovery, (3) to attend the June 24, 2008 hearing on the motion to compel, and (4) to appear for the pretrial conference, respondent intentionally, recklessly, and repeatedly failed to perform competent legal services, in wilful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. By failing to notify Bell of the $750 sanction order against Bell, respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (m).
3. By failing (1) to respond to written discovery, in violation of the Court’s June 24, 2008 order, (2) to appear at the August 11, 2008 hearing, in violation of the Court’s June 27, 2008 order, and (3) to pay the $250 sanction promptly, in violation of the Court’s August 11, 2008 order, respondent disobeyed court orders requiring him to do acts connected with or in the course of his profession which he ought in good faith to have done, in wilful violation of section 6103 of the Business and Professions Code.
CASE NO. 09-H-13756 (VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF A PUBLIC REPROVAL)
Facts
1. On July 31, 2008, the State Bar Court of California issued a decision imposing a public reproval upon respondent in Case No. 07-0-12116.
2. Pursuant to California Rule of Court 956, the State Bar Court decision ordered respondent to comply with certain conditions attached to the reproval.
3. The July 31, 2008 State Bar Court decision became final on August 21, 2008, and at all times thereafter has remained in full force and effect.
4. On July 31, 2008, the State Bar Court Clerk served the decision upon respondent by mail. Respondent received the decision shortly thereafter.
5. The decision required respondent to comply with the specified conditions for a period of one year (i.e., from August 21, 2008, until August 21, 2009).
6. As conditions of the reproval, respondent was required to do the following:
(1) Contact the Office of Probation by September 20, 2008.
(2) File quarterly reports on October 10, 2008, January 10, 2009, April 10, 2009, and July 10, 2009.
(3) File a final report by August 21, 2009.
(4) Attend Ethics School and provide proof of attendance to the Office of Probation by August 21, 2009.
(5) Pass the MPRE and provide proof of compliance to the Office of Probation by August 21, 2009;
(6) Pay restitution of $1,330 to Herece Tuggles with interest from April 11, 2007, and provide proof of payment to the Office of Probation by August 21, 2009.
7. Respondent failed to comply with the conditions of his reproval as follows:
(1) He failed to contact the Office of Probation by September 20, 2008.
(2) He failed to file a timely quarterly report by October 10, 2008.
(3) He failed to file quarterly reports by April 10, 2009, and July 10, 2009.
(4) He failed to file a final report by August 21, 2009.
(5) He failed to attend Ethics School and provide proof of attendance to the Office of Probation by August 21, 2009.
(6) He failed to pass the MPRE and provide proof of compliance to the Office of Probation by August 21, 2009.
(7) He failed to pay restitution of $1,330 to Herece Tuggles with interest from April 11, 2007, and to provide proof of payment to the Office of Probation by August 21, 2009.
Conclusion of Law
Respondent failed to comply with the conditions attached to a public reproval, in wilful violation of role 1-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, insofar as he:
(1) He failed to contact the Office of Probation by September 20, 2008.
(2) He failed to file a timely quarterly report by October 10, 2008.
(3) He failed to file quarterly reports by April 10, 2009, and July 10, 2009.
(4) He failed to file a final report by August 21, 2009.
(5) He failed to attend Ethics School and provide proof of attendance to the Office of Probation by August 21, 2009.
(6) He failed to pass the MPRE and provide proof of compliance to the Office of Probation by August 21, 2009.
(7) He failed to pay restitution of $1,330 to Herece Tuggles with interest from April 11, 2007, and to provide proof of payment to the Office of Probation by August 21, 2009.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph A (7) was November 12, 2009.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Standard 1.2(b)(i): Respondent has a prior record of discipline.
Standard 1.2(b)(ii): Respondent’s eight ethical violations involved multiple acts of wrongdoing.
Standard 1.2(b)(iv): Respondent’s failure to promptly refund unearned fees to Lawson-Braswell, a client who respondent knew was diagnosed with terminal cancer, caused significant harm to his client.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Standard 1.2(e)(v): Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the State Bar by entering into this stipulation.
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
The following standards apply to the current cases:
Standard 2.4(b) requires reproval or suspension for a respondent who has wilfully failed to perform services in which he was retained and for a respondent who has wilfully failed to communicate with a client.
Standard 2.6 requires that a violation of Business and Professions Code 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 purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3.
Standard 2.9 requires suspension for a respondent who has wilfully violated rule 1-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct shall result in suspension.
Standard 2.10 requires that a violation of any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct not specified in the standards (e.g., rule 3-310(F)) 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 purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3.
Standard 1.7(a) provides that if a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of one prior imposition of discipline as defined by standard 1.2(f), the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding unless the prior proceeding 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.
In his prior record of discipline, respondent wilfully violated rules 3-700(D)(2), 3-310(F), and 4-100(B)(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In the current cases, respondent again wilfully violated these rules. Also, in the current cases, respondent wilfully violated rules 1-110 and 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and section 6068, subdivision (m) and section 6103 of the Business and Professions Code.
Respondent’s repeated misconduct demonstrates that he lacks understanding of his professional obligations. Such misconduct generally results in an actual suspension. (See In the Matter of Layton (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 366, 380-381 [six months’ actual suspension for respondent’s lack of diligence in handling a probate case after prior discipline for the same type of misconduct].)
Respondent’s misconduct warrants stayed suspension for two years and probation for three years, conditioned on actual suspension for ninety days and until he pays restitution to Herece Tuggles.
Case Number(s): 08-O-11054 [08-O-10113; 08-O-13683; 09-H-13756]
In the Matter of: Terry R. Collins, State Bar No.: 225677
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: Herece Tuggies
Principal Amount: $1,330.00
Interest Accrues From: April 11, 2007
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 .
<<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-11054 [08-O-10113; 08-O-13683; 09-H-13756]
In the Matter of: Terry R. Collins, State Bar No.: 225677
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: Terry R. Collins
Date: November 13, 2009
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Mark P. Hartman
Date: November 16, 2009
Case Number(s): 08-O-11054 [08-O-10113; 08-O-13683; 09-H-13756]
In the Matter of: Terry R. Collins, State Bar No.: 225677
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: Lucy Armendariz
Date: November 18, 2009
[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 November 19, 2009, 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:
TERRY R. COLLINS
LAW OFFICE OF TERRY R. COLLINS
7677 OAKPORT ST #1050
OAKLAND, CA 94621
<<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:
MARK HARTMAN, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on November 19, 2009.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court