Case Number(s): 08-O-11613 and 09-N-10047-PEM
In the Matter of: Chesterfield Spahr, Bar # 190173 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Sherrie B. McLetchie,
180 Howard
San Francisco CA 94105
(415) 538-2297
Bar # 85447
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Chesterfield Spahr SUSPENDED
229 23rd Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94121
(415)298-9855
Bar # 190173
Submitted to: Assigned Judge at State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
Filed: October 19, 2009
<<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 November 26, 1997.
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. However, except as otherwise provided in rule 804.5(c) of the Rules of Procedure, if Respondent is not accepted into the Alternative Discipline Program, this stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on the Respondent or the State Bar.
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, except for Probation Revocation proceedings. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The stipulation consists of 6 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. 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.
7. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7 and will pay timely any disciplinary costs imposed in this proceeding.
In the Matter of Chesterfield Spahr, S165359 (05-O-04590), effective October 23, 2008;
Violations of Business and Professions Code
Sections 6068(b) (two counts), 6068(i), and 6103 [failure to obey court orders]; and a minimum 90-day actual suspension from the practice of law; and
In the Matter of Chesterfield Spahr, S172493 (07-O-14109), effective July 23, 2009; violations of rule 3-110(A), and business and Professions Code sections 6068(i), and 6103 [failure to obey court orders]; and a minimum one-year actual suspension.
Additional aggravating circumstances:
Additional mitigating circumstances: None
08-O-11613
Facts
1. Effective February 3, 2008, respondent was involuntarily enrolled inactive as a result of his default in State Bar Court case number 05-0-4590 (later Supreme Court case number $165359).
2. Respondent appeared in Alameda County Superior Court on April 16, 2008, representing his client, Adam Domeier, in the criminal case of People v. Shurn & Domeier, case number 538401B, and represented
Domcicr at the preliminary examination.
Conclusions of Law
By appearing in court on behalf of a client when ineligible to practice law, respondent violated Business and Professions Code section 6065(a) by violation of Business and Professions Code section 6125.
By practicing law when he should have known that he was ineligible to do so, respondent was grossly negligent (Bus. & Prof. Code §6106).
09-N-10047
Facts
1. By order filed September 23, 2008, the Supreme Court ordered, among other things, that respondent be actually suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of 90 days and that he comply with the
provisions of subdivisions (a) and (c), rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, within 30 and 40 days, respectively, from its effective date.
2. The effective date of the September 23, 2008 Supreme Court suspension order was October 23, 2008.
3, Pursuant to the September 23, 2008 Supreme Court suspension order, respondent had to submit a rule 9.20 compliance affidavit or declaration no later than December 2, 2008.
4. Respondent did not submit a rule 9.20 declaration to the State Bar Court until March 16, 2009, three and one-half months after it was due, and then only at the urging of the State Bar.
5. Respondent has remained suspended from the practice of law at all time since October 23, 2008.
Conclusion of Law
By not timely complying with the Supreme Court’s order, respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6103.
Pending Proceedings
The disclosure date referred to on page one, paragraph A. (7) was September 15, 2009.
Costs of Disciplinary Proceedings
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of September 15, 2009, the costs in this matter are approximately $3,664.38 $. 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. This figure does not include any costs associated with Lawyers’ Assistance Program and/or Alternative Discipline Program costs and/or expenses, if any,
Case Number(s): 08-O-11613; 09-N-10047
In the Matter of: Chesterfield Spahr
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: Chesterfield Spahr
Date: 9-24-2009
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Sherrie B. McLetchie
Date: 9-25-09
Case Number(s): 08-O-11613; 09-N-10047
In the Matter of: Chesterfield Spahr
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:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulation as to facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below.
<<not>> checked. All dates in the Hearing Department 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; or 3) Respondent is not accepted for participation in the Program or does not sign the Program Contract. (See rule 5.58(E) & (F) and 5.382(D), Rules of Procedure.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Patricia McElroy
Date: October 19, 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 Los Angeles, on January 24, 2012, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
by personally delivering such documents to the following individuals at 180 Howard Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, California 94105-1639:
Chesterfield Spahr, Esq.
Sherrie B. McLetchie, Esq.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on October 19, 2009
Signed by:
George Hue
Case Administrator
State Bar Court