Case Number(s): 08-O-12742; 09-O-11309; 08-O-14144; 10-O-08029; 10-O-08356
In the Matter of: Gerald Scher, Bar # 141175, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Robin Brune, Bar # 149481, Deputy Trial Counsel, 180 Howard St, San Francisco, California 94105, Bar # 149481
Counsel for Respondent: Law Offices of Ephraim Margolin, Ephriam Margolin & Vicki Young, 240 Stockton Street, #300, San Francisco, California 94108, Bar # 32582
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
Filed: January 18, 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 June 6, 1989.
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.
Respondent’s father passed away in November, 2007. Shortly thereafter, several attorneys left his firm. Respondent’s workload increased significantly until he filled the vacant positions at his law firm.
Attachment language (if any):
IN THE MATTER OF: Gerald Scher, State Bar No. 141175
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-O-12742; 09-O-11309; 08-O-14144; 10-O-08029; 10-O-08356
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
1. 08-O-12742 (Azar)
Azar hired respondent in 2003 to pursue a personal injury matter for a one third contingency fee. Respondent settled the case, Azar v. TJX Companies, case no 103CV011387, filed in Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, for $9,000 and received the funds in September, 2005. Respondent deposited the funds into his attorney-client trust account. Of that sum, respondent promptly distributed $2,000 to the client and kept $869.95 costs and $1,500 attorney fees. He also distributed a check for $1,493.50 to one medial lien holder, Neuromuscular Consultants, on October 24, 2005. Pursuant to respondent’s own accounting, that should have left $3,154.44 held in trust for respondent to pay the client’s medical providers, David Hatami, DC (Bay Area Pain Care Center), and Santa Clara Medical Center.
Respondent was aware of the claims for medical reimbursement on Azar’s matter. The client signed a notice of lien to the chiropractor, Dr. Hatami on 3/21/2003, and instructed respondent to promptly pay Santa Clara Medical Center.
Respondent paid David Hatami, DC (Bay Area Pain Care Center) $1,475.61 in June, 2008, May years and eight months after he received the funds on behalf of Azar. Respondent paid $1,468.36 to Santa Clara Medical Center in May, 2008, also a two year and eight month delay from his receipt of the funds. Respondent made a final payment of the $192.58 remaining, to the client on or about September, 2010.
Azar requested her file from respondent on or about 4/15/08 by way of a written request. Azar then sent emails indicating that she would come to the office to pick up her file on 4/23/2008. When she arrived on that date, her file was not ready for her to pick up. At that time, respondent’s office staff scheduled another appointment for 4/30/08, for Azar to pick up her file. On 4/30/08, respondent (though staff) indicated that the file would not be ready, and that respondent would email Azar when the file was ready. Azar made another request on May 8, 2008, with no response from respondent. Respondent released the file to Azar in November, 2010.
Conclusions of Law
1 By failing to timely pay the medical providers, respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
2 By failing to pay Hatami and the Santa Clara Medical Center for two years and eight months, Respondent failed to pay promptly, as requested by a client, any funds in Respondent’s possession which the client is entitled to receive, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(4).
3. By failing to respond to Azar’s requests and return her file to her, 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 Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
2. 08-O-14144 (Matroianni)
Mastroianni hired respondent in November, 2000, to represent him in a personal injury claim. The parties agreed to a contingency fee. Respondent brought suit on behalf of Mastroianni, Mastroianni v. Wood, Case no. CLJ184747, filed in San Mateo Superior Court. In May, 2005, respondent and his client appeared at a mandatory settlement conference and the parties agreed to settle the matter for $2,500. The settlement, as written into the court docket, indicated that the defense would provide releases and a check and delivery by May 27, 2005 to respondent. At the hearing, respondent advised Mastroianni to contact his office to make arrangements to come sign the release. Thereafter, the defendant sent respondent the release and indicated that it would tender the check when the release was returned with the proper signatures.
Thereafter, respondent took no further action to facilitate the completion of the settlement documents. He did not re-contact Mastroianni to come sign the release and he did not obtain the $2,500 on behalf of Mastroianni, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.
When the matter settled, Mastroianni and respondent discussed the settlement funds and Mastroianni understood that all the settlement monies would be used to pay off the medical care providers, namely, one Dr. Terrance Stackwood. Masatroianni made several inquiries of respondent regarding Stackwood’s bill, and respondent assured Mastroianni that Stackwood would be paid.
On or about June, 2008, Dr. Terrance Stackwood sued Mastroianni for the outstanding bill, in small claims court. Mastroianni sent respondent a certified letter on July 10, 2008 asking respondent about the status of the settlement and requesting documents to respond to the small claims action.
Respondent received Mastroianni’s letter and failed to respond. On or about July 30, 2008, James Campbell, another attorney hired by Mastroianni, wrote a letter to respondent on Mastroianni’s behalf, asking respondent for a copy of the settlement agreement together with an accounting of the distribution of the settlement in Mastroianni’s action.
In response, respondent telephoned Campbell. Respondent did not provide the documents requested; nor did he explain whether or not the documents in fact existed.
Conclusions of Law
1. By failing to complete the settlement on Mastroianni’s behalf, respondent failed to perform with competence, in willful, reckless, and repeated violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
2. By failing to fully respond to Campbell’s request for information and documentation on behalf of Mastrioianni, respondent failed to return the file, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
3. 09-O-11309 (Poncini)
On 3/31/04 Shirley Poncini hired respondent to represent her in a personal injury matter. The parties agreed to a 1/3 contingency fee plus costs. On 5/4/04 respondent signed a lien for one of the lien holders, UFCW. Another lien holder, State Farm also sent the client a notice in April, 2005.
In June, 2007, respondent settled the case for $60K. Respondent received the settlement check issued on 6/25/07, and deposited it into his attorney-client trust account (hereinafter" CTA) on 8/25/07.
Of the funds received, respondent attributed $3,646.55 as advanced costs, and $42, 265.09 as client funds. Respondent issued a check for $22,265.09 to the client and indicated to her that he was keeping $14,088.36 for his fee (approximately ¼ of the gross settlement amount) and holding $20,000 in trust for payments to the two lien holders, State Farm and UFCW. Poncini directed respondent to pay all lien holders promptly.
Thereafter, respondent’s CTA dropped below the amounts necessary to hold for the liens in this case. On May 21, 2008, the account dropped to $16,490.26, less than the $20K respondent should have been holding for the liens; it dropped again on October 29, 2008, to $13,023.14.
Respondent made payments on these liens on 2/5/09, $10,000 to State Farm; and on 1/26/10, $10,000 to UFCW. This is a delay of eighteen months.
On May 2, 2006 the defense filed a Motion to Dismiss against respondent’s client. The matter was set for June 6, 2006. Defense duly served respondent with notice of the hearing and he was aware of its contents. Respondent failed to file responsive pleadings to the motion, and respondent failed to appear on June 6, 2006 for the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss.
On November 7, 2006, in the course of the underlying litigation, respondent was informed that an independent medical exam was scheduled for Poncini for December 11, 2006. Respondent failed to advise Poncini of this exam, and she did not attend.
On September 24, 2007, Poncini sent respondent an email requesting a status update on the payments to the medical lien holders. Respondent received Poncini’s email and failed to respond.
In November, 2007, Poncini again emailed respondent and asked for an update on the negotiations with the lien holders. Respondent received Poncini’s email and failed to respond until July, 9, 2008, a delay of eight months. On September 9, 2008 Poncini again emailed respondent and asked for the status of the negotiations and/or payments to the lien holders. Respondent received the email and failed to respond. Poncini emailed again on November 11, 2008. Respondent responded on November 21, 2008 and advised her that he had written to the insurance companies.
In January, 2009 respondent and Poncini discussed the UFCW payment. Thereafter, respondent failed to update Poncini until August 8, 2009, a delay of eight months. On November 7, 2006, in the course of the underlying litigation, respondent was informed that an independent medical exam was scheduled for Poncini for December 11, 2006. Respondent failed to advise Poncini of this exam, and she did not attend.
Poncini provided respondent a binder containing documents related to her case at the mediation, which took place on or about September 25, 2006. Poncini provided the binder to respondent so that he could copy and return it to her. In November, 2006, Poncini requested the return of her binder. Respondent was aware of Poncini’s request and failed to respond to Poncini’s request. Poncini renewed her request to respondent in January, 2007. Respondent returned Poncini’s binder to her in May, 2007. Respondent provided Poncini with one additional document, namely a report from one Dr. Hilde Agustin, in May, 2009.
In August, 2007, respondent provided Poncini with an undated Settlement Statement. The Settlement Statement showed that respondent’s fee was $14,088.36 (indicating that respondent reduced his fee to ¼). On October 2, 2008, Poncini met with respondent and inadvertently discovered that respondent had, in his file, a different Settlement Statement. The second settlement statement specified that Harvey Ziff received $3,522.09 of the $14,088.36 amount, indicating ¼ of respondent’s fees were paid to Harvey Ziff. Poncini originally met with Harvey Ziff and paid him a $25.00 consultation fee. Ziff referred Poncini to respondent. Ziff did not otherwise work on Ponicini’s case. Respondent did not advise Poncini that he was paying a portion of his attorney’s fee to Ziff. Poncini did not sign a written consent, authorizing respondent to pay Ziff ¼ of his fee.
During the course of respondent’s litigation of the matter, Shirley Ponici v. USA, case no. C-0500233-HRL, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, respondent failed to abide by several court orders, as follows:
On March 28, 2006, the Court ordered respondent to appear on April 11, 2006, to Show Cause why he should not be sanctioned for his failure to appear on March 28, 2006 for the scheduled case management conference. Respondent was duly served with notice of the Court’s March 28, 2006 order and was aware of its contents. Respondent failed to appear on April 11, 2006 as ordered by the court; on April 28, 2006, the Court sanctioned respondent $300.00;
On March 28, 2006, the Court ordered respondent to serve initial disclosures on the defendant’s counsel by April 3, 2006. Respondent was duly served with notice of the Court’s order and was aware of its contents. Respondent failed to timely serve the initial disclosures as ordered by the Court;
On June 20, 2006, the Court ordered respondent to file a case management statement by July 18, 2006. Respondent was duly served with notice of the Court’s order and was aware of its contents. Respondent failed to file a case management statement as ordered by the Court.
Conclusions of Law
1. By failing to notify his client of the independent medical exam, by failing to respond to the motion to dismiss and appear at the hearing on the motion, and by failing to pay the medical lien holders promptly after obtaining the settlement funds, respondent failed to perform with competence, in willful, reckless and repeated violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
2. By failing to pay the lien holders for eighteen months, respondent failed to pay promptly, as requested by a client, any funds in Respondent’s possession which the client is entitled to receive, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(4).
3. By, in or about May 21, 2008, and again by in or about October 29, 2008, allowing his CTA account to fall below the amount he should have been holding on behalf of Poncini, respondent failed 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 willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
4. By failing to timely respond to Poncini’s numerous emails regarding the progress on the lien holder matters, 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 Business and Professions Code, section 5068(m). By failing to advise Poncini of the independent medical exam, 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 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
5. By failing to return to Poncini her documents until May, 2007, with one additional report returned in May, 2009, 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 Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
6. By paying Ziff $3,522.09 from Poncini’s settlement funds, respondent split his fees with another attorney, without advising Ponicini or obtaining her consent, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 2-200.
7. By failing to abide by the aforementioned court orders, respondent willfully disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to do or forbear, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6103.
4. 10-O-8356 (Claridge)
In February, 2009, Sally Claridge (hereinafter, "Claridge") hired respondent to represent her in a personal injury matter. The parties agreed to a contingency fee. Respondent, with his client, attended an interview regarding the case in or about November, 2009. Thereafter, respondent took no further action on the case. In March, 2010, Claridge hired respondent to represent her in a second matter, involving an injury to her jaw. Respondent did not bring suit on Claridge’s behalf on either of the two cases. On or about July 10, 2010, Claridge sent respondent a letter via certified mail, requesting the status of the cases and requesting word from respondent as to why no suit had been filed. Respondent failed to respond or otherwise apprize Claridge of the status of her cases. Respondent withdrew from representing Claridge in or about September, 2010.
1. By failing to timely respond to Claridge’s certified letter, respondent failed to respond to the reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which he agreed to perform legal services, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
2. By failing to withdraw until September, 2010, when respondent’s last action on the (first) matter was November, 2009, respondent failed to properly withdraw, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2).
5. 10-O-8029 (SBI)
On April 14, 2010, respondent issued check, check no. 10365 from his attorney-client trust account, for the sum of $1,726.75, against, insufficient funds.
Conclusions of law
1. By issuing a check against insufficient funds, respondent failed 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 willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4100(A).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was December 7, 2010.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of December 7, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are $6,195.00. 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.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standards
The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct call for a minimum actual suspension of ninety days for violations of rule 4-100 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. (Standard 2.2(b)). Here, respondent failed to maintain the lien holder funds of Poncini, as well as failed to promptly pay out the lien holder funds in the Poncini and Azur matters, and he issued an NSF check for over one thousand dollars. Respondent’s repeated violation of this rule warrants the suspension.
Case law
In In the Matter of Sampson (R.D. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar. Ct. Rptr, the attorney failed to pay the medical liens of 14 clients, all to one Dr. Byme. Respondent used the funds himself. The total funds owed amounted to $29,453, and respondent’s CTA dropped to about a thousand dollars. Respondent claimed he had authority from Byrne to borrow the funds, but Byrne denied this purported loan. The court found moral turpitude due to respondent’s reckless disregard of his CTA obligations. The court also found violations of RPC 3-110(A) and 4-100(A) & (B)(4), and 6068(m). While respondent herein did not have fourteen clients, the aggregate sum of monies for the Azar and Poncini matters is significant, amounting to over three thousand dollars in the Azar matter and over twenty thousand in the Poncinin matter. The amount misappropriated is about one-third of that in Sampson. Sampson was charged with four client matters (although the first one affected fourteen clients) in this case, respondent also has four client matters five matters before this court, and an additional State Bar matter for the NSF check. Sampson had thirteen years of discipline free practice. The Court imposed an eighteen month actual suspension, three years of stayed suspension.
In In the Matter of Riley (R.D. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 91, the attorney received a ninety day actual suspension, three years probation, for consolidated matters involving numerous charges, mostly failure to honor medical liens. In three of the matters, respondent disbursed the funds without paying a medi-cal lien; there was more misconduct in four more cases involving contractual liens. The attorney was admitted in 1977 and had no prior discipline; yet the court stated that there was no reason to go below the standards, which mandate a three month actual suspension.
In In Matter of Silver (R.D.1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 902, the attorney misappropriated $4,800 in client funds in a single client matter, failing to properly pay out the medical provider. He received ninety days of actual suspension, with three years of suspension, stayed, and three years of probation. While the trial court originally imposed six months of actual suspension, this was reduced by the Review Department to the ninety days. Silver, unlike respondent herein, involved only one client matter, and a small sum. Respondent has committed misconduct in five matters, two of them involving liens.
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.
Respondent admits that the aforementioned facts are true and
that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of
Professional Conduct.
Case Number(s): 08-O-12742; 09-O-11309; 08-O-14144; 10-O-08029; 10-O-08356
In the Matter of: Gerald Scher
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:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
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
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.
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.
Case Number(s): 08-O-12742; 09-O-11309; 08-O-14144; 10-O-08029; 10-O-08356
In the Matter of: Gerald Scher
checked. a. Within 90 days/ xx months/ xx years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
<<not>> checked. b. Within days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
<<not>> checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
Other:
Case Number(s): 08-O-12742; 09-O-11309; 08-O-14144; 10-O-08029; 10-O-08356
In the Matter of: Gerald Scher
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: Gerald Scher
Date: December 17, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel: Ephriam Margolin and Vicki Young
Date: December 20, 2010
Deputy Trial Counsel: Robin Brune
Date: December 28, 2010
Case Number(s): 08-O-12742; 09-O-11309; 08-O-14144; 10-O-08029; 10-O-08356
In the Matter of: Gerald H. Scher
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 disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
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 conditional Std 1.4(c)(ii) requirement needs be deleted. Based on the discipline set forth in the stipulation, it is not possible for respondent to be suspended for two years or more, since the discipline imposed requires that he be suspended from the practice of law for only the first 90 days of probation.
Therefore, on page 4, paragraph E.(1), DELETE the “x” from the box preceding the words, “If Respondent is actually suspended for two years or more…” On page 4, paragraph D.(1)(a) should be checked.
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: Lucy Armendariz
Date: January 18, 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 18, 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:
EPHRAIM MARGOLIN
LAW OFFICE OF EPHRAIM MARGOLIN
240 STOCKTON STREET, 4TH FL.
SAN FRANCISCO, 9418-5318
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ROBIN BRUNE, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on January 18, 2011.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court