State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

ACTUAL SUSPENSION

Case Number(s): 08-O-12917, 08-O-14189

In the Matter of: Patrick J. Grannan, Bar # 115693, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Dane C. Dauphine, Supervising Trial Counsel

1149 South Hill St.

Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299

Tel. (213) 765-1293, Bar # 121606,

Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Supervising Trial Counsel

1149 South Hill St.

Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299

Tel. (213) 765-1293, Bar #

Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.

Filed: December 20, 2010.

<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED

Note:  All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.

A.  Parties' Acknowledgments:

1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 3, 1984.

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 11 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.

B.        Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.

checked. (1) Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]

checked. (a)                  State Bar Court case # of prior case 02-O-156005, 02-O-15606, 03-O-01080, 03-O-02855.

checked. (b)                  Date prior discipline effective 11/20/04.

checked. (c)                  Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: 4 Counts of violation of RPC 3-110(A) (Fail to Perform); 1 Count of violation of RPC 3-700(D)(1)(Fail to Release File)

checked. (d)                  Degree of prior discipline 2 years stayed suspension, 3 years probation, no actual suspension.

<<not>> checked. (e)    If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below. .

<<not>> checked. (2) Dishonesty:  Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct.

<<not>> checked. (3) Trust Violation:  Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property.

checked. (4) Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice. Respondent’s misconduct caused client Kontoes to lose his opportunity to defend against the civil action against him and caused client Kaplan to lose his opportunity to pursue a cause of action for personal injury to a minor.

<<not>> checked. (5) Indifference:  Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his or her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (6) Lack of Cooperation:  Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings. 

checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:  Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s misconduct involved 2 client matters.

<<not>> checked. (8) No aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances: .

C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigating circumstances are required.

<<not>> checked. (1)    No Prior Discipline:  Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.

<<not>> checked. (2)    No Harm:  Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the misconduct. 

checked. (3)                    Candor/Cooperation:  Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims of his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings. Although Respondent did not cooperate at the State Bar investigations, he did cooperate with assigned trial counsel in reaching a stipulation in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (4)    Remorse:  Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct. 

<<not>> checked. (5)    Restitution:  Respondent paid $ on in restitution to without the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.

<<not>> checked. (6)    Delay:  These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed.  The delay is not attributable to Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

<<not>> checked. (7)    Good Faith:  Respondent acted in good faith.

<<not>> checked. (8)    Emotional/Physical Difficulties:  At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct.  The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.

checked. (9)                    Severe Financial Stress:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and which were directly responsible for the misconduct. In early 2005, Respondent’s wife was arrested on criminal charges which resulted in a conviction and incarceration from in or about May 2006 to June 2007 when she was released on parole, and the expense of the proceedings as well as the loss of income from Respondent’s wife caused financial stress to Respondent.

checked. (10) Family Problems:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature. In early 2005, Respondent’s wife was arrested on criminal charge which resulted in a conviction and incarceration from in or about May 2006 to June 2007 when she was released on parole, and the criminal proceedings and incarceration of Respondent’s wife caused emotional stress to Respondent.

<<not>> checked. (11) Good Character:  Respondent's good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (12) Rehabilitation:  Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.

<<not>> checked. (13) No mitigating circumstances are involved.
Additional mitigating circumstances: 

D. Discipline:

checked. (1)           Stayed Suspension:

checked. (a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 3 years stayed.

<<not>> checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii) Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

<<not>> checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.

<<not>> checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following: .

<<not>> checked. (b) The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

checked. (2) Probation:  Respondent must be placed on probation for a period of four years, which will commence upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter.  (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court.)

checked. (3) Actual Suspension:

checked. (a) Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period of 90 days.

<<not>> checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct

<<not>> checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.

<<not>> checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following: .

E. Additional Conditions of Probation:

<<not>> checked. (1)   If Respondent is actually suspended for two years or more, he/she must remain actually suspended until  he/she proves to the State Bar Court his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the general law, pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

checked. (2)                  During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.

checked. (3)                  Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

checked. (4)                  Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with Respondent's assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.

checked. (5)                  Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.
In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.

<<not>> checked. (6)   Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance. During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested, in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must cooperate fully with the probation monitor.

checked. (7)                  Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has complied with the probation conditions.

checked. (8)                  Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
No Ethics School recommended.  Reason: .

<<not>> checked. (9)   Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office of Probation.

<<not>> checked. (10) The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:

<<not>> checked. Substance Abuse Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Law Office Management Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Medical Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Financial Conditions.

F.  Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

checked. (1)                  Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination:  Respondent must provide proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation during the period of actual suspension or within one year, whichever period is longer.  Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) & (E), Rules of Procedure.
<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended.  Reason: .

checked. (2)                  Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (3)   Conditional Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90 days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 120 and 130 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (4)   Credit for Interim Suspension [conviction referral cases only]:  Respondent will be credited for the period of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual suspension. Date of commencement of interim suspension: .

checked. (5)                  Other Conditions: Respondent shall pay the sum of $7,605 plus interest at 10% from 11/16/09 to Harry Kontoes Jr. in satisfaction of the judgment against him in minimum quarterly payment of $1,500 and provide satisfactory proof thereof to the Office of Probation with each quarterly report or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation.

Attachment language (if any):.

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: Patrick J. Grannan, State Bar No. 115693

STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-O-12917, 08-O-14189

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.

THE KONTOES MATTER

FACTS:

1. In or about February 2005, Harry Kontoes Jr. ("Kontoes") employed Respondent to represent him in a civil matter filed against him in the Orange County Superior Court entitled Rayhaun v. Kontes, et al., case no. 05CCl 1636 ("Rayhaun case"). Kontoes paid Respondent $3,000 in advanced fees for his services.

2. On June 24, 2005, Respondent filed an answer on behalf of Kontoes to the civil complaint in the Rayhaun case. At that time, Respondent also filed a cross-complaint on behalf of Kontoes against the plaintiff in the Rayhaun case as well as other defendants.

3. Despite notice from the court and opposing counsel, Respondent did not file a case management statement on behalf of Kontoes in the Rayhaun case and did not appear for the case management conference held on March 9, 2006, in the Rayhaun case. At the case management conference, the court set a hearing for on April 20, 2007, for an order to show cause ("OSC") why the court should not strike Kontoes’s answer and cross-complaint and award monetary damages for failure to appear for the conference.

4. Although Respondent received notice from opposing counsel of the OSC on April 20, 2007, Respondent did not appear. The court took the matter under submission. On May 24, 2007, the court ordered that Kontoes’s answer be stricken and that his default be entered. The court also dismissed Kontoes’s cross-complaint.

5. Respondent received written notice of the court’s action, but he took no action to request that the court set aside the entry of Kontoes’s default or the dismissal of his cross-complaint. Respondent did not inform Kontoes that his default had been entered or that his cross-complaint had been dismissed.

6. On March 14, 2008, the court held a default prove-up hearing in the Rayhaun case and issued a default judgment against Kontoes in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $6,179.30.

7. Respondent did not provide any accounting to Kontoes for the $3,000 in advanced fees received from Kontoes or refund any of the $3,000 in unearned fees to Kontoes. On November 16, 2009, Kontoes obtained a default judgment against Respondent in the sum of $7,605.

8. On July 7, 2008, Kontoes made a complaint to the State Bar about Respondent’s conduct. On August 4, 2008, and August 19, 2008, a State Bar Investigator mailed a letter to Respondent at his address of record with the State Bar regarding the complaint by Kontoes. The letters requested that Respondent respond in writing to specified allegations of misconduct under investigation by the State Bar raised by the complaint. On August 21, 2008, Respondent contacted the investigator by telephone and requested additional time to respond to Kontoes’s complaint. At that time, Respondent agreed to provide the State Bar with a written response to Kontoes’s complaint by September 2, 2008. Thereafter, Respondent did not provide a written response to Kontoes’s complaint.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

9. By not filing a case management statement, not appearing at the case management conference, not appearing for the order to show cause hearing, and not taking any action to set aside Kontoes’s default in the Rayhaun Case, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3110(A).

10. By not informing Kontoes that the court had entered his default and dismissed his cross-complaint, 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).

11. By not providing an accounting to Kontoes for the $3,000 in advanced fees received from him, Respondent failed to render appropriate accounts to a client regarding all funds coming into Respondent’s possession in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3).

12. By not refunding to Kontoes any of the $3,000 in unearned fees, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).

13. By not providing the State Bar with a response to Kontoes’s complaint, Respondent failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i).

THE KAPLAN MATTER

FACTS:

14. In or about August 2002, Marc Kaplan ("Kaplan") employed Respondent to represent his minor son, Brandon, in a personal injury case arising from a change machine falling on Brandon on August 24, 2002. Respondent agreed to represent Kaplan as guardian ad litem for Brandon on a contingency fee basis.

15. On July 22, 2005, Respondent filed a civil action on behalf of Kaplan as guardian ad litem for Brandon in the Riverside County Superior Court entitled Kaplan v. KSL Recreation Corporation, case no. INC052291 ("Kaplan Case").

16. On April 5, 2006, defense counsel mailed written discovery, including interrogatories and requests for production, to Respondent, and on May 23, 2006, and June 24, 2006, defense counsel mailed letters to Respondent requesting responses to the discovery. Respondent did not provide responses to the discovery requests. On August 29, 2006, Respondent appeared at court for a motion hearing and a case management conference in the Kaplan Case. At that time, he informed defense counsel that he would forward a demand package and the overdue responses to the discovery. Respondent did not provide responses to the written discovery.

17. Respondent did not inform Kaplan of the receipt of the discovery requests. Respondent did not provide the defense counsel with responses to their written discovery requests. On September 21, 2006, defense counsel served Respondent with a motion to compel responses to discovery which gave notice of a hearing on the motion set for November 16, 2006. On or about September 25, 2006, defense counsel filed the motion to compel.

18. On October 19, 2006, Respondent signed a stipulation to continue the hearing on the motion to compel discovery responses as well as the hearings on other pending motions and the case management conference to November 17, 2006. On October 26, 2006, the court ordered that the hearings and case management conference be continued to December 28, 2006. Respondent received notice from defense counsel of the new dates.

19. On December 28, 2006, Respondent did not appear for the motion hearings and the case management conference. At that time, the court granted the motion to compel with no opposition from Respondent and ordered that Kaplan serve verified discovery responses within 30 days and that Kaplan and/or Respondent pay sanctions of $310 to defense counsel. The court also set the case management conference and a hearing for an order to show cause for Respondent’s failure to appear for on January 29, 2007. Thereafter, Respondent received notice from defense counsel of the court’s orders. Respondent did not appear at court on January 29, 2007, to respond to the order to show cause.

20. At no time did Respondent inform Kaplan of the court’s order to compel responses to the discovery or the order to show cause.

21. On February 15, 2007, defense counsel filed a motion for terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions against Kaplan and Respondent due to the failure to respond to written discovery and giving notice of a hearing on the motion. Defense counsel served notice of the motion on Respondent. Respondent did not file any written opposition to the motion.

22. At no time did Respondent inform Kaplan of the filing of the motion for terminating sanctions.

23. On May 8, 2007, Respondent did not appear in court for the hearing on the motion for terminating sanctions. At that time, the court granted the motion for terminating sanctions. On May 8, 2007, defense counsel mailed to Respondent at his office address a notice of the ruling and a copy of the order dismissing the complaint in the Kaplan Case. Respondent received a copy of the order. On June 21, 2007, defense counsel mailed to Respondent a notice of entry of judgment of dismissal in the Kaplan Case. Respondent received the notice.

24. At no time did Respondent inform Kaplan of the order dismissing the complaint in the Kaplan Case or the entry of a judgment of dismissal. During the years 2007 and 2008, Kaplan called Respondent’s office seeking to learn the status of his case. On several occasions, Kaplan was able to speak to Respondent who assured Kaplan that he was handling the case. Respondent concealed from Kaplan that the court had dismissed the Kaplan Case.

25. During the year 2008, Kaplan learned from other counsel that the Kaplan Case had been dismissed by the court. On July 15, 2008, Kaplan mailed a letter to Respondent at Respondent’s office address requesting that Respondent release his client file. Respondent received the letter. At no time did Respondent release to Kaplan the client file on the Kaplan Case or inform Kaplan how he could obtain his file.

26. On October 22, 2008, Kaplan made a complaint to the State Bar about Respondent’s conduct. On January 21, 2009, a State Bar Investigator mailed a letter to Respondent at his address of record with the State Bar regarding the complaint by Kaplan. The letter requested that Respondent respond in writing to specified allegations of misconduct under investigation by the State Bar raised by the complaint. Respondent received the letter. Respondent did not provide a written response to the Kaplan complaint or otherwise cooperate in the State Bar’s investigation.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

27. By not responding to the written discovery requests, not responding to the motion to compel discovery, not appearing at court for the case management conference or the hearing on the order to show cause, not responding to the motion for terminating sanctions or appearing at the hearing on that motion, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).

28. By not informing Kaplan of the discovery requests, the order compelling responses to the discovery, the motion for terminating sanctions, or the ruling on that motion, 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).

29. By concealing the dismissal of the Kaplan Case from Kaplan and misrepresenting to Kaplan that Respondent was still working on the case, Respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6106.

30. By not releasing the client file on the Kaplan Case to Kaplan at his request after the court had dismissed the case, 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).

31. By not providing any response to the State Bar regarding the Kaplan complaint, Respondent failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i).

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was November 18, 2010.

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct (the "Standards"):

Culpability of an act involving intentional dishonesty toward a client shall result in actual suspension or disbarment depending upon the magnitude of the act of misconduct and the degree to which it relates to the member’s acts within the practice of law. (Standard 2.3.) Culpability for failure to perform in matters not demonstrating a pattern shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client. (Standard 2.4.) Where two or more acts of professional misconduct are committed, and different sanctions are prescribed by the standards for said acts, the sanctions imposed shall be the more or most severe of the different applicable sanctions. (Standard 1.6(a).) Where the member has prior discipline that is not remote in time or based on minimal misconduct, subsequent discipline shall be greater than the prior discipline. (Standard 1.7(a).)

Case Law

Failure to perform and abandonment of clients (not establishing a pattern) has resulted in stayed or a short actual suspension even with no prior record of discipline. Greater discipline is warranted where there is prior misconduct of a similar nature. See In the Matter of Layton (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rtpr. 366 (six months actual suspension for failure to perform in a single probate matter with past similar misconduct for which he received a 30 day actual suspension); In the Matter of Bach (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 631 (nine months actual suspension and until restitution for failure to perform/communicate in two client matters, failure to refund unearned fees, and failure to cooperate with the State Bar’s investigation with similar prior misconduct for which he received 30-days actual suspension); Lister v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1117 (nine months actual suspension for abandonment of three client matters with failure to refund fees and failure to cooperate in State Bar investigations with a prior private reproval).

The stipulated discipline of 90 days actual suspension is within the range of discipline under the standards and the case law. Respondent’s prior misconduct involved 4 client matters and similar misconduct to this case for which he received a stayed suspension. This case involves fewer client matters but also includes misrepresentation to the client. The disposition is at the lower end of the range of discipline in recognition of Respondent’s cooperation in stipulating to discipline in this matter.

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 08-O-12917, 08-O-14189

In the Matter of: Patrick J. Grannan, State Bar No.: 115693

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: Patrick J. Grannan

Date: November 22, 2010

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Dane C. Dauphine

Date: November 22, 2010

ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER

Case Number(s): 08-O-12917, 08-O-14189

In the Matter of: Patrick J. Grannan, State Bar No.: 115693

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.

<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.

Page 4 –D.(1)(b) – Check Box

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: Richard A. Platel

Date: December 20, 2010.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]

I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and

County of Los Angeles, on December 20, 2010, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:

checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

PATRICK J GRANNAN

GRANNAN LAW OFFICE

5319 UNIVERSITY DR #309

IRVINE, CA 92612

<<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:

DANE DAUPHINE, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 20, 2010.

Signed by:

Angela Carpenter

Case Administrator

State Bar Court