Case Number(s): 08-O-12932-LMA
In the Matter of: William B. Look, Jr., Bar # 66631, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Wonder J. Liang, Deputy Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94105
(415) 538-2372
Bar #184357
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
William B. Look, Jr.
P.O. Box 1381
Monterey, California 93942
(831) 372-1371
Bar # 66631
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
<<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 .
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 12 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):
<<not>> 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.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2012 and 2013. (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.
IN THE MATTER OF: WILLIAM B. LOOK, JR.
CASE NUMBER(S): ET AL. 08-0-12932-LMA
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Facts: Count Two:
1. In May, 2007, Craig Ataide hired respondent to address the foreclosure of the client’s real property at 591 E. Franklin in Monterey, California. On May 9, 2007, respondent substituted into a suit on behalf of Craig and Laurie Ataide, Datacom. v. Ataide, case no. M83145, filed in Superior Court, County of Monterey. Respondent also filed suit on behalf of Ataide, entitled Ataide v. Datacom, case no. M89213, filed in Superior Court, County of Monterey (lis pendens) on or about February 14, 2008.
2. As a result of the lis pendens, respondent brought Datacom back to settlement negotiations regarding the Franklin Street property. The parties executed a settlement agreement in or about March, 2008, in which Ataide obtained the option to repurchase the parcel for $450,000. Ataide failed to meet the financial terms of the agreement, and the renegotiations involved an increasingly more expensive price to keep the property at 591 Franklin.
3. On or about April 24, 2008, Ataide and his mother, Donna Ataide, met with respondent at his office. Shortly thereafter, Craig Ataide conveyed funds with a cashier’s check to respondent in the sum of $460,000, check no. 349143807. The check was issued to respondent with the name "Donna C. Ataide/Datacom" identified in the memo line. Respondent received the funds and deposited them into his attorney client trust account, account number 41099XXX at Bancorp Bank (hereinafter, "CTA").
4. During the meeting between Donna Ataide and respondent, respondent told Donna Ataide that he would properly maintain the funds in his CTA account and convey them to Datacom for the Franklin Street property. Respondent did not state that he would offset any of the funds prior to their return.
5. On April 29, 2008, respondent wrote opposing counsel, Appel, and advised that he had $460,000 in confirmed funds, (referring to the funds from Donna Ataide), and that he intended to tender the funds for the $450,000 cost plus a $5,700 per diem charge to cancel the trustee’s deeds and for Datacom to accept a payoff of the Datacom lien. On April 30, 2008, Appel notified respondent that Ataide did not timely close escrow and both the Monterey and Hawaii (a cross-collateralized property) properties were sold at trustees sales.
6. On April 30, 2008 respondent wrote to his client and confirmed that the client’s $460,000 offer to Datacom, for an assignment, from Datacom, of their trust deed was rejected, and that Datacom would insist that the matter be resolved not by an assignment, but by a reconveyance. A reconveyance would involve additional costs for judgment liens and other miscellaneous charges.
7. In the same April 30, 2008 letter, respondent allocated the $460,000 in funds as follows: $19,900 to himself for reimbursement of bad checks received by respondent and issued by Ataide; $4,971.95 for an attorney’s lien for attorney Iwashita for his work on the Hawaii property; $44,000 to respondent for attorney’s fees in the matter, (total: $68,871.00) leaving a balance of $391,1N~.Respondent enclosed a check to Craig Ataide in the sum of $391,
8. Shortly thereafter, on or about May 5, 2008, Craig Ataide disputed respondent’s distribution of the $460,000 to any party other that Ataide or Donna Ataide. Respondent received notice of Ataide’s dispute of the funds on or before this date. Ataide’s new counsel, Berry, sent respondent a letter dated May 12, 2008 objecting to his retention of the funds.
9. On or between April 30, 2008 and June 1, 2008, respondent distributed the Ataide funds in his CTA account as follows: The first five checks were issued on April 30, 2008; the remaining checks are noted individually, as follows:
i) check no. 3071 in the sum of $19,900 issued to respondent, notation: bad check
reimbursement; this check was negotiated into another account on May 5, 2008;
ii) check no. 3072 in the sum of $4,971.65 issued to Andrew Iwashita, notation: fee
outstanding, this check was negotiated on May 16, 2008 in First Hawaiian Bank;
iii) check no. 3073 in the sum of $391,129.00 issued to Craig Ataide, notation: "refund
remaining balance of loan proceeds"; this check was negotiated on 5/2/08;
iv) check no. 3076, in the sum of $2,500, issued to respondent, notation: "Ataide, Craig,
(cost reimbursement)"; this check was negotiated on May 2, 2008;
v) check no. 3077, in the sum of $31,000, issued to respondent, notation, "Ataide, Craig
(stipulated fee payment)"; this check was negotiated May 14, 2008;
vi) on May 6, 2008, check no. 3078, in the sum of $10,000 issued to respondent, notation: Craig Ataide, stipulated fee payment; this check was negotiated May 7, 2008; vii) on June 1, 2008, check no. 3082, for $499.35, notation: Craig Ataide stipulated fee
payment; this check was negotiated on June 11, 2008.
10. Donna Ataide and Craig Ataide did not consent to respondent’s distribution of the funds to himself or to any third party, other than Datacom, for any reason. Donna Ataide provided $460,000 to respondent for the purpose of conveying the funds to Datacom for the Franklin Street property. The funds that respondent distributed to other parties amounted to $68,871.00.
11. On or about May 5, 2008, respondent knew that Ataide, on behalf of himself and Donna Ataide, disputed respondent’s distribution of Donna Ataide’s funds to Ataide’s legal fees and payments to third parties.
12. Respondent nonetheless distributed $41,499.35 after May 5, 2008, after he was aware of Ataide’s and Donna Ataide’s dispute of his distribution of funds.
Conclusions of Law: Count Two:
By distributing $41,499.35 of the funds after he knew that the Ataides disputed his distribution of the funds, respondent withdrew client funds from a client trust account prior to the resolution of a dispute with the client over respondent’s right to receive those funds, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A)(2).
Facts: Count Three:
13. The allegations of Count Two are hereby incorporated by reference.
14. In or about December 2007 or January, 2008, respondent provided Ataide with a document entitled "General Appearance Waiver of Fee Arbitration Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Order for Entry of Judgment," in which Ataide waived all arbitration rights and agreed to a stipulated fee of $45,964.00. Ataide signed this document at respondent’s behest.
15. Respondent obtained a pecuinary interest adverse to his client when Ataide executed the "General Appearance Waiver of Fee Arbitration Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Order for Entry of Judgment" because Ataide had waived the right to arbitrate and/or litigate respondent’s fee.
16. The "General Appearance Waiver of Fee Arbitration Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Order for Entry of Judgment" was not a fair and reasonable agreement for Ataide for reasons including, but not limited to, the following:
i) Respondent advised Ataide that he would no longer continue to represent Ataide unless Ataide signed the agreement, and, at the time, Ataide was at imminent risk for losing the Franklin Street property and in urgent need of legal assistance;
ii) Respondent did not provide an accounting of fees to Ataide, to justify the $45,964.00 amount.
17. The "General Appearance Waiver of Fee Arbitration Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Order for Entry of Judgment" did not specify in writing that the client may seek the advice of an independent lawyer of the client’s choice; respondent did not inform Ataide that he could seek the advice of an independent lawyer of his choice to review the agreement.
Conclusion of Law: Count Three:
By requiring that Ataide execute the "General Appearance Waiver of Fee Arbitration Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Order for Entry of Judgment" during a period in which Ataide was in urgent need of legal assistance, without providing Ataide with an accounting of his fees, without advising Ataide that he could seek the advice of an independent lawyer of his choice to review the agreement, respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-300.
Facts: Count Four:
18. The allegations of Counts Two and Three are hereby incorporated by reference.
19. Ataide’s uncle, Don Patterson, made several wire transfers to respondent on behalf of Ataide, including a transfer of $15,000 on or about November 29, 2007 and a transfer of $5,000 on or about December, 2007. These funds were transferred to respondent’s business account, account number 410936XXX at First National (a.k.a. Pacific Capital Bancorp) Bank.
20. Ataide made several payments to respondent, including several checks that bounced.
21. Respondent did not render an accounting to Ataide regarding all funds coming into respondent’s possession on Ataide’s behalf. Respondent belatedly sought to reconstruct this information in 2010, at the request of the State Bar, but his records are incomplete.
22. Respondent is unable to fully account for all funds coming into his possession on behalf of Ataide. He cannot verify that payments were made to third parties, including, but not limited, to the following: 1) an alleged payment of $952 made to a mortgage broker; 2) an alleged payment of $1,734 to Recorder, Monterey County.
Conclusions of Law: Count Four:
By failing to render appropriate accounts to a client regarding all funds or coming into respondent’s possession, respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was March 9, 2011
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No. 08-0-12932, Count One, Alleged Violation Business and Professions Code §6106
Case No. 08-0-12932, Count Five, Alleged Violation Rules of Professional Conduct rule 4-100(A)
Case No. 08-0-12932, Count Six, Alleged Violation Business and Professions Code 4-210(A)
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of March 9, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $6,452.70. 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.
Standard 1.6, subdivision (a) provides that the appropriate sanction for an act of professional misconduct shall be that set forth in the following standards for the particular act of misconduct found or acknowledged. If two or more acts of professional misconduct are found or acknowledged in a single disciplinary proceeding, and different sanctions are prescribed by these standards for said acts, the sanction imposed shall be the more or most severe of the different applicable sanctions.
Standard 2.2, subdivision (b) provides that culpability of a member of commingling of entrusted funds or property with personal property or the commission of another violation of rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct, none of which offenses result in the wilful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in at least a three month actual suspension from the practice of law, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
Standard 2.8 provides that Culpability of a member of a wilful violation of rule 3-300, Rules of Professional Conduct, shall result in suspension unless the extent of the member’s misconduct and the harm to the client are minimal, in which case, the degree of discipline shall be reproval.
Respondent admits that the above 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-12932-2
In the Matter of: William B. Look, Jr.
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: William B. Look, Jr.
Date: March 9, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel: N/A
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Wonder J. Liang
Date: March 9, 2011
Case Number(s): 08-O-12932-2
In the Matter of: William B. Look, Jr.
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 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: Pat Mc Elroy
Date: April 4, 2011
Actual Suspension Order
[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 April 4, 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 Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
WILLIAM BLACKFORD LOOK, JR.
P O BOX 1381
MONTEREY, CA 93942 - 1381
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
WONDER LIANG, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on April 4, 2011.
Signed by:
Laine Silber
Case Administrator
State Bar Court