Case Number(s): 08-O-13790; 09-O-14876
In the Matter of: Johnnie Lee Taylor, Bar # 117532, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Donald R. Steedman, 180 Howard Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Bar # 104927
Counsel for Respondent: Carol M. Langford, 100 Pringle Ave #570
Walnut Creek CA 94596
Bar # 124812
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted May 29, 1985.
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: the first five years after the disciplinary order is issued. (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.
1. State Bar case number 00--O-14819. Public Reproval imposed August 21, 2002, for violations of Bus. and Prof. Code sections 6068(o)(3) and 6103.
2. State Bar case number 91-O-06555. Public Reproval imposed September 27, 1993 for violations of Rule of Professions Conduct 3-110(a), former Rule of Professional Conduct 6-101 and Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
The disclosure mentioned in paragraph A.7., herein, was made on November 30, 2010.
Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law:
COUNT ONE
Case No. 08-0-13790
Rules of Professional Conduct, role 3-110(A)
[Failure to Perform with Competence]
1. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), by intentionally, recklessly, and repeatedly failing to perform legal services with competence, as follows:
2. Beginning on or about February 23, 2005 and continuing at all times mentioned, respondent represented Zipora Wright in connection with his claim for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Respondent subsequently filed and prosecuted lawsuit on behalf of Wright (Zipora Wright v. Angel Quick, case number C07-00199, Contra Costa County Superior Court) and the later represented Wright in the appeal of the dismissal of the Zipora v. Quick lawsuit (case number A123137, First Appellate District of California).
3. Respondent failed to perform competent legal services for Zipora Wright in the following ways:
(a) Respondent failed to appear at scheduled court hearings on or about June 25, 2007, September 12, 2007, November 23, 2007, November 29, 2007, February 11, 2008, and March 12, 2008, and appeared very late at scheduled court hearings on January 7, 2007, May 20, 2008, July 29, 2008, and September 10, 2008. Respondent had notice of each of these court hearings and failed to appear without any proper reason;
(b) Respondent failed to appear at his client’s deposition on March 12, 2008 even though he had notice of it;
(c) Respondent failed to notice the defendant’s deposition and seek discovery of pertinent documents until July 23, 2008. This was shortly before trial--after statutory deadline for doing so had expired (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2024.020(a));
(d) Respondent did not cause the notice of deposition to be properly served;
(e) Respondent did not comply with discovery rules regarding disclosure of expert witnesses and, as a result, was precluded from presenting expert testimony at trial. Because respondent was precluded from presenting expert testimony, the trial court ruled that respondent would be unable to establish causation and therefore granted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The judgment was filed October 6, 2008;
(f) Respondent appealed the dismissal of the lawsuit, but failed to provide an adequate clerk’s record on appeal. As a result, on or about July 17, 2009 the court of appeal affirmed the judgment of dismissal;
4. Respondent thereby intentionally, recklessly, and repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence.
5. Mitigating Circumstance: Mr. Taylor had problems with his secretary who may have had a drug problem and failed to file papers.
6. Aggravating Circumstance. Respondent’s client had a valid cause of action, such that the defendant formally offered to compromise the case for $9,001.00. As a result, respondent caused harm to his client.
COUNT TWO
Case No. 08-O-13790
Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A)
[Failure to Perform with Competence]
1. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), by intentionally, recklessly, and repeatedly failing to perform legal services with competence, as follows:
2. Beginning on or about August 13, 2007, and continuing until November 24, 2008, respondent represented the plaintiff, Phyllis Jackson, in case entitled Phyllis Jackson v. Pride Industries, case number CIVMSC07-01710, Contra Costa County Superior Court. Jackson employed respondent to obtain compensation for personal- injuries she suffered in a slip and fall.
3. Respondent failed to perform competent legal services for Jackson in the following ways:
(a) Respondent failed to appear at scheduled court hearings on or about February 4, 2008, June 10, 2008, July 10, 2008, September 10, 2008, and appeared significantly late at scheduled court hearings on January 2, 2008, August 12, 2008. Respondent had notice of each of these court hearings and failed to appear without any proper reason;
(b) Respondent failed to diligently prosecute the case, and failed to take reasonable steps to obtain compensation for his client;
(c) Respondent unreasonably delayed in causing the lawsuit to be served on defendants;
(d) Respondent failed to file a case management statement due on or before the June 10, 2008 court conference, despite having notice that the court had required it to be filed;
(e) Respondent failed to timely respond to the defendant’s March 2008 written discovery.
4. Respondent substituted out of the case on or about November 24, 2008.
5. Respondent thereby intentionally, recklessly, and repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence.
COUNT THREE
Case No. 08-0-13790
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(b)
[Failure to Maintain Respect to the Court]
1. Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(b), by failing to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, as follows:
2. The allegations contained in Counts One and Two are hereby incorporated by this reference.
3. By repeatedly failing to appear in court and, on other occasions, repeatedly failing to appear in court on time, respondent failed to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.
COUNT FOUR
Case No. 09-0-14876
Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A)
[Failure to Perform with Competence]
1. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), by intentionally, recklessly, and repeatedly failing to perform legal services with competence, as follows:
2. At all times mentioned, respondent was employed to obtain compensation and declaratory relief for his client, Carolyn Burks. Burks, who had been an employee of the United States Postal Service, contended that the Postal Service had engaged in actionable employment discrimination.
3. On or about August 24, 2006, respondent filed a lawsuit on behalf of Burks entitled Carolyn Burks v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, case number C065211, United States District Court.
4. Thereafter, respondent failed to perform competent legal services for Burks, as follows:
(a) Respondent failed to serve the defendant in the manner prescribed by law (Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 4(i)), despite the fact that respondent received (1) two Orders to Show Cause (dated November 16, 2006 and October 17, 2007) warning respondent that the case might be dismissed for failure to comply with rule 4(i) and (2) a letter dated December 7, 2007 from the United States Attorney containing a similar warning.
(b) Respondent received the November 19, 2007 order dismissing the case for failure to comply with rule 4(i) shortly after it was issued, but respondent took no steps to set aside the dismissal for a year.
(c) By order filed March 12, 2009, the court granted respondent’s motion to set aside the default on condition that respondent complete service of the lawsuit within ten days of the date of the order, i.e., by (March 22, 2009. Thereafter, respondent settled the case to the client’s satisfaction, but did not promptly notify the court.
5. Respondent thereby intentionally, recklessly, and repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence.
COUNT FIVE
Case No. 09-0-13790
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(b)
[Failure to Maintain Respect to the Court]
1. Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(b), by failing to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, as follows:
2. The allegations contained in Count Four are hereby incorporated by this reference.
3. Respondent was incarcerated beginning on March 26, 2009, but still had the ability to employ counsel to (1) assist his clients, (2) review mail received in respondent’s law offices and (3) comply with court orders.
4. On or about March 31, 2009, the court issued an order that (1) again dismissed the case due to respondent’ s failure to..effect service, (2) ordered respondent to serve a copy of the dismissal order on plaintiff herself, and (3) ordered respondent to file a declaration attesting to and describing service of the order on the plaintiff within five days of date of the order, i.e., by April 5, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the order was received in respondent’s law offices.
5. Respondent took no action to comply with the March 31, 2009 order until May 13, 2009, when an attorney acting on respondent’s behalf mailed a copy of the March 31, 2009 dismissal order to Carolyn Burkes. This mailing occurred because of pressure imposed by the federal court, as follows: On or about May 4, 2009, the federal court filed an Order to Show Cause why respondent should not be held in contempt, which was received in respondent’s offices shortly thereafter. On or about May 12, 2009, the court conducted a contempt hearing, attended by an attorney who made a special appearance for respondent. The court found respondent in contempt, subject to reconsideration in the event respondent’s attorney submitted a satisfactory declaration. The attorney submitted such a declaration on May 18, 2009, and the court discharged the contempt citation but referred the matter to the State Bar of California.
6. By failing to promptly and timely comply with the court’s March 31, 2009 order, respondent failed to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
Normally, progressive discipline is imposed (Standard 1.7(a), Standards for Attorney Sanctions). However, the misconduct in the current and prior disciplinary proceeding occurred at about the same time. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to impose a disciplinary sanction as if both matters had been considered simultaneously (In the Matter of Sklar (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 602, 619).
Case Number(s): 08-O-13790; 09-O-14876
In the Matter of: Johnnie Lee Taylor
Nolo Contendere Plea Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition
Business and Professions Code § 6085.5 Disciplinary Charges; Pleas to Allegations
There are three kinds of pleas to the allegations of a notice of disciplinary charges or other pleading which initiates a disciplinary proceeding against a member:
(a) Admission of culpability.
(b) Denial of culpability.
(c) Nolo contendere, subject to the approval of the State Bar Court. The court shall ascertain whether the member completely understands that a plea of nolo contendere will be considered the same as an admission of culpability and that, upon a plea of nolo contendere, the court will find the member culpable. The legal effect of such a plea will be the same as that of an admission of culpability for all purposes, except that the plea and any admissions required by the court during any inquiry it makes as to the voluntariness of, or the factual basis for, the pleas, may not be used against the member as an admission in any civil suit based upon or growing out of the act upon which the disciplinary proceeding is based. (Added by Stats. 1996, ch. 1104.)(emphasis supplied)
Rule 133, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California STIPULATION AS TO FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
“(A) A proposed stipulation to facts, conclusions of law, and disposition must set forth each of the following:
[¶] . . . [¶]
(5) a statement that the member either:
(i) admits the truth of the facts comprising the stipulation and admits culpability for misconduct; or
(ii) pleads nolo contendere to those facts and violations. If the Respondent pleads nolo contendere, the stipulation shall include each of the following:
a) an acknowledgement that the Respondent completely understands that the plea of nolo contendere shall be considered the same as an admission of the stipulated facts and of his or her culpability of the statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct specified in the stipulation; and
(b) if requested by the Court, a statement by the Deputy Trial Counsel that the factual stipulations are supported by evidence obtained in the State Bar investigation of the matter (emphasis supplied)
I, the Respondent in this matter, have read the applicable provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code § 6085.5 and rule 133(a)(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California. 1 plead nolo contendere to the charges set forth in this stipulation and I completely understand that my plea must be considered the same as an admission of culpability except as state in Business and Professions Code section 6085.5(c).
Signed by:
Respondent: Johnnie Lee Taylor
Date: December 15, 2010
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 08-O-13790; 09-O-14876
In the Matter of: Johnnie Lee Taylor
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: Johnnie Lee Taylor
Date: December 15, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel: Carol M. Langford
Date: December 15, 2010
Deputy Trial Counsel: Donald R. Steedman
Date: December 16, 2010
Case Number(s): 08-O-13790-PEM, 09-O-14876-PEM
In the Matter of: Johnnie Lee Taylor
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.
1. On page 4 of the stipulation, the "X" in box D(1)(a)(i) is DELETED to remove the "and until" standard 1.4(c)(ii) condition. (It is inappropriate to attach "and until" conditions to periods of stayed suspension.)
2. On page 4 of the stipulation, an "X" is inserted in box D(1)(b) so that the two-year suspension will be stayed.
3. On page 4 of the stipulation, in paragraph D(2), the phrase that begins "concurrent with" and ends "case S 185995)" is DELETED so that the paragraph reads:
Respondent must be placed on probation for a period of three years, which will commence upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter. (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court)
4. On page 4 of the stipulation, in paragraph D(3)(a), the text on lines 2, 3, and 4 is DELETED and the phrase "of at least 90 days" is INSERTED in its place so that the paragraph reads:
Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period of at least 90 days 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.
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: Patricia McElroy
Date: January 13, 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 14, 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:
CAROL LANGFORD
100 PRINGLE AVE #570
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
DONALD STEEDMAN, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on January 14, 2011.
Signed by:
Lauretta Cramer
Case Administrator
State Bar Court