Case Number(s): 08-O-14349-RAP
In the Matter of: Ruth Cecelia Rose, Bar # 145887, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Larry DeSha, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1336
Bar #117910,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Ruth Cecilia Rose
2926 Manchester Blvd.; Ste. 141
Inglewood, CA 90305
(323) 710-5094
Bar# 145887
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 February 20, 1990.
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):
<<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: three billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order.. (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.
checked. (c) Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: Business and Professions Code section 6103
<<not>> 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: The protection of the public and the interests of Respondent do not require passage of the MPRE in this case because Responddnt took and passed the MPRE in March 2009 in connection with previous discipline. See In the Matter of Respondent G (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Ca. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 181,183..
IN THE MATTER OF: RUTH CECILIA ROSE
CASE NO.: 08-O-14349-RAP
WAIVER OF VARIANCE:
The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on November 18, 2010 and the facts and/or conclusions of law contained in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The parties further waive the right to the filing of a Notice of Disciplinary Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
FACTS:
1. During the period from May 27, 2008 until June 11, 2009, Respondent was suspended from practicing law as a result of failing to pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, as required by a disciplinary order of the Supreme Court of California filed on March 29, 2007.
2. The Supreme Court of California also suspended Respondent as of July 1, 2008 for failing to pay her State Bar membership fees for calendar year 2008. That suspension remains in effect.
3. After her suspension in 2008, Respondent kept her office open and performed paralegal and law clerk services for attorneys on a contract basis. On November 3, 2008, a staff assistant for an attorney located in the same building requested Respondent to come to the attorney’s office to make a telephonic appearance at 9:00 a.m. the next day for a hearing on a demurrer. The attorney had just been hired by
the plaintiff, but was unable to make the appearance because of a schedule conflict. The staff assistant did not know of Respondent’s suspension, and Respondent did not mention it. Respondent agreed to make the telephonic court appearance.
4. On November 4, 2008, Respondent made the telephonic appearance in Los Angeles County Superior Court case no. NC-042577, entitled George Adams v. Mortgage Electronic Registrations, Inc. She stated her appearance as being from the attorney’s office and on behalf of the plaintiff. She did not describe it as a special appearance, nor mention that no attorney was available to take the call. The court stated that the attorney had not substituted into the case, and Respondent explained to the court that the substitution form was supposed to have been filed that morning. Respondent then requested a continuance so that the substitution form could be filed. The court denied the continuance and made its rulings for each count in the demurrer.
5. After ruling on the demurrer, the court mentioned that a demurrer by a second defendant was calendared for hearing on November 6, 2008, and stated its intention to calendar a new case management conference. The court asked, "Is that okay with plaintiff’s counsel?" Respondent replied, "Yes, it is, your honor." The court then ordered plaintiff to file a case management conference statement, to which Respondent replied, "All right, your honor, so noted." The court asked Respondent if she would be appearing for the hearing on November 6, 2008, and Respondent replied that another attorney would make that appearance. The court then encouraged the three parties to confer on the pleadings, to which Respondent replied, "I understand. I’ll make that happen, your honor." The hearing was then concluded.
6. Respondent was asked to appear at the telephonic hearing on the second demurrer on November 6, 2008, and she agreed to do so. When the court called the case, Respondent stated her appearance as, "Ruth Rose" from the plaintiff’s attorney’s office. The court inquired if she was suspended, to which she admitted that she was. The court then asked why she was appearing in the case, and Respondent replied that the attorney was not available. The court forbade Respondent to speak further on the record. The demurrer was overruled on grounds of mootness, since the plaintiff’ s attorney had filed an amended complaint just before the hearing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
7. In both of the telephonic court appearances, Respondent willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of section 6125 of the Business and Professions Code. In both telephonic court appearances, Respondent willfully held herself out as entitled to practice law in violation of section 6126(a) of the Business and Professions Code. These violations were a willful failure to support the laws of the State of California and were violations of section 6068(a) of the Business and Professions Code.
8. Respondent willfully committed acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption by holding herself out to the court and counsel as an attorney entitled to practice law, when she knew she was not an active member of the State Bar, and she thereby violated section 6106 of the Business and Professions Code.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. Lack of Harm
No actual harm resulted to the judicial process, nor to the plaintiff’s cause. Respondent’s acts did not affect the court’s decisions, and they did not cause any delay in the case.
[Standard 1.2(e)(iii).]
2. Candor/Cooperation
After direct inquiry by the court, Respondent promptly admitted that she was not an
active member of the State Bar. She has cooperated fully with the State Bar during this
proceeding, and has admitted the material facts, her culpability for the two counts, and the appropriate degree of discipline. [Standard 1.2(e)(v).]
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY:
Standards
Standard 1.7(a) requires that the degree of discipline to be imposed in a second disciplinary proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding, unless the prior discipline was so remote in time and so minimal in severity that greater discipline would be manifestly unjust.
Standard 2.3 requires that an act of moral turpitude, fraud, or intentional dishonesty toward a court shall result in actual suspension or disbarment depending upon the extent to which the victim of the misconduct was harmed or misled and depending upon the magnitude of the act of misconduct and the degree to which it relates to the member’s practice of law.
Case Law
In the Matter of Johnston (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 585, attomey
Johnston was found culpable of improperly holding himself out as entitled to practice law at a single meeting with a client, and under circumstances which also amounted to moral turpitude under section 6106. There were lesser counts for abandoning the client and failure to cooperate with the State Bar. The Review Department found a mitigating circumstance for no prior discipline in 12 years, but found aggravating circumstances of significant harm to the client and lack of candor and cooperation. The Review Department recommended an actual suspension for 60 days. This supports an actual suspension of 30 days here, since Respondent caused no significant harm and has cooperated fully in this proceeding.
In Bach v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 848, attorney Bach was found culpable of misleading the court by falsely stating that he had not received an order to produce his client at a child custody mediation. There was no mitigation and there was an aggravating factor of one prior discipline of a public reproval. The California Supreme Court imposed an actual suspension for 60 days for this one act of moral turpitude in a courtroom.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS:
The disclosure date referred to on page 2, paragraph A.(7), was April 15, 2011.
COSTS:
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of April 18, 201 l, the costs in this matter are $3,654.00. 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.
On April 12, 2011, Respondent filed a Financial Declaration in Support of Motion for Relief from or Extension of Time to Pay Disciplinary Costs for State Bar Court case no. 06-0-11744-RAP. This court-approved form is signed under penalty of perjury and demonstrates current financial hardship. Disciplinary costs in this proceeding shall be paid in equal amounts over three years, as shown on page 2, paragraph A.(8) of this stipulation.
Case Number(s): 08-O-14349-RAP
In the Matter of: Ruth Cecelia Rose
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: Ruth Cecelia Rose and Larry DeSha
Respondent: Ruth Cecelia Rose
Date: April 30, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Larry DeSha
Date: May 3, 2011
Case Number(s): 08-O-14349-RAP
In the Matter of: Ruth Cecelia Rose
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.
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: Donald F. Miles
Date: May 4, 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 Los Angeles, on May 11, 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:
RUTH C. ROSE
RUTH C ROSE, ESQ
2926 W MANCHESTER BLVD STE 141
INGLEWOOD, CA 90305
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of
California addressed as follows: Larry DeSha, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on May 11, 2011.
Signed by: Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator
State Bar Court