Case Number(s): 09-C-11298
In the Matter of: Ronald Stewart Orr, Bar # 54257, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Mia R. Ellis, Bar # 228235,
Counsel for Respondent: Richard D. Kaplan, Bar # 130586,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: May 6, 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.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 14, 1972.
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 9 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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: Costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following three billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order: 2011, 2012, 2013. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure)
<<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.
9. The parties understand that:
<<not>> checked. (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
IN THE MATTER OF: Ronald Stewart Orr, State Bar No. 54257
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-C-11298
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.
Facts
1. On August 4, 2008, Respondent was driving through LAX. Witness/victim Phillip Salvatti, who was driving behind Respondent, honked a few times. Respondent slowed down and brandished a gun. Mr. Salvatti called the police and gave a description of Respondent’s vehicle. Respondent had a concealed weapons permit. At the scene, Respondent admitted to brandishing his gun at another driver.
2. On June 5, 2009, Respondent pled no contest to violating penal code section 417(a)(1), drawing or exhibiting any deadly weapon whatsoever, other than a firearm in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, a misdemeanor. He received 36 months summary probation, two days in jail, requirement to attend a live-in program, and an anger management program. Respondent’s concealed weapons permit was revoked.
3. On September 3, 2009, Respondent completed 12 sessions of an anger management program.
Conclusions of Law
The parties stipulate that by violating California Penal Code section 417(a)(1), Respondent did not commit acts involving moral turpitude; however, Respondent committed other misconduct warranting discipline.
The parties further stipulate that by violating California Penal Code sections 417(a)(1), Respondent violated California Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (a), which imposes a duty upon Respondent to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(6), was April 15, 2010
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of April 15, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are $1,636. 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.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING.
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On June 5, 2009, Respondent was convicted of violating Penal Code Section 417(a)(1).
3. On November 30, 2009, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues: for a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event the hearing department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 417, subdivision (a)(1) (exhibiting a deadly weapon), of which Ronald Stewart Orr was convicted, involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 3.4 states that when a member has been convicted of a crime not involving moral turpitude, the sanction shall be according to those prescribed under Part B of the standards appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct.
Under Part B, the appropriate standard is 2.6 - the standard applicable to violations of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a), failure to obey the law. Standard 2.6 states that the level of discipline shall be disbarment or suspension.
In the Matter of Burns (1995) 3 Cal. State. Bar Ct. Rptrt. 406, Respondent was a reserve police officer. He was convicted of felony assault with a firearm, penal code 245(a)(2), enhanced by the admitted discharge of a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle, causing great bodily injury. This case involves an altercation between two motorists on a crowded freeway. Review Department concluded that respondent’s actions did not demonstrate moral turpitude. Respondent received two years stayed and two years probation, and no actual suspension. Bums had been practicing for seven years without a prior. The facts of road rage are similar to the underlying case and also Respondent does not have a prior record of discipline. However, in the instant case, Respondent did not point the gun at the victim/witness, did not discharge his weapon, and there was no bodily injury.
In In the Matter of Phillip Francinella 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 54, Respondent was convicted of two counts of exhibiting a replica of a firearm in a threatening manner to cause fear of bodily harm to another in violation of penal code section 417.2 subdivision (a). Respondent was involved in a number of disagreements with his office building landlord. Respondent received a three-day notice to quit the premises. Respondent confronted the landlord, 10-15 ft away, arms fully extended with what was believed to be a gun. The landlord turned around and heard the sound of click. The Review Department found moral turpitude. Although the charge in Burns is similar to the underlying case, the facts in the instant case can be distinguished as it did not involve the practice of law. Moreover, in the instant case, Respondent did not point the gun at the victim/witness and the encounter occurred over a very short period of time.
In the present case, Respondent has no prior record of discipline and his misconduct does not relate to his practice of law. Moreover, the facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s misconduct are less egregious than those found in In the Matter of Burns and In the Matter Francinella. Given the totality of circumstances, a public reproval is an appropriate level of discipline and sufficient to protect the public, the courts, and the profession.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
FACTS SUPPORTING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Although the misconduct herein is serious, Respondent has had no prior record of discipline since being admitted to the practice of law on December 14, 1972.
FACTS SUPPORTING ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Respondent cooperated to the extent that he stipulated to facts, conclusions of law and level of discipline. Respondent provided character letters from references in the legal and general communities.
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.
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF PROBATION IN UNDERLYING CRIMINAL MATTER.
Respondent shall comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and shall so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report required to be filed with the Office of Probation.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 09-C-11298
In the Matter of: Ronald Stewart Orr
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: Ronald S. Orr
Date: April 28, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel: Richard Kaplan
Date: April 29, 2010
Deputy Trial Counsel: Mia R. Ellis
Date: April 29, 2010
Case Number(s): 09-C-11298
In the Matter of: Ronald Stewart Orr
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department 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 125(b), Rules of Procedure.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: May 3, 2010
[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 6, 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:
RONALD STEWART ORR
578 WASHINGTON BLVD #389
MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292
RICHARD D. KAPLAN
KAPLAN MARINO
9454 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 500
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
MIA R. Ellis, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on May 6, 2010.
Signed by:
Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator
State Bar Court