Case Number(s): 09-C-11931
In the Matter of: Nicole C. Leanos, Bar #205679, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Mark Hartman, Deputy Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 538-2558
Bar #114925,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Nicole C. Leanos
105 Forrest Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Telephone: (408) 688-4619
Bar # 205679
Submitted to: Assigned Judge
Filed: August 30, 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 20, 1999.
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: 2011, 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.
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." Nicole C. Leanos
Membership No.: 205679
State Bar Case Nos.: 09-C-11931
FACTS
Respondent admits that the following facts are true:
1. On October 30, 2008, the Santa Clara County Superior Court filed a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") prohibiting contact between respondent Nicole C. Leanos ("respondent") and a 14-year old minor ("Minor"). The TRO specified that if the Minor contacted respondent. “at her home or workplace (if any), she must refuse his call ....
2. On November 1, 2008, respondent was personally served with the TRO.
3. From November 1, 2008, onward, respondent was aware that the TRO prohibited contact between the Minor and her.
4. Shortly before midnight on November 7, 2008, the Minor telephoned respondent at her home; and respondent answered the telephone.
5. Respondent recognized the identity of the caller after the Minor began talking to her.
6. The telephone call between respondent and the Minor lasted approximately five minutes.
7. On September 8, 2009, respondent pied nolo contendere to a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 166(a)(4), willful disobedience of a lawful court order.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Respondent admits that by violating the TRO, respondent committed misconduct warranting discipline.
MITIGATION
Discipline-Free Practice: Respondent has practiced law for a number of years without
discipline. Community Service: Respondent has engaged in extensive community service activities for a number of years. She has done work for groups helping animals and foster children and for her church.
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
Pursuant to standard 3.4 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, Title IV, Standards for Attomey Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, respondent’s substantial mitigation makes a public reproval appropriate.
ETHICS: SCHOOL REQUIREMENT
Within one year of the effective date of the discipline for the current case, respondent must attend Ethics School, must pass the examination at the end of the Ethics School session which she attends, and must provide proof of such passage to the Office of Probation.
MULTISTATE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EXAMINATION REQUIREMENT
Within one year of the effective date of the discipline for the current cases, respondent must pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination and provide proof of such passage to the Office of Probation.
PROSECUTION COSTS
Because respondent has severe financial problems, the prosecution costs will be spread out over the years 2011, 2012, and 2013. Payments shall be in equal amounts for these three years.
DATE OF DISCLOSURE OF ANY PENDING INVESTIGATION OR PROCEEDING
On August 17, 2010, the State Bar sent a disclosure letter by e-mail to respondent. In this letter, the State Bar advised her of any pending investigations or proceedings against her other than the current case.
Case Number(s): 09-C-11931
In the Matter of: Nicole C. Leanos
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: Nicole C. Leanos
Date: August 18, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Mark Hartman
Date: August 20, 2010
Case Number(s): 09-C-11931
In the Matter of: Nicole C.Leanos
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.
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 5.58 (E) & (F), 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: Pat McElroy
Date: August 30, 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 San Francisco on August 30, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
NICOLE CUNNINGHAM. LEANOS
105 FORREST AVE #11
LOS GATOS, CA 95032
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
MARK HARTMAN, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on August 30, 2010.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Medina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court