Case Number(s): 09-C-12715-RAP
In the Matter of: Eric A. Forstrom, Bar # 237695, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Margaret P. Warren, 1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299
(213) 765-1342
Bar #108774,
Counsel for Respondent: Arthur L. Margolis, Margolis & Margolis LLP
2000 Riverside Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90039
(323) 953-8996
Bar #57703 ,
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
<<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 September 6, 2005.
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: Cost to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following two billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order: 2012 and 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.
Please see Attachment, p. 9, under “Aggravating Circumstances”
IN THE MATTER OF: ERIC A. FORSTROM, State Bar No. 237695
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-C-12715-RAP
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 April 28, 2009, respondent was convicted, following his plea pursuant to People v. West, of violating Penal Code section 550(b)(1).
3. Effective September 28, 2009, respondent was placed on interim suspension following his conviction of violating Penal Code section 550, subdivision (b)(1) (insurance fraud), a felony involving moral turpitude.
4. On December 8, 2009, the criminal court reduced respondent’s conviction to a misdemeanor.
5. On May 21, 2010, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department "for a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed for Eric Arthur Forstrom’s misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 550, subdivision (b)(1) (insurance fraud), which involves moral turpitude."
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING RESPONDENT’S CONVICTION
Respondent admits that the following facts are true:
6. At approximately 2:30 a.m. on March 23, 2008, Respondent was driving his car when he collided with another car occupied by a driver and passenger. Both vehicles were damaged. The driver and passenger of the car Respondent collided with both got out of their vehicle, and Respondent got out of his car. Respondent remained at the accident scene for a few minutes, then walked away, leaving the scene and abandoning his car.
7. On March 24, 2008, Respondent went to the Los Angeles Police Department’s West Traffic Division police station, and reported that his car had been stolen. Respondent denied having driven the car at the time of the collision. Respondent then provided the police with a written statement and permitted the police to take his photograph. The police did not take a stolen vehicle report from Respondent at that time, however, because they knew that Respondent’s car had been involved in a hit-and-run collision and had been impounded by LAPD. The LAPD investigated the accident and identified Respondent as the owner of the automobile involved in the hit-and-run collision. [Footnote 1: The make, model, model year, and license plate number of Respondent’s car were at all relevant times known to the police and Respondent’s insurance company.]
8. On March 24, 2008, Respondent reported his car stolen to his insurance company, and a claim was initiated thereafter. Respondent claimed he had not seen his car since the evening before the hit-and-run accident occurred.
9. On April 4, 2008, a Special Investigation Claims Representative ("Claims Representative") from Respondent’s insurance company met with Respondent at her office. At that time, Respondent provided the Claims Representative with a notarized Affidavit of Theft ("Affidavit") and a recorded statement regarding his automobile which he had reported stolen. Respondent’s written and oral statements contained knowing misstatements of material facts. After Respondent submitted his Affidavit and made his recorded statement, the Claims Representative told Respondent that the other driver and passenger involved in the collision, as well as other witnesses at the scene, could identify the driver of the vehicle that hit them; and reminded Respondent that he had collision coverage. Respondent indicated that he wished to pursue his theft claim.
10. On May 30, 2008, Respondent’s attorney wrote to Respondent’s insurance company, notifying the company that Respondent was withdrawing his theft claim and would "hold his insurance company harmless."
11. On September 9, 2008, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office filed a two-count criminal complaint against Respondent, charging him with one count of violating Penal Code section 550(a)(1), a felony; and one count of violating Penal Code section 550 (a)(5), a felony.
12. On April 28, 2009, the criminal complaint was amended to add violation of Penal Code section 550(b)(1), a felony, as Count Three. On that same date, Respondent pled guilty (pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595) to violating Penal Code section 550(b)(1). Respondent was ordered to enroll in the Mothers Against Drunk Driving program and complete 250 hours of community service.
13. On May 25, 2009, Respondent reported himself to the State Bar in writing, notifying the State Bar of his plea of guilty to a violation of Penal Code section 550(b)(1).
14. On December 8, 2009, because Respondent successfully completed the Mothers Against Drunk Driving program and 250 hours of community service, he was allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty and enter a plea of guilty, pursuant to People v. West, to a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 550(b)(1) [Count Three of the criminal complaint]. Counts One and Two of the criminal complaint were dismissed. Respondent was placed on summary probation for a period of twelve (12) months. Respondent may move to expunge the matter following completion of the summary probation.
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.
15. Respondent admits and acknowledges that he lied to both the police and to his insurance company. Respondent admits and acknowledges that his conduct involved moral turpitude.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
16. Respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct: he left the scene of the accident; and his communications with both the police and his insurance company contained multiple, intentional misstatements.
17. Respondent did not withdraw his claim that his car had been stolen until approximately two months after the date of the accident.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
18. Respondent cooperated with the State Bar by entering into a stipulation that the facts surrounding his crime involved moral turpitude. (Std. 1 :,2(e)(v).) This stipulation assisted the State Bar’s prosecution by obviating the need for a trial on the merits as to culpability and by allowing the parties and the court to focus on the appropriate discipline. (In the Matter of Johnson (Review Dept. 2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 179, 190.)
19. Respondent did withdraw his claim that his car had been stolen approximately two (2) months after the incident, and well before any criminal charges were filed against him.
20. Respondent has no prior discipline.
21. Five people, including three attorneys and a businessman/longtime friend, submitted letters to the State Bar on behalf of Respondent, attesting to his good character.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation. This requirement is separate from any Minimum Continuing Legal Education ("MCLE") requirement, and he shall not receive MCLE credit for attending Ethics School. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201 .)
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was October 12, 2010.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
Standard 1.3 provides:
The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar of California and of sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgment of a member’s professional misconduct are the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession. Rehabilitation of a member is a permissible object of a sanction imposed upon the member but only if the imposition of rehabilitative sanctions is consistent with the above-stated primary purposes of sanctions for professional misconduct.
Respondent has admitted his misconduct; he understands how serious that misconduct is; and he is remorseful. Respondent’s plea of guilty to the criminal violation, and his cooperation with the State Bar in entering into a stipulated disposition of these disciplinary proceedings, demonstrate Respondent’s recognition of wrongdoing.
The parties are mindful of the applicability of Std. 3.2 to this matter, but submit that reliance on Std. 3.2 would result in an injustice. The parties submit that the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession, and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession, will be served by the disposition in this matter, which focuses on the rehabilitation of Respondent through the imposition of a substantial period of actual suspension, coupled with a substantial period of probation. The parties submit that the disposition herein is consistent with the fundamental purpose of disciplinary proceedings, as articulated in Standard 1.3; and submit that the stipulated period of actual suspension and probationary conditions in this matter are sufficient assurance that Respondent will conform his future conduct to ethical standards and adequate protection of the public, courts and profession.
Case Number(s): 09-C-12715-RAP
In the Matter of: Eric A. Forstrom, State Bar No.: 237695
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: Eric A. Forstrom
Date: October 7, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel: Arthur L. Margolis
Date: October 8, 2010
Deputy Trial Counsel: Margaret P. Warren
Date: October 12, 2010
Case Number(s): 09-C-12715-RAP
In the Matter of: ERIC A. FORSTROM, State Bar No.: 237695
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 135(b), 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: Richard A. Platel
Date: October 27, 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 October 28. 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:
ARTHUR MARGOLIS
MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS
2000 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
LOS ANGELES, CA
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number . No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
MARGARET WARREN, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on October 28, 2010.
Signed by:
Angela Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court