Case Number(s): 09-H-10905
In the Matter of: Richard G. Hyppa, Bar # 104547, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Donald R. Steedman, Bar # 104927
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
Filed: July 14, 2009
<<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 3, 1982.
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 10 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):
checked. costs added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<not>> checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: (hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.)
<<not>> checked. costs waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. costs 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.
DISCLOSURE:
The disclosure mentioned in part A(7) of this stipulation was made by letter dated June 9, 2009.
FACTS:
Respondent stipulates that the following facts are true:
JURISDICTION
1. Richard G. Hyppa ("respondent") was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on December 3, 1982, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.
Case No. 09-H-10905
Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-110(A)
[Violation of Reproval Conditions]
2. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110(A), by failing to comply with conditions attached to a reproval administered by the State Bar pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 6077 and 6078 and rule 956 (now Rule 9.19), California Rules of Court, as follows:
3. On or about June 11, 2007, respondent signed a stipulation in case number 06-0-15102 in which he agreed to receive a reproval and promised to comply with conditions attached to the reproval for a period of one year. The conditions attached to the reproval were specified in the stipulation that respondent signed.
4. On or about July 19, 2007,1 acting under the authority of Business and Professions Code section 6077, the State Bar Court of California issued an order imposing a reproval upon respondent in case number 06-0-15102. (The State Bar Court reproval order was signed on July 19, 2007, but was filed and served on July 23, 2007.) Pursuant to California Rule of Court 9.19, the State Bar Court order required respondent to comply with the stipulated conditions attached to the reproval. The Court found that the stipulation "...protects the public and that the interests of Respondent will be served by any conditions attached to the reproval..."
5. Soon after July 23, 2007, respondent received notice of the reproval order and reproval conditions.
6. On or about July 30, 2007, the Office of Probation mailed a letter to respondent reminding him of all of the conditions of his reproval. Respondent received this letter shortly after it was mailed.
7. On or about August 14, 2007, respondent had a telephonic meeting with a representative of the Office of Probation in which they discussed the requirements of the reproval conditions.
8. At all times alter July 23, 2007, respondent had actual knowledge of the reproval conditions and reproval order.
9. The reproval order and reproval conditions became effective on or about August 12, 2007 (The Probation Office’s letter, and the probation compliance forms it created, erroneously stated that the reproval was effective on August 13, 2007, and thus erroneously stated that respondent’s final report was due on August 13, 2007) and, except as set forth below, have remained in full force at all times
thereafter.
10. Reporting Condition.
(a) One of the conditions of the reproval required respondent to submit reports as follows:
"Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the condition period attached to the reproval. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of the reproval during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state in each report whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and, if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than thirty (30) days, that report must be submitted on the next following quarter date and cover the extended period.
"In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the condition period and no later than the last day of the condition period."
(b) Under the terms of the conditions, respondent was therefore required to submit reports on or before October 10, 2007, January 10, 2008, April 10, 2008, July 10, 2008, and August 12, 2008.
(c) Respondent violated this condition because he submitted the following reports late:
Date Due: January 10, 2008; Date Filed with the Office of Probation January 11, 2008;
Date Due: April 10, 2008; Date Filed with the Office of Probation April 14, 2008
Date Due: August 12, 2008; Date Filed with the Office of Probation August 25, 2008
(d) Respondent’s late filing of the August 2008 quarterly report is aggravated by the fact that the Office of Probation had previously counseled respondent concerning the lateness of his January 10, 2008 and April 10, 2008 quarterly reports. Specifically, Probation Deputy Cheryl R. Chisolm discussed this issue with respondent in a conversation that occurred on or about June 24, 2008. The conversation was confirmed in a letter sent by Chisolm on or about June 24, 2008 and received by respondent shortly thereafter.
11. Continuing Education Requirement.
(a) One of the reproval conditions provided as follows:
Respondent must attend ten hours of MCLE at in-person (not on-line) classes within the one year term of the probation conditions, and provide proof of compliance with the Probation Department. This ten hours is in addition to the Ethics School and MPRE conditions."
(b) The deadline for completing the ten hours of MCLE classes expired on or about August 12, 2008. Prior to the August 12, 2008 deadline, respondent completed only nine of the ten required hours of MCLE.
(c) Respondent did not complete the remaining hour of MCLE classes until on or about November 13, 2008. Respondent did not provide the Office of Probation with proof of completion of this hour of MCLE until on or about November 13, 2008.
(d) Respondent violated the MCLE condition of his reproval by failing to complete all of the required MCLE classes and by failing to provide proof of such completion prior to the August 12, 2008 deadline.
12. Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination.
(a) One of the reproval conditions provided as follows:
"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 within one year of the effective date of the reproval."
(b) Under the original terms of the reproval order, respondent was required to comply with this condition on or before August 12, 2008. However, respondent did not take the examination during the year of his reproval period. Respondent did not take the MPRE until on or about March 7, 2009.
(c) On or about July 14, 2008, respondent filed a motion with the State Bar Court seeking to extend the time for his completion of the MPRE. The State Bar filed a non-opposition to the motion. By order filed on or about July 31, 2008, the State Bar Court granted respondent an extension until November 8, 2008 to take the MPRE given on that date. The Court also ordered respondent to provide the test results to the Office of Probation within one week after the results were released.
(d) Thereafter, respondent failed to register for the November 8, 2008 MPRE and did not take the test given on that date.
(e) On or about November 17, 2008, respondent filed a motion for a second extension of time to take the MPRE. However, the State Bar filed an opposition and the State Bar Court denied the motion by order filed on or about December 15, 2008. Thereafter, the December 15, 2008 order became final.
(f) Respondent took the March 7, 2009 MPRE examination and received a passing score.
(g) Respondent violated the MPRE condition of his reproval by failing to take the MPRE prior to the November 8, 2008 deadline.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
Respondent stipulates that the following conclusions of law are correct:
By violating the aforementioned conditions, respondent wilfully failed to comply with conditions attached to a reproval administered by the State Bar pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections. 6077 and 6078 and rule 956 (now Rule 9.19), California Rules of Court.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 09-H-10905
In the Matter of: Richard G. Hyppa
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: Richard G. Hyppa
Date: 6-16-09
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Supervising Trial Counsel: Donald R. Steedman
Date: 6/18/2009
Case Number(s): 09-H-10905
In the Matter of: Richard G. Hyppa
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: Pat McElroy
Date: July 14, 2009
[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; 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 July 14, 2009, 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:
RICHARD G. HYPPA
120 E 12TH ST
TRACY, CA 95376
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 July 14, 2009.
Signed by:
Lauretta Cramer
Case Administrator
State Bar Court