Case Number(s): 09-N-14036
In the Matter of: John Royall Read III, Bar #51388, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Dane C. Dauphine, Supervising Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299
Tel. (213) 765-1293
Bar #121606
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
John R. Read III
5722 Telephone Rd. #C-12
Ventura, CA 93003-5318
Tel. (805) 258-1730
Bar# 51388
Submitted to: Assigned Judge
Filed: May 20, 2011 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 January 5, 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 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 are awarded to the State Bar.
<<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.
ORDER OF INACTIVE ENROLLMENT:
The parties are aware that if this stipulation is approved, the judge will
issue an order of inactive enrollment under Business and Professions Code
section 6007, subdivision (c)(4), and Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule
5.111(D)(1).
checked. (c) Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: Bus. & Prof. C. sec. 6103, 6] 06, Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-] 00(A)
checked. (d) Degree of prior discipline Three years stayed suspension, four years probation with actual suspension of two years and until compliance with standard ] .4(c)(ii). (e) [] Three years stayed suspension, four years probation with actual suspension of two years and until compliance with standard] .4(c)(ii).(e)
(a) Case no. 00-O-11744; (b) effective August 1,2002; (c) Bus. & Prof. C. sec. 6068(a)/6125, Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-300; (d) one years stayed suspension, two years probation with 90 days actual suspension;
(a) Case no. 84-O-156; (b) effective February 13, 1987; (c) former rule 6-101" (d) 60 days stayed suspension, one year probation; (a) Case no. 83-O-111; (b) effective April 26, 1985; (c) former rule 5-101; (d) three months stayed suspension, one year probation; (a) Case no. 82-0-77; (b) effective May 3, 1984; (c) former rule 8-101; (d) public reproval.
IN THE MATTER OF: John Royall Read III, no. 51388
CASE NUMBER(S): 09-N-14036
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 or about March 18, 2009, the California Supreme Court filed Order No. S169930
("Disciplinary Order") regarding discipline of Respondent. On or about March 18, 2009, the Clerk of the California Supreme Court properly served a copy of the Disciplinary Order by mail on Respondent.
Respondent received the Disciplinary Order.
2. The Disciplinary Order included a requirement that Respondent comply with Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, by performing the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) within 30 and 40 days, respectively, after the effective date of the Disciplinary Order.
3. On April 17, 2009, the Disciplinary Order became effective. On April 17, 2009, the Review Department of the State Bar Court ordered a temporary stay of the suspension and compliance with rule 9.20 so that it may consider a motion filed by Respondent to stay the suspension.
4. On April 22, 2009, the Review Department ordered that that temporary stay be lifted and that the suspension and compliance with rule 9.20 commence on May 4, 2009. Thus, Respondent was ordered to comply with subdivision (a) and/or (b) of rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court no later than June 3, 2009, and was ordered to file a declaration of compliance with the clerk of the State Bar Court pursuant to subdivision (c) of Rule 9.20 no later than June 13, 2009.
5. Respondent did not file with the State Bar Court a declaration of compliance by June 13, 2009, or thereafter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
6. By not filing a declaration of compliance with Rule 9.20 as ordered by the Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order, Respondent willfully violated rule 9.20, California Rules of Court.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was April 25,2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Unless the failure to file a declaration of compliance was a relatively minor delay in filing the declaration, disbarment is the usual discipline since rule 9.20 (and former rule 955) serves a "critical prophylactic function." In the Matter of Snyder (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 593 [recommending disbarment for violation of form rule 955 and other violations]; In the Matter of Rose (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 192 [recommending 9 months actual suspension for failing to file declaration of compliance]; In the Matter of Friedman (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 527 [recommending 30 day actual suspension for two week delay in filing declaration of compliance]. Here, Respondent has prior discipilne for misconduct which included a prior violation of rule 955, California Rules of Court.
Case Number(s): 09-N-14036
In the Matter of: John Royall Read III, no 51388
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: John Royall Read III and Dane C. Dauphine
Respondent: John Royall Read III
Date: May 9, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Dane C. Dauphine
Date: May 10, 2011
Case Number(s): 09-N-14036
In the Matter of: John Royall Read III
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 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.)
Respondent John Royall Read III is ordered transferred to involuntary inactive status pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4). Respondent’s inactive enrollment will be effective three (3) calendar days after this order is served by mail and will terminate upon the effective date of the Supreme Court’s order imposing discipline herein, or as provided for by rule 5.111(D)(2) or the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, or as otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court pursuant to its plenary jurisdiction.
Signed by: Richard A. Platel
Judge of the State Bar Court
Date: May 17, 2011