Case Number(s): 09-O-10041-LMA
In the Matter of: Charles K. Lewis, Bar # 183430, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Wonder J. Liang, Bar #184357,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
Filed: May 3, 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 August 2, 1996.
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 are 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 are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: . (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.
<<not>> 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: CHARLES K. LEWIS, State Bar No. 183430
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-O-10041-LMA
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Facts: Count One:
1. On or about January 23, 2007, client Janet Sellick (hereinafter, "Sellick") hired respondent to probate the estate of her late husband, Brent Sellick. Sellick executed an attorney client fee agreement and paid respondent the sum $1,000 for the probate filing fee plus additional sums of $350 and $2,500. for legal services. On or between March 9, 2007, and April 27, 2007, respondent filed a petition for letters of administration and additional documents on behalf of Sellick and in furtherance of the probate matter.
2. Thereafter, respondent took no further action on Sellick’s probate matter.
Conclusions of Law: Count One: .
By failing to take any action on the Sellick probate matter after April 27, 2007, and by failing to bring the probate matter to conclusion, respondent failed to perform with competence, in willful and reckless violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
Facts: Count Two:
3. The facts of Count One are hereby incorporated by reference.
4. Commencing in or about June, 2008, Sellick sought to communicate with respondent in order to ascertain the status of the probate matter and was unable to get a response from respondent. Sellick’s communication efforts include, but are not limited, to the following:
(i) Commencing on or about June, 2008, Sellick telephoned respondent on a weekly basis. As to each telephone call, Sellick was unable to reach respondent directly but left messages for him at his telephone number;
(ii) On or about August 21, 2008, and again on September 4, 2008, Sellick sent respondent e-mail messages to respondent’s email indicating that her calls were not returned;
(iii) On or about September 11,2008, Sellick sent respondent a letter via registered mail.
5. Respondent received the telephone messages, e-mails, and registered letter from Sellick and failed to respond or otherwise apprize her of the status of the probate matter.
Conclusions of Law: Count Two:
By failing to respond to Sellick’s telephone messages, e-mails, and registered letter on or between June 2008 to September, 2008, a four month period, respondent failed to respond to the reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which he agreed to perform legal services, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
Facts: Count Three:
6. The facts of Counts One and Two are hereby incorporated by reference.
7. On or about January 22, 2009, Sellick retained new counsel to conclude the probate matter, attorney Michael Heath (hereinafter, "Heath").
8. On or about January 22, 2009, Sellick wrote to respondent and requested the return of her file.
9. On or about February 3, 2009, Heath spoke to respondent and requested Sellick’s file from respondent. On or about February 6, 2009, Heath send respondent a letter, again requesting Sellick’s file. Respondent received the February 6, 2009 letter from Heath.
10. On or about February 17, 2009, on or about March 20, 2009, and on or about April 14, 2009, Heath again wrote to respondent, requesting Sellick’s file. Respondent received Heath’s February 17, 2009 and March 20, 2009 letters.
11. Respondent provided Heath with Sellick’s file on or about April, 2009.
Conclusions of Law: Count Three:
By failing to return Sellick’s file to her or her subsequent attorney, Heath, from January 22, 2009 to April, 2009, a period in excess of three months, respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
Facts: Count Four:
12. The facts of Counts One through Three are hereby incorporated by reference.
13. By failing to take action on Sellick’s probate matter after April, 2007, respondent abandoned Sellickand withdrew from the case.
14. Respondent failed, upon his withdrawal from employment, to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his client. Respondent failed to advise Sellick of his withdrawal from the case.
15. In her letter to respondent of January 22, 2009, Sellick also requested that respondent sign an enclosed substitution of attorney form, substituting Heath into the case.
16. In his letters of February 17, 2009 and March 20, 2009, Heath also requested that respondent sign the substitution of attorney.
17. Respondent did not return the substitution of attorney form to Heath until on or about March 27, 2009, three months after Sellick originally requested it on January 22, 2009.
Conclusions of Law: Count Four:
By failing to notify Sellick of his withdrawal from the case; by failing to promptly execute a substitution of attorney when requested to do so, and by failing to promptly return the file, respondent failed, upon termination of his services, to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his client, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2).
Facts: Count Five:
18. On or about January 29, 2009, Investigator Jacobs telephoned respondent and spoke to him. She advised him of the Sellick complaint. Jacobs advised respondent that she would be sending him a letter and that he should provide a written response.
19. On or about January 29, 2009, and again on or about February 19, 2009, State Bar Investigator Jacobs sent respondent a letter via United States mail, postage pre-paid, to respondent at his official membership records address, maintained by the State Bar pursuant to Business and Professions Code, section 6002.1. In each of the letters, Investigator Jacobs advised respondent of Sellick’s complaint and requested that respondent provide a written response to the investigation. 20. Respondent received Investigator Jacobs letters of January 29, 2009, and February 19, 2009, and failed to respond or otherwise respond to Sellick’s compliant.
Conclusions of Law: Count Five:
By failing to respond to Investigator Jacob’s letters of January 29, 2009, and February 19, 2009, and by failing to otherwise respond to the State Bar’s investigation of Sellick’s complaint, respondent failed to cooperate in a State Bar disciplinary investigation, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(6), was April 6, 2010. "
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of April 6, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,296.00. 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.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.4, subdivision (b), provides that culpability of a member of wilfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of willfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
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.
Respondent admits that the above facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 09-O-10041-LMA
In the Matter of: Charles K. Lewis, State Bat No.: 183430
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: Charles K. Lewis
Date: April 26, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel: N/A
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Wonder J. Liang
Date: April 27, 2010
Case Number(s): 09-O-10041-LMA
In the Matter of: Charles K. Lewis, State Bar No.: 183430
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: 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 San Francisco, on May 3, 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:
CHARLES K. LEWIS
1966 LOMBARD ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123-2807
<<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:
WONDER J. LIANG, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on May 3, 2010.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court