Case Number(s): 09-O-10198; 09-O-12250; 09-O-1775 (Investigation)
In the Matter of: Quentin B. Simms, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent), Bar # 153454
Counsel For The State Bar: Mia Ellis Bar # 228235
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement 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 June 18, 1991.
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 13 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 284, Rules of Procedure.
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2011, 2012, 2013 (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.
State Bar Case Number, 95-O-11088 (S071350); Discipline effective October 8, 1998;
Violations 3-110(A) (two counts); Discipline: 30 days actual suspension, two (2) years stayed suspension.
State Bar Case Number 92-0-20795 et al. (S045374), Discipline effective July 14, 1995, Violations 3-110(A)(six counts), 3-500(three counts), 3-700(A)(2), 3-700(D) (1); 3-700(D)(2)(four counts); Discipline: six (6) months actual; 24 months stayed suspension
At the time of the stipulated acts of misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his personal life. Respondent’s mother has medical problems. Respondent is her sole caregiver.
Case Number(s): 09-O-10198, 09-O-12250, and 09-O-17751 (investigation)
In the Matter of: Quentin B. Simms
a. Restitution
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund (“CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
1. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
1. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
<<not>> checked. 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.
1. If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated as a “Trust Account” or “Clients’ Funds Account”;
b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:
i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.
c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
2. If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate described above.
3.
The requirements
of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of
Professional Conduct.
checked. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
Case Number(s): 09-O-10198, 09-O-12250, and 09-O-17751 (investigation)
In the Matter of: Quentin B. Simms A Member of the State Bar
checked. a. Within One year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
<<not>> checked. b. Within days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
<<not>> checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
IN THE MATTER OF: Quentin B. Simms
CASE NUMBER(S): ET AL. 09-0-10198, 09-0-12250, and 09-0- 17751 (investigation file)
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.
Case Numbers: 09-0-10198, 09-O- 12250, 09-0-17751 (investigation)
1. Respondent maintained a client trust account at Bank of America, account number 1664340204 (the "CTA").
2. Between August 1, 2008 and April 30, 2009, Respondent deposited personal funds into the CTA, maintained earned fees in the CTA, and paid personal expenses from the CTA.
3. Between August 6, 2008 and March 20, 2009, seventeen checks from the CTA were returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the CTA.
Conclusions of Law
4. By depositing personal funds into the CTA, maintaining earned fees in the CTA, and paying personal expenses from the CTA between August 1, 2008 and April 30, 2009, Respondent misused his CTA and commingled funds in the CTA in violation of rule 4-100(A), of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. "
5. By issuing checks against insufficient funds from the CTA, Respondent wilfully or with gross negligence committed acts involving moral turpitude in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(6), was February 17, 2010.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of February 26, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are $5,746.20. 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 1.3 of the Standards For Attorney Sanctions For Professional Misconduct provides that the primary purpose of discipline is the protection of the public, the courts and legal profession; maintenance of high professional standards; and the preservation of public confidence
Standard 2.2(b) culpability of a member of commingling of entrusted funds or property with personal property or the commission of another violation of rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct, none of which offenses result in the wilful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in at least a three month actual suspension from the practice of law, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
Standard 2.3 culpability of a member of an act of moral turpitude, fraud, or intentional dishonesty toward a court, client or another person or of concealment of a material fact to a court, client or another person shall result in actual suspension or disbarment depending upon the extent to which the victim of the misconduct is harmed or misled and depending upon the magnitude of the act of misconduct and the degree to which it related to the member’s acts within the practice of law.
In the case of In re Ronald Silverton, (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, the Supreme Court discussed the fact that the Standards for Attorney Sanction For Professional Misconduct are entitled to great weight and the State Bar Court should follow their guidance whenever possible. (Silverton 36 Cal.4th at 92)
Standard 1.7(b) provides that if a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of two prior impositions of discipline as defined by Standard 1.2(f), the degree of discipline in the current proceeding shall be disbarment unless the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate.
However, the Court in Silverton also indicated that the State Bar Court may deviate from the Standards where there exists grave doubts as to the propriety of applying them in a particular case. (Silverton 36 Cal.4th at 92). For example, deviation from the Standard may be appropriate where extraordinary circumstances exist or where the imposition of discipline called for by the Standard would be manifestly unjust. The court opined in In the Matter of Miller (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 131,136 that "merely declaring that an attorney has three impositions of discipline, without more analysis, may not adequately justify disbarment in every case."
In the Matter of Sklar (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Court Rptr. 602, provides that prior discipline is always a factor in aggravation. However, the court found that the aggravating force of prior discipline is diminished if the misconduct occurred during the same period as the misconduct in the prior matter. In this circumstance, it is appropriate to consider what the discipline would have been if all the charged misconduct during the time period had been brought as one case. In the instant case, Respondent’s misconduct charged in the first record of discipline ended in 1994, one year prior to the filing of charges in the second prior record of discipline. Moreover, the additional violations from the second prior would not have increased the level of discipline given in the first record of discipline. Respondent received six months actual suspension in the first record of discipline and thirty days actual suspension in the second record of discipline.
Following Standard 1.7(b) would result in an excessive sanction in the present case. Although the current misconduct is serious, there is no pattern of misconduct of increasing severity or a repetition of offenses for which Respondent was previously disciplined.
The parties further submit that the intent and goals of Standard 1.3 are met in this matter by the imposition of two years actual suspension with probationary conditions, including that Respondent attend the State Bar’s Client Trust Account School.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
FACTS SUPPORTING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Respondent’s misconduct did not cause harm to a client.
Respondent has been candid and has cooperated to the extent that he stipulated to facts, conclusions of law and level of discipline.
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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 09-O-10198; 09-O-12250; 09-o-17751 (investigation)
In the Matter of: Quentin B. Simms
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: Quentin Simms
Date: 2-26-10
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Mia Ellis
Date: 2/26/10
Case Number(s): 09-O-10198; 09-O-12250; 09-O-17751 (investigation)
In the Matter of: Quentin B. Simms
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. Honn
Date: 3-1-10
[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 March 15, 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:
<<not>> checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
QUENTIN B. SIMMS
PO BOX 40106
PASADENA, CA 91114:
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
MIA ELLIS, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 15, 2010.
Signed by:
Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator
State Bar Court