Case Number(s): 09-O-10533-DFM
In the Matter of: Craig Steven Glatzhofer, Bar # 188670, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Larry DeSha, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1336
Bar #117910,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Craig Steven Glatzhofer
7400 Center Ave.; Ste. 111
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
(714) 891-8982
Bar # 188670
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
<<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 3, 1997.
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 12 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. 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.
<<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.
Case Number(s): 09-O-10533-DFM
In the Matter of: Craig Steven Glatzhofer
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.
IN THE MATTER OF: CRAIG STEVEN GLATZHOFER
CASE NO.: 09-0-10533- DFM
WAIVER OF VARIANCE:
The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on January 6, 2011 and the facts and/or conclusions of law contained in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The parties further waive the right to the filing of a Notice of Disciplinary Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending
Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
FACTS:
1. On August 1, 2008, Respondent maintained a client trust account ("CTA") at Bank of America, account no. XXXXX1527. The balance on that day was $689.96.
2. On September 3, 2008, Respondent issued CTA check no. 1359 payable to Amstar/Red Oak Huntington Beach in the amount of $2,336.25. The purpose of this check was to pay Respondent’s law office monthly rent, which was a personal business expense.
3. When CTA check no. 1359 was presented for payment at the CTA bank, it was rejected due to insufficient funds in the CTA. The CTA balance at presentment was $689.96, which was reduced to $664.96 by a charge for the bad check.
4. After CTA check no. 1359 was dishonored, Respondent paid his law office rent by a check drawn on a personal account.
5. On October 7, 2008, Respondent deposited $3,000.00 of his personal funds into his CTA, raising the balance from $664.96 to $3,664.96.
6. On October 7, 2008, Respondent issued CTA check no. 1361 payable to Kohl’s in the amount of $339.35. The purpose of this check was to pay Respondent’s personal credit card account at Kohl’s. This check was paid when presented.
7. No client funds were deposited into the CTA during the period beginning on August 1, 2008 and ending on December 31, 2008.
8. On October 7, 2008, Respondent issued CTA check no. 1360 payable to Coast Assessment Service Company in the amount of $1,717.00. The purpose of this check was to pay Respondent’s arrearages for his homeowners’ association fees. This check was paid when presented.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
9. Respondent willfully violated rule 4-100(A) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct by his deposit of $3,000.00 of personal funds into his client trust account, and by issuing three checks from the account to pay his personal expenses.
DISMISSALS:
The State Bar respectfully requests the Court to dismiss Count Two, which alleges a violation of section 6106 of the Business and Professions Code, in the interests of justice.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
I. No Prior Discipline
Although the misconduct herein is serious, Respondent has had no prior record of
discipline since being admitted to the practice of law on June 3, 1997. [Standard 1.2(e)(i).]
2. No Harm
Respondent’s commingling of personal funds into his client trust account and his
issuance of three checks from that account for payment of his personal expenses caused no harm to clients, the courts, or the administration of justice. There were no client funds in the account at the time of the commingling and issuance of the checks. The one bad check was promptly replaced by a check drawn on a personal checking account. [Standard 1.2(e)(iii).]
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY:
Standards
Standard 2.2(b) requires at least a three month actual suspension, irrespective of mitigating circumstances, for any violation of rule 4-100(A).
The standards are not binding upon the court and should not be followed in a talismanic fashion. See discussion in re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 91-92.
Case Law
There is no requirement that client funds be on deposit for a violation of rule 4-100(A), even if the attorney no longer planned to use the account for trust account purposes, if the account is still denominated a client trust account. Doyle v. State Bar (1982) 32 Cal.3d 12, 22-23.
In Heavey v. State Bar (1976) 17 Cal.3d 131, attorney Heavy was found culpable of using his CTA to pay personal expenses "from time to time." During "nearly one full year," his CTA balance dropped 13 times below $353.65 owed on behalf of one client. The California Supreme Court considered the commingling to be more serious than the misappropriations. There was one mitigating factor of no prior discipline in 30 years of practice, with no aggravating factors. The California Supreme Court imposed discipline of an actual suspension for 30 days, a stayed suspension for two years, and probation for two years.
The Heavey case supports the deviation from Standard 2.2(b) in this case. Respondent’s mitigating factors are essentially equal to that of attomey Heavey. Respondent has additional mitigation due to no harm, but Heavey had a substantially longer period without prior discipline.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS:
The disclosure date referred to on page 2, paragraph A.(7), was April 21,2011.
COSTS:
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of April 21,2011, the costs in this matter are $4,920.00. 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.
Case Number(s): 09-O-10533-DFM
In the Matter of: Craig Steven Glatzhofer
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: Craig Steven Glatzhofer
Date: April 21, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Larry DeSha
Date: April 21, 2011
Case Number(s): 09-O-10533-DFM
In the Matter of: Craig Steven Glatzhofer
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.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court
Richard A. Platel
Date: May 2, 2011
[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 May 5, 2011, 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:
CRAIG S. GLATZHOFER
LAW OFC CRAIG S GLATZ
7400 CENTER AVE #111
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Larry DeSha, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on May 5, 2011.
Signed by:
Larry DeSha
Case Administrator
State Bar Court