Case Number(s): 09-O-1071; 11-O-14328(inv)
In the Matter of: William Robert Trojani, Bar # 236916, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Hugh G. Radigan, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015
213-765-120
Bar #94251 ,
Counsel for Respondent: Paul J. Virgo, 5200 West Century Blvd., Suite 345
Los Angeles, California 90045
310-642-6900
Bar #67900
Submitted to: Settlement Judge, State bar Court Clerk’s office Los Angeles.
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 1, 2005.
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 14 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 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: three billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme court Order commencing 2013 . (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.
IN THE MATTER OF: William Robert Trojani
CASE NUMBER(S): 09-O-10711 and 11-O-14328(inv)
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent pleads nolo contendere to the following facts and violations. Respondent completely understands that the plea for nolo eontendere shall be considered the same as an admission of the stipulated facts and of his culpability of the statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct specified herein.
Case No. 09-O-10711 (Complainant: Eshan)
FACTS:
1. On July 27, 2007, Homa Ehsan ("Ehsan") employed Respondent to represent her in a civil matter.
2. On November 13, 2007, Respondent filed a civil action entitled Homa Ehsan and Sahab Roshanzamir v. Iman Foroutan et. al. Los Angeles County Superior Court, ease no. BC380667 (the "Ehsan action"). Sahab Roshan-Zamir ("Roshan-Zamir") is Ehsan’s son.
3. Although Roshan-Zamir never hired or talked to Respondent, Respondent added Roshan-Zamir’s name as a plaintiff to the Ehsan action without his knowledge or consent.
4. On February 21, 2008, defendants filed a Cross-Complaint against Ehsan. On or about February 20, 2008, Respondent was properly served with the Cross-Complaint.
5. On February 28, 2008, Respondent sent a letter to opposing counsel in the Ehsan action confirming that Roshan-Zamir would withdraw as a plaintiff in the action.
6. On March 3, 2008, Respondent filed an answer to the Cross-Complaint on Ehsan’s behalf.
7. On March 13, 2008, Respondent filed a Request for Dismissal in the Ehsan action on Roshanzamir’s behalf.
8. On March 11, 2008, the court in the Ehsan action ordered the parties to complete mediation by July 25, 2008 and set a post-mediation status conference for September 17, 2008. On March 11, 2008, opposing counsel properly served Respondent with notice of the court’s ruling. Respondent received the notice.
9. On April 22, 2008, defendants in the Ehsan action served Respondent with written discovery Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Admission and Request for Production of Documents. Respondent received the written discovery.
10. On April 30, 2008, defendants in the Ehsan action filed a motion to compel Ehsan’s answers to deposition questions. The hearing on the motion was scheduled for May 23, 2008. Respondent was properly served with the motion to compel.
11. On May 22, 2008, Respondent was personally served with defendants’ motion for sanctions in the Ehsan action. In the motion, defendants argued the Ehsan action was a frivolous lawsuit. The hearing on the motion for sanctions was scheduled for July 15, 2008.
12. On May 23, 2008, Respondent did not appear at the hearing regarding defendants’ motion to compel. In addition, Respondent did not file opposition to the motion to compel.
13. On May 23, 2008, the court in the Ehsan action granted defendant’s motion to compel and ordered Ehsan’s deposition completed by July 31, 2008. On May 27, 2008, Respondent was properly served with the court’s May 23, 2008 ruling.
14. On May 29, 2008, defense counsel wrote Respondent regarding his failure to provide discovery responses. On May 30, 2008, defense counsel again wrote Respondent regarding discovery and gave Respondent until June 14, 2008 to provide the discovery responses. On May 30, 2008, defense counsel sent the letter by facsimile. Respondent received the May 30, 2008 letter but failed to provide any
discovery responses.
15. On May 30, 2008, Respondent filed a motion to be relieved as counsel in the Ehsan action. On or about June 25, 2008, the court held a hearing on Respondent’s motion. Respondent appeared at the June 25, 2008 hearing, and the matter was continued to July 24, 2008. During the June 25, 2008 hearing, the court also continued the hearing regarding defendants’ motion for sanctions to July 24, 2008.
16. On July 3, 2008, defendants in the Ehsan action filed motions to compel responses to written discovery. The hearing on the motions to compel was scheduled for July 29, 2008. Respondent was properly served with the motions to compel.
17. On July 14, 2008, opposing counsel wrote Respondent asking him to telephone the mediator regarding the July 17, 2008 mediation in the Ehsan action and reminding him that Ehsan’s deposition had been continued to July 15, 2008 in defense counsel’s office. On July 14, 2008, counsel sent the letter to Respondent via facsimile. Respondent received the letter but failed to appear at Ehsan’s scheduled deposition and failed to appear at the July 17, 2008 mediation.
18. On July 24, 2008, Respondent appeared at the hearing regarding his motion to be relieved as counsel. On July 24, 2008, the court denied Respondent’s motion to be relieved as counsel in the Ehsan action. In addition, the court continued defendant’s motion for sanctions to October 16, 2008.
19. On July 29, 2008, Respondent failed to appear at the hearing regarding defendants’ motion to compel discovery responses. On July 29, 2008, the court granted defendants’ motion to compel and ordered Ehsan to provide discovery responses by August 15, 2008. On July 30, 2008, Respondent was properly served with the court’s July 29, 2008 ruling in the Ehsan action.
20. On July 29, 2008, Respondent filed a second motion to be relieved as counsel. The heating on the notion was set for August 28, 2008.
21. On August 1, 2008, defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment/Suramary Adjudication in the Ehsan action The hearing on the motion was scheduled for October 16, 2008. On August 1, 2008, Respondent was personally served with the motion.
22. On August 15, 2008, defendants’ properly served Respondent with notice that the October 16, 2008 hearings on defendants’ motion for sanctions and summary judgment motions had been continued to October 22, 2008. Respondent received notice of the hearing change.
23. On August 28, 2008, Respondent appeared at the hearing regarding his motion to be relieved as counsel. On August 28, 2008, the court again denied his motion.
24. On September 8, 2008, Respondent filed his third motion to be relieved as counsel in the Ehsan action. The hearing on the motion was set for October 9, 2008
25. On September 29, 2009, defendants in the Ehsan action filed a motion for terminating sanctions and/or contempt sanctions. The heating on the motion was set for October 22, 2008. On September 29, 2008, Respondent was personally served with the motion.
26. On October 9, 2008, the court in the Ehsan action denied Respondent’s motion to be relieved as counsel. On October 16, 2008, Respondent wrote opposing counsel giving notice of the court’s October 9, 2008 ruling.
27. On October 22, 2008, the court in the Ehsan action held a hearing regarding defendants’ motions, including the motions for sanctions and for terminating sanctions. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing, and Ehsan appeared without counsel.
28. On October 22, 2008, the court noted that no opposition had been filed to defendants’ motions. On October 22, 2008, the court granted defendants’ request for $34,035.55 in sanctions for attorney’s fees incurred in the defense of the Ehsan action. The request for sanctions was granted again both Respondent and Ehsan. The court also struck all of Ehsan’s pleading including the answer to the cross-
complaint and entered default in favor of the defendants and cross-complainants. In addition, the court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment and motion for terminating and/or contempt sanctions.
29. On October 22, 2008, the court held that the Ehsan action was a retaliatory lawsuit, that the entire ease was presented to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. The court also held that because plaintiff failed to file opposition to the summary judgment motions, no triable issue of material fact had been created by Ehsan.
30. On October 22, 2008, the court scheduled the final status conference, the application for monetary sanctions and the default prove-up heating in the Ehsan action for November 20, 2008. On October 22, 2008, the defendants properly served Respondent with notice of the court’s October 22, 2008 rulings. Respondent received notice of the court’s rulings.
31. On November 20, 2008, Respondent failed to appear at the status conference and default prove-up heating in the Ehsan action. On November 20, 2008, the court conducted the default prove-up heating in the Ehsan action.
32. On November 21, 2008, Respondent again failed to appear for the status conference and default prove-up hearing in the Ehsan action. On November 21, 2008, the court signed the default judgment in the Ehsan action. On November 21, 2008, the court ordered the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the
defendants. Pursuant to the judgment, defendants were awarded an additional $5,000 in punitive and exemplary damages and $7,607.22 in costs.
33. To date Respondent has not paid any of the $34,035.55 in sanctions has ordered by the court on October 22, 2008 in the Ehsan action.
34. By failing to pay any of the $34,035.55 in sanctions as ordered by the court in the Ehsan action, Respondent willfully disobeyed or violated an order of the court ruling requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondents profession which he ought in good faith to do or forbear.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
35. By filing a civil complaint on Roshan-Zamir’s behalf without his knowledge or consent, Respondent corruptly or willfully and without authority appeared as attorney for a party to an action or proceeding in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6104.
36. By failing to appear at May 23, 2008 hearing, by not filing opposition to the motion to compel answers at deposition, by failing to provide discovery responses, by failing to appear at mediation, by failing to appear at the July 15, 2008 deposition, by failing to appear at the July 24, 2008 hearing, by failing to file opposition to the motion to compel discovery responses, by failing to appear at the October 22, 2008 hearing, by failing to oppose defendants’ motion for sanctions, motion for terminating sanctions and motion for summary judgment and by failing to appear at the hearings on November 20,
2008 and November 21, 2008, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
37. By failing to pay any of the $34,035.55 in sanctions as ordered by the court in the Ehsan action, Respondent willfully disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to do or forbear in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6103.
Case No. 11-O-14328(inv) (Complainant: Khalilpour)
FACTS:
38. On October 22, 2009, Respondent and the Debt Relief Law Center was retained by Robert and Mary Khalilpour (hereinafter "Khalilpour"), to pursue and obtain foreclosure relief and/or loan modification on their behalf. At the time they executed the retainer agreement, Khalilpour tendered to Debt ReLief Law Center a flat fee of $7,500.00 for legal services related to a Predatory Lending Civil Lawsuit. Respondent was an independent contractor working with Debt Relief Law Center at this time.
39. KhaLilpour sought status updates from Respondent over the course of the next several months which Respondent failed to a~knowledge or respond to. It was not until February 2010, that Debt Relief Law Center acknowledged to Khalilpour their failure to perform any substantive activity on their matter.
40. Respondent had severed his relationship with Debt ReLief Law Center prior to having performed any activity on the Khalilpour matter without the courtesy of advising Khalilpour of his change in status.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
41. By failing to file the civil complaint on behalf of Khalilpour for which he was retained, and by failing to provide any services of value to KhaLilpour, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
42. By failing to respond to the multiple requests from Khalilpour for a status update with regard to their complaint filing status, respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was November 9, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Respondent’s misconduct involves multiple acts which took place over the course of a year or more, which is an aggravating factor. Standard 2.4(b) provides for reproval or suspension for a failure to perform in an individual matter which does not exhibit a pattern of misconduct_ The detriment to the client in pursuing what the court
found to be frivolity without the most basic rudimentary acknowledgment of compliance with litigation obligations renders actual time appropriate herein. The concerted indifference to responsibility exhibited in this matter constitutes a failure to perform in a basic rudimentary professional manner. Discovery obligations were ignored, multiple court orders defied and dispositive motions went unopposed.
Standard 2.6(a) provides for disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or harm to the victim for a member’s violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.
Standard 2.10 provides for reproval or suspension likewise depending upon the gravity of the offense or harm to the victim for a member’s violation of Business and Professions Code section 6104.
Inasmuch as Respondent attempted within multiple unsuccessful motions to withdraw from his continued representation in this matter based upon the breakdown of the attorney/client relationship and his inability to secure his clients signature to a substitution, Standard 2.4(b) is the controlling standard in this matter.
In consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s misconduct, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances present, the parties submit that the intent and goals of the standards are met in this matter by the imposition of sixty days actual suspension, two years stayed suspension and two years probation.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of
November 9, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $4,161.00. 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.
Standard 1.2(e)(ii).
Case Number(s): 09-O-10711 11-O-14328 (inv)
In the Matter of: WILLIAM ROBERT TROJANI
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: William R. Trojani
Date: November 20, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel: Paul J. Virgo
Date: November 21, 2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Hugh G. Radigan
Date: November 22, 2011
Case Number(s): 09-O-10711 11-O-14328 (inv)
In the Matter of: WILLIAM ROBERT TROJANI
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: Donald F. Miles
Judge of the State Bar Court
Date: December 12, 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, December 16, 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:
PAUL JEAN VIRGO
9909 TOPANGA BLVD. #282
CHATSWORTH, CA 91311
<<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:
Hugh Gerard Radigan, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 16, 2011.
Signed by: Christina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court