Case Number(s): 09-O-13082, 09-O-13176, 09-O-18329, 10-O-01257, 10-O-04157, 10-O-05784,10-O-05892,10-O-06528,10-O-06585,
In the Matter of: Jeffrey Allen Cancilla, Bar # 235428 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Suzan J. Anderson, Supervising Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015
(213) 765-1209
Bar # 160559,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Jeffrey Allen Cancilla
1748 West Katella Avenue
Suite 112
Orange, California 92867
(714) 532-2577
Bar#235428
Submitted to: Assigned 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 January 10, 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: Costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following two billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.)
<<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.
Please see Attachment, page 11 through 13
Case Number(s): 09-O-13082, et al.
In the Matter of: Jeffrey Allen Cancilla, State Bar No.: 235428
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-13082, et al.
In the Matter of: Jeffery Allen Cancilla, State Bar No.:235428
<<not>> checked. a. Within days/ months/ years 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.
checked. b. Within days/ six 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.
Other:
IN THE MATTER OF: Jeffrey Allen Cancilla, State Bar No. 235428
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-O-13082, 09-O-13176, 09-O-18329, 10-O-01257, 10-O-04157, 10-O-05784,10-O-05892,10-O-06528,10-O-06585
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. In late 2008, Respondent entered into agreement with several loan modification companies: California Legal Assistants; Solutions Law Group; Legal Loan Audits (dba Solutions Law Group ((“SLG)); Solutions Processing and YMS dba SLG (“Loan Modification Companies”). Respondent effectively partnered with the Loan Modification, Companies and they would perform much of the loan modification work for the clients which hired Respondent. At all times herein, Respondent also operated his own law office, the Law Office of Jeffrey A. Cancilla. The Loan Modification Companies conducted all the advertising for loan modification clients which then referred the clients to Respondent’s law office. Respondent would collect the legal fees, deposit them into his account and then pay the loan modification companies a portion of the legal fees.
2. Respondent was employed by the following clients through the Loan Modification Companies to represent them in order to negotiate with their home mortgage lender and obtain a modification of their home mortgage loans:
Case Number: 09-O-13082; Client: Jaime and Reina Delfin; Date Client Employed Company Respondent: December 1, 2008; Company through which Client employed Respondent: California Legal Assistants;
Case Number: 09-O-13176; Client: Francisco Delgadillo; Date Client Employed Company Respondent: January 21, 2009; Company through which Client employed Respondent: Solutions Law Group;
Case Number: 09-O-18329; Client: Laura Edmiston; Date Client Employed Company Respondent: January 14, 2009; Company through which Client employed Respondent: Solutions Law Group;
Case Number: 10-O-01257; Client: Linda Duncan; Date Client Employed Company Respondent: December 30, 2008; Company through which Client employed Respondent: Legal Loan Audits;
Case Number: 10-O-04157; Client: Wesley Bowman; Date Client Employed Company Respondent: February 18, 2009; Company through which Client employed Respondent: Solutions Group;
Case Number: 10-O-05784; Client: Sandra Ayad; Date Client Employed Company Respondent: September 3, 2009; Company through which Client employed Respondent: California Legal Assistants;
Case Number: 10-O-05892; Client: Pablo and Sandra Varela; Date Client Employed Company Respondent: December 2008; Company through which Client employed Respondent: YMS dba SLG;
Case Number: 10-O-06528; Client: James Russell; Date Client Employed Company Respondent: February 2009; Company through which Client employed Respondent: Solutions Processing;
Case Number: 10-O-06585; Client: Annie Garwood; Date Client Employed Company Respondent: February 2009; Company through which Client employed Respondent: Solutions Processing;
3. In March 2009, Mr. Delgadillo (09-O- 13176) received a letter from Solutions Law Group informing him that his attorney would be changed from Respondent to another attorney.
4. On May 28, 2009, Ms. Edmiston (09-O-18329) received a facsimile from another attorney informing her that he would be her attorney instead of Respondent for her loan modification through Solutions Law Group.
5. On February 12, 2010, Ms. Ayad (10-O-05784) paid $1000 of her advanced legal fees and on February 13, 2010, Ms. Ayad paid $1500 of her advanced legal fees for her loan modification services by Respondent.
6. In May 2009, Mr. Russell (10-O-06528) was informed by Solutions Processing that his attorney would be changed from Respondent to another attorney.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By entering into agreements with the Loan Modification Companies to perform much of the loan modification work for the clients who hired Respondent through the Loan Modification Companies, Respondent formed a partnership where some of the activities of the partnership consisted of the practice of law, with a person who is not a lawyer, in willful violation of rule 1-310 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By paying the Loan Modification Companies from a portion of the legal fees he collected from each of the clients, Respondent shared legal fees with a person who is not a lawyer, in willful violation of rule 1-320(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By not informing Mr. Delgadillo, Ms. Edmiston, and Mr. Russell that he would no longer be their attorney on their loan modification matters, Respondent withdrew from employment without taking reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of his clients in willful violation of rule 3-700(A)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By collecting advance fees from Ms. Ayad after the passage of Civil Code section 2944.7, Respondent willfully violated section 6068(a) of the Business and Professions Code by failing to uphold the laws of California.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was December 8, 2010.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of December 8, 2010, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are $6935. 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.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Respondent tins no prior record of discipline.
Respondent has displayed candor and cooperation with the State Bar throughout these matters and by entering into this Stipulation including the cooperation agreement.
Respondent fully recognizes his wrongdoing and is no longer involved with any of the Loan Modification Companies,
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Respondents clients were harmed by the above described misconduct, in not having Respondent perform all the loan modification services which were performed by the Loan Modification Companies, and in not knowing who their attorney would be at a given time.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
Standards
Standard 1.3 provides that the primary purposes of attorney discipline are, "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high legal professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession."
Standard 2.6 provides that suspension or disbarment is appropriate for a violation of section 6068 depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim.
Standard 2.10 provides that any violation of the Business and Professions Code and the Rules of Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim.
The patties submit that the stipulated discipline in this matter complies with the Standards both specifically and with regard to the general purposes and goals of the disciplinary process.
Given the aggravating and mitigating circumstances present in this ease, a ninety day suspension, along with the probationary conditions set forth herein, is consistent with the Standards.
Finally, the parties submit that given Respondent’s recognition of wrongdoing, along with his conduct in attempting to rectify the harm, the stipulated discipline and probationary conditions in this matter are sufficient to assure that Respondent will conform his future conduct to ethical standards and, therefore, protect the public, courts and profession. This is consistent with Standard 1.3.
STATE BAR ETHICS AND CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT SCHOOLS
Because Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School and State Bar Client Trust Account School as part of this stipulation, Respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School and State Bar Client Trust Account School.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 09-O-13082, et al
In the Matter of: Jeffrey Allen Cancilla, State Bar No.:235428
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: Jeffrey Allen Cancilla
Date: December 13, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Suzan J. Anderson
Date: December 17, 2010
Case Number(s): 09-O-13082, et al
In the Matter of: Jeffrey Allen Cancilla, State Bar No.:235428
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.
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: January 6, 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 January 6, 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:
JEFFREY A CANCILLA ESQ
LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY A. CANCILLA
1748 W KATELLA AVE STE 112
ORANGE, CA 92867
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Suzan J. Anderson, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 6, 2011.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court