Case Number(s): 09-O-14267-LMA
[09-O-16483]
MATTERS NOT
FILED:
10-O-8642
11-O-11809
In the Matter of: Ronald J. Britt, Bar #60664, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Wonder J. Liang, Deputy Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, Califronia 94105
(415)538-2372
Bar #184357
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Ronald J. Britt
9988 Niblick Drive, #3
Roseville, California 95678
(916) 641-5551
Bar # 60664
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
Filed: Jun 10, 2011. State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
<<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 December 16, 1974 .
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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2012 and 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.
<<not>> checked. (10) Family Problems: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature. In 2004, respondent’s eldest son was diagnosed with a kidney disease and is currently awaiting a kidney transplant. In August 2008, respondent’s father died. In December 2009, respondent was severely injured in a motor vehicle
accident and required eye surgery in March 2011.
IN THE MATTER OF: RONALD J. BRITT
CASE NUMBER(S): 09-0-14267-LMA [09-0-16483]
MATTERS NOT FILED: 10-O-8642; 11-O-11809
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 No. 09-0-14267 (Complainant: Lynn Carlson)
Facts: Case No. 09-0-14267: Counts One and Two:
1. On or about October 13, 2008, Lynn Carlson ("Carlson") employed respondent to prepare a revocable trust instrument and transfer Carlson’s property into the trust on an expedited basis. Carlson paid respondent $1,250.00 for this service. Carlson’s home was a primary piece of property to be transferred into the trust.
2. Thereafter, respondent failed to promptly transfer Carlson’s home into the trust.
3. On several occasions including on or about January 21, 2009, February 27, 2009, March 9, 2009, March 30, 2009, and August 14, 2009, Carlson left messages asking respondent to provide Carlson with information regarding the status of his request that his home be transferred into trust and to otherwise contact him regarding his matter. Respondent received these messages but did not respond to them.
4. By on or about May 28, 2009, the State Bar was conducting an inquiry and investigation into a complaint filed by Carlson concerning allegations that respondent failed to diligently perform legal services on Carlson’s behalf in relation to the revocable trust.
5. On or about May 28, 2009, June 30, 2009 and September 11, 2009, the State Bar contacted respondent by letter concerning Carlson’s complaint; respondent received each of these letters shortly after they were sent to him.
6. Respondent transferred Carlson’s home into the trust on or about November 24, 2009.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 09-0-14267: Counts One and Two:
7. By delaying until on or about November 24, 2009, to transfer Carlson’s home into trust, respondent recklessly and repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
8. By failing to respond to Carlson’s requests for information about the transfer of his home into trust or otherwise, respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquires of a client in violation of section 6068(m) of the Business and Professions Code. Case No. 09-0-16483 (Complainant: Kerry. Holsworth)
Facts: Case No. 09-0-16483: Count Three:
9. On or about October 27, 2008, Kerry Holsworth ("Holsworth") employed respondent to represent him in a domestic partnership dissolution, replacing another lawyer. Specifically, respondent was hired to file appropriate pleadings and otherwise advance the dissolution on behalf of Holsworth, and to negotiate a division of the partnership property. Holsworth paid respondent $5,000.00 in advanced fees for this service.
10. Thereafter respondent performed no services of value to Holsworth in relation to the dissolution matter, or otherwise. Specifically, with the exception of a form motion to relieve Holsworth’s original counsel, respondent filed no pleadings on Holsworth’s behalf, and he took no action of substance to advance Holsworth’s position in relation to the dissolution or to negotiate the division of partnership property.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 09-0-16483: Count Three:
11. By failing to provide any services of value to Holsworth, respondent recklessly failed to perform legal services with competence in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts: Case No. 09-0-16483: Count Four:
12. The facts of Count Three are hereby incorporated by this reference.
13. On or about June 18, 2009, Holsworth contacted respondent by letter, which was received by respondent shortly after it was mailed. In this letter, Holsworth discharged respondent and requested a
refund of the $5,000 in advanced attorney’s fees. Because respondent performed no services of value to Holsworth, the entire sum of $5,000 was unearned.
14. On December 27, 2010, respondent sent a Cashier Check in the amount of $5,000 as a refund for the advanced fees paid to him by Holsworth.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 09-0-16483: Count Four;
15. By failing to promptly refund the $5,000 in advanced fees paid to him by Holsworth after his discharge from employment, respondent~ failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Case No. 10-O-8642 (Complainant: Gordon Harper)
[NOT FILED]
Facts: Case No. 10-O-8642:
16. On or about April 15, 2009, Gordon Harper ("Harper") hired respondent to represent him in a family law matter entitled, Harper v. Harper, Sacramento County Superior Court, case no. 09FL2339..
17. Harper subsequently paid $5000 to respondent.
18. The petition in the family law matter was filed by Harper’s then wife on April 7, 2009.
19. Respondent did not file Harper’s response to the petition until October 4, 2010.
20. During the pendency of Harper’s matter, respondent failed to respond to numerous voice messages, text messages and emails from Harper regarding the status of the case until in or around March 2011.
21. On April 15, 2011, the court filed its Notice of Entry of Judgment - Dissolution in
Harper.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 10-O-8642:
22. By failing to timely respond to the petition, respondent recklessly and repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
23. By failing to respond to numerous voice messages, text messages and emails from Harper until in or around March 2011, respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services in violation of section 6068(m) of the Business and Professions Code.
Case No. 11-O-11809 (Complainant: Kathy Ueyama) [NOT FILED]
Facts: Case No. 11-O-11809:
24. On February 9, 2009 Kathy Ueyama ("Ueyama") hired respondent to handle an elder abuse/fraud case against her brother. Ueyama alleged that her brother sold their mother’s property and depleted the funds. Ueyama paid respondent $5,000 in advance for fees.
25. Respondent did not provide Ueyama with a written fee agreement.
26. Between February 2009 and April 2009, Ueyama placed several telephone calls to
respondent to inquire regarding the status of her case. Respondent failed to retum Ueyarna’s telephone calls.
27. Ueyama met with respondent in June 2009, at which time respondent apologized for not having performed any services and assured Ueyama that he would attend to her matter.
28. After not hearing from respondent since the meeting in June 2009, in the fall of 2009 Ueyama made numerous telephone calls to and left messages for respondent. However, respondent did not respond to Ueyama’s messages.
29. Ueyama then contacted respondent’s former secretary, who arranged a meeting for Ueyama with respondent. The meeting took place on December 23, 2009.
30. At the meeting, Ueyama leamed that Respondent had failed to complete any work on the fraud case. Instead, respondent recommended filing a probate case with Ueyama as the executor. Respondent requested that Ueyama provide him with her mother’s original will and told her that he would file the probate case in early January 2010. They agreed that Ueyama would bring the will to respondent at his office the following day.
31. On December 24, 2009, Ueyama presented at respondent’s office at the appointed time with a packet which included the original will and other relevant documents, however, respondent’s office was deserted. Ueyama was forced to leave the packet with the secretary of another tenant. Ueyama later confirmed with respondent that he had received the packet.
32. Thereafter, respondent failed to communicate any further with Ueyama.
33. Beginning in or about February 2010, Ueyama began calling respondent to inquire regarding the status of her matter. Ueyama made multiple calls to, and left messages for, respondent, however he did not respond.
34. Respondent did not complete any work on the probate case or perform any services of value for which he had been hired to do by Ueyama.
35. Ueyema was forced to hire another attorney in May 2010.
36. Ueyama and her new attorney made several requests to respondent for Ueyama’s file, particularly the original will, and a refund of the fees paid by Ueyama.
37. On August 10, 2010, respondent had Ueyama’s file delivered to Ueyama’s new attorney, however the file did not include the original will. Respondent has since declared under penalty of perjury that he misplaced the original will.
38. On May 25,2011, respondent delivered to Ms. Ueyama’s current counsel a Cashier’s Check payable to Ms. Ueyama in the amount of $5,000.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. II-O-I1809:
39. By failing to pursue the elder abuse/fraud action or the probate case for which Ueyama hired him to do, respondent intentionally, recklessly, and repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
40. By failing to respond to Ueyama’s telephone calls between February 2009 and April 2009, the fall of 2009, and the beginning of February 2010, respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services in violation of section 6068(m) of the Business and Professions Code.
41. By failing to return Ueyama’s files until August 10, 2010, despite repeated requests,
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 violation of rule 3-700(D)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
42. By failing to perform any services of value in Ueyama’s matter, after having receiving advanced payment, respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in violation of Rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was May 17, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.4(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 wilfully 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.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of May 17, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $3,654.00. 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-14267-LMA, et al.
In the Matter of: Ronald J. Britt
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: Ronald J. Britt and Wonder J. Liang
Respondent: Ronald J. Britt
Date: May 25, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Wonder J. Liang
Date: May 25, 2011
Case Number(s): 09-O-14267-LMA, et al.
In the Matter of: Ronald J. Britt
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 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: Pat McElroy
Judge of the State Bar Court:
Date: June 10, 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 San Francisco , on June 10, 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:
RONALD JOSEPH BRITT
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD J. BRITT
9988 NIBLICK DR STE 3
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678 - 7018
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
WONDER LIANG, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on June 10, 2011.
Signed by: Laine Silber
Case Administrator
State Bar Court