Case Number(s): 09-O-14632 10-O-00938 10-O-04423 10-O-06136
In the Matter of: Steven Karlton Wen-Hao-Kop, Bar #91354, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Cindy McCaughey, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213/765-1491
Bar #222126
Counsel for Respondent: Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213/765-1491
Submitted to: Assigned Judge.
Filed: April 21, 2011 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 15, 1980.
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 * 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.
Case Number(s): 09-O-14632 10-O-00938 10-O-04423 10-O-06136
In the Matter of: Steven Karlton Wen-Hao Kop
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: Steven Karlton Wen-Hao Kop
CASE NUMBER(S): 09-O-14632; 10-O-00938; 10-O-04423; 10-O-06136
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 Nos. 09-O-14632; 10-O-11938; 10-O-04423; 10-O-16136 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. At all times relevant herein, Respondent maintained a client trust account at Bank of America in Santa Monica, California, Account No. xxxxx-xl 1881
2. On February 18, 2010, Respondent deposited into his client trust account a settlement check issued by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, payable to Juan Lopez, Desert Regional Medical Center and Respondent in the amount of $15,000.
3. On March 17, 2010 Respondent deposited into his client trust account a settlement check issued by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, payable to Juan Lopez and Respondent in the amount of $15,000.
4. Between March 2009 and April 2010, with Respondent’s consent and knowledge,
Respondent’s client trust account was directly debited by Citysearch, AT&T and Los Angeles Athletic Club for Respondent’s personal expenses.
5. Between January 2010 and May 2010, Respondent repeatedly issued client trust account checks to pay for personal expenses.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
6. By authorizing his client trust account to be directly debited for personal expenses and using client trust account funds to pay personal expenses, Respondent misused client trust account funds kept by Respondent in a bank account labeled "Trust Account" "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-110(A). The account number is excluded to protect the account from identity theft.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was March 11, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.2(a) provides in relevant part that willful misappropriation "shall result in
disbarment" unless the amount involved is insignificant, in which case "the discipline shall not be less than a one-year actual suspension, irrespective of mitigating circumstances." Standard 2.2(b) provides in relevant part that commingling of funds or misappropriation not involving a willful act "shall result in at least a three month actual suspension from the practice of law, irrespective of mitigating circumstances."
However, in applying the seemingly mandatory language of the standards, the Supreme Court makes clear that, "where appropriate" imposition of a lower level of discipline lower of discipline than that specified by the standard is proper, "even when the standard expressly provides for a minimum discipline irrespective of mitigating circumstances." In Re Van Sickle (2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr 980.
In Edwards v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 28, an attorney was found culpable of commingling funds and willful misappropriation. The Supreme Court found two years’ actual suspension "excessive." (Id. at p. 39.) The Edwards Court expressly rejected an inflexible interpretation of the language of standard and instead reasoned, "[t]his standard [2.2(a) ] correctly recognizes that willful misappropriation is grave misconduct for which disbarment is the usual form of discipline. In requiring that a minimum of one year of actual suspension invariably be imposed, however, the standard is not
faithful to the teachings of this court’s decisions. [Citation.] The standard’s one-year minimum should be regarded as a guideline, not an inflexible mandate ." ( Id. at p. 38.)
Shortly after Edwards, in Dudugian v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1092, the Supreme Court likewise rejected the Review Department’s application of standard 2.2(b) as requiring three months’ actual suspension. The Dudugian Court agreed with the findings of culpability, but concluded that public reproval was the appropriate discipline under the facts of the case based upon a number of mitigating factors.
In this case, the parties submit a deviation from the mandatory language of the standards is likewise appropriate and a stayed suspension is a proper level of discipline. Respondent has a long discipline-free membership with the State Bar but during the time of the instant misconduct, Respondent suffered debilitating physical injuries which provide a basis of explanation for the aberrational misconduct. Because of this, the purposes attorney discipline, as set forth in Standard 1.3, of protecting the public and maintaining confidence in the legal profession will be met.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No. 09-O-14632, 10-O-00938, 10-O-04423, 10-O-06136, Count Two,
Alleged Violation 6106 B&P
Case No. 09-O-14632, 10-O-00938, 10-O-04423, 10-O-06136, Count Three,
Alleged Violation 6106 B&P
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of March 14, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are $6,106.00. 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-14632, 10-O-00938, 10-O-04423, 10-O-06136
In the Matter of: Steven Karlton Wen-Hao Kop
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: Steven Karlton Wen-Hao Kop
Date: March 29, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Cindy Mc Caughey
Date: April 1, 2011
Case Number(s): 09-O-14632, 10-O-00938, 10-O-04423, 10-O-06136
In the Matter of: Steven Karlton Wen-Hao Kop
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: April 20, 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 April 21, 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:
STEVEN KARLTON WEN-HAO K0P
LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN K K0P
3929 W 5TM ST SPC 9
SANTA ANA CA 92703
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
CYNTHIA MCCAUGHEY, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on April 21, 2011
Signed by:
Angela Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court