Case Number(s): 09-O-14716; 09-O-14495; 09-O-15327; 09-O-16253; 09-O-16476; 09-O-16477; 09-O-16478; 09-O-17083; 09-O-17698; 09-O-19287; 10-O-00502; 10-O-01129; 10-O-01580; 10-O-02937; 10-O-02938; 10-O-03933; 10-O-03934; 10-O-03935; 10-O-03936; 10-O-04627; 10-O-09607; 10-O-11294; 11-O-10262; 11-O-10708
In the Matter of: Brian A. Walker, Bar # 206146, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Kimberly J. Belvedere, Bar #251334,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: June 28, 2011.
<<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 29, 1999.
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 11 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. Costs are awarded to the State Bar.
<<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.
(9) ORDER OF INACTIVE ENROLLMENT:
The parties are aware that if this stipulation is approved, the judge will issue an order of inactive enrollment under Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4), and Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule 5.111(D)(1).
Additional aggravating circumstances: .
Additional mitigating circumstances: See Attachment at page 9.
Attachment language (if any):
Case Number(s): 09-O-14716; 09-O-14495; 09-O-15327; 09-O-16253; 09-O-16476; 09-O-16477; 09-O-16478; 09-O-17083; 09-O-17698; 09-O-19287; 10-O-00502; 10-O-01129; 10-O-01580; 10-O-02937; 10-O-02938; 10-O-03933; 10-O-03934; 10-O-03935; 10-O-03936; 10-O-04627; 10-O-09607; 10-O-11294; 11-O-10262; 11-O-10708
In the Matter of: Brian A. Walker, State Bar No.: 206146
Nolo Contendere Plea Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition
The terms of pleading nolo contendere are set forth in the Business and Professions Code and the Rules of Procedures of the State Bar. The applicable provisions are set forth below:
Business and Professions Code § 6085.5 Disciplinary Charges; Pleas to Allegations
There are three kinds of pleas to the allegations of a notice of disciplinary charges or other pleading which initiates a disciplinary proceeding against a member:
(a) Admission of culpability.
(b) Denial of culpability.
(c) Nolo contendere, subject to the approval of the State Bar Court. The court shall ascertain whether the member completely understands that a plea of nolo contendere will be considered the same as an admission of culpability and that, upon a plea of nolo contendere, the court will find the member culpable. The legal effect of such a plea will be the same as that of an admission of culpability for all purposes, except that the plea and any admissions required by the court during any inquiry it makes as to the voluntariness of, or the factual basis for, the pleas, may not be used against the member as an admission in any civil suit based upon or growing out of the act upon which the disciplinary proceeding is based.
Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule 5.56. Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition
“(A) Contents. A proposed stipulation to facts, conclusions of law, and disposition must comprise:
[¶] . . . [¶]
(5) a statement that the member either:
(a) admits the truth of the facts comprising the stipulation and admits culpability for misconduct; or
(b) pleads nolo contendere to those facts and misconduct;
[¶] . . . [¶]
(B) Plea of Nolo Contendere. If the member pleads nolo contendere, the stipulation must also show that the member understands that the plea is treated as an admission of the stipulated facts and an admission of culpability.”
I, the Respondent in this matter, have read the applicable provisions of Business and Professions Code section 6085.5 and rule 5.56 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. I plead nolo contendere to the charges set forth in this stipulation and I completely understand that my plea will be considered the same as an admission of culpability except as stated in Business and Professions Code section 6085.5(c).
Signed by:
Respondent: Brian Walker
Date: June 16, 2011
IN THE MATTER OF: BRIAN A. WALKER, State Bar No. 206146
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-O-14716; 09-O-14495; 09-O-15327; 09-O-16253; 09-O-16476; 09-016477; 09-O-16478; 09-O-17083; 09-O-17698; 09-O-19287; 10-O-00502; 100-01129; 10-O-01580; 10-O-02937; 10-O-02938; 10-O-03933; 10-O-03934; 10-O-03935; 10-O-03936; 10-O-04627; 10-O-09607; 10-O-11294; 11-O-10262; 11-O-10708
Respondent pleads nolo contendere to the following facts and violations. Respondent understands that the plea of nolo contendere shall be considered the same as an admission of culpability for all purposes, except as set forth in the "Nolo Contendere Plea Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition" form attached hereto.
Statement of Facts:
1. Prior to April of 2008, Respondent was performing loan modifications through his financial company, Walker Capital Funding. In April of 2008, Respondent decided to instead offer the loan modification services through his law offices in order to be compliant with the Department of Real Estate ("DRE") regulations with respect to the collection of advanced fees for loan modification services, and to avoid DRE licensing regulations with respect to the performance of loan modifications.
2. Between March of 2008 and December 2009, Respondent used several business entities for the purpose of performing legal services in connection with loan modifications, including the Walker Law Group ("WLG"), Rockfield Law Group ("RLG"), Legal Eagle Financial ("LEF"), Loss Mitigation Services ("LMS"), Homeowner’s Assistance Law Group ("HLC"), and the Law Offices of Brian A. Walker.
3. RLG was managed and supervised by non-attorney Jeff Mattenly ("Mattenly"). Respondent paid. Mattenly a fixed percentage of advanced fees paid by each client who hired Respondent for legal services in connection with loan modifications.
4. Respondent did not properly train or supervise the non-attorney staff at RLG. Respondent left the day to day management of RLG to Mattenly.
5. Between April of 2008 and October 2009, RLG processed approximately 150 loan modification files.
6. LEF was managed and supervised by non-attorney Alton Harding ("Harding"). Respondent paid Harding a fixed percentage of advanced fees paid by each client who hired Respondent for legal services in connection with loan modifications.
7. Respondent did not properly train or supervise the non-attomey staff at LEF. Respondent left the day to day management of LEF to Harding.
8. Between March 2009 and October 2009, LEF processed approximately 200 loan modification files.
9. LMS was owned, managed and supervised by non-attorney Dean Shaffer ("Shaffer"). Respondent entered into an agreement with LMS in October of 2008 through May 2009 for the provision of legal services in connection with home mortgage loan modifications.
10. Between October 2008 through May 2009, Respondent authorized non-attorney staff at LMS to use Respondent’s name on their letterhead, retainer agreements, and authorization forms in connection with clients that hired LMS for loan modification services. Respondent authorized the use of his name in order to enhance the bargaining position of LMS with lenders.
11. Respondent did not properly train or supervise the non-attorney staff at LMS with respect to the offering or processing of loan modification files for which Respondent was responsible. Respondent left the day to day management of LMS to Shaffer, and only supervised Shaffer.
12. Between October 2008 through May 2009, LMS charged $3,500.00 per client in connection with legal services regarding loan modifications, and paid Respondent $1,000 per client on files that Respondent would process. Respondent also received a fixed fee of $200.00 out of the advanced legal fees paid to LMS for every opinion letter that Respondent wrote in connection with those cases, however, the opinion letters were written after LMS accepted the advanced legal fee.
13. The remainder of the advanced legal fees paid to LMS after Respondent deducted his fixed fees were retained by Shaffer.
14. Between March 2009 and October 2009, LEF processed approximately 100 loan modification files.
15. On December 30, 2009, Respondent resigned from the State Bar of California and became ineligible to practice law in this state.
Conclusions of Law:
16. By providing a portion of the advanced legal fees paid to Respondent by clients for legal services in connection with their loan modifications to Mattenly between April 2008 and October 2009, 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.
17. By providing a portion of the advanced legal fees paid to Respondent by clients for legal services in connection with their loan modifications to Harding between March 2008 and October 2009, 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.
18. By providing a portion of the advanced legal fees paid to Respondent by clients for legal services in connection with their loan modifications to Shaffer between October 2008 and May 2009, 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.
19. By failing to properly supervise and direct his non-attorney staff at WLG, RLG, and LEF, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
20. By failing to properly supervise and direct the non-attorney staff at LMS with respect to client files that LMS was processing for Respondent, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
21. By authorizing non-attorney staff at LMS to use Respondent’s name on their letterhead, retainer agreements, and authorization forms in connection with clients that hired LMS for loan modification services in order to enhance the bargaining position of LMS with lenders when Respondent did not own or operate LMS, Respondent caused to be disseminated a communication that presents or arranges matter in a format which is false, deceptive, or which tends to confuse, deceive, or mislead the public, in willful violation of rule 1-400(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Multiple acts of wrongdoing/pattern of misconduct. [Standard 1.2(b)(ii)]: There are multiple acts of wrongdoing in connection with the manner in which Respondent managed the various business entities to process a high volume of loan modifications; how Respondent paid the non-attorneys who managed the business entities; and Respondent’s authorization for non-attomeys to utilize his name and the name of his law firm in order for those non-attorneys to conduct loan modification processing services.
Significant harm to the client, public, or administration of justice. [Standard 1.2(b)(iv)]. The individuals who hired Respondent for legal services in connection with loan modifications were already financially distressed and in danger of losing their homes and desired an attorney to assist them in their endeavors. Respondent’s failure to supervise the non-attorney staff as indicated above deprived the clients of their ability to get the bargained-for-benefit of their legal fees as many of them had to communicate primarily with non-attorney staff. Further, by allowing LMS to use Respondent’s name, LMS clients were potentially misled into thinking that they were represented by an attorney when, in fact, they were not.
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
No prior discipline. Although the present misconduct is serious, at the time the misconduct, Respondent had been practicing law for approximately ten years without any impositions of discipline.
Candor/Cooperation. Respondent resigned from the State Bar with charges pending on December 30, 2009. The State Bar indicated that they would be compelled to recommend against acceptance based on the criteria set forth in rule 9.21(d) of the California Rules of Court. Following the rejection of his resignation by the Supreme Court, Respondent willingly entered into this stipulation, which entitles him to mitigation.
If called to testify, Respondent would testify as follows (the State Bar makes no representation regarding the veracity of the statement): Respondent worked every file to completion or made arrangements to have a non-attorney complete the file after Respondent’s resignation. Respondent does not believe that the offering or providing loan modifications services constitutes the practice of law.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
The determination of what constitutes an appropriate disciplinary outcome commences by "looking to the purpose of sanctions for attorney misconduct." (In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 205.) Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct sets forth that purpose as "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession."
In this case, disbarment is consistent with the purposes set forth in Standard 1.3 and applicable case law. (In the Matter of Corey Leon Steele (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 708 [Disbarment appropriate where attorney departed from the proper standard of care and, among other things, split fees with a non-attorney and failed to control his law practice]; In the Matter of Jones (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 411, 421 [Disbarment appropriate where attorney’s misconduct involved the failure to supervise non-attorney staff for whom he was responsible and split fees with the non-attorney.]
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to on page 2, paragraph A(7), was June 16, 2011.
ESTIMATED COSTS OF PROCEEDINGS TO DATE
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that, as of June 13, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are estimated to be $2,797.00. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase.
ORDER OF INACTIVE ENROLLMENT
The parties are aware that if this stipulation is approved, the judge will issue an order of inactive enrollment under Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision(c)(4) and Rules of Procedure of the State
Bar Rule 5.111 (D)(1).
Case Number(s): 09-O-14716; 09-O-14495; 09-O-15327; 09-O-16253; 09-O-16476; 09-O-16477; 09-O-16478; 09-O-17083; 09-O-17698; 09-O-19287; 10-O-00502; 10-O-01129; 10-O-01580; 10-O-02937; 10-O-02938; 10-O-03933; 10-O-03934; 10-O-03935; 10-O-03936; 10-O-04627; 10-O-09607; 10-O-11294; 11-O-10262; 11-O-10708
In the Matter of: BRIAN A. WALKER
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: BRIAN A. WALKER
Date: 06-16-2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Kimberly J. Belvedere
Date: 06-17-2011
Case Number(s): 09-O-14716; 09-O-14495; 09-O-15327; 09-O-16253; 09-O-16476; 09-O-16477; 09-O-16478; 09-O-17083; 09-O-17698; 09-O-19287; 10-O-00502; 10-O-01129; 10-O-01580; 10-O-02937; 10-O-02938; 10-O-03933; 10-O-03934; 10-O-03935; 10-O-03936; 10-O-04627; 10-O-09607; 10-O-11294; 11-O-10262; 11-O-10708
In the Matter of: BRIAN A. WALKER, State Bar No.: 206146
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:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
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.
“Page 3-C-(1) – Add – SEE ATTACHMENT AT PAGE 9”
“Page 3-C-(3) – Add – SEE ATTACHMENT AT PAGE 9”
<<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.)
Respondent BRIAN A. WALKER is ordered transferred to involuntary inactive status pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4). Respondent’s inactive enrollment will be effective three (3) calendar days after this order is served by mail and will terminate upon the effective date of the Supreme Court’s order imposing discipline herein, or as provided for by rule 5.111(D)(2) or the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, or as otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court pursuant to its plenary jurisdiction.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: RICHARD A. PLATEL
Date: 06-28-2011
[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 June 28, 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:
BRIAN A. WALKER
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN A. WALKER
2501 E CHAPMAN AVE STE 100
FULLERTON, CA 92831
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Kimberly J. Belvedere, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on June 28, 2011.
Signed by:
Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator
State Bar Court