Case Number(s): 10-C-02625-RAH
In the Matter of: DEIRDRE FRANK, Bar # 81526, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: PAUL T. O’BRIEN, 1149 S. HILL STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90015-2299, (213) 765-1378, Bar# 171252
Counsel for Respondent: PAUL J. VIRGO, CENTURY LAW GROUP, 5200 W. CENTURY BLVD., STE. 345, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, (310)642-6900, Bar# 67900
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: February 18, 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 November 29,1978. .
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: two billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (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: DEIRDRE FRANK, State Bar No. 81526
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-C-02625-RAH
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
1: In the early morning hours of February 7, 2010, the daughter of Respondent’s close friend called 911 after an altercation involving Respondent’s son and the close friend. The close friend and Respondent’s son had been drinking. Respondent had also been drinking, but Respondent had already been asleep for four hours at the time of the altercation. By the time officers arrived at Respondent’s home, the altercation had ended; her friend was mildly injured in a brief fight with her son. Respondent’s son left the home immediately after the physical altercation and before Oxnard police officers arrived on the scene.
2. While officers were attempting to determine the extent of the injuries to Respondent’s friend, as well as investigate the cause of his injuries, Respondent’s son returned to the residence. During one officer’s attempt to question Respondent’s son, Respondent repeatedly encouraged her son to leave the home and not to respond to the officer. While doing so, Respondent twice pulled on Officer Yvonne Negrete’s arm. Despite a warning from Officer Negrete to refrain from further contact, Respondent pulled again on her ann. At that time, Officer Negrete took Respondent into custody.
3. On February 7, 2010, at approximately 3:00 a.m., Respondent was arrested by the Oxnard Police Department for alleged violations of Penal Code section 148(a)(1) [obstructing an officer in the course of an investigation] and Penal Code section 136.1 (a)(1) [dissuading a witness from testifying at trial].
4. On March 9, 2010, the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office filed a misdemeanor complaint charging Respondent with violating Penal Code sections 243(b) [battery on a peace officer] and 148(a)(1) [resisting, obstructing, delaying of a peace officer].
5. On April 29, 2010, Respondent pled Nolo Contenedre to a single count of violating Penal Code section 243(a). Count Two, alleging the violation of Penal Code section 148(a)(1) was dismissed.
6. Respondent’s sentencing also took place April 29, 2010. At that time, she was ordered to serve two days in custody, with credit for one day actual time served in the Ventura County Jail. Respondent was permitted to participate in the Work Release program in lieu of further custodial time. Respondent accepted summary probation of 36 months, with fines, fees and state restitution fund payment totaling $390, plus restitution, if any, to be determined.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent’s violation of Penal Code section 243 (b) also constituted a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was January 7, 2011.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of January 7, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $$3,530. 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.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING.
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On April 29, 2010, respondent was convicted of violating Penal Code section 243(b) [battery on a peace officer], one count, a misdemeanor.
3. On August 13, 2010, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues: the discipline to be imposed in the event the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (b) (battery on a peace officer) involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
¯ AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE;
Standard 3.4-final conviction of a member of a crime which does not involve moral turpitude inherently o.r on the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime’s commission but which does involve other misconduct warranting discipline shall result in a sanction as prescribed under part B of the Standards, appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct to have been committed by the
member.
Standard 2.6-culpability of a member of a violation of any of the following provisions of the Business and Professions Code shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3:... 6068(a) ....
Standard 1.3--the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar of California and of sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgement of a member’s professional misconduct are 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 profession.
In the Matter of Stewart (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 52--Respondent Stewart was actually suspended for 60 days following a conviction for battery oll a peace officer. The circumstances were quite similar to those surrounding Respondent’s misconduct: a family altercation, alcohol consumption, resulted in a 911 call, ultimately leading to the respondent’s altercation with an officer. Respondent Stewart’s misconduct, however, was somewhat more severe, and he had a recent prior imposition of discipline.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF PROBATION IN UNDERLYING CRIMINAL MATTER.
Respondent shall comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and shall so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report required to be filed with the Office of Probation.
Case Number(s): 10-C-02625-RAH
In the Matter of: DEIRDRE FRANK
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: Deirdre Frank
Date: January 13, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel: Paul J. Virgo
Date: January 14, 2010
Deputy Trial Counsel: Paul T. O’Brien
Date: January 24, 2010
Case Number(s): 10-C-02625-RAH
In the Matter of: Deirdre Frank
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. Honn
Date: February 18, 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 February 18, 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 J. VIRGO
CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP
5200 W. CENTURY BLVD #345
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
<<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:
Paul T. O’Brien, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on February 18, 2011.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court