Case Number(s): 10-C-07206-2 & 10-C-7207-RAH (Consol.)
In the Matter of: Lionel E. Giron, Bar # 200450 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Margaret P. Warren, 1149 S. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299, (213) 765-1342, Bar# 108774
Counsel for Respondent: Paul J. Virgo, P.O. Box 67682, Los Angeles, CA 90067, (310) 666-9701, Bar# 67900
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 February 11, 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 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):
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: Cost 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: 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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Lionel E. Giron, State Bar No. 200450
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-C-07206-2 & 10-C-7207-RAH (Consol.)
Case No. 10-C-7207
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 September 10, 2007, a one-count misdemeanor complaint was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court in the matter entitled People v. Lionel Giron, case no. 7JB07278, charging Respondent with violating Penal Code section 273.5(a), corporal injury to cohabitant ["Ms. X”, the mother of his child]. [Footnote 1: This person’s name is intentionally omitted from this stipulation, to protect her privacy.]
3. On October 29, 2007, Respondent pled no contest to the single misdemeanor count and was convicted pursuant to his plea on that date.
4. Respondent’s sentence was suspended, and he was placed on summary probation for a period of 3 years under several conditions, including performing 200 hours of community service and completing a one-year domestic violence counseling program.
5. Respondent was further ordered by the court to (among other things) have no contact with Ms. X; not come within 100 yards of Ms. X; and not annoy, harass, threaten, stalk, sexually abuse, commit any act of force or violence or otherwise disturb the peace of Ms. X.
6. On September 22, 2010, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court "for a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the hearing department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation of Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a) (willful This person’s name is intentionally omitted from this Stipulation, to protect her privacy. infliction of corporal injury), of which Lionel E. Giron was convicted, involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline."
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING RESPONDENT’S CONVICTION.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true:
7. On July 20, 2007, Respondent took Ms. X on a dinner cruise in Long Beach. Later that night, on the drive home from the cruise, Respondent and Ms. X got into an argument. Both Respondent and Ms. X had been drinking earlier that evening.
8. Upon arriving at Ms. X’s home, Respondent parked the car, and then got into a physical altercation with Ms. X.
9. During the altercation with Respondent, Ms. X managed to use her cell phone to telephone a girlfriend for help, stating that Respondent was "beating her up."
10. Ms. X’s girlfriend came to the scene approximately fifteen minutes after Ms. X’s call. The girlfriend then called the Sheriff’ s Department and paramedics, who responded to Ms. X’s residence. Respondent had left the scene before the arrival of Ms. X’s girlfriend.
11. Ms. X received paramedic assistance at the scene and was transported to a local hospital for further assessment, as she had sustained bruising around her head, ribs, upper body and legs, and had scratches on her hands, knees, and elbows. Ms. X stated to the SherifFs Deputies that she and Respondent had both had several alcohol drinks earlier that evening. Ms. X was advised about obtaining a restraining order against Respondent, but she refused to seek one. Ms. X was released from the hospital.
12. The next day, July 21, 2007, Respondent went to the Walnut SherifFs Station, having learned that the authorities were looking for him to talk to him about the fight he had had with Ms. X. Among other things, Respondent informed the Sheriff’ s Department that he had been dating Ms. X for approximately six years, and that they had a child together, a son approximately 2 years of age. Respondent stated that he was currently married (to another woman) and had other children. Respondent gave a statement to the Sheriffs Department. Respondent was then arrested and booked on a Penal Code section 273.5 (domestic violence) charge.
13. On July 24, 2007, the Sheriff’s Department further interviewed Ms. X, who provided the following information she had not previously provided to the authorities: Ms. X stated that during the evening of July 20, 2007, prior to the fight with Respondent, she had consumed at least four "shooter size" apple martinis, and that Respondent had drunk beer; that Respondent had never physically abused her previously; that she had been in a relationship with Respondent for about six years; that they had an approximately 2 1/2 year old son together; and that Respondent was married to another woman with whom he had children.
Case No. 10-C-7206
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING.
14. 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.
15. On December 19, 2008, a two-count misdemeanor complaint was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court in the matter entitled People v. Lionel Giron, case no. 8JB10879, charging Respondent with violating Penal Code section 273.6 (a) (violation of a restraining order), Count One; and violating Penal Code section 594 (a) (damage to an automobile not his own), Count Two.
16. On April 10, 2009, Respondent pled no contest to both counts, and was convicted of both counts pursuant to his plea. As to Count One, Respondent was placed on summary probation for 3 years, on various conditions, including the condition that he serve 21 days in the county jail. As to Count Two, Respondent was placed on summary probation for 3 years, on various terms and conditions, including inter alia making restitution to the victim, performing additional community service, and paying various fines/assessments.
17. On September 22, 2010, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court "for a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the hearing department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation of Penal Code section 273.6, subdivision (a) (violating domestic relations restraining order) and 594, subdivision (a) (vandalism under $400 damage), of which Lionel E. Giron was convicted, involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline."
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING RESPONDENT’S CONVICTION.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true:
18. On July 30, 2008, Respondent was in the driveway of the house where Ms. X was living. There was a car parked in the driveway at that time, belonging to a friend of Ms. X.
19. Respondent applied force to the right front passenger side window of the car parked in the driveway, causing the window to crack, thereby causing damage to the car window in an amount under $400.00.
20. On July 30, 2008, there was a restraining order against Respondent in effect, prohibiting him from coming within 100 yards of Ms. X or her dwelling. The restraining order had been imposed following Respondent’s conviction in 2007 (case no. 10-C-7207).
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF BOTH CONVICTIONS DO NOT INVOLVE MORAL TURPITUDE.
21. The parties agree that the facts and circumstances of Respondent’s convictions do not involve moral turpitude.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
22. Respondent represented to the Superior Court that he had completed his community service at an approved facility, when in fact Respondent knew that it was not an approved facility. The relevant facts are as follows:
23. On September 2, 2009, Respondent registered Community Service Agency ("CSA"). CSA advised Respondent that the place where Respondent wanted to complete his community service, Peace in the Valley Christian Center ("PV"), was not an organization registered and approved by CSA, and thus CSA could not refer Respondent to PV. Nevertheless, CSA contacted PV to inquire about its program, but was told that, because there was an elementary school attached to it, and children were present, no one convicted of certain offenses, including battery, would be accepted by PV for purposes of performing court-ordered community service.
24. On September 4, 2009, CSA informed Respondent that he could not perform his community service at PV, and referred Respondent to the American Recovery Center, Pomona, CA for completion of his court-ordered community service.
25. On April 5, 2010, Respondent came to CSA and turned in proof of hours he had completed at PV. CSA informed Respondent that it could not accept those hours from PV, because Respondent was supposed to complete his community service at the American Recovery Center.
26. On May 11, 2010, Respondent appeared before Superior Court Judge Geanene M. Yriarte, and told the judge that he had completed his 120 hours of court-ordered community service; that he was led to believe by CSA that the place where he did this community service [PV] was approved by CSA; but that now CSA would not give him credit for doing his community service as PV. The Court asked Respondent to return the next day.
27. On May 12, 2010, Respondent again appeared before Judge Yriarte, Respondent represented that he was told by CSA that CSA were going to send paperwork to PV to register with CSA as an approved community service location, and that CSA told him it was "okay for me to do the hours [at PV].’; The Court then asked Respondent to bring a letter from CSA confirming this.
28. On June 14, 2010, CSA submitted a letter to Judge Yriarte, stating the facts as set forth in paragraphs 23 through 25, above.
29. On June 15, 2010, the Superior Court found that Respondent misrepresented the issue of his court-ordered community service and failed to complete his community service as ordered by the court. The Superior Court revoked Respondent’s probation and ordered him to appear on July 27, 2010 for a probation violation hearing.
30. On July 27, 2010, Respondent appeared before the Superior Court and admitted to a violation of his probation. The Superior Court ordered Respondent to complete 43 days of service at a tree farm, in lieu of serving 30 days in county jail for his probation violation. All terms and conditions of probation previously ordered by the court remained in full force and effect.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
31. Respondent cooperated with the State Bar by entering into this stipulation, thus obviating the need for a trial.
32. Respondent has no prior record of State Bar discipline.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was February 4, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
In the Matter of Stewart (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 52 (60-day actual suspension where attorney convicted of misdemeanor battery on police officer)
Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provides:
The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar of California and of sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgment 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 legal profession. Rehabilitation of a member is a permissible object of a sanction imposed upon the member but only if the imposition of rehabilitative sanctions is consistent with the above-stated primary purposes of sanctions for professional misconduct.
The parties submit that the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession, and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession, will be served by the disposition in this matter, which focuses on the rehabilitation of Respondent through the imposition of a sixty-day period of actual suspension, coupled with a two-year period of probation. The parties submit that the disposition herein is consistent with the fundamental purpose of disciplinary proceedings, as articulated in Standard 1.3; and submit that the stipulated period of actual suspension and probationary conditions in this matter are sufficient assurance that Respondent will conform his future conduct to societal and ethical standards and will adequately protect the public, the courts and the profession.
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. The MCLE credit for Ethics School will be in addition to Respondent’s regular MCLE requirement.
Case Number(s): 10-C-07206-2 & 10-C-7207-RAH (Consol.)
In the Matter of: Lionel E. Giron
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: Lionel E. Giron
Date: February 11, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel: Paul J. Virgo
Date: February 17, 2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Margaret P. Warren
Date: February 17, 2011
Case Number(s): 10-C-07206-2 & 10-C-7207-RAH (Consol.)
In the Matter of: Lionel E. Giron, #200450
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
checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
1. On page 2 of the stipulation, section A. (8), the “X” in box next to the paragraph beginning, “Until costs are paid in full…” is deleted.
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 24, 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 25, 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 JEAN VIRGO ESQ
P.O. BOX 67682
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Margaret P. Warren, Enforement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on February 25, 2011.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court