Case Number(s): 10-J-02206, 09-O-19233, 09-O-19348
In the Matter of: Steven Earl Smith, Bar # 140031, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Ashod Mooradian
Deputy Trial] Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles CA 90015
(213) 765-1004
Bar # 1942831
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
STEVEN EARL SMITH, Jr.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
6355 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 301
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
(818)347-1940
Bar # 140031
Submitted to: Settlement Judge, 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 June 6, 1989.
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 19 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. 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: 2012. (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.
(Effective January 1, 2011)
Actual Suspension
IN THE MATTER OF: Steven Earl Smith, Jr., State Bar No.: 140031
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER:
A. 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. 10-J-02206 (Investigative Matters: 09-O-19233; 09-O-19348)
Facts:
1. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in California on June 6, 1989, was a member t all times stated herein, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.
2. Respondent was thereafter admitted to the practice before the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District ("USBC") and remained so admitted at all times stated herein.
3. On July 8, 2009, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Hon. Geraldine Mund, initiated a disciplinary proceeding against Respondent by filing a Statement of Cause.
4. In support of the Statement of Cause, Judge Mund submitted the response of the Office of United States Trustee ("OUST") which asserted that Respondent failed to properly perform his duties and responsibilities as an attorney representing chapter 11 and chapter 13 debtors numerous cases before the USBC during 2008 and 2009, including, but not limited to the following cases (Footnote):
a. In re Nelvine A. Ocampo, Case No. l:07-bk-14538-GM [chapter 11] - repeated continuances of chapter 11 plan disclosure statement hearing due to Respondent’s failure to submit approvable disclosure statement and USBC’s referral to attorney discipline panel for failure of Respondent to appear and prosecute case;
b. In re Manuel and Carmen De La Cruz, Case No. l:08-bk-19836-KT [chapter 11]
- USBC’s denial of Respondent’s employment as attorney for debtors-inpossession due to insufficient expertise, inadequate representation of the debtors, failure to disclose all persons working on the case and discrepancies in disclosures regarding the amount of retainer paid to him and dismissal of case based on failures to comport with requirements of USBC and OUST; Footnote 1: Respondent admits that OUST’s allegations contained in paragraphs 4a.- 4g. are true and admitted in this matter
c. In re lgnacio Valdivia, Case no. 1:08-bk-15843-GM [chapter 11] - case dismissed and most of Respondent’s fees ordered disgorged for failure to seek timely approval of his employment;
d. In re Noe Obando, Case no. l:08-bk-16243-GM [chapter 11] - most Respondent’s fees ordered disgorged for failure to seek timely approval of his employment;
e. In re Rosa lbanez and Mario Hernandez-Ibanez, Case No. l:08-bk-15664-MT [chapter 13] - partial disgorgement of Smith’s fees ordered for his failure to adequately communicate with or advise the debtors in connection with their case;
f. In re Irene Nichole Velasquez, Case No. 1:09-bk-10522-GM [chapter 13] and In re Irene Nichole Velasquez, Case No. l:09-bk-10522-GM [chapter 13] Respondent’s fees ordered disgorged for inadequate representation of debtor, including his failure to appear at a first meeting of creditors, resulting in dismissal of a case and the loss of her home, and his failure to answer the debtor’s questions;
g. In re Maria A. Fernandez-lzquierdo, Case No. 1:08-bk- 15172-MT [chapter 13] Respondent
disgorged fees for the case after admitting his failure to provide adequate legal representation to the debtor;
5. In further support of the Statement of Cause, Judge Mund also submitted the declaration of Melissa K. Besecker ("Besecker Declaration"), staff attorney for Chapter 13 Standing Trustee Elizabeth F. Rojas, which asserted that Respondent failed to properly perform his duties and responsibilities as an attorney representing chapter 13 debtors in numerous cases before the USBC during 2008 and 2009.
6. Specifically, the Besecker Declaration asserted that Respondent failed to appear at hearings failed to comply with documentation requirements, and failed to perform other tasks necessary for confirmation of the chapter 13 plans of his clients, all resulting in multiple continuances of hearings and dismissals, in the following chapter 13 cases: In re Mayra Reyes, Case No. SV 08-19837-MT; In re Maria Gutierrez, Case No. SV 09-11809-MT; In re Maria Farias, Case No. SV-09-12780-GM; In re Karla Lopez, Case No. SV-08-20433-GM; In re Roberto Luna, Case No. SV 09-10359-GM; In re Gabriela Guzman, Case No. ND 08-13042RR;
In re Vila Piedra, Case No. SV 09-10002-RR; In re Alberto Caceras, Case No. ND 0813209-RR; i In re Enrique Ortiz, Case No. ND 09-10680-RR; In re Juana Lima, Case No. SV 0820068-KTi and In re Patricia Quijas, Case No. SV 08-15363-MT. (Footnote 2) Footnote 2 Respondent admits that Besecker Declaration allegations stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 are true and admitted in this matter.
7. On July 22, 2009, the USBC served notice upon Respondent that the disciplinary hearing would be held before a panel of judges ("Disciplinary Panel").
8. On September 4, 2009, OUST served notice on Respondent that it intended to appear at the disciplinary hearing for purposes of supporting the recommendations of Judge Mund’s referral.
9. On November 11, 2009, Respondent signed and filed a pleading entitled "Admissions, Representations, and Proposed Discipline of Steven E. Smith" ("11/11/09 Admissions"). In his Admissions, Respondent admitted, among several items, the following statements of fact and requested the Disciplinary Panel to enter findings of fact consistent with his admissions (footnote 3):
a. For the seven to eight year period preceding April, 2008 Respondent’s office filed approximately 40 to 45 bankruptcy cases, predominantly in chapter 7.
b. On or about April, 2008, after a recommendation from his friend and colleague, G. Helena Phillips, who was going on maternity leave, Respondent engaged Edison Castro, her Spanish-speaking legal assistant as his office manager, as well as Ms. Phillips’ office staff.
c. Starting in about April 2008 and continuing through May 15, 2009 ("Relevant Time Period"), Respondent’s office received more than five hundred cases involving debtors, whose primary language and often exclusive language, was Spanish, which Respondent did not speak.
d. Respondent became attomey of record for a large number of chapter 13 debtors. In order to make deal with the large volume, Respondent engaged contract lawyers for some appearances and permitted his office manager to increase staff to include many Spanish speaking assistants.
e. Because the eligibility requirements for chapter 13 cases precluded some clients with excessive secured debt from filing under that chapter, Respondent also began handling a number of chapter 11 cases. Respondent himself lacked adequate experience and exposure to chapter 11 matters, having handled only one previous chapter 11 filing successfully to confirmation.
g. During the Relevant Time Period, Respondent commenced taking each of the following "shortcuts" in order to accommodate his practice, which was essentially limited to bankruptcy matters:
(1) he delegated to Castro and the staff Castro engaged, most of the duties of intake, client communications and relations;
Footnote: 3 Respondent admits that the admissions listed in paragraphs 9.a.-9.o are true and admitted in this matter.
(2) he delegated to Castro most of the duties of management, fee collection and setting, pre-filing document review, etc.;
(3) Respondent gave Maria Abril and Vicki Castrellon, who were non-attorney members of his staff hired by Castro, authority to electronically file debtors’ bankruptcy documents in Respondent’s name;
(4) Respondent did not monitor which of his clients he had personally spoken to, which of his clients had spoken to G. Helena Phillips, and which of his clients had not spoken to any lawyer in his office, prior to the
filing of bankruptcies.
h. During the Relevant Time Period, Respondent’s supervision of all staff, including Castro was minimal and Respondent discontinued pre and post-petition duties mandated by the Rights and Responsibilities Agreement ("RARA").
i. During the Relevant Time Period, Respondent failed to fully and properly perform many of the duties mandated by the RARA, which he nonetheless executed as a commitment to fulfill and has paid multiple fee disgorgements as a consequence thereof.
j. During the Relevant Time Period, Respondent did not personally have any pre-petition communications with many of his debtor clients.
k. During the Relevant Time Period, Respondent did not personally review documents, including bankruptcy petitions, schedules, statements of financial affairs, forms 22C, chapter 13 plans, and other similar documents before those documents were filed with the court.
1. During the Relevant Time Period, Respondent did not review his daily Summary of ECF Activity issued by the USBC.
m. During the Relevant Time Period, Respondent did not know the exact amount of money collected from his clients in cases where he was the attorney of record. But, Respondent did know that all the monies collected from his clients during the Relevant Time Period were not deposited in his bank accounts."
n. From April 25, 2009 to May 15, 2009, Respondent was on vacation out of the country. During that period, seven cases were filed by his office, of which one, Case No. LA09-21486AA, In re Manuel Urbano Linares-Campa, Respondent did not personally authorize the filing to be made.
o. Respondent did not keep adequate financial records or reconcile client payments with his bank statements during the Relevant Time Period.
10 In addition to the above admissions of fact, Respondent, among several representations, also made the following representations in the 11/11/09 Admissions (footnote 4):
a. Castro, while employed at Smith’s office, was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law from May, 2008 to April, 2009.
b. That monies collected from Respondent’s clients prior to filing the case, including filing fees, were "client trust funds."
11. On November 13, 2009, Respondent appeared on his own behalf at the disciplinary hearing. The Disciplinary Panel heard testimony from Respondent and from OUST. The Disciplinary Panel also received evidence into the record from both parties including the OUST response, the Besecker Declaration, the 11/11/09 Admissions and the record of various pleadings and orders that Judge Mund caused to be filed with the USBC.
12. On February 12, 2010, the Disciplinary Panel filed its "Memorandum Decision on Disciplina~ Proceeding of Steven E. Smith" ("Decision"). In its Decision, the Disciplinary Panel found that between April 2008 and May 15, 2009, Respondent had failed to adequately represent Clients, to adequately communicate with client and other parties in interest, and to comply with the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules, Local Bankruptcy Rules, California Rules of Professional Conduct or California Business and Professions Code.
13. Specifically, the Disciplinary Panel found that that between April 2008 and May 15, 2009, Respondent had represented 500 bankruptcy clients as counsel in primarily Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases before the USBC. Specifically, for the cases identified above in paragraphs 4.a.-4.g. and 6 cases, the Disciplinary Panel stated that:
(a) Respondent failed to perform the duties mandated by the Rights and Responsibilities Agreements he filed;
(b) Respondent lacked the competence to handle Chapter 11 cases;
(c) Respondent did not personally have any pre-petition communications with his debtor clients;
(d) Respondent did not personally review documents such as petitions, schedules, statements of financial affairs, form B22C, chapter 13 plans and other documents before those documents were filed under Respondent’s name in court;
(e) Respondent failed to properly supervise his office staff, including Edison Castro;
(f) Respondent failed to keep adequate financial records of client funds or reconcile client payments with his bank statements;
(g) Respondent failed to review his daily "Summary of ECF Activity" to monitor his filings with the USBC;
14.[ Based on the above findings, the Disciplinary Panel found that Respondent had violated Bankruptcy rule 3015-1(v)(2), Bankruptcy rule 3015-1(v)(4), Local Bankruptcy Rule 2090-2, California Rules of Professional Conduct, rules 1-120, 1-300, 3-110, 3-500 and 4-100.
15.] The Disciplinary Panel concurrently filed its "Order on Disciplinary Proceeding Against Steven E. Smith" ("Order") ordering that Respondent be suspended for two years from practicing before the USBC of the Central District, but may apply for reinstatement to practice after 90 days of suspension. Further, among other terms, Respondent was placed on probation for balance of the two-year period following the entry of the Order after the period of actual suspension including other specified restrictions on Respondent’s ability to practice before the USBC, Central District as a condition of that probation.
16. In addition, Respondent was ordered, as a condition of reinstatement, to complete continuing education in legal ethics and undertake other specific measures to remedy deficiencies in the operation of his law office, the accounting of client funds, the supervision of non-attorney staff and the prevention of the unauthorized practice of law.
Conclusions of Law:
17. The disciplinary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District, provided Respondent with fundamental constitutional protection.
18. Respondent’s culpability determined in the disciplinary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District would warrant the imposition of discipline in the State of California under the laws or rules in effect in this State at the time the misconduct was committed. 19. By failing to submit an approvable disclosure statement resulting in repeated continuances of a chapter 11 plan disclosure statement hearing, by failing to associate competent counsel for chapter 11 cases where Respondent admitted he was not competent to represent chapter 1 l debtors, by failing to seek timely approval of his employment in several chapter 11 case resulting in fee disgorgement orders and by failing to perform legal services of value for Respondent’s bankruptcy clients listed in paragraphs 4.a-4.g and 6 above, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
20. By failing to keep and maintain adequate financial records regarding funds received, held and/or disbursed by Respondent on behalf of clients, Respondent improperly maintained and used his client trust account in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
21. By failing to communicate with his clients and respond to communications from
his clients listed in paragraphs 4.a-4.g and 6 above, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3500(Footnote 4: Respondent admits that the representations listed in paragraph 9a.-9.b. are true.
22. By delegating to Castro and the staff Castro engaged, the duties of intake, client communications and relations, by delegating to Castro the duties of office management, fee collection and fee setting, pre-filing document review, etc., by giving Maria Abril and Vicki Castrelloni who were non-attorneys, the authority to electronically file debtors’ bankruptcy documents in Respondent’s name, by not personally having any pre-petition communications with many of his debtor clients, by not personally reviewing documents, including bankruptcy petitions, schedules, statements of financial affairs, forms 22C, chapter 13 plans, and other
similar documents before those documents were filed with the USBC in his name, by not reviewing his daily Summary of ECF Activity issued by the USBC and by failing to supervise his staff, including Castro, Respondent aided a person or entity in the unauthorized practice of law in wil~l violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(A).
Case No. 09-O-19233 (Complainant: Russell Taylor)
Facts 2
23. On October 7, 2008, Russell Taylor ("Taylor") signed a fee agreement to employee Respondent for loan modification services on two properties and paid a total of $5,000 in legal fees.
24. On December 16, 2008, a staff person at the office in Downey where Taylor had employed Respondent sent a loan modification request to Taylor’s lender. Respondent did not supervise the work to ensure that the loan modification request was appropriate. Thereafter, the lender denied the request because the property was investment property.
25. When Taylor requested a refund of the fees he had paid, the office sent Taylor a letter bearing Respondent’s electronic signature claiming that the fees were earned. Thereafter, Taylor filed a small claims action against Respondent, and on July 15, 2010, he obtained a judgment for $1,200 principal and $320 in costs. The court found that the services provided were mostly clerical and there was little evidence of work by an attorney.
26. As of the date of this document, Respondent has paid $900 of the judgment amount to Taylor.
Conclusions of Law:
27. By not paying the $1,200 to Taylor, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
Case No. 09-O-19348 (Complainant: Maria Meza)
Facts:
28. On October 18, 2008, Maria Meza ("Meza") signed a fee agreement to employ R for a loan modification and agreed to pay an hourly fee with a partial retainer of $2,000. Yhereafteri Meza paid $2,000 for the legal services.
29. Respondent did not provide adequate supervision of the staff assisting the clients with loan modification requests. Although Respondent’s office contacted Meza’s lender seeking information about Meza’s loan in October 2008 and made a demand on behalf of Meza to reinstate Meza’s loan, no one followed through to make a request for loan modification on behalf of Meza. in March 2009, Meza terminated Respondent’s services and requested a refund.
30. In April 2009, Respondent’s staff sent Meza a letter claiming that they had performed eight hours of work and were owed an additional $800. Thereafter, Meza filed a small claims action against Respondent, and on September 21, 2010, she obtained a judgment against Respondent for $2,000 principal and $80 costs for a total of $2,080.
31. Respondent has not paid the judgment amount to Meza.
Conclusions of Law:
32. By not paying the $2,000 to Meza, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, hale 3-700(D)(2).
B. FACTS SUPPORTING MITIGATION.
1. Respondent has no prior record of discipline and had been admitted to the practice of law in California for nearly twenty (20) years when the misconduct in the foreign jurisdiction occurred. (Footnote 5, Standard 1.2(e)(i).)
2. Respondent has exhibited candor and significant cooperation with the State Bar of California (Footnote 6: Standard 1.2(e)(v).) During the pendency of this matter, Respondent cooperated with the State Bar, informally providing information that assisted the State Bar in its understanding of Respondent’s misconduct herein. Finally, Respondent also cooperated in that he has stipulated to facts, conclusions of law and level of discipline, including in several additional investigative matters.
3. Respondent has expressed remorse to the State Bar for his misconduct and acknowledged his wrongdoing. (7 Standard li.2(e)(vii). The State Bar is satisfied that Respondent’s remorse is genuine and demonstrates that Respondent has taken a significant and meaningful step towards ensuring that ethical misconduct will not recur in the future.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Applicable Standards:
Standard 1.3 provides that the primary purposes of attorney discipline are, "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high legal professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession." Standard 1.6(a) provides that if two or more acts of misconduct are found in the same proceeding, the sanction imposed shall be the more or most severe of the different applicable sanctions. Standard
1.6(b) provides that a greater or lesser degree of discipline than the
appropriate sanction prescribed by these standards shall be imposed or recommended, depending on the net effect of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, if any. Standard 2.2(b) provides that culpability of a member of commingling of entrusted funds or property with personal property or the commission of another violation of rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct, none of which offenses result in the wilful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in at least a three month actual suspension from the practice of law, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
Standard 2.4(b), in relevant part, provides that culpability of a member of wilfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
Standard 2.6 provides that 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:...(a) Sections 6067 and 6068 ....
Standard 2.10 provides that the culpability of a member for violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code or any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in the Standards shall result in reproval or suspension, according to the gravity of the offense or harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in Standard 1.3.
Aggravating & Mitigating Circumstances:
Standard 1.2(b) provides for a greater degree of sanction set forth in the standards where aggravating circumstances exist. In this matter there are no aggravating circumstances.
Standard 1.2(e) provides for a more lenient degree of sanction than set forth in the standards where mitigating circumstances exist.
In this case, pursuant to Standard 1.2(e)(i), Respondent has no prior record of discipline and had been admitted, to the practice of law in California for nearly twenty (20) years when the misconduct in the foreign jurisdiction occurred.
Also, pursuant to Standard 1.2(e)(v), Respondent has exhibited candor and cooperation with the State Bar of California. During the pendency of this matter, Respondent cooperated with the State Bar, informally providing information that assisted the State Bar in its understanding of Respondent’s misconduct herein. Finally, Respondent also cooperated in that he has stipulated to facts, conclusions of law and level of discipline, including in several additional investigative matters.
Further, pursuant to Standard 1.2(e)(vii), Respondent has expressed remorse to the State Bar for his misconduct and acknowledged his wrongdoing. The State Bar is satisfied that Respondent’s remorse is genuine and demonstrates that Respondent has taken a significant and meaningful step towards ensuring that ethical misconduct will not recur in the future.
Caselaw:
In Matter of Nelson (8 Review Dept. 1990 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 178) Nelson stipulated to facts showing he had formed a partnership with a non-lawyer, divided fees with a non-lawyer, and used the non-lawyer as a runner and capper. Nelson also stipulated that his misconduct involved moral turpitude, because of evidence of misappropriation and other dishonest conduct. The Court recommended six months actual suspension.
In this matter, Respondent did not form a partnership with a non-attorney, but rather negligently allowed non-attorney Castro to take advantage of his trust and friendship. Respondent delegated too many core attorney functions to Castro and thereafter failed to supervise. However, Respondent’s misconduct did not involve moral turpitude or misappropriation of client funds. In addition, Respondent has significant mitigation, including nearly 20 years with no prior record of discipline, candor and cooperation and remorse. Further, Respondent has agreed to financial conditions in the two investigative matters. For these reasons, Respondent’s discipline should be less than that recommended by the Review Department in Matter of Nelson.
E. PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph A. (7) was September 7, 2011.
F. COSTS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of September 7, 2011, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $4,071.00 Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only. 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): Steven Earl Smith, Jr.
In the Matter of: 10-J-02206 [Investigative Matters: 09-O-19233; 09-O-19348]
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 Earl Smith, Jr.
Date: September 7, 2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Ashod Mooradian
Date:September 7, 2011
Case Number(s): Steven Earl Smith, Jr.
In the Matter of: 10-J-02206 [09-O-19233; 09-O-19348]
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.
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: 9-30-11
(Effective January 1, 2011)
Actual Suspension Order
[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 October 5, 2011, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSION 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows: STEVEN E. SMITH JR
STEVEN E. SMITH, ATTORNEY AT LAW
STE 301
WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Ashod Mooradian, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on October 5, 2011.
Signed by:
George Hue
Case Administrator
State Bar Court