Case Number(s): 10-N-07164, 10-O-06215, 10-O-05832, 10-O-11307 (investigation), 11-O-15138 (investigation)
In the Matter of: Roy Peterson, Bar # 153455, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Mia Ellis, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Bar # 228235
Counsel for Respondent: Gene Koon,
332 West Foothill Blvd.
Monrovia, CA 91016
Bar # 77051
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
<<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 14, 1991.
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 12 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: three 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.
Case number 00-O015212. Discipline effective February 11, 2004,
3-110(A) and 6068(m), 60 days actual. Case number 99-O-10500, Discipline effective December 24, 2000. Rules of Procedure, Rule 3-110 (A), Rule 4-100(B) (3), and Rule 3-700(D) (1). Public Reproval and one year probation.
IN THE MATTER OF: Roy Peterson
CASE NUMBER(S): 10-N-07164, 10-O-06215, 10-O-05832, 10-O-11307
(investigation), 11-O- 15138 (investigation)
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-N-07164 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. On April 16, 2010, the California Supreme Court filed Order No. S180008 (hereinafter "9.20 Order"). The 9.20 Order included a requirement that Respondent comply with Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, by performing the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) within 30 and 40 days, respectively, after the effective date of the 9.20 Order.
2. On April 16, 2010, the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of California properly served upon Respondent a copy of the 9.20 Order. Respondent received the 9.20 Order.
3. The Supreme Court Order became effective on May 16, 2010, thirty days after the 9.20 Order was filed. Thus Respondent was ordered to comply with subdivision (a) and/or (b) of rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court no later than on or about June 15,2010, and was ordered to comply with subdivision (c) of Rule 9.20 no later than on or about June 25, 2010.
4. On June 25, 2010, Respondent filed a declaration with the State Bar Court that purported to comply with subdivision (c) of Rule 9.20.
5. On July 6, 2010, the Office of Probation rejected the 9.20 compliance declaration because Respondent checked both boxes for item three. By doing so, Respondent averred that he had, both, refunded fees, and earned all fees.
6. On December 21, 2010, Respondent filed with the clerk of the State Bar Court a declaration of compliance with Rule 9.20 (a) and (b), California Rules of Court, as required by Rule 9.20(c).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
By not filing a declaration of compliance with Rule 9.20 in conformity with the requirements of Rule 9.20(c), Respondent failed to timely comply with the provisions of Supreme Court Order No. S180008 requiring compliance with Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court.
Case No. 10-O-06215 (Complainant: Sally Lenaburg)
FACTS:
7. Sally C. Lenaburg ("Mrs. Lenaburg") employed Respondent in October 2005 to handle a dissolution matter, slip and fall civil suit, and a workers’ compensation claim.
8. Respondent agreed to represent Mrs. Lenaburg in all three matters for approximately $20,000.
9. On September 10, 2006, Mrs. Lenaburg was involved in a car accident with the Sheriff’s Department ("personal injury claim").
10. On February 5, 2007, Mrs. Lenaburg employed Respondent to represent her in this matter.
11. On September 11, 2007, Respondent filed on behalf of Mrs. Lenaburg a complaint for damages for case entitled Sally Lenaburg v. County of Los Angeles, case number KC051356, in Los Angeles Superior Court.
12. On September 14, 2007, Respondent received notice of a Case Management Conference set for February 4, 2008.
13. On November 17, 2007, the County of Los Angeles ("the County") served Respondent with discovery documents including, a demand for production of documents, form interrogatories, and request for admissions. Responses to the discovery were due December 22, 2007
14 Respondent did not respond to the discovery.
15. On February 13, 2008, the County filed a motion to compel plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, production of documents, and deem the admissions admitted.
16. On March 11, 2008, the court granted the motion to compel and ordered the responses with verifications were due without objection in ten days. The Court also ruled the Request for Admissions were admitted and imposed monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,220.24 against Mrs. Lenaburg, to be paid in thirty days.
17. On March 14, 2008, Ms. McCaverty sent Respondent a letter. In the letter Ms. McCaverty offered to waive the sanctions imposed on Mrs. Lenaburg as well as any past costs the County had incurred in exchange for a dismissal of the entire action with prejudice. McCaverty requested Respondent respond no later than March 24, 2008. Respondent received the letter.
18. On March 28, 2008, the County filed a Notice of Motion and Motion for Terminating Sanctions and For Monetary Sanctions. Respondent received the motion and did not file an opposition.
19. On April 22, 2008, the Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to obey the March 11, 2008 Court order. Mrs. Lenaburg’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice. Defendants withdrew its motion for monetary sanctions.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
By not responding to discovery, responding to the terminating sanction motion, and giving due notice to the client regarding the settlement offer, Respondent willfully failed to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his client in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3700(A)(2).
Case No. 10-O-05832 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
20. On December 14, 2009, Respondent issued two checks drawn upon Respondent’s client trust account (CTA) number XXXXX07911 at Wells Fargo Bank - South against insufficient funds, as follows:
Check Number 1512, Date Presented Amount 12/14/2009, Amount $500
Check Number 1511, Date Presented Amount 12/14/2009, Amount $250
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
By issuing two checks against insufficient checks from his CTA, Respondent wilfully committed acts involving moral turpitude in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
Case Nos. 10-O- 11307 (State Bar Investigation) and 11 -O- 15138 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
21. On December 7, 2010 and July 5, 2011, Respondent issued two checks drawn upon Respondent’s client trust account number XXXXX07912 (account number redacted for privacy.) at Wells Fargo Bank - South against insufficient funds, as
follows:
Check Number 1452, Date Presented 12/7/2010, Amount $800
Check Number 1452, Date Presented 07/05/2011, Amount $17.50
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
By issuing two checks against insufficient checks from his CTA, Respondent willfully committed acts involving moral turpitude in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was August 2, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.6(a) provides that "[i]f two or more acts of professional misconduct are found or acknowledged in a single disciplinary proceeding, and different sanctions are prescribed by these standards for said acts, the sanction imposed shall be the more or most severe of the different applicable sanctions."
Standard 1.7(b) -if a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be. imposed and the member has a record of two prior impositions of discipline the degree of discipline in the current proceeding shall be disbarment unless the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate.
Rule 9.20(d) provides that a suspended member’s willful failure to comply with the provisions of thisrole is a cause for disbarment or suspension and revocation of any pending probation.
Standard 2.2(b) culpability of a member of commingling 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) provides that "culpability of a member of willfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a matter of willfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client."
According to 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 the due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3: sections 6068(m)
The standards are not mandatory; they may be deviated from when there is a reason to do so. In this ease, based upon the facts, Respondent originally filed his 9.20 declaration timely. However, it was rejected because Respondent checked two boxes. He subsequently filed the declaration and it was accepted as filed by the Probation Department.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of August 2, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $6945.30. Respondent further acknowledges that this is an estimate and 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.
FEE ARBITRATION
Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the Supreme Court order, respondent agrees to send a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Sally C. Lenaburg and agrees to initiate fee arbitration, and participate in binding fee arbitration with said individual, upon the request of any such individuals, regarding fees respondent received for representation of the former client. The letter shall include the address and phone number of the Office of Probation along with a statement that the Office of Probation will be monitoring his fee arbitration conditions and may be contacted by the individual.
Within forty (40) days after the effective date of the Supreme Court order, respondent agrees to providethe Office of Probation with a copy of the letter offering to initiate and participate in fee arbitration with Sally C. Lenaburg set forth above, along with a copy of the return receipt from the U.S. Postal Service, or other proof of mailing.
Respondent agrees to advise the Office of Probation, in writing, of any request to participate in fee arbitration made by Sally C. Lenaburg within fifteen (15) days after any such request. Respondent agrees to provide the Office of Probation with any information requested to verify Respondent’s compliance, including submission of any written request for fee arbitration or the submission of a declaration from any individual setting forth the date arbitration was requested.
Respondent agrees to initiate fee arbitration within thirty (30) days of any request. Respondent agrees to fully and promptly participate in the fee arbitration as directed by the organization conducting the fee arbitration. Respondent will not be permitted to raise the statute of limitations as a defense to the fee arbitration with respect to any of the above individuals.
Respondent further agrees to accept binding arbitration on the arbitration request form. If the arbitrationproceeds as non-binding, however, Respondent hereby agrees to abide by the arbitration award and foregoes the right to file an action seeking a trial de novo in court to vacate the award.
Within thirty (30) days after issuance of any arbitration award or judgment or agreement reflected in a stipulated award issued pursuant to a fee arbitration matter, Respondent agrees to provide a copy of said award, judgment or stipulated award to the Office of Probation. Respondent agrees to abide by any award, judgment or stipulated award of any such fee arbitrator and agrees to provide proof thereof to the Office of Probation within thirty (30) days after compliance with any such award, judgment or stipulated
award. If the award, judgment or stipulated award does not set forth a deadline for any payment, Respondent is to make full payment within ninety (90) days of the issuance of any such award, judgment or stipulated award.
Case Number(s): 10-N-07164, 10-O-06215, 10-O-05832, 10-O-11307 (investigation), 11-O-15138 (investigation)
In the Matter of: Roy Peterson
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: Roy Peterson, Gene Koon and Mia Ellis
Respondent: Roy Peterson
Date: 8/3/11
Respondent’s Counsel: Gene Koon
Date: 8/3/11
Deputy Trial Counsel: Mia Ellis
Date: 8/8/11
Case Number(s): 10-N-07164, 10-O-06215, 10-O-05832, 10-O-11307 (investigation), 11-O-15138 (investigation)
In the Matter of: Roy E. Peterson
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.
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: Donald F. Miles
Date: 8/11/11
(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 Los Angeles, on August 11, 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:
by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
GENE KOON
332 WEST FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
MONROVIA, CALIFORNIA 91016
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
MIA ELLIS, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on August 11, 2011.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court