Case Number(s): 10-O-00032
In the Matter of: David R. Endres, Bar # 123564, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Esther Rogers, Bar # 148246, Deputy Trial Counsel, The State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94104, 415-538-2258
Counsel for Respondent: Doron Weinberg, Bar # 46131, Law Offices of Doron Weinberg, 523 Octavia Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, (415) 431-3472
Submitted to: Assigned Judge, State Bar 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 17, 1986
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 10 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.
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 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. (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)
IN THE MATTER OF: David R. Endres, State Bar No 148246
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-O-00032
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.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Count One
Facts
Commencing in 1990, respondent was a solo practitioner who represented clients seeking to obtain possession of occupied property through an eviction process. On average during those years, respondent filed 500-600 eviction matters. As a result of the housing market crash, the number of foreclosures and post foreclosure eviction skyrocketed in 2008 and 2009.
Between July 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009, respondent filed over 1,000 eviction cases as a solo practitioner. In order to manage the increased caseload, respondent developed an efficient system. Respondent arranged his office into departments, such as intake, complaints, law and motion, and trials. Each department consisted of multiple non-attorney staff and was supervised by non-attorney paralegal assistants. The department supervisors handed out work assignments, supervised the staff in that department, supervised the drafting of legal pleadings, filings and motions from information and forms prepared by respondent, and responded to questions regarding the contents of the legal pleadings, filings and motions.
Respondent in most cases also assigned the responsibility of signing the court filed documents to the non-attorney department supervisors. Thus, after the staff prepared final versions of the legal pleadings, filings and motions, the non=attorney supervisors signed respondent’s name to the legal pleadings, filings and motions, including supporting declarations executed under penalty of perjury. The documents respondent submitted under penalty of perjury included a Verified Complaint for Unlawful Detainer containing a verification executed under penalty of perjury and a Judicial Council form Request for Entry of Default containing three separate declarations under penalty of perjury. After the non-attorney signed respondent’s name, the documents were submitted to the court without any input from or review by respondent.
Respondent had minimal direct supervisory contact with the staff that prepared the legal pleadings, filings and motions. Respondent failed to adequately supervise the staff, failed to review most of the legal pleadings, filings and motions and declarations and failed to sign his name to many of those documents. Instead, respondent delegated that responsibility to the non-attorney department supervisors.
The non-attorney supervisors engaged in the practice of law by giving legal advice to staff regarding the contents of the legal pleadings, filings and motions and by signing respondent’s name to legal pleadings, filings and motions, including supporting declarations executed under penalty of perjury.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to supervise his staff, by delegating to non-attorneys the responsibility to provide legal advice to staff regarding the contents of the legal pleadings, filings and motions, and by permitting non-attorneys to sign respondent’s name to legal pleadings, filings and motions, including declarations executed under penalty of perjury, respondent aided the unauthorized practice of law, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(A).
Count Two
Facts
Count One is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
In each case respondent filed, respondent submitted to the court a verification to support the Verified Complaint for Unlawful Detainer. It stated: "I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint for Unlawful Detainer and know its contents." In truth and in fact, respondent had not read the complaint and was unaware of its contents since he had not reviewed the complaint.
Respondent sought to mislead the court when he claimed he had read the complaint and was aware of its contents when respondent knew that the statements contained in the verification were untrue.
Conclusions of Law
By submitting documents to the court stating that he had read the complaint and was aware of its contents when respondent had not done so, respondent sought to mislead judicial officers, in willful violation of Business and Profession Code section 6068(d).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(6), was March 21,2011 and July 11,2011.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of March 3, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $4,000. 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.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
None
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Prior Record (Standard 1.2(e)(i)) Respondent has been admitted since 1986 and has no prior record of discipline.
Cooperation
(Standard 1.2(e)(v)) Respondent agreed to the imposition of discipline without
requiring a hearing. Other Mitigating Circumstances. In late-2009, respondent
modified his law practice to include attorney oversight at all stages so that
an attorney oversees the intake process, signs the Notices to Vacate, reviews
and signs complaints, reviews answers, reviews trial sets, reviews and signs
motions for default, applications for writs and declarations, reviews and signs
all motions. The office also holds weekly staff meetings with lead attorneys
and department managers to address issues of quality control, changes in the
law process issues and other relevant issues. Attorneys also hold daily
meetings to address multiple issues and problems that arise. At the time
respondent executed this stipulation, respondent’s office employed six
attorneys to handle the large volume of cases.
Case Number(s): 10-O-00032
In the Matter of: David R. Endres
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: David R. Endres, Doron Weinberg, Esther Rogers
Respondent: David R. Endres
Date: 03/25/2011
Respondent’s Counsel: Doron Weinberg
Date: 03/28/2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Esther Rogers
Date:07/21/2011
Case Number(s): 10-O-00032
In the Matter of: David R. Endres
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.
1. On p. 4, section D(1)(a)(i)--delete the "and until" std. 1.4(c)(ii) condition from the stayed suspension as unnecessary. (See, In the Matter of Luis (Review Dept. 2004) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 737.)
2) On p. 4, section E(1), delete the conditional std. 1.4(c)(ii) recommendation as unnecessary.
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: Pat McElroy
Judge of the State Bar Court: Pat McElroy
Date: August 23, 2011
(Effective January 1, 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 San Francisco, on, August 23, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
DORON WEINBERG
523 OCTAVIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
<<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:
Esther Rogers, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on August 23, 2011.
Signed by: George Hue
Case Administrator: George Hue
State Bar Court