Case Number(s): 10-O-00128, 10-O-07986, 10-O-10606
In the Matter of: Craig E. Munson, Bar # 143833, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Tammy M. Albertsen-Murray, Bar # 154248, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94104, 415-538-2527
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent, Craig E. Munson, 321 N Atlantic Blvd., Alhambra, CA 91801, (626) 318-8554, Bar# 143833
Submitted to: Assigned Judge, State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
Filed: August 25, 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 December 11, 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 11 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: Costs to be paid in equal amounts for the 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.
Respondent shall pay the $1500.00 sanction referenced in case number 10-O-07986 within the first 12 months of the effective date of the order. Respondent shall indicate on each quarterly probation report whether he-made a payment during that reporting period and shall attach proof of payment as defined by Office of Probation.
(Effective
January 1, 2011)
IN THE MATTER OF: Craig E. Munson, State Bar No. 143833
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-O-10606, 10-O-00128, 10-O-07986
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Case number 10-0-00128
Facts,
In April, 2009, Wali Razaqi ("Razaqi") retained respondent to represent him in a civil matter entitled Nate Kamrary v. Wali Razaqi, Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number SC 099323.
In April, 2009, respondent and Razaqi executed a substitution of attorney form, but respondent failed to file it with the court. In June, 2009, respondent and Razaqi executed a second substitution of attorney form and respondent also failed to file that substitution with the court. As a result of having no attorney of record, opposing counsel was contacting Razaqi directly. Razaqi forwarded to respondent anything he received directly from opposing counsel.
At the time of respondent’s retention, Razaqi told him and respondent was aware that discovery was already outstanding and in need of responses. At respondent’s request, Razaqi provided information responsive to the discovery requests. Respondent prepared the responses, but failed to actually serve them on opposing counsel.
Ultimately, plaintiff filed a motion for terminating sanctions and served it on respondent as attorney for Razaqi. Respondent failed to respond to the motion and failed to appear at the hearing on the motion. Plaintiff’s motion was granted. Razaqi’s motion to vacate the resulting judgment in plaintiff’s favor was denied.
Conclusions of Law.
By failing to serve discovery responses, failing to respond to the motion for terminating sanctions and failing to appear at the hearing on the motion, respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
Case number 10-O-07986
Facts.
Respondent was attorney of record for plaintiff in a case styled Glenn Page Davidson v. Robert Simmons, U.S.D.C. Central Diet. Case number CV10-2661-GAF. On July 26, 2010, the Court sanctioned respondent $500 for his failure to comply with local rules. On August 9, 2010, the Court imposed an additional $1,000 sanction for his failure to comply with local rules and for his failure to pay the previously ordered sanction by the date due, for a total sanction of $1,500.
Conclusion of Law°
By failing to pay the sanctions as ordered by the Court of which he was fully aware, respondent violated Business and Professions Code section 6103.
Case number 10-0-10606
Facts.
On March 3, 2009, respondent substituted in as plaintiff Harrison’s counsel of record in a case styled William Harrison v. City of Palmdale, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number MC018763. On May 12, 2009, defendants served a demand for production of documents on respondent as counsel for plaintiff. Respondent did not inform his client of his receipt of the document demand. Respondent did not serve any response to the document demand. On August 20, 2009, defendants moved to compel production and the motion was-granted. Respondent was sanctioned $780 for failure to comply with discovery. [Respondent paid the sanctions in full on January 26, 2010.]
Respondent did not inform his client of the motion to compel or that it was granted. Respondent did not comply with the discovery order. On September 22, 2009, defendants moved for terminating sanctions.
Respondent did not respond to the motion, nor did he tell his client that a motion for terminating sanctions had been filed. On October 22, 2009, the court granted defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions, entered judgment for defendants and dismissed Harrison’s complaint. Respondent did not notify his client that his complaint was dismissed. However, on November 10, 2009, defendants told Harrison that the complaint had been dismissed. Harrison fired respondent on December 9, 2009.
Harrison hired subsequent counsel, Chamberlain. Chamberlain moved to set aside the judgment. The trial court denied the motion. Chamberlain appealed the denial of the motion to set aside. Respondent fully cooperated with Chamberlain’s efforts to restore Harrison’s complaint, including submitting a detailed declaration in support of Chamberlain’s motion to set aside the judgment. The appellate court found that respondent had taken on too many clients to handle successfully, lost track of cases, failed to respond to case-related requests and failed to inform his client of significant matters, concluding that respondent’s acts were inexcusable neglectful. Ultimately, the appellate court granted the writ of mandate..
Conclusions Of Law.
By failing to serve discovery responses, failing to respond to the discovery motions or motion for terminating sanctions and failing to inform Harrison of the discovery issues and entry of default judgment, respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A) and Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was July 29, 2011.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of July 29, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $ 4,646.00. 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.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
In Gold v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 908, respondent failed to perform or to communicate with two clients and was also found culpable of moral turpitude. The attorney in Gold had 25 years of discipline-free practice. Gold’s discipline was reduced to 30 days by Supreme Court.
In the Matter of Kopinski (Review Dept. 1994) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 716, the attorney received stayed suspension for failure to communicate with two clients and failure to relinquish their files promptly.
In In the Matter of Klein (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 1, the attorney received stayed suspension for failing to comply with a court order.
In the instant matter, respondent’s conduct did not include moral turpitude or failure to return files or fees. He did not promptly pay the court-ordered sanctions in 10-O-07986, but was financially unable to pay them when ordered. Respondent does have a prior record of discipline involving inexperience with a client trust account. The misconduct at issue in these cases is distinct from the earlier record; no repeat of the earlier misconduct is found. One thing that does connect the misconduct is the time frame: respondent has been forthcoming regarding a difficult period in his life surrounding his misconduct. Respondent’s extensive mitigation, described herein, sets apart the facts of these cases from the actual suspension found in Gold and other similar cases.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Respondent promptly acknowledged responsibility for his misconduct and expressed his remorse both to the State Bar and to the court and client by way of his declaration filed in support of subsequent counsel’s motion to set aside default in the Harrison matter (case number 10-O-10606).
Respondent began a solo practice in January, 2009. He had no staff and performed all the case-related work and office administration by himself. By July, 2009, he had become overwhelmed with the amount of work and time, having never run his own practice before. Respondent began to lose track of his case commitments and not fully performing, which in turn, led to more anxiety and ultimately depression. By March, 2010, he failed to pass the MPRE while still trying to run his solo practice. At that time his wife was a mother and homemaker, not needing to work outside the home for income. Once respondent knew he would not be allowed to practice again until he passed the MPRE, the marriage suffered from the upheaval of his wife’s having to promptly earn sufficient income to support their family. Respondent began to drink excessively and became demonstrably depressed.
By September, 2010, respondent had to take on more direct responsibility for his young son, including getting the boy to and from school, in that his wife was then outside working. That was the motivation he needed to stop the drinking to avoid any dangerous situations for his son.
Soon thereafter, on November 6, 2010, respondent passed the MPRE and could work as an attorney again. Rather than put himself back into a solo practice that he knew would be too much for him to handle again, he instead began making contract, one-time appearances, but no longer was the sole attorney responsible for a case. In addition, he took a research position with Reuters West with a steady income and hours.
Respondent
takes full responsibility for his ethical misconduct, recognizes the situations
most likely to be difficult for him to handle and has taken many steps to
remove himself from those situations.
Case Number(s): 10-0-10606, 10-0-00128, & 10-0-07986
In the Matter of: Craig E. Munson
<<not>> checked. a. Within days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
checked. b. Within **days/ 12(twelve) months/ **years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than10 hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
<<not>> checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
Other:
(Effective January 1, 2011)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 10-O-10606, 10-O-00128, 10-O-07986
In the Matter of: Craig Munson
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: Craig Munson, Tammy M. Albertson-Murray
Respondent: Craig Munson
Date: 08/08/2011
Respondent’s Counsel: N/A
Date: N/A
Deputy Trial Counsel: Tammy M. Albertson-Murray (Wonder Langue)
Date: 08/12/2011
Case Number(s): 10-O-10606, 10-O-00128, 10-O-07986
In the Matter of: Craig E. Munson
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.
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: Lucy Armendariz
Judge of the State Bar Court: Lucy Armendariz
Date:
August 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 San Francisco, on August 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:
CRAIG E. MUNSON
321 N ATLANTIC BLVD
ALHAMBRA, CA 91801
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
TAMMY ALBERTSEN MURRAY, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on August 25, 2011.
Signed by: Laine Silber
Case Administrator: Laine Silber
State Bar Court