Case Number(s): 10-O-00677, 10-O-00678
10-O-04463,
10-O-05563,
10-O-05605,
10-O-04464
10-O-05603
10-O-06433
10-O-06434,10-O-06435
10-O-06441,10-O-06861
10-O-06959,10-O-06961
10-O-06975,
10-O-07483,
10-O-07489,
10-O-07919,
10-O-07930,
10-O-08524,
10-O-08967,
10-O-08969,
10-O-09382,
10-O-09675,
10-O-09678,
10-O-10182,
10-O-10412,
10-O-10416,
10-O-11140,
10-O-11147,
11-O-10450,
11-O-13029,
11-O-13261,
11-O-14504,
11-O-17335,
10-O-07481
10-O-07488
10-O-07918
10-O-07921
10-O-08496
10-O-08966
10-O-08968
10-O-09301
10-O-09667
10-O-09677
10-O-09679
10-O-10406
10-O-10413
10-O-10604
10-O-11145
10-O-11348
11-O-12721
11-O-13229
11-O-13357
11-O-15742
11-O-17336
In the Matter of: Christopher L. Persaud, Bar # 10-00677 , A Member of the
State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Eli D.Morgenstern, Deputy Trial Counsel
The State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Telephone: (213) 765-1334
Bar # 190560
Counsel for Respondent: Borna Bandari, Borchard & Callahan
25909 Pala, Suite 300
Mission Viejo, California 92691
Telephone: (949) 457-9505
Bar # 261081
Submitted to: Settlement Judge of State Bar Court of Clerk’s Office of Los Angeles
Filed: January 9, 2012
<<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 March 25, 2009.
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 24 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: five (5) 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.
(Effective January 1, 2011)
Actual Suspension
Case Number(s): 10-O-00677, 10-O-00678
10-O-04463,
10-O-05563,
10-O-05605,
10-O-04464
10-O-05603
10-O-06433
10-O-06434,10-O-06435
10-O-06441,10-O-06861
10-O-06959,10-O-06961
10-O-06975,
10-O-07483,
10-O-07489,
10-O-07919,
10-O-07930,
10-O-08524,
10-O-08967,
10-O-08969,
10-O-09382,
10-O-09675,
10-O-09678,
10-O-10182,
10-O-10412,
10-O-10416,
10-O-11140,
10-O-11147,
11-O-10450,
11-O-13029,
11-O-13261,
11-O-14504,
11-O-17335,
10-O-07481
10-O-07488
10-O-07918
10-O-07921
10-O-08496
10-O-08966
10-O-08968
10-O-09301
10-O-09667
10-O-09677
10-O-09679
10-O-10406
10-O-10413
10-O-10604
10-O-11145
10-O-11348
11-O-12721
11-O-13229
11-O-13357
11-O-15742
11-O-17336
In the Matter of: Christopher L. Persaud
checked. a. Within 90 days of Respondent’s return to active status, 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.
Not checked. b. Within days/ 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 than 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:
Case Number(s): 10-O-00677, 10-O-00678
10-O-04463,
10-O-05563,
10-O-05605,
10-O-04464
10-O-05603
10-O-06433
10-O-06434,10-O-06435
10-O-06441,10-O-06861
10-O-06959,10-O-06961
10-O-06975,
10-O-07483,
10-O-07489,
10-O-07919,
10-O-07930,
10-O-08524,
10-O-08967,
10-O-08969,
10-O-09382,
10-O-09675,
10-O-09678,
10-O-10182,
10-O-10412,
10-O-10416,
10-O-11140,
10-O-11147,
11-O-10450,
11-O-13029,
11-O-13261,
11-O-14504,
11-O-17335,
10-O-07481
10-O-07488
10-O-07918
10-O-07921
10-O-08496
10-O-08966
10-O-08968
10-O-09301
10-O-09667
10-O-09677
10-O-09679
10-O-10406
10-O-10413
10-O-10604
10-O-11145
10-O-11348
11-O-12721
11-O-13229
11-O-13357
11-O-15742
11-O-17336
In the Matter of: Christopher L. Persaud
a. Restitution
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund (“CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
1. Payee:
Principal Amount: See Pages 20-21 for discussion regarding Restitution
Interest Accrues From:
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
1. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
<<not>> checked. 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.
1. If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated as a “Trust Account” or “Clients’ Funds Account”;
b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:
i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.
c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
2. If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate described above.
3. The requirements of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct.
<<not>> checked. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTOPHER LESLIE PERSAUD
CASE NUMBERS: 10-O-00677 10-O-00678,10-O-04463,
10-O-04464. 10-O-05563 10-O-05603,
10-O-05605 10-O-06433 10-O-06434,
10-O-06435 10-O-06441 10-O-06861,
10-O-06959 10-O-06961 10-O-06975,
10-O-07481 10-O-07483 10-O-07488,
10-O-07489 10-O-07918 10-O-07919,
10-O-07921 10-O-07930 10-O-08496,
10-O-08524 10-O-08966,10-O-08967,
10-O-08968, 10-O-08969. 10-O-09301,
10-O-09382, 10-O-09667. 10-O-09675,
10-O-09677, 10-O-09678. 10-O-09679,
10-O-10182, 10-O-10406.10-O-10412,
10-O-10413, 10-O-10416. 10-O-10604,
10-O-11140, 10-O-11145. 10-O-11147,
10-O-11348, 11-O-10450.11-O-12721,
11-O-13029, 11-O-13229.11-O-13261,
11-O-13357, 11-O-14504.11-O-15742,
11-O-17335, 11-O-17336
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 Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 10-O-00678
Facts
1. On October 29, 2009, Betty Lewis ("Lewis") employed Respondent to represent her in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding. Onthat date, Lewis paid Respondent $2,500 in advanced attorney fees.
2. On November 6, 2009, Respondent filed a petition for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy on behalf of Lewis with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, case number 8:09-bk22305 (Lewis Chapter 7 Bankruptcy") Respondent failed to file the following documents with the petition: (I) Schedule B; (2) Schedule C; (3) Schedule D; (4) Schedule E; (5) Schedule F; (6) Schedule G; (7) Schedule H; (8) Schedule I; (10) Schedule J; (11) Statement of Financial Affairs; and (12)
Statement- Form 22A.
3. On November 6, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court filed an order in the Lewis Chapter 7 Bankruptcy requiring Respondent to file the required documents within fifteen (15) days of the date of the order. Respondent received notice of the Order.
4. Respondent did not file the required documents with the Bankruptcy Court.
5. On November 30, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court filed an order dismissing the Lewis Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, because Respondent failed to file the required documents.
6. Respondent did not perform any services of value on behalf of Lewis and did not earn any portion of the advanced attorney that he received from Lewis.
7. On December 8, 2009, Respondent provided Lewis with a refund of the $2,500 in advanced attorney fees that she had paid to him.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to perform any services of value on behalf of Lewis in connection with the Lewis Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Respondent willfully violated rule
3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case Nos. 10-O-00677,10-O-05603,10-O-05563,10-O-05605,10-O- 06433,10-O-06434,10-O-06441,10-O-06975, 10-O-07488,10-O-07489,10-O-07921,10-O-09382, 10-O-09667, 10-O-09675,10-O-09678, 10-O-10416,10-O-11140, 11-O-10450,11-O-12721,11-O-13229, ll-O-13357, and 11-O-15742
Facts
8. In each of the matters identified in this paragraph, the complainants employed Respondent and the Legal Modification Firm, the law firm that he owned, to assist them with negotiating modifications of their home loans. Respondent did not perform each and every service that he had contracted to perform on behalf of the complainants identified in this paragraph prior to demanding,
charging, collecting, or receiving any fees:
Case No. 10-0-00677; Complainant William Costa; Date of Hire 11/04/99;
Complainant Fees $3,000,
Case No 10-0-05603; Complainant Chester Boyer; Date of Hire 11/27/09;
Complainant Chester Boyer Fees $2,500,
Case No 10-0-05605 Complainant Nicholas Osano; Date of Hire 02/04/10
Complainant Nicholas Osano; Fees $3,100,
Case No 10-0-05563; Complainant Brigit Shaffer; Date of Hire 11/03/99 Fees $2,500,
Case No. 10-0-06433; Complainants Ken & Carol Link; Date of Hire 10/29/09;
Complainants Ken & Carol Link Fees $3,950,
Case No 10-0-06434; Complainant Marta Pereira; Date of Hire 09/23/09; Fees $2,000
Case No 10-0-06441; Complainants Bernardo & Elizabeth Ramirez;
Complainants Bernardo & Elizabeth Ramirez; Date of Hire 01/25/10; Fees $1,795 ,
Case No. 10-0-07488; Complainant Joseph Macrina; Date of Hire 12/22/09;
Complainant Joseph Macrina Fee $500,
Case No.10-0-07489; Complainant Edilberto Reyes; Date of Hire 12/04/09; Fees $2,884
Case No.10-0-07921; Complainant Paul Gertz; Date of Hire 01/13/10; Fees $4,200
Case No. 10-0-09675; Complainants Mitchell & Analiza Dasalla; Date of Hire10/20/09; Complainants Mitchell & Analiza Dasalla Fees $2,000,
Case No. 10-O-09678; Complainants Thomas & Viola Becker; Date of Hire 01/07/10 Complainants Thomas & Viola Becker; Fees $1,500,
Case No. 10-O-10416 Complainant Joyce Simmons; Date of Hire 02/11/10;
Complainant Joyce Simmons; Fees $2,500,
Case No 11 -O- 10450; Complainant Pisey I; Date of Hire 12/15/09; Fees $3,000,
Case No. 10-O- 11140; Complainant Christos Joannides; Date of Hire 01/25/10;
Complainant Christos Joannides; Fees $4,100,
Case No. 11-O- 12721; Complainant Robert Pastorino; Date of Hire 10/15/09;
Complainant Robert Pastorino; Fees $5,000,
Case No. 11-O-13357; Complainant Konstantino Mavrikis; Date of Hire 11/16/09
Complainant Konstantino Mavrikis; Fees $2,500
Case No.11-O- 15742 Complainant Viroj Niranpragon; Date of Hire; 02/03/10
Complainant Viroj Niranpragon; Fees: $2,495 ,
9. Respondent did not perform any services of value on behalf of any of the complainants identified in paragraph 8, including, but not limited to negotiating and obtaining a loan modification on behalf of the respective complainants.
10. Respondent did not earn any portion of the advanced fees that he received from the complainants identified in paragraph 8.
11. Respondent did not provide a refund of any portion of the unearned, advanced fees that he received from any of the complainants listed in paragraph 8.
12. With respect to Case Number 10-O-09382, on June 5, 2009, Jay Sengstock ("Sengstock") employed Respondent to assist him with negotiating a modification of his home loan. Sengstock paid Respondent $4,500 in advanced attorney fees.
13. Respondent did not perform any services of value on behalf of Sengstock including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a loan modification. Respondent did not earn any portion of the advanced fee that he received from Sengstock.
14. Respondent did not refund any portion of the unearned, advanced fee that he received from Sengstock.
Conclusions of Law
By negotiating, arranging or offering to perform mortgage loan modifications for a fee paid by the complainants identified in paragraph 13, and demanding, charging, collecting, and receiving fees from the complainants identified in paragraph 13 prior to fully performing each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform on behalf of the respective complainants, in violation of Section 2944.7(a) of the Civil Code, Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions
Code section 6106.3.
By failing to perform any services of value on behalf of Sengstock, and the complainants identified in paragraph 13, Respondent failed to perform competently in wilful violation of rule 3110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By failing to refund any portion of the unearned, advanced fees that he received from Sengstock, and the complainants identified in paragraph 13, Respondent wilfully violated rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case Nos., 1.0-O-04463, 10-O-04464, 10-O-06435, 10-O-06441, 10-O-06959,
10-O-06961, 10-O-06975, 10-O-07481, 10-O-07483, 10-O-07918, 10-O-07919,
10-O-07930, 10-O-08496, 10-O-08968, 10-O-11147, 10-O-08524, 10-O-08966,
10-0-08967, 10-0-08969, 10-O-0930!, J 0-0-09382,10-O:09667, 10-0-09677,
10-O-09679, 10-O-10182, 10-O-10406, 10-O-10412, 10-O-10413, 10-O-10604,
10-O-11145., 10-O-11348, 11-O-13229, and 11-O-13261
Facts
15. At all times relevant to the stipulated facts herein, Respondent was a member of the State Bar of California and permitted to practice law in this state. Respondent was not a member of any other state bars, and was not permitted to practice law in any of the states identified in paragraph 17.
16. The Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to the states identifed in paragraph 17 all prohibit attorneys not licensed in the respective jurisdictions from practicing law in the respective jurisdictions subject to several limited exceptions not relevant to these stipulated facts.
17. The complainants identified in this paragraph, all of whom were residents of other states with home mortgages in those states, employed Respondent and the Legal Modification Firm, the law firm that Respondent owned, to assist them with negotitiating modifications of their home loans. Specifically, the fee agreement that Respondent entered into with each complainant provided that Respondent would use his "best efforts to negotiate and counsel" each complainant with "Real Estate matters related" to their respective loan modifications. All of the complainants paid Respondent advanced legal fees. By accepting employment with the complainants in order to perform legal services in connection with their respective loan modifications, Respondent effectively held himself out as entitled to practice law in the states identified below:
Jurisdiction
Case No.10-O-04463; Complainant Anthony Henry; Date of Hire 01/25/10;
Complainant Anthony Henry; Fees $2,000; Jurisdiction; Florida ,
Case No.10-O-04464; Complainants Mark & Sophia Crowley; Date of Hire 09/06/09; Complainant Anthony Henry; Fees; $2,495; Jurisdiction; Kansas ,
Case No.10-0-06435; Complainant Roger Abraham; Date of Hire 10/26/09;
Complainant Roger Abraham; Fees $1,500; Jurisdiction Arizona ,
Case No. 10-0-06441; Complainants Bernardo & Elizabeth Ramirez;
Complainants Bernardo & Elizabeth Ramirez; Date of Hire 01/25/10; Fees $1,795;
Complainants Bernardo & Elizabeth Ramirez; Jurisdiction Texas,
Case No 10-O-06959; Complainant Joseph Robba; Date of Hire 10/06/09
Complainant Joseph Robba; Fees $1,850; Jurisdiction; Connecticut ,
Case No 10-O-06961; Complainant Betty Jeannie Garvey; Date of Hire 10/08/09; Complainant Betty Jeannie Garvey; Fees $1,500; Jurisdiction Texas,
Case No 10-O-06975; Complainants Craig & Patricia Davis; Date of Hire 11/08/09 Complainants Craig & Patricia Davis; Fees $2,995; Jurisdiction Illinois,
Case No 10-O-07481; Complainant Bela Konya; Date of Hire 01/07/10; Fees $2,450 Complainant Bela Konya; Jurisdiction Washington ,
Case No 10-O-07483; Complainant Jena Perry; Date of Hire 02/18/10; Fees $2,000 Complainant Jena Perry; Jurisdiction Illinois,
Case No 10-O-07918; Complainants Elred & Shirley Leep; Date of Hire 02/10/10; Complainants Elred & Shirley Leep; Fees $2,475; Jurisdiction Oregon ,
Case No 10-O-07919; Complainant Soundra Black; Date of Hire 01/08/10; Fees $500 Jurisdiction Florida ,
Case No 10-O-07930; Complainants Nathan King/Phil Barnes; Date of Hire 11/08/09; Complainants Nathan King/Phil Barnes; Fees $2,600; Jurisdiction Illinois,
Case No 10-O-08496; Complainant James Ploska; Date of Hire 02/25/10;
Complainant James Ploska; Fees $2,600; Jurisdiction Florida ,
Case No 10-O-08524; Complainant Sairam Kudapa; Date of Hire 11/27/09;
Complainant Sairam Kudapa; Fees $2,420; Jurisdiction Virginia ,
Case No 10-O-08966; Complainants Agnieszka & Wojciech Battler;
Complainants Agnieszka & Wojciech Battler; Date of Hire 01/28/10; Fees $2,500 Jurisdiction Illinois ,
Case No. 10-O-08968; Complainant Michelle Figgens; Date of Hire 12/16/09;
Complainant Michelle Figgens; Fees $2,799; Jurisdiction Oregon;
Case No. 10-O-08969; Complainant Nathan King; Date of Hire 11/18/09;
Complainant Nathan King; Fees $2,600; Jurisdiction Illinois ;
Case No. 10-O-08967; Complainant Myrna Llagas; Date of Hire 09/23/09;
Complainant Myrna Llagas; Fees $2,850; Jurisdiction Illinois,
Case No 10-O-09301; Complainant Larry Lee; Date of Hire 08/16/10;
Complainant Larry Lee; Fees $2,200; Jurisdiction Oregon,
Case No 10-0-09667; Complainant Maria Queiroz; Date of Hire 02/23/10;
Complainant Maria Queiroz; Fees $2,200; Jurisdiction Massachusetts,
Case No 10-0-09677; Complainant Priscilla Call; Date of Hire 01/29/10
Complainant Priscilla Call; Fees $2,995; Jurisdiction Washington,
Case No 10-0-09679; Complainants Daniel & Sarah Gorgone; Date of Hire 11/02/09; Fees $1,250; Jurisdiction Connecticut ,
Case No 10-O-10182; Complainant Kimberly Fordham; Date of Hire 01/29/10;
Complainant Kimberly Fordham; Fees $2,400; Jurisdiction New Jersey,
Case No 10-O-10187; Complainant HildaTeel; Date of Hire 04/25/10;
Complainant HildaTeel; Fees $1,295; Jurisdiction North Carolina,
Case No 10-O-10406; Complainants Richard & Debra Martel; Date of Hire 10/31/09; Complainants Richard & Debra Martel; Fees $1,595; Jurisdiction Maine ,
Case No 10-O-10412; Complainant Jeffrey Walton; Date of Hire 03/03/10;
Complainant Jeffrey Walton; Fees $1,295; Jurisdiction Georgia ,
Case No 10-O-10413; Complainant Dennis Flax; Date of Hire 11/10/09;
Complainant Dennis Flax; Fees $2,500; Jurisdiction South Carolina ,
Case No. 10-O-10604; Complainant Ludlow Dale; Date of Hire 09/21/09;
Complainant Ludlow Dale; Fees $3,433; Jurisdiction Maryland ,
Case No. 10-O-11145; Complainant Paul Hord, Jr.; Date of Hire 02/23/10;
Complainant Paul Hord, Jr.; Fees $1,295; Jurisdiction Indiana;
Case No. 10-O-11147; Complainants Stephen and Diane Guzek; Date of Hire 02/03/10; Complainants Stephen and Diane Guzek; Fees $3,495; Jurisdiction Washington ,
Case No.10-O-11348; Complainants JP & Nancy Dineen; Date of Hire 11/03/09; Complainants JP & Nancy Dineen; Fees $2,900; Jurisdiction Connecticut ,
Case No. 11-O-13229; Complainant Richard Alexander; Date of Hire 10/19/09;
Complainant Richard Alexander; Fees $700; Jurisdiction Nevada,
Case No. 11-O-13261; Complainant Jennifer Mantooth; Date of Hire 12/11/09;
Complainant Jennifer Mantooth; Fees $2,500 Jurisdiction Washington
18. By entering into agreements for, charging, and collecting fees from the complainants identified in paragraph 17, when he was not licensed to practice law in any of the jurisdictions identified in paragraph 17, Respondent entered into agreements for, charged, and collected an illegal fee from each of the complainants.
19. To date, Respondent has not refunded any portion of the illegal, advanced fees that he received from any of the complainants identified in paragraph 10.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting employment with the above-referenced complainants, when he was not licensed to practice law in any of the jurisdictions where the complainants’ resided and maintained home mortgages, Respondent violated the regulations of the profession in the respective jurisdictions in willful violation of rule 1-300(B) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By entering into agreements for, charging, and collecitng an illegal fee, Respondent willfully violated rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By failing to refund any portion of the illegal, advanced fees that he received from the complainants, Respondent wilfully violated rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 10-O-06861
Facts
20. On October 20, 2009, Ruben Varela ("Varela") employed Respondent to assist him with a modification of his home loan.
21. On November 30, 2009, Varela paid Respondent $500 in advanced attorney fees; and on January 11, 2010, Varela made a second, advanced payment of $500. In total, Varela paid Respondent $1,000 in advanced attorney fees for his legal services.
22. On March 9, 2010, the lender agreed to enter into a mortgage forbearance agreement with Varela; and on March 29, 2010, Varela made the first payment under the agreement.
23. In April 2010, Varela received a letter from his lender denying Varela’s request for a loan modification.
24. On April 23, 2010, Varela paid Respondent $1,300 to file a bankruptcy. On May 14, 2010, Varela provided Respondent with all the necessary information to file a petition for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.
25. Respondent did not perform any services of value on behalf Varela with respect to the bankruptcy, including, but not limited to, filing a petition for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Respondent did not earn any portion of the advanced fee that he received from Varela in connection with the bankruptcy.
26. On May 24, 2010, Varela’s home was sold at a trustee’s sale without notice to him.
27. On August 19, 2010, Varela mailed Respondent a letter requesting that Respondent return the advanced fees that Varela paid to Respondent in connection with the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Respondent received the letter.
28. To date, Respondent has not refunded any portion of the advanced fees that he received from Varela in connection with the bankruptcy.
29. Varela was able to stop the transfer of his home through his own efforts.
30. As part of this stipulation, Respondent has agreed to provide Varela with a refund of $1,300, which represents the advanced fees that Respondent received from Varela in connection with the bankruptcy.
Conclusions of Law
By not performing any services of value on behalf of Varela in connection with the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By failing to refund any portion of the unearned, advanced fee that he received from Varela in connection with the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in wilful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 11-O-13029
Facts
31. On December 21, 2009, Armando Jaurequi ("Jaurequi") employed Respondent to represent him in a civil matter against Guarantee Bank. Jaurequi paid Respondent a total of $9800 in advanced attorney fees.
32. On February 23, 2010, Respondent filed a complaint against Guarantee Bank on behalf of Jaurequi with the San Diego County Superior Court, case number 37-2010-00086152-CU-OR-CTL.
33. Between February 23, 2010, and November 8, 2010, Respondent failed to respond to numerous status inquiries that he received from Jaurequi.
34. On November 8, 2010, Jaurequi terminated Respondent’s employment.
35. As part of this stipulation, Respondent has agreed to provide Jaurequi with a refund of $4,100. Jaurequi has represented to the State Bar that this sum is acceptable to him.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to adequately communicate with Jaurequi, Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
Case Number 11-O-14504
Facts
36. On July 1, 2010, Benjamin Plaat ("Plaat") employed Respondent to represent him in a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy proceeding. Plaat paid Respondent a total of $3,445 in advanced fees and costs for his representation in the bankruptcy.
37. At no time did Respondent perform any services of value on behalf of Plaat, including, but not limited to, filing a petition for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.
38. Respondent did not earn any portion of the $3,445 that Plaat paid him in connection with the bankruptcy. To date, Respondent has refunded $1,400 to Plaat. Respondent owes Plaat a refund of $2,045.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to perform any services of value on behalf of Plaat, Respondent wilfully violated rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By failing to return any of the unearned, advanced fees and costs that he received from Plaat, Respondent wilfully violated rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 11-O-17335
Facts
39. On June 7, 2010, Luis Cabrera ("Cabrera") employed Respondent to represent him with respect to a pending Trustees sale of Cabrera’s home. Cabrera paid Respondent a total of $3,500 in advanced attorneyfees.
40. On June 22, 2011, Cabrera mailed a letter to Respondent terminating Respondent’s employment and demanding a refund of the advanced attorney fees that he paid to Respondent. Respondent received the letter.
41. Respondent did not perform any services of value on behalf of Cabrera. Respondent did not earn any portion of the advanced fees he received from Cabrera.
42. To date, Respondent has not refunded any portion of the unearned, advanced fees that he received from Cabrera.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to perform any services of value on behalf of Cabrera, Respondent failed to perform competently in wilful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By failing to refund any portion of the unearned, advanced fees that he received from Cabrera, Respondent wilfully violated rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 11-O-17336
Facts
43. In June 2010, Laura Parker ("Parker") employed Respondent to represent her in a civil matter against a man Parker claimed had taken her truck. Parker paid Respondent a total of $4,000 in advanced attorney fees.
44. Respondent did not perform any services of value on behalf of Parker, including, but not limited to, filing a complaint. Respondent did not earn any portion of the advanced fees that he received from Parker.
45. After Parker terminated Respondent’s employment, Respondent did not refund any portion of the uneamed, advanced fees that he received from Parker. Consequently, Parker sued Respondent in a matter titled Laura Parker v. Christopher Persaud, Riverside County Superior Court Small Claims case no. HES 1100557 (the "small claims matter"). On August 18, 2011, a judgment was entered against
Respondent in the small claims matter in the sum of $4,300. To date, Respondent has not paid any portion of the judgment to Parker.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to perform any services of value on behalf of Parker, Respondent failed to perform Conclusions of Law
By failing to perform any services of value on behalf of Parker, Respondent failed to perform competently in wilful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By failing to refund any portion of the unearned, advanced fees that he received from Parker, Respondent wilfully violated rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
1. Multiple Acts, and Pattern, of Misconduct.
Respondent’s misconduct evidenced multiple acts, and a pattern, of misconduct. (Std. 1.2(b)(ii).)
2. Harm
The complainants herein were experiencing financial difficulty during the period covered by this Stipulation. Respondent’s misconduct caused further financial harm to them. (Std. 1.2(b)(iv).)
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
1. Candor and Cooperation
Respondent is entitled to mitigation for entering into this stipulation. (Standard 1.2(e)(v).
2. Good Character
Respondent has participated in various charity and community events, including, but not limited to assisting various local churches. Respondent also assisted his church with the creation of their website. Respondent’s activities in the community demonstrate good moral character. Respondent is a member of the Phi Alpha Delta legal fraternity. (Std. 1.2(e)(vi).)
3. Remorse
Respondent has expressed genuine, heartfelt, and credible remorse for the harm suffered by the complainants herein. (Std. 1.2(e)(vii).) Respondent’s agreement to make restitution pursuant to the terms of this stipulation is not a mitigating factor. However, Respondent’s agreement to remain suspended until he has made restitution to all of the complainants suggests that he is sincere in his desire to atone for his misconduct.
OTHER FACTORS IN CONSIDERATION.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on March 25, 2009, and immediately opened his own practice. An acquaintance recommended that Respondent focus his practice on assisting people with their loan modifications. The acquaintance also recommended that Respondent employ a friend of the acquaintance to assist Respondent with his practice. During the time that Respondent committed the misconduct herein, several employees, including the friend of Respondent’s acquaintance, and various third parties, contracted with members of the public, including some of the complainants identified in this stipulation, by using Respondent’s name and his retainer agreement without Respondent’s knowledge, authorization, and consent. In some instances, the rogue employees and various third parties caused Respondent’s "unauthorized clients" to issue checks to entities not associated with Respondent. With respect to other "unauthorized clients", including several complainants identified in this stipulation, the rogue employee/friend of Respondent’s acquaintance deposited checks issued by the clients in Respondent’s law office bank account without Respondent’s knowledge. The employee then pilfered funds from Respondent’s law office bank account by forging Respondent’s signature on checks that the employee issued from Respondent’s bank account. Respondent acknowledges that his failure to better administer his law office bank account enabled the rogue employee to take advantage of Respondent and the unauthorized clients.
Once Respondent learned of these unauthorized clients, he tried to assist them with their various legal matters at no further charge to them.
Respondent filed police reports against several of the employees, and one of the employees has been convicted of criminal offenses committed against Respondent. Respondent intends to continue to assist law enforcement in the pursuit of the individuals who committed criminal conduct against Respondent and his clients.
RESTITUTION CONDITIONS.
Respondent must pay restitution to the payees listed below in the amounts listed below plus 10 percent interest per year from the dates listed below. If the Client Security Fund ("CSF") has reimbursed a payee for all or any portion of the principal amount, Respondent must pay restitution to CSF of the amount paid plus applicable interest and costs in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6140.5.
Case No. 10-O-00677; Payee William Costa; Principal Amount $3,000;
Payee William Costa; Interest Accrues From 11/04/09,
Case No. 10-O-04463; Payee Anthony Henry; Principal Amount $2,000;
Payee Anthony Henry Interest Accrues From 01/25/10
Case No. 10-O-04464; Payees Mark & Sophia Crowley; Principal Amount $2,495 Payees Mark & Sophia Crowley Interest Accrues From 09/06/09 ,
Case No 10-O-05603; Payee Chester Boyer; Principal Amount $2,500;
Payee Chester Boyer; Interest Accrues From 11/27/09,
Case No 10-O-05605; Payee Nicholas Osano; Principal Amount $3,100;
Payee Nicholas Osano Interest Accrues From 02/04/10 ,
Case No 10-O-05563; Payee Brigit Shaffer; Principal Amount $2,500;
Payee Brigit Shaffer; Interest Accrues From 11/03/99,
Case No 10-O-06433; Payees Ken & Carol Link; Principal Amount $3,950;
Payees Ken & Carol Link; Interest Accrues From 10/29/09,
Case No 10-O-06434; Payee Marta Pereira; Principal Amount $2,000;
Payee Marta Pereira; Interest Accrues From 09/23/09,
Case No 10-O-06435; Payee Roger Abraham; Principal Amount $1,500;
Payee Roger Abraham; Interest Accrues From 10/26/09,
Case No 10-O-06441; Payees Bernardo & Elizabeth Ramirez; Principal Amount $1,795; Payees Bernardo & Elizabeth Ramirez; Interest Accrues From 01/25/10,
Case No 10-O-06861; Payee Ruben Varela; Principal Amount $1,300;
Payee Ruben Varela; Interest Accrues From 04/23/10,
Case No 10-O-06959; Payee Joseph Robba; Principal Amount $1,850;
Payee Joseph Robba; Interest Accrues From 10/06/09,
Case No 10-O-06961 Payee Betty Jeannie Garvey Principal Amount $1,500 ;
Payee Betty Jeannie Garvey Interest Accrues From 10/08/09,
Case No 10-0-06975; Payees Craig & Patricia Davis Principal Amount $2,995
Payees Craig & Patricia Davis; Interest Accrues From 11/08/09,
Case No 10-O-07481; Payee Bela Konya; Principal Amount: $2,450
Payee Bela Konya; Interest Accrues From 01/07/10,
Case No 10-O-07483; Payee Jena Perry; Principal Amount: $2,000;
Payee Jena Perry; Interest Accrues From 02/18/10,
Case No 10-O-07488; Payee Joseph Macrina; Principal Amount: $500
Payee Joseph Macrina; Interest Accrues From 12/22/09
Case No 10-O-07489; Payee Edilberto Reyes; Principal Amount: $2,884
Payee Edilberto Reyes; Interest Accrues From 12/04/09,
Case No 10-O-07918; Payee Elred & Shirley Leep; Principal Amount: $2,475
Payee Elred & Shirley Leep; Interest Accrues From 02/10/10;
Case No. 10-0-07919; Payee Soundra Black; Principal Amount $500
Payee Soundra Black; Interest Accrues From 01/08/10
Case No. 10-O-07921; Payee Paul Gertz; Principal Amount $4,200
Payee Paul Gertz; Interest Accrues From 01/13/10,
Case No. 10-O-07930; Payee Nathan King/Phil Barnes; Principal Amount $2,600
Payee Nathan King/Phil Barnes; Interest Accrues From 11/08/09,
Case No. 10-O-08496 Payee James Ploska; Principal Amount $2,600
Payee James Ploska; Interest Accrues From 02/25/10
Case No.10-O-08524; Payee Sairam Kudapa ; Principal Amount $2,420
Payee Sairam Kudapa ; Interest Accrues From 11/27/09
Case No.10-O-08966 Payee Agnieszka & Wojciech Bartler Principal Amount $2,500
Payee Agnieszka & Wojciech Bartler; Interest Accrues From 01/28/10
Case No.10-O-08968; Payee Michelle Figgens; Principal Amount $2,799
Payee Michelle Figgens; Interest Accrues From 12/16/09
Case No.10-O-8969; Payee Nathan King; Principal Amount $2,600;
Payee Nathan King; Interest Accrues From 11/24/09
Case No.10-O-08967; Payee Myrna Llagas; Principal Amount $2,850
Payee Myrna Llagas; Interest Accrues From 09/23/09
Case No.10-O-09301; Payee Larry Lee; Principal Amount $2,200;
Payee Larry Lee; Interest Accrues From 08/16/10
Case No.10-O-09382; Payee Jay Sengstock; Principal Amount $4,500;
Payee Jay Sengstock; Interest Accrues From 06/05/09
Case No. 10-O-09667; Payee Maria Queiroz; Principal Amount $2,200
Payee Maria Queiroz; Interest Accrues From 02/23/10
Case No. 10-0-09675; Payee Mitchell & Analiza Dasalla; Principal Amount $2,000;
Payee Mitchell & Analiza Dasalla; Interest Accrues From 10/20/09
Case No. 10-O-09677 Payee Priscilla Call; Principal Amount $2,995;
Payee Priscilla Call Interest Accrues From 01/29/10,
Case No. 10-O-09678 Payee Thomas & Viola Becker; Principal Amount $1,500;
Payee Thomas & Viola Becker; Interest Accrues From 01/07/10,
Case No. 10-O-09679; Payee Daniel & Sarah Gorgone; Principal Amount $1,250;
Payee Daniel & Sarah Gorgone; Interest Accrues From 11/02/09,
Case No.10-O-10182; Payee Kimberly Fordham; Principal Amount $2,400;
Payee Kimberly Fordham; Interest Accrues From 01/29/10,
Case No.10-O-10406; Payee Richard & Debra Martel; Principal Amount $1,595;
Payee Richard & Debra Martel; Interest Accrues From 10/31/09,
Case No 10-O- 10412; Payee Jeffrey Walton; Principal Amount $1,295;
Payee Jeffrey Walton; Interest Accrues From 03/03/10,
Case No 10-O-10413 Payee Dennis Flax; Principal Amount $2,500;
Payee Dennis Flax; Interest Accrues From 11/10/09
Case No 10-O-10416; Payee Joyce Simmons; Principal Amount $2,500;
Payee Joyce Simmons; Interest Accrues From 02/11/10
Case No 10-O- 10604; Payee Ludlow Dale; Principal Amount $3,433;
Payee Ludlow Dale; Interest Accrues From 09/21/09
Case No 10-O-11140; Payee Christos Joannides; Principal Amount $4,100;
Payee Christos Joannides; Interest Accrues From 01/25/10
Case No 10-O-II145; Payee Paul Hord, Jr.; Principal Amount $1,295;
Payee Paul Hord, Jr.; Interest Accrues From 02/03/10,
Case No 10-O-11147; Payee Stephen and Diane Guzek; Principal Amount $3,495;
Payee Stephen and Diane Guzek; Interest Accrues From 02/03/10,
Case No 10-O-11348 Payee JP & Nancy Dineen; Principal Amount $2,900;
Payee JP & Nancy Dineen; ; Interest Accrues From 11/03/09,
Case No 11-O-10450; Payee Pisey I; Principal Amount $3,000;
Payee Pisey I; Interest Accrues From 12/15/09,
Case No 11-O-12721; Payee Robert Pasterino; Principal Amount $5,000;
Payee Robert Pasterino; Interest Accrues From 12/11/09,
Case No 11-O-13029; Payee Armando Jaurequi; Principal Amount $4,100;
Payee Armando Jaurequi; Interest Accrues From 12/21/09
Case No 11-O- 13229; Payee Richard Alexander; Principal Amount $700;
Payee Richard Alexander; Interest Accrues From 10/19/09
Case No 11-O-13261; Payee Jennifer Mantooth; Principal Amount $2,500;
Payee Jennifer Mantooth; Interest Accrues From 12/11/09
Case No 11-O-13357; Payee Konstantino Mavrikis; Principal Amount $2,500;
Payee Konstantino Mavrikis; Interest Accrues From 11/16/09
Case No 11-O-14504; Payee Benjamin Plaat; Principal Amount $2,045;
Payee Benjamin Plaat; Interest Accrues 07/01/10
Case No 11-O-15742 Payee Viroj Niranpragon; Principal Amount $2,495;
Payee Viroj Niranpragon; Interest Accrues 02/03/10
Case No 11-O-17335 Payee Luis Cabrera Principal Amount $3,500;
Payee Luis Cabrera; Interest Accrues 06/22/11
Case No 11-O-17336 Payee Laura Parker; Principal Amount $4,300
Payee Laura Parker; Interest Accrues 08/18/11
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
1. Standards
Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct ("Standards") provides that, "[T]he primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings ... 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."
Standard 1.6(a) states that where two or more acts of professional misconduct are charged and different sanctions are prescribed by the standards for the acts, the sanction imposed shall be the more or most severe of the different applicable sanctions.
Standards 2.4(a), 2.6(a), 2.7, and 2.10 apply to this proceeding.
Standard 2.4(a) provides that culpability of a member of a pattern of wilfully failing to perform services demonstrating the member’s abandonment of the causes in which he was retained shall result in disbarment.
The acts described herein constitute a pattern of misconduct. But, as discussed above, Respondent acknowledges the very serious nature of his misconduct and has expressed genuine, sincere, heartfelt remorse for the harm that was caused to the complainants herein. Further, some of the misconduct herein, as described above, can be attributed to rogue employees who Respondent failed to adequately supervise, which enabled the employees to commit criminal conduct. As part of the terms of
this stipulation, Respondent must develop a law office organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. It is the intent of the pat’ties that this requirement will improve the manner in which Respondent manages his law office in the event that he is relieved from actual suspension. The parties further submit that requiring Respondent to prove to the State Bar Court his rehabilitation, present fitness to practice, and present learning and ability in the law, and to make restitution to the complainants herein, prior to being relieved from a two year actual suspension, is sufficient to satisfy the purposes of attorney discipline.
Standard 2.6(a) provides that culpability of a member of Business and Professions Code section 6068 shall result in disbarment or suspension depending upon the gravity of the offense and the harm to the victim, with due regard for the purposes of imposing discipline.
Standard 2.7 provides that Culpability of a member of a wilful violation of rule
4-200 shall result in a minimum of a six month actual suspension.
There is no standard specifically applicable to a violation of rules 1-300 and 3-700, and of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Similarly, there is no standard specifically applicable to a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.3. Accordingly, the applicable standard is Standard 2.10, which provides that culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in the Standards, or a wilful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in the Standards, shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in Standard 1.3.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page 2 paragraph A(7) was December 2, 2011.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of December 2, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $25,838.70. The costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following five billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court Order.
If Respondent fails to pay any installment within the time provided herein or as may be modified by the State Bar Court pursuant to section 6086.10, subdivision (C), the remaining balance of the costs is due and payable immediately and enforceable both as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment unless relief has been granted under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 286.)
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): 10-O-00677
In the Matter of: Christopher L. Persaud
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: Christopher L. Persaud
Date: 12/6/11
Respondent’s Counsel: Borna Bandari
Date: 12/16/11
Deputy Trial Counsel: Eli D. Morgenstern
Date: 12/20/11
[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 January 24, 2012, 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:
BORNA BANDARI
BORCHARD & CALLAHAN, APC
25909 PALA STE 300
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Eli D. Morgenstern, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 9, 2012.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court