Case Number(s): 10-O-01663, [10-N-07136, and 11-O-13911]
In the Matter of: Cynthia L. Cox, Bar # 16812 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Christine Souhrada,
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street, 7th ft.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 538-2183
Bar # 228256
Counsel for Respondent: Samuel C. Bellicini,
FISHKIN & SLATTER, LLP
1111 Civic Drive, Suite 215
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 944-5600
Bar # 152191
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
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 14, 1993.
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):
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:. (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: {$172347) 06-O-14846, etc.
Effective: July 16, 2009 Violations: Respondent stipulated to violations of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-1 I O(A); and Business and Professions Code, sections 6068(i) [4 counts], 6068(o}(3} and 6103 Degree of discipline: two-year suspension (stayed), 4 years probation
Case Number(s): 10-O-01663, 10-N-07136, and 11-O-13911
In the Matter of: Cynthia L. Cox, Member number 168112
<<not>> checked. a. Unless Respondent has been terminated from the Lawyer Assistance Program (“LAP”) prior to respondent’s successful completion of the LAP, respondent must comply with all provisions and conditions of respondent’s Participation Agreement with the LAP and must provide an appropriate waiver authorizing the LAP to provide the Office of Probation and this court with information regarding the terms and conditions of respondent’s participation in the LAP and respondent’s compliance or non-compliance with LAP requirements. Revocation of the written waiver for release of LAP information is a violation of this condition. However, if respondent has successfully completed the LAP, respondent need not comply with this condition.
checked. b. Respondent must obtain psychiatric or psychological help/treatment from a duly licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker at respondent’s own expense a minimum of one time per month and must furnish evidence to the Office of Probation that respondent is so complying with each quarterly report. Help/treatment should commence immediately, and in any event, no later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of the discipline in this matter. Treatment must continue for days or months or years or, the period of probation or until a motion to modify this condition is granted and that ruling becomes final.
If the treating psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker
determines that there has been a substantial change in respondent’s condition,
respondent or Office of the Chief Trial Counsel may file a motion for
modification of this condition with the Hearing Department of the State Bar
Court, pursuant to rule 5.300 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. The
motion must be supported by a written statement from the psychiatrist,
psychologist, or clinical social worker, by affidavit or under penalty of
perjury, in support of the proposed modification.
checked. c. Upon the request of the Office of Probation, respondent must provide the Office of Probation with medical waivers and access to all of respondent’s medical records. Revocation of any medical waiver is a violation of this condition. Any medical records obtained by the Office of Probation are confidential and no information concerning them or their contents will be given to anyone except members of the Office of Probation, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, and the State Bar Court, who are directly involved with maintaining, enforcing or adjudicating this condition.
Other:
In the Matter of Cynthia L. Cox
Case nos. 10-O-01663, 10-N-07136, and 11-O-13911
I. FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Case No. 10-N-07163
Facts
1. On April 12, 2010, the California Supreme Court filed a disciplinary order in State Bar Court case number 09-PM-18806 (Supreme Court Case Number SI72347). The disciplinary order required respondent to comply with California Rule of Court 9.20 and to perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 days, respectively, after the effective date of the order. The order also suspended respondent from the practice of law.
2. The order became effective thirty days after it was filed (California Rules of Court, rule 9.18(b)), and at all times subsequent has remained in full force and effect.
3. Notice of the rule 9.20 order was properly served upon respondent in the manner proscribed by California Rule of Court 9.18(b) at the address respondent maintained with the State Bar in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6002.1 subdivision (a).
4. The deadlines for complying with ruIe 9.20(a) and rule 9,20 (o) expired on or about June 1, 2010, and June 21, 2010, respectively.
5. Respondent received notice of the Supreme Court order as follows:
a. On April 12, 2010, the Supreme Court mailed a copy of the order (which respondent received shortly thereafter);
b. On May 7, 2010, the State Bar’s Office of Probation mailed respondent a letter (which respondent received shortly thereafter), reminding respondent of her duty to comply with rule 9.20;
c. On July 23, 2010, the Office of Probation mailed respondent a letter (which respondent received shortly thereafter), reminding her that she had not complied with rule 9.20 and that the deadline had passed; and,
d. On July 29, 2010, respondent telephoned the Office of Probation and promised to file her rule 9.20 compliance declaration that same day.
6. Respondent failed to file any compliance declaration until August 3, 2010. However, the compliance declaration respondent filed on August 3, 2010, was defective because it failed to state whether respondent had complied with California Rule of Court 9.20(a)(4), requiring specified notice to opposing counsel, parties, courts, agencies and tribunals.
7. On August 4, 2010, the Office of Probation sent respondent a letter (which respondent received shortly thereafter) advising that her compliance declaration had been rejected because it was defective.
8. On August 27, 2010, respondent filed a 9.20 compliance declaration that was accepted and filed.
Conclusions of Law (11-O-13911)
9. By not filing her 9.20 compliance declaration until August 27, 2010, respondent willfully disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring her to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession which she ought in good faith to do or forbear, in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6103.
CaseNo. ll-O-13911
Facts:
10. Respondent represented Kevin and Brigette Lopez in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. In June 2009, the bankruptcy court confirmed the Lopez’s Chapter 13 plan, and thus respondent’s work was essentially completed.
11. In January 2010, the State Bar placed respondent on inactive status. Respondent has not been eligible to practice law in California ever since. On May 17, 2010, the United States District Court suspended respondent from practice and, ever since, respondent has not been eligible to practice law in federal court.
12. As of February 2011, respondent was working in the law office of another attorney, identified in this stipulation as MVG. The Lopezes sought respondent’s advice concerning their matter. Respondent explained that she was suspended, but could provide financial advice. The Lopezes thereupon employed respondent.
13. On February 18, 2011, respondent sent a letter on behalf of the Lopezes, specifically, a letter to Mary Lopez’s school advising that the Lopezes were prohibited by Federal law from entering into credit transactions with the school. This letter was on MVG’s letterhead and signed by respondent under the legend "LAW OFFICE OF MVG," The letter did not provide a title for respondent, leaving the reader to believe that respondent was both performing legal services and acting the capacity of an attorney.
CONCLUSION OF LAW (11-O-13911)
14. By sending the February 18, 2011 letter, respondent practiced law in a jurisdiction
(bankruptcy law) where to do so would be in violation of the regulations of the
profession in that jurlsdiction.
II. SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
In Matter of Friedman (1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 527, the State Bar Court recommended a 30-day suspension, in light of compelling mitigating circumstances that the court found warranted deviation from Standard 1.7. Similarly, in this case, the brutal
assault respondent suffered and the resulting Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") and depression is a significant mitigating factor (as discussed below), but does not completely explain her failure to timely file her Rule 9.20 affidavit. Therefore, a 60-day
actual suspension is appropriate. Se~ also In the Matter of Trousil (Review Dept. 1990) I Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 229 (Two year suspension, stayed, 30 days actual suspension, for UPL).
III. MITIGATION
In April 2009, respondent was brutally assaulted. Her assailant was arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated. Over the course of the next two, years, respondent required multiple surgeries to repair the extensive physical damage, including facial reconstruction surgeries for the multiple broken bones in her face.
Respondent also developed PTSD and depression, as a direct proximate result of the assault and her recovery from the assault. Respondent’s symptoms were characterized by anxiety, inaction, avoidant behavior, and a sense of being overwhelmed or "shut down."
During this period, respondent ignored her mall and avoided many obligations. Further contributing to the enormous strain on respondent was the fact that respondent was the sole means of support for herself and her daughter.
Respondent has received and continues to receive treatment for her depression and PTSD through individual therapy.
IV. PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to in paragraph A (7) of this stipulation, was August
1, 2011.
V. WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY
The parties waive any variance between the Amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on June 4, 2011 and the facts and/or conclusions of law in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary
Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
VI, DISMISSALS
The parties respectfully request that the Court dismiss count two (Business and Professions Code, section 6106) with prejudice in the interest of justice.
VII. ESTIMATE OF COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of August I, 2011, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $3,534.00 plus the costs associated with Respondent’s deposition and other incurred costs. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
Case Number(s): 10-O-1663; 10-N-07136; 11-O-13911
In the Matter of: Cynthia L. Cox member number 168112
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: Cynthia L. Cox
Date: 8/2/11
Respondent’s Counsel: Samuel C. Bellicini
Date: 8/2/11
Deputy Trial Counsel: Christine Souhrada
Date: 8/3/11
Case Number(s): 10-O-01663; 10-N-07136; 11-O-13911
In the Matter of: Cynthia L. Cox Member Number 188112
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.
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: Patricia McElroy
Date: August 4, 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 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;
Samuel C. Bellicini
Fishkin and Slatter, LLP
1111 Civic Drive Suite 215
Walnut Creek, California 94596
checked by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Christine A. Souhrada, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on August 4, 2011.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court