Case Number(s): 10-O-02633-PEM
In the Matter of: William Jake Sun Wong, Bar # 175571, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Wonder J. Liang, Deputy Trial Counsel, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, California 94105, (415) 538-2372, Bar# 184357
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent, William J. S. Wong, 331 Egret Place, Pittsburg, California 94565, (415) 433-3771, Bar # 75571
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
Filed: January 5, 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 September 27, 1977.
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 13 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 284, 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.
Additional aggravating circumstances:
Additional mitigating circumstances:
Attachment language (if any):
Case Number(s): 10-O-2633-PEM
In the Matter of: William Jake Sun Wong, State Bar #: 75571
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:
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.
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: William Jake Sun Wong, State Bar No. 75571
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-O-2633-PEM
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
FACTS: COUNT TWO:
1. On or between October 19, 2009 and February 2, 2010 U.S. Bank notified the State Bar of several insufficient funds (hereinafter, "NSF") transactions in respondent’s attorney-client trust account, account number 15345741XXXX at U.S. Bank (hereinafter, "CTA account").
2. On or between October 9, 2009 and February 23, 2010 respondent issued the following checks and/or electronic funds transactions against insufficient funds:
Date: 10/9/09
[Footnote 1: This is the date that the check or electronic debit was presented for payment.],
Check Number: Electronic,
Amount: $230.00,
Balance: -97.19
Footnote 2: The balance in respondent’s CTA account when the check was presented for payment.],
Payee: Chase;
Date: 2/23/2010
[Footnote 1: This is the date that the check or electronic debit was presented for payment.],
Check Number: 1325,
Amount: $2,160.00,
Balance: -91.46
Footnote 2: The balance in respondent’s CTA account when the check was presented for payment.],
Payee: Citibank;
3. The State Bar subpoenaed a portion of respondent’s CTA account, including October 1, 2009 through the closing of the account (on or about April 14, 2010). A review of the records subpoenaed revealed that respondent was issuing funds for personal items from his CTA account, including, but not limited, to the following:
Date: 10/9/09, Check#: Electronic, Amount: $230.00, Payee: Chase;
Date: 11/16/09, Check#: Electronic, Amount: $23.00, Payee: Credit card;
Date: 12/2/09, Check#: Electronic, Amount: $489.26, Payee: Chase;
Date: 12/16/09, Check#: Electronic, Amount: $20.00, Payee: American Express;
Date: 1/11/10, Check#:1314, Amount: $276.18, Payee: Kohl’s Dept. Store;
Date: 1/13/10, Check#: Electronic, Amount: $54.67, Payee: Macy Web Payment;
Date: 1/20/10, Check#:1318, Amount: $24.69, Payee: PG&E;
Date: 2/16/10, Check#: Electronic, Amount: $160.92, Payee: AT&T;
Date: 2/16/10, Check#:1321, Amount: $408.25, Payee: Old Town Sq. Owner Assoc.;
Date: 3/4/10, Check#: Electronic, Amount: $628.00, Payee: Kaiser (dues);
4. A review of the CTA account also revealed that there were funds deposited or disbursed from the account behalf of clients, as follows:
Date: 1/11/10, Check: deposit, Amount: $2,000, Notation: Spousal Petition (W.D.C.)
[Footnote 3: The State Bar is redacting the client’s name for privacy purposes.];
Date: 1/1410, Check: 1316, Amount: $33.00, Notation: Clerk of Court
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: COUNT TWO:
By the aforementioned transactions, respondent commingled client and personal funds in his CTA account, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
FACTS: COUNT FOUR:
5. The allegations of Count Two are hereby incorporated by reference.
6. On or about October 19, 2009 and again on February 2, 2010, U.S. Bank notified the State Bar regarding respondent’s CTA activities. The State Bar opened an investigation against respondent based upon the reports from U.S. Bank.
7. On or about November 6, 2009, State Bar Investigator Willis Shalita sent a letter via United States Mail, postage pre-paid, to respondent at his official membership records address, maintained by the State Bar pursuant to Business and Professions Code, section 6002.1.
8. In his November 6, 2009 letter, Investigator Shalita informed respondent of the NSF transaction and requested a written response no later than November 20, 2009. The United States Postal Service did not return the November 6, 2009 letter as undeliverable or for any other reason.
9. Respondent failed to respond to Investigator Shalita’s November 6, 2009 letter and respondent failed to otherwise respond to the State Bar investigation of this matter.
10. On or about January 19, 2010, Investigator Shalita sent respondent a second letter, also via United States Mail, postage pre-paid, to respondent at his official membership records address, maintained by the State Bar pursuant to Business and Professions Code, section 6002.1.
11. In his second letter of January 19, 2010, Investigator Shalita again advised respondent of the pending investigation and requested a written response. The United States Postal Service did not return the January 19, 2010 letter as undeliverable or for any other reason.
12. Respondent failed to respond to Investigator Shalita’s January 19, 2010 letter and respondent failed to otherwise respond to the State Bar investigation of this matter.
13. On or about April 1, 2010, Investigator Shalita sent respondent a third letter, also via United States Mail, postage pre-paid, to respondent at his official membership records address, maintained by the State Bar pursuant to Business and Professions Code, section 6002.1.
14. In his third letter of April 1, 2010, Investigator Shalita again advised respondent of the pending investigation, and the additional, February 2010 NSF transaction, and requested a written response. The United States Postal Service did not return the April 1, 2010 letter as undeliverable or for any other reason.
15. Respondent failed to respond to Investigator Shalita’s April 1, 2010 letter and respondent failed to otherwise respond to the State Bar investigation of this matter.
16. On or about April 16, 2010, Investigator Shalita sent respondent a fourth letter, also via United States Mail, postage pre-paid, to respondent at his official membership records address, maintained by the State Bar pursuant to Business and Professions Code, section 6002.1.
17. In his fourth letter of April 16, 2010, Investigator Shalita again advised respondent of the pending investigation, and the additional, February 2010 NSF transaction, and requested a written ’ response. The United States Postal Service did not return the April 16, 2010 letter as undeliverable or for any other reason.
18. Respondent failed to respond to Investigator Shalita’s April 16, 2010 letter and respondent failed to otherwise respond to the State Bar investigation of this matter.
19. During the course of his investigation (date not recorded) Investigator Shalita also sent respondent an email, to trust8attornev@hotmail.com, and requested that respondent contact him. Respondent failed to contact Investigator Shalita.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: COUNT FOUR:
By failing to respond to Investigator Shalita’s letters of February 3, 2010; February 25, 2010; April 1, 2010; and April 16, 2010, and by failing to otherwise respond to the State Bar investigation of this matter, respondent failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 60680).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was December 7, 2010.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No. 10-O-2633, Count: One, Alleged Violation: Rule 4-100(A);
Case No. 10-O-2633, Count: Three, Alleged Violation: Section 6106
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of December 7, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are $3,062.00. 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 the Matter of Bleecker (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 113, 125, the respondent was found to be culpable of mishandling his trust account which resulted in commingling, misappropriation of client funds ($270), and using his client trust account to conceal his assets from levy by the Internal Revenue Service as an act of moral turpitude. The Review Department recommended to the Supreme Court, among other conditions of probation, that respondent be actually suspended for sixty days.
In this instance, there are no client funds involved, no misappropriation and no concealment of assets.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
Respondent admits that the above facts are true and that he
is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of
Professional Conduct.
Case Number(s): 10-O-2633-PEM
In the Matter of: William Jake Sun Wrong, State Bar No.: 75571
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: William J.S. Wong
Date: December 10, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Wonder J. Liang
Date: December 13, 2010
Case Number(s): 10-O-2633-PEM
In the Matter of: William Jake Sun Wong, State Bar # 75571
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 135 (b), 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: Lucy Armendariz
Date: January 5, 2011
[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc; 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 January 5, 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:
WILLIAMS JAKE SUN WONG
331 EGRET PL
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
WONDER LIANG, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on January 5, 2011.
Signed by:
Lauretta Cramer
Case Administrator
State Bar Court