Case Number(s): 10-O-02917-DFM
In the Matter of: Russell H. Takasugi, Bar # 118792, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Paul T. O’Brien,
1149 S. HILL STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90015-2299
(213) 765-1378Bar # 171252
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
RUSSELL H. TAKASUGI
2051 ROYAL AVE., SUITE 202
SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065-4679
(805) 527-5400
Bar # 118792
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
Filed: July 05, 2011 State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted June 11, 1985.
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 9 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. Costs are awarded to the State Bar.
<<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.
9.
ORDER OF INACTIVE ENROLLMENT:
The parties are aware that if this stipulation is approved, the judge will
issue an order of inactive enrollment under Business and Professions Code
section 6007, subdivision (c)(4), and Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule
5.111(D)(1).
In Case No. 05-0-01451, effective, April 28, 2005, Respondent was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on probation for two years, including 30 days actual suspension for violating Business and Professions Code section 6068(i).
In Case No. 00-O-13793 (cons. with 00-O-14652), Respondent was publicly reproved for one year, effective December 20, 2001, for two counts of violating rule 3-310(A), Rules of Professional Conduct, and one count of violating Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
In Case No. 94-O-19509, Respondent was privately reproved for one year, effective February 8, 1996, for violating rules 3-110(A), 3-700(A)(2), and 3-700(D)(2), and Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
On July 30, 2009, respondent telephoned the Supervising Attorney of the Office of Probation to inform her of his appearances in Los Angeles and Ventura courts. He further assured her that he would report the appearances in his first quarterly report, which he did on October 2, 2009.
Attachment language (if any):
IN THE MATTER OF: RUSSELL H. TAKASUGI
CASE NUMBER(S): 10-O-02917-DFM
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/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 10-O-02917 (State Bar Investigation)
1. By order filed October 20, 2008, the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court approved the parties’ Stipulation as to Facts and Disposition ("Stipulation") in In the Matter of Russell H. Takasugi, State Bar Court case number 08-PM-12565. In the Stipulation, respondent, who was represented by counsel Arthur Margolis ("Margolis"), stipulated that he had violated conditions of probation ordered on March 29, 2007, by the California Supreme Court in In re Russell H. Takasugi on Discipline, case number S149864 (05-O-1451), agreed to a 30-day suspension from the practice of law, and acknowledged that until disciplinary "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" (page two, paragraph A.(8)). Respondent also acknowledged that costs were estimated to be $1,546 (page eight).
2. On December 18, 2008, the Hearing Department issued an order sua sponte modifying its October 20, 2008 Order Approving Stipulation. The parties did not make any objection to the modifications.
3. On or about February 4, 2009, the State Bar Court served on Margolis a transmittal to the Supreme Court which set forth the disciplinary costs as being $1,546, and included the proposed Supreme Court order in 08-PM-12565. The proposed Supreme Court order included the following language: "Costs are awarded to the State Bar in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6068.10 and are enforceable both as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment." A one-page information sheet captioned "Important Information for State Bar Member" was included in the transmittal. The information sheet included the following language:
Business and Professions Code Sections 6068.10 and 6140.7: These provisions of the State Bar Act relate to the imposition of disciplinary costs, the filing of motions for relief from disciplinary costs or an extension of time within which to pay such costs and the manner and time within which such disciplinary costs must be paid.
Shortly after February 4, 2009, respondent received the transmittal to the Supreme Court.
4. On May 4, 2009, the Supreme Court in In re Russell H. Takasugi on Discipline, case number S149864 (08-PM-12565) adopted and filed as its own the State Bar Court’s proposed order, which, among other things, suspended respondent from the practice of law for 30 days. The Supreme Court order included the following language: "Costs are awarded to the State Bar in accordance with Business and Professions
Code section 6068.10 and are enforceable both as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment."
5. On May 6, 2009, respondent personally received through the U.S. Mail a copy of the May 4, 2009 Supreme Court order.
6. On May 22, 2009, respondent in propria persona served on the State Bar Office of Probation a "Motion to Delay the Effective Date of and Temporarily Stay the Effective Date of Orders [sic] of Suspension .... "which was received by the Office of Probation on May 26, 2009.
7. On June 2, 2009, the Office of Probation, through Supervising Attorney Terrie Goldade ("Goldade") filed a response to respondent’s motion dated May 22, 2009, stating that the Office of Probation did not oppose a delay in the effective date of respondent’ s actual suspension from June 3, 2009, to June 15, 2009.
8. Also on June 2, 2009, the Presiding Judge of the State Bar Court issued an order temporarily staying the effect of the May 4, 2009 Supreme Court order to give the full Review Department an opportunity to consider respondent’s motion for a stay of his suspension. Thus, respondent’s suspension did not go into effect on June 3, 2009. The June 2, 2009 order was served by the court on respondent.
9. By order filed June 16, 2009, the Review Department stayed the effect of respondent’s suspension until June 22, 2009. The June 16, 2009 order was served by the court on Margolis. Shortly after June 16, 2009, respondent received the June 16, 2009 order.
10. Respondent would have been eligible to practice law on July 21, 2009, but for the fact that respondent’s disciplinary costs in the amount of $1,546 was not paid to the State Bar until August 3, 2009. Thus, respondent’s suspension for nonpayment of disciplinary costs did not terminate until August 3, 2009.
11. On July 23, 2009, respondent, while suspended from the practice of law, appeared in Ventura County Superior Court for a hearing on an order to show cause, as the attorney for defendants Maria J. Nolan and Norris J. Colvard, in Douglas Bell v. Maria J. Nolan, case number 56-2008-00320587-CU-FRSIM. Respondent’s client’s cause, however, was not prejudiced by the appearance.
12. On July 24, 2009, the date set for trial, respondent, while suspended from the practice of law, appeared in Los Angeles County Superior Court as attorney for petitioner Navakale Chathle in In Re the Trust of Satya Paul Chathle. Respondent’s client’s cause was not prejudiced by the appearance.
14. On July 29, 2009, respondent, while suspended from the practice of law, appeared for trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court as attorney for the plaintiff in Professional Building Management v. Noble Community Choice Providers, case number 07E00881. Because the defendant did not appear, trial was taken off calendar and Respondent’s client was not prejudiced by the appearance.
15. On or about July 30, 2009, Respondent self-reported his unauthorized practice to the Probation Unit, and reported the same in writing in his first quarterly report, filed October 2, 2009, which caused the State Bar to initiate its investigation into the misconduct herein.
Conclusions of Law
By appearing in court on July 23, 24, and 29, 2009, as counsel for litigants, and filing a pleading for a client on July 29, 2009, respondent practiced law and held himself out as entitled to practice law while suspended in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6125, thereby violating Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
Standard 1.7(b) -- If a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of two prior impositions of discipline as defined by Standard 1.2(f), the degree of discipline in the current proceeding shall be disbarment unless the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate. This is Respondent’s fifth imposition of
discipline.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was June 23, 2011.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case Number 10-O-02917 Count TWO Alleged Violation Business and Profession 6106 Grounds Rule 5.124, Insufficiency of Evidence
Case Number 10-O-02917 Count THREE Alleged Violation Business and Profession
6106 Grounds Rule 5.124, Insufficiency of Evidence
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of June 14, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $3,269. 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-02917-DFM
In the Matter of: Russell H. Takasugi
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: Russell Takasugi
Respondent:
Date: 06/23/11
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Paul T. O’Brien
Date: 6/23/11
Case Number(s): 10-O-02917-DFM
In the Matter of: Russell H. Takasugi
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.
Not 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.)
Respondent Andrew E. Rubin is ordered transferred to involuntary inactive status pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4). Respondent’s inactive enrollment will be effective three (3) calendar days after this order is served by mail and will terminate upon the effective date of the Supreme Court’s order imposing discipline herin, or as provided for by rule 5.111(D)(2) or the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, or as otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court pursuant to its plenary jurisdiction.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Platel
Date: 07/05/11
[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 , 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:
RUSSELL H. TAKASUGI
LAW OFFICE OF RUSSELL TAKASUGI
2051 ROYAL AVENUE SUITE 202
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 93065
checked by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
PAUL O’BRIEN, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on July 5, 2011.
Signed by:
Rose M. Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court