Case Number(s): 10-O-04002,10-O-10128,10-O-11325,11-O-10008,11-O-10555, 11-O-10558,11-O-11237,11-O-11496,11-O-11596,11-O-11602,11-O-11751,11-O-11829,11-O-11998,11-O-12253,11-O-12504, 11-O-12723,11-O-12805,11-O-12892,11-O-13035,11-O-13037, 11-O-13366,11-O-13368,11-O-13702,11-O-13889,11-O-14062, 11-O-14461,11-O-14539,11-O-15171,11-O-15196,11-O-15317,11-O-11096
In the Matter of: Phillip Allen Kramer, P.O. Box 9235, Calabasas, CA 91372Bar # 113969, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Blithe Leece, No. 202208, Senior Trial Counsel, Eli D. Morgenstem, No. 190560, Deputy Trial Counsel, 1149 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90015, (213) 765-1161, (213) 765-1334
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent, PHILIP ALLEN KRAMER, P.O. Box 9235, Calabasas, CA 91372, 818-835-2650, Bar # 113969
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: April 13, 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 June 13, 1984.
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 15 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).
Case Number(s): 10-O-04002, et al
In the Matter of: Philip Allen Kramer
Nolo Contendere Plea Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition
The terms of pleading nolo contendere are set forth in the Business and Professions Code and the Rules of Procedures of the State Bar. The applicable provisions are set forth below:
Business and Professions Code § 6085.5 Disciplinary Charges; Pleas to Allegations
There are three kinds of pleas to the allegations of a notice of disciplinary charges or other pleading which initiates a disciplinary proceeding against a member:
(a) Admission of culpability.
(b) Denial of culpability.
(c) Nolo contendere, subject to the approval of the State Bar Court. The court shall ascertain whether the member completely understands that a plea of nolo contendere will be considered the same as an admission of culpability and that, upon a plea of nolo contendere, the court will find the member culpable. The legal effect of such a plea will be the same as that of an admission of culpability for all purposes, except that the plea and any admissions required by the court during any inquiry it makes as to the voluntariness of, or the factual basis for, the pleas, may not be used against the member as an admission in any civil suit based upon or growing out of the act upon which the disciplinary proceeding is based.
Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule 5.56. Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition
“(A) Contents. A proposed stipulation to facts, conclusions of law, and disposition must comprise:
[¶] . . . [¶]
(5) a statement that the member either:
(a) admits the truth of the facts comprising the stipulation and admits culpability for misconduct; or
(b) pleads nolo contendere to those facts and misconduct;
[¶] . . . [¶]
(B) Plea of Nolo Contendere. If the member pleads nolo contendere, the stipulation must also show that the member understands that the plea is treated as an admission of the stipulated facts and an admission of culpability.”
I, the Respondent in this matter, have read the applicable provisions of Business and Professions Code section 6085.5 and rule 5.56 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. I plead nolo contendere to the charges set forth in this stipulation and I completely understand that my plea will be considered the same as an admission of culpability except as stated in Business and Professions Code section 6085.5(c).
Signed by:
Respondent: Philip Allen Kramer
Date: April 5, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF: Philip Allen Kramer, State Bar No. 113969
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-O-04002,10-O-10128,10-O-11325,11-O-10008,11-O-10555, 11-O-10558,11-O-11237,11-O-11496,11-O-11596,11-O-11602, 11-O-11751,11-O-11829,11-O-11998,11-O-12253,11-O-12504, 11-O-12723,11-O-12805,11-O-12892,11-O-13035,11-O-13037, 11-O-13366,11-O-13368,11-O-13702,11-O-13889,11-O-14062, 11-O-14461,11-O-14539,11-O-15171,11-O-15196,11-O-15317,11-O-11096
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND
STIPULATED FACTS. AND CULPABILITY.
The parties waive any variance between the First Amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on December 19, 2011, and the facts and/or conclusions of law contained in this stipulation and waive the issuance of a Second Amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
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 Nos. 10-O-04002 10-O-10128 11-O-10008 11-O-10555 11-O-11237~11-O-11496, 11-O-117511 11-O-11829~11-O-12723, and 11-O-14062
Facts
1. In each of the matters identified in this paragraph, the complainants employed Respondent to assist them with negotiating modifications of their respective loans. At the time Respondent agreed to perform loan modification services, Respondent was under the mistaken belief that he could charge and collect advanced fees from his loan modification clients if he completed loan modification services in phases. Respondent did not perform each and every loan modification 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-O-04002, Complainant: James/Julianne Clayton, Date of Hire: 11/11/09, Advanced Fees Paid:$2,520;
Case No.: 10-O-10128, Complainant: Nicholas Sanchez, Date of Hire: 02/18/10, Advanced Fees Paid: $3,250;
Case No.: 11-O-10008, Complainant: Sofia Manay, Date of Hire: 07/22/10, Advanced Fees Paid: $5,000;
Case No.: 11-O-10555, Complainant: Jose/Leticia Gonzalez, Date of Hire: 09/02/10, Advanced Fees Paid: $2,000;
Case No.: 11-O-11237, Complainant: Timothy Freedman, Date of Hire: 06/14/10, Advanced Fees Paid: $19,390 (9 separate loans);
Case No.: 11-O-11496, Complainant: Qi Jiang/Ching Tai, Date of Hire: 05/25/10, Advanced Fees Paid: $3,600;
Case No.: 11-O-11751, Complainant: Gregory Douglas, Date of Hire: 09/02/10, Advanced Fees Paid: $2,500;
Case No.: 11-O-11829, Complainant: Eulogio Garcia, Date of Hire: 11/13/10, Advanced Fees Paid: $5,250;
Case No.: 11-O-12723, Complainant: Fausto Hernandez, Date of Hire: 07/09/10, Advanced Fees Paid: $3,200;
Case No.: 11-O-14062, Complainant: Jonathan Domingo/Debra Hughes, Date of Hire: 12/12/10, Advanced Fees Paid: $2,995;
2. The complainants identified in paragraph 1 demanded refunds of the advanced fees that they paid to Respondent. To date, Respondent has not refunded any portion of the advanced fees that he received from the complainants identified in paragraph 1.
Conclusions of Law
By negotiating, arranging or offering to perform mortgage loan modifications for a fee paid by the complainants identified in paragraph 1, and demanding, charging, collecting, and receiving fees from the complainants identified in paragraph 1 prior to fully performing each and every loan modification service that 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 violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3.
Case Nos. 10-O-11325,11-O-10558, 11-O-11596,11-O-12253,11-O-12504,11-O-12805, 11-O-12892,11-O-13366,11-O-13889,11-O-14539,11-O-15196
Facts
3. 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 6.
4. The Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to the states identified in paragraph 6 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.
5. The complainants identified in this paragraph, all of whom were residents of other states with mortgages secured by homes in the respective states, employed Respondent to assist them with negotiating modifications of their home loans. All of the complainants paid Respondent advanced legal fees. At all times relevant to the stipulated facts herein, Respondent had a good faith belief that he was permitted to perform loan modification services in jurisdictions outside of California. 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:
Case No.: 10-O-11325, Andrea Adams, 09/24/10, $2,700, WA
Case No.: 11-O-10558, Rebecca Sellers, 05/10/10, $3,295, AZ
Case No.: 11-O-11596, Linette Anderson, 10/22/10, $2,800, VA
Case No.: 11-O-12253, Elodia Chavez, 09/17/10, $2,500, NV
Case No.: 11-O-12504, Lee Faborg, 10/15/10, $3,850, AZ
Case No.: 11-O-12805, Charles/Barbara Ivey, 12/31/10, $3,950, NV
Case No.: 11-O-12892, Henry/Shutic Coates, 07/30/10, $4,000, MD
Case No.: 11-O-13366, Gerald/Sally Frantz, 10/13/10, $3,000, AZ
Case No.: 11-O- 13889, James/Eileen Carroll, 12/02/10, $2,299, FL
Case No.: 11-O-14539, Lance Moss, 03/12/10, $2,800, UT
Case No.: 11-O-15196, Alex Karakhanov, 02/16/11, $5,333, WA
6. By entering into agreements for, charging, and collecting fees from the complainants identified in paragraph 5, when he was not licensed to practice law in any of the jurisdictions identified in paragraph 5, Respondent entered into agreements for, charged, and collected an illegal fee from each of the complainants.
7. The complainants identified in paragraph 5 demanded refunds of the advanced fees that they paid to Respondent. To date, Respondent has not refunded any portion of the illegal, advanced fees that he received from any of the complainants identified in paragraph 6.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting employment with the complainants identified in paragraph 5, 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 violation of rule 1-300(B) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By entering into agreements for, charging, and collecting an illegal fee from the complainants identified in paragraph 5, Respondent violated rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By failing to refund any portion of the illegal, advanced fees that Respondent received from the complainants identified in paragraph 5, Respondent violated rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case Nos. 11-O-11998,11-O-13035,11-O-13037,11-O-13368,11-O-13702,11-O-14461,11-O-15171, and 11-O-15317
Facts
8. At all times relevant to the stipulated facts herein, Respondent represented plaintiffs in mass joinder lawsuits against their respective lenders. In each of the matters identified in this paragraph, the complainants employed Respondent to represent them in a mass joinder lawsuit against their lenders and paid advanced fees to him in the amounts listed. Thereafter, each complainant promptly changed his or her mind, notified Respondent’s law firm, and requested a full refund before completing the compliance call and before the State Bar assumed jurisdiction over Respondent’s law practice pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6190.
Case No.: 11-O-11998, Complainant: Jose Solis, Date of Hire: 01/19/11, Advanced Fees Paid: $1,500;
Case No.: 11-O-13037, Complainant: Lea Murray, Date of Hire: 01/19/11, Advanced Fees Paid: $5,000;
Case No.: 11-O-13368, Complainant: Hector Ramos, Date of Hire: 03/13/11, Advanced Fees Paid: $5,000;
Case No.: 11-O-14461, Complainant: Anna Maria Prezio, Date of Hire: 02/04/11, Advanced Fees Paid: $10,000;
Case No.: 11-O-15171, Complainant: Theresa Quinones, Date of Hire: 03/01/11, Advanced Fees Paid: $10,400
9. The complainants identified in paragraph 8 demanded refunds of the advanced fees that they paid to Respondent. To date, Respondent has not refunded any portion of the unearned, advanced fees that he received from the complainants identified in paragraph 8.
10. In August 2011, the California Attorney General and the State Bar of California obtained orders seizing Respondent’s bank accounts. Thus, since August 2011, Respondent has been unable to refund any unearned, advanced fees to the complainants identified in paragraph 8, or any other former clients.
11. In February 2012, Respondent filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to refund any portion of the unearned, advanced fees that he received from the complainants identified in paragraph 8, Respondent violated rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 11-O-11602
Facts
12. On August 19, 2010, Ramin Partovy ("Partovy") employed Respondent to represent him in negotiating a modification of a mortgage secured by a seven-unit condominium. On August 20, 2010, Partovy paid Respondent’s firm $5,100 in advanced attorney fees.
13. On September 21, 2010, a representative of Respondent spoke with Partovy’s lender and was advised that the lender would not negotiate with a third- party. On that same date, Respondent’s representative advised Partovy that the lender refused to negotiate with Respondent’s firm, and that Respondent’s firm was going to close Partovy’s loan modification file.
14. At no time did Respondent submit a loan modification package to Partovy or his lender. Respondent did not earn any portion of the advanced fees that he received from Partovy.
15. In December 2010, Respondent provided Partovy with a check in the sum of $509; however, Partovy never deposited the check.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to provide Partovy with a full refund of the unearned, advanced fees that Respondent received from him, Respondent violated rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
RESTITUTION.
Respondent must make restitution to the complainants identified in this paragraph in the respective amounts stated in this paragraph plus 10% interest per year from the respective dates stated in this paragraph. If the Client Security Fund has reimbursed any of the complainants for any, or all, portion of the principal amount, Respondent must pay restitution to Client Security Fund of the amount paid plus applicable interest and costs in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6140.5.
Case No.: 10-O-04002, Complainant: James/Julianne Clayton, Principal Amount: $2,520, Interest: Accrues From: 11/11/09;
Case No.: 10-O-10128, Complainant: Nicholas Sanchez, Principal Amount: $3,250, Interest: Accrues From: 02/18/10;
Case No.: 10-O-11325, Complainant: Andrea Adams, Principal Amount: $2,700, Interest: Accrues From: 09/24/10;
Case No.: 11-O-10008, Complainant: Sofia Manay, Principal Amount: $5,000, Interest: Accrues From: 07/22/10;
Case No.: 11-O-10555, Complainant: Jose/Leticia Gonzalez, Principal Amount: $2,000, Interest: Accrues From: 09/02/10;
Case No.: 11-O-10558, Complainant: Rebecca Sellers, Principal Amount: $3,295, Interest: Accrues From: 05/10/10;
Case No.: 11-O-11237, Complainant: Timothy Freedman, Principal Amount: $19,390, Interest: Accrues From: 06/14/10;
Case No.: 11-O-11496, Complainant: Qi Jiang/Ching Tai, Principal Amount: $3,600, Interest: Accrues From: 05/25/10;
Case No.: 11-O-11596, Complainant: Linette Anderson, Principal Amount: $2,800, Interest: Accrues From: 10/22/10;
Case No.: 11-O-11602, Complainant: Ramin Partovy, Principal Amount: $5,100, Interest: Accrues From: 08/20/10;
Case No.: 11-O-11751, Complainant: Gregory Douglas, Principal Amount: $2,500, Interest: Accrues From: 09/02/10;
Case No.: 11-O-11829, Complainant: Eulogia Garcia, Principal Amount: $5,250, Interest: Accrues From: 11/13/10;
Case No.: 11-O-11998, Complainant: Jose Solis, Principal Amount: $1,500, Interest: Accrues From: 01/19/11;
Case No.: 11-O-12253, Complainant: Elodia Chavez, Principal Amount: $2,500, Interest: Accrues From: 09/17/10
Case No.: 11-O-12504, Complainant: Lee Faborg, Principal Amount: $3,0001, Interest: Accrues From: 10/15/10; [Footnote 1: Respondent has previously refunded $850 to the Faborgs.]
Case No.: 11-O-12723, Complainant: Fausto Hernandez, Principal Amount: $3,200, Interest: Accrues From: 07/09/10;
Case No.: 11-O-12805, Complainant: Charles/BarbaraIvey, Principal Amount: $3,950, Interest: Accrues From: 12/31/10;
Case No.: 11-O-12892, Complainant: Henry/Shutic Coates, Principal Amount: $4,000, Interest: Accrues From: 07/30/10;
Case No.: 11-O-13037, Complainant: Lea Murray, Principal Amount: $5,000, Interest: Accrues From: 01/19/11;
Case No.: 11-O-13366, Complainant: Gerald/Sally Frantz, Principal Amount: $3,000, Interest: Accrues From: 10/13/10;
Case No.: 11-O-13368, Complainant: Hector Ramos, Principal Amount: $5,000, Interest: Accrues From: 03/13/11;
Case No.: 11-O-13889, Complainant: James/Eileen Carroll, Principal Amount: $2,299; Interest: Accrues From: 12/02/10;
Case No.: 11-O-14062, Complainant: Jonathan Domingo/Debra Hughes, Principal Amount: $2,995, Interest: Accrues From: 12/12/10;
Case No.: 11-O-14461, Complainant: Anna Marie Prezio, Principal Amount: $10,000, Interest: Accrues From: 02/04/11;
Case No.: 11-O-14539, Complainant: Lance Moss, Principal Amount: $2,800, Interest: Accrues From: 03/12/10;
Case No.: 11-O-15171, Complainant: Theresa Quinones, Principal Amount: $10,400, Interest: Accrues From: 03/01/11;
Case No.: 11-O-15196, Complainant: Alex Karakhanov, Principal Amount: $5,333.33, Interest: Accrues From: 04/15/11
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Count:
Alleged Violation:
Case No.: 11-O-04002, Count: TWO, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A);
Case No.: 11-O-04002, Count: THREE, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2),
Case No.: 10-O-10128, Count: FIVE, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2)
Case No.: 11-O-10008, Count: TEN, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2);
Case No.: 11-O-10555, Count: TWELVE, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A);
Case No.: 11-O-10555, Count: THIRTEEN, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, role 3-700(D)(2);
Case No.: 11-O-10555, Count: FOURTEEN, Alleged Violation: Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106 ;
Case No.: 11-O-10558, Count: EIGHTEEN, Alleged Violation: Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106;
Case No.: 11-O-11096, Count: NINETEEN, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-400;
Case No.: 11-O-11096, Count: TWENTY, Alleged Violation: Business and Professions Code section 6106;
Case No.: 11-O-11496, Count: TWENTY-THREE, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A);
Case No.: 11-O-11496, Count: TWENTY-FOUR, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2);
Case No.: 11-O-11602, Count: TWENTY-EIGHT, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A);
Case No.: 11-O-11602, Count: TWENTY-NINE, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3);
Case No.: 11-O-11602, Count: THIRTY-ONE, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1);
Case No.: 11-O-11751, Count: THIRTY-TWO, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(A);
Case No.: 11-O-11751, Count: THIRTY-FOUR, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A);
Case No.: 11-O-11751, Count: THIRTY-FIVE, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3);
Case No.: 11-O-11751, Count: THIRTY-SIX, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(0)(2);
Case No.: 11-O-11751, Count: THIRTY-SEVEN, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1);
Case No.: 11-O-11829, Count: THIRTY-NINE, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A);
Case No.: 11-O-11829, Count: FORTY, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3);
Case No.: 11-O-11829, Count: FORTY-ONE, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2);
Case No.: 11-O-12723, Count: FIFTY, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A);
Case No.: 11-O-12723, Count FIFTY-ONE, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2);
Case No.: 11-O-13035, Count: FIFTY-EIGHT, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2);
Case No.: 11-O-13702, Count: SIXTY-FOUR, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A);
Case No.: 11-O-13702, Count: SIXTY-FIVE, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2);
Case No.: 11-O-14062, Count: SEVENTY, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A);
Case No.: 11-O-14062, Count: SEVENTY-ONE, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2);
Case No.: 11-O-14461, Count: SEVENTY-TWO, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A);
Case No.: 11-O-15317, Count: SEVENTY-NINE, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2);
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
1. Pattern/Multiple Acts of Wrongdoing.
Respondent’s misconduct demonstrated a pattern of misconduct. (Std. 1.2(b)(ii).)
2. Harm
Respondent’s multiple acts of misconduct caused financial harm to the complainants, all of whom were experiencing severe financial difficulties at the time that they made payments of advanced attorney fees to Respondent. (Std. 1.2(b)(iv).)
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
1. No Prior Record of Discipline
Respondent was admitted to the State Bar on June 13, 1984, and has no prior record of discipline. Some mitigating credit for no prior record of discipline may be given even where the underlying misconduct is found to be serious or significant. (Std. 1.2(e)(1). See also, In the Matter of Stamper (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 96, 106, ft. 13.)
2. Candor and Cooperation
Respondent’s stipulation to the facts, his culpability, and his disbarment is a mitigating circumstance. (Std. 1.2(e)(v).)
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
1. Case Law
There is no case exactly like this one. However, similar cases provide guidance as to the appropriate discipline. (In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 207-208; Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302, 1310-1311.)
The State Bar Court will recommend, and the Supreme Court will order, disbarment in cases of serious misconduct similar to that here, notwithstanding the attorney’s lack of a prior record of discipline or even with some mitigation present.
In Read v. State Bar (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 394, the Supreme Court ordered an attorney disbarred who committed serious misconduct in 13 matters. The attorney failed to prove that all of his misconduct was attributable to severe emotional and financial problems. Further the attorney failed to adequately acknowledge his misconduct.
In In re Billings (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 358, the attorney committed misconduct in 18 matters. The misconduct was casually connected to alcohol abuse; however, the attorney did not establish successful rehabilitation. The Supreme Court ordered the attorney disbarred.
In Coombs v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 679, the attorney committed misconduct in 13 client matters with extremely modest mitigation compared to substantial aggravation. The attorney also did not provide proof of rehabilitation from alcoholism. The Supreme Court ordered the attorney disbarred.
In In the Matter of Collins (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 1, the attorney committed misconduct in 14 matters, and provided inadequate evidence of rehabilitation. The Review Department recommended that the attorney be disbarred.
In In the Matter of Myrdall (Review Dept. 1995) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 363, the attorney committed misconduct in 12 matters, and offered little mitigation. The Review Department recommended that the attorney be disbarred.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page 2, paragraph A(7) was April 4, 2012.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of April 4, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are $32,619.08. 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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 10-O-04002,10-O-10128,10-O-11325,11-O-10008,11-O-10555, 11-O-10558,11-O-11237,11-O-11496,11-O-11596,11-O-11602, 11-O-11751,11-O-11829,11-O-11998,11-O-12253,11-O-12504, 11-O-12723,11-O-12805,11-O-12892,11-O-13035,11-O-13037, 11-O-13366,11-O-13368,11-O-13702,11-O-13889,11-O-14062, 11-O-14461,11-O-14539,11-O-15171,11-O-15196,11-O-15317,11-O-11096
In the Matter of: Phillip Allen Kramer
By their signatures below and subject to nolo contender plea signed by Repondent, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement to this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.
Signed by:
Respondent: Phillip Allen Kramer
Date: April 5, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel: Blithe Leece
Date: April 5, 2012
Deputy Trial Counsel: Eli Morgenstein
Date: April 5, 2012
Case Number(s): 10-O-04002,10-O-10128,10-O-11325,11-O-10008,11-O-10555, 11-O-10558,11-O-11237,11-O-11496,11-O-11596,11-O-11602, 11-O-11751,11-O-11829,11-O-11998,11-O-12253,11-O-12504, 11-O-12723,11-O-12805,11-O-12892,11-O-13035,11-O-13037, 11-O-13366,11-O-13368,11-O-13702,11-O-13889,11-O-14062, 11-O-14461,11-O-14539,11-O-15171,11-O-15196,11-O-15317,11-O-11096
In the Matter of: Phillip Allen Kramer
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 Philip Kramer 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 herein, 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: Donald F. Miles
Date: April 12, 2012
[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 April 13, 2012, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING; ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT
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:
PHILIP ALLEN KRAMER ESQ
PO BOX 9235
CALABASAS, CA 91372
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 April 13, 2012.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court