Case Number(s): 10-O-04038, 10-O-04352, 10-O-10700
In the Matter of: Jennifer Yvonne Williams Bar # 242146 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Eli D. Morgenstem, DTC, Office of The Chief Trial Counsel, 1149 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299, Telephone: (213) 765-1334
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent, Jennifer Y. Williams, 2286 E. Carson Street #311, Long Beach, CA 90807, Bar# 242146
Submitted to: Assigned Judge, Sate 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 May 16, 2006
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 14 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: Three (3) 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.
Case Number(s): 10-O-03300, 10-O-04352, 10-O-10700
In the Matter of: JENNIFER YVONNE WILLIAMS
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: Sheila Strauser
Principal Amount: $1,475.00
Interest Accrues From: N/A
2. Payee: Ian Beckford
Principal Amount: $2,600.00
Interest Accrues From: N/A
3. Payee: JaOnna Reynolds
Principal Amount: $3,495.00
Interest Accrues From: N/A
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) Sheila Strauser
Minimum Payment Amount $210 a month
Payment Frequency once a month, no later than the 15th
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable) Ian Beckford
Minimum Payment Amount $210 a month
Payment Frequency once a month, no later than the 15th
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable) JaOnna Reynolds
Minimum Payment Amount $210 a month
Payment Frequency once a month, no later than the 15th
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: JENNIFER YVONNE WILLIAMS State Bar No. 242146
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-O-04038, 10-O-04352, 10-O-10700
Facts
1. On August 25, 2009, Sheila Strauser ("Strauser") employed The Williams Law Center, Respondent’s law firm, to assist her with a modification of her home loan. Strauser paid Respondent a total of $1,795 in advanced attorney fees.
2. When Strauser employed Respondent, an employee of Respondent told Strauser that the loan modification process would take one to three months.
3. Respondent did not obtain a home mortgage loan modification for Strauser. Although Respondent did perform certain tasks with respect to Strauser’s lona modification, Respondent did not perform any services of value for Strauser.
4. In February 2010, Strauser terminated Respondent’s services and requested a refund of the advanced fee that she paid to Respondent. On February 17, 2010, Respondent agreed to provide Strauser with a full refund of the $1,795 according to the payment plan described below.
Date: 02/19/11, Amount: $600
Date: 02/26/11, Amount: $600
Date: 03/05/11, Amount: $595
5. On February 19, 2011, Strauser was provided with a cashier’s check in the sum of $600. At no time did Respondent provide any further refund to Strauser.
6. On March 1, 2010, Strauser filed and properly served a small claims complaint against The Williams Law Center in the Orange County Superior Court, case no. 30-2010-00351272-SC-SC-HLH. Respondent received the complaint. On April 30, 2010, the court found in favor of Strauser against Respondent and the Williams Law Center in the amount of $1,445, plus $30 costs. On April 30, 2010, the judgment in the small claims matter was properly served on Respondent. Respondent received the judgment. To date, Respondent has not satisfied any portion of the judgment.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to perform any services of value on behalf of Strauser, Respondent failed to perform competently in wilful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By failing to provide Strauser with a refund of the unearned, advanced fees, 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. 10-O-04352
Facts
1. In September 2009, Marvin Horn ("Horn"), a real estate agent and owner of Route 55 Real Estate Services, a/k/a "Route 55 Enterprises", referred Ian Beckford ("Beckford") to The Williams Law Center, Respondent’s law firm, to assist him with determining whether he might qualify for a modification of his home loan. At no time has Horn been a member of the State Bar of California or any other state bar.
2. On September 10, 2009, Beckford employed Respondent to assist him with a modification of his home loan. On September 10, 2009, Beckford provided Horn with a check made payable to "Route 55 Enterprises" in the sum of $2,600 as advanced fees for Respondent’s legal services. The check was deposited in a bank account.
3. Respondent and Horn shared the legal fees that Horn collected from Beckford.
4. In November 2009, Respondent mailed Beckford a letter confirming his employment of The Williams Law Center and estimated that his loan modification would be complete within 90 to 120 days.
5. Respondent did not perform any services of value on behalf Beckford, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a home mortgage loan modification.
6. In January 2010, Beckford terminated Respondent’s employment. On January 27, 2010, Respondent stated that by March 5,2010, she would provide Beckford with a refund of $1,295, approximately one-half of the advanced legal fees that Beckford had paid to Horn for Respondent’s legal services. Respondent further stated that Beckford would need to contact Horn with respect to the other half of the unearned, advanced legal fees.
7. Between March 5, 2010, and March 24, 2010, Beckford telephoned Respondent on several occasions and left messages with a receptionist inquiring about the refund. Respondent received the messages. Neither Respondent nor Horn have provided Beckford with a refund of any portion of the advanced, unearned legal fees.
8. As part of the terms of this stipulation, Respondent has agreed to provide Beckford with a refund of $2,600.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to perform any services of value on behalf of Beckford, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By sharing legal fees with Horn, Respondent shared legal fees with a person who is not a lawyer in willful violation of rule 1-320(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By failing to provide Beckford with a refund of the unearned, advanced fees, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By failing to respond to Beckford’s status inquiries regarding the refund of the unearned, advanced fees, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
Case No. 10-O-10700
Facts
1. On August 15, 2009, JaOnna Reynolds ("Reynolds") employed The Williams Law Center, Respondent’s law firm, to assist her with a modification of her two home loans. Reynolds had a first and second mortgage on her home. On August 15, 2009, Reynolds mailed Respondent a cashier’s check made payable to "The Williams Law Center" in the sum of $3,495 as advanced fees for her legal services.
2. Thereafter, Respondent did not perform any services of value on behalf of Reynolds, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a home mortgage loan modification. At no time did Respondent earn any portion of the advanced attorneys that Reynolds paid to The Williams Law Center. At no did Respondent refund any portion of the unearned, advanced legal fee that was paid to The Williams Law Center.
3. After in or about April 2010, Respondent stopped communicating With Reynolds.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to perform any services of value on behalf of Reynolds, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By failing to provide Reynolds with a refund of the unearned, advanced fees, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
1. Multiple Acts of Wrongdoing. Respondent’s misconduct involves several clients and multiple acts of misconduct. (Std. 1.2(b)(ii).)
2. Harm Respondent failed to perform any services of value for three clients and failed to return unearned fees to them. (Std. 1.2(b)(iv).)
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
1. Candor and Cooperation Respondent is entitled to mitigation for entering into this stipulation. (Std. 1.2(e)(v).)
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
1. Standards
The stipulated discipline falls within the range of discipline set forth the in the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
"The 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." (Std 1.3.)
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(b), 2.6(a), 2.7, and 2.10 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct ("Standards") apply to this proceeding.
Standard 2.4(b) provides, in pertinent part that culpability of a member for willful failure to perform shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
Respondent engaged in the misconduct described herein when she had been a member of the State Bar for less than four (4) years. She was approximately 28 years old. Respondent acknowledges that she used unsound judgment in involving herself in loan modification matters. Respondent no longer represents clients requesting assistance with loan modifications. The parties submit that the discipline imposed herein adequately serves the purposes of discipline.
Standard 2.6(a) provides that culpability of a member of a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m) shall result in disbarment or suspension depending upon the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim.
Standard 2.10 applies to violations of any rule or statute not specified under any other standard. Standard 2.10 requires reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or harm to the victim, and with due regard for the purposes of imposing discipline.
2. Case Law
In Matthew v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 784, the attorney failed to completely perform services on behalf of two clients and failed to returned unearned fees to them. The Supreme Court ordered the attorney actually suspended for 60 days as part of three year probation.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, she may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page 2, paragraph A(7), was August 25, 2011.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of August 25, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $4,656.10. The costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following three 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 b} 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-04038, 10-O-04352, l 0-O-10700
In the Matter of: JENNIFER YVONNE WILLIAMS State Bar No. 242146
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: Jennifer Y. Williams, Eli D. Morgenstern
Respondent: Jennifer Y. Williams
Date: 08/29/2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Eli D. Morgenstern
Date:
08/30/2011
Case Number(s): 10-O-04038, 10-O-04352, 10-O- 10700
In the Matter of: JENNIFER YVONNE WILLIAMS
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.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
PAGE 7 – Financial Conditions
a. Place check mark in box
Delete (…, plus interest of 10% per annum)
b. Place check mark in box-
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: Richard A. Patel
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Patel
Date: 09/07/2011
[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 September 9, 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 Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
JENNIFER Y. WILLIAMS
2286 E CARSON ST # 311
LONG BEACH, CA 90807
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows: **
<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows: **
<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number . No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
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 September 9, 2011.
Signed by: Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator: Johnnie Lee Smith
State Bar Court