Case Number(s): 10-O-04373
In the Matter of: Redmond Peter McAneny, Bar #73808, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Erin McKeown Joyce, Deputy Trial Counsel, State Bar of California, 1149 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299, (213) 765-1356, Bar # 149946
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent, Redmond Peter McAneny, 1500 Quail Street, Suite 460, Newport Beach, California 92660, (949)752-5152, Bar # 73808
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: January 18, 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 April 13, 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 10 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-04373
In the Matter of: Redmond Peter McAneny
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 set forth each of the following:
(5) a statement that the member either:
(i) admits the facts set forth in the stipulation are true and that he or she is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct or
(ii) pleads nolo contendere to those facts and violations. If the Respondent pleads nolo contendere, the stipulation shall include each of the following:
(a) an acknowledgement that the Respondent completely understands the the plea of nolo contendere shall be considered the same as an admission of the stipulated facts and of his or her culpability of the statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct specified in the stipulation; and
(b) if requested by the Court, a statement by the Deputy Trial Council that the factual stipulations are supported by evidence obtained in the State Bar investigation of the matter (emphasis supplied)
I, the Respondent in this matter, have read the applicable provisions of Business and Professions Code section 6085.5 and rule 133(a)(5) 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: Redmond McAneny
Date: December 16, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF: Redmond P. McAneny, State Bar No. 73808
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-O-04373
PENDING PROCEEDINGS:
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph A.(7), was December 16, 2010.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified Rules of Professional Conduct and Business and Professions Code sections.
FACTS
1. On June 12, 2007, Deborah Slaybaugh hired Respondent to represent her in a trust matter entitled In re the Matter of the Harman Trust filed in Orange County Superior Court, case no. A243835 (the "Harman Trust matter").
2. From the time period June 2007 through July 2008, several settlement conferences were held in the Harman Trust matter. The parties settled the case at the last settlement conference.
3. On June 26, 2008, Respondent sent the final settlement agreement fully resolving the claims in the Harman Trust matter to Slaybaugh for execution.
4. Slaybaugh returned the fully executed settlement agreement to Respondent, which he received before July 10, 2008. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Respondent was to pay the attorney fees to the opposing party for drafting the settlement agreement, then pay out to Slaybaugh the remaining funds.
5. On July 15, 2008, Respondent deposited the check comprising the settlement proceeds from the Harman Trust matter which totaled $117,924.32 into his client trust account maintained at US Bank, account no. x-xxx-xxxx-7190 (the "US Bank CTA").
6. From July 15, 2008 through December 31, 2008, Respondent made numerous withdrawals from his US Bank CTA unrelated to the Harman Trust matter, which caused the balance in the US Bank CTA to drop to $18,384.35. At this point, Respondent was required to maintain in trust the full amount paid in the Harman Trust matter, or $117,924.32. By December 31, 2008, Respondent had misappropriated $99,539.97 from the Harman Trust settlement proceeds.
7. Respondent never paid out any of the funds from the settlement of the Harman Trust matter to Slaybaugh or any other person related to that litigation who was entitled to receive part of the funds.
8. Slaybaugh repeatedly contacted Respondent to obtain from Respondent her portion of the proceeds of the settlement in the Harman Trust matter
9. Respondent made a series of misrepresentations to his client about the status of the Harma, n Trust matter in an effort to conceal his misappropriation of the proceeds from the settlement of the Harman Trust matter.
10. Respondent has failed to maintain the entirety of the funds from the .settlement of the Harman Trust matter in the amount of $117,924.32 in trust in his US Bank CTA or in any other client trust account.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By failing to maintain the proceeds of the settlement in the Harman Trust matter in a client trust account, Respondent failed to maintain all funds received or held on behalf of a client in a client trust account in wilful violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 4-100(A).
By failing to promptly pay to Slaybaugh the portion of the settlement proceeds in the Harman Trust matter to which she was entitled in the amount of $117,924.32, as requested by the client, Respondent failed to promptly pay to Slaybaugh any funds in Respondent’s possession which the client is entitled to receive in wilful violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 4-100(B)(4).
By misappropriating the proceeds from the Harman Trust matter in the amount of $117,924.32, Respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
STANDARDS FOR ATTORNEY SANCTIONS
To determine the appropriate level of discipline, the standards provide guidance. Drociak v. State Bar(1991) 52 Cal.3d 1085; In the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119. A disciplinary recommendation must be consistent with the discipline in similar proceedings. See Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302. Also, the recommended discipline must rest upon a balanced consideration of relevant factors. In the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119.
Pursuant to Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar of California and of sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgment of a member’s professional misconduct 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.
Pursuant to Standard 1.2 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
(b) "Aggravating circumstance" is an event or factor established clearly and convincingly by the State Bar as having surrounded a member’s professional misconduct and which demonstrates that a greater degree of sanction than set forth in these standards for the particular act of professional misconduct found or acknowledged is needed to adequately protect the public, courts and legal profession.
Circumstances which shall be considered aggravating are:
(i) the existence of prior record of discipline and the nature and extent of that record;...
(ii) that the member’s misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct; or if trust funds or trust property were involved, refusal or inability to account to the client or the person who is the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property.
Pursuant to Standard 1.6 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
(b)(i) Aggravating circumstances are found to surround the particular act of misconduct found or acknowledged and the net effect of those aggravating circumstances, by themselves and in balance with any mitigating circumstances found, demonstrates that a greater degree of sanction is required to fulfill the purposes of imposing sanctions set forth in standard 1.3. In that case, a greater degree of discipline than the appropriate sanction shall be imposed or recommended.
Pursuant to Standard 2.2(a) of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional
Misconduct:
Culpability of a member of wilful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in disbarment. Only if the amount of funds or property misappropriated is insignificantly small or if the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate, shall disbarment not be imposed. In those latter cases, the discipline shall not be less than one-year actual suspension, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
Pursuant to Standard 2.2(b) of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional
Misconduct:
Culpability of a member of commingling of entrusted funds or property with personal property or the commission of another violation of rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct, none of which offenses result in the wilful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in at least a three month actual suspension, from the practice of law, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
In this case, Respondent has misappropriated over $117,000 from his client, then delayed discovery of his misconduct by making a series of misrepresentations to his client about his receipt of the proceeds from the settlement of the Harman Trust matter. This matter warrants Respondent’s disbarment.
FURTHER AGREEMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The factual statements contained in this Stipulation constitute admissions of fact and may not be withdrawn by either party, except with court approval.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 10-O-04373
In the Matter of: Redmond Peter McAneny
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: Redmond Peter McAneny
Date: December 16, 2016
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Erin Joyce
Date: December 20, 2010
Case Number(s): 10-O-04373
In the Matter of: Redmond Peter McAneny
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.)
Respondent 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 490(b) of 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. Honn
Date: January 14, 2010
[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 18, 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:
REDMOND PETER MCANENY
1500 QUAIL ST STE 460
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
<<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:
Erin M. Joyce, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 18, 2011.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court