Case Number(s): 10-O-04497
In the Matter of: Steve Larkin , Bar # 112934 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Jean Cha, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1000
Bar #228137
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Steve Larkin
9534 Swinton Ave
North Hills, CA 91343
(818) 277-0464
Bar# 112934
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
<<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 March 28, 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 11 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.
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2013 and 2014 (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.
checked. (3) Trust Violation: Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property. Respondent did not properly handle funds that he was ordered to deposit into a blocked account and therefore deprived his clients of a benefit.
checked. (8) Emotional/Physical Difficulties: At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct. The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities. The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of
any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities. During the time of the misconduct, Respondent was suffering from severe debilitating health issues that distracted Respondent from his responsibilities in responsibly depositing the Mendoza funds into a blocked account in accordance with a court
order.
<<not>> checked. (11) Good Character: Respondent's good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct. Respondent has provided character references from a cross-section of members in the legal and general community. These witnesses attest to his character, integrity and honesty even with the knowledge of the misconduct and belief that the conduct will not recur. (Std. 1.2(e) (vi).)
checked. (5) Other Conditions: Within one (l) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance of a session of the State Bar of California Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session. Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending that session.
(Effective January 1, 2011)
Actual Suspension
IN THE MATTER OF: STEVE LARKIN, 112934
CASE NUMBER: 10-0-04497
Respondent STEVE LARKIN, admits the facts set forth in the stipulation are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and Rules of Professional Conduct.
FACTS
1. At all times mentioned herein, Respondent represented minors Raymond and Alena
Mendoza (the "minors"), by and through their guardians ad litem, Carlos and Jessica Mendoza, in a medical malpractice action entitled, Salena Mendoza, et al. v. ~Iae H. Kirn, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number VC040596. Attorney Donald Ellison ("Ellison") was the attorney for the conservator of the estate and person of plaintiff Salena Mendoza.
2. In 2005, Respondent settled the action for $50,000.
3. On June 8, 2009, Respondent filed a petition to approve the disposition of the $50,000 on behalf of the minors (the "petition"). When the petition was filed, Alena Mendoza was nine years old and Raymond Mendoza was six years old.
4. On June 25, 2009, the court approved the petition. The court ordered that $36,720 be
deposited into a blocked account in the name of and for the benefit of the minors; and that no withdrawal of principal or interest could be made without a written court order, until the minors attained the age of 18 years. The court further approved $12,500 in attorney fees and $780 in costs. Ellison was entitled to half of the attorney fees, or $6,250.
5. Respondent received two $25,000 drafts, one payable to "Raymond Mendoza by and
through his guardians ad litem, Jessica and Carlos Mendoza, Steve Larkin, Esq. and Donald Ellison, Esq." and one payable to "Alena Mendoza by and through her guardians ad litem, Jessica and Carlos Mendoza, Steve Larkin, Esq. and Donald Ellison, Esq.," but never deposited the drafts into a blocked account. Instead, on July 31, 2009, Respondent deposited the two drafts
(Effective January 1,2011)
Actual Suspension
7
(Do not write above this line.)
into his client trust account at Bank of America, account number xxxxxx1927 (the "CTA"). 1
Prior to the deposit, the balance in the CTA was negative $20.42. Respondent made no other deposits into the CTA between July 31 and December 31, 2009.
6. Between August 3, 2009 and November 30, 2010, Respondent or someone on behalf
of Respondent made withdrawals from the CTA for his own use and purpose and not for the benefit of the minors, bringing the balance in the CTA to one cent on November 30, 2010.
7. On October 28, 2009, Ellison mailed a letter to Respondent. In the letter, Ellison
requested payment of his share of the attorney fees of $6,250 from the $50,000 settlement and the status of the deposit of the $36,720 into a blocked account. Respondent did not timely comply with Ellison’s requests.
8. Respondent misappropriated $36,720 belonging to the minors by not depositing
$36,720 into a blocked account in the name of the minors. Respondent misappropriated $6,250 belonging to Ellison by not paying Ellison his share of the attorney fees promptly.
9. On March 24, 2011, Respondent deposited the $36,720 settlement funds into a
blocked account in the name of and for the benefit of the minors and made formal apologies to the parties, attorney Eltison and the court. Respondent also paid attorney Ellison $6,250 that same morning.
10. On April 7, 2011, Respondent paid $1,030.17 in interest for the benefit of the
minors and $876.71 in interest to attorney Ellison. ¯
11. On April 30, 2010, the State Bar of California ("State Bar") opened an investigation
identified as case number 10-0-04497, regarding Respondent’s handling of the settlement funds.
12. On September 15, 2010, a State Bar investigator mailed a letter to Respondent
regarding its investigation at his membership records address of 9534 Swinton Avenue, North Hills, CA 91343 (the "membership records address").
The full account number is omitted for privacy purposes.
(Effective January 1,2011 )
Actual Suspension
8
(Do not write above this line.)
13. On September 24, 2010, the investigator’s letter was returned to the State Bar
marked, "Return to Sender Not Deliverable As Addressed Unable to Forward."
14. On April 7, 2011, Respondent updated his membership records address.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
15. By misappropriating $36,720 belonging to the minors and $6,250 belonging to
Ellison, Respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
16. By not depositing $36,720 into a blocked account in the name of and for the benefit
of the minors, Respondent disobeyed an order of the court requiring him to do an act connected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to do, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6103.
17. By not timely changing his membership records address, Respondent failed to
maintain a current office address and telephone number or, if no office is maintained, the address to be used for State Bar purposes in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 60680).
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court dismiss one alleged violation from the NDC in the interest of justice:
Case No. Count Alleged Violation
10-0-04497 Two Rule 4-100(A), Rules of Professional Conduct
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
The purpose of State Bar disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the attorney, but to protect the public, to preserve public confidence in the profession, and to maintain the highest possible professional standards for attorneys. (Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 103, 111; Cooper v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1016, 1025; Std. 1.3.)
The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, Rules Proc. Of State Bar, Title IV, provides for disbarment where that the various violations present in this single client matters falls within the range of suspension to disbarment, and the most severe sanction is prescribed. (Standards 1.6(a) & 2.2(a), 2.3, 2.6.)
(Effective January 1, 2011)
Actual Suspension
(Do not write above this line.)
The standards are guidelines (Drociak v. State Bar (1991)’~52 Cal.3d 1085, 1090; In the Matter of Koehler (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 615,628) and are afforded great weight (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 91-92) but they are not applied in a talismanic fashion (In the Matter of Van Sickle (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 994). The determination of discipline involves an analysis of the standards on balance with any mitigation and aggravation. (Std. 1.6(b); Segal v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1077, 1089; Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302, 1310-11.)
Respondent has 27 years in practice with no prior record of discipline. Respondent deposited the
funds into his CTA with the intention of transferring them to blocked accounts once he
determined which bank to utilize. Before he was able to do so however, he became gravely ill
and was diagnosed with cancer in 2009. Also, in 2009, Respondent unreasonably believed that the funds in his CTA were in danger of being tapped into by his ex-wife and therefore, removed the funds for safekeeping while he was hospitalized for serious life-threatening health issues into an alternative account. During his treatments, surgery, and care by his sister who is an R.N., Respondent relocated to another state. While he was seriously debilitated for health reasons, his family members tried to assist in his financial affairs. Since Respondent’s health became somewhat stabilized in March 2011, although his prognosis is grim, Respondent learned for the
first time that some of the funds were spent to alleviate a portion of his outstanding medical obligations in 2010. He has since been able to replenish the funds to make complete restitution with interest to all those harmed by the misconduct. Respondent’s health condition directly caused the circumstances that led to the misconduct and the subsequent delay in depositing the Mendoza funds into blocked accounts on behalf of his clients.
Here, disbarment is not required to achieve the purposes of attorney discipline. In light of compelling mitigation and many years in practice with no prior history of discipline, one-year actual suspension is appropriate.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph A.(7), was April 7, 2011.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that he was informed that as of April 7, 2011, the estimated
prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $3,269.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it might not include State Bar Court costs (see Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068.10(c)) or taxable costs (see C.C.P. section 1033.5(a)), which will be included in any final cost assessment. Respondent further acknowledges that if this stipulation is rejected or if relief from the stipulation is granted, the costs may increase due to further proceedings. Note that if Respondent fails to pay any installment of disciplinary costs within the time provided herein or as may be modified by the State Bar Court pursuant to section 6086.10,
subdivision(c), the remaining balance of the costs is due and payable immediately unless relief has been granted under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.130 (old rule 286)). Payment of costs is enforceable as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment.
(Effective January 1,2011)
Actual Suspension
10
Case Number(s): 10-O-04497
In the Matter of: Steve Larkin and Jean Cha
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: Steve Larkin
Respondent: Steve Larkin
Date: April 27, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Jean Cha
Date: April 28, 2011
Case Number(s): 10-O-04497
In the Matter of: Steve Larkin
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 with 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.)
Signed by: Donald F. Miles
Judge of the State Bar Court
Date: May 13, 2011
(Effective January 1, 2011)
Actual Suspension Order
[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 San Francisco, on May 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 Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
STEVE LARKIN ESQ
9534 SWINTON AVE
NORTH HILLS, CA 91343
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Jean H. Cha, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles
, California, on may 17, 2011.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court