Case Number(s): 10-O-06759, 11-O-10455, 11-O-10556, 11-O-11136, 11-O-11741, 11-O-14158,11-O-15880, 11-O-16304,11-O-16575, 11-O-16686, 11-O-16905, 11-O-16981, 11-O-17406,11-O-17522,11-O-17624, 11-O-17637,11-O-17685,11-O-7782,11-O-19671,12-O-10072, 12-O-10105,12-O-10814, 12-O-10846, 12-O-10847, 12-O-0796,12-O-11530, 12-O-10766, 11-O-19513, 12-O-12462, 12-O-12543
In the Matter of: Vivian San Jose, Bar # 222909, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Timothy G. Byer, DTC, 1149 S. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015, (213)765-1325, Bar# 172472
Counsel for Respondent: David A. Clare, 444 West Ocean Blvd., Ste. 800, Long Beach, CA 90802, (562) 624-2837, Bar# 44971
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – 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 December 2, 2002.
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 21 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: 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. (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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Vivian C. San Jose, State Bar No. 222909
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-O-06759, 11-O-10455, 11-O-10556, 11-O-11136, 11-O-11741, 11-O-14158,11-O-15880, 11-O-16304,11-O-16575, 11-O-16686, 11-O-16905, 11-O-16981, 11-O-17406,11-O-17522,11-O-17624, 11-O-17637,11-O-17685,11-O-17782,11-O-19671,12-O-10072, 12-O-10105,12-O-10814, 12-O-10846, 12-O-10847, 12-O-10796, 12-O-11530, 12-O-10766, 11-O-19513, 12-O-12462, 12-O-12543
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
CASE NUMBER:
10-O-06759
FACTS:
1. On June 13, 2006, Arturo Santiago employed Respondent to represent him in a civil matter relating to an investment into which Santiago had entered. Respondent represented Santiago in this civil matter until August 10, 2006, when Respondent terminated the representation.
2. On July 27, 2006, Respondent borrowed $25,000 from Santiago and signed a promissory note memorializing the terms of the transaction. Under the terms of the promissory note, Respondent was to pay interest on the loan in the sum of $5,000 if the loan was repaid on September 30, 2006, with additional interest to accrue at the rate of $1,000 every month thereafter.
3. Respondent did not advise Santiago in writing that Santiago had the right to seek the advice of an independent lawyer of Santiago’s choice, nor did Respondent provide Santiago a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice.
CONCLUSION OF LAW:
4. By not advising Santiago in writing that Santiago had the right to seek the advice of an independent lawyer of Santiago’s choice, and by not providing Santiago a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice, Respondent entered into a business transaction with a client without complying with the requirements that: the client was advised in writing that the client may seek the advice of an independent lawyer of the client’s choice; the client was given a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice; and the client thereafter consented in writing to the terms of the transaction or acquisition, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-300.
CASE NUMBERS:
11-O-10455; 11-O-10556; 11-O-11136; 11-O-11741; 11-O-14158;
11-O-15880; 11-O-16304; 11-O-16575; 11-O-16686; 11-O-16905;
11-O-16981; 11-O-17406; 11-O-17522; 11-O-17637; 11-O-17685;
11-O-17782; 11-O-19513; 12-O-10072; 12-O-10105; 12-O-10814;
12-O-10846; 12-O-12462; 12-O-12543
FACTS:
5. Between February 26, 2010, and May 20, 2011, all of the clients listed below employed Respondent to represent them to negotiate and obtain for them modifications of their home mortgage loans.
6. From February 26, 2010, until May 20, 2011, Respondent charged and received advanced fees for home mortgage loan modification services, in all of the above-listed matters, before Respondent had completed all the services described in the legal services agreement with her clients.
7. In none of the above-listed matters did Respondent complete the services described in Respondent’s legal services agreement, before charging and collecting fees.
8. The following are the clients who Respondent charged advanced fees for home mortgage loan modification services, and from whom Respondent received advanced fees for home mortgage loan modification services, the amounts of their advanced fees, and the dates they paid those fees:
Case Number: 11-O-10455, Client: Maria Nieto, Retainer Fee: $1,500, Date Paid: 2/26/10;
Case Number: 11-O-10455, Client: Maria Nieto, Retainer Fee: $1,800, Date Paid: 3/31/10;
Case Number: 11-O-10556, Client: Isaias and Teresa Sepulveda, Retainer Fee: $1,000, Date Paid: 6/19/10;
Case Number: 11-O-11136, Client: Maribel Jimenez, Retainer Fee: $500, Date Paid: 05/06/10;
Case Number: 11-O-11136, Client: Maribel Jimenez, Retainer Fee: $1,000, Date Paid: 05/20/10;
Case Number: 11-O-11136, Client: Maribel Jimenez, Retainer Fee: $1,000, Date Paid: 06/15/10;
Case Number: 11-O-11136, Client: Maribel Jimenez, Retainer Fee: $1,000, Date Paid: 07/05/10;
Case Number: 11-O-11741, Client: Maudie Molleda, Retainer Fee: $250, Date Paid: 08/10/10;
Case Number: 11-O-11741, Client: Maudie Molleda, Retainer Fee: $1,600, Date Paid: 09/03/10;
Case Number: 11-O-11741, Client: Maudie Molleda, Retainer Fee: $1,650, Date Paid: 10/03/10;
Case Number: 11-O-14158, Client: Wiber Cornejo, Retainer Fee: $1,000, Date Paid: 06/16/10;
Case Number: 11-O-14158, Client: Wiber Cornejo, Retainer Fee: $1,500, Date Paid: 07/16/10;
Case Number: 11-O-15880, Client: Mirtha Godoy, Retainer Fee: $750, Date Paid: 11/29/10;
Case Number: 11-O-16304, Client: Sonia Torres, Retainer Fee: $1,200, Date Paid: 11/5/10;
Case Number: 11-O-16304, Client: Sonia Torres, Retainer Fee: $892.50, Date Paid: 11/20/10;
Case Number: 11-O-16304, Client: Sonia Torres, Retainer Fee: $892.50, Date Paid: 12/5/10;
Case Number: 11-O-16575, Client: Lupe Reynoso, Retainer Fee: $500, Date Paid: 7/27/10;
Case Number: 11-O-16575, Client: Lupe Reynoso, Retainer Fee: $1,500, Date Paid: 8/3/10;
Case Number: 11-O-16575, Client: Lupe Reynoso, Retainer Fee: $1,500, Date Paid: 8/10/10;
Case Number: 11-O-16686, Client: Thomas Carranco, Retainer Fee: $1,800, Date Paid: 6/15/10;
Case Number: 11-O-16686, Client: Thomas Carranco, Retainer Fee: $1,700, Date Paid: 6/30/10;
Case Number: 11-O-16686, Client: Thomas Carranco, Retainer Fee: $3,500, Date Paid: 7/30/10;
Case Number: 11-O-16905, Client: Juan Rojas, Retainer Fee: $1,333, Date Paid: 3/9/11;
Case Number: 11-O-16905, Client: Juan Rojas, Retainer Fee: $1,333, Date Paid: 4/5/11;
Case Number: 11-O-16905, Client: Juan Rojas, Retainer Fee: $1,333, Date Paid: 5/6/11;
Case Number: 11-O-16981, Client: Maria Huitron, Retainer Fee: $4,000, Date Paid: 3/5/11;
Case Number: 11-O-16981, Client: Maria Huitron, Retainer Fee: $3,000, Date Paid: 3/10/11;
Case Number: 11-O-16981, Client: Maria Huitron, Retainer Fee: $1,495, Date Paid: 5/20/11;
Case Number: 11-O-17406, Client: Ramon and Cristina Zavala, Retainer Fee: $3,500, Date Paid: 7/17/10;
Case Number: 11-O-17522, Client: Jose F. Lopez, Retainer Fee: $200, Date Paid: 1/20/11;
Case Number: 11-O-17522, Client: Jose F. Lopez, Retainer Fee: $1,033, Date Paid: 1/22/11;
Case Number: 11-O-17522, Client: Jose F. Lopez, Retainer Fee: $1,333, Date Paid: 2/16/11;
Case Number: 11-O-17522, Client: Jose F. Lopez, Retainer Fee: $1,333, Date Paid: 3/20/11;
Case Number: 11-O-17637, Client: Pedro and Valentine Palacios, Retainer Fee: $1,500, Date Paid: 10/18/11;
Case Number: 11-O-17637, Client: Pedro and Valentine Palacios, Retainer Fee: $1,485, Date Paid: 11/10/10;
Case Number: 11-O-17637, Client: Pedro and Valentine Palacios, Retainer Fee: $195, Date Paid: 1/9/11;
Case Number: 11-O-17685, Client: Martin Pena, Retainer Fee: $2,500, Date Paid: 4/1/11;
Case Number: 11-O-17685, Client: Martin Pena, Retainer Fee: $1,500, Date Paid: 4/24/11;
Case Number: 11-O-17782, Client: Pedro and Socorro Cruz, Retainer Fee: $2,000, Date Paid: 1/26/11;
Case Number: 11-O-19513, Client: Victor and Maria Lira, Retainer Fee: $1,000, Date Paid: 2/18/11;
Case Number: 11-O-19513, Client: Victor and Maria Lira, Retainer Fee: $1,359, Date Paid: 3/3/11;
Case Number: 11-O-19513, Client: Victor and Maria Lira, Retainer Fee: $500, Date Paid: 3/8/11;
Case Number: 12-O-10072, Client: Ana Magana, Retainer Fee: $2,000, Date Paid: 2/26/11;
Case Number: 12-O-10105, Client: Israel Calderon, Retainer Fee: $3,000, Date Paid: 3/22/10;
Case Number: 12-O-10105, Client: Israel Calderon, Retainer Fee: $2,400, Date Paid: 4/22/10;
Case Number: 12-O-10105, Client: Israel Calderon, Retainer Fee: $1,600, Date Paid: 5/22/10;
Case Number: 12-O-10814, Client: Eugenio Rios, Retainer Fee: $6,250, Date Paid: 8/6/10;
Case Number: 12-O-10846, Client: Maria Barraza, Retainer Fee: $1,995, Date Paid: 3/23/10;
Case Number: 12-O-10846, Client: Maria Barraza, Retainer Fee: $1,300, Date Paid: 4/23/10;
Case Number: 12-O-10846, Client: Maria Barraza, Retainer Fee: $299, Date Paid: 9/15/11;
Case Number: 12-O-12462, Client: Luz Padilla, Retainer Fee: $1,000, Date Paid: 3/29/11;
Case Number: 12-O-12462, Client: Luz Padilla, Retainer Fee: $1,000, Date Paid: 4/15/11;
Case Number: 12-O-12462, Client: Luz Padilla, Retainer Fee: $1,000, Date Paid: 5/5/11;
Case Number: 12-O-12543, Client: Guiterrez, Retainer Fee: $2,000, Date Paid: 2/16/11;
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
9. By charging and receiving advanced fees after October 11, 2009 in exchange for agreeing to perform loan modification services in violation of California Civil Code section 2944.7(a)(1), Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3.
CASE NUMBERS : 11-O-17624; 11-O-19671; 12-O-10766; 12-O-10796; 12-O-10847; 12-O-11530
FACTS:
10. In April 2010, Respondent met Akemi Roca and Miguel Ciccia, two non-lawyers who offered to provide Respondent attorney support services from an office in Fresno. From April 2010 until November 2010, Respondent employed Roca and Ciccia to market Respondent’s bankruptcy services and sign bankruptcy representation engagement agreements between Respondent and bankruptcy clients. Roca and Ciccia, with Respondent’s authorization, ran advertisements on Fresno Spanish language radio stations advertising Respondent’s bankruptcy services.
11. With Respondent’s authorization, Roca and Ciccia determined what to charge each client, an act which constitutes the practice of law. Respondent compensated Roca and Ciccia by paying each of them a percentage of the client’s fee. Roca and Ciccia also provided "credit counseling" to the clients they signed up, collected the documents necessary for each bankruptcy petition, and scheduled meetings between the clients and Respondent on those occasions when Respondent traveled to Fresno for hearings in bankruptcy court. Respondent’s office in Corona was approximately 275 miles from Fresno. Respondent made less than 6 visits to Roca and Ciccia’s Fresno office between April 2010 and November 2010. Respondent exercised virtually no supervision over the activities of Roca and Ciccia, but instead delegated almost complete control over these bankruptcy cases to non-lawyers Roca and Ciccia.
12. All of the clients who employed Respondent for bankruptcy representation paid advanced fees, no portions of which were earned by Respondent, as Respondent performed no legal services of any value to the clients.
13. In November 2010, Respondent was informed by several of her bankruptcy clients that Roca and Ciccia had been treating the clients rudely. Respondent thereupon directed Roca and Ciccia to stop signing up new bankruptcy clients for her and to wind down their employment by the end of December 2010. The only remaining duty Respondent directed Roca and Ciccia to perform from November 2010 until December 31, 2010, was the receipt of installment fee payments from existing bankruptcy clients.
14. In September 2011, Respondent became aware that Roca and Ciccia had been continuing to sign up new clients using Respondent’s bankruptcy engagement agreement, and had deposited those clients’ fees into their own accounts. Respondent reported Roca and Ciccia to the Bakersfield and Fresno police departments.
15. The following are the clients who employed Respondent to prepare bankruptcy petitions, the amounts of their advanced fees, and the dates they paid those fees, no portions of which were earned by Respondent:
Case Number: 11-O-17624, Client: Anna Maria Monero, Retainer Fee: $500, Date Paid: 1/11/11;
Case Number: 11-O-17624, Client: Anna Maria Monero, Retainer Fee: $500, Date Paid: 1/20/11;
Case Number: 11-O-17624, Client: Anna Maria Monero, Retainer Fee: $600, Date Paid: 1/28/11;
Case Number: 11-O-17624, Client: Anna Maria Monero, Retainer Fee: $339, Date Paid: 6/30/11;
Case Number: 11-O-19671, Client: Jose Lopez, Retainer Fee: $100, Date Paid: 6/29/11;
Case Number: 11-O-19671, Client: Jose Lopez, Retainer Fee: $1,700, Date Paid: 7/29/11;
Case Number: 12-O-10766, Client: Jose Barrera, Retainer Fee: $500, Date Paid: 5/13/11;
Case Number: 12-O-10766, Client: Jose Barrera, Retainer Fee: $1,039, Date Paid: 6/6/11;
Case Number: 12-O-10796, Client: Oscar Alvarez, Retainer Fee: $800, Date Paid: 6/7/11;
Case Number: 12-O-10796, Client: Oscar Alvarez, Retainer Fee: $575, Date Paid: 7/7/11;
Case Number: 12-O-10796, Client: Oscar Alvarez, Retainer Fee: $675, Date Paid: 8/7/11;
Case Number: 12-O-10847, Client: Angel Nanez, Retainer Fee: $100, Date Paid: 4/22/11;
Case Number: 12-O-10847, Client: Angel Nanez, Retainer Fee: $1,900, Date Paid: 4/29/11;
Case Number: 12-O-10847, Client: Angel Nanez, Retainer Fee: $360, Date Paid: 8/8/11;
Case Number: 12-O-11530, Client: Elizabeth Santibanez, Retainer Fee: $200, Date Paid: 7/18/11;
Case Number: 12-O-11530, Client: Elizabeth Santibanez, Retainer Fee: $600, Date Paid: 7/23/11;
Case Number: 12-O-11530, Client: Elizabeth Santibanez, Retainer Fee: $600, Date Paid: 7/26/11;
Case Number: 12-O-11530, Client: Elizabeth Santibanez, Retainer Fee: $359, Date Paid: 7/29/11;
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
By failing to perform any legal services of value to the above-listed clients, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform with competence, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
By creating a bankruptcy practice in conjunction with non-lawyers Roca and Ciccia without adequate controls, and without adequate supervision of the non-lawyers’ conduct of the practice over an extended period, Respondent acted with gross negligence amounting to moral turpitude, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6106.
By compensating Roca and Ciccia for signing up new bankruptcy clients from their Fresno office, Respondent compensated, gave, or promised something of value to a person or entity for the purpose of recommending or securing employment of Respondent or Respondent’s law firm by a client or as a reward for having made a recommendation resulting in such employment, in willful violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-320(B).
By authorizing Roca and Ciccia to determine the amount of the attorneys’ fee to charge each bankruptcy client, Respondent aided a person or entity in the unauthorized practice of law, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(A).
By not providing a refund of unearned advanced fees to the above-listed clients, Respondent willfully failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Harm (Standard 1.2(b)(iv)): Respondent’s bankruptcy clients were harmed by Respondent’s failure to provide any legal services of value to them and by Respondent’s delegation of almost complete control of these cases to non-lawyers Roca and Ciccia.
Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct (Standard 1.2(b)(ii)): Respondent’s failures to perform in all these client matters demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Prior State Bar Discipline (Standard 1.2(e)(i)): Respondent was admitted to the State Bar on December 2, 2002, and has no prior record of State Bar discipline. Standard 1.2(e)(i) has been applied to give an attorney some mitigating credit for no prior discipline even where the underlying misconduct is found to be serious or significant. (In the Matter of Stamper (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 96, 106, ft. 13).
Candor/Cooperation (Standard 1.2(e)(v)): Respondent and her counsel met with a State Bar investigator and a Senior Trial Counsel to discuss the allegations against her at a very early stage of these investigations, and has agreed to settle this matter at an early stage in the disciplinary proceedings.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions provides that "culpability of a member of an act of moral turpitude.., shall result in actual suspension or disbarment depending upon the extent to which the victim of the misconduct is harmed or misled and depending upon the magnitude of the act of misconduct and the degree to which it relates to the member’s acts within the practice of law."
The facts and circumstances in the matters resolved by this stipulation are analogous to those of In the Matter of Jones (Rev. Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 411. In Jones, as here, Respondent had intentionally set up a separate legal practice over which Respondent exerted virtually no supervision, delegated control of that practice to a non-lawyer who was compensated from the legal fees charged to the clients, in a grossly negligent manner amounting to moral turpitude. In Jones, the court imposed two years of actual suspension.
In contrast to Jones is In the Matter of Steele (Rev. Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 708. Similar facts to those in Jones were presented in Steele, but resulted in a disbarment recommendation by the Review Department. The distinctions are important, and the Steele court expressly noted that "unlike Jones..., [Steele] engaged in personal acts of moral turpitude apart from collusion with a nonattomey[,]" (ld. at 724), misappropriation, misrepresentation, and delegation to the non-lawyer of responsibility for signing trust account checks. None of these distinguishing factors are present in this matter.
Respondent’s misconduct herein does involve additional misconduct not present in Jones: the instances of taking advanced fees for loan modification services in violation of section 6106.3, and in the non-compliant business transaction with client Santiago in violation of rule 3-300. Accordingly, the discipline herein is greater than that in Jones: three years and until all restitution is made to the clients for the full amount of the fees paid to Respondent.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was April 18, 2012.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of April 18, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are $28, 665. 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-06759, et al.
In the Matter of: Vivian C. San Jose
a. Restitution
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: See Financial Conditions Attachment, Pages 18-20
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation.
<<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)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
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.
Payee: Maria Nieto, Principal Amount: $1,500, Interest Accrues From Paid: 2/26/10;
Payee: Maria Nieto, Principal Amount: $1,800, Interest Accrues From Paid: 3/31/10;
Payee: Isaias and Teresa Sepulveda, Principal Amount: $1,000, Interest Accrues From Paid: 6/19/10;
Payee: Maribel Jimenez, Principal Amount: $500, Interest Accrues From Paid: 05/06/10;
Payee: Maribel Jimenez, Principal Amount: $1,000, Interest Accrues From Paid: 05/20/10;
Payee: Maudie Molleda, Principal Amount: $250, Interest Accrues From Paid: 08/10/10;
Payee: Maudie Molleda, Principal Amount: $1,600, Interest Accrues From Paid: 09/03/10;
Payee: Maudie Molleda, Principal Amount: $1,650, Interest Accrues From Paid: 10/03/10;
Payee: Wiber Cornejo, Principal Amount: $1,000, Interest Accrues From Paid: 06/16/10;
Payee: Wiber Cornejo, Principal Amount: $1,500, Interest Accrues From Paid: 07/16/10;
Payee: Mirtha Godoy, Principal Amount: $750, Interest Accrues From Paid: 11/29/10;
Payee: Sonia Torres, Principal Amount: $1,200, Interest Accrues From Paid: 11/5/10;
Payee: Sonia Torres, Principal Amount: $892.50, Interest Accrues From Paid: 11/20/10;
Payee: Sonia Torres, Principal Amount: $892.50, Interest Accrues From Paid: 12/5/10;
Payee: Lupe Reynoso, Principal Amount: $500, Interest Accrues From Paid: 7/27/10;
Payee: Lupe Reynoso, Principal Amount: $1,500, Interest Accrues From Paid: 8/3/10;
Payee: Lupe Reynoso, Principal Amount: $1,500, Interest Accrues From Paid: 8/10/10;
Payee: Thomas Carranco, Principal Amount: $1,800, Interest Accrues From Paid: 6/15/10;
Payee: Thomas Carranco, Principal Amount: $1,700, Interest Accrues From Paid: 6/30/10;
Payee: Thomas Carranco, Principal Amount: $3,500, Interest Accrues From Paid: 7/30/10;
Payee: Juan Rojas, Principal Amount: $1,333, Interest Accrues From Paid: 3/9/11;
Payee: Juan Rojas, Principal Amount: $1,333, Interest Accrues From Paid: 4/5/11;
Payee: Juan Rojas, Principal Amount: $1,333, Interest Accrues From Paid: 5/6/11;
Payee: Maria Huitron, Principal Amount: $4,000, Interest Accrues From Paid: 3/5/11;
Payee: Maria Huitron, Principal Amount: $3,000, Interest Accrues From Paid: 3/10/11;
Payee: Maria Huitron, Principal Amount: $1,495, Interest Accrues From Paid: 5/20/11;
Payee: Ramon and Cristina Zavala, Principal Amount: $3,500, Interest Accrues From Paid: 7/17/10;
Payee: Jose F. Lopez, Principal Amount: $200, Interest Accrues From Paid: 1/20/11;
Payee: Jose F. Lopez, Principal Amount: $1,033, Interest Accrues From Paid: 1/22/11;
Payee: Jose F. Lopez, Principal Amount: $1,333, Interest Accrues From Paid: 2/16/11;
Payee: Jose F. Lopez, Principal Amount: $1,333, Interest Accrues From Paid: 3/20/11;
Payee: Pedro and Valentine Palacios, Principal Amount: $1,500, Interest Accrues From Paid: 10/18/11;
Payee: Pedro and Valentine Palacios, Principal Amount: $1,485, Interest Accrues From Paid: 11/10/10;
Payee: Pedro and Valentine Palacios, Principal Amount: $195, Interest Accrues From Paid: 1/9/11;
Payee: Martin Pena, Principal Amount: $2,500, Interest Accrues From Paid: 4/1/11;
Payee: Martin Pena, Principal Amount: $1,500, Interest Accrues From Paid: 4/24/11;
Payee: Pedro and Socorro Cruz, Principal Amount: $2,000, Interest Accrues From Paid: 1/26/11;
Payee: Victor and Maria Lira, Principal Amount: $1,000, Interest Accrues From Paid: 2/18/11;
Payee: Victor and Maria Lira, Principal Amount: $1,359, Interest Accrues From Paid: 3/3/11;
Payee: Victor and Maria Lira, Principal Amount: $500, Interest Accrues From Paid: 3/8/11;
Payee: Ana Magana, Principal Amount: $2,000, Interest Accrues From Paid: 2/26/11;
Payee: Israel Calderon, Principal Amount: $3,000, Interest Accrues From Paid: 3/22/10;
Payee: Israel Calderon, Principal Amount: $2,400, Interest Accrues From Paid: 4/22/10;
Payee: Israel Calderon, Principal Amount: $1,600, Interest Accrues From Paid: 5/22/10;
Payee: Eugenio Rios, Principal Amount: $6,250, Interest Accrues From Paid: 8/6/10;
Payee: Maria Barraza, Principal Amount: $1,995, Interest Accrues From Paid: 3/23/10;
Payee: Maria Barraza, Principal Amount: $1,300, Interest Accrues From Paid: 4/23/10;
Payee: Maria Barraza, Principal Amount: $299, Interest Accrues From Paid: 9/15/11;
Payee: Luz Padilla, Principal Amount: $1,000, Interest Accrues From Paid: 3/29/11;
Payee: Luz Padilla, Principal Amount: $1,000, Interest Accrues From Paid: 4/15/11;
Payee: Luz Padilla, Principal Amount: $1,000, Interest Accrues From Paid: 5/5/11;
Payee: Guiterrez, Principal Amount: $2,000, Interest Accrues From Paid: 2/16/11;
Payee: Anna Maria Monero, Principal Amount: $500, Interest Accrues From Paid: 1/11/11;
Payee: Anna Maria Monero, Principal Amount: $500, Interest Accrues From Paid: 1/20/11;
Payee: Anna Maria Monero, Principal Amount: $600, Interest Accrues From Paid: 1/28/11;
Payee: Anna Maria Monero, Principal Amount: $339, Interest Accrues From Paid: 6/30/11;
Payee: Jose Lopez, Principal Amount: $100, Interest Accrues From Paid: 6/29/11;
Payee: Jose Lopez, Principal Amount: $1,700, Interest Accrues From Paid: 7/29/11;
Payee: Jose Barrera, Principal Amount: $500, Interest Accrues From Paid: 5/13/11;
Payee: Jose Barrera, Principal Amount: $1,039, Interest Accrues From Paid: 6/6/11;
Payee: Oscar Alvarez, Principal Amount: $800, Interest Accrues From Paid: 6/7/11;
Payee: Oscar Alvarez, Principal Amount: $575, Interest Accrues From Paid: 7/7/11;
Payee: Oscar Alvarez, Principal Amount: $675, Interest Accrues From Paid: 8/7/11;
Payee: Angel Nanez, Principal Amount: $100, Interest Accrues From Paid: 4/22/11;
Payee: Angel Nanez, Principal Amount: $1,900, Interest Accrues From Paid: 4/29/11;
Payee: Angel Nanez, Principal Amount: $360, Interest Accrues From Paid: 8/8/11;
Payee: Elizabeth Santibanez, Principal Amount: $200, Interest Accrues From Paid: 7/18/11;
Payee: Elizabeth Santibanez, Principal Amount: $600, Interest Accrues From Paid: 7/23/11;
Payee: Elizabeth Santibanez, Principal Amount: $600, Interest Accrues From Paid: 7/26/11;
Payee: Elizabeth Santibanez, Principal Amount: $359, Interest Accrues From Paid: 7/29/11;
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 10-O-06759
In the Matter of: Vivian C. San Jose
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: Vivian C. San Jose
Date: April 30, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel: David A. Clare
Date: May 9, 2012
Deputy Trial Counsel: Timothy G. Byer
Date: May 15, 2012
Case Number(s): 10-O-06759, et al
In the Matter of: Vivian C. San Jose
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.
On page 5 of the stipulation, the “X” in the box next to paragraph E.(1) is deleted as unnecessary.
On page 19 of the stipulation, the name “Gutierrez” is amended to read “Ericka Gutierrez.”
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:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Donald F. Miles
Date: May 22, 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 May 22, 2012, 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:
DAVID ALLAN CLARE
DAVID A CLARE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
444 W. OCEAN BLVD STE 800
LONG BEACH, CA 90802
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
TIMOTH BYER, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on May 22, 2012.
Signed by:
Rose Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court