Case Number(s): Case No. 10-O-08359-RAH, Investigation No. 11-O-10806
In the Matter of: REZA BAYAT, Bar # 228280, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel for The State Bar: Jessica A. Lienau, Bar # 269753, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, 1149 S. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90015
Counsel for Respondent: Edward O. Lear, Bar #132699, Century Law Group LLP, 5200 W. Century Blvd. Ste. 345, Los Angeles, CA 90045
Submitted to: Assigned Judge, State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: January 09, 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 December 2, 2003
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 9 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 added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: (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.
9. The parties understand that:
<<not>> checked. (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
Additional aggravating circumstances:
Additional mitigating circumstances: Respondent wishes to enter into a Stipulation.
IN THE MATTER OF: Reza Bayat State Bar No. 228280
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-O-08359-RAH, Investigation No. 11-O-10806
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 No. 10-O-08359 (Complainants: John and Mary Salas)
On or about October 27, 2009, Respondent accepted the representation of John and Mary Salas (collectively "the Salas") in order to negotiate and obtain for the Salas a home mortgage loan modification for their property.
Between on or about October 29, 2009, and on or about February 10, 2010, Respondent charged and collected a total of $3,495.00 in advanced attorney fees from the Salas before fully performing each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform.
In or around August 2010, the Salas made a complaint to the State Bar about Respondent. Between in or around August 2010 and in or around July 2011, Respondent did not maintain an address with the State Bar’s membership records department where he could be reached. On or about July 18, 2011, Respondent reported a new address to the State Bar’s membership records department.
On or about July 28, 2011, an investigator for the State Bar mailed a letter to Respondent at his State Bar membership records address requesting a response to allegations raised by the Salas’ complaint. Respondent received the letter. Respondent did not respond to the State Bar’s letter or otherwise cooperate in the investigation of the Salas’ complaint. On or about November 2011, Respondent refunded $3,495.00 to the Salas.
By negotiating, arranging and offering to perform a mortgage loan modification for a fee paid by the Salas, and demanding, charging, collecting and receiving $3,495.00 from the Salas prior to fully performing each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform, in violation Section 2944.7(a)(1) of the Civil Code, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3.
By not providing a written response to the allegations raised by the Salas’ complaint, Respondent failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against him in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(i).
Investigation No. 11-O-10806 (Complainants: Dalieet and Sohan Singh)
On or about June 10, 2009, Respondent accepted the representation of Daljeet and Sohan Singh (collectively "the Singhs") in order to negotiate and obtain for the Singhs a home mortgage loan modification for their property. On or about June 10, 2009, Respondent charged and collected $4,000.00 in advanced attorney fees from the Singhs.
The Singhs were never provided with information on the status of their loan modification from Respondent. The Singhs were not granted a home loan modification from their lender. Respondent returned the $4,000.00 of advanced attorney fees paid by the Singhs in November 2011.
Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), by intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failing to perform legal services with competence by failing to take the required action on the Singhs loan modification matter.
Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2), by failing to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned by failing to refund the $4,000.00 paid by the Singhs in advance attorney fees.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was November 29, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.3, Title IV, Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, provides that the primary purposes of the disciplinary system 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."
Standard 2.6 holds that a violation of § 6068, Business and Professions Code, shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or harm, if any, to the victim.
Standard 2.4(b) holds that a failure to perform in individual client matters, not demonstrating a pattern, shall result in reproval or suspension depending on the extent of the misconduct and the extent of harm to the client.
Standard 2.10 holds that the violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) [Failure to Refund Unearned Fees] shall result in reproval or suspension, depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm to the victim.
The Standards call for a level of discipline ranging between reproval and disbarment. Based on the facts of this case, a public reproval with one year of reproval conditions, including restitution conditions, is an appropriate level of discipline.
There are no aggravating circumstances present in this matter. Hence, discipline at the lower end of the range of discipline called for in the Standards is appropriate.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No. 10-0-08359, Count: Two, Alleged Violation: Failure to Perform with Competence [rule 3-110(A)]
Case No. 10-0-08359, Count: Three, Alleged Violation: Failure to Return Unearned Fees [rule 3-700(D)(2)]
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of October 25, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $4161.00. 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-08359-RAH, Investigation No. 11-O-10806
In the Matter of: REZA BAYAT
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: REZA BAYAT, EDWARD O. LEAR, & JESSICA A. LIENAU
Respondent: REZA BAYAT
Date: 12/02/2011
Respondent’s Counsel: EDWARD O. LEAR
Date: 12/15/2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: JESSICA A. LIENAU
Date:
12/20/2011
Case Number(s): 10-O-08359-RAH, Investigation No. 11-O-10806
In the Matter of: REZA BAYAT
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department are vacated.
1. The “X’s” in paragraph E. (11) on page 5 of the Stipulation are removed.
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.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
Signed by: Richard A. HONN
Judge of the State Bar Court: RICHARD A. HONN
Date:
01/09/2012
[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 January 9, 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:
EDWARD O LEAR ESQ
CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP
5200 W CENTURY BLVD #345
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Jessica A. Lienau, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 9, 2012.
Signed by: Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator Julieta E. Gonzales
State Bar Court