Case Number(s): 10-O-09760
In the Matter of: Walter Henry Hackett, Bar # 230607, A Member of the State Bar of Los Angeles California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Michael J. Glass, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299
(213) 765-1254
Bar #102700
Counsel for Respondent: David Cameron Carr, 530 B Street, Suite 410
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 696-0526
Bar #124510
Submitted to: Settlement Judge, State Bar Court clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: January 12, 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 May 28, 2004.
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 13 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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
<<>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: February 1 in three billing cycles following the effective date of discipline. (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: WALTER HENRY HACKETT
Case Number(s): 10-O-09760
Member No.: 230607
Financial Conditions
a. Restitution
[]
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.
Payee Principal Amount Interest Accrues From
[]
Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of
Probation not later than
b. Installment Restitution Payments
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.
Payee/CSF (as applicable) Minimum Payment Amount Payment Frequency
[]
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.
c. Client Funds Certificate
[] 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 certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
Respondent as 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 possesses 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.
d. Client Trust Accounting School
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: Walter Henry Hackett, State Bar No. 230607
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-O-09760
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-09760 (Complainant: Steve Buckner and Susan J. Bonno-Buckner )
FACTS:
1. In or about June 2007, Steve Buckner and Susan J. Bonno-Buckner ("the Buckners") employed Respondent to defend them in a civil matter with the City of Monrovia concerning an easement on the Buckner’s property. On or about September 20, 2007, the City of Monrovia filed a quiet title ]action against the Buckners entitled City of Monrovia vs. Steven D. and Susan J. Buckner, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. GC03925 ("the quiet title action").
2. On or about October l, 2007, Respondent tendered the defense of the quiet title action to Stewart Title, the Buckners’ title insurance company.
3. On October 30, 2007, Stewart Title informed Respondent that it would reimburse him his reasonable attorney’s fees in defending the case pursuant to Civil Code section 2860 if the tender was accepted.
4. Between October 2007 and April 2008, the Buckners paid Respondent $3,200 in attorneys fees pursuant to invoices received from Respondent.
5. In April 2008, Stewart Title accepted the defense tender of the quiet title action on the Buckners’ behalf.
6. On February 5, 2008, the City of Monrovia filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the quiet title action.
7. On May 2, 2008, the court granted the City of Monrovia’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and on or about June 3, 2008, the court entered judgment for the City of Monrovia. Respondent: Walter Henry Hackett Stayed Suspension; No Actual Attachment to Stipulation 9 Attachment Page 1
8. On or about May 9, 2008, Respondent submitted his final invoice for attorneys fees in the amount of $13,690 to Stewart Title.
9. On or about June 13, 2008, Ms. Lore Hilburg, counsel for Stewart Title, mailed Respondent a check in the amount of $14,490, issued by Stewart Title and made payable to Steve Buckner and Susan Buckner. The cover letter accompanying the check stated that the check was issued by Stewart Title to the Buckners as reimbursement for post-tender attorneys fees.
10. On or about June 18, 2008, Respondent received the check for $14,490 from Ms. Hilburg. Respondent did not inform the Buckners that he had received the check.
11. On June 18, 2008, Respondent deposited the check in his client trust account at Wells Fargo Bank, account number xxxxxxx335 ("cta").l
12. On or about June 23, 2008, Respondent disbursed $11,300 from the $14,490 to himself as payment of attorneys fees in the Buckner matter.
13. On or about July June 24, 2008, Ms. Hilburg, mailed Respondent a second check, in the amount of $300, issued by Stewart Title and made payable to Steven Buckner and Susan Buckner. Again, this check was sent as reimbursement for post-tender attorneys fees.
14. On or about July 8, 2008, Respondent received the check for $300 from Ms. Hilburg.
Respondent deposited the check in his cta. Respondent did not inform the Buckners that he had received the check.
15. On July 8, 2008, Respondent issued a check to the Buckners in the amount of $3200 as
reimbursement for attorneys fees paid to Respondent in the quiet title action.
16. Between July 22, 2008, and August 2, 2008, Sue Buckner sent several e-mails to Respondent inquiring as to how much money Respondent had received from Stewart Title as reimbursement for post-tender attorney fees.
17. On August 2, 2008, Respondent replied to Sue Buckner’s e-mails, but did not address her concerns regarding how much money Respondent had received from Stewart Title as reimbursement for post-tender attorney fees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
18. By not responding to client Sue Buckner’s e-mails and addressing her concerns with regard to how much money Respondent had received from Stewart Title as reimbursement for post-tender attorney fees, Respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of a significant development in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
The full account number has omitted for privacy purposes.
Respondent: Walter Henry Hackett Stayed Suspension; No Actual
Attachment to Stipulation
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was December 2, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.6 provides that "Culpability of a member of a violation of any of the following provisions of the Business and Professions Code shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3:
(a) Sections 6067 and 6068; ...."
In Wells v. State Bar (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 199, in one matter, Respondent filed a marital dissolution, but failed to serve the opposing party. Respondent also failed to respond to numerous phone calls by the client. In another matter, Respondent represented a client in a civil matter. Respondent failed to inform the client that her deposition had been scheduled. Respondent also failed to inform the client of the trial date. The court imposed discipline consisting of a two year stayed suspension, two years probation with conditions, including a 30 day actual suspension. In aggravation, Respondent had two prior impositions of discipline. In mitigation, Respondent established office procedures to prevent a reoccurrence of the
misconduct, made restitution to one client, and was cooperative with the State Bar.
In Franklin v. State Bar (1986) 41 Cal. 3d 700, in two matters, Respondent failed to perform and failed to communicate by his failure to inform clients to attend their depositions, and the need to respond to discovery. Respondent also improperly withdrew from employment. The court imposed discipline consisting of a one year stayed suspension, one year probation with conditions, including a 45 day actual suspension. In aggravation, Respondent was deceptive and misleading in his testimony before the State Bar Court. In mitigation, Respondent had no prior record of discipline in 14 years of practice, although the misconduct began after only five years of practice.
In the instant case Respondent Walter Henry Hackett’s misconduct is less egregious than that of the Respondent’s in the Wells, supra., and Franklin, supra., matters. As such, discipline consisting of a one year stayed suspension, two years probation with conditions is appropriate discipline in the instant case.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No.: 10-O-09760, Count: One, Alleged Violation: rule 4-100(A)
Case No.: 10-O-09760, Count: Two, Alleged Violation: Business & Professions Code section 6106
Case No.: 10-O-09760, Count: Three, Alleged Violation: rule 4-100(B)(1)
Case No.: 10-O-09760, Count: Four, Alleged Violation: rule 4-100(B)(3)
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of November 30, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $3,312.40. 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-09760
In the Matter of: Walter Henry Hackett
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: Walter Henry Hackett
Date: December 9, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel: David C. Carr
Date: December 12, 2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Michael J. Glass
Date: December 14, 2011
Case Number(s): 10-O-09760
In the Matter of: Walter Henry Hackett
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 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. Honn
Judge of the State Bar Court:
Date: January 9, 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 12, 2012, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING STAYED SUSPENSION; NO ACTUAL SUSPENSION
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 C, CARR
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID CAMERON CARR
530 B ST STE 1410
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
MICHAEL GLASS, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 12, 2012.
Signed by: Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court