Case Number(s): 10-O-11314-PEM, (11-O-13943)
In the Matter of: Oscar Arturo Ruiz De Chavez, Bar # 108605, 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
Oscar A. R. De Chavez
P. O. Box 711204
Santee, CA 92072
(619) 987-9273
Bar# 108605
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
Filed: February 16, 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 June 8, 1983.
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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
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.
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.
<<not>> 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 has no prior record of discipline in over 28 1/2 years of practicing law.
Respondent was suffering from chest pains and sporadic health issues in April 2011 through July 2011. Respondent continued to practice law but his health worsened in September 2011. In May 2011, Respondent’s serious cardiovascular health problems contributed, in part, to his delay in providing a timely written response to the State Bar investigation in the Kohles matter.
Respondent underwent open-heart surgery in October 2011 and his physician approved of his returning to full-time work on December 7, 2011. Respondent’s health has stabilized and is under control.
Attachment language (if any):
(1) CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNTING SCHOOL.
Within one (1) 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 and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
(2) ETHICS SCHOOL & CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNTING SCHOOL.
Because Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar of California Ethics School and Client Trust Accounting School as part of this stipulation, Respondent will receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of these courses.
IN THE MATTER OF: OSCAR ARTURO RUIZ De CHAVEZ, State Bar No. 108605
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-O-11314-PEM & (11-O-13943)
Respondent Oscar De Chavez, admits the facts set forth in the stipulation are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and State Bar Act.
Case No. 10-O-11314 (Kohles Matter)
FACTS
1. On November 20, 2009, Sacari Collections, Inc. (Sacari), a company owned by William Kohles (Kohles), was sued in a cross-complaint in a civil matter entitled Ramirez v. Cooper, case no. 30-2009 00312956, Orange County Superior Court (Ramirez v. Cooper).
2. On February 4, 2010, Kohles hired Respondent to represent and defend Sacari on the cross-complaint in Ramirez v. Cooper.
3. On October 4, 2010, Kohles filed a complaint with the State Bar. Pursuant to Kohles’s complaint, the State Bar opened investigation case no. 10-O-11314.
4. On March 11, 2011, and on April 11, 2011, a State Bar investigator mailed letters to Respondent at his official membership records address regarding the allegations in case no. 10-O-11314. The investigator’s letters requested that Respondent respond in writing to specified allegations of misconduct being investigated by the State Bar in case no. 10-O-11314 by March 28, 2011, and April 5, 2011, respectively. Respondent received the letters.
5. Respondent provided a belated written response on December 13, 2011, after the Notice of Disciplinary Charges was filed.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
6. By not providing a timely written response to the allegations in case no. 10-O- 11314, Respondent failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(i).
Case No. 11-O-13943 (Ayala Matter)
FACTS
7. In February 2008, Silvia Ayala (Ayala) retained attorney Joseph La Costa (La Costa) to represent her in a personal injury matter arising out of a December 25, 2007, auto accident where Ms. Register, the other driver, carried auto insurance with Western General Insurance, Co. (Western).
8. On November 11, 2008, Ayala retained Respondent to take over the handling of her insurance claim in the personal injury matter. At that time, the settlement terms were being considered by Western.
9. In early October 2009, the settlement with Western concluded and Ayala consented to a $10,000 settlement. On October 1 l, 2009, Ayala signed a release of all claims in the amount of $10,000. On October 23, 2009, Western sent a check in the amount of $10,000 payable to the Law Offices of La Costa and Ayala, despite the fact that Respondent had informed Western that Respondent was now the retained attorney.
10. On October 29, 2009, with the consent of Ayala, La Costa deposited the settlement funds into his client trust account.
11. Once the settlement funds from Western were deposited into La Costa’s client trust account on October 29, 2009, Respondent did not follow-up with La Costa to obtain the settlement funds to make disbursements because, according to Respondent, Respondent believed that La Costa had handled the distribution of the settlement funds. Respondent now acknowledges that this mistaken belief was not reasonable under the circumstances.
12. Respondent acknowledges that it was his responsibility and obligation to ensure that the disbursements were approved by Ayala and completed and he should have promptly followed through with handling the matter to its conclusion.
13. In January 2010, La Costa contacted Respondent to inquire as to the status of the Ayala matter. According to Respondent, Respondent believed that La Costa was calling regarding the Silvia Ayala Vega matter, which was a separate slip and fall case being handled by Respondent on behalf of Ayala’s mother who has the same name as Ayala. According to Respondent and La Costa, the identical mother-daughter names caused confusion and a miscommunication between the attorneys which led to the delay in finalizing the details of Ayala’s matter by Respondent. Based on the January 2010 miscommunication, La Costa had the mistaken belief that Respondent had resolved the Ayala matter and had made disbursements out of his own funds, because Respondent owed La Costa fees in an unrelated matter in the same amount.
14. On September 8, 201 l, the State Bar brought the allegations in the Ayala matter to Respondent’s attention. After inquiring with La Costa, Respondent learned that La Costa had not handled the distribution of the settlement funds on Ayala’s behalf.
15. On December 9, 201 l, La Costa and Respondent contacted the two medical providers in the Ayala matter. In December 2011 and January 2012, they negotiated reductions of the liens with the medical providers and on January 12, 2012, finalized all disbursements with Ayala’s consent. The aggregate amount owed to the medical providers exceeded the settlement funds. Respondent waived his right to any portion of the settlement funds in order to satisfy the outstanding liens.
16. On January 22, 2012, Respondent finalized Ayala’s matter by disbursing the funds to satisfy the medical providers’ outstanding liens.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
17. By failing to ensure that the settlement funds were properly and promptly disbursed to the lien holders on behalf of Ayala, and/or to Ayala, by failing to follow-up with La Costa to obtain the settlement funds, by failing to negotiate lien reductions, and by failing to promptly finalize disbursements on behalf of Ayala, Respondent recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3110(A).
DISMISSALS
The parties respectfully request the Court dismiss two alleged violations from the NDC in the interest of justice:
Case No. Count Alleged Violation
Case No.: 10-O-11314, Count: One, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A);
Case No.: 10-O-11314, Count: Two, Alleged Violation: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2);
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 1 [Footnote 1: Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 103, l 11; Cooper v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1016, 1025; Std. 1.3.]
Standard 2.4(b) of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, Title IV, provides for a reproval or suspension where there is a failure to perform depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client. Standard 2.6 provides for disbarment or suspension where there is a failure to cooperate with a State Bar investigation. Standard 1.6(a) provides for imposition of the more severe sanction where two apply.
The standards are guidelines2 and are afforded great weight3 but they are not applied in a talismanic fashion4 The determination of discipline involves an analysis of the standards on balance with any mitigation and aggravation.5 [Footnote 2: 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.; Footnote 3: In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 91-92.; Footnote 4: In the Matter of Van Sickle (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 994.; Footnote 5: Std. 1.6(b); Segal v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d1077, 1089; Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302, 1310-11.]
Respondent has no prior record of history in over 28 years of practice. A one-year private reproval6 In the Matter of Respondent F (Review Dept. 1992) 2 CaI.State Bar Ct. Rptr. 17.” serves to protect the public based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the misconduct. Footnote 6: In the Matter of Respondent F (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal.State Bar Ct. Rptr. 17.]
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph
A.(7), was January 19, 2012.
Case Number(s): 10-O-11314-PEM, (11-O-13943)
In the Matter of: Oscar Arturo Ruiz De Chavez
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: Oscar Arturo Ruiz De Chavez
Date: 01-31-2012
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Jean Cha
Date: 02-01-2012
Case Number(s): 10-O-11314-PEM, (11-O-13943)
In the Matter of: Oscar Arturo Ruiz De Chavez
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> 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.
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:
Judge of the State Bar Court: RICHARD A. HONN
Date: 02-15-12
[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 February 16, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
OSCAR ARTURO RUIZ DECHAVEZ
PO BOX 711204
SANTEE, CA 92072
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
JEAN CHA, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on February 16, 2012.
Signed by:
Lauretta Cramer
Case Administrator
State Bar Court