Case Number(s): 11-C-12125
In the Matter of: Jonathan Patterson , Bar # 220087 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Ross E. Viselman
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015
Bar # 204979
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Jonathan Patterson
8105 Starling View Court
Las Vegas, Nevada 89166
Bar # 220087
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 June 8, 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 10 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: three (3) billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (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: Jonathan Patterson, State Bar No. 220087
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-C-12125
I. 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.
A. Procedural Background in Conviction Proceedings
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On September 15, 2009, Respondent was charged with two counts of open or gross lewdness, a gross misdemeanor pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 201.210, in a criminal complaint filed in Justice Court, Las Vegas Township, Clark County, Nevada.
3. On June 29, 2010, Respondent entered into a plea agreement, wherein he pled guilty to one count of open or gross lewdness, a gross misdemeanor pursuant to NRS 201.210, case no. I 0-C-265436 (the "Initial Plea Agreement"). In accordance with the Initial Plea Agreement, Respondent admitted to "willfully and unlawfully ... exposing and masturbating his penis in the direct view and presence of" two females.
4. Pursuant to the terms of the Initial Plea Agreement, adjudication of the crime and sentencing was stayed for one year for Respondent to obtain and continue sex offender therapy. In particular, the Initial Plea Agreement provided that "If Defendant stays out of trouble after one year, he may withdraw his plea and plead guilty to OPEN OR GROSS LEWDNESS - NON-SEXUAL (Gross Misdemeanor) and receive probation."
5. On August 5, 2011, Respondent withdrew his guilty plea to NRS 201.210, and pleaded to an amended information charging Respondent with conspiracy to commit assault, a gross misdemeanor pursuant to NRS 199.480, 200.471 (the "Final Plea Agreement"). Although the charge was different, the factual basis for the Final Plea Agreement was largely unchanged from the Initial Plea Agreement: Respondent admitted to "willfully, unlawfully and intentionally ... exposing and masturbating his penis in the direct view and presence of" two females.
6. In August 2011, the judgment of conviction was filed, and Respondent was sentenced to credit for time served in accordance with the Final Plea Agreement. There was no requirement that Respondent register as a sex offender. No appeal was filed.
7. On November 28, 2011, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department to determine whether the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation of NRS 199.480, 200.47 (conspiracy to commit assault) involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline, and if so, to recommend the discipline to be imposed.
B. Facts and Circumstances Underlying the Conviction
9. The facts and circumstances underlying Respondent’s conviction occurred on September 3, 2009 at the intersection of South Buffalo Drive and Rochelle Avenue in Las Vegas, Nevada.
10. Respondent was standing outside at the above-referenced intersection across the street from a day care center called the "Kids Academy Day Care."
11. Two girls aged 14 years old approached Respondent as they were walking home from a park. As the two girls walked by, Respondent called to them to get their attention. Specifically, Respondent shouted: "Hey girls!"
12. When the two girls turned around in response to Respondent’s shouting, Respondent had his pants down fully exposing his penis. Respondent masturbated in front of the two girls by shaking his penis at them.
13. The two girls ran across the street to the Kids Academy Day Care for help. There, they called the police and their parents.
14. The father of one of the girls arrived to retrieve the girls from the day care center. The girls identified Respondent, who, at that time, was in his car.
15. As Respondent drove away, the father followed him and tracked him down to a parking lot near the Flamingo Village Plaza just north of the location where Respondent exposed himself. The father blocked Respondent in a parking stall with his truck until the police arrived.
16. When the police arrived, they arrested Respondent.
C. Conclusions of Law
17. The facts and circumstance surrounding the above-described violation involved moral turpitude.
II. PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was February 22, 2012.
III. AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
A. Standards
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 3.2 states that the final conviction of an attorney of a crime which involves moral turpitude, either inherently or in the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime’s commission, shall result in disbarment, unless the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate, in which case a two-year actual suspension should be imposed.
B. Case Law
"Case law indicates a wide range of available discipline for cases involving sexual conduct toward children depending on all of the circumstances." In the Matter of Daniel G. Meza, 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 608 (1991).
In re Safran (1976) 18 Cal.3d 134, 135-36: Attorney was convicted of child molestation. The Supreme Court of California imposed three years stayed suspension and three years probation. Attorney was in a program of "psychiatric consultation and treatment with a highly qualified doctor who expressed the opinion that there is but a remote possibility that he will revert to his past misconduct. Attorney was candid throughout the disciplinary proceedings and expressed remorse for his acts." Moreover, the attorney’s employer "testified that the attorney’s performance as a lawyer was of the highest professional caliber and that if [the attorney] were permitted to continue to practice law their association would remain indefinitely." ld. at 135 - 36.
In re Duggan (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 416: Attorney was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and the Supreme Court of California ordered the attorney disbarred. Attorney was "emotionally depressed and endured a marked deterioration in his physical and mental health." M. at 421. For over a year, the attorney "was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment and evaluation." Id. The Supreme Court, however, noted the "seriousness" of the offense "by the fact that [the attorney] became involved with the victim of his crime while ostensibly in the course of his duties as an attorney representing a client." Id. at 424. The attorney also had a record of prior discipline.
In re Lesansky (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 11, 12-13: Attorney suffered felony conviction for attempted child molestation, and Supreme Court of California ordered summary disbarment.
Based upon the facts and circumstances of misconduct and the mitigation presented, the parties submit that the discipline recommended in the matter is consistent with the Standards and the case law. Respondent has no record of prior discipline with the State Bar of California since being admitted on June 8, 2002. Respondent has expressed remorse and undergone psychological treatment. There has been no indication of any subsequent misbehavior. Respondent has been candid and cooperative with the State Bar since these disciplinary proceedings began. Respondent was charged with and convicted of a misdemeanor. He was not required to register as a sex offender. The conduct did not occur in the context of Respondent’s activities as an attorney, and was not directed at a client.
IV. COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of March 5, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,287.00. 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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 11-C-12125
In the Matter of: Jonathan Patterson, State Bar No.: 220037
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: Jonathan Patterson
Date: March 9, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Ross E. Viselman
Date: March 12, 2012
Case Number(s): 11-C-12125
In the Matter of: Jonathan Robert Patterson
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 1 of the stipulation, in the case caption, respondent Jonathan Robert Patterson’s bar number is corrected and changed from "220087" to "220037."
On page 4 of the stipulation, the "X" in box D(1)(a)(i) is deleted to remove the "and until" standard 1.4(c)(ii) condition. (It is inappropriate to attach an "and until" condition to a period of stayed suspension.)
On page 4 of the stipulation, the "X" in box E(1) is deleted to remove the conditional standard 1.4(c)(ii) requirement. (The conditional standard 1.4(c)(ii) requirement in paragraph E(1) is inappropriate because it is inconsistent with the "and until" standard 1.4(c)(ii) condition that is attached to respondent’s two-year suspension in paragraph D(3)(a)(i).)
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: Richard A. Honn
Date: March 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 March 23, 2012, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION 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:
JONATHON R. PATTERSON
8105 STARLING VIEW CT
LAS VEGAS, NV 89166
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No., with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at, California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number . No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Ross E. Viselman, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 23, 2012.
Signed by:
Johnnie Smith
Case Administrator
State Bar Court