Case Number(s): 1-C-12195-RAH
In the Matter of: Daniel Lawrence Eisman, Bar # 248617, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Kevin B. Taylor 1149 South Hill Street, Bar # 15175
Counsel for Respondent: Daniel L. Eisman c/o Jerome Eisman 7674 Lake Adlon Dr., San Diego, CA 92119, Bar # 248617
Submitted to: 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 March 30, 2007
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 awarded to the State Bar.
<<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. ORDER OF INACTIVE ENROLLMENT:
The parties are aware that If this stipulation is approved, the judge will Issue an order of inactive enrollment under Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4), and Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule 5.111(D)(1 ).
(Effective January 1, 2011 Disbarment.)
IN THE MATTER OF: DANIEL LAWRENCE EISMAN, State Bar No. 248617
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-C-12195-RAH
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of engaging in misconduct which involved moral turpitude and other conduct warranting discipline.
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 April 28, 2011, in the case of State of Alaska v. Daniel L. Eisman, Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage, case number 3AN-10-4963 CR, Respondent pled guilty and was convicted of violating Alaska Statutes section, 11.61.123(a)(f)(2), indecent viewing or photography, a misdemeanor, and section 11.61.127(a) possession of child pornography, a felony.
3. Respondent was sentenced to serve one year incarceration on the first count and eight years incarceration, with five years suspended, on the second count. Upon release, Respondent is required to register as a sex offender with the State of Alaska Department of Public Safety.
4. Respondent did not appeal the conviction or sentence, both of which are now final.
5. On June 9, 2011, the State Bar transmitted the record of Respondent’s conviction to the State Bar Court, Review Department.
6. On August 3,2011, the Review Department issued an order placing Respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Business and Professions Code, section 6102, and ordered the parties to file briefs addressing the issue of whether Respondent’s conviction involved moral turpitude per se.
7. On August 19, 2011, the State Bar filed its brief, which argued that Respondent’s conviction did involve moral turpitude per se. Respondent did not file a brief.
8. On September 9, 2011, the Review Department issued an order finding that Respondent’s conviction did not inherently involve moral turpitude, but may involve moral turpitude based upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the conviction.
9. On December 1, 2011, after the Court received evidence that Respondent’s conviction had become final, the Review Department referred this matter to the Hearing Department for a hearing and determination as to whether the facts and circumstance surrounding Respondent’s
conviction involved moral turpitude or other conduct warranting discipline, and if so, the discipline to be imposed.
10. The conduct which led to Respondent’s conviction includes the following:
11. In 2009 and 2010, Respondent installed and operated hidden video cameras in various rooms throughout his home, including a guest bedroom and bathroom. During that time, Respondent video recorded multiple female house guests in various states of undress while they used those rooms to change clothing, shower and for other purposes. At times, Respondent encouraged female house guests to use the rooms prior to recording them. Some of the recordings captured pictures of the victims’ exposed breasts and genitals.
12. The women Respondent video recorded did not know that they were being recorded and never consented to any such recording.
13. Respondent maintained the video recordings on his computer.
14. While investigating the above-described conduct of Respondent, law enforcement found that Respondent also obtained and possessed over 300 images of child pornography.
15. Respondent admits that his conduct, both the making of the exploitive video recordings and the obtaining and possession of child pornography, involve moral turpitude.
16. Respondent’s conviction for violating Alaska Statutes sections 11.61.123 (a)(f)(2) and 11.61.127(a), and the facts and circumstances surrounding same, involve moral turpitude and other misconduct warranting discipline.
The Standards For Attorney Sanctions For Professional Misconduct support disbarment in this matter.
Standard 1.3 provides guidance as to the imposition of discipline and interpretation of specific Standards. That Standard states that the primary purpose of discipline is the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession.
Standard 3.2 provides that conviction of a member 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. No such compelling mitigation exists in this matter.
The disclosure date referred to, on page two, paragraph A.(7), was January 13, 2012.
Respondent
acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent
that as of, January 13, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are
approximately $2,300. 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): 11-C-12195-RAH
In the Matter of: Daniel Lawrence Eisman
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: Daniel L. Eisman
Date: January 22, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Kevin B. Taylor
Date: January
31, 2012
Case Number(s): 11-C-12195-RAH
In the Matter of: Daniel Lawrence Eisman
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.
<<not>> 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.)
Respondent Daniel Lawrence Eisman is ordered transferred to involuntary inactive status pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4). Respondent’s inactive enrollment will be effective three (3) calendar days after this order is served by mail and will terminate upon the effective date of the Supreme Court’s order imposing discipline herin, or as provided for by rule 5.111(D)(2) or the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, or as otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court pursuant to its plenary jurisdiction.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: February 10, 2012
(Effective
January 1, 2011)
[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 February 10, 2012, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND
ORDER APPROVING; ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT
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:
DANIEL L EISMAN ESQ
C/O JEROME & KAREN EISMAN
7674 LAKE ADLON DR
SAN DIEGO, CA 92119
Courtesy copy:
DANIEL L EISMAN, ESQ
PALMER CORRECTIONAL CENTER
PALMER, AK 99645
Checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Kevin B. Taylor, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on February 10, 2012.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzalez
Case Administrator
State Bar Court