Case Number(s): 11-C-14175-RAH
In the Matter of: Patrick Hunt Hough, Bar # 128525, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1714
Bar# 261592
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Patrick Hunt Hough
428 Main Street
E1 Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 322-1792
Bar# 128525
Submitted to: State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: July 25, 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 17, 1987..
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.
Within thirty (30) days of completion of his SB38 program (Scheduled to be completed by May 10, 2013), Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at twenty-six (26) Alcohol Anonymous meetings since his November 2011 DUI conviction.
IN THE MATTER OF: Patrick Hunt Hough, State Bar No. 128525
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-C-14175-RAH
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the facts are true and that he is culpable of the violations of the statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct specified herein.
Case No. 1 l-C- 14175-RAH (Conviction Proceedings)
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 November 10, 2011, Respondent pied no contest and was convicted of violating California Vehicle Code, section 23152, subdivision (a) for driving a vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage on June 1, 2011 with a prior in Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 1SY04854.
3. On May 31, 2012, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues: For a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the Hearing Department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code, section 23152, subdivision (a) (driving under the influence), of which Respondent was convicted, involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
FACTS:
4. At approximately 2 a.m. on June 1,2011, Los Angeles County Police officers were stopped at an intersection in Redondo Beach. The officers observed Respondent’s vehicle abruptly approach the intersection and make a right turn causing the tires to screech as the vehicle lost traction with the road. The officers followed Respondent’s vehicle once they saw he was driving at an unsafe speed and he made his improper right turn.
5. Respondent then made a left turn onto another local street, at which point the officers activated their emergency lights. Respondent did not yield and instead, Respondent entered into a gated parking garage and parked his vehicle.
6. The officers followed Respondent into the parking garage and questioned Respondent about his failure to yield and erratic driving.
7. After stepping out of the car, Respondent failed several field sobriety tests. Accordingly, the officers requested Respondent to provide two breath samples, which showed that Respondent had a. 16% and. 18% blood-alcohol level at the time.
8. On June 20, 2011, a misdemeanor complaint was filed against Respondent in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
9. Respondent was previously convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code, section 23152, subdivision (a) in Los Angeles County on November 4, 2005. Consequently, on November 10, 2011, Respondent was convicted of a misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code, section 23152, subdivision (a), driving a vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage with a prior.
10. On November 10, 2011, imposition of sentence was suspended and Respondent was placed on summary probation for 36 months and ordered to serve 4 days of county jail. He was also ordered to pay all fines and fees, to enroll in a DWI second offenders program, not to drive with blood-alcohol content level exceeding a .00% and obey all laws. Respondent has subsequently served his jail sentence and has provided proof to the Los Angeles County Superior Court of enrollment in an 18-month second offender alcohol (SB38) program commencing in January 2012 (scheduled to be completed by May 2013) and completion of an alcohol education program. Additionally, he has provided proof to the Superior Court that he installed an ignition interlock device on his vehicle.
CONCLUSION OF LAW:
Respondent’s misdemeanor conviction for violating Vehicle Code, section 23152, subdivision (a) (driving under the influence with a prior) constitutes other misconduct warranting discipline.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was July 9, 2012.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
FACTS SUPPORTING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Prior History: Respondent was admitted to practice law in California in 1987 and has no prior of record of State Bar discipline.
Additional Mitigating Circumstances: Respondent has cooperated with the State Bar by entering into a stipulated settlement for the matter described herein without the need of a trial.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
A. Standards:
Standard 3.4, Standards For Attorney Sanctions For Professional Misconduct, provides that a final conviction of a member which does not involve moral turpitude, but does involve other misconduct warranting discipline shall result in a sanction as prescribed under part B of the Standards. Accordingly, Standard 2.10 holds that a willful violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in the Standards or a willful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in the Standards shall result in reproval 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 for the Standard 1.3.
B. Applicable Case Law:
In determining the appropriate level of discipline, the Standards are entitled to great weight. (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 89-94; In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205,220.) However, the Standards are not applied in a talismanic fashion, and the Court tempers its analysis of the proper level of discipline by considerations to the specific offense and offender. (In the Matter of Van Sickle (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 994.) Accordingly, in fashioning the appropriate level of discipline, the Standards are the starting point and consideration must also be given to whether the recommended discipline is consistent with or disproportional to prior decisions of the California Supreme Court and the Review Department of the State Bar Court on similar facts. (See e.g., In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 206; Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302, 1310-1311.) Here, the discipline is within the range prescribed by the Standards and case law and deviation is not appropriate.
A second alcohol-related conviction for driving under the influence is conduct warranting discipline--a public reproval. In re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal.3d 487. In Kelley, the Supreme Court publicly reproved an attorney and ordered her to comply with certain disciplinary conditions for three years, including conditions to address her use of alcohol, despite finding that attorney Kelley had significant mitigation. Her blood alcohol content in the second incident was tested at. 16% and. 17%. As stated in another conviction referral matter, "[t]he fact that respondent’s drunk driving did not result in serious injury or death to another was merely fortuitous. It does not render the respondent’s conduct any less serious." In re Anderson (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 208, 215. Similarly, the public danger created by failing to immediately yield to police officers and driving with a blood alcohol level of at least .16% coupled with a prior driving under the influence conviction demonstrates why Respondent’s conviction in this matter constitutes other misconduct warranting discipline. Accordingly, Respondent should be publicly reproved for one (1) year with conditions including compliance with the terms of his criminal probation.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of July 16, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $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-14175-RAH
In the Matter of: Patrick Hunt Hough
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: Patrick Hunt Hough
Date: July 19, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel: N/A
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Anand Kumar
Date: July 20, 2012
Case Number(s): 11-C-14175-RAH
In the Matter of: Patrick Hunt Hough
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: July 25, 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 July 25, 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:
PATRICK H HOUGH ESQ
428 MAIN ST
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Anand Kumar, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on July 25, 2012.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court