Case Number(s): 11-C-14963-RAP
In the Matter of: Irum Miriam Rana, Bar # 209803, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Kim Kasreliovich, 1149 S. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015, (213)765-1378, Bar # 261766
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent, Irum Miriam Rana, 1242 S Barrington Ave #301, Los Angeles, CA 90025, Bar # 209803
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles .
Filed: August 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 December 5, 2000.
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):
<<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.
See the Stipulation Attachment, page 7 for a discussion of Additional Mitigating Circumstances.
IN THE MATTER OF: IRUM MIRIAM RANA, State Bar No. 209803
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-C-14963
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 11-C-14963 (Conviction Proceedings)
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING:
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. This proceeding resulted from a single conviction on November 29, 2011, of Penal Code section 148(a)(1), a misdemeanor.
3. On April 12, 2012, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on whether the misconduct amounted to moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
FACTS:
4. On May 6, 2011, Respondent was pulled over by the California Highway Patrol for allegedly driving under the influence.
5. Respondent was uncooperative with officers during the stop, including repeatedly and extensively questioning officers, because she believed she was being wrongfully detained.
6. Following a trial, the jury found Respondent not guilty of VC 23152 (a) driving under the influence but convicted Respondent of Penal Code section 148(a)(1), resist, delay or obstruct a peace officer, a misdemeanor.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
7. The facts and circumstances surrounding the above-described violation did not involve moral turpitude but did involve other misconduct warranting discipline.
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Prior Discipline: Respondent was admitted to the bar in December 2000 and has more than 10 years of practice without discipline prior to the misconduct.
Good Character: Respondent has provided the State Bar with an extraordinary demonstration of good character attested to by a wide range of references from the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of the misconduct.
Respondent provided nine (9) character references including attorneys, a law school professor, business people, and clients, all of whom are aware of Respondent’s conviction. The attorneys and law school professor describe Respondent as responsible, reliable and effective. They all attest to her hard work and dedication to the practice of law. The client states that Respondent has always zealously stood up for its legal rights and interests and continues to provide outstanding representation. The pro bono client expressed gratitude to Respondent for spending hundreds of hours to save her small business. Not one person felt that knowing about Respondent’s conviction changed their positive opinion of Respondent.
Respondent also provided the State Bar with evidence of her volunteer work in the community. One of her letters came from the Salvation Army where Respondent volunteered from 2004 through 2006 on a weekly basis to feed the homeless. Another letter came from Loyola Law School where Respondent volunteered her time to assist students in a Mock Interview Program in 2002. Additionally, Respondent provided evidence of her participation, also in 2002, in the Mock Trial Program for the Constitutional Rights Foundation. She received a certificate of appreciation signed by the President of the Constitutional Rights Foundation and the President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. Civic service can be considered mitigation as evidence of good character under this Standard. (ln the Matter of Respondent K (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 359, 359. Porter v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 518, 529.)
Additional Mitigating Circumstances: Respondent has been readily available and willing to work with the State Bar, including entering into this Stipulation, for which she deserves some mitigation. Entering into a Stipulation deserves varying amounts of mitigation. (In the Matter of Connor (Review Dept. 2008) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 93, 107.) The greatest weight is afforded to those stipulations of facts not easily proven or stipulations to level of discipline. (ln the Matter of Silver (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 902, 906.)
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.3 of the Standards For Attomey Sanctions For Professional Misconduct, Title IV of the Rules of Procedure ("Standards") states that the primary purposes of attorney discipline are, "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high legal professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession."
In determining the appropriate level of discipline, the Standards are entitled to great weight. (ln re Silv.erton (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 81, 89-94 and In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal. 4th 205, 220.) The Standards are not applied in a talismanic fashion, and the Court tempers its analysis of the proper level of discipline by considerations peculiar to the offense and the offender. (In the Matter of Van Sicklle (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 994.) In the instant case the discipline is within the applicable range based upon the Standards and case law.
Standard 3.4 provides that when a member has been convicted of a crime not involving moral turpitude, the sanction shall be according to those prescribed under Part B of the Standards appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct.
Under Part B, Standard 2.10 states a member’s culpability of violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified elsewhere in the Standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or harm to the victim with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in Standard 1.3.
There are no published cases of attorney discipline where the attorney has been convicted of violating misdemeanor Penal Code section 148(a)(1). In In the Matter of Stewart (Review Department 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 52, Respondent was convicted of battery of a police officer and the court recommended that Respondent be suspended for two years, stayed, and that respondent be placed on probation for two years on conditions including sixty (60) days actual suspension. However, Stewart was a far more serious offense than the present case and physical injury was inflicted on the officer involved. In addition, the case was aggravated by Stewart’s multiple acts of wrongdoing, indifference to his crime, and a prior record of discipline.
In re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 487, may be more instructive in this case since it is also a conviction matter but warranted lesser discipline than Stewart. Kelley suffered two convictions, with two charges each for DUI and driving witha blood alcohol level of more than. 10%. Both offenses occurred within Respondent’s first 4 years of practice as an attorney and the second offense occurred during the probationary period for the first offense. Kelley was agitated and uncooperative with law enforcement during her arrest. Ultimately, the court found that since Kelley’s convictions did not cause a specific harm to the courts or the public and there were several mitigating factors, only minimal discipline was warranted. The Supreme Court found that a public reproval was "sufficient to protect the public from the threat of future professional misconduct." (Id. at 498.)
DISCUSSION.
In the instant case, Respondent was convicted of misdemeanor resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer. Similar to Kelley, there is no specific harm to the public. Also similar to Kelley, there is no aggravation present in this case. The Court in Kelley approved a public reproval which is within the applicable range under Standard 2.10. However, there is additional mitigation present in this case, which was not present in Kelley. Respondent has demonstrated several mitigating factors such as: a lack of prior discipline over a ten (10) year period, extraordinary evidence of good character from both the legal and general communities, and entering into a Stipulation with the State Bar. When considering the applicable case law and Standards as well as the mitigation present in this case, a private reproval is a sufficient level of discipline to protect the public, the courts, and the administration of justice.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was August 6, 2012.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 11-C-14963
In the Matter of: Irum Miriam Rana
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: Irum Miriam Rana
Date: August 6, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Kim Kasrekiovich
Date: August 6, 2012
Case Number(s): 11-C-14963
In the Matter of: Irum Miriam Rana
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.
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: August 15, 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 August 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 Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
IRUM M. RANA
1242 S BARRINGTON AVE APT 301
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Kimberly G. Kasrekiovich, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on August 16, 2012.
Signed by:
Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator
State Bar Court