Case Number(s): 11-C-15475
In the Matter of: Randall Thomas Garteiser, Bar # 231821, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Treva R. Stewart, Deputy Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94105
(415) 538-2452
Bar #239829,
Counsel for Respondent: Doron Weinberg, 523 Octavia Street
San Francisco, California 94102
(415) 431-3472
Bar#46131
Submitted to: Assigned Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
Filed: January 15, 2013.
<<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 July 13, 2004.
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.
IN THE MATTER OF: RANDALL THOMAS GARTEISER
CASE NUMBER: 11-C-15475
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.
Case No. 11-C-15475 (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. On April 2, 2012, Respondent was convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 14601.5(a).
3. On June 22, 2012, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department 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 offense(s) for which Respondent was convicted involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
FACTS:
4. On March 7, 2011, Respondent was convicted in Marin County Superior Court case number S 171375A for violation of Vehicle Code (VC) section 23152(b), driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of.08 or more, a misdemeanor.
5. Three years conditional probation was imposed for violation of VC section 23152(b).
6. As a result of the conviction, Respondent’s driving privileges were suspended.
7. On July 23,2011, Respondent was arrested and cited by the Marin County Sheriff’s Office for driving a motor vehicle while his license was suspended for driving under the influence ("DUI"), in violation of VC section 14601.5(a), a misdemeanor and operating his motor vehicle with inoperable stop lamps, in violation of VC section 24603(e), an infraction.
8. On April 2, 2012, Respondent pled guilty to a violation of VC sections 14601.5(a) and 24603(e).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
9. The facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s conviction for violation of VC section 14601.5(a) do not involve moral turpitude but do involve other misconduct warranting discipline.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline.
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING FACTORS.
Pre-Trial Stipulation: Respondent agreed to resolve this matter without the necessity of trial by entering into this stipulation. (See In the Matter of Riordan (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 41, 50.)
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provide a "process of fixing discipline" pursuant to a set of written principles to "better discharge the purposes of attorney discipline as announced by the Supreme Court." (Rules Proc. of State Bar, tit. IV, Stds. For Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, Introduction (all further references to standards are to this source).) The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings and of the sanctions imposed 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." (In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 205; std .3.)
Although not binding, the standards are entitled to "great weight" and should be followed "whenever possible" in determining level of discipline. (ln re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 92, quoting In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4t~ 205, 220 and In re Young (1989) 49 Cal.3d 257, 267, fn. 11.) Adherence to the standards in the great majority of cases serves the valuable purpose of eliminating disparity and assuring consistency, that is, the imposition of similar attorney discipline for instances of similar attorney misconduct. (In re Naney (1990) 51 Cal.3d 186, 190.) Any discipline recommendation different from that set forth in the applicable standards should clearly explain the reasons for the deviation. (Blair v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 762, 776, fn. 5.)
Standard. 2.10 states:
"Culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in these standards or a willful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3." (see Standard 3.4). Here there is no finding of harm.
In re Kelley (1980) 52 Cal. 3d 487, Kelley was on probation for a DUI conviction when she was again arrested for DUI. In mitigation, Kelly had no prior record of discipline. Further, she was found to suffer from addictive alcoholism and demonstrated sustained rehabilitative efforts. Kelly received a public reproval.
Like Kelley, Respondent was on probation at the time of a subsequent law enforcement contact which lead to conviction. However, here, Respondent was not arrested. He was issued a citation and released. Like Kelley, Respondent has no priors and has demonstrated rehabilitation. Further, Respondent is in compliance with the terms of the deferred entry of judgment. Unlike Kelley, Respondent was not under the influence at the time of the subsequent stop.
A private reproval is within the standards, supported by the case law and serves the purposes of discipline.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was September 27, 2012.
EXCLUSION FROM MCLE CREDIT
Pursuant to rule 3201, Respondent may not receive MCLE credit for completion of State Bar Ethics School and/or any other educational course(s) to be ordered as a condition of reproval or suspension]. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)
Case Number(s): 11-C-15475
In the Matter of: Randall Thomas Garteiser
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: Randall Thomas Garteiser
Date: 11-13-12
Respondent’s Counsel: Doron Weinberg
Date: 12/7/12
Deputy Trial Counsel: Treva R. Stewart
Date: 12/21/12
Case Number(s): 11-C-15475
In the Matter of: Randall Thomas Garteiser
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: Pat McElroy
Date: January 14, 2013
[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 January 15, 2013, 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:
DORON WEINBERG
523 OCTAVIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Treva Stewart, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on January 15, 2013.
Signed by:
Lauretta Cramer
Case Administrator
State Bar Court