Case Number(s): 11-C-19505
In the Matter of: Marvin Ezequiel Vallejo , Bar # 269561, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Adriana M. Burger, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill St. 10th floor
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Bar # 92534,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Marvin Ezequiel Vallejo
P.O. Box 86788
Los Angeles CA 90086
Bar # 269561
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 May 14, 2010.
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 13 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: 2013, 2014, 2015. (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: Marvin Ezequiel Vallejo, State Bar No. 269561
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-C-19505
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-19505 (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 December 8, 2011, Respondent was convicted of violating two counts of California Penal Code section 166(A)(4), a misdemeanor.
3. On February 2, 2012, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues:
4. Whether Respondent Respondent’s conviction of violating Penal Code section 166 (A)(4) constituted an act involving moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
FACTS:
5. Starting in 2008, Respondent was employed as a law clerk in a Los Angeles law office and became friends with the victim ("Ms. C"). On or about October 25, 2010, Ms. obtained a protective restraining order in case number BS128723 in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central Division against Respondent. The facts and circumstances of the events leading up to the issuance of the restraining order are described below.
6. During Respondent’s employment at the law offices, Respondent expressed interest in a more personal relationship with Ms. C. She communicated her disinterest and cut off any non-business related contact with Respondent. Respondent continuously and persistently contacted Ms. C, stating to her that he wished to "mend" their "friendship" despite her requests to cease all contact unrelated to their work.
7. The victim reported the incidents to her employer. By this time, Respondent was no longer employed by the same employer and had become a member of the State Bar. Her employer attempted to counsel Respondent, however, the contacts continued. After giving Respondent sufficient warnings, Respondent was told not to come to the offices anymore.
8. After being told not to come to the offices, Respondent continued to try to contact Ms. C. She consulted with one of the attorneys sharing office space at the work site who filed a request for a civil restraining order on her behalf. The court granted the restraining order on October 25, 2010.
9. Subsequently in December 2010 through March 2011, Respondent contacted Ms. C. On at least four dates Respondent sent to Ms. C a handwritten letter and emails, including a request to retract the restraining order. On February 1,2011, Ms. C reported the incidents to the police and also provided a copy of the restraining order.
10. On March 17,2011, Respondent was charged with four misdemeanor counts of Penal Code Section 166(a)(4), in case no. 1WW01663 in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Whittier Branch.
11. On December 8, 2011, Respondent pled no contest and was adjudged and found guilty of two counts of violating the court order, Penal Code section 166 (A)(4).
12. The court sentenced Respondent to 36 months of summary probation with conditions including 30 days of Caltrans work, fine of $100, a stay away order of 100 yards away from Ms. C, complete 20 counseling sessions with a licensed mental health professional.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
The facts and circumstances surrounding the above-described violations did not involve moral turpitude but did involve other misconduct warranting discipline.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
To determine the appropriate level of discipline, the standards provide guidance. Drociak v. State Bar(1991) 52 Cal.3d 1085; In the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119. A disciplinary recommendation must be consistent with the discipline in similar proceedings. See Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302. Also, the recommended discipline must rest upon a balanced consideration of relevant factors. In the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119.
Pursuant to Standard 3.4 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct titled CONVICTION OF A CRIME NOT INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE BUT INVOLVING OTHER MISCONDUCT WARRANTING DISCIPLINE,
final conviction of a member of a crime which does not involve moral turpitude inherently or in the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime’s commission but which does involve other misconduct warranting discipline shall result in a sanction as prescribed under part B of these standards appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct found to have been committed by the member.
The Review Department has expressed that this matter be evaluated under this standard as a matter that does not involve moral turpitude but involves other misconduct. It is proper to determine level of discipline based upon this standard.
Pursuant to Standard 2.10 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct titled OFFENSE INVOLVING A VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE NOT SPECIFIED IN ANY OTHER STANDARD OR A WILFUL VIOLATION OF A RULE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT NOT SPECIFIED IN ANY OTHER STANDARD,
Culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in these standards or of a wilful 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. Standard 1.3 provides that:
The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar of California and of sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgment of a member’s professional misconduct 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. Rehabilitation of a member is a permissible object of a sanction imposed upon the member but only if the imposition of rehabilitative sanctions is consistent with the above-stated primary purposes of sanctions for professional misconduct.
Pursuant to Standard 2.6 certain violations such as violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103 shall result in disbarment or suspension depending upon the gravity of the offense. The conviction of Penal Code section 166(A)(4), violating a restraining court order is similar to and appears to be consistent with section 6103.
Past disciplinary conviction referral cases in misdemeanor criminal matters have resulted in suspension of varying degrees depending upon the underlying criminal offense. Here Respondent was found guilty of violating a valid court restraining order, twice, by contacting Ms. C through emails and letters. The restraining order was issued by the Superior Court and was a valid court order. Ms. C’s declaration and facts supporting the restraining order described elements of harassment type behavior committed by Respondent. After the order was issued, it was incumbent upon Respondent to cease any and all contact of Ms. C.
The prosecuting agencies elected to prosecute Respondent as a misdemeanant. Although the matter was prosecuted as a misdemeanor, the conduct is nevertheless serious and warrants suspension. Respondent demonstrated poor judgment and was unable to control his obsessions toward Ms. C. Respondent’s behavior indicates that his obsession superseded the valid court order.
Rehabilitation of this member is expected to be accomplished through the thirty- day suspension and the required medical conditions. The State Bar has a history of treating past misdemeanants with variable suspensions depending upon the actual harm caused to the client, public or the legal system. Ms. C and her immediate family and associates who knew about the Respondent’s actions were annoyed, concerned and surprised but not physically injured by Respondent’s actions. Nevertheless, Ms. C suffered emotional fear and had to take extraordinary steps to avoid Respondent, which warrants a thirty-day suspension period to impress Respondent of the seriousness of his misconduct and public protection.
In the Matter of Stewart (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 52 Stewart received two years stayed suspension, two years probation and sixty days actual suspension for being involved in an altercation with police who had been summoned when Stewart refused to leave his estranged wife’s apartment. Stewart was convicted of committing a misdemeanor battery on the police officer. The court found that Stewart, a misdemeanant, had become distraught over his deteriorated relationship with his estranged wife. Stewart’s misconduct was unrelated to his practice of law but established poor judgment because he disregarded his obligation to follow the law. The Review Department found that Stewart’s behavior required a suspension but noted that Stewart’s intense personal involvement with his estranged wife led up to the circumstances which resulted in the misdemeanor conviction.
This Respondent’s misconduct did not involve violence as was exhibited by Stewart. However, the poor judgment and deliberate violation of the court order demonstrated this Respondent’s lack of maturity and insight to conform his conduct to the ruling of the court. The treatment of unlawful personal behavior resulting in misdemeanor conviction is also seen in the case In re Hickey (California Supreme Court 1990) 50 Cal.3d 571. As in Stewart Hickey failed to conform his personal behavior to the law. Hickey received a thirty-day suspension for a misdemeanor conviction referral due to Hickey carrying a concealed weapon with acts of violence towards his spouse. This matter is similar to Stewart, because the court examined Hickey’s personal behavior as it related to his duties to the profession.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
Harm: For several months prior to and following the issuance of the restraining order, Ms. C was fearful of Respondent and had to take extraordinary precautions to avoid Respondent at her home, work and other activities.
Indifference: Respondent has expressed that his misconduct was misinterpreted and treated unduly harshly by the courts and the State Bar. Respondent acknowledges his actions and has stated he takes responsibility for his misconduct. However, he has characterized his misconduct as "poor judgment" and has failed to recognize the seriousness of violating the court stay away order. He has also stated that Ms. C overreacted and that his misconduct was not violent nor harmful to Ms. C.
Multiple pattern of Misconduct: Respondent’s misconduct included multiple acts of wrongdoing. Respondent violated the terms and conditions of the valid restraining order on at least four (4) dates.
Additional aggravating circumstances: In August 2006, prior to Respondent’s admission to the State Bar, and approximately four years prior to the referenced incidents and while Respondent was in law school, Respondent similarly continued to pursue a fellow law student who had to get the school administration and security to intervene.
Additional Mitigating Circumstances:
Candor/Cooperation: Respondent cooperated with the State Bar by entering into a stipulated settlement for the matter described herein at an early stage in the disciplinary proceeding. Remorse: Respondent now recognizes that his conduct was wrong, is remorseful for the disrespect he has shown the court and the victim and acknowledges that this is a matter for which attorney discipline should be imposed.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was June 14, 2012.
FURTHER AGREEMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The factual statements contained in this Stipulation constitute admissions of fact and may not be withdrawn by either party, except with court approval.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of June 15, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are $ 3,269.00. 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.
Case Number(s): 11-C-19505
In the Matter of: Marvin Ezequiel Vallejo
<<not>> checked. a. Unless Respondent has been terminated from the Lawyer Assistance Program (“LAP”) prior to respondent’s successful completion of the LAP, respondent must comply with all provisions and conditions of respondent’s Participation Agreement with the LAP and must provide an appropriate waiver authorizing the LAP to provide the Office of Probation and this court with information regarding the terms and conditions of respondent’s participation in the LAP and respondent’s compliance or non-compliance with LAP requirements. Revocation of the written waiver for release of LAP information is a violation of this condition. However, if respondent has successfully completed the LAP, respondent need not comply with this condition.
checked. b. Respondent must obtain psychiatric or psychological help/treatment from a duly licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker at respondent’s own expense a minimum of 4 times per month and must furnish evidence to the Office of Probation that respondent is so complying with each quarterly report. Help/treatment should commence immediately, and in any event, no later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of the discipline in this matter. Treatment must continue for days or months or years or, the period of probation or until a motion to modify this condition is granted and that ruling becomes final.
If the treating psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker
determines that there has been a substantial change in respondent’s condition,
respondent or Office of the Chief Trial Counsel may file a motion for
modification of this condition with the Hearing Department of the State Bar
Court, pursuant to rule 5.300 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. The
motion must be supported by a written statement from the psychiatrist,
psychologist, or clinical social worker, by affidavit or under penalty of
perjury, in support of the proposed modification.
checked. c. Upon the request of the Office of Probation, respondent must provide the Office of Probation with medical waivers and access to all of respondent’s medical records. Revocation of any medical waiver is a violation of this condition. Any medical records obtained by the Office of Probation are confidential and no information concerning them or their contents will be given to anyone except members of the Office of Probation, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, and the State Bar Court, who are directly involved with maintaining, enforcing or adjudicating this condition.
Other:
Case Number(s): 11-C-19505
In the Matter of: Marvin Ezequiel Vallejo
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: Marvin Ezequiel Vallejo
Date: June 22, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Adriana M. Burger
Date: June 22, 2012
Case Number(s): 11-C-19505
In the Matter of: Marvin Ezequiel Vallejo
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.
1. On page 7 of the stipulation, numbered paragraph 5, line 2, "Ms." is deleted, and in its place is inserted "Ms. C".
2. On page 7 of the stipulation, numbered paragraph 6, replace the word "disinterest" with "lack of interest."
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: June 28, 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 June 29, 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:
MARVIN E. VALLEJO
PO BOX 86788
LOS ANGELES, CA 90086
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Adrian Burger, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on June 29, 2012.
Signed by:
Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator
State Bar Court