Case Number(s): 11-H-14664-PEM
In the Matter of: Edward Brian Jamison, Bar # 214726, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Anand Kumar, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1714
Bar # 261592
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Edward Brian Jamison
848 North Rainbow Blvd., #2305
Las Vegas, NV 89107
(561) 444-9669
Bar # 214726
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
Filed: August 14, 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 October 18, 2001.
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 11 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.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: two (2) billing cycles immediately following the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter. (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: Edward Brian Jamison, State Bar No. 214726
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-H-14664-PEM
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. 11-H-14664-PEM
FACTS:
1. On February 25, 2011, while living in Vietnam, Respondent entered into a Stipulation as to Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition ("Stipulation") for a public reproval with the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California ("State Bar") in case number 07-O-12699.
2. On March 3, 2011, the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court filed an Order approving the Stipulation and imposing the discipline set forth in the Stipulation ("March 3 Order”).
3. The March 3 Order directed Respondent to comply with the following reproval conditions for a period of one year, which was to commence upon the effective date of the March 3 Order, which was March 29, 2011:
a. that, within 30 days from the effective date of the March 3 Order (or by April 28, 2011) Respondent contact the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with Respondent’s assigned probation deputy to discuss the terms and conditions of his probation;
b. that, following Respondent’s contact with the Office of Probation, he meet with the probation deputy either in person or by telephone;
c. that Respondent submit written quarterly reports ("Quarterly Reports") to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the reproval period; and
d. that Respondent submit satisfactory proof of completion of no less than twelve (12) hours Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in general legal ethics to the Office of Probation by March 29, 2012.
4. On March 15, 201 l, Respondent’s assigned probation deputy from the Office of Probation mailed a reminder letter to Respondent at his current State Bar membership records address at the time, informing Respondent of the terms and conditions of his public reproval.
5. Respondent failed to contact the Office of Probation by April 28, 2011 to schedule a meeting with Respondent’s assigned probation deputy to discuss the terms and conditions of his probation. On June 25, 2012, Respondent contacted the Office of Probation and had a telephonic meeting with his assigned probation deputy.
6. On June 9, 2011, Respondent’s assigned probation deputy from the Office of Probation mailed a reminder letter to Respondent at his current State Bar membership records address at the time, informing Respondent that he was in non-compliance with the terms and conditions of his public reproval.
7. While living in Vietnam, Respondent made arrangements for a post office box to receive his mail and arranged that the mail be forwarded to him. However, the March 15, 2011 and June 9, 2011 letters from the Office of Probation were not forwarded and both returned to the Office of Probation on or about June 21, 2012 as "not deliverable as addressed- return to sender" and "unable to forward--return to sender" respectively.
8. Respondent failed to timely file his Quarterly Reports due by July 2011, October 2011, January 2012, and March 29, 2012. On July 3, 2012, Respondent submitted all four of his required Quarterly Reports to the Office of Probation.
9. Respondent failed to submit satisfactory proof of completion of any hours Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in general legal ethics to the Office of Probation by March 29, 2012. On June 30, 2012, Respondent provided proof of completion of 12.25 hours of MCLE approved courses in general legal ethics to the Office of Probation.
CONCLUSION OF LAW:
By not contacting the Office of Probation by April 28, 2011 to schedule a meeting with his assigned probation deputy to discuss the terms and conditions of his probation, and by not meeting with his assigned probation deputy, by not filing any Quarterly Reports for his reproval condition period and by not submitting proof of completion of twelve hours MCLE approved courses by March 29, 2012, Respondent failed to comply with conditions attached to public or private reprovals or other discipline administered by the State Bar in willful violation of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was June 19, 2012.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
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.
Other Facts Taken into Consideration:
Respondent has belatedly complied with his reproval conditions with the Office of Probation. While living in Vietnam, Respondent did not receive the reminder letters sent by the Office of Probation concerning his non-compliance with his reproval conditions. The Public Reproval order from which Respondent’s violations resulted was sent to Respondent’s attorney of record at the time.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.9 provides that culpability of a member of a wilful violation of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct, shall result in suspension.
In fashioning the appropriate level of discipline, the Standards are the starting point. Consideration must also be given to whether the recommended discipline is consistent with prior decisions of the California Supreme Court and the Review Department of the State Bar Court.
In Conroy v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 799, an attorney who had previously been privately reproved, failed to take and pass the Professional Responsibility Exam (PRE) within one year of his private reproval. The Supreme Court took into consideration that Conroy subsequently took and passed the test at the next testing session. However, it also noted that the underlying misconduct resulting in Conroy’s private reproval involved three clients, he failed to participate in the State Bar Court proceeding and he lacked remorse and failed to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his actions. (Id. at pp. 805-806.) Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered Conroy to be suspended for one year (stayed) and be placed on probation for one year with conditions including a sixty (60) day actual suspension. By contrast, in In the Matter of Posthuma (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 813, the Review Department held that an attorney who failed to take and pass the California Professional Responsibility Exam (CPRE) within one year of the effective date of his private reproval was culpable of violating rule 1-110. The Review Department determined that there were no aggravating circumstances involved and in light of the fact that the attorney diligently participated in the proceeding and his underlying misconduct did not involve any clients, the court ordered that the attorney be publicly reproved.
Here, Respondent’s misconduct is not as egregious as Conroy because Respondent’s underlying misconduct involved a single client (as opposed to three), Respondent has accepted responsibility for violating the conditions attached to his public reproval and taken steps to belatedly comply with those conditions. Respondent’s misconduct is more serious than that of Posthuma, whose violation arose from a private reproval for a criminal conviction and involved no clients. Accordingly, a two (2) year period of stayed suspension and a two (2) year probation with conditions is a justified level of discipline for Respondent in this matter.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of July 10, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,739.00. 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-H-14664-PEM
In the Matter of: Edward Brian Jamison
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: Edward Brian Jamison
Date: July 10, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Anand Kumar
Date: July 16, 2012
Case Number(s): 11-H-14664-PEM
In the Matter of: Edward Brian Jamison
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.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Pat E. McElroy
Date: August 13, 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 San Francisco, on August 14, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
EDWARD B. JAMISON
848 N RAINBOW BLVD #2305
LAS VEGAS, NV 89107
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number . No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
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 San Francisco, California, on August 14, 2012.
Signed by:
George Hue
Case Administrator
State Bar Court