Case Number(s): 11-O-10036, 11-O-12223
In the Matter of: Steven Karlton Wen-Hao Kop , Bar # 91354 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Robert J. Melone, 1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299
Telephone: (213) 765-1276
Bar # 270556
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Steven Karlton Wen-Hao Kop
3929 W 5th St Spc 9
Santa Ana, CA 92703
(949) 214-6046
Bar#91354
Submitted to: Settlement Judge at State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: December 19, 2011
<<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 January 15, 1980.
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 and 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.
Case Number(s): 11-O-10036
In the Matter of: Steven Karlton Wen-Hao Kop, State Bar Number 91354
a. Restitution
checked. Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund (“CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
1. Payee: Francisco and Lazara Bustos
Principal Amount: $4,100
Interest Accrues From: June 5, 2010
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than four (4) years from the effective date of the discipline order.
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
1. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
<<not>> checked. 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. 1. If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated as a “Trust Account” or “Clients’ Funds Account”;
b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:
i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.
c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
2. If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate described above.
3. The requirements of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct.
<<not>> checked. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
IN THE MATTER OF: Steven Karlton Wen-Hao Kop
CASE NUMBER(S): 11-O-10036 and 11-O-12223
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-O-10036 (Complainant: E. Daniel Gyurec)
FACTS:
1. On August 2009, E. Daniel Gyurec ("Gyurec"), his wife, Monica Sciarratta ("Sciarratta"), and Gyuree’s step-daughter, Brigitte Doffo ("Doffo") hired Respondent for legal services related to real property foreclosures.
2. Respondent and Gyurec became friends. Respondent was having financial difficulties because of a previous motorcycle accident and the dissolution of his marriage. Gyurec provided Respondent with a cell phone, a virtual office, and let Respondent live with him and his family on a part-time basis. Mr. Gyurec claims that Respondent owes him $30,531.28 for unearned fees, costs, and expenses paid on
Respondent’s behalf.
3. On November 2, 2009, Respondent filed a civil complaint on behalf of Sciarratta in U.S. District Court, case number 2:09-cv-08005.
4. On November 19, 2009, Respondent filed a civil complaint on behalf of Deville
Developments, a company owned by Gyurec in San Bemadino Superior Court, case number CIVVS907571.
5. On April 14, 2010, Respondent filed an adversary proceeding on behalf of Gyurec in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, case number 6:10-ap-01274.
6. On November 23, 2009, Respondent filed a civil complaint on behalf of Ailinah Services, a company owned by Gyurec, in Orange County Superior Court, case number 30-2009-00322790.
7. On December 2, 2009, Respondent filed a civil complaint on behalf of Orchard View Estates, a company owned by Gyurec, in Riverside Superior Court, case number RIC541375.
8. On January 25, 2010, Respondent filed a Chapter 7 petition on behalf of Sciarratta in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, case number 6:10-bk-11935.
9. On April 21, 2010, Respondent filed a filed a Chapter 7 petition case on behalf of Doffo in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, case number 6:10-bk-21954.
10. On June 7, 2010, Respondent applied for engagement as special litigation counsel in U.S. Bankruptcy Court case number 6:09-bk-14497 on behalf of Gyurec.
11. On or about July 9, 2010, Respondent filed a notice of appeal from a bankruptcy court order granting relief from bankruptcy stay on behalf of Gyurec in U.S. District Court, case number 5:10-cv01016.
12. On July 13, 2010, the night before a hearing in Gyurec’s bankruptcy case (case number 6:09bk-14497), Gyurec cut off Respondent’s phone and virtual office. Respondent countered by telling Mr.
.Gyurec that he was withdrawing from all of the cases he in which he represented Gyurec, Sciarratta, and Doffo. Thereafter, Respondent performed no further services on their behalf.
13. Thereafter, Respondent never formally withdrew from representation or substituted out as attorney of record in any of Gyuree’s, Sciarratta’s, or Doffo’s cases.
14. On or about September 14, 2010, U.S. District Court, case number 5:10-cv-01016 was dismissed because Respondent failed to file an opening brief.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
15. By failing to properly withdraw from representation of Gyurec, Sciarratta, and Doffo, Respondent failed, upon termination of employment, to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his client in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3700(A)(2).
Case No. 11-O-12223 (Complainant: Francisco Bustos)
FACTS:
1. On or about June 5, 2010, Lazara and Francisco Bustos (the "Bustoses") paid Respondent $5,300 to represent them in their bankruptcy filing, and to evaluate a lawsuit against their mortgage lender to attempt to stave off foreclosure on their home.
2. Respondent did not file a bankruptcy petition on behalf of the Bustoses, did not file suit against the Bustoses mortgage lender, and did not provide any other legal services of value to them.
3. Respondent did not earn any portion of the $5,300 the Bustoses paid him.
4. On October 20, 2010, the Bustoses obtained a judgment against Respondent in small claims court for $5,053.80 for the unearned fees. Respondent knew of the judgment. Respondent made two payments to the Bustoses totaling $1,200; thereafter, Respondent made no additional payments to the Bustoses.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
5. By not paying the Bustoses the balance of the unearned fees, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was November 3, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Pursuant to Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings and imposing sanctions for 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."
Pursuant to Standard 1.7(a), if a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of one prior imposition of discipline as defined by standard 1.2(0, the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding unless the prior discipline imposed was so remote in time to the current proceeding and the offense for which it was imposed was so minimal in severity that
imposing greater discipline in the current proceeding would be manifestly unjust.
Pursuant to Standard 2.4(b) Culpability of a member of willfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of willfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
Finally, Standard 2.10 states that culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in the standards or of a willful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in the 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.
The Supreme Court gives the Standards "great weight," and will reject a recommendation consistent with the Standards only where the Court entertains "grave doubts" as to its propriety. (In re Naney (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 186, 190; see also In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 81, 91.) Further, although the Standards are not mandatory, it is well established that the Standards may be deviated from only when there is a compelling, well-defined reason to do so. (See Aronin v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 276, 291; see also Bates v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal. 3d. 1056, 1060, fn. 2.)
The State Bar recognizes that the Standards should not be applied in a talismanic fashion. (Gary v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal. 3d 820, 828.) However, Respondent bears the burden to demonstrate that the State Bar should deviate from the Standards.
In the case at bar, the stipulated discipline of one (1) year stayed suspension, four (4) years probation with conditions, and thirty (30) days actual suspension is consistent with the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct
The current misconduct acknowledged by Respondent evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Candor and Cooperation
Respondent’s stipulation herein to the facts, his culpability, and his discipline is a mitigating circumstance. (In the Matter of Spaith (Review Dept. 1996) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 96, 106, fn. 13.)
Severe Financial Stress
Respondent is entitled to significant mitigation for financial hardship. Respondent’s financial pressures most likely resulted from a motorcycle accident in which he was severely injured. Thus, the financial pressure was beyond his control and entitled to greater mitigating weight.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF PROBATION
Ethics School
Respondent is not required to provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School and passage of the test given at the end of that session as a condition of probation because he has an existing obligation to do so as a condition of probation in case number 090-14632.
OTHER CONDITIONS NEGOTIATED BY THE PARTIES
Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination
Respondent is not required to provide passage of the Multistate Professional Examination, administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation during the period of actual suspension or within one year, because he has an existing obligation to do so as a condition of probation in case number 09-0-14632.
Fee Arbitration
Within 60 days of the effective date of discipline, Respondent will submit proof to the Office of Probation that he contacted complainant E. Daniel Gyurec and offered to go to State Bar approved fee arbitration to resolve the issue of advanced legal fees paid to Respondent by Mr. Gyurec, or funds paid to third parties by Mr. Gyurec on Respondent’s behalf as advanced legal fees. The aforementioned proof will contain E. Daniel Gyurec’s original signature and a statement indicating his acceptance or
rejection of the offer of State Bar approved fee arbitration.
A list of State Bar approved fee arbitration programs is available at: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/MemberServices/FeeArbitration/ApprovedPrograms.aspx
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of November 3, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,797. 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.
RESTITUTION
Respondent waives any objection to payment by the State Bar Client Security Fund upon a claim for the principal amount of restitution set forth herein.
Case Number(s): 11-O-10036 and 11-O-12223
In the Matter of: Steven Karlton Wen-Hao Kop State Bar Number 91354
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: Steven Karlton Wen-Hao Kop and Robert J. Melone
Respondent: Steven Karlton Wen-Hao Kop
Date: November 28, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Robert J. Melone
Date: December 1, 2011
Case Number(s): 11-O-10036
In the Matter of: Steven Karlton Wen-Hao Kop
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.
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: Donald F. Miles
Date: 12/19/11
[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 January 24, 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:
STEVEN KARLTON WEN-HAO KOP
3929 WEST FIFTH STREET SPACE 9
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92703
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ROBERT MELONE, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 19, 2011.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court