Case Number(s): 11-O-11527
In the Matter of: Charles David Trejo, Bar # 187529, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Agustin Hernandez, Deputy Trial Counsel, Bar # 161625, 1149 S. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90015, 213-765-1713
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent, CHARLES DAVID TREJO, 707 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 3700, Los Angeles, CA 90017, (213) 628-0808, Bar# 187529
Submitted to: Settlement Judge, State Bar Court Clerks Offices 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 January 28, 1997.
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 15 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: 2012, 2013, & 2014. (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.
Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"):
Respondent is required to register to take the November 5, 2011 administration of the MPRE and must provide proof of passage of the MPRE to the Office of Probation within thirty (30) days of receiving the examination results from the National Conference of Bar Examiners. Failure to pass the November 5, 2011 administration of the MPRE will result in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) & (E), Rules of Procedure.
Respondent acknowledges that a Supreme Court Order approving this stipulation may not become effective until a date after November 5, 2011, but agrees to take the November 5,2011 MPRE in anticipation of the Supreme Court Order. The parties agree that successful passage of the November 5, 2011 MPRE will satisfy any MPRE requirements imposed by the Supreme Court in this matter (Case No. 11 -O-11527), and in Case No. 08-O-12444.
Ethics School:
Respondent agrees to enroll and attend the August 4, 2011 session of Ethics School. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must 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. Respondent acknowledges that a Supreme Court Order approving this stipulation may not become effective until a date after August 4, 2011, but agrees to take the August 4, 2011 session of Ethics School in anticipation of the Supreme Court Order. The parties agree that successful passage of the August 4, 2011 session of Ethics School will satisfy any Ethics School requirements imposed by the Supreme Court in this matter (Case No. 11-O-11527), and in Case No. 08-O-12444.
Law Office Management Conditions:
Respondent is no longer required to be a member of the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California.
(Effective January 1, 2011)
IN THE MATTER OF: Charles David Trejo, State Bar No. 187529
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-O-11527
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND STIPULATED
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on April 5, 2011, and the facts and/or conclusions of law contained in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The parties further waive the right to the filing of a Notice of Disciplinary Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
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-11527 (Probation Violation Matter):
FACTS:
1. On August 19, 2009, Respondent entered into a Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition with the State Bar of California in Case No. 08-0-12444.
2. On September 15, 2009, the Hearing Department filed the Stipulation re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition and Order Approving Case No. 08-0-12444 ("stipulation"). On September 15, 2009, the State Bar Court served a copy of the stipulation on Respondent by mail. Respondent received a copy of the stipulation.
3. On January 12, 2010, the California Supreme Court filed Order No. S177762 (State Bar Court No. 08-O-12444) ordering that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years, that execution of the suspension be stayed, and that Respondent be placed on probation for two years with several conditions, including that he be actually suspended for 45 days ("Order"). On January 12, 2010, the California Supreme Court Clerk properly served a copy of the Order on Respondent. Respondent received a copy of the Order.
4. The Order became effective February 11, 2010.
5. On January 26, 2010, the Office of Probation mailed a letter to Respondent informing him of his probation conditions. Respondent received the letter.
6. As a condition of probation, Respondent was required to pay restitution in the amount of $2,000.00, plus interest of 10% per annum accruing from April 10, 2008, to Adrian Dugas and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation by February 11, 2011. To date, Respondent has failed to pay any portion of the required restitution to Adrian Dugas.
7. As a condition of probation, Respondent was required to pay restitution in the amount of $540.00, plus interest of 10% per annum accruing from June 20, 2007, to Thomas A. Collins, Esq. and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation by February 11, 2011. To date, Respondent has failed to pay any portion of the required restitution to Thomas A. Collins, Esq.
8. As a condition of probation, Respondent was required to provide to the Office of Probation proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE") by February 11, 2011. To date, Respondent has failed to take the MPRE and provide proof of passage to the Office of Probation.
9. As a condition of probation, Respondent was required to provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance of Ethics School, and the passage of the test given at the end of that session, by February 11, 2011. To date, Respondent has failed to attend Ethics School and provide proof of passage to the Office of Probation.
10. As a condition of probation, Respondent was required to develop a Law Office Management Plan and have it approved by the Office of Probation by May 12, 2010. On May 12, 2010, Respondent timely submitted a Law Office Management Plan to the Office of Probation. On May 13, 2010, the Office of Probation mailed a letter to Respondent informing him that his Law Office Management Plan had been rejected because he failed to include information regarding the documentation of telephone messages, file maintenance, attorney withdrawal, training of personnel, and subject areas or deficiencies that contributed to Respondent’s misconduct. Respondent received the letter. On July 18, 2011, Respondent submitted an amended Law Office Management Plan to the Office of Probation as required.
11. As a condition of probation, Respondent was required to submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than six (6) hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics by February 11, 2011. To date, Respondent has not completed any such MCLE courses and has not submitted to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of completion of any such courses.
12. As a condition of probation, Respondent was required to join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar and pay the dues and costs of enrollment by March 13, 2010, and provide satisfactory evidence of membership to the Office of Probation in the first Quarterly Report of April 10, 2010. Respondent failed to timely enroll in the Law Practice Management and Technology Section, and did not provide proof of enrollment until July 28, 2010.
13. As a condition of probation, Respondent was required to submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 during the period of probation, stating under penalty of perjury his compliance with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. On July 18, 2011, Respondent submitted to the Office of Probation the written quarterly report that was due on October 10, 2010. Respondent did not submit to the Office of Probation the written quarterly report that was due on January 10, 2011, until January 12, 2011.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
14. By the foregoing, Respondent failed to comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary probation, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(k).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was July 18, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standards
Standard 1.3, Title IV, Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, provides that the primary purposes of the disciplinary system 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."
Standard 1.7(a) provides that if a member has a prior imposition of discipline, "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."
Standard 2.6(a) provides that Respondent’s violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(k) shall result in suspension or disbarment "depending on 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."
Case Law
The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of the standards and has held that great weight should be given to the application of the standards in determining the appropriate level of discipline. (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 81 .) The standards must be followed unless there is a compelling reason justifying a deviation from the standards. (In the Matter of Bouyer (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 404.) The Supreme Court has held that unless it has "grave doubts as to the propriety of the recommended discipline," it will uphold the application of the standards. In re Silverton, supra, 36 Cal. 4th
at p. 91-92.
The Supreme Court imposed discipline consisting of a one-year stayed suspension with 60 days of actual suspension and one year of probation for violating the terms and conditions of a prior discipline. The respondent failed to take and pass the MPRE within the required time. Conroy actually defaulted in his matter and made no showing of an inability to comply with his probationary condition. In aggravation, the
Court considered that Conroy had one prior imposition of discipline, failed to participate in the disciplinary proceedings, and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the gravity of his misconduct. (Conroy v. State
Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 799.)
In this case, Trejo failed to comply with more than one condition of probation, including failing to pay restitution. However, Trejo is entitled to mitigation as a result of his dire financial circumstances and has participated in these proceedings. Conroy defaulted in the proceedings against him and made no showing of an inability to comply with his probationary condition.
In a probation revocation proceeding, the Review Department imposed discipline consisting of a 90 day actual suspension and until the respondent paid the restitution in full. The attorney made numerous untimely restitution payments and filed several quarterly reports late. In mitigation, the court considered that Respondent’s financial problems impacted his ability to pay restitution, and that he made a good faith effort to pay when he was able to pay. The respondent recognized his wrongdoing and was remorseful. In aggravation, the court considered his extensive record of prior discipline, and that this matter represented the third time that he was being disciplined for failure to pay restitution. The court also found multiple acts of misconduct. (In the Matter of Laden (Review Dept. 2004) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 678.)
An important distinction between Trejo and Laden is that Laden had four prior impositions of discipline, and two of them were as a result of not paying restitution in the first matter. Trejo has only one prior imposition of discipline.
Discipline consisting of a two-year stayed suspension with sixty days of actual suspension and two years of probation is appropriate and sufficient to protect the public, the courts and the integrity of the legal profession.
Case Number(s): 11-O-11527
In the Matter of: Charles David Trejo
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: Adrian Dugas
Principal Amount: $ 2,000.00
Interest Accrues From: April 10, 2008
2. Payee: Thomas A. Collins, Esq.
Principal Amount: $ 540.00
Interest Accrues From: June 20, 2007
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 two (2) years after the effective date of the discipline herein.
<<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.
(Effective January 1, 2011)
Case Number(s): Charles David Trejo
In the Matter of: 11-O-11527
<<not>> checked. a. Within days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
checked. b. Within days/ months/ two (2) years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than six (6) hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
<<not>> checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
Other:
(Effective January 1, 2011)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 11-O-11527
In the Matter of: Charles David Trejo
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: Charles David Trejo, Agustin Hernandez
Respondent: Charles David Trejo
Date: 07/19/2011
Respondent’s Counsel: N/A
Date: N/A
Deputy Trial Counsel: Agustin Hernandez
Date: July 19, 2011
Case Number(s): Charles David Trejo
In the Matter of: 11-O-11527
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.
Page 2, Item A(8) - Payment of Disciplinary Costs: Delete "2012" and add "2015".
The court notes that this stipulation was entered into by the parties and is being approved by this court as part of a broader agreement that includes modifying the conditions of probation and MPRE requirement previously ordered in Case No. 08-O-12444.
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: Donald F. Miles
Judge of the State Bar Court: Donald F. Miles
Date: 08/10/2011
(Effective January 1, 2011)
[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 11, 2011, 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:
CHARLES D. TREIO
LEAL & TREIO LLP
707 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 3700
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Agustin Hemandez, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on August 11, 2011.
Signed by: Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator: Johnnie Lee Smith
State Bar Court