Case Number(s): 11-O- 11709
In the Matter of: Mark Pardee McCredie, Bar # 189962, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Mia R. Ellis, Office of Chief Trial Counsel, 1149 S. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015, Bar # 228235,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Mark Pardee McCredie
Law Office s of Mark McCredie
P.O. Box 93
Oxnard, CA 93032
Bar # 189962
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.- State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: October 12, 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 October 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 10 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.
Additional aggravating circumstances:
Additional mitigating circumstances:
Attachment language (if any):
Case Number(s): 11-O-11709
In the Matter of: MARK PARDEE MCCREDIE
checked. a. Respondent must abstain from use of any alcoholic beverages, and shall not use or possess any narcotics, dangerous or restricted drugs, controlled substances, marijuana, or associated paraphernalia, except with a valid prescription.
checked. b. Respondent must attend at least 4 meetings per month of:
checked. Alcoholics Anonymous
<<not>> checked. Narcotics Anonymous
<<not>> checked. The Other Bar
<<not>> checked. Other program
As a separate reporting requirement, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance during each month, on or before the tenth (10th) day of the following month, during the condition or probation period.
<<not>> checked. c. Respondent must select a license medical laboratory approved by the Office of Probation. Respondent must furnish to the laboratory blood and/or urine samples as may be required to show that Respondent has abstained from alcohol and/or drugs. The samples must be furnished to the laboratory in such a manner as may be specified by the laboratory to ensure specimen integrity. Respondent must cause the laboratory to provide to the Office of Probation, at the Respondent’s expense, a screening report on or before the tenth day of each month of the condition or probation period, containing an analysis of Respondent’s blood and/or urine obtained not more than ten (10) days previously.
<<not>> checked. d. Respondent must maintain with the Office of Probation a current address and a current telephone number at which Respondent can be reached. Respondent must return any call from the Office of Probation concerning testing of Respondent’s blood or urine within twelve (12) hours. For good cause, the Office of Probation may require Respondent to deliver Respondent’s urine and/or blood sample(s) for additional reports to the laboratory described above no later than six hours after actual notice to Respondent that the Office of Probation requires an additional screening report.
<<not>> checked. e. 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:
Respondent shall report his compliance with the
abstinence probation condition by statement under penalty of perjury in each
written quarterly report to the Office of Probation required pursuant to this
order.
IN THE MATTER OF: MARK PARDEE MCCREDIE State Bar No. 189962
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-O-11709
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statues and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 11-O-11709
FACTS:
1. On September 12, 2008, the California Supreme Court filed Order No. S142425 ("Disciplinary Order") regarding discipline of Respondent.
2. On September 12, 2008, the Clerk of the California Supreme Court properly served a copy of the Disciplinary Order by mail on Respondent at the address on file with the State Bar membership records. Respondent received the Disciplinary Order.
3. On October 12, 2008 the Disciplinary Order became effective.
4. The Disciplinary Order revoked Respondent’s pre-existing probations, lifted the previously ordered stay of execution, placed Respondent on actual suspension for six months with credit given toward the period of involuntary inactive enrollment and placed Respondent on a new two year probations subject to certain conditions of probation.
5. On December 11, 2008, a probation deputy of the Office of Probation mailed a letter to Respondent at his member records address reminding him of the conditions of probation. Respondent received the letter from tae probation deputy.
6. As of a condition of probation, Respondent was required to, among other conditions; 1) submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation, 2) including a final report, 3) provide satisfactory proof that he provided written authorization to all alcohol, drug or mental health recovery or treatment providers, including drug testing facilities, to disclose records or information about him to the Office of Probations, and 4) attend at least four meeting per week and at least three meetings each calendar month were required to be meeting of the Other Bar.
7. Respondent submitted six (6) quarterly reports late. The July I 0, 2009, quarterly report was filed five days late. The October 10, 2009, quarterly report was filed three days late. The January 10, 2010, quarterly report was filed one day late. The July 10, 2010, quarterly report was filed two days late. The October 10 2010 quarterly report and the final report were filed on October 13, 2010.
8. Respondent did not provide to the Office of Probation timely proof of authorization for disclosure of drug and alcohol treatment. The information was due by November 11, 2008. Respondent filed it February 27, 2009.
9. Respondent did not submit satisfactory proof of attendance to four (4) sobriety meetings per week during the period of November 10, 2008 through October I 0, 2010. Respondent submitted proof of attendance one to three meetings per week from November 2008 through September 2010.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
By failing submit timely quarterly reports, including a final report, timely proof of authorization for disclosure ~ drug and alcohol treatment, and satisfactory proof of attendance at least four (4) sobriety meeting per week during the period of November 10, 2008 through October 10, 2010, Respondent failed to comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary probation in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(k).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A (7), was September 20, 2011.
COSTS O DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of September 20, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $3,269.00. Respondent further acknowledges that this is an estimate 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.
AUTHORITIES REGARDING LEVEL OF DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.6(a) provides that "[i]f two or more acts of professional misconduct are found or acknowledged in a single disciplinary proceeding, and different sanctions are prescribed by these standards, the sanction imposed shall be the more or most severe of the different applicable sanctions."
Standard 1 7(b) -if a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which disciplinary be imposed and the member has a record of two prior impositions of discipline the degree of discipline in the current proceeding shall be disbarment unless the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate.
Standard 2 6 provides that culpability of a member of a violation of any of the following provisions of the Business and Professions Code 6068(k) shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or harm.
While the standards are entitled to great weight, "the recommended discipline must rest upon a balanced consideration of relevant factors." In the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rapt. 119 (1994). The Standards need not be applied in a talismanic fashion and may be tempered with consideration peculiar to the offense and the offender. See In re Van Sickle, 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980 (2006). Although the standards point to disbarment, other factors indicate that deviating from the Standards is appropriate. The nature of the misconduct in the instant matter is not so egregious as to dictate strict adherence to the Standards. / The Review Department has, in the past, deviated from a disbarment recommendation.
In In the Matter of Meyer, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 697 (1997), Respondent was placed on a two year stayed suspension, and three years probation with conditions, including a 90 day actual suspension. Respondent initially received a private reproval for misconduct in one client matter. When he failed to comply with the conditions of the reproval, he received an additional private reproval. In this third disciplinary, matter, Respondent again failed to comply with conditions of the reproval by failing to complete six hours of CLE and failing to submit two probation reports. Although the Court acknowledged that Standard 1.7(b) called for Respondent’s disbarment, the Court found that the "nature and extent of respondent’s two prior records of discipline are not sufficiently severe to justify our recommending disbarment in this proceeding under standard 1.7(b)." 3 Cal State Bar Ct, Rptr. at 704. The Respondent in In the Matter of Meyer did not appear at trial and the matter proceeded by default. The court found that there were no mitigating circumstances and Respondent failed to rectify his misconduct.
Unlike Meyer, the Respondent in the instant matter
participated in the proceedings and has been candid and cooperative with the
State Bar in resolving this matter.
Case Number(s): 11-O-11709
In the Matter of: MARK P. MCCREDIE
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: MARK P. MCCREDIE
Date: 11/04/2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: MIA R. ELLIS
Date: 10/07/2011
Case Number(s): 11-O-11709
In the Matter of: MARL P. MCCREDIE
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: RICHARD A. PATEL
Date: 10/11/2011
[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 October 12, 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:
MARK P. MCCREDIE, ESQ.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK MCCREDIE
PO BOX 93
OXNARD, CA 93032
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
MIA ELLIS, ESQ., Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on October 12, 2011.
Signed by:
ROSE M. LUTHI
Case Administrator
State Bar Court