Case Number(s): 11-O-13356
In the Matter of: Gregory Allen Paiva, Bar # 11-O-13356 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Charles T. Calix, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1000
Bar # 146853
Counsel for Respondent: Poonam K. Walia, Gateway Legal Group, P.C.
4295-A Jurupa Street, Suite 114
Ontario, CA 91761
(909) 390-1515
Bar # 256781
Submitted to: Settlement Judge of State Bar Court of Clerk’s Office of Los Angeles
Filed: January 11, 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 June 5, 2000.
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 12 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: three billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (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.
(a) 09-O-11877, 10-O-072237, 09-O-12909, 09-O-19182, 10-O-06344, and 10-O-10086
(b) August 7, 2011
(c) Case No. 09-O-I 1877 - Rules 1-300(B) and 4-200(A). Case No. I0-O-00161 - Rule 4-I00(B)(3). Case No. I0-O-07237 - Rules 1-300(B) and 4-200(A). Case No. 09-O-12909 - Rules 3-I 10(A) and 3700 (D()(I) and Business and Professions Code section 6068(d). Case No. 09-O-19182 - Rules l320 (A), 3-I 10(A) and 3-700(D()(I) and Business and Professions Code section 6068(m). Case No.- I0-O-06344 - Rule 4-200(A) and Business and Professions Code section 6068(a). Case No. 10-O-10086 - Rules 3-|10(A), 3-700(A)(2), and 3-700(D)(2), and Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
(d) Three (3) years probation with conditions, including a one (1) year actual suspension.
Attachment language (if any):
Case Number(s): 11-O-13356
In the Matter of: Gregory Allen Paiva
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: Timothy & Christine Loring
Principal Amount: $2,000
Interest Accrues From: September 26, 2005
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 July 10, 2012.
<<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: Gregory Allen Paiva, State Bar No. 207218
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-O-13356
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Gregory Allen Paiva ("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.
Facts:
1. On or about August 27, 2003, the home owned by Timothy and Christine Loring (the Lorings") suffered water damage. The home was insured by Century-National Insurance Company ("Century-National").
2. Between on or about August 27, 2003 and on or about September 21, 2005, Century-National paid the approximate sum of $20,362 for additional living expenses and the approximate sum of $23,500 for the structure loss to the Lorings.
3. On or about September 21, 2005, the Lorings hired Respondent to represent them in an action alleging breach of contract and bad faith against Century-National. The Lorings agreed to pay $175 per hour for attorney time and $100 per hour for paralegal time.
4. On or about September 26, 2005, the Lorings paid $2,000 in advance attorney fees to Respondent.
5. Between on or about September 19, 2005 and on or about October 24, 2005, the attorney for Century-National sent approximately five letters, faxes and e-mails to Respondent’s office requesting that Respondent identify the nature and extent of the Lorings’ claim. Respondent received the letters, faxes, or e-mail.
6. On or about November 28, 2005, the attorney for Century-National sent a letter to Respondent’s office stating that Century-National was closing the Lorings’ claim due to the failure of Respondent and the Lorings to identify the nature and extent of the Lorings’ claim. Respondent received the letter.
7. Thereafter, Century-National closed the Lorings’ claim.
8. Respondent provided no legal services of value to the Lorings to prosecute their claim against Century-National and took no action to reopen the Lorings’ claim after it was closed by Century-National on or about November 28, 2005.
9. Respondent did not earn any portion of the advance attorney fees paid by the Lorings. At no time did Respondent refund any of the $2,000 paid by the Lorings.
10. Between in or about early 2005 and in or about mid 2010, Tim Loring ("Tim") called and spoke with Respondent about the Lorings’ case once every two to three months. Respondent repeatedly assured Tim that Respondent was working on the matter and that the matter was progressing.
11. At the time that Respondent told Tim that he was working on the matter, those statements were false, and Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that those statements were false.
Conclusions of Law:
12. By providing no legal services of value to the Lorings to prosecute their claim against Century-National, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct ("rule").
13. By not refunding the $2,000 to the Lorings, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee .paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2), "
14. By repeatedly telling Tim that he was working on the matter, when he knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that those statements were false, Respondent willfully committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6 i06.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was December 28,2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
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(b) provides that 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 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 2.4(b) holds that a failure to perform in individual client matters, not demonstrating a pattern, shall result in reproval or suspension depending on the extent of the misconduct and the extent of harm to the client.
In In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal .4th 184, 206, the Supreme Court stated the purpose of disciplinary proceedings 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.
In Silverton, the Supreme Court held that the Standards are to be applied unless the exceptions set forth in them are satisfied or the attorney can otherwise establish grave doubts as to the propriety of the sanction. ]d. at p. 93. The Supreme Court further held in language directly applicable to Standard 1.7(b) that when an attorney has previously been disbarred, disbarment is the appropriate sanctiota for subsequent professional misconduct unless the exception set forth in standard 1.7(a) is satisfied or the attorney can otherwise establish "grave doubts as to the propriety" of disbarment in the particular case. Id. at p. 93.
The misconduct in this matter occurred between in or about September 21, 2005 and in or about October 2010, which is the same time period as the misconduct in Case Nos. 09-0-11877 et al, which was resolved by Respondent and the State Bar by a Stipulation re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition and Order Approving Actual Suspension filed on March 22, 2011. The complaint in this matter was filed on or about April 22, 2011. The parties agree that it is therefore appropriate to consider
the misconduct involved in this case to be contemporaneous with the misconduct in Case Nos. 09-011877 et al. See, In the Matter of Sklar (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar. Ct. Rptr. 602, 619. The parties agree that the totality of the findings in this case and Case Nos. 09-O-11877 et al -had they been charged as one case - would have increased the level of discipline in Case Nos. 09-0-11877 et al to a four (4) year probation with conditions, including a two (2) year actual suspension and that Respondent show proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii).
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of December 28, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,797.00. 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-O-13356
In the Matter of: Gregory Allen Paiva
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: Gregory Allen Paiva
Date: December 28, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel: Poonam K. Walia
Date: December 28, 2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Charles T. Calix
Date: December 28, 2011
Case Number(s): 11-O-13356
In the Matter of: Gregory Allen Paiva
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 6: An "X" is INSERTED in box F(2) so that respondent will be required to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.20 and to perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter. Respondent is to file a rule 9.20(c) compliance declaration even if he has no clients or he remains on actual suspension under the Supreme Court’s July 8, 2011 order in case number S 192655 (State Bar Court case number 09-O-11877, etc.) or both on the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter. (See Powers v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 337, 341 .)
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: 1/10/12
[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:
POONAM K. WALIA, ESQ.
GATEWAY LEGAL GROUP PC
9469 HAVEN AVE STE 210
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
CHARLES CALIX, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 11, 2012.
Signed by:
Rose Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court