Case Number(s): 11-O-13676
In the Matter of: Robert M. Hindin, Bar # 64793, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Kimberly G. Anderson, The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1083
Bar # 150359
Counsel for Respondent: Arthur L. Margolis, 2000 Riverside Dr.
Los Angeles, CA 90039
(323) 953-8996
Bar # 57703
Submitted to: Settlement Judge - State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: January 20, 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 July 14, 1975.
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):
checked. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: **. (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.
9. The parties understand that:
<<not>> checked. (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
See Stipulation Attachment at page 11 (Attachment page 2).
Case Number(s): 11-O-13676
In the Matter of: Robert M. Hindin
Nolo Contendere Plea Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition
The terms of pleading nolo contendere are set forth in the Business and Professions Code and the Rules of Procedures of the State Bar. The applicable provisions are set forth below:
Business and Professions Code § 6085.5 Disciplinary Charges; Pleas to Allegations
There are three kinds of pleas to the allegations of a notice of disciplinary charges or other pleading which initiates a disciplinary proceeding against a member:
(a) Admission of culpability.
(b) Denial of culpability.
(c) Nolo contendere, subject to the approval of the State Bar Court. The court shall ascertain whether the member completely understands that a plea of nolo contendere will be considered the same as an admission of culpability and that, upon a plea of nolo contendere, the court will find the member culpable. The legal effect of such a plea will be the same as that of an admission of culpability for all purposes, except that the plea and any admissions required by the court during any inquiry it makes as to the voluntariness of, or the factual basis for, the pleas, may not be used against the member as an admission in any civil suit based upon or growing out of the act upon which the disciplinary proceeding is based.
Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule 5.56. Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition
“(A) Contents. A proposed stipulation to facts, conclusions of law, and disposition must comprise:
[¶] . . . [¶]
(5) a statement that the member either:
(a) admits the truth of the facts comprising the stipulation and admits culpability for misconduct; or
(b) pleads nolo contendere to those facts and misconduct;
[¶] . . . [¶]
(B) Plea of Nolo Contendere. If the member pleads nolo contendere, the stipulation must also show that the member understands that the plea is treated as an admission of the stipulated facts and an admission of culpability.”
I, the Respondent in this matter, have read the applicable provisions of Business and Professions Code section 6085.5 and rule 5.56 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. I plead nolo contendere to the charges set forth in this stipulation and I completely understand that my plea will be considered the same as an admission of culpability except as stated in Business and Professions Code section 6085.5(c).
Signed by:
Respondent: Robert Hindin
Date: 1/11/2012
Case Number(s): 11-O-13676
In the Matter of: Robert M. Hindin
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: Asher Peretz
Principal Amount: $5,605.00
Interest Accrues From: September 30, 2010
checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than sixty (60) days after the effective date of discipline..
<<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: Robert Marc Hindin,
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-O-13676
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent pleads nolo contendere to the following facts and violations. Respondent completely understands that the plea for nolo contendere shall be considered the same as an admission of the stipulated facts and of his culpability of the statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct specified herein.
Case No. 11-O-13676 (Complainant: David P. Beitchman on behalf of Asher Peretz)
FACTS:
1. On September 1, 2010, Asher Peretz ("Peretz") hired Respondent and paid him a flat fee of $4,000 to represent him with respect to the sale of his business, A & A Apparel.
2. On September 1, 2010, A & A Apparel sold and Respondent received $101,000 on behalf of Peretz, which he was to disburse to Peretz.
3. At all relevant times herein, Peretz was Respondent’s client and had an ongoing attorney-client relationship with Respondent involving a variety of different matters. Respondent has known Mr. Peretz for approximately fifteen years, and he has represented Peretz in numerous legal proceedings, including litigation and corporate matters.
4. Between September 7, 2010 and September 21, 2010, Respondent disbursed $91,000 of the $101,000 in proceeds from the sale of the business as directed by Peretz, and Respondent disbursed $10,000 to himself, which was for a short term loan. Respondent requested to borrow the money for a few days until another client paid him for legal services. Respondent did not advise Peretz in writing that he could seek the advice of an independent lawyer prior to borrowing the money from Peretz. Respondent did not sign any promissory note in favor of Peretz.
5. When Respondent’s other client failed to pay Respondent’s legal fees, Respondent was unable to pay Peretz back for the short-term loan and Peretz was deprived of his funds for a substantial period of time.
6. Respondent repaid $4,395 to Peretz by paying him checks on the following dates:
CHECK NO.: 3367, DATE: 12/13/10, AMOUNT: $500.00
CHECK NO.: 3358, DATE: 12/17/10, AMOUNT: $1,000.00
CHECK NO.: 3422, DATE: 2/1/11, AMOUNT: $1,500.00
CHECK NO.: 3509, DATE: 3/11/11, AMOUNT: $395.00
CHECK NO.: 3552, DATE: 4/1/11, AMOUNT: $1,000.00
7. Respondent still owes Peretz $5,605.00 and he is agreeing as a condition of his reproval to repay the $5,605.00 as a restitution condition of his reproval in this matter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
8. By entering into a loan to borrow $10,000 from his client Peretz while he was representing Peretz with respect to the sale of his business, and by failing to advise Peretz in writing that he could seek the advice of an independent lawyer prior to borrowing the money from Peretz, Respondent willfully violated Rule 3-300 of Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was January 10, 2012.
MITIGATION.
Additional Mitigation: Respondent has had no prior discipline since being admitted to practice law in 1974.
AGGRAVATION.
Harm: Peretz was harmed by the transaction because he was deprived of his $10,000 when Respondent did not return the $10,000 to him in a timely manner as he had orally promised.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.8 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct states, "Culpability of a member of a willful violation of rule 3-300, Rules of Professional Conduct, shall result in suspension unless the extent of the member’s misconduct and the harm to the client are minimal, in which case the degree of the discipline shall be reproval."
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of January 10, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,906.70. 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-13676
In the Matter of: Robert M. Hindin
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: Robert Marc Hindin
Date: 1/10/2012
Respondent’s Counsel: Arthur L. Margolis
Date: 1/12/12
Deputy Trial Counsel: Kimberly G. Anderson
Date: 1/19/12
Case Number(s): 11-O-13676
In the Matter of: Robert M. Hindin
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department 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.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Platel
Date: January 20, 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 Los Angeles, on January 20, 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:
ARTHUR MARGOLIS
MARGOLIS AND MARGOLIS LLP
2000 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90039
<<not>> checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
KIM ANDERSON, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 20, 2012.
Signed by:
Angela Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court