Case Number(s): 11-O-14368
In the Matter of: HOWARD. L. OSIAS, Bar # 183110, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Timothy G. Byer, DTC
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1325
Bar # 172472
Counsel for Respondent: James J. Regan
Regan & Associates
2522 Artesia Blvd., Ste. 200
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
(310) 372-1988
Bar # 80576
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
Filed: March 13, 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 11, 1996.
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 8 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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 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.
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.
Additional aggravating circumstances: .
Additional mitigating circumstances:
or
Count 2 of the Notice of Disciplinary Charges is dismissed with prejudice.
Attachment language (if any):
IN THE MATTER OF: Howard L. Osias, State Bar No. 183110
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-O-14368
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits the following facts are tree and he is culpable of the violations of the specified statutes.
Case number 11-O-14368.
FACTS
1. On or about January 22, 2004 Respondent was convicted of a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 417(a)(1)--Exhibiting A Deadly Weapon Other Than A Firearm. The conviction was referred to the State Bar.
2. Respondent entered into an Agreement in Lieu of Discipline ("ALD") with the State Bar Office of the Chief Trial Counsel. As part of the ALD, Respondent agreed to comply with conditions, including:
a. Contact the Office of Probation to schedule an initial meeting by April 28, 2007;
b. Submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10 and October 10 of the period during which the ALD was in effect;
3. Respondent did not timely comply with all of the conditions of the ALD, specifically:
a. Respondent did not contact and schedule a meeting with the Office of Probation by April 28, 2007. The meeting with the Office of Probation was not held until October 16, 2007.
b. The Quarterly Report, due July 10, 2007, was not submitted until November 5, 2007.
c. The Quarterly Report, due October 10, 2007, was not submitted until November 5, 2007.
d. The Quarterly Report, due January 10, 2008, was not submitted until January 28, 2008.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4. Respondent did not comply with the conditions of the ALD in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 6068(1) which states that it is the duty of an attorney to "keep all agreements made in lieu of disciplinary prosecution with the agency charged with attorney discipline."
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
None .The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(6), was March 7, 2012.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of March 7, 2012 the disciplinary costs in this matter are $3269. 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.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
MULTIPLE ACTS OF MISCONDUCT.
Respondent failed to timely comply with more than one of the conditions of his ALD.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
NO PRIOR DISCIPLINE
Respondent was admitted to the State Bar on June 11, 1996 and he has no prior record of discipline under Standard 1.2 (e) (i).
CANDOR/COOPERATION
Respondent cooperated with the State Bar in the present disciplinary proceeding, which is a mitigating circumstance under Standard 1.2 (e) (v).
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because respondent agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, Respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.3
Standard 1.3 provides that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar of California and of sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgement of a member’s professional misconduct are the protections 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 2.6
Standard 2.6 provides that culpability of a member of a violation of § 6068(1) of the Business and Professions Code shall result in disbarment or suspension 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.
Here, Respondent violated the conditions of his ALD when he was late scheduling a meeting with the State Bar Office of Probation and submitted quarterly reports late. Respondent violated § 6068(1) when he did not "keep all agreements made in lieu of disciplinary prosecution." Under Standard 2.6 the range of discipline for a violation of Business and Professions Code § 6068(1) is disbarment or suspension. However, good cause exists to deviate from Standard 2.6 in this case. The stipulated discipline of public reproval is appropriate given that no clients were harmed, the misconduct was relatively minor, Respondent cooperated with the State Bar, and Respondent has no prior discipline. The purposes of public discipline, namely public protection, are satisfied by the terms of this stipulation.
Case Number(s): 11-O-14368
In the Matter of: Howard L. Osias
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: Howard L. Osias
Date: March 7, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel: James J. Regan
Date: March 7, 2012
Deputy Trial Counsel: Timothy G. Byer
Date: March 7, 2012
Case Number(s): 11-O-14368
In the Matter of Howard L. Osias
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 may 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. HONN
Date: 03-09-2012
[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 San Francisco, on March 13, 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:
JAMES JOSEPH REGAN
2522 ARTESIA BLVD
REDONDO BEACH, CA 90278
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Timothy Byer, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on
March 13, 2012.
Signed by:
George Hue
Case Administrator
State Bar Court