Case Number(s): Investigation No. 11-O-15383
In the Matter of: Jack I. Alder, Bar # 97380, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Jessica A. Lienau
1149 S. Hill St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1165
Bar # 269753
Counsel for Respondent: David M. Philips
3853 Brockton Ave.
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 686-3220
Bar# 45761
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office 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 May 29, 1981.
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: three billing cycles following the effective date if 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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Jack I. Adler, State Bar No. 97380
INVESTIGATION NUMBER(S): 11-O-15383
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.
Investigation No. 11-O- 15383 (Complainant: Judge Juan C. Dominguez)
FACTS:
1. On January 7, 2010, the State Bar sent Respondent a fees statement for 2010 with an enclosed notice that Respondent needed to report his compliance with the Minimum Continuing Legal Education ("MCLE") requirements. Respondent received the fees statement and notice.
2. On May 3, 2010, the State Bar sent Respondent a letter, reminding him that he had failed to pay his 2010 dues and that he had failed to submit documentation of his MCLE compliance. In the letter, the State Bar warned Respondent that if he failed to timely pay his dues, he would be suspended, and/or that if he failed to provide proof of MCLE compliance, he would be enrolled as inactive. Respondent received this letter.
3. On June 25, 2010, Respondent was sent a letter informing him that he was not in compliance with the MCLE requirements and that he must take action to correct this on or before August 31, 2010 or else he would be enrolled as inactive. Respondent received this letter.
4. On July 29, 2010, the Supreme Court of California in Case No. S184781 ordered that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law, effective September 1, 2010, for nonpayment of fees. The July 29, 2010 Order was served on Respondent and Respondent received the July 29, 2010 Order.
5. On August 13, 2010, the State Bar sent Respondent a letter informing him that he was not in compliance with the MCLE requirements and that he must take action to correct this on or before August 31, 2010 or else he would be enrolled as inactive. Respondent received this letter.
6. On September 1, 2010, the July 29, 2010 Order became effective and Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for nonpayment of fees.
7. On September 1, 2010, the State Bar enrolled Respondent as not eligible for failure to comply with the MCLE requirements.
8. On September 15, 2010, the State Bar sent Respondent a letter notifying him that on September 1, 2010, he was enrolled as not eligible for failure to comply with the MCLE requirements.
9. On October 6, 2010, Respondent paid to the State Bar his delinquent fees and assessments. On October 7, 2010, Respondent’s suspension pursuant to the July 29, 2010 Order was terminated. On October 7, 2010, Respondent was notified, via written correspondence, that his suspension pursuant to the July 29, 2010 Order was terminated, but that Respondent remained on not-eligible status due to noncompliance with the MCLE requirements.
10. On August 29, 2011, Respondent submitted to the State Bar of California, MCLE Compliance Group, proof of his compliance with the MCLE requirements and payment of MCLE related fees. On August 29, 2011, Respondent’s MCLE-related administrative inactive status ended and he was returned to active status. On August 29, 2011, Respondent was notified that his MCLE-related administrative inactive status ended and that he had been returned to active status.
11. Between on September 1, 2010 and on August 29, 2011, Respondent was not entitled to practice law. Between on September 1, 2010 and on August 29, 2011, Respondent knew that he was not entitled to practice law in California.
12. Between March 2010 until July 2011, Respondent was employed as a special appearance attorney for attorney Sherman Ellison in traffic violation cases.
13. Between September 1, 2010 until July 4, 2011, while Respondent knowingly was not entitled to practice law, Respondent knowingly made approximately 77 special appearances on traffic cases in Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County Superior Courts, and thereby engaged in the authorized practice of law.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
14. By appearing before the courts when Respondent knew he was not entitled to practice law, Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106, by committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was March 12, 2012.
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 2.3 holds that an act of moral turpitude warrants discipline ranging from actual suspension to disbarment, depending on the extent to which the victim of the misconduct is harmed or misled and depending on the magnitude of the misconduct and the degree to which it relates to the attorney’s acts within the practice of law. Respondent’s misrepresentations were to both the clients he was representing as well as to the courts he appeared before, both of which are related to the practice of law.
Caselaw:
As an initial matter, the practice of law includes representation of clients at administrative hearings, including in traffic court. (Benninghoff v. Superior Court (2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 61, 69-73.)
In Bluestein v. State Bar (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 162, the respondent was suspended for six months for engaging in misconduct including aiding and abetting the unauthorized practice of law. In aggravation, the Court considered the respondent’s prior imposition of discipline, a public reproval. (Id. at 175-76.) Similarly, in Farnham v. State Bar (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 605, the respondent was suspended for two years, stayed, on conditions of probation and six months actual suspension for holding himself as entitled to practice while he was suspended and for abandoning the interests of his clients. The respondent had a prior, record of discipline, consisting of a 90 day actual suspension. (Id. at 612.)
Unlike the respondents in Bluestein and Farnham, supra., Respondent has no prior record of discipline in more than 20 years of practice. Although Respondent’s misconduct is serious, Respondent’s misconduct did not harm the client’s interests. A one year suspension, stayed, on the condition of 90 days actual suspension and probation conditions is an consistent with Standard 2.3 and is an appropriate level of discipline to protect the public, the courts, and the profession.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of March 12, 2012, 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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Investigation Number(s): 11-O-15383
In the Matter of: Jack I. Adler
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: Jack I. Adler
Date: March 15, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel: David M. Philips
Date: March 15, 2012
Deputy Trial Counsel: Jessica A. Lienau
Date: March 19, 2012
Case Number(s): Investigation No. 11-O-15383
In the Matter of: Jack I. Adler
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: Donald F. Miles
Date: March 22, 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 March 22, 2012, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING ACTUAL SUSPENSION
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:
DAVID MATTHEW PHILIPS
3853 BROCKTON AVE
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
JESSICA LIENAU, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 22, 2012.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court