State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING DISBARMENT; ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT

Case Number(s): 11-O-18963-LMA

In the Matter of: Frank William Dedman, Jr. Bar # 39050 A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Robert A. Henderson, Deputy Trial Counsel

180 Howard St.

San Francisco, California 94105

Telephone: (415) 538-2385

Bar #173205

Counsel for Respondent:  In Pro Per Respondent

Frank William Dedman, Jr.

1355 Florin Rd., #19

Sacramento, California 95822-4200

Telephone: (916) 730-4494

Bar#39050

Submitted to: Settlement Judge, State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco

Filed: September 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.

A. Parties' Acknowledgments:

1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 23, 1966.

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 9 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 awarded to the State Bar.

<<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. ORDER OF INACTIVE ENROLLMENT:
The parties are aware that if this stipulation is approved, the judge will issue an order of inactive enrollment under Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4), and Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule 5.111(D)(1).

B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.

checked. (1)            Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)].

checked. (a)              State Bar Court case # of prior case S.F. 23396/BM3597

checked. (b)              Date prior discipline effective July 23, 1976

checked. (c)              Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: Criminal convictions for: theft (Pen. Code 484); grand theft (Pen. Code 487); and falsifying documents to be used in evidence (Pen. Code ]34). The crimes involved moral turpitude.

checked. (d)              Degree of prior discipline Yolo 6 - Private Reproval entered on December 21, 1977, for failure to perform in a dissolution of marriage matter. No pecuniary harm found in the matter. 03-0433974 - Public Reproval entered on September 8, 2004. Respondent committed an act of moral turpitude in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106 when he falsely submitted a building permit to the city purporting to represent the owner/purported owner of the building. In fact respondent did not represent the owner/purported owner of the building. The representation was made knowingly with the intent to stop the city from demolishing the building.

checked. (e)              If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below.

<<not>> checked. (2) Dishonesty:  Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct.

<<not>> checked. (3) Trust Violation:  Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property.

<<not>> checked. (4) Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

<<not>> checked. (5) Indifference:  Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his or her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (6) Lack of Cooperation:  Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings.

<<not>> checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:  Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (8) No aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances:

C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigating circumstances are required.

<<not>> checked. (1) No Prior Discipline:  Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.

<<not>> checked. (2) No Harm:  Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (3) Candor/Cooperation:  Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims of his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings.

<<not>> checked. (4) Remorse:  Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (5) Restitution:  Respondent paid $   on   in restitution to without the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.

<<not>> checked. (6) Delay:  These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed.  The delay is not attributable to Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

<<not>> checked. (7) Good Faith:  Respondent acted in good faith.

<<not>> checked. (8) Emotional/Physical Difficulties:  At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct.  The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.

<<not>> checked. (9) Severe Financial Stress:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and which were directly responsible for the misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (10)           Family Problems:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature.

<<not>> checked. (11)           Good Character:  Respondent's good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (12)           Rehabilitation:  Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.

checked. (13)              No mitigating circumstances are involved.

Additional mitigating circumstances:  

D. Discipline: Disbarment.

E. Additional Requirements:

<<not>> checked. (1) Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and 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's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (2) Restitution:  Respondent must make restitution to  in the amount of $  plus 10 percent interest per year from . If the Client Security Fund has reimbursed  for all or any portion of the principal amount, respondent must pay restitution to CSF of the amount paid plus applicable interest and costs in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6140.5.  Respondent must pay the above restitution and furnish satisfactory proof of payment to the State Bar's Office of Probation in Los Angeles no later than  days from the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this case.

<<not>> checked. (3) Other:

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: Frank William Dedman, Jr.

CASE NUMBER: 11-O-18963-LMA

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations & the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.

Case No. 11-O-18963 .(Complainant: Mark Ong)

FACTS:

1. On July 7, 2011, Mark Ong ("Ong") hired respondent for a loan modification on two properties. On the same date, respondent and Ong entered into a contract for the loan modification services. Ong paid respondent $2,000 on July 7, 2011, and $500 on July 21,201.1, for a total of $2,500 in advanced fees.

2. Between July 7, 2011, and September 8, 2011, respondent unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a loan modification on the two properties.

3. On September 8,2011, Ong terminated respondent’s services and requested a refund.

4. Respondent did not earn any portion of the $2,500 charged and collected in violation of section 2944.7(a) of the Civil Code.

5. On September 9, 2011, October 11,2011, October 26, 2011., and October 30,2011, Ong or Ong’s authorized representative requested a refund of the unearned fees. Respondent received these requests shortly after they were made.

6. It was not until February 2012, that respondent refunded $2,550 to Ong.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

7. By offering to perform a home mortgage loan modification for Ong for a fee and demanding, charging, collecting, and receiving fees from Ong prior to fully performing each and every service respondent contracted to perform or represented he would perform, respondent negotiated, arranged or otherwise offered to perform a mortgage loan modification for a fee paid by the borrower and demanded, charged, collected or received such fee prior to fully performing each and every service respondent had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform in violation of section 2944.7(a) of the Civil Code, respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3.

8. By failing to refund the $2,500 in unearned fees until February 2012, respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of rule 3700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provide a "process of fixing discipline" pursuant to a set of written principles to "better discharge the purposes of attorney discipline as annotated by the Supreme Court." (Rules Proc. of State Bar, tit. IV, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, Introduction (all further references to standards are to this source).) The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings and of the sanctions imposed 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 re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 205; std 1,3.)

Although not binding, the standards are entitled to "great weight" and should be followed "whenever possible" in determining level of discipline. (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 92, quoting In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205,220 and In re Young (1989) 49 Cal.3d 257,267, fn. 11.) Adherence to the standards in the great majority of cases serves the valuable purpose of eliminating disparity and assuring consistency, that is, the imposition of similar attorney discipline for instances of similar attorney misconduct. (ln re Naney (1990) 51 Cal.3d 186, 190.) Any discipline recommendation different from that set forth in the applicable standards should clearly explain the reasons for the deviation. (Blair v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 762, 776, fn. 5.)

Standard 1.7(b) provides "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 as defined by Standard 1.2(f), the degree of discipline in the current proceeding shall be disbarment unless the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate."

In this matter, respondent has three prior records of discipline. There is no mitigation. Therefore, in accordance with standard 1.7(b), disbarment is appropriate. (See also, Barnum v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 104 [Attorney disbarred where no compelling mitigation existed and attorney had three prior records of discipline].

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was September 4, 2012.

WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND

STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY.

The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges t]led in this matter, and the facts and/or conclusions of law obtained in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The parties further waive the right to the filing of a Notice of Disciplinary Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.

DISMISSALS.

The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:

Case No. 11-O-18963 Count One (b) Alleged Violation 4-200(A) Illegal Fee

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of September 4, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are $6,779.00. 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

Case Number(s): 11-O-18963-LMA

In the Matter of: Frank William Dedman, Jr.

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: Frank William Dedman, Jr.

Date: 9-7-12

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Robert A. Henderson

Date: 9-10-12

DISBARMENT ORDER

Case Number(s): 11-O-18963

In the Matter of: Frank William Dedman, Jr.

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.)

Respondent Frank William Dedman, Jr is ordered transferred to involuntary inactive status pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4). Respondent’s inactive enrollment will be effective three (3) calendar days after this order is served by mail and will terminate upon the effective date of the Supreme Court’s order imposing discipline herein, or as provided for by rule 5.111(D)(2) or the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, or as otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court pursuant to its plenary jurisdiction.

Signed by:

Pat McElroy

Judge of the State Bar Court

Date: September 20, 2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[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 September 20, 2012, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

                                    STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND                                                              ORDER APPROVING; ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT        

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:

                                                 FRANK WILLIAM DEDMAN, JR.

                                                 1355 FLORIN RD #19

                                                 SACRAMENTO, CA 95822 – 4200

checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:

                                                ROBERT A. HENDERSON, Enforcement, San Francisco

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on September 20, 2012.

Signed by:

Mazie Yip

Case Administrator

State Bar Court