Case Number(s): 11-O-19332
In the Matter of: G. Cat Stokes, Bar # 112473, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Donald R. Steedman
180 Howard Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Bar # 104927
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
G. Cat Stokes
3600 Power Inn Rd., Suite A3
Sacramento, CA 95826
Bar# 112473
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
<<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 January 5, 1984.
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):
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.
<<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.
DISCLOSURE OF INVESTIGATIONS
The disclosure mentioned in paragraph A.7 was made on February 15, 2012.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106, by committing conduct involving moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption, as follows:
2. Prior to September 30, 2011, Karen Leach Nuehring ("Nuehring") employed respondent to represent her as petitioner in the matter of Marvin David Boyce, decedent.
3. Marvin David Boyce had two heirs, who were the decedent’s daughters by different mothers. One heir was Tiffany Rose Boyce, who was the daughter of Neuhring. The second heir was Sytoria M. Boyce (then aged 14), who was the daughter of Victoria Mclntosh. Marvin David Boyce was also survived by his father, J. M. Boyce.
4. On or about September 30, 2011, respondent filed an ex parte petition for probation requesting that Nuehring be appointed executor of the Estate of Marvin David Boyce aka Marvin D. Boyce, Decedent, case number 34-2011-00111610, Sacramento County Superior Court.
5. On or about September 30, 2011, the superior court denied the petition without prejudice finding "...that at least 24 hours notice to the heirs and beneficiaries in compliance with CRC 3.1203 is reasonable and necessary."
6. Respondent chose not to give notice to Sytoria Boyce and her mother, but instead obtained the ex parte order though acts of forgery and misrepresentation, as follows:
7. On or about October 1, 2011, respondent forged the signatures of Sytoria Boyce and J. M. Boyce to a document entitled "Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice and Waiver of Time." The Acknowledgement stated that purported signatories
"...acknowledge receipt of notice concerning the ex parte application for appointment of a Special Administrator to collect rents, marshal assets and secure estate funds in an estate account from which to pay late, current and pending bills, is in the best interest of the estate and thus to appoint as swiftly as the law allows, do also waive time for such notice."
On or about October 3, 2011, respondent filed this document with the superior court in the probate case. Respondent took all of these actions, i.e., forging the signatures, waiving Sytoria Boyce’s notice rights, and filing the document, knowing that he did so without the knowledge and without the consent of Sytoria Boyce, J.M. Boyce, or Victoria Mclntosh, or any of them.
9. The October 3, 2011 "Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice and Waiver of Time" listed J.M. Boyce as "grandfather/custodian," by which respondent intended to mean that J.M. Boyce was the custodian of Sytoria Boyce. This statement was false and misleading because J.M. Boyce was not the custodian of Sytoria Boyce.
10. On October 3, 2011, respondent signed and filed a handwritten declaration under penalty of perjury in the probate court case stating in pertinent part as follows:
"3. With respect to notice to the minor beneficiary’s surviving parent, request is made that notice of this ex parte be dispensed with and waived by the court. Declarant is informed and believes that Victoria Smith, mother of Sytoria Boyce cannot be presently be located or contacted on the phone.
"4. Declarant is further informed and believes that the minor child, Sytoria, has resided back and forth between paternal grandparents and her mother for several years, and that Sytoria has presently been residing with her paternal grandparents for the past two weeks. The minor is 14 years old and understands the purpose + effect of the petition. And, the grandparents are looking out for her best interests."
Respondent’s statements were false and misleading because: (1) Sytoria Boyce’s mother was not named "Smith"; (2) Sytoria Boyce’s mother could be located and could be contacted by telephone; (3) Sytoria Boyce was living with her mother; (4) respondent had no basis for believing the Sytoria Boyce understood the purpose and effect of the petition; and (5) the grandparents had not undertaken to look out for Sytoria Boyce’s interests in connection with the probate matter.
11. On or about October 3, 2011, based upon respondent’s forgeries and misrepresentations, the court issued temporary letters of special administration to Nuehring.
12. By submitting forged documents to the court and by making false, misleading and perjurious statements to the court, and by fraudulently obtaining letters of administration in violation of the rights of Sytoria Boyce, respondent committed conduct involving moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption.
13. Respondent did give notice to J.M. Boyce and Sartoria Boyce of a November 18, 2011 hearing in which the court considered whether to appoint a permanent administrator for the Estate. J.M. Boyce appeared and indicated that he had not signed the above-mentioned document by which Neuhring had been temporarily appointed. At this point, the court asked the parties to discuss the matter amongst themselves. In the subsequent private discussion, respondent admitted that he had forged the signatures as stated above. When court resumed, the case was continued until January 20, 2011, and the parties stated that they had agreed to file an amended petition wherein both mothers would be named as co-executors.
14. On November 21, 2011, respondent provided the court with letters admitting his misconduct as described above. On December 14, 2011, the court ordered respondent to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned. At the time of this stipulation, the court has not yet completed proceedings concerning the sanction matter.
15. On or about November 21, 2011, respondent reported his misconduct to the State Bar of California.
16. The State Bar believes, based on its investigation of this matter, that respondent did not intend to deprive any heir of their right to property. Respondent believed (erroneously, it turned out) that the Boyce family was in accord concerning the administration of the estate. Respondent created the false documents in order to avoid delay in the initial appointment of the administrator, so that bills could be paid immediately.
SUPPORTING AUTHORITIES
Standard 2.3 (actual suspension or disbarment for offenses involving moral turpitude); see Drociak v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1085 (30 day suspension imposed on attorney with no prior discipline who responded to interrogatories without consulting client and used pre-signed verifications)).
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 11-O-19332
In the Matter of: G. Cat Stokes
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: G. Cat Stokes
Date: February 23, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Donald R. Steedman
Date: February 27, 2012
Case Number(s): 11-O-19332
In the Matter of: G. Cat Strokes
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: Pat E. McElroy
Date: March 12, 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 12, 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:
G.CAT STROKES
LAW OFFICE OF G.CAT STROKES
3600 POWER INN RD #a#
SACRAMENTO, CA 95826-3826
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at, California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at, California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on March 12, 2012.
Signed by:
George Hue
Case Administrator
State Bar Court