Case Number(s): 11-PM-12286
In the Matter of: Ronald Dennis Jaman, Bar # 48057, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Terrie Goldade, 1149 S. Hill St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Bar # 155348
Counsel for Respondent: Ellen Pansky, Pansky Markle Ham LLP
1010 Sycamore Ave. Ste. 308
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Bar #77688
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
Filed: July 1, 2011
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 7, 1971.
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):
<<not>> checked. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (no actual suspension).
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 (actual suspension).
<<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.
checked (c) Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: Rules of Professional Conduct, rules 3110(A) (2 violations), 4-]00(A), and 4-]00(B)(1); Business and Professions Code section 6068, subd. (i).
Additional aggravating circumstances:
Additional mitigating circumstances:
IN THE MATTER OF: Ronald Dennis Jaman
CASE NUMBER(S): 11-PM-12286
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of the specified violations.
1. On September 14, 2009, the State Bar Court filed and served upon Respondent a Decision and Order Sealing Certain Documents in State Bar Court Case Nos. 02-O-11533 and 04-0-10341 ("Decision").
2. On January 14, 2010, the California Supreme Court filed an Order in Case No. S177917 (State Bar Court Case Nos. 02-0-11533 and 04-0-10341) that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of sixty days, that execution of suspension be stayed and that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years and that he be subject to the conditions of probation as recommended
by the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court in its Decision filed on September 14, 2009.
a. As a condition of probation, Respondent was ordered to, within thirty days after the effective date of discipline by March 15, 2010--contact the Office of Probation to schedule a meeting to discuss the terms and conditions of his probation; upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent was to then meet with the probation deputy either in person or by telephone. Respondent did not comply in that Respondent did not contacted the Office of Probation to schedule a meeting to discuss the terms and conditions of his probation, and no such meeting took place.
b. As a condition of probation, Respondent was ordered to comply with the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct and to report such compliance quarterly under penalty of perjury to the Office of Probation each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 ("quarterly reports"). Respondent did not comply as follows:
DUE 4/10/10, FILED 5/31/11,COMMENTS late
DUE 4/10/10, FILED 5/31/11, COMMENTS late
DUE 7/10/10, FILED 5/31/11, COMMENTS late
DUE 10/10/10, FILED 5/31/11, COMMENTS late
DUE 1/10/11, FILED 5/31/11, COMMENTS late
DUE 4/10/11, FILED 5/21/11, COMMENTS late
(Although Respondent submitted a quarterly report for April 10, 2010, it could not be filed because Respondent signed it too early, on March 15,2010mbefore the end of the quarter on March 31, 2010. Respondent submitted quarterly reports for July 10, 2010, October 10, 2010, January 10, 2011, and April 10, 2011 on April 8, 2011, but they could not be filed because they did not contain Respondent’s original signature.)
c. As a condition of probation, Respondent was ordered to provide an appropriate waiver authorizing the Lawyer Assistance Program ("LAP") to provide the Of-flee of Probation and State Bar Court with information regarding the terms and conditions of Respondent’s participation in the LAP and his compliance or non-compliance with LAP requirements. Although the Court did not set forth adeadline for provision of such waiver, the Office of
7 Attachment Page 1
Probation requested a waiver from Respondent by letter mailed March 11, 2010.- The Office of Probation requested that Respondent provide a waiver by March 15, 2010. Respondent did not provide a waiver to the Office of Probation until May 31,2011.
3. On March 11, 2010, the Office of Probation mailed a reminder letter to Respondent at his membership records address outlining the terms and condition of his probation. The letter reminded Respondent of his obligations to contact the Office of Probation to schedule a meeting, to file quarterly reports, and asked that he provide a waiver re LAP. The letter enclosed numerous attachments including a courtesy quarterly report form with an instructions sheet and a waiver re LAP. Respondent received the letter.
4. On April 5, 2010, Respondent mailed the Office of Probation a letter stating that he had not received the March 11, 2010 letter until March 18, 2010 and stating that he was confused by the Quarterly Report. The letter enclosed a quarterly report purportedly for April 10, 2010 covering the period of February 13, 2010 through March 31, 2010. However, it was dated March 15, 2010 which was a date before Respondent even received the form quarterly report and which was also a date which preceded
the end of the quarter. Because it was not compliant, the quarterly report was not filed.
5. On June 9, 2010, the Office of Probation left a telephonic voice mail message for Respondent at his membership records telephone. Respondent was asked to return the call because they needed to discuss several items including the quarterly report he had provided for April 2010. Respondent did not return this phone call.
6. On May 3 and June 9, 2010, the Office of Probation e-mailed LAP inquiring as to the identity of Respondent’s case manager.
7. On June 9, 2010, LAP e-mailed the Office of Probation that LAP could neither confirm nor deny any information regarding Respondent.
8. On February 10, 2011, the Office of Probation mailed a letter to Respondent setting forth Respondent’s non-compliance with his probation conditions and advising him that he could be referred.
9. On March 30, 2011, Respondent left telephonic message with his Probation Deputy stating that he would like to schedule a meeting to bring in outstanding documents in his matter. Respondent did not state that the purpose of the meeting was to review the terms and conditions of his probation.
10. On April 4, 2011, the Office of Probation left Respondent a telephonic voice mail message stating that it would get back to him regarding scheduling a meeting for him to bring in outstanding documents. During a review of Respondent’s file, it was noted that Respondent had never scheduled nor conducted a meeting to review the terms and conditions of his probation; had never submitted a LAP waiver; and had not sent quarterly reports for a year. It was determined that a meeting would not be fruitful, and that Respondent could simply mail the documentation in for review.
11. On April 6, 2011, the Office of Probation telephoned Respondent and left a voice mail message stating that because he had so many conditions that had not been met and because the conditions were so overdue, a meeting for him to bring in documentation would not be fruitful at this time. Respondent was asked to mail any documentation for review.
12. By letter dated April 7, 2011 Respondent mailed the Office of Probation various documents. The quarterly reports could not be filed because they did not include Respondent’s original signature. The letter did not enclose a LAP waiver. The letter did not request a meeting to review the terms and conditions of his probation:
13. On April 11, 2011, the Office of Probation mailed a letter to Respondent notifying him of the rejection his July 2010, October 2010, January 2011, and April 2011 quarterly reports and enclosing the March 11, 2010 and February 10, 2011 letters previously mailed to Respondent.
14. On April 13,2011, the Office of Probation filed and served (by regular and by certified mail) the motion to revoke Respondent’s probation.
15. By letter dated April 26, 2011, Respondent sent the Office of Probation quarterly reports for July and October 2010 and January and April 2011. They could not be filed because they were incorrectly dated; that is, they were not dated onthe day he signed the reports pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 2015.5. (The letter was received by the Office of Probation on May 2, 2011 .)
16. On May 12, 2011, the Office of Probation received a Notice of Counsel Representation Form on behalf of Respondent.
17. On May 12, 2011, the Office of Probation mailed and faxed Respondent’s counsel a letter setting forth why the quarterly reports submitted by Respondent by letter dated April 26, 201 I.
18. On May 31, 2011, Respondent provided the Office of Probation with a waiver re LAP.
19. On May 31, 2011, the LAP informed the Office of Probation that Respondent had withdrawn from LAP on July 27, 2009.
Legal Conclusion: By failing to (1) contact the Office of Probation to schedule a meeting to discuss the terms and conditions of his probation and by failing to conduct such a meeting; (2) timely file his Quarterly Reports due April 10, 2010; July 10, 2010; October 10, 2010; January 10, 2011, and April 10, 2011, and, (3) timely provide an appropriate waiver authorizing the LAP to provide the Office of Probation and State Bar Court with information regarding the terms and conditions of Respondent’s participation in the LAP and his compliance or non-compliance with LAP requirements, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(k).
OTHER PROBATION CONDITIONS AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES
1. Respondent must contact the Office of Probation within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline and schedule a meeting with Respondent’s assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.
2. During his new probationary period, Respondent must continue to file quarterly reports pursuant to the specifications originally set forth in the Decision filed on September 14, 2009 by the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court.
3. Respondent must pay restitution to Adela Haro in the amount of $5,400.00 plus ten percent (10%) interest per annum, accruing from October 5, 2000 (or to the Client Security Fund [CSF] to the extent of any payment from the fund to Adela Haro, plus interest and costs, in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6140.5) and provide satisfactory proof thereof to the Office of Probation by September 1, 2011. Any restitution to the CSF is enforceable as provided in Business and Professions
Code section 6140.5, subdivisions (c) and (d). To the extent the CSF has paid only the principal amount, Respondent will still be liable for interest payments to Adela Haro, as set forth above.
With each written quarterly report required herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of all restitution payments made by him during that quarter or applicable reporting period.
To the extent that Respondent has paid any restitution prior to the effective date of the Supreme Court’s final disciplinary order in this proceeding, Respondent will be given credit for such payment(s) provided satisfactory proof of such is or has been shown to the Office of Probation.
4. Respondent must immediately, and in no event no later than July 1, 2011 [before the effective date of this discipline], contact the Lawyers Assistance Program ("LAP") to re-start his participation in LAP. Respondent must comply with all provisions and conditions of his Evaluation and/or Participation Plan with LAP. Respondent must immediately report any non-compliance with any provision(s) or condition(s) of his Evaluation and/or Participation Plan to the Office of Probation. Respondent must
cause LAP to provide a quarterly report to the Office of Probation regarding his compliance or noncompliance. As of May 31, 2011, Respondent has provided the Office of Probation with a waiver authorizing the LAP to provide the Office of Probation and the State Bar Court with information regarding the terms and conditions of Respondent’s participation in the LAP and his compliance or noncompliance with LAP requirements. Revocation of the written waiver for release of LAP information is a violation of this condition. Respondent will be relieved of this condition upon providing to the Office of Probation satisfactory certification of completion of the LAP.
5. Respondent’s new probationary period in this matter is two years so that he can participate in LAP during that time. Should Respondent (1) provide proof to the Office of Probation that he has successfully completed LAP; and (2) have been on his "new" probation at least one year; and (3) timely complied with each of his other conditions, Respondent may make a motion for early termination pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, rule 5.300, and the Office of Probation
will not oppose the motion.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was June 1,2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.6, subsection (a), states that culpability of a member of a violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(k), shall result in disbarment or suspension depending upon 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.
An attorney who violated his probation by failing to timely complete restitution and by failing to timely attend Ethics School, received two years’ probation with a condition that he was to be actually suspended for the first 30 days. In the Matter of Gorman (Review Dept. 2003) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 567. Neither bad purpose nor intentional evil is required to establish willful violations of disciplinary probation. Id. at 572. An attorney’s cooperation in stipulating to facts warrants some mitigative consideration. Id More serous sanctions are assigned to probation violations closely related to reasons for imposition of previous discipline or to rehabilitation. Id. at 573-574
In this matter, Respondent’s underlying disciplinary violation was in relation to his failing to notify his client promptly of the receipt of client funds; intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failing to perform competently by failing to supervise his employee; failing to take all appropriate action to set aside a settlement or turn over settlement funds to his client; commingling personal funds in a client trust account; and failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation. The probation conditions violated were related to his original misconduct, important for his rehabilitation, and were intended to assist the State Bar in monitoring Respondent’s rehabilitation. However, in light of Respondent’s circumstances (set forth below), it is agreed that the degree of discipline set forth in this stipulation is appropriate in relation to standard 2.6 based upon Respondent’s eventual completion of his quarterly reports, his stipulation to his violations, and his agreement to reinstate his probation and his participation in LAP in order to demonstrate his willingness to prove his rehabilitation.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of Probation has informed respondent that as of June 1,2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,191. 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.
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDERED IN RESOLVING THIS MATTER
Respondent asserts that he believed that he had successfully completed the Lawyers Assistance Program ("LAP"). He now understands that he did not and has agreed to immediately contact LAP and re-enter their program.
Respondent asserts that he will keep in contact with both LAP and the Office of Probation, especially whenever he has questions.
Although Respondent gave notice to the Office of Probation of his changing his address by letter dated April 5, 2010, he did not give notice to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar until March 7, 2011. Respondent asserts that he now understands that he is required to give notice to both the Office of Probation and the Membership Records Office within ten days of any change of address and that he will do so in the future should he change his address,
WAIVER OF ANY VARIANCES
The parties stipulate to waive any variance in the language, allegations, and conclusions of law between this stipulation and the Notice of Motion and Motion to Revoke Probation filed on April 13, 2011. Respondent acknowledges that this stipulation contains language, allegations, and a conclusion of law which may differ from the language, allegations, and conclusion of law contained in the Notice of Motion and Motion to Revoke Probation filed on April 13, 2011. The parties further stipulate to waive the right to have any amendment to the Notice of Motion and Motion to Revoke Probation.
Case Number(s): 11-PM-12286
In the Matter of: Ronald Dennis Jaman
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: Ronald Dennis Jaman and Ellen Pansky and Terrie Goldade
Respondent: Ronald Dennis Jaman
Date: June 8, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel: Ellen Pansky
Date: June 8, 2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Terrie Goldade
Date: June 9, 2011
Case Number(s): 11-PM-12286
In the Matter of: Ronald Dennis Jaman
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: Donald F. Miles
Judge of the State Bar Court
Date: June 30, 2011
[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 July 1, 2011, 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 Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
ELLEN ANNE PANSKY
PANSKY MARKLE HAM LLP
1010 SYCAMORE AVE UNIT 308
SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
TERRIE L. GOLDADE, Probation, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on July 1, 2011.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court