Case Number(s): 11-PM-15234
In the Matter of: Charles Colin Cossio, Bar # 167901, 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: In Pro Per Respondent
Charles Colin Cossio
2424 Shooting Star Place
Alpine, CA 91901
Bar# 167901
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
Filed: September 27, 2011 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 December 10, 1993.
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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (no actual suspension).
<<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 (actual suspension).
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2013, 2014 and 2015. (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.
Additional aggravating circumstances:
Additional mitigating circumstances:
Respondent contends that a poor financial situation, and the accompanying stress, were at the root of his failure to timely comply with his probation conditions. Respondent’s financial situation caused him to get behind on his mortgage payments, which caused foreclosure proceedings to be commenced. Respondent asserts that he has gone through his life’s savings, but is growing more successful in a new job as a loan officer such that he is using the income to keep current on specified bills and to attempt to catch up on other past-due bills.
Attachment language (if any):
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of the specified violations.
1. On October 23, 2009, the State Bar Court filed and served upon Respondent’s counsel a Stipulation re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition and Order Approving in State Bar Court Case No. 07-O-10996 ("Stipulation").
2. On February 18, 2010, the California Supreme Court filed an Order in Case No. S178572 (State Bar Court Case No. 07-0-10996) that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, that execution of suspension be stayed and that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of three years, including that he be suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of two years and until (i) he makes restitution to Robert Russell in the amount of $4,924 plus 10 percent interest per year from October 7, 2009 (or reimburses the Client Security Fund, to the extent of any payment from the fund to Robert Russell, in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6140.5) and furnishes proof to the State Bar’s Office of Probation in Los Angeles; and (ii) he must also provide proof to the State Bar Court of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice and learning and ability in the law before his suspension will be terminated. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, tit. IV, Stds. For Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, std. 1.4(c)(ii).) Respondent was also ordered to comply with the conditions of probation as recommended by the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court in its Order approving Stipulation filed on October 23, 2009.
a. As a condition of probation, Respondent was ordered to, within one year of the effective date of discipline by March 20, 2011-provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session. Respondent did not comply in that Respondent has not yet taken Ethics School. Respondent has signed up for the Ethics School to be offered in Los Angeles on October 20, 2011.
b. As a condition of probation, Respondent was ordered to, within one year of the effective date of discipline--by March 20, 2011--provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than 4 hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. Respondent has not complied because he did not provide proof of completion of the ordered MCLE until September 14, 2011.
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 because he did not file his fifth quarterly report, due Sunday, July 10, 2011, until July 11, 2011.
3. On March 15, 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 timely complete Ethics School, MCLE, and quarterly reports. The letter enclosed numerous attachments including a courtesy quarterly report form with an instructions sheet, and information about
Ethics School and how to register for it. Respondent received the letter.
4. On April 14, 2010, the Office of Probation conducted an ordered meeting with Respondent to discuss the terms and conditions of his probation. Ethics School, MCLE, and quarterly reports were all discussed.
5. On May 19, 2011, the Office of Probation mailed a letter to Respondent setting forth Respondent’s noncompliance with his probation conditions and advising him that he could be referred. Respondent received the letter.
6. On August 3, 2011, the Office of Probation filed a motion to revoke Respondent’s probation.
7. On August 30, 2011, Respondent filed his response to the motion to revoke his
probation.
8. On September 14, 2011, the Respondent provided the Office of Probation with proof of completion of 4 hours MCLE and that he had signed up for the October 20, 2011 Ethics School to be held in Los Angeles.
Legal Conclusion: By failing to (1) provide proof of completion of Ethics School; (2) timely provide proof of completion of 4 hours of MCLE; and (3) timely file his fifth Quarterly Report due July 10, 2011, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(k).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was September 21,2011.
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 serious 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 failing to comply with (1) Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A) by failing to negotiate Dr. Maywood’s lien, failing to pay Coast’s lien within 30 days to preserve a reduction, and by failing to pay BB& B’s and Regent’s liens; (2) Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A) by failing to maintain at least $27,800.86 in his client trust account to pay Dr. Maywood’s, Coast’s, BB&B’s, and Regent’s liens; (3) Business and Professions Code
section 6106 by delegating management of his client trust account to his wife and not supervising her causing an unintentional misappropriation for his own use and by providing Russell with a May Final Account that included the unintentional misrepresentation that $20,638 was held in trust.
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 above), 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 MCLE and his registration for Ethics School, his stipulation to his violations, and his agreement to reinstate his probation in order to demonstrate his willingness to prove his rehabilitation.
ETHICS SCHOOL CONDITION
Respondent’s attendance at any Ethics School following his signing of this stipulation will be credited towards his requirement that he complete Ethics School under Section 178572.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of Probation has informed respondent that as of September 21, 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.
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 August 3,2011. 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 August 3, 2011. The parties further stipulate to waive the right to have any amendment to the Notice of Motion and Motion to Revoke Probation.
WAIVER OF TIME TO WITHDRAW OR MODIFY STIPULATION
The parties stipulate to waive the time permitted to withdraw or modify a stipulation. See Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, Rule 58, sub. (E) and (F). Respondent desires that the State Bar Court effectuate his matter as quickly as possible so that the Supreme Court Order on this matter can be filed expeditiously.
Case Number(s): 11-PM-15234
In the Matter of: Charles Colin Cossio
<<not>> checked. a. Within days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
checked. b. Within one year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than 6 hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
<<not>> checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
Other: Respondent will receive credit for any MCLE ethics courses taken after the signing of this stipulation.
Case Number(s): 11-PM-15234
In the Matter of: Charles Colin Cossio
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: Charles Colin Cossio
Date: 9/23/11
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Terrie Goldade
Date: 9/26/11
Case Number(s): 11-PM-15234
In the Matter of: Charles Colin Cossio
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: 9/27/11
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RE: 11-PM-15234
Charles Colin Cossio (State Bar Number 167901)
Dear Sir/Madam:
In an attempt to expedite the handling of this matter, please be advised that the undersigned have knowingly and specifically waived the time within which to request a Writ of Review.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles Colin Cossio
Date: 9/23/11
Terrie Goldade Date: 9/26/11
Office of Probation
[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 , 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:
CHARLES COSSIO ESQUIRE
2424 SHOOTING STAR PLACE
ALPINE, CALIFORNIA 91901
checked by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Terrie Goldade, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on September 27, 2011.
Signed by:
Julieta Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court