Case Number(s): 12-C-10899-DFM
In the Matter of: David James Lola, Bar # 231190 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: William Todd, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213-765-1491
Bar # 259194
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
David James Lola
100 North Tryon, Ste B220, #273
Charlotte, NC 28202
619-400-3122
Bar # 231190
Submitted to: Settlement Judge at State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: June 22, 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.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted June 3, 2004.
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 ** 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 added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<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.
9. The parties understand that:
<<not>> checked. (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
Respondent lacks any prior discipline, but his relatively short period in practice limits this fact’s mitigating weight. In the Matter of Aguiluz (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 32, 44 (seven years of law practice without prior discipline is worth only slight weight in mitigation).
Respondent admits his misconduct and has cooperated with the State Bar in preparing this stipulation. In the Matter of Spaith (Review Dept. 1996) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 511, 516.
IN THE MATTER OF: DAVID JAMES LOLA, SBN #231190
CASE NUMBER(S): 12-C-10899-DFM
A. FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified sections of the Business and Professions Code and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
FACTS:
1. On November 27, 2011, police officers on patrol in Salinas, California discovered a fight in progress.
2. As the officers moved in, they were advised that Respondent, a participant in the fight, was armed.
3. Respondent was arrested under suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon (firearm).
4. Respondent was carrying a concealed firearm at the time of his arrest.
5. The Salinas Police Department later confirmed that Respondent was not licensed to carry a concealed weapon as required by California law.
6. On December 10, 2011, Respondent pied guilty to a misdemeanor violation of California Penal Code section 12025 (a)(2), carrying a concealed weapon, arising from the November 27, 2011 incident, and was convicted of same.
7. The sentence imposed on Respondent on January 25, 2012 included a one (1) year conditional probation with the following conditions:
a. Do not commit same or similar offense.
b. The weapon seized is to be disposed of according to law.
c. Pay a fine, including penalty assessments of $400.00.
d. Pay a restitution fine of $120.00 to the State Restitution Fund. (PC 1202.4(b)).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
8. The facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s conviction for violating
California Penal Code section 12025(a)(2) do not constitute moral turpitude but do constitute other misconduct warranting discipline.
B. PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page 2, paragraph A(7), was June 12, 2012.
C. AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct
The analysis of what is the appropriate level of discipline begins with the Standards for Attorney Sanctions as reaffirmed by In Re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 81. Though they are not binding on the Supreme Court and are not a "fixed formula," the standards do promote consistent and uniform application of discipline as well as the purpose of discipline, enunciated in standard 1.3: the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession as well as the maintenance of high professional standards.
Several standards apply in this instance. Standard 2.10 provides that culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in these standards or of a willful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to 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.
Standard 3.4 provides that final conviction of a member of a crime which does not involve moral turpitude inherently or in the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime’s commission but which does involve other misconduct warranting discipline shall result in a sanction as prescribed under part B of the [Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct] appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct found to have been committed by the member.
Decisional Law
In re Hickey (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 571. Respondent in Hickey faced discipline following his plea of no contest to a misdemeanor violation of California Penal Code 12025 section (b), carrying a concealed weapon, as well as a violation of what is now Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3-700 for an improper withdrawal in a client matter.
As in this case, the concealed weapon charge in Hi.key arose out of a violent incident involving Hickey and others in May of 1987. (Another factor in Hickey was a separate but similar incident in April 1987. However, the April 1987 incident did not result in a criminal charge.) The only mitigation in Hickey was Hickey’s subsequent (to the misconduct) enrollment in Alcoholics Anonymous. The ultimate discipline in Hickey was a three (3) year suspension, stayed, with thirty (30) days actual suspension and three (3) years probation.
Here, the misconduct is less severe, as there is no client-related misconduct. Additionally, unlike Hickey, there is no evidence of additional criminal conduct in the instant matter. Also, the Respondent in this matter is entitled to limited mitigation from his seven years of discipline free practice. Therefore, the stipulated discipline herein falls within the range of discipline suggested by the standards, and is consistent with judicial precedent. In addition, the parties believe that the stipulated discipline herein is adequate to protect the public, courts and the legal profession.
D. COSTS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of June 11, 2012, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,287.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only. 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.
Case Number(s): 12-C-10899-DFM
In the Matter of: David James Lola, State Bar Number 231190
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: David James Lola and William Todd
Respondent: David James Lola
Date: 6/14/2012
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: William Todd
Date: 6/18/2012
Case Number(s): 12-C-10899
In the Matter of: David James Lola, State Bar Number 231190
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department 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.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Platel
Date: 6-21-2012
[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 January 24, 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 Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
DAVID J. LOLA
DAVID J LOLA ESQ
100 NORTH TRYON
SUITE B 220 #273
CHARLOTTE, NC 28202
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
WILLIAM TODD, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on June 22, 2012.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court