Case Number(s): 12-C-12082
In the Matter of: SHANNON MARIE DODGE, Bar # 258335, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Elizabeth Gonzalez, Bar #256839,
Counsel for Respondent: Shannon Marie Dodge, Bar #258335,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.
Filed: August 19, 2013.
<<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 1, 2009.
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. 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.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: three (3) billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (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.
Attachment language (if any):.
MEDICAL CONDITIONS
Case Number(s): 12-C-12082
In the Matter of: SHANNON MARIE DODGE
<<not>> checked. a. Unless Respondent has been terminated from the Lawyer Assistance Program (“LAP”) prior to respondent’s successful completion of the LAP, respondent must comply with all provisions and conditions of respondent’s Participation Agreement with the LAP and must provide an appropriate waiver authorizing the LAP to provide the Office of Probation and this court with information regarding the terms and conditions of respondent’s participation in the LAP and respondent’s compliance or non-compliance with LAP requirements. Revocation of the written waiver for release of LAP information is a violation of this condition. However, if respondent has successfully completed the LAP, respondent need not comply with this condition.
checked. b. Respondent must obtain psychiatric or psychological help/treatment from a duly licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker at respondent’s own expense a minimum of 2 times per month and must furnish evidence to the Office of Probation that respondent is so complying with each quarterly report. Help/treatment should commence immediately, and in any event, no later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of the discipline in this matter. Treatment must continue for days or months or two (2) years or, the period of probation or until a motion to modify this condition is granted and that ruling becomes final.
If the treating psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker determines that there has been a substantial change in respondent’s condition, respondent or Office of the Chief Trial Counsel may file a motion for modification of this condition with the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court, pursuant to rule 5.300 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. The motion must be supported by a written statement from the psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker, by affidavit or under penalty of perjury, in support of the proposed modification.
checked. c. Upon the request of the Office of Probation, respondent must provide the Office of Probation with medical waivers and access to all of respondent’s medical records. Revocation of any medical waiver is a violation of this condition. Any medical records obtained by the Office of Probation are confidential and no information concerning them or their contents will be given to anyone except members of the Office of Probation, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, and the State Bar Court, who are directly involved with maintaining, enforcing or adjudicating this condition.
Other:
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: SHANNON MARIE DODGE, State Bar No. 258335
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-C-12082
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense for which she was convicted involved misconduct warranting discipline.
Case No. 12-C-12082 (Conviction Proceedings)
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING:
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On April 10, 2012, a criminal complaint was filed in the Kern County Superior Court, case no. BK12-52537, charging Respondent with four misdemeanor violations: one count of violation of Penal Code section 25400(a)(2) [carrying concealed weapon], one count of violation of Penal Code section 25850(a) [carrying a loaded firearm in a public place], one count of violation of Municipal Code section 9.50.010 [discharging a firearm within city limits], one count of violation of Municipal Code section 9.50.010 [discharging a firearm within city limits], and one count of violation of Vehicle Code section 14601.1 [driving with a suspended license].
3. On December 14, 2012, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the count of violation of Municipal Code section 9.50.010 [discharging a firearm within city limits], a misdemeanor, and the court dismissed the remaining counts. The court placed Respondent on 3 years’ summary probation and ordered her to serve 45 days in jail, among other conditions.
4. On April 8, 2013, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department for a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the Hearing Department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense(s) for which Respondent was convicted involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
FACTS:
5. On March 12, 2012, Police were dispatched to Respondent’s apartment in Bakersfield. When they arrived, they spoke to Respondent’s next-door neighbor who told police that she was inside her apartment when she heard several gunshots fired from inside Respondent’s apartment. Police entered the apartment but did not locate anyone. Police did find spent 9 mm shell casings in the kitchen and in the living room. The neighbor also informed officers that Respondent’s red Mustang was not parked where it usually is.
6. While officers were searching the apartment they received another dispatch call informing them that another citizen was following a red Mustang. The reporting parties were a driver and his passenger who witnessed Respondent pull her car to the side of the road in a residential neighborhood, get out, and fire several rounds into the ground adjacent to several homes.
7. After firing the gun, Respondent got back inside her car and drove away. Officers soon located Respondent’s car, conducted a traffic stop, and arrested Respondent.
8. During the search of Respondent’s vehicle, officers located a loaded semi-automatic 9 mm handgun on the passenger floorboard and 37 live 9 mm ammunition rounds in the center console. Officers also found spent 9 mm shell casings along the curb where the witnesses observed Respondent fire the gun.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
9. The facts and circumstances surrounding the above-described violation(s) did not involve moral turpitude but did involve other misconduct warranting discipline.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Harm (Std. 1.2(b)(iv)): Respondent’s neighbor was harmed by being placed in sustained fear for her safety as a result of Respondent recklessly firing a handgun several times in the adjoining apartment. Additionally, Respondent’s actions endangered a neighborhood due to the close proximity of where she fired the gun.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Pretrial Stipulation: In In the Matter of Downey (Review Dept. 2009) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 15 l, 156, the court found that Respondent was entitled to mitigation for cooperating with the State Bar by entering into a fairly comprehensive pretrial stipulation of facts. Although the stipulated facts were not difficult to prove, and Respondent did not admit culpability, the stipulation was relevant and assisted the State Bar’s prosecution of the case. The court accorded Respondent limited mitigation under standard 1.2(e)(v). Here, Respondent is entitled to limited mitigation for entering into a full stipulation with the Office of Chief Trial Counsel prior to trial in case no. 12-C-12082, thereby saving the State Bar Court time and resources. (Id.; In the Matter of Van Sickle (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 993-94.)
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 announced 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 3.4 is the applicable Standard in cases such as this, where a respondent has been convicted of a crime that does not on its face or in the surrounding facts and circumstances involve moral turpitude. This standard state such misconduct "shall result in a sanction as prescribed under part B of these standards appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct found to have been committed by the member."
In reference to part B of the standards, the most applicable standard appears to be Standard 2.10. Standard 2.10 states 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 wilful 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.
In the current matter, Respondent engaged in reckless and dangerous behavior. It started with Respondent firing a gun inside an apartment that is adjacent to an occupied apartment. Respondent’s actions endangered her neighbors. However, Respondent’s misconduct did not end there. Respondent made the decision to get in her car with a loaded firearm and a lot of ammunition, and flee the scene. While driving around, Respondent pulled her car to the curb, exited the vehicle with the loaded gun, and proceeded to fire several rounds in a residential area. After firing several shots, Respondent got back in her car and drove away. Respondent’s misconduct came to an end when witnesses called the police and she was pulled over and arrested. Even though Respondent’s behavior does not rise to the level of moral turpitude, the facts and circumstances surrounding her criminal conviction are misconduct warranting discipline. (ln the Matter of Respondent O (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 581. Respondent fired his handgun at another motorist’s vehicle, and struck a rear passenger in the face. The Review Department found the facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s criminal conviction did not involve moral turpitude but were misconduct warranting discipline.)
Here, consideration must be given to the harm caused by the real danger Respondent put others in the neighborhood. This is tempered only slightly by the mitigation, in that the matter could easily have been proven even absent Respondent’s stipulation. Some actual suspension is appropriate.
Although under the catch-all provision of Standard 2.10, it is difficult to affix a precise level of discipline, the purpose of Standard 1.3 - 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 - are well served by a significant period of actual suspension. An appropriate level of discipline is one (1) year stayed suspension, two (2) years’ probation, and ninety (90) days actual suspension, together with the conditions described herein.
This level of discipline is also consistent with case law. For example, In re Hickey (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 571, Hickey was convicted of one misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 12025(b) [carrying a concealed weapon] arising from an incident at a nightclub during which he struck his wife in the head with a gun and later threatened her. The Court found Hickey’s conduct was not moral turpitude but did warranted discipline. After trial, the discipline adopted was three (3) years’ probation, three (3) years stayed suspension, and 30 days actual suspension. Like Hickey, Respondent committed a crime with a firearm. However, this case is more serious because Respondent recklessly fired the gun several times in two public places where others were around. The appropriate level of discipline should be ninety (90) days actual suspension.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of July 16, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,392. 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.
EXCLUSION FROM MCLE CREDIT
Pursuant to rule 3201, Respondent may not receive MCLE credit for completion of State Bar Ethics School. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 12-C-12085
In the Matter of: SHANNON MARIE DODGE
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: SHANNON MARIE DODGE
Date: 7/25/13
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Elizabeth Gonzalez
Date: 8/5/13
ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 12-C-12082
In the Matter of: SHANNON MARIE DODGE
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:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
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.
Page 1 – Paragraph A (1) – Delete “2009”
– Insert “2008”
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: Richard A. Platel
Date: 8/13/13
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 Los Angeles, on August 19, 2013, 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:
SHANNON M. DODGE
2218 LONE TREE CT
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312
<<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:
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Elizabeth Gonzalez, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on August 19, 2013.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court