State Bar Court of California
Hearing Department
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER
APPROVING
REPROVAL
Case Number(s): 12-C-16649-PEM
In the Matter of: ANNETTE SUZANNE PARENT, Bar # 184173, A
Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Catherine Taylor, Bar #210540,
Counsel for Respondent: Doron Weinberg, Bar #46131,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.
Filed: October 29, 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.
A. Parties' Acknowledgments:
1.
Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December
3, 1996.
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 11 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.
B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for
Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts
supporting aggravating circumstances are required.
<<not>> checked. (1) Prior
record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)].
<<not>> checked. (a) State Bar Court case # of prior case .
<<not>> checked. (b) Date prior discipline effective .
<<not>> checked. (c) Rules of Professional Conduct/ State
Bar Act violations:
<<not>> checked. (d) Degree of prior discipline
<<not>> checked. (e) If Respondent has two or more incidents
of prior discipline, use space provided below or a separate attachment entitled
“Prior Discipline. .
<<not>> checked. (2) Dishonesty:
Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty,
concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of
Professional Conduct.
<<not>> checked. (3) Trust
Violation: Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was
unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct
for improper conduct toward said funds or property.
<<not>> checked. (4) Harm:
Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the
administration of justice.
<<not>> checked. (5) Indifference:
Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for
the consequences of his or her misconduct.
<<not>> checked. (6) Lack of
Cooperation: Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims
of his/her misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or
proceedings.
<<not>> checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern
of Misconduct: Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of
wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.
checked. (8) No aggravating
circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances: .
C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting
mitigating circumstances are required.
<<not>> checked. (1) No Prior
Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of
practice coupled with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.
<<not>> checked. (2) No Harm:
Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the
misconduct.
<<not>> checked. (3) Candor/Cooperation:
Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims of
his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and
proceedings.
checked. (4) Remorse: Respondent
promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and
recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for
any consequences of his/her misconduct. See Attachment to Stipulation at page
7.
<<not>> checked. (5) Restitution:
Respondent paid $ on in restitution to without the threat or force of
disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.
<<not>> checked. (6) Delay:
These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is not
attributable to Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.
<<not>> checked. (7) Good
Faith: Respondent acted in good faith.
<<not>> checked. (8) Emotional/Physical
Difficulties: At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional
misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical
disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for
the misconduct. The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any
illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and
Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.
<<not>> checked. (9) Severe Financial
Stress: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe
financial stress which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable
or which were beyond his/her control and which were directly responsible for
the misconduct.
checked. (10) Family Problems: At the time
of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal
life which were other than emotional or physical in nature. See Attachment to
Stipulation at page 7.
checked. (11) Good Character: Respondent's
good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and
general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct. See
Attachment to Stipulation at page 7.
checked. (12) Rehabilitation: Considerable time
has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred followed by
convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.
<<not>> checked. (13) No
mitigating circumstances are involved.
Additional mitigating circumstances: No Prior
Discipline at Attachment page 8. Pretrial Stipulation at Attachment page 8.
D. Discipline:
<<not>> checked. (1) Private reproval (check applicable
conditions, if any, below):
<<not>> checked. (a) Approved by the Court prior to initiation
of the State Bar Court proceedings (no public disclosure).
<<not>> checked. (b)Approved by the Court after initiation of
the State Bar Court proceedings (public disclosure).
or
checked. (2) Public reproval (Check applicable conditions,
if any below)
E. Additional Conditions of Reproval:
checked. (1) Respondent must
comply with the conditions attached to the reproval for a period of two years.
checked. (2) During the condition
period attached to the reproval, Respondent must comply with the provisions of
the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.
checked. (3) Within ten (10) days
of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the
State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California
("Office of Probation"), all changes of information, including
current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar
purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.
checked. (4) Within thirty (30)
days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office
of Probation 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.
checked. (5) Respondent must
submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10
of the period of probation. Under penalty
of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied with the
State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of
probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state
whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar
Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the
first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be submitted on
the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.
In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same
information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the
period of probation and no later than the last day of the condition period.
<<not>> checked. (6) Respondent
must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms
and conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner
and schedule of compliance. During the period of probation, Respondent must
furnish such reports as may be requested, in addition to the quarterly reports
required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must cooperate
fully with the monitor.
checked. (7) Subject to assertion
of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully
any inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned
under these conditions which are directed to Respondent personally or in
writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has complied with the
conditions attached to the reproval.
checked. (8) Within one (1) year
of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the
Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the State
Bar Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
<<not>> checked. No Ethics School recommended. Reason: .
checked. (9) Respondent must
comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal
matter and must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any
quarterly report to be filed with the Office of Probation.
<<not>> checked. (10) Respondent
must provide proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility
Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar
Examiners, to the Office of Probation within one year of the effective date of
the reproval.
checked. No MPRE recommended. Reason: Respondent’s misconduct did not
occur within the practice of !aw. The protection of the public and the
interests of the Respondent do not require passage of the MPRE in this case.
(In the Matter of Respondent G (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.
181).
<<not>> checked. (11) The
following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:
<<not>> checked. Substance Abuse
Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Law Office
Management Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Medical Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Financial
Conditions.
F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties: See Attachment to
Stipulation at page 8.
Attachment language (if any):.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: ANNETTE SUZANNE PARENT,
State Bar No. 184173
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-C-16649
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts
are true and that she is culpable of violations of the specified statutes
and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 12-C-16649 (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 September 15, 2011, the Placer
County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint in Placer County Superior
Court, Tahoe Division, case number 72-007429, charging Respondent with two
felony counts of Penal Code section 273a(a) [Child Endangerment], one count of
Vehicle Code section 23152(a) [Driving Under the Influence], a misdemeanor, and
one count of Vehicle Code section 23152(b) [Driving with BAC of 08% or higher],
a misdemeanor. The complaint also included a special allegation for excessive
blood alcohol level of 15% or higher.
3. On June 25, 2012, Respondent pled nolo
contendere to one count of misdemeanor Penal Code 273a(a), pursuant to Penal
Code 17(b), and Vehicle Code 23152(b). Based thereon, the Court found
Respondent guilty of both counts. The remaining counts and special allegation
were dismissed in furtherance of justice.
4. On July 2, 2012, the Court suspended
imposition of sentence and placed Respondent on formal probation for three
years. Respondent was ordered to serve 90 days in jail, the balance of 88 days
to be satisfied by completion of VICAP (remote, visual alcohol monitoring). The
Court ordered, among other things, Respondent totally abstain from the use and
possession of intoxicants and not be in any place where alcohol is the primary
item of sale. Further, Respondent was ordered to enter into and continue
substance abuse treatment assessment and continue counseling.
5. On May 28, 2013, the Review Department
ofthe 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 offenses for which Respondent was convicted involved moral
turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
FACTS:
6. On August 26, 2011, at approximately
8:00 p.m., a witness called 911 to report a suspected drunk driver on State
Route 28 in Carnelian Bay. The witness described the car, its location and the
driving pattern.
7. On August 26, 2011, at approximately
8:00 p.m., a California Highway Patrol Office observed Respondent driving
approximately 20 mph in a posted 45 mph zone. Respondent’s vehicle straddled
the white fog line. The officer initiated an enforcement stop on the vehicle
and contacted the driver, Respondent. Upon contact with Respondent, the officer
detected the strong odor of alcohol and observed that Respondent’s eyes were
bloodshot. The officer also discovered that Respondent was driving her two
children in the rear passenger compartment.
8. Thereafter, the officer determined
Respondent was under the influence of alcohol and arrested her.
9. Respondent’s post-arrest breath test
results were .28% and .27% blood alcohol content.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
10. The facts and circumstances
surrounding the above-described violation did not involve moral turpitude but
did involve other misconduct warranting discipline.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Remorse (Std. 1.2(e)(vii)): Respondent has
promptly taken objective steps to spontaneously demonstrate her remorse and
responsibility for her actions. Respondent voluntarily sought treatment for the
issues underlying her excessive drinking, including completion of an
out-patient alcohol treatment program. Respondent regularly attends Alcoholics
Anonymous. Respondent has been candid with her supervisors, colleagues, friends,
family and the State Bar about what led to her arrest and what she has done
since her conviction to address her alcohol dependency. Respondent reported her
arrest to the State Bar, even though she was not required to do so.
Family Problems: Respondent had begun
drinking excessively during the months leading up to her arrest, in attempts to
cope with the depression and stress she experienced when her husband abandoned
his family. Respondent was working long hours and solely responsible for the
care of her two young children during this time. (Rose v. State Bar (1989) 49
Cal.3d 646, 667 [marital and other stressful emotional difficulties may be
considered in mitigation].) At the time of her arrest, Respondent was awaiting
the final divorce decree which was expected any day. Respondent’s judgment was
impaired by her excessive alcohol consumption, exacerbated by depression, and
led to her decision to drink, then drive with her children in the car.
Good Character (Std. 1.2(e)(vi)):
Respondent has provided eight letters in support of her good character from a
range of references in the legal and general communities, all of whom are aware
of Respondent’s DUI arrest and the circumstances surrounding it. Respondent’s
references include a psychotherapist, a cardiologist, a medical doctor and five
attorneys.
No Prior Discipline: Respondent has been
practicing law since December 1996 without any prior record of discipline. (In
the Matter of Riordan (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 41); In
the Matter of Stamper (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 96, 106,
fn. 13.) Although this is Respondent’s first DUI conviction, the misconduct is
serious.
Pretrial Stipulation: Respondent has
stipulated to the facts and circumstances supporting the imposition of
discipline prior to trial, saving the State Bar time and resources.
(Silva-Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1071, 1079 [where mitigative credit
was given for entering into a stipulation as to facts and culpability].)
ADDITIONAL REPROVAL CONDITIONS.
Respondent recognizes that a conviction
for DUI suggests an alcohol and/or drug problem that needs to be addressed
before it affects Respondent’s legal practice. Respondent agrees to take the
steps necessary to control the use of alcohol and/or drugs such that it will
not affect Respondent’s law practice in the future. Respondent’s agreement to
participate in an abstinence-based self-help group (as defined herein), as a
condition of discipline, is part of Respondent’s efforts to address such
concerns.
As a condition of reproval, and during the
period of reproval, Respondent must attend a minimum of two (2) meetings per
month of any abstinence-based self-help group of Respondent’s choosing,
including without limitation Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous,
LifeRing, S.M.A.R.T., S.O.S., etc. Other self-help maintenance programs are
acceptable if they include a subculture to support recovery, including
abstinence-based group meetings. (See O’Conner v. Calif. (C.D. Calif. 1994) 855
F. Supp. 303 [no First Amendment violation where probationer given choice
between AA and secular program.] ) Respondent is encouraged, but not required,
to obtain a "sponsor" during the term of participation in these
meetings.
The program called "Moderation
Management" is not acceptable because it is not abstinence-based and
allows the participant to continue consuming alcohol.
Respondent must contact the Office of
Probation and obtain written approval for the program Respondent has selected
prior to attending the first serf-help group meeting. If Respondent wants to
change groups, Respondent must first obtain the Office of Probation’s written
approval prior to attending a meeting with the new self-help group.
Respondent must provide to the Office of
Probation satisfactory proof of attendance of the meetings set forth herein
with each Quarterly Report submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent may
not sign as the verifier of his or her own attendance.
Respondent is encouraged, but is not
required, to participate in the Lawyers’ Assistance Program, to abstain from
alcohol and illegal drugs, and to undergo random urinalysis testing to
complement abstinence.
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. (In 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 a case like 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. Standard 3.4 provides that 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."
Under Part B, Standard 2.10 is most
applicable to Respondent’s misconduct. Standard 2.10 states that
"[c]ulpability 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.”
To determine the appropriate level of
discipline, consideration must also be given to the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances. In this case, the gravity of the offense stems from Respondent’s
conviction for driving under the influence with a .28% BAC with her children in
the car. Respondent’s actions posed a threat of harm to her children and the
public. Although Penal Code section 273a is not considered a crime of moral
turpitude (see People v. Sanders (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1268), the misconduct
nonetheless warrants discipline.
In mitigation, Respondent was going
through a contentious divorce. Respondent dealt with the stress by drinking,
which directly caused the misconduct resulting in Respondent’s arrest. After
her arrest, Respondent immediately sought professional help in dealing with her
alcoholism and depression issues. Respondent continues to address these issues
through therapy and has maintained her sobriety for the two years since her
arrest. Respondent also self-reported the conviction to the State Bar and has
provided eight letters supporting good character. Respondent has no prior
record of discipline in almost 17 years of practice. There are no aggravating
factors.
Based on the nature of the misconduct and
factors in mitigation, suspension from practice is not warranted. Instead,
discipline at the low end of the range discussed in standard 2.10 is sufficient
to achieve the purposes of discipline expressed in standard 1.3, including
protection of the public. Pursuant to standard 2.10, a public reproval is
appropriate in this matter.
Case law also supports imposition of a
public reproval. In In re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal.3d 487, the Supreme Court imposed
a public reproval for the conviction of a second DUI while the attorney was
still on probation for the first DUI. The Supreme Court noted that though
Kelley’s convictions did not cause specific harm to the public or the courts,
and there were several significant mitigating factors, "relatively minimal
discipline is warranted in this case, even though petitioner’s crimes were
serious and involved a threat of harm to the public." (Id,. at p. 498.)
Like Kelley, Respondent’s misconduct is
serious and involved disregard for the safety of others. Although the attorney
in Kelley had two convictions for DUI and this is Respondent’s first DUI
conviction, Respondent drove under the influence at three times the legal limit
with her two children in the car. Similar to Kelley, Respondent presents
substantial mitigation, including no prior discipline. Likewise, the instant
misconduct does not involve the practice of law. If complied with, the
conditions attached to this discipline should minimize the likelihood of Respondent
engaging in similar misconduct in the future. A public reproval is in
accordance with the standards and case law.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of
the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of September 25, 2013,
the prosecution costs in this matter are $ 2,343.00. 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, State Bar Client
Trust Accounting School, and/or any other educational course(s) to be ordered
as a condition of reproval or suspension. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule
3201.)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 12-C-16649
In the Matter of: Annette Suzanne Parent
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: Annette Suzanne Parent
Date: 9/30/13
Respondent’s Counsel: Doron Weinberg
Date: 10/2/13
Deputy Trial Counsel: Catherine Taylor
Date: 10/2/13
REPROVAL ORDER
Case Number(s): 12-C-16649
In the Matter of: Annette Suzanne Parent
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 may 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: Pat E.
McElroy
Date: 10/29/13
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 San Francisco, on October 29, 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 San
Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
DORON WEINBERG
523 OCTAVIA ST.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
<<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:
CATHERINE E. TAYLOR, Enforcement, San
Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on October 29, 2013.
Signed by:
Mazie Yip
Case Administrator
State Bar Court