State Bar Court of California
Hearing Department
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER
APPROVING
REPROVAL
Case Number(s): 12-C-17304; 12-C-17305; 12-C-17306
In the Matter of: TINA MARIE SOBOTTA, Bar # 216590, A
Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Sue Hong, Bar #285852,
Counsel for Respondent: Tina Marie Sobotta, Bar #216590,
Submitted to: Assigned Judge.
Filed: December 4, 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
4, 2001.
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):
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.
checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of
Misconduct: Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of
wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct. See Attachment at
page 10.
<<not>> 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.
<<not>> 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.
<<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.
<<not>> 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.
<<not>> 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.
<<not>> 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: . See
Attachment at page 10.
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 .
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: .
<<not>> 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.
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.
<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended. Reason: .
checked. (11) The following conditions are
attached hereto and incorporated:
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:
Additional Reproval Condition: Substance
Abuse Conditions
Respondent recognizes that repeat
convictions for alcohol-related misdemeanors suggest 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 self-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.
Attachment language (if any):.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: TINA MARIE SOBOTTA,
State Bar No. 216590
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-C-17304;
12-C-17305; 12-C-17306
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 other misconduct warranting discipline.
Case No. 12-C-17304; 12-C-17305;
12-C-17306:
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 October 18, 2012, Respondent pled
guilty to and was convicted of Penal Code sections 415(2) [Disturbing the
Peace], a misdemeanor, 602(k) [Trespass], a misdemeanor, and 415(2) [Disturbing
the Peace], a misdemeanor. Respondent was sentenced to 90 days of custody,
stayed, pending completion of 3 years of probation.
3. On October 13, 2013, Respondent
withdrew her guilty pleas on all three cases and the San Diego City Attorney’s
Office dismissed all three cases upon successful completion of probation, two
years in advance of the imposed probationary term.
4. On September 6, 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.
Case No. 12-C-17304
FACTS:
4. On August 21, 2012, at 12:16 p.m.,
Officers responded to a disturbance involving Respondent: Upon .arrival,
officers observed Respondent walking away from the officers. When they ordered
her to stop, she continued to walk away. The officers grabbed onto Respondent’s
arms as she tried to pull away.
5. Officers noticed the odor of alcohol
from Respondent’s breath and person.
6. As Respondent was placed inside the
patrol vehicle, she placed her foot into the door jam, preventing the officers
from dosing the door. Respondent was able to slip one hand out of the handcuff
and had to be taken out of the vehicle to replace the handcuff. Respondent
resisted by pulling her arms away and grabbing at the cuffs. The officers had
to place Respondent on the ground and was arrested.
7. On October 18, 2012, Respondent pled
guilty to and was convicted of Penal Code section 415(2)[Disturbing the peace],
a misdemeanor.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
8. The facts and circumstances surrounding
Respondent’s misdemeanor conviction for a violation of Penal Code section
415(2) [Disturbing the Peace] did not involve moral turpitude but involved other
misconduct warranting discipline.
Case No. 12-C-17305
FACTS:
On August 26, 2012, at approximately 3:40
p.m., Respondent violated an eviction notice by entering Lori Gold’s residence
and attempted to take a dog that Respondent has previously owned. When Gold
tried to called the police, Respondent grabbed the phone and both struggled
over the phone. Gold was knocked down and sustained scratches, scrapes and
bruises from her fight with Respondent.
10. Upon arrival and contact, officers
noted that Respondent was intoxicated at the time. Respondent was arrested.
11. On October 18, 2012, Respondent pled
guilty to and was convicted of Penal Code section 602(k) [Trespass], a
misdemeanor.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
12. The facts and circumstances
surrounding Respondent’s misdemeanor conviction for a violation of Penal Code
section 602(k) [Trespass], did not involve moral turpitude but involved other
misconduct warranting discipline.
Case No. 12-C-17306
FACTS:
13. On September 21, 2012, Lori Gold; the
reporting party called the police to report a violation of a restraining order
by Respondent as she was at Ms. Gold’s front door, ringing the doorbell several
times. Ms. Gold had obtained a restraining order against Respondent on
September 19, 2012.
14. By the time the police arrived,
Respondent had fled. At approximately 11:30 p.m. Respondent returned to Gold’s
residence, walked into the backyard, and fell asleep on the patio furniture.
Again, Respondent fled before officers arrived, but was later located in the
neighborhood.
15. When the officer approached
Respondent, the officer told Respondent to remain, but she tried to walk away.
The officer grabbed Respondent’s left arm as she yanked her hand from the
officer’s grasp, and after a brief struggle, Respondent was arrested.
16. On October 18, 2012, Respondent pled
guilty to and was convicted of Penal Code section 415(2) [Disturbing the
Peace], a misdemeanor.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
17. The facts and circumstances
surrounding Respondent’s misdemeanor conviction for a violation of Penal Code
section 415(2) [Disturbing the Peace] did not involve moral turpitude but
involved other misconduct warranting discipline.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES.
Multiple Acts of Misconduct (Std.
1.2(b)(ii)): Respondent engaged in misconduct in 3 separate incidents involving
two misdemeanor convictions of Penal Code section 415(2) [Disturbing the
Peace], and one misdemeanor conviction of Penal Code section 602(k) [Trespass].
Therefore, Respondent engaged in multiple acts of misconduct.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES.
No prior record of discipline (Std.
1.2(e)(i)): Respondent was admitted to practice on December 4, 2001. Respondent
practiced 11 years before engaging in criminal misconduct. Therefore, this
mitigation is entitled to significant weight. (Hawes v. State Bar (1990) 51
Cal.3d 587, 596)
Pre-trial Stipulation: Respondent has
cooperated with the State Bar in this matter, and has entered into a stipulated
settlement of this matter obviating the need for a trial. Such cooperation is
deserving of consideration. (Silva-Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 1071,
1079.)
Other Mitigating Circumstances: On October
13, 2013, Respondent withdrew her guilty pleas on all three cases and the San
Diego City Attorney’s Office dismissed all three cases upon successful
Completion of probation two years in advance of the imposed probationary term.
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." (ln 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. (ln 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
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 is 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.
Here, the gravity of the harm is moderate
as Respondent was engaged in three separate alcohol-related offenses resulting
in three misdemeanor convictions. Further, Respondent harmed the administration
of justice when she displayed resistance against the officers during the
arrests and Ms. Gold suffered harm, albeit minimal. Lastly, the purposes of
imposing discipline pursuant to standard 1.3 includes public protection. Here,
however, Respondent successfully completed probation of the underlying criminal
offenses and has subsequently been allowed to withdraw her guilty pleas
resulting in a dismissal of all three cases. Therefore, as Respondent has
demonstrated her ability to conform with court order and comply with probation,
Respondent does not pose a significant threat to public protection. Therefore,
a low level discipline is appropriate.
Because Standard 2.10 is so broad,
consulting case law is helpful. In In re Kelley (1990) 32 Cal.3d 487,
respondent was convicted of a second DUI while on probation for a prior DUI.
The Review Department found that
alcohol-related arrests unrelated to an attorney’s practice may lead to
professional discipline even if they do not involve violence or harm. Further,
the Review Department reasoned that a DUI normally would not warrant
discipline, however because Kelley was on probation for a prior DUI, the facts
and circumstances surrounding Kelley’s criminal conviction did not involve
moral turpitude but were misconduct warranting discipline. The court
recommended a public reproval. Here, Respondent’s alcohol-related arrests do
involve harm to actual victims, and therefore warrant discipline.
Here, like Kelley, Respondent was charged
with offenses all committed while intoxicated. However, unlike Kelley,
Respondent in the present matter was not on probation for a prior offense, when
she committed the offenses at hand. In the present matter, Respondent was facing
several charges stemming from 3 separate incidents that occurred within a
one-month period.
The facts and circumstances surrounding
Respondent’s criminal conviction do not involve moral turpitude but do involve
other misconduct warranting discipline. Considering Standard 2.10; Standard
1.3, and the relevant aggravation and mitigation, a public reproval for one
year with substance abuse conditions is sufficient to protect the public and
serves the purposes of attorney discipline in this matter as set forth in
standard 1.3.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of
the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of November 25, 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-17304; 12-C-17305;
12-C-17306
In the Matter of: TINA MARIE SOBOTTA
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: TINA MARIE SOBOTTA
Date: 11/27/13
Respondent’s Counsel: TINA MARIE SOBOTTA
Date: 11/27/13
Deputy Trial Counsel: Sue Hong
Date: 12/2/13
REPROVAL ORDER
Case Number(s): 12-C-17304; 12-C-17305;
12-C-17306
In the Matter of: TINA MARIE SOBOTTA
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.
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: Lucy
Armendariz
Date: 12/4/13
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 December 4, 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:
TINA M. SOBOTTA
4221 TAOS DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92117
<<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:
SUE K. HONG, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on December 4, 2013.
Signed by:
Mazie Yip
Case Administrator
State Bar Court