Case Number(s): Investigation No.: 12-J-16572
In the Matter of: Joy Ann Bull, Bar # 138009, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Anthony Garcia, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1089
Bar # 171419
Counsel for Respondent: Sean M. SeLegue, Arnold & Porter LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
(415) 471-3100
Bar # 155249
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 7, 1988.
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. 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.
<<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.
See Stipulation at page nine (9).
IN THE MATTER OF: JOY ANN BULL
INVESTIGATION NUMBER: 12-J-16572
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she is culpable of violations of the specified statutes.
Investigation No. 12-J-16572 (Discipline in Other Jurisdiction)
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN OTHER JURISDICTION:
1. On May 25, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Case No. 2:09-cv-00214-JLQ, Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund v. Ambassadors Group, lnc., issued a Memorandum and Order wherein it held that certain statements of Respondent as to expenses and disbursements of her firm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP ("the Robbins Firm"), were made with, at a minimum, reckless disregard for the truth thereof and violated Respondent’s obligation of candor by counsel to the court.
2. On June 28, 2012, the Plumbers Union Court notified Respondent of its intent to impose disciplinary sanctions against Respondent. The Court afforded Respondent the opportunity to have that matter resolved through the Court’s disciplinary procedures in its Local Rules.
3. On July 3, 2012, attorney Les Weatherhead ("Weatherhead") filed a notice of representation of Respondent with the Plumbers Union Court.
4. Respondent, through Weatherhead, waived the Local Rules disciplinary procedures and instead filed a Memorandum and Declaration on July 11, 2012.
5. On July 25, 2012, the Plumbers Union Court issued an Order of Reproval of Respondent.
FACTS:
6. Respondent and the Robbins Firm represented Plaintiff Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund in the class action Plumbers Union ease. Respondent’s role was that of settlement partner."
7. In April 2011, the parties agreed to a settlement of the Plumbers Union matter.
8. Respondent’s husband of 43 years, Tom Bull, died in May 2011. He had been battling lymphoma for six years, during which time Respondent cared for him and continued working. During 2010 and 2011, Mr. Bull was in and out of the hospital.
9. On June 24, 2011, Respondent filed a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, as well as a Memorandum in Support, a Declaration in Support and a Notice of Hearing on Motion, in the Plumbers Union case because Respondent is not licensed to practice law in Washington.
10. On June 30, 2011, the Plumbers Union Court filed an Order Granting Respondent Leave to Appear and Participate Pro Hac Vice.
11. On October 27, 2011, the Robbins Firm filed a Motion for Approval of Final Settlement as well as an Application for Attorneys Fees and Expenses.
12. On October 27, 2011, Respondent filed, under penalty of perjury, a Declaration in Support of the Motion and Application. In the Declaration, Respondent stated that the Robbins firm incurred a total of $223,095.46 in expenses. Two items listed under the Expenses were in-house investigator expenses of $125,935.00 and in-house forensic accountant expenses of $14,770.00.
13. On November 10, 2011, the Plumbers Union Court issued an order raising substantial doubts about some of the Robbins Firm’s claimed expenses, specifically the $125,935.00 of expenses for in-house investigators that was not accompanied with any detailed explanation of the expenses. The Court ordered the Robbins Firm to be prepared to address the Court’s concerns at a November 30, 2011 hearing. Respondent received the Court’s November 10, 2011 Order.
14. On November 23, 2011, the Plumbers Union Court issued a Memorandum stating the issues that the Robbins Firm attorneys should be prepared to address at the November 30, 2011 hearing. Respondent received this Memorandum.
15. On November 30, 2011, the Plumbers Union Court held a heating where Respondent was present. At the hearing, in response to the Court’s questions, Respondent stated that the Robbins Firm had not paid the in-house investigator $125,935.00 and that the Robbins Firm had not paid the in-house accountant $14,770.00 as listed in the October 27, 2011 Declaration. Respondent stated that those figures included the in-house personnel’s salaries, benefits, overhead and the like, in the same manner as attorney time is billed by the Robbins Firm- in other words, "market rates". At the hearing, the Court ordered Respondent to submit a revised declaration that would state the actual amount paid to the investigator and to the accountant.
16. Following the hearing, on December 30, 2011, Respondent filed, under penalty of perjury, a Declaration in Support of the Robbins Firm’s Motion for Attorneys Fees that sought recovery of the amount actually paid to the in-house investigator and the in-house accountant. The actual out-of-pocket disbursement to the in-house investigator was $31,710.15, not $125,935.00 as listed in the October 27, 2011 Declaration, and the actual out-of-pocket disbursement to the in-house accountant was $4,035.09, not $14,770.00 as listed in the October 27, 2011 Declaration.
17. Although Respondent and the Robbins Firm originally stated that the expenses that were listed in the October 27, 2011 Declaration were the "market rate" of investigators and accountants, after being questioned by the Court, Respondent stated in a Declaration filed July 11, 2012, that the presentation of market rates as disbursements was simply wrong and was an error.
18. The Court’s July 25, 2012 Reproval held that Respondent had reckless disregard for the truth in her Declaration filed under penalty of perjury with the Court and that Respondent lacked candor with the Court.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
19. The disciplinary proceeding in the other jurisdiction provided Respondent with fundamental constitutional protection.
20. Respondent’s conduct in the other jurisdiction as set forth above would warrant the imposition of discipline in California.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Good Character: Respondent’s good character has been attested to by a wide range of individuals in her community, consisting of 11 individuals with full knowledge of Respondent’s misconduct, including attorneys and business colleagues. (Standard 1.2(e)(vi).)
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline in over 23 years of practice, from the time she was admitted in 1988 until the time of the misconduct in 2011-2012. Standard 1.2(e)(i) states that mitigation credit shall be given to respondents who have no prior record over a period of many years of practice coupled with misconduct that is not deemed serious. Respondent’s present misconduct is serious and, therefore, Respondent does not meet the exact requirements of Standard 1.2(e)(i). However, Respondent is entitled to some mitigation credit. (ln the Matter of Aguiluz (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 32, 44; Kelly v. State Bar (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 649, 657.)
Candor/Cooperation: Respondent acknowledged her wrongdoing and cooperated with the State Bar in these proceedings by entering into a stipulation of facts, conclusions of law, and disposition without the necessity of having a trial on this matter. (ln the Matter of Downey (Review Dept. 2009) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 151, 156.)
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. (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.)
Respondent’s misconduct is most akin to a violation of § 6068(d) [Seeking to Mislead a Court]. Standard 2.6(a) states that violations of § 6068(d), Business and Professions Code, shall result in discipline ranging from suspension to disbarment depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm to the victim. This offense is serious as it involved a reckless disregard for the truth and a lack of candor with the Court. There was no harm to a specific client but Respondent’s misconduct was an attempt to harm the administration of justice, and had the misleading figures been adopted by the Court, there would have been harm to the class of plaintiffs. This offense warrants discipline in the middle of the range enumerated in Standard 2.6(a).
The Supreme Court has held that misconduct similar to Respondent’s warrants actual suspension. In Bach v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 848, a respondent who made false statements to a court in violation of § 6068(d) received 60 days actual suspension. Here, Respondent submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury that contained misleading expense figures. The fact that Respondent’s statements were submitted under penalty of perjury makes this conduct more severe than the respondent in Bach and undermines the public’s and the court’s confidence in the legal profession. The correct expense figures were only submitted to the Court after the Court challenged Respondent and the Robbins Firm’s initial figures. Although Respondent has a discipline-free history as well as cooperation and good character in mitigation, a one year stayed suspension with 90 days actual suspension and one year probation is an appropriate discipline to ensure public protection.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was January 15, 2013.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of December 14, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,865.00. 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, to be ordered as a condition of suspension. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)
Case Number(s): 12-J-16572
In the Matter of: Joy Ann Bull
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: Joy Ann Bull
Date: January 24, 2013
Respondent’s Counsel: Sean M. SeLegue
Date: January 22, 2013
Deputy Trial Counsel: Anthony Garcia
Date: 1/29/13
Case Number(s): 12-J-16572
In the Matter of: Joy Ann Bull
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.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 5.58 (E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Platel
Date: 02-12-2013
[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; 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 February 13, 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:
Sean M. SeLegue
Arnold & Porter LLP
Three Embarcadero Ctr 7th Fl
San Francisco, CA 94111 – 4024
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Anthony J. Garcia, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California on February 13, 2013
Signed by:
Angela Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court