Case Number(s): 12-O-11263
In the Matter of: Daniel Kristof Lak, Bar # 216983, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Lee Ann Kern, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015
(213) 765-1272
Bar # 156623
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Daniel Kristof Lak
18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 330
Irvine, California 92612
(949) 225-4477
Bar # 216983
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 3, 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 13 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 Attachment to Stipulation, at pp. 10-11.
Case Number(s) 12-O-11263
In the Matter of: Daniel Kristof Lak
a. Restitution
checked. Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund (“CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
1. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
Not checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than
not checked. Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
1. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency quarterly
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
Not checked.
1. If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated as a “Trust Account” or “Clients’ Funds Account”;
b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:
i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.
c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
2. If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate described above.
3. The requirements of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct.
checked. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
IN THE MATTER OF: Daniel Kristof Lak
CASE NUMBER(S): 12-O-11263
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are tree and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 12-O-I 1263 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. At all relevant times, Respondent maintained a Client Trust Account, number *****’1377, at JP Morgan Chase Bank ("CTA"). The full account number has been excluded to protect the account from identify theft.
2. At all relevant times, Respondent’s CTA contained advanced fees, as well as funds solely belonging to Respondent.
3. Between September 2, 2011 and January 26, 2012, Respondent misused his CTA by depositing into the CTA cash and earned fees and, thereafter, issuing paper and electronic checks payable to non-clients to pay his personal and business expenses. Respondent’s use of his CTA during that period includes, but is not limited to the following: On September 2, 2011, Respondent issued check no. 1702 in the mount of $2789.95 to Von’s; on September 9, 2011, Respondent issued cheek no. 1770 in the amount of $44.11 to amazing Grapes Wine Store; on September 27, 2011, Respondent deposited $2,500 of his own funds into the CTA; on September 30, 2011, Respondent issued cheek no. 0004 in the amount of $100 to California Polo Club; on October 3, 2011 Respondent issued check no. 0002 in the amount of $220 to Burke Williams Spa; on November 3, 2011, Respondent deposited $126.36 of his own funds into the CTA; On November 14, 2011, Respondent caused an eCheck in the amount of $376.68 to be issued to Verizon wireless; on November 18, 2011, Respondent deposited $1,500 of his own funds into the CTA; on December 14, 2011, Respondent made an online payment in the amount of $500 to Capital One; on January 9, 2012, Respondent issued check number 1890 in the amount of $217.23 to Coto De Caza Golf and Racquet Club; and, on January 26, 2012, Respondent issued check no. 3212 in the amount of $47.41 to Gold’s Gym.
4. On October 13, 2011, Respondent issued cheek no. 1972 from his CTA to Von’s in the amount of $74.60. At the time the item was presented for payment, the balance in Respondent’s CTA was $35.76. The item was returned unpaid. On October 24, 2011, the payee again presented the item for payment and it was paid.
5. On November 5, 2011, Respondent issued check no. 1983 from his CTA to Jerry Hou in the amount of $425.00. At the time the item was presented for payment, the balance in Respondent’s CTA was $50.35. The item was returned unpaid. On November 15, 2011, the payee again presented the item for payment and it was paid on that date.
6. On December 5, 2011, Respondent made two electronic payments from his CTA in the amount of $20.00 and $29.42. At the time the items were presented for payment, the balance in Respondent’s CTA was $11.31. The items were returned unpaid.
7. On December 5, 2011, Respondent issued check no. 1928 from his CTA in the amount of $35.00. At the time the item was presented for payment, the balance in Respondent’s CTA was $11.31. The item was returned unpaid.
8. At the time Respondent issued the paper and electronic payments from his CTA, Respondent was grossly negligent in not knowing that his CTA contained insufficient funds to cover those items.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
9. By depositing his own cash into the CTA, and by issuing paper and electronic checks payable to non-clients from the CTA to pay his personal and business expenses, Respondent deposited or commingled funds belonging to Respondent in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import, in willful violation of rule 4-100(A), Rules of Professional Conduct.
10. By repeatedly issuing paper and electronic payments from his CTA when his CTA contained insufficient funds to pay those items on the dates they were first presented for payment, Respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Multiple Acts of Misconduct: Respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct in the handling of his at account. (ln the Matter of Thinh Van Doan (February 7, 2011, 08-0-12332) __ Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. ___ [2011 Calif. Op. LEXIS 18] [Multiple acts of misconduct found in repeated trust account violations].)
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Harm: Respondent’s misconduct did not result in harm to his clients. (In the Matter of Bleeker (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 113, 126 [Mitigative credit given for lack of client harm where attorney commingled funds, through gross negligence misappropriated client funds, and concealed assets from the IRS in his trust account].)
Additional Mitigating Circumstances:
Respondent has no prior record of discipline in 11 years of practice. Although the misconduct in the instant matter is serious, the Supreme Court has nonetheless considered the absence of a prior record of discipline in mitigation. (See Edwards vs. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 28, 31-32, 36, 39, where mitigative credit was given for almost 12 years of discipline-free practice despite intentional misappropriation and commingling.)
Respondent stipulated to facts, conclusions of law, and disposition in order to resolve his disciplinary proceedings as efficiently as possible. (SiIva-Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 1071, 1079 [mitigative credit given where attorney admitted facts and culpability in order to simplify the disciplinary proceedings].)
Two superior court judges and one pastor wrote letters on behalf of Respondent attesting to his good character. Each was familiar with the extent of Respondent’s misconduct and has known Respondent for at least 10 years (In the Matter of Hagen (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar. Ct. Rptr. 153,171 [Testimony from three character witnesses given limited weight in mitigation].)
Respondent’s misconduct was not motivated by personal enrichment. (Arm vs. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 763,780 [Seriousness of misconduct lessened where no overreaching or attempt at misappropriation accompanied commingling of personal funds in trust account].)
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 "e 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. (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 eases 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 dearly explain the reasons for the deviation. (Blair v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 762, 776, fn. 5.)
The two applicable standards are 2.2(0) and 2.3. The most severe sanction applicable to Respondent’s misconduct is found in standard 2.2(b), which applies to Respondent’s violation of rule 4-100(A), Rules of Professional Conduct. Standard 2.2(0) provides that culpability of a member of commingling of entrusted funds or property with personal property or the commission of another violation of rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct, none of which offenses result in the willful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in at least a three month actual suspension from the practice of law, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
In the instant matter, deviating from standard 2.2(0) is supported by the mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that mitigative evidence is relevant when assessing whether the discipline proposed by a particular standard is not necessary or appropriate to deter future misconduct or serve the other purposes of attorney discipline. (Guzzetta vs. State Bar (1987) 43 Ca. 3d 962, 981 [Character reputation and lack of prior record of discipline considered in determining whether the recommended discipline is excessive.].)
Respondent’s mitigation supports a sanction less than that call for in Standard 2.2(b). Specifically, no clients were harmed as a result of his misconduct because no entrusted funds were implicated. Respondent has 11 years of discipline-free practice; he entered into a stipulation in order to resolve his disciplinary proceedings as efficiently as possible; and he provided evidence of his good character, albeit from limited sources. The mitigating evidence outweighs the single aggravating factor of his multiple acts of misconduct, which stemmed from his general neglect of his trust account duties.
In the instant matter, departure from Standard 2.2(b) is justified and the recommended discipline is sufficient to deter future misconduct and serve the purposes of attorney discipline.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A (7), was December 10, 2012.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of December 10, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are $3,349. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation by 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 and State Bar Client Trust Accounting School. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)
Case Number(s): 12-O-11263-2
In the Matter of: Daniel Kristof Lak
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: Daniel Kristof Lak
Date: 12/11/12
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Lee Ann Kern
Date: 12/12/12
Case Number(s): 12-O-11263
In the Matter of: Daniel Kristof Lak
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 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. Honn
Date: 1/11/13
[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 January 11, 2013, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING ACTUAL SUSPENSION
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:
DANIEL K. LAK
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL K LAK
18101 VON KARMAN AVE STE 330
IRVINE, CA 92612
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
LEE ANN KERN, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 11, 2013.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court