Case Number(s): 12-O-12240
In the Matter of: Joseph James Olsen, Bar # 51276, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Kim Kasreliovich, 1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1378
Bar # 261766,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Joseph James Olsen
PO Box 5091
Beverly Hills, CA 90209
(310) 273-4001
Bar# 51276
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office.
<<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 January 5, 1972.
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 10 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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Joseph James Olsen, State Bar No. 51276
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-O-12240
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 12-O-12240
FACTS:
1. On July 30, 2009, Respondent entered into a Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition ("Stipulation") with the State Bar of California in Case No. 06-O-14241.
2. On August 17, 2009, the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court filed an Order Approving the Stipulation and recommending to the California Supreme Court the discipline set forth in the Stipulation.
3. On December 15, 2009, the California Supreme Court filed an Order in Case No. S177215 (State Bar Case No. 06-0-14241) imposing the recommended discipline that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, that execution of the suspension be stayed, and that Respondent be placed on probation for two (2) years, including the condition that the Respondent be actually suspended for ninety (90) days ("Disciplinary Order").
4. Pursuant to the Disciplinary Order, Respondent was ordered to comply with the following terms and conditions of probation, among others:
a. to comply with the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct during the period of probation;
b. to submit to the Office of Probation written quarterly reports each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of each year or part thereof during which the probation is in effect, certifying under penalty of perjury whether he has complied with all provisions of the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct and all terms of probation during the preceding calendar quarter or part thereof covered by the report and to file a final report no earlier than twenty (20) days prior to the expiration of the probation period and no later than the last day of said period.
5. The Disciplinary Order became effective on January 14, 2010.
6. Respondent failed to submit timely quarterly reports as follows:
REPORTING PERIOD: January 14 to March 30, 2010, DUE DATE: April 10, 2010, FILING DATE: July 14, 2010,
REPORTING PERIOD: April 1 to June 30, 2010, DUE DATE: July 10, 2010, FILING DATE: July 14, 2010,
REPORTING PERIOD: April 1 to June 30, 2011, DUE DATE: July 10, 2011, FILING DATE: July 27, 2012,
REPORTING PERIOD: July 1 to September 30, 2011, DUE DATE: October 10, 2011, FILING DATE: July 27, 2012,
REPORTING PERIOD: October 1 to December 31, 2011, DUE DATE: January 10, 2012, FILING DATE: June 21, 2012,
REPORTING PERIOD: January 1 to January 14, 2012, DUE DATE: January 14, 2011, FILING DATE: June 21, 2012
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
7. By not timely filing with Probation six out of nine quarterly reports Respondent willfully failed to comply with all conditions attached to his probation in violation of Business and Professions code section 6068(K).
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Prior Record of Discipline: In case number 06-0-14241, effective January 14, 2010, Respondent was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
Respondent stipulated to two violations of 4-100(A) for misusing his client trust account by commingling personal and client funds and using the account to pay personal expenses. In mitigation, Respondent had no prior discipline since his 1972 admission to the bar.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
In determining the appropriate level of discipline, the Standards are entitled to great weight. (ln re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal. 4 81, 89-94 and In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal. 4th 205, 220.) But the Standards are not applied in a talismanic fashion, and the Court tempers its analysis of the proper level of discipline by considerations peculiar to the offense and the offender. (ln the Matter of Van Sicklle (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 994.) In the instant case the discipline is within the applicable range based upon the Standards and case law and deviation is not appropriate.
Standard 1.3 states that the primary purposes of attorney discipline are, "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high legal professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession."
Standard 2.6 provides that a member’s culpability of violating Business and Professions Code, section 6068 shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or harm to the victim with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3.
Standard 1.7(a) states that if a member has a prior discipline, the degree of discipline in the current proceeding shall be greater than the discipline imposed in the prior proceeding unless the prior Respondent: Olsen, Joseph James Actual Suspension discipline was so remote in time to the current proceeding and the offense for which it was imposed was so minimal in severity that imposing greater discipline in the current proceeding would be manifestly unjust.
In In the Matter of Tiernan (1993) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 523, the Respondent failed to file quarterly reports and comply with his probation monitor. The Respondent had four priors plus a probation revocation case for failing to file quarterly reports. The court specifically stated that "...respondent’s continued unwillingness or inability to comply with the conditions of probation imposed on him by a Supreme Court order ’demonstrates a lapse of character and disrespect for the legal system that directly relate to an attorney’s fitness to practice law and serve as an officer of the court.’" (Quoting In re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 487, 495.) The Review Department found no mitigation but found aggravation for Respondent’s priors and multiple acts of misconduct. The Review Department imposed eleven months of actual suspension.
The importance of complying with probation cannot be overstated. As the court noted, failure to comply with probation reflects directly on an attorney’s fitness to practice law. In Tiernan, the Respondent had multiple priors, at least one of which was for identical probation violations. In the instant case, unlike Tiernan, Respondent did not wholly fail to comply with probation. Rather, Respondent complied belatedly. In addition, this is Respondent’s second disciplinary action, unlike Tiernan where the Respondent had four prior disciplinary actions. Under the Standards, progressive discipline, including actual suspension, is appropriate. Since Respondent’s conduct here was less egregious than that in Tiernan, a six month actual suspension is an appropriate level of discipline.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was August 1, 2012.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of July 31, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are $3,349. 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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 12-O-12240
In the Matter of: Joseph James Olsen, State Bar No.: 51276
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: Joseph James Olsen
Date: August 2, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Kim G. Kasreliovich
Date: August 6, 2012
Case Number(s): 12-O-12240
In the Matter of: Joseph James Olsen, State Bar No.: 51276
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
Page 5 –Section E(9) – Delete “X” From Box.
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: August 23, 2012
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles, on August 27, 2012, 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:
JOSEPH JAMES OLSEN
PO BOX 5091
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90209
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
KIMBERLY KASRELIOVICH, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on August 27, 2012.
Signed by:
Rose Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court