Case Number(s): 12-O-12245
In the Matter of: Arshak Bartoumian, Bar #210370, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Ross Viselman, 1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015
(213) 765-1295
Bar #204979
Counsel for Respondent: David A. Clare, 444 W. Ocean Blvd., #800
Long Beach, California 90802
(562) 624-2837
Bar #44971
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: January 8, 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.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 8, 2013.
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):
<<not>> checked. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: two (2) billing cycles immediately following the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter. (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: Arshak Bartoumian
CASE NUMBER(S): 12-O-12245
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. 12-0-12245 (Complainant: Honorable Dale S. Fischer)
FACTS:
1. On September 9, 2011, Respondent was employed to represent plaintiffs in the matter Christopher Kodesh and Amarillis Kodesh v. Aurora Loan Services LLC and Quality Loan Service Corporation, case no. I 1-cv-03700 (the "Lawsuit") before the Honorable Dale S. Fischer of the United States District Court (the "Court").
2. On September 15, 2011, Respondent attempted to file a substitution of attorney with the Court, but failed to follow the General Orders of the Central District of California and the Court’s Standing Order (the "Rules"). In particular, Respondent failed to submit a mandatory chambers copy of the substitution of attorney request, even after the Court’s staff requested that Respondent do so.
3. On October 20, 2011 the Court ordered Respondent to file the substitution of attorney in accordance with the Rules and to show cause in writing why Respondent should not be sanctioned in the amount of $250 by October 31, 2011 (the "First Order").
4. Respondent received the First Order, and knew of his obligation to file the substitution of attorney in accordance with the Rules and to respond to the order to show cause by October 31,2011.
5. Respondent did not respond as required by the Court’s First Order.
6. On November 7, 2011 the Court ordered Respondent to pay sanctions in the amount $250 by November 14, 2011 (the "Second Order") due to Respondent’s failure to comply with the First Order. Respondent received the Second Order, but did not pay the sanction or otherwise respond as required by the Court’s Second Order.
7. On November 18, 2011 the Court ordered Respondent to pay additional sanctions in the amount $1,000 (for a total amount due of $1,250) by November 28, 2011 (the "Third Order," and collectively with the First Order and the Second Order, the "Orders") due to Respondent’s failure to comply with the First and Second Order. Respondent received the Third Order, and knew of his obligation to pay sanctions in the total amount of $1,250 by November 28, 2011.
8. On November 23,2011, Respondent submitted a declaration and paid the $1,250 sanction amount to the Court, but did not otherwise comply with the Orders. In particular, Respondent continued to fail to submit a substitution of attorney form, as required by the Rules and the Orders.
9. Accordingly, on December 9, 2011, the Court ordered Respondent to pay additional sanctions in the amount of $250 by December 20, 2011, to provide a chambers copy of the substitution of attorney form in accordance with the Rules by December 20, 2011, and to file a declaration by December 20, 2011 stating that (a) Respondent advised his clients of his failures to comply with the Orders; (b) Respondent provided his clients with copies of all of the Orders; and (c) Respondent has read the Rules (the "Fourth Order") 10. Respondent received the Court’s Fourth Order, but did not file the declaration as required by the Fourth Order and did not provide the Court’s chambers with a substitution of attorney form.
11. By not complying with either the First Order or the Second Order, by not providing the Court’s chambers with a substitution of attorney form in accordance with the Rules, and by not filing the declaration as required by the Fourth Order, Respondent wilfully disobeyed court orders requiting him to do acts in the course of his profession which he ought in good faith to do in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no record of prior discipline in the 12 years since his admission. (ln the Matter of Stamper (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 96, 106, n.13.)
Candor/Cooperation: Respondent was candid and cooperative during the investigation of this case and is further cooperating by entering into this Stipulation to resolve this matter before the filing of disciplinary charges. (ln the Matter of Riordan (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr 41, 50.)
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.)
The principal violation at issue here is Business and Professions Code section 6103 (failure to obey court order). Standard 2.6 applies, and provides that the discipline imposed "shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim."
Here, Respondent’s misconduct occurred in a single matter over about a four month period. Although Respondent’s misconduct did cause the Court administrative inconvenience, Respondent’s misconduct did not harm his client and was not otherwise serious. For this reason, the lowest available discipline,
pursuant to the Standards, is supported, i.e., one year stayed suspension.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was December 26, 2012.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of December 26, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,797. 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.)
Case Number(s): 12-O-12245
In the Matter of: Arshak Bartoumian
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: Arshak Bartoumian
Date: 12-28-12
Respondent’s Counsel: David A. Clare
Date: 12-27-12
Deputy Trial Counsel: Ross Eden Viselman
Date: 12-28-12
Case Number(s): 12-O-12245
In the Matter of: Arshak Bartoumian
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: George Scott
Date: 1-7-13
[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 January 8, 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:
DAVID ALAN CLARE
DAVID A CLARE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
444 W OCEAN BLVD STE 800
LONG BEACH, CA 90802
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ROSS VISELMAN, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 8, 2013.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court