Case Number(s): 12-O-12809
In the Matter of: William Frank Vogel, Bar # 119421, 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
William Frank Vogel
6314 Van Nuys Boulvard, Suite 204
Van Nuys, California 91401
(818) 481-2897
Bar # 119421
Submitted to: Assigned 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 10, 1985.
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 p. 9.
IN THE MATTER OF: William Frank Vogel
CASE NUMBER(S): 12-O-12809
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-12809 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. At all relevant times, Respondent was counsel for defendants/cross-defendants Carter Group, defendants Madison Group, and defendant/cross-defendant Camarino Islas in the matter entitled, Gregory C. Quon vs. Jeffrey Harold Quon, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. KC053984.
2. On March 15, 2011, Respondent appeared in court for a Case Management Conference, as well as for a hearing on his clients’ opposition to a motion to strike. On that date, the court referred the case to the Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Program for a voluntary settlement conference to be completed by November 15, 2011. The court also set a Final Status Conference for November 15, 2011, ordered the parties to submit certain documents relative to the Final Status Conference pursuant to Los Angeles County Superior Court rule 3.25, and set a trial date for November 29, 2011. Respondent received oral notice of the court’s ruling on March 15, 2011. On March 16, 2011, Respondent was served with written notice of the court’s March 15, 2011 ruling. Respondent received the written notice.
3. On November 15, 2011, Respondent failed to appear at the Final Status Conference. On that date, the court scheduled a Mandatory Settlement Conference ("MSC") for December 20, 2011, and also set an order to Show Cause ("OSC") for that date as to why sanctions should not be imposed on Respondent and his clients for their failure to submit the Final Status Conference documents, their failure to attend the Final Status Conference, and their failure to cooperate in court-ordered mediation, which was to have been completed by November 15, 2011. The court served Respondent with written notice of its November 15, 2011 ruling. Respondent received the written notice.
4. On December 20, 2011, Respondent and his clients failed to appear at the MSC and OSC. On that date, the court imposed sanctions against Respondent and his clients, jointly and severally, as follows: $1,500 to be paid to the court by January 20, 2012, for their failure to attend the Final Settlement Conference on November 15, 2011; $1,500 to be paid to the court by January 20, 2012, for their failure to submit Final Status Conference documents; and, $1,500 to be paid to the court by January 20, 2012, for their failure to cooperate in the court-ordered mediation.
5. On December 20, 2011, the court served Respondent with written notice of its December 20, 2011 ruling. Respondent received the court’s written notice. On December 23, 2011, counsel for the plaintiff also served Respondent with written notice of the court’s December 20, 2011 ruling. Respondent received counsel for the plaintiff’s written notice.
6. Respondent failed to pay any portion of the $4,500 in sanctions by January 20, 2012. Respondent did not appeal or otherwise seek relief from the court’s December 20, 2012 order.
7. Respondent failed to notify the State Bar in writing of the three December 20, 2011 sanction orders in which he was sanctioned $1,500 each, for a total of $4,500.
8. On January 24, 2012, another attorney specially appeared in court on behalf of Respondent’s clients. Respondent’s clients, as defendants in the litigation, stipulated to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. On that date, and because Respondent’s clients continued to be cross-defendants in the litigation, the court ordered Respondent and his clients to appear at a MSC scheduled for February 28, 2012. On January 25, 2012, counsel for the plaintiff served Respondent with written notice of the court’s January 24, 2012 ruling. Respondent received the written notice.
9. On February 28, 2012, the MSC was continued to March 19, 2012. On March 1, 2012, counsel for the plaintiff served Respondent with written notice of the court’s February 28, 2012 ruling, which included the date to which the MSC was continued. Respondent received the written notice.
10. On March 19, 2012, Respondent failed to appear at the MSC. The court continued the MSC to April 4, 2012, and set an OSC for that date as to why Respondent and his client, Camarino Islas, should not be sanctioned in an amount not to exceed $1,500 for their failure to attend the MSC. On March 21, 2012, counsel for the plaintiff served Respondent with written notice of the court’s March 19, 2012 ruling, which included the date to which the MSC/OSC was continued. Respondent received the written notice.
11. On April 4, 2012, Respondent failed to appear at the MSC/OSC. On April 4, 2012, the court continued the MSC/OSC to April 12, 2004. On April 6, 2012, counsel for the plaintiff served Respondent with written notice of the court’s April 4, 2012 ruling, which included the date to which the MSC/OSC were continued. Respondent received the written notice.
12. On April 12, 2012, Respondent failed to appear at the MSC/OSC. On that date, the court discharged the OSC on the basis that a settlement agreement had been reached.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
13. By failing to obey the court’s orders to attend the Case Management Conference, pay a total of $4,500 in sanctions, submit documents for the Final Status Conference, attend the Final Status Conference, participate in court-ordered mediation, attend the December 20, 2011 OSC, attend the March 19, 2012 MSC, attend the April 4, 2012 OSC/MSC, and attend the April 12, 2012 OSC/MSC, Respondent willfully disobeyed or violated orders of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to do or forbear, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.
14. By failing to report the imposition of a total of $4,500 in sanctions, Respondent failed to report to the agency charged with attorney discipline, in writing, within 30 days of the time Respondent had knowledge of the imposition of any judicial sanctions against Respondent, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(0)(3).
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Harm to the Administration of Justice: Judicial time and resources were expended when the court was made to address Respondent’s multiple violations of court orders. (In the Matter of Hunter (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 63, 80 [harm to the administration of justice resulted when court spent judicial time and resources attempting to compel attorney’s presence in court rather than adjudicating the legal matter before it],)
Indifference: Respondent has not paid any portion of the $4,500 in sanctions imposed on him on December 20, 2011. (In the Matter of Blum (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 170, 177 [indifference toward rectification found in attorney’s failure to pay judicial sanctions].)
Multiple Acts of Misconduct: Respondent willfully disobeyed multiple court orders and failed to report the imposition of judicial sanctions to the State Bar. (In the Matter of Malek-Yonan (Review Dept. 2003) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 627, 638 [multiple acts of misconduct found when attorney threatened to bring criminal action and engaged in two violations of failure to supervise resulting in trust fund violations].)
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Respondent has no prior record of discipline in 27 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. (Edwards vs. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 28, 31-32, 36, 39 [mitigative credit 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. (Silva-Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 1071, 1079 [mitigative credit given to the attorney for admitting facts and culpability in order to simply the disciplinary proceedings against her].)
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." (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. (In 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 Nancy (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 sanction applicable to Respondent’s misconduct is found in standard 2.6, which applies to Respondent’s violations of both Business and Professions Code sections 6103 and 6068(0)(3). Standard 2.6 provides that culpability of a member of a violation of Business and Professions Code sections 6103 and 6068(i) shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on 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 1.3.
Respondent’s multiple acts of misconduct in the single client matter resulted in harm to the administration of justice, but did not result in harm to his clients. Although Respondent’s misconduct is aggravated by his failure to pay the sanctions, it is mitigated by his 27 years of discipline-free practice and his willingness to enter into this stipulation. Application of the Standards to the facts of this case demonstrates that 30 days’ actual suspension is the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct.
The stipulated disposition is consistent with case law. In In the Matter of Wolff (Review Dept. 2006) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 1, 18 months actual suspension was imposed when an attorney abandoned numerous clients, failed to obey court orders, and failed to inform her clients of significant developments. In mitigation, Wolff had no prior record of discipline in 10 years of practice and the Review Department weighed as considerable mitigation the State Bar’s 5-year delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings. In aggravation, the attorney engaged in multiple acts of misconduct not constituting a pattern, caused significant harm to the administration of justice, and demonstrated indifference and lack of remorse.
A lesser sanction than that imposed in Wolff is warranted in the instant matter since Respondent’s ethical violations are less extensive and Respondent has a greater period of time in practice with no prior record of discipline. The recommended discipline of 30 days’ actual suspension, one year stayed suspension, and two years’ probation is adequate to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was January 25, 2013.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No. 12-O-12809; Count Three; Alleged Violation Business and Professions Code Section 6106 (Misrepresentation to the State Bar)
Case No. 12-O-12809; Count Four; Alleged Violation Business and profession Code section 6068(i) (Failure to Participate in State Bar Investigation)
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of January 25, 2013, 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.
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-12809
In the Matter of: William Frank Vogel
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: William Frank Vogel
Date: 01-25-13
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Lee Ann Kern
Date: 1/25/13
Case Number(s): 12-O-12809
In the Matter of: William Frank Vogel
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 1 – A (3) – Delete “13”. Insert “12”.
Page 4 – D (2) – Place checkmark in 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: 02-04-2013
[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 7, 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:
WILLIAM FRANK VOGEL
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM F VOGEL
6314 VAN NUYS BLVD
STE 204
VAN NUYS, CA 91401
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Lee A. Kern, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California on February 7, 2013.
Signed by:
Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator
State Bar Court