State Bar Court of California
Hearing Department
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
STAYED SUSPENSION; NO ACTUAL SUSPENSION
Case Number(s): 12-O-13141
In the Matter of: Russell Adam Greenman, Bar # 244064, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Diane J. Meyers, Bar #146643
Counsel for Respondent: Ellen A. Pansky, Bar #77688
Submitted to: Assigned Judge.
Filed: February 19, 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.
A. Parties' Acknowledgments:
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted September 26, 2006.
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 12 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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
<<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.
B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.
<<not>> checked. (1) Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)].
<<not>> checked. (a) State Bar Court case # of prior case .
<<not>> checked. (b) Date prior discipline effective
<<not>> checked. (c) Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations:
<<not>> checked. (d) Degree of prior discipline
<<not>> checked. (e) If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below or a separate attachment entitled “Prior Discipline. .
<<not>> checked. (2) Dishonesty: Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct.
<<not>> checked. (3) Trust Violation: Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property.
<<not>> checked. (4) Harm: Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.
<<not>> checked. (5) Indifference: Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his or her misconduct.
<<not>> checked. (6) Lack of Cooperation: Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings.
checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct: Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct. See Attachment to Stipulation at p. 9.
<<not>> checked. (8) No aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances: .
C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigating circumstances are required.
<<not>> checked. (1) No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.
checked. (2) No Harm: Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the misconduct. See Attachment to Stipulation at p. 9.
<<not>> checked. (3) Candor/Cooperation: Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims of his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings.
<<not>> checked. (4) Remorse: Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct.
<<not>> checked. (5) Restitution: Respondent paid $ on in restitution to without the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.
<<not>> checked. (6) Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is not attributable to Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.
<<not>> checked. (7) Good Faith: Respondent acted in good faith.
<<not>> checked. (8) Emotional/Physical Difficulties: At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct. The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.
<<not>> checked. (9) Severe Financial Stress: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and which were directly responsible for the misconduct.
<<not>> checked. (10) Family Problems: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature.
<<not>> checked. (11) Good Character: Respondent's good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.
<<not>> checked. (12) Rehabilitation: Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.
<<not>> checked. (13) No mitigating circumstances are involved.
Additional mitigating circumstances: See Attachment to Stipulation at p.9.
D. Discipline:
checked. (1) Stayed Suspension:
checked. (a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.
<<not>> checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii) Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
<<not>> checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.
<<not>> checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following: .
<<not>> checked. (b) The above-referenced suspension is stayed.
checked. (2) Probation: Respondent must be placed on probation for a period of two years, which will commence upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter. (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court.)
E. Additional Conditions of Probation:
checked. (1) During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.
checked. (2) Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.
checked. (3) Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with Respondent's assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.
checked. (4) Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.
In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.
<<not>> checked. (5) Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance. During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested, in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must cooperate fully with the probation monitor.
checked. (6) Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has complied with the probation conditions.
checked. (7) Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
<<not>> checked. No Ethics School recommended. Reason: .
<<not>> checked. (8) Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office of Probation.
<<not>> checked. (9) The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:
<<not>> checked. Substance Abuse Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Law Office Management Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Medical Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Financial Conditions.
F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:
checked. (1) Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination: Respondent must provide proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation within one year. Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) & (E), Rules of Procedure.
<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended. Reason: .
<<not>> checked. (2) Other Conditions: .
Attachment language (if any): .
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: Russell Adam Greenman, State Bar No. 244064
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-O-13141
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-13141 (Complainants: Sondra Ames and Allyson Ames)
FACTS:
1. By February 1, 2010, Respondent was required to report his compliance with Minimum Continuing Legal Education ("MCLE") requirements for the period of February 1, 2007 to January 31, 2010 to Membership Services of the State Bar ("Member Services"). Although Respondent had completed the required number of MCLE hours by January 31, 2010, Respondent failed to report his MCLE compliance when his membership fees were paid.
2. On March 31, 2010, Respondent terminated his employment with the law firm of Glaser Weil, LLP ("Glaser Weil"), located at 10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067 (the "Constellation address"). In June 2010, Respondent began working on a contract basis for the law firm of Raines Feldman, LLP ("Raines Feldman"), located at 9720 Wilshire Blvd., 5th Floor, Beverly Hills, CA 92012 (the "Wilshire address"), and continues to work there to date. Respondent continued to maintain the Constellation address as his membership records address for State Bar purposes although Respondent did not maintain an office at the Constellation address after March 31, 2010.
3. On June 25, 2010, Member Services mailed a letter to Respondent at the Constellation address. In the letter, Member Services notified Respondent that he was not in compliance with MCLE rules and that if Respondent failed to report his compliance with MCLE requirements by August 31, 2010, Respondent would be enrolled as an inactive member and not eligible to practice law until adequate proof of his compliance with MCLE requirements was received by Member Services. The June 25, 2010 letter was not returned to Member Services as undeliverable and the letter was not forwarded to Respondent by Glaser Weil. Consequently, Respondent did not receive the letter.
4. On July 22, 2010, Member Services sent a courtesy e-mail to Respondent’s e-mail address on record with Member Services regarding his failure to report his compliance with MCLE requirements. The e-mail address was Respondent’s former e-mail address at Glaser Weil. Respondent had not notified Member Services of any change of his e-mail address for State Bar purposes. Consequently, Respondent did not receive the e-mail.
5. On August 13, 2010, Member Services mailed a letter to Respondent at the Constellation address. In the letter, Member Services notified Respondent that he was not in compliance with MCLE roles and that if Respondent failed to report his compliance with MCLE requirements by August 31, 2010, Respondent would be enrolled as an inactive member and would not be eligible to practice law until adequate proof of his compliance with MCLE requirements was received by Member Services. The August 13, 2010 letter was not returned to Member Services as undeliverable and the letter was not forwarded to Respondent by Glaser Weil. Consequently, Respondent did not receive the letter.
6. On August 24, 2010, Member Services left a voice mail message for Respondent at his telephone number on record with Member Services regarding his failure to report his compliance with MCLE requirements. The telephone number was Respondent’s former telephone number at Glaser Weil. Respondent had not notified Member Services of any change of his telephone number for State Bar purposes. Consequently, Respondent did not receive the message.
7. Effective September 1, 2010, Respondent was administratively enrolled as an inactive member and therefore not eligible to practice law.
8. On September 15, 2010, Member Services mailed a letter to Respondent at the Constellation address. In the letter, Member Services notified Respondent that he had been enrolled as not eligible to practice law effective September 1, 2010, and that he was not eligible to practice law as of that date and would not be eligible to practice law until he was reinstated to active status. The September 15, 2010 letter was not returned to Member Services as undeliverable and the letter was not forwarded to Respondent by Glaser Weil. Consequently, Respondent did not receive the letter.
9. In October 2010, Raines Feldman began representing Wonderland Partners LLC ("Wonderland") as its corporate counsel. Wonderland’s members consisted of Fred Goldring ("Goldring"), Peter Adderton (“Adderton"), Allyson Ames ("Allyson") and Sondra Ames ("Sondra").
10. Between October and December 2010, while Respondent was not entitled to practice law, Respondent held himself out as an attorney, prepared an operating agreement for Wonderland, and provided legal advice to Allyson and Sondra. Particularly, on December 1 and 2, 2010, Respondent sent e-mail to the parties to the operating agreement, Goldring, Adderton, Allyson and Sondra (collectively "the parties") and attached drafts of the operating agreement to the e-mail. In the December 1, 2010 e-mail, Respondent explained the effect of the operating agreement to the patties and recommended that the parties seek the advice of independent counsel regarding the operating agreement.
11. Prior to late December 2010, Respondent did not have actual notice that he was not entitled to practice law, as he was unaware of Member Services’ attempts to contact him. Before Respondent left his employment at Glaser Weil, Respondent believed that Glaser Well had submitted his MCLE compliance card to Member Services. Respondent acknowledges that he had not confirmed this with Glaser Weil before he left his employment. In late December 2010, Respondent was informed of his not entitled status by a colleague. Respondent thereafter promptly contacted Member Services and took the necessary steps to return to active status. Effective January 5, 2011, Respondent changed his e-mail address for State Bar purposes with Member Services. Effective January 6, 2011, Respondent changed his membership records address to the Wilshire address and changed his telephone number for State Bar purposes with Member Services.
12. Respondent remained not entitled to practice law until January 13, 2011, when Respondent was returned to active status after submitting proof of his compliance with MCLE requirements to Member Services.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
13. By not changing his membership records address to the Wilshire address until January 6, 2011 and by not providing a current telephone number to Member Services, Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 60680).
14. By holding himself out as an attorney, preparing the operating agreement, and providing legal advice to Allyson and Sondra between October and December 2010, when Respondent was not entitled to practice law, Respondent held himself out as entitled to practice law and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and thereby violated Business and Professions Code sections 6125 and 6126 ("sections 6125 and 6126"). By violating sections 6125 and 6126, Respondent failed to support the laws of this state, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:
Respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct by failing to update his membership records and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law on at least two occasions.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Harm:
Pursuant to his employment with the law firm of Raines Feldman as a contract attorney, Respondent’s work was supervised by an active member of the State Bar at all times relevant to this stipulation. As such, no harm resulted to the public from Respondent’s unauthorized practice of law.
Additional Mitigating Circumstances:
Respondent was admitted to the State Bat" on September 26, 2006 and has no prior record of discipline, However, Respondent had been in practice for less than four years before the misconduct occurred so his lack of prior discipline should not be given much weight in mitigation. (Standard 1.2(e)(i); Smith v. State Bar (1985) 38 Cal.3d 525, 540 [lack of prior record for six years is not persuasive as a mitigating factor].) Respondent has stipulated to misconduct at an early stage of the proceedings. Respondent thereby demonstrated his recognition of wrongdoing and cooperation with the State Bar and saved the State Bar’s resources. (Standard 1.2(e)(v); In 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 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. (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 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.)
Standard 2.6 provides that culpability of a member of a violation of sections 6068(a), 60680), 6125 and 6126 of the Business and Professions Code 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.
Here, the gravity of Respondent’s misconduct is low. Respondent’s failure to maintain a current address and telephone number for State Bar purposes and his failure to timely report his MCLE compliance showed a disregard for the duties he owed to the State Bar. However, his failure to update his contact information and his resulting unauthorized practice of law did not cause significant harm as Respondent’s work was supervised by an active member of the State Bar" while he was not entitled to practice law. Respondent did not knowingly or intentionally engage in the unauthorized practice of law. Respondent had completed the required number of MCLE hours by January 31, 2010 and his eligibility to practice law would not have been impacted had he simply confirmed that his MCLE compliance card had been submitted to Member Services. Respondent reported his MCLE compliance shortly after learning that he was not entitled to practice law.
The net effect of the mitigating factors present, including the lack of harm caused by Respondent’s misconduct and Respondent’s recognition of wrongdoing and cooperation with the State Bar outweigh the aggravating factor of Respondent’s multiple acts of misconduct, and therefore a period of actual suspension is unwarranted. Instead, a level of discipline at the low end of the range prescribed by standard 2.6 is consistent with the purposes of attorney discipline. A stayed suspension of one year will serve to remind Respondent of the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings including protection of the public, the court and the legal profession, maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys, and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession.
This disposition is consistent with cases involving the unauthorized practice of law where the attorneys had actual knowledge of their disqualification from the practice of law. (Farnham v. State Bar" (1976) 17 Cal.3d 605 [six months actual suspension]; In the Matter of Mason (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 639 [90 day actual suspension]; In the Matter of Trousil (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 229 [30 day actual suspension].
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was January 9, 2013.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of January 7, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,865. 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 and/or any other educational courses to be ordered as a condition of the stayed suspension. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 12-O-13141
In the Matter of: Russell Adam Greenman
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: Russell A. Greenman
Date: 1/15/13
Respondent’s Counsel: Ellen A. Pansky
Date: 1/17/13
Deputy Trial Counsel: Diane J. Meyers
Date: 1/25/13
STAYED SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 12-O-13141
In the Matter of: Russell Adam Greenman
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: Donald F. Miles
Date: 2/19/13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[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 February 19, 2013, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND
ORDER APPROVING STAYED SUSPENSION, NO 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:
ELLEN ANNE PANSKY
PANSKY MARKLE HAM LLP
1010 SYCAMORE AVE UNIT 308
SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number . No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
DIANE J. MEYERS, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on February 19, 2013.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court