State Bar Court of California
Hearing Department
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING DISBARMENT; ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE
ENROLLMENT
DISBARMENT
Case Number(s): 12-O-14680; 12-N-18123
In the Matter of: Nazareth Vahan Jansezian, Bar # 193159, A
Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Mia R. Ellis, Bar #228235,
Counsel for Respondent: Nazareth Vahan Jansezian, Bar
#193159,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge .
Filed: April 18, 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 February
9, 1997.
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 11 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 awarded to the
State Bar.
<<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.
9.
ORDER OF INACTIVE ENROLLMENT:
The parties are aware that if this stipulation is approved, the judge will
issue an order of inactive enrollment under Business and Professions Code
section 6007, subdivision (c)(4), and Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule
5.111(D)(1).
B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney
Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting
aggravating circumstances are required.
checked. (1) Prior
record of discipline
checked. (a) State Bar Court case # of
prior case 07-0-12070, 07-O-13081 and 07-0-14362.
checked. (b) Date prior discipline
effective November 25, 2010.
checked. (c) Rules of Professional Conduct/
State Bar Act violations: 3-110(A), 6068(m), 6103, 3-700(D)(1)
checked. (d) Degree of prior discipline 30
days actual suspension, one year stayed suspension, one year probation.
checked. (e) If Respondent has two or more
incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below. Case Nos. 11-O-19323,
et al. (S203840). Effective October 12, 2012. Violations: Rules of Professional
Conduct, rules 3-1 10(A), 3-310(C) (1), 3-700(D) (1); Business and Professions
Code Sections 6068(i), 6068(k), 6068(m). Discipline: 120 days actual
suspension, two years stayed suspension, three years probation.
See Stipulation attachment pages 8-9 for
additional facts regarding prior record of 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.
checked. (4) Harm:
Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the
administration of justice. See Stipulation attachment page 9
<<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 Stipulation attachment
page 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.
<<not>>
checked. (2) No Harm: Respondent did not harm the client or person who was
the object of the misconduct.
<<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 Stipulation
attachment page 9.
(Effective
D. Discipline: Disbarment.
E. Additional Requirements:
(1) Rule 9.20,
California Rules of Court: Respondent must comply with the requirements of
rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in
subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days,
respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this
matter.
<<not>> checked. (2) Restitution:
Respondent must make restitution to in the amount of $ plus 10 percent
interest per year from . If the Client Security Fund has reimbursed for all
or any portion of the principal amount, respondent must pay restitution to CSF
of the amount paid plus applicable interest and costs in accordance with
Business and Professions Code section 6140.5. Respondent must pay the above
restitution and furnish satisfactory proof of payment to the State Bar's Office
of Probation in Los Angeles no later than days from the effective date of the
Supreme Court order in this case..
<<not>> checked. (3) Other: .
Attachment language (if any):.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: Nazareth Vahan Jansezian, State Bar No.
193159
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-O-14680 and 12-N-18123
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. 12-0-14680 (Complainant: Simon Jebian)
FACTS:
1.
On October 26, 2010, the California Supreme Court filed Order No.
S185561 ("the order") for State Bar Case numbers 07-0-12070 et al.
Among other things, Respondent was ordered to take and pass the Multistate
Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) within one year after the
effective date of the order and provide satisfactory proof of such passage to
the State Bar Office of Probation in Los Angeles within the same period. The
order further stated that failure to do so would result in an automatic
suspension. The Order became effective November 25, 2010, Respondent received
the order.
2.
Respondent did not take and pass the MPRE within one year after the
effective date of the order and provide satisfactory proof of such passage to
the State Bar Office of Probation in Los Angeles within the same period.
3. On December 21, 2011, the State Bar of
California Review Department ordered Respondent suspended from the practice of
law, effective January 9, 2012, pending proof of passage of the MPRE.
Respondent received the order.
4. On January 9, 2012, Respondent was suspended
from the practice law and, to date, he has been continuously suspended.
5. Respondent knew that he was suspended from
the practice of law effective January 9, 2012.
6. On April 3, 2012, Simon Jebian ("Jebian") employed Respondent
to file a bankruptcy on his behalf. Respondent charged Jebian $1,500 for the
bankruptcy services.
7. On April 3, 2010 Jebian paid Respondent $1,000 in cash for the
bankruptcy, On April 10, 2012, Jebian paid Respondent $500 in cash for the
bankruptcy.
8. Respondent did not file a bankruptcy petition on Jebian’s behalf.
9. On June 4, 2012, Jebian sent Respondent an email asking for his money
back if Respondent was not going to file the bankruptcy petition on his case.
Respondent received the email.
10. From June 5, 2012 to February 15, 2013, Respondent did not refund
unearned fees to Jebian. On February 18, 2013, only after the commencement of
disciplinary proceedings, Respondent refunded the $1,500 to Jebian in cash.
11. On June 6, 2012, the State Bar opened an investigation based on a
complaint by Jebian.
12. On July 9, 2012, a State Bar investigator sent Respondent a letter to
his membership records address at the time, 790 E. Colorado Blvd., 9th Floor,
Pasadena, CA 91101 ("membership records address"), regarding Jebian’s
complaint. The letter requested a written response to the allegations being
investigated in the Jebian matter by July 23, 2012. Respondent received the
letter but did not respond by July 23, 2012
13. On July 24, 2012, a State Bar investigator sent Respondent another
letter to his membership records address. The letter asked for a written
response by August 7, 2012. Respondent received the letter but did not respond
by August 7, 2012, or at any time, and failed to otherwise cooperate or
participate in any way in the State Bar’s investigation of the Jebian
complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
14. By agreeing to represent Jebian and accepting an advanced fee for legal
services when he was not an active member of the State Bar of California,
Respondent held himself out as entitled to practice law in willful violation of
Business and Professions Code, sections 6125 and 6126, and thereby failed to
comply with the laws of the State of California, in willful violation of
Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
15. By charging and collecting a $1,500 advanced attorney’s fee from Jebian
when Respondent was not an active member of the State Bar, Respondent collected
an illegal fee in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-200(A).
16. By misrepresenting to Jebian that he was entitled to practice law when
he knew that he was not an active member of the State Bar, Respondent committed
an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, in willful
violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
17. By failing to respond to the State Bar’s July 9, 2012 and July 24, 2012
letters, or otherwise cooperate in the State Bar’s investigation of the Jebian
matter, Respondent failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary
investigation pending against Respondent, in willful violation of Business and
Professions Code section 6068(i).
Case No. 12-N-18123
FACTS:
18. On September 6, 2012, the California Supreme Court filed Order No.
S203840 (hereinafter "9.20 Order"). The 9.20 Order included a
requirement that Respondent comply with rule 9.20, California Rules of Court,
by performing the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) within 30 and 40
days, respectively, after the effective date of the 9.20 Order.
19. On September 6, 2012, the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of
California properly served upon Respondent a copy of the 9.20 Order. Respondent
received the 9.20 Order.
20. The 9.20 Order became effective on October 12, 2012, thirty days after
it was filed. Thus Respondent was ordered to comply with subdivision (a) and/or
(b) of rule 9,20 of the California Rules of Court no later than November 11,
2012, and was ordered to comply with subdivision (c) of rule 9.20 no later than
November 21, 2012.
21. Respondent has failed to file with the clerk of the State Bar Court a
declaration of compliance with role 9.20 (a) and (b), California Rules of
Court, as required by rule 9.20(c).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
22. By not filing a declaration of compliance with rule 9.20 in conformity
with the requirements of rule 9.20(c), Respondent failed to timely comply with
the provisions of Supreme Court Order No. S203840 requiring compliance with
rule 9.20, California Rules of Court. By the foregoing conduct, Respondent
willfully violated rule 9.20, California Rules of Court.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Prior Record of Discipline: Standard 1.2(b)(i) applies because Respondent
has two prior instances of discipline.
First Prior Record of Discipline: Effective November 25, 2010, Respondent
was suspended from the practice of law for one year, imposition of the
suspension was stayed, and Respondent was placed on one year of probation with
conditions including 30 days actual suspension. Respondent was also ordered to
pay restitution. In State Bar Court Case Nos. 07-O-12070, 07-0-13081 and
07-0-14362 (S185561), Respondent stipulated to violating Rules of Professional
Conduct, rules 3110(A) [failure to perform] and 3-700(D)(1) [failure to return
a file], and Business and Professions Code sections 6068(m) [failure to
communicate] and 6103 [failure to pay court-ordered sanctions]. This misconduct
occurred between July 2006 and November 2007 and involved three separate client
matters. Respondent had one year to take, pass and provide proof of passage of
the MPRE. He has not provided proof of passage of the MPRE and has not been
eligible to practice law since January 2012.
Second Prior Record of Discipline: Effective October 12, 2012, Respondent
was suspended from the practice of law for two years, imposition of the
suspension was stayed, and Respondent was placed on three years of probation
with conditions including actual suspension of 120 days and until he pays
restitution. In State Bar Court Case Nos. 11-O-19323, et al. (S203840),
Respondent stipulated to violating Business and Professions Code sections
6068(k) [violating conditions of probation], 6068(m) [failure to communicate]
and 6068(i) [failure to cooperate and participate with State Bar disciplinary
investigation], and Rules of Professional Conduct, rules 3-110(A) [failure to
perform], 3-700(D)(1) [failure to release the file], and 3-310(C)(1) [accepting
representation of more than one client where interests potentially conflict].
This misconduct occurred between June 2010 and November 2011 and involved two
client matters and a State Bar matter.
Harm: The current misconduct caused
significant harm to his client, Jebian, as Respondent did not promptly refund
the advanced fees paid by Jebian. (Standard 1.2(b)(iv))
Multiple Acts Misconduct:
Respondent’s conduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing, as there are four
counts of misconduct in one client matter, and Respondent failed to comply
with California Rules of Court, rule 9.20. (Standard 1.2(b)(ii))
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES.
Additional Mitigating Circumstances:
Pre-Trial Stipulation: Respondent is entitled to mitigation for entering
into a full stipulation with the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel prior to the
trial, thereby saving State Bar Court time and resources. (ln re Downey
(2009) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 151,156; In the Matter of Van Sickle
(Rev.Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 993-994.) However, the facts
in the matters could have been easily proven. Also, the mitigation is tempered
by Respondent’s failure to cooperate and participate in the State Bar
investigation. Thus, Respondent’s cooperation is entitled to some, but not
great, weight in mitigation.
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 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 1.7(b) provides that if a member is found culpable of professional
misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member
has a record of two prior impositions of discipline the degree of discipline in
the current proceeding shall be disbarment unless the most compelling
mitigating circumstances clearly predominate. Respondent has two prior records
of discipline and there are no compelling mitigating circumstances that clearly
predominate. Accordingly, disbarment is appropriate pursuant to Standard
1.7(b).
The case of In re Esau (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct.
Rptr. 131 is also instructive in this matter, in that case, the Review
Department recommended disbarment where the respondent had several prior
instances of discipline, and, as in the instant case, had failed to comply with
the Supreme Court’s rule 9.20 order. Moreover, as in the instant case, the
Review Department found the respondent’s willingness to enter into a
stipulation to be the only mitigating factor and found that the respondent’s
prior discipline was an aggravating factor. The Review Department found
disbarment to be the appropriate sanction in light of the respondent’s repeated
acts of wrongdoing, multiple instances of prior discipline, rule 9.20
violation, and lack of significant mitigation, The instant case includes
additional aggravating factors of multiple acts of misconduct and harm to
client Jebian. Therefore, balancing the facts, aggravating factors, Standards,
and case law, the parties submit that disbarment will best serve to protect the
public, the courts, and the legal profession, and preserve public confidence
in the legal profession.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was March 15,
2013.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has
informed Respondent that as of March 15, 2013, the prosecution costs in this
matter are $5,247. 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-N-18123 and 12-O-14680
In the Matter of: Nazareth Vahan Jansezian
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: Nazareth Vahan Jansezian
Date: 3/27/13
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Mia R. Ellis
Date:4/4/13
DISBARMENT ORDER
Case Number(s): 12-N-18123 and 12-O-14680
In the Matter of: Nazareth Vahan Jansezian
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.)
Respondent Nazareth Vahan Jansezian is ordered transferred
to involuntary inactive status pursuant to Business and Professions Code section
6007, subdivision (c)(4). Respondent’s inactive enrollment will be effective
three (3) calendar days after this order is served by mail and will terminate
upon the effective date of the Supreme Court’s order imposing discipline herein,
or as provided for by rule 5.111(D)(2) or the Rules of Procedure of the State
Bar of California, or as otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court pursuant to its
plenary jurisdiction.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: GEORGE E. SCOTT, JUDGE PRO TEM
Date: 4/18/13
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 April 18, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND
ORDER APPROVING, ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT
DISBARMENT
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:
NAZARETH V.
JANSEZIAN
PO BOX 961
SIERRA MADRE,
CA 91024
<<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 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:
MIA ELLIS,
Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed in Los Angeles, California, on April 18, 2013.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court