State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

ACTUAL SUSPENSION

Case Number(s): 12-O- 15656-DFM

In the Matter of: ROBERT MARSHALL FRENCH , Bar # 98654 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: William Todd

Deputy Trial Counsel

1149 S Hill Street

Los Angeles, California 90015

213-765-1491

Bar# 259194,

Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent

Robert Marshall French

4617 Willis Ave Apt 38

Sherman Oaks, California 91403

818-855-9197

Bar# 98654,

Submitted to: Settlement Judge.

Filed: April 11, 2013

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.

A.  Parties' Acknowledgments:

1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted July 17, 1981.

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):

<<not>> 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.

 checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: the two 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.

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 [see standard 1.2(f)]

checked. (a)                  State Bar Court case # of prior case 95-O-14628-CEV.

checked. (b)                  Date prior discipline effective March 20, 1997.

checked. (c)  Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: Business and Professions Code sections 6068(a), 6157.1, 6157.2(c)(3),6157.2(c)(3), 6158. For details regarding Respondent’s misconduct in this matter, please see "Attachment to Stipulation," at 8.

checked. (d)                  Degree of prior discipline Public reproval

<<not>> checked. (e)    If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below. .

<<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. Please see "Attachment to Stipulation," at 8.

<<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.

checked. (13) No mitigating circumstances are involved.

Additional mitigating circumstances: 

D. Discipline:

checked. (1)           Stayed Suspension:

<<not>> checked. (a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of .

<<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: .

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.)

<<not>> checked. (3) Actual Suspension:

checked. (a) Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period of 30 days.

<<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: .

E.  Additional Conditions of Probation:

<<not>> checked. (1)   If Respondent is actually suspended for two years or more, he/she must remain actually suspended until he/she proves to the State Bar Court his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the general law, pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

checked.               (2)    During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.

checked.               (3)    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. (4)                  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. (5)                  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. (6)   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. (7)                  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. (8)                  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. (9)   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. (10) 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 during the period of actual suspension or within one year, whichever period is longer.  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)   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. (3)   Conditional Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90 days or more, he/she 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 120 and 130 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (4)   Credit for Interim Suspension [conviction referral cases only]:  Respondent will be credited for the period of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual suspension. Date of commencement of interim suspension: .

<<not>> checked. (5)   Other Conditions: .

Attachment language (if any):.

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: ROBERT MARSHALL FRENCH

STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-O-15656-DFM

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Case No. 12-O-15656 (State Bar Investigation

Facts.

1. At all relevant times to the stipulated facts herein, Respondent represented Patti Lewis in a marital dissolution matter.

2. On February 8, 2012, opposing counsel in the marital dissolution matter filed a motion alleging that on November 9, 2011, Respondent filed a frivolous motion on behalf of Ms. Lewis in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(2).

3. On March 5, 2012, the Court in the dissolution matter held a hearing on the section

128.7(b)(2) motion. Respondent did not appear at the hearing. The Court granted the motion and issued an order which included a $7,000 sanction against Respondent personally. The Court ordered that Respondent pay the sanction to the law firm of Reuben, Raucher & Blum within thirty 30 days of the order.

4. On March 28, 2012, the March 5, 2012 Order was properly served on Respondent.

Respondent received the Order. At no time did Respondent take any action to modify or vacate the Order. The Order is now final.

5. On March 13, 2012, the Los Angeles County Superior Court advised the State Bar that reportable sanctions had been entered against Respondent in the Lewis dissolution matter.

6. At no time did Respondent pay any portion of the $7,000 sanction. At no time did

Respondent report the $7,000 sanction to the State Bar.

7. On August 24, 2012, and September 7, 2012, a State Bar investigator mailed letters to Respondent regarding the sanctions. The letters requested that Respondent respond in writing to specified allegations of misconduct under investigation by the State Bar on or before September 7, 2012, and September 21, 2012, respectively. Respondent received the letters. Respondent did not respond to the investigator’s letters or otherwise cooperate in the investigation.

 Conclusions of Law.

1. By failing to pay the sanctions ordered by the Court in the Lewis marital dissolution matter, Respondent willfully disobeyed or violated an order 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.

2. By failing to report the $7,000 sanction to the State Bar, 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(o)(3).

3. By failing to respond to either of the investigator’s letters, Respondent willfully failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 60680).

ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

Prior Record of Discipline (Std. 1.2(b)(i)): Respondent has a prior record of discipline. On March 20, 1997, Respondent was publicly reproved for his participation with lawyer referral service, a service whose advertising violated multiple provisions of the Business and Professions Code. Respondent stipulated to culpability for violations of Business and Professions Code sections 6157.1 [false, misleading or deceptive advertisements], 6157.2(c)(2) [failure to disclose in an advertisement that a client featured in the advertisement is impersonated or dramatized], 6157.2(c)(3) [failure to disclose spokesperson’s title] and 6158 [false or misleading advertisement in electronic media]. Respondent also stipulated to violations of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a) [failure to obey California laws] arising from violations of the sections just listed. Respondent’s prior record of discipline is an aggravating circumstance. (In the Matter of Downey (Review Dept. 2009) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 151, 156.)

Multiple Acts of Misconduct (Std. 1.2(b)(ii)): Respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct, specifically violations of Business and Professions Code sections 6103, 6068(o)(3) and 60680). The presence of multiple acts of misconduct is an aggravating circumstance. (In the Matter of Conner (Review Dept. 2008) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 93, 105.).

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct (’Standards") 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.)

The sanction applicable to Respondent’s misconduct is found in Standard 2.6 which applies to Respondent’s violations of Business and Professions Code sections 6068(i)) [failure to participate in State Bar investigation] and 6068(o)(3)[failure to report judicial sanctions to the State Bar] and 6103 [failure to comply with court order]. Standard 2.6 provides that culpability of a member of a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068 or 6103 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, Respondent failed to obey a court order which required him to pay $7,000 in sanctions. Respondent has made no effort to either comply with the order or seek relief from it. Respondent then compounded his misconduct by failing to report the sanction to the State Bar. Further still, Respondent later failed to participate in the investigation that followed the State Bar’s receipt of notice of the sanction order from the court. This misconduct is serious, and though Respondent’s behavior may not have injured his own client it did result in an unnecessary burden on both the courts and the adverse party.

Based on the applicable Standards, the appropriate level of discipline is a one year suspension, stayed, with 30 days’ actual suspension and two years’ probation with standard conditions. As an additional condition of probation, Respondent is required to pay the full $7,000 in sanctions to the law firm of

Reuben, Raucher & Blum, as required by the order issued March 5, 2012, within the first year of probation. This level of discipline serves the primary purpose of public protection, and is appropriate in light of Respondent’s belated cooperation with the State Bar in preparing this stipulation as to facts, conclusions of law and disposition. This level of discipline is also consistent with Standard 1.7(A) which calls for discipline in this matter of a greater degree than the discipline (public reproval) imposed in Respondent’s prior disciplinary matter.

Further, the stipulated level of discipline is consistent with a reported case involving similar misconduct. In In the Matter of Riordan (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 41, the attorney was held culpable for violations of Business and Professions Code sections 6103 and 6068(o)(3) and Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3-110(A) [failure to perform competently]. The attorney received six months’ stayed suspension with no actual suspension as his multiple acts of misconduct and significant harm to the administration of justice were balanced by 17 years of discipline-free practice prior to the misconduct, good character and cooperation with the State Bar.

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to on page 2, paragraph A(7), was March 27, 2013.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of March 27, 2013 the prosecution costs in this matter are  approximately $5,308. The costs are to be paid in the two billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court Order.

If Respondent fails to pay any installment within the time provided herein or as may be modified by the State Bar Court pursuant to section 6086.10, subdivision (c), the unpaid balance is due and payable immediately unless relief is granted under these rules. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.134.)

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.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT ORDER IS A CONDITION OF PROBATION.

As a condition of probation, within one year of the effective date of the discipline in this matter Respondent must pay $7,000 in sanctions to the law firm of Reuben, Raucher & Blum. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation as an addendum to the quarterly report for each quarter in which payment is made.

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 .)

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 12-O-15656-DFM

In the Matter of: ROBERT MARSHALL FRENCH

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: Robert Marshall French

Date: 3/25/13

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: William Todd

Date:3/27/13

ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER

Case Number(s): 12-O-15656-DFM

In the Matter of: ROBERT MARSHALL FRENCH

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 4 - D.(1)(a) – check box

Page 4 – D. (3)   - check box

Page 5 – E. (10) – check box

Page 5 – E. (10) Financial Condition – check box – Add (see page 10 – compliance with the court order is a condition of Probation)

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: 04-09-2013

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 11, 2013 , I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND

ORDER APPROVING 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:

 ROBERT MARSHALL FRENCH

4617 WILLIS AVE APT 38

SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403

checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:

WILLIAM TODD, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on April 11, 2013.

Signed by:

Tammy Cleaver

State Bar Court