Case Number(s): 12-O-16591
In the Matter of: JENNIFER LYNN KAMMERER, Bar # 204888, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Anand Kumar, Bar #261592,
Counsel for Respondent: Jennifer Lynn Kammerer, Bar #204888,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.
Filed: July 2, 2013.
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 8, 1999.
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: two (2) billing cycles immediately following the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.
Attachment language (if any):.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: JENNIFER LYNN KAMMERER, State Bar No. 204888
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-O-16591
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 12-O-16591-RAH (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. On May 26, 2011, the California Supreme Court entered an order (S193344), effective on July 1, 2011, suspending Respondent from the practice of law as a result of Respondent’s failure to pay her State Bar of California membership fees. On May 26, 2011, the State Bar’s Membership Records Office properly served a copy of this order on Respondent at her State Bar membership records address. Respondent received the order.
2. On July 3, 2012, Respondent was administratively suspended and placed on inactive status as a result of her failure to timely comply with her Minimum Continuing Legal Education ("MCLE") requirements and report such compliance to the State Bar’s Membership Services Office.
3. On July 16, 2012, the State Bar’s Membership Services Office sent a letter to Respondent at her State Bar membership records address advising her of the July 3, 2012 administrative suspension, her inactive status and the consequences of being placed on inactive status. Respondent received the July 16, 2012 letter.
4. Respondent remained suspended for failing to pay her membership fees and for failing to comply with her MCLE requirements until December 26, 2012 when she was reinstated to active status after paying her fees and submitting proof of her MCLE compliance.
5. On September 19, 2012, Respondent sent out a mass email to potential clients advertising estate planning services. The signature block of the email stated "Law Offices of Jennifer L. Kammerer." Attached to the email were two documents written on Respondent’s letterhead listing considerations and issues that commonly arise in estate planning and soliciting the potential clients to contact an estate planning attorney.
6. By sending out her September 19, 2012 email advertising estate planning services to potential clients, Respondent held herself out as an active member of the State Bar, entitled to practice law in the State of California, to potential clients who were the recipients of her mass email while she was suspended and on inactive status.
7. At the time she sent the email, Respondent knew that she was suspended, on inactive status and not eligible to practice law. Respondent concealed this true fact from potential clients by sending out her mass email without indicating she was not eligible to practice law and thereby misrepresented that she was an active member of the State Bar and entitled to practice law.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
8. By sending out an email advertising estate planning services to potential clients when she was not entitled to practice law, Respondent held herself out as entitled to practice law when she was not an active member of the State Bar in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, sections 6125 and 6126 and thereby willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a).
9. By misrepresenting that she was an active member of the State Bar while she was suspended and on inactive status and by concealing the truth from potential clients, Respondent committed an act or acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6106.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Indifference (Std. 1.2(b)(v)): In June 2012, prior to the instant misconduct which took place in September 2012, the State Bar issued Respondent a warning letter in another case for holding herself out as entitled to practice law when she sent a cease-and-desist letter to a third party on behalf of a client while Respondent was on administrative suspension and not entitled to practice law. Respondent received the warning letter and yet committed the same kind of misconduct in the instant matter when she should have had a heightened awareness of her obligation not to do so by virtue of the warning letter as well as the Court orders and the administrative suspension notice letters sent to her by the State Bar’s Membership Services Office. Respondent’s subsequent holding herself out within months of being issued a warning letter by the State Bar evidences indifference toward rectification of her misconduct and indifference toward her ethical obligations.
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
Pretrial Stipulation: While some of the facts in this matter are easily provable, Respondent has cooperated with the State Bar by entering into the instant stipulation fully resolving the matter without the necessity of a trial thereby saving State Bar resources. (Silva-Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1071, 1079 [where mitigative credit was given for entering into a stipulation as to facts and culpability].)
No Prior Record of Discipline over Many Years of Practice: Respondent has no prior record of discipline, but the current misconduct is serious. Accordingly, while she is not entitled to mitigation under standard 1.2(e)(i), Respondent’s twelve-year discipline-free record is nonetheless entitled to significant mitigation. (Hawes v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 587, 596 [more than 10 years of discipline free entitled to significant 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." (ln re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 205; std. 1.3.)
Although not binding, the standards are entitled to "great weight" and should be followed "whenever possible" in determining level of discipline. (ln re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 92, quoting In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205, 220 and In re Young (1989) 49 Cal.3d 257, 267, fn. 11.) Adherence to the standards in the great majority of cases serves the valuable purpose of eliminating disparity and assuring consistency, that is, the imposition of similar attorney discipline for instances of similar attorney misconduct. (ln re Naney (1990) 51 Cal.3d 186, 190.) Any discipline recommendation different from that set forth in the applicable standards should clearly explain the reasons for the deviation. (Blair v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 762, 776, fn. 5.)
Respondent admits to committing two acts of professional misconduct. Standard 1.6 (a) requires that where a Respondent acknowledges two or more acts of misconduct, and different sanctions are prescribed by the standards that apply to those acts, the sanction imposed shall be the more or most severe prescribed in the applicable standards. The most severe sanction applicable to Respondent’s instant misconduct is found in standard 2.3, which applies to Respondent’s violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6106.
Standard 2.3 provides that culpability of a member of an act of moral turpitude, fraud, or intentional dishonesty toward a court, client or another person shall result in actual suspension or disbarment depending upon the extent to which the victim of the misconduct is harmed or misled and depending upon the magnitude of the act of misconduct and the degree to which it relates to the member’s acts within the practice of law. The degree to which Respondent’s misconduct relates to her practice of law is clear in so far as her email advertisement to prospective clients demonstrates an attempt to solicit potential clients during a period when she was not entitled to practice law.
The magnitude of the misconduct is also significant here. The unauthorized practice of law includes the mere holding, out by a layman that he is practicing or is entitled to practice law." (Crawford v. State Bar (1960) 54 Cal. 2d 659, 666; see also In re Cadwell (1975) 15 Cal.3d 762, 771, fn. 3 [an implied representation of entitlement to practice constitutes unauthorized practice of law] and fn. 4 [even if an attorney did not "know his conduct violated the [suspension] order, he at the very least displayed an indifferent disregard of his duty to comply with the order"].) Moreover, Respondent’s misconduct came at a time when she knew that she was not entitled to practice since she had already received the Court’s orders and two letters regarding her administrative suspensions. The misconduct also occurred after Respondent had already been warned by the State Bar for practicing law while she was not entitled to do so. Her inability or unwillingness to comply with the California Supreme Court’s orders constitutes a threat to the public requiring discipline in the form of an actual suspension to ensure public protection.
Accordingly, consistent with standard 2.3 and taking into account the mitigative credit Respondent is entitled to for her lack of prior discipline and balancing said mitigation against the aggravating circumstances, a two (2) year stayed suspension and a two (2) year probation with conditions including a thirty (30) day actual suspension is appropriate in this matter to protect the public, the courts and the legal profession, maintain high professional standards by attorneys, and preserve public confidence in the legal profession.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of June 20, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $3,517.19. 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.)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 12-O-16591
In the Matter of: Jennifer Lynn Kammerer
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: Jennifer Lynn Kammerer
Date: 6/24/13
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Anand Kumar
Date: 6/24/13
ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 12-O-16591
In the Matter of: Jennifer Lynn Kammerer
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: Richard A. Platel
Date: 7/1/13
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 July 2, 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:
JENNIFER L. KAMMERER
JLKLAW LAW OFFICE OF JENNIFER L
KAMMERER
7660 FAY AVE STE. H266
LA JOLLA, CA 92037
<<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:
Anand Kumar, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on July 2, 2013.
Signed by:
Paul Barona
Case Administrator
State Bar Court