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-16642

In the Matter of: CHAD THOMAS PRATT , Bar # 149746, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Eli Morgenstern, Bar #190560,

Counsel for Respondent: David A. Clare, Bar #44971,

Submitted to: to: Assigned Judge.

Filed: October 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 December 4, 1990.

2.    The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.

3.    All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals."  The stipulation consists of 13 pages, not including the order.

4.    A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."

5.    Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".

6.    The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."

7.    No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.

8.    Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):

<<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 billing cycles following the effective date of the discipline herein.  (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. .

<<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 page 10 for further discussion.

<<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: No prior discipline. See page 10 for further discussion. Pretrial Stipulation. See page 10 for further discussion.

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: .
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.)

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.

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.
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):.

FINANCIAL CONDITIONS

Case Number(s): 12-O-16642

In the Matter of: CHAD THOMAS PRATT

a. Restitution

<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund (“CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.

1. Payee:

            Principal Amount:

            Interest Accrues From:

2. Payee:

            Principal Amount:

            Interest Accrues From:

3. Payee:

            Principal Amount:

            Interest Accrues From:

4. Payee:

            Principal Amount:

            Interest Accrues From:

<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than .

b. Installment Restitution Payments

<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.

1. Payee/CSF (as applicable)

            Minimum Payment Amount

            Payment Frequency

2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)

            Minimum Payment Amount

            Payment Frequency

3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)

            Minimum Payment Amount

            Payment Frequency

4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)

            Minimum Payment Amount

            Payment Frequency

<<not>> checked. 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.

c. Client Funds Certificate

checked. 

1.         If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:

a.         Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated as a “Trust Account” or “Clients’ Funds Account”;

b.         Respondent has kept and maintained the following:

i.          A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:

1.         the name of such client;

2.         the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;

3.         the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client; and,

4.         the current balance for such client.

ii.         a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:

1.         the name of such account;

2.         the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,

3.         the current balance in such account.

iii.        all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,

iv.        each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.

c.         Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that specifies:

i.          each item of security and property held;

ii.         the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;

iii.        the date of receipt of the security or property;

iv.        the date of distribution of the security or property; and,

v.         the person to whom the security or property was distributed.

2.         If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate described above.

3.         The requirements of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct.

d. Client Trust Accounting School

checked. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: CHAD THOMAS PRATT, State Bar No. 149746

STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-O-16642

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified Rules of Professional Conduct.

Case No. 12-O-16642 (Complainant: Anita Alston)

FACTS:

1. At all times relevant to the stipulated facts herein, Respondent represented Anita Alston in an unlawful detainer action filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

2. On July 16, 2010, the parties resolved the unlawful detainer action by way of a Stipulation for Judgment ("Stipulation"). Pursuant to the Stipulation, Ms. Alston agreed to mail her keys to the subject property to the attorneys for the plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action by no later than August 2, 2010. Upon receipt of the keys and confirmation that the property had been vacated in compliance with the Stipulation, the attorneys for the plaintiff were to send a check via overnight delivery to Respondent in the amount of $5,000 made payable to Respondent in trust for Ms. Alston.

3. On July 16, 2010, the attorneys for the plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action filed a request for dismissal without prejudice, which the court granted.

4. On July 30, 2010, Respondent received a settlement check in the amount of $5,000 made payable to him in trust for Ms. Alston from the attorneys for the plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action.

5. On August 16, 2010, Respondent or a member of his office staff deposited the $5,000 settlement check into Respondent’s law firm’s general account.

6. On September 8, 2010, Respondent issued three checks from his client trust account ("CTA"), one to Ms. Alston, and the other two on her behalf. At the time that he issued the checks from the CTA, Respondent did not maintain any funds in the CTA on behalf of Ms. Alston. Respondent used earned fees from other clients which he maintained in the CTA to pay for the checks.

7. At no time relevant to the stipulated facts herein did Respondent maintain a written client ledger for Alston, a written account ledger for the CTA, or maintain all bank statements and cancelled checks for the CTA as required by the trust account record keeping standards adopted by the Board of Trustees of the State Bar of California pursuant to rule 4-100(C) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. At no time relevant to the stipulated facts herein did Respondent conduct a monthly reconciliation of the CTA as required by as required by the trust account record keeping standards. Respondent’s failure to maintain the records contributed to his failure to discover the mismanagement of Alston’s funds and his CTA.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

8. By failing to deposit the $5,000 settlement check into the CTA, Respondent failed to deposit funds received for the benefit of a client in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import, in wilful violation of rule 4-100(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

9. By maintaining earned fees in the CTA, Respondent deposited or commingled funds belonging to Respondent in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import, in wilful violation of rule 4-100(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

10. By failing to maintain a written client ledger for Alston, a written account journal for the CTA, and all bank statements and cancelled checks for the CTA, and by failing to conduct monthly reconciliations of the CTA, Respondent failed to maintain complete records of all funds of a client coming into his possession in willful violation of rule 4-100(B)(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

Multiple Acts of Misconduct (Std. 1.2(b)(ii)): Respondent committed three distinct trust account violations. Respondent failed to deposit client funds in the CTA, maintained earned fees in the CTA, and failed to maintain the required records. Respondent’s multiple trust account violations are an aggravating circumstance. (In the Matter of Bach (Review Dept., 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 631, 646-647 [three instances of misconduct constitute multiple acts of misconduct].)

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

No Prior Discipline: Although Respondent’s misconduct is serious, at the time that he committed the misconduct herein, Respondent had practiced law for almost 20 years with no prior record of discipline. Respondent is entitled to mitigation for having practiced law for 20 years without discipline even though the current misconduct is serious. (In the Matter of Riordan (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 41 [attorney’s practice of law for more than 17 years considered to be significant mitigating circumstance even when misconduct is serious]

Pretrial Stipulation: Respondent agreed to resolve the instant matter by way of this stipulation after the parties filed their respective pretrial statements and a few weeks before the trial. Nevertheless, Respondent is entitled to mitigation for entering into this stipulation. (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].)

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct (hereinafter, "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.)

Standard 2.2(b) applies to Respondent’s violations of rule 4-100 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (hereinafter, "rule"), and provides that culpability of a member of commingling of entrusted funds with personal funds or the commission of another violation of rule 4-100, which does not involve the wilful misappropriation of entrusted funds, shall result in at least a three-month actual suspension from the practice of law, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.

Here, Respondent failed to deposit funds that he collected on behalf of his client into his client trust account. Instead, Respondent deposited the funds into his general account. Respondent also maintained earned fees in his client trust account after they became fixed. Further still, Respondent failed to maintain the trust account records required by rule 4-100(C) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and failed to perform the monthly reconciliations of his client trust account as required by the rule. Respondent’s failure to maintain the required records and to perform the monthly reconciliations contributed to his failure to discover the mismanagement of his client’s funds and his trust account until Ms. Alton made her complaint against Respondent with the State Bar.

It is well-established that an attorney is culpable of a violation of rule 4-100 whenever the attorney commingles funds or fails to manage funds in a manner designated by the rule, even if no person is injured. (Guzetta v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 962, 976.) It is equally well-established that rule 4-100 leaves no room for inquiry into attorney intent. (Doyle v. State Bar (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 12, 22-23.) However, it is relevant to consider for purposes of determining the appropriate level of discipline that there is no evidence that Respondent’s misconduct with respect to the administration of his client trust account caused any harm to Ms. Alston, or any of his other clients, or that Respondent intended to deceive or defraud anyone with his actions relating to the administration of his trust account.

In addition, Respondent’s nearly 20 years of discipline-free practice and the fact that he entered into this Stipulation are mitigating circumstances. By entering into this stipulation, Respondent acknowledges that he failed to handle his client’s funds and administer his client trust account properly. The probation conditions included in this stipulation, specifically the requirement that he attend the State Bar Ethics and Client Trust Accounting Schools, and the requirement that he submit a Client Funds Certificate with each quarterly report are intended to educate Respondent and to correct his practices with respect to the administration of his client trust account.

In consideration of Respondent’s misconduct, Standard 2.2(b), and the aggravating and mitigating factors that are presented, a discipline consisting of a one-year stayed suspension, and a two-year probation, with conditions including a 30-day actual suspension adequately serve the purposes of attorney discipline as described by the California Supreme Court and Standard 1.3. The parties acknowledge that the discipline deviates from Standard 2.2(b), but submit that the discipline is appropriate under these circumstances.

The recommended discipline is also supported by the case law. In Dudugjian v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal. 3d 1092, the Supreme Court determined that the placement of client funds in the attorney’s general account, on the honest, but mistaken belief that money belonged to the firm, warranted a public reproval. In so deciding, the Supreme Court acknowledged that its discipline order deviated from standard 2.2(b), but concluded that under the circumstances the discipline was appropriate. (Id. at p. 1100.)

Here, in addition to depositing a client’s funds in his law firms’ general account, Respondent also maintained earned fees in the CTA, and failed to maintain trust account records. But, there is no evidence that he intended to harm, deceive or defraud his clients by his misconduct. Under the circumstances, the discipline recommended herein, although less severe than mandated by standard 2.2(b), accomplishes the purposes of attorney discipline.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of September 25, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are $7,117.18. The costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following two billing cycles following the effective date of the discipline herein. 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 State Bar Client Trust Accounting School. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 12-O-16642

In the Matter of: CHAD THOMAS PRATT

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:  CHAD THOMAS PRATT

Date: 9/26/13

Respondent’s Counsel: David Clare

Date: 9/26/13

Deputy Trial Counsel: Eli D. Morgenstern

Date: 9/27/13

ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER

Case Number(s): 12-O-16642

In the Matter of: CHAD THOMAS PRATT

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. Honn

Date: 10/17/13

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 October 18, 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:

 DAVID ALAN CLARE ESQ

DAVID A CLARE, ATTORNEY AT LAW

444 W OCEAN BLVD STE. 800

LONG BEACH, CA 90802

<<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:

 Eli D. Morgenstern, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on October 18, 2013.

Signed by:

Paul Barona

Case Administrator

State Bar Court