Case Number(s): 12-O-16665
In the Matter of: EDWARD WILLIAM HAASE, Bar # 189819, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Lee Ann Kern, Bar #156623,
Counsel for Respondent: Edward William Haase, Bar #189819,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.
Filed: August 5, 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 September 16, 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. 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.
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: . (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.
Attachment language (if any):.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: EDWARD WILLIAM HAASE, State Bar No. 189819
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-O-16665
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 12-O- 16665 (Complainant: Noe Mejia)
FACTS:
1. On or about August 10, 2011, Respondent was hired by Olivia Mejia ("Olivia") to represent Olivia’s brother, Noe Calderon Mejia ("Mejia"), who was in immigration custody following a 2009 criminal conviction. Respondent was hired to defend Mejia in removal proceedings with the Executive Office of Immigration Review and to file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") in an effort to collaterally attack the criminal conviction that had placed Mejia in removal proceedings. Olivia paid Respondent $10,000 as a flat fee for the legal services Respondent was to provide.
2. At the time Respondent accepted compensation from Olivia for representation of Mejia, Respondent failed to obtain Mejia’s informed written consent after disclosing to Mejia the relevant circumstances and reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences of such a payment arrangement.
3. During the preparation of the Petition, Respondent met with Mejia and spoke with him several times over the telephone in order to obtain the facts surrounding his conviction. Respondent prepared the Petition using the facts supplied by Mejia. Respondent did not provide the Petition and Verification to Mejia for his final review. Instead, Respondent signed Mejia’s name to the Verification under penalty of perjury in a way that closely resembled Mejia’s signature. Respondent did not indicate in the Petition that Respondent had signed the Verification on Mejia’s behalf. Respondent did not seek or obtain Mejia’s authority to sign his name to the Verification because Respondent had reviewed the facts with Mejia and believed Mejia would have signed the Verification had the Petition and Verification been provided to him.
4. Respondent signed Mejia’s name to the Verification in order to convince the court that the Verification was actually subscribed by Mejia. On or about October 4, 2011, Respondent filed the Petition with the superior court. At the time Respondent filed the Petition, Respondent knew that he had not indicated in the document that he had signed the Verification on Mejia’s behalf. On or about November 16, 2011, the court denied the Petition for lack of proof substantiating Mejia’s claims.
5. On or about February 10, 2012, without further charge to Mejia, Respondent filed a Petition with the Fourth District Court of Appeal that contained almost identical factual allegations as the original Petition. Prior to filing the Petition with the Court of Appeal, Mejia reviewed the Petition and signed his name to the Verification without making substantive changes to the Petition or the Verification. On or about March 5, 2012, the Petition was denied.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
6. By signing Mejia’s name to the Verification with a signature simulating Mejia’s actual signature for the purpose of convincing the superior court that Mejia had actually subscribed his Verification, Respondent sought to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(d).
7. By accepting compensation from Olivia for representation of Mejia, Respondent accepted compensation for representing a client from one other than the client without complying with the requirement that Respondent obtain the client’s informed written consent, in willful violation of rule 3-310(F)(3), Rules of Professional Conduct.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Prior Record of Discipline (Std. 1.2(b)(i)): In case nos. 06-J-15152 and 06-0-13219, Respondent stipulated to two years’ stayed suspension and two years’ probation, effective July 19, 2008.
In case no. 06-J-15152, Respondent stipulated to disrespecting the immigration court and failing to obey orders of that court following disciplinary proceedings initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review in which Respondent was publicly censured for failing to appear at four hearings without good cause.
In case no. 06-O-13219, Respondent stipulated to failing to perform legal services with competence, improperly withdrawing as counsel, failing to take steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his client, failing to render accounts, and failing to refund unearned fees when he failed to file an appeal brief in an immigration matter and, as a result, the client was ordered deported.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Harm (Std. 1.2(e)(iii)): No harm occurred to Mejia as a result of Respondent’s misconduct. (Arm v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 763,779 [lack of significant harm is a mitigating circumstance].)
Prefiling Stipulation: Respondent stipulated to facts, conclusions of law, and disposition in order to resolve his disciplinary proceedings as efficiently as possible. (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 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. (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.)
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 misconduct is found in standard 2.6, which applies to Respondent’s violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(d). Standard 2.6 provides that culpability of a member of a violation of 6068(d) 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. Also, Standard 1.7(a) provides that when a member has prior record of discipline, the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding.
The gravity of Respondent’s misconduct warrants actual suspension, but the lack of harm to his client indicates that actual suspension in the lower range is appropriate. In addition, although Respondent’s misconduct is aggravated by his prior record of discipline, it is slightly mitigated by his willingness to enter into this stipulation. Application of the standards to the facts of this case demonstrates that discipline of 60-days actual suspension is the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct.
The recommended disposition is consistent with the range of discipline shown by case law. (Bach v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 848 [60-days actual suspension, one year stayed suspension, and three years’ probation imposed when an attorney intentionally sought to mislead a judge regarding his being advised by the court to produce his client at a mediation hearing in a family law matter]; Drociak vs. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1085 [30-days actual suspension and one year stayed suspension imposed when an attorney answered interrogatories and attached a pre-signed verification without first consulting with the client to ensure that the assertions of fact were true].)
The recommended discipline of one year stayed suspension two years’ probation is adequate to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of June 14, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,925. 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-16665
In the Matter of: Edward William Haase
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: Edward William Haase
Date: 7/1/13
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Lee Ann Kern
Date: 7/8/13
ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 12-O-16665
In the Matter of: Edward William Haase
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.
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: 8/5/13
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 August 5, 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:
EDWARD W. HAASE
LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD HAASE
4475 MISSION BLVD STE. 208
SAN DIEGO, CA 92109
<<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:
Lee A. Kern Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on August 5, 2013.
Signed by:
Julieta Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court