State Bar Court of California
Hearing Department
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER
APPROVING
REPROVAL
Case Number(s): 12-O-16873-DFM, 12-O-17550
In the Matter of: JAMES PATRICK STONEMAN II, Bar # 94523, A
Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Timothy G. Byer, Bar #172472,
Counsel for Respondent: James P. Stoneman II, Bar #94523,
Submitted to: Assigned Judge .
Filed: September 6, 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
16, 1980.
2.
The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained
herein even if conclusions of law or disposition are rejected or changed by the
Supreme Court.
3.
All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption
of this stipulation are entirely resolved by this stipulation and are deemed
consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals."
The stipulation consists of 11 pages, not including the order.
4.
A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or
causes for discipline is included under "Facts."
5.
Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts
are also included under "Conclusions of Law".
6.
The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level
of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."
7.
No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent
has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not
resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
8.
Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of
Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):
checked. Costs are added to membership
fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case
ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<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.
9.
The parties understand that:
<<not>> checked. (a) A private reproval
imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court
prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s
official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to
public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of
the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to
the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which
it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of
Procedure of the State Bar.
<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval
imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is
part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in
response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline
on the State Bar’s web page.
checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent
is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership
records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a
record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
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 or a separate attachment entitled
“Prior Discipline.
<<not>> checked. (2) Dishonesty:
Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty,
concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of
Professional Conduct.
<<not>> checked. (3) Trust
Violation: Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was
unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct
for improper conduct toward said funds or property.
<<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 Attachment, page
8, "Aggravating Circumstances"
<<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, pretrial stipulation, family/emotional problems, see page 8.
D. Discipline:
<<not>> checked. (1) Private reproval (check applicable
conditions, if any, below):
<<not>> checked. (a) Approved by the Court prior to initiation
of the State Bar Court proceedings (no public disclosure).
<<not>> checked. (b)Approved by the Court after initiation of
the State Bar Court proceedings (public disclosure).
or
checked. (2) Public reproval (Check applicable conditions,
if any below)
E. Additional Conditions of Reproval:
checked. (1) Respondent must
comply with the conditions attached to the reproval for a period of one year.
checked. (2) During the condition
period attached to the reproval, 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 the condition period.
<<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 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 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
conditions attached to the reproval.
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 State
Bar 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) 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 within one year of the effective date of the
reproval.
<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended. Reason: .
<<not>> checked. (11) 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:
Attachment language (if any):.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: JAMES PATRICK STONEMAN
II, State Bar No. 94523
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBERS: 12-O-16873,
12-O-17550
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
Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 12-O-16873 (Complainant: Penny
Fonches)
FACTS:
1. On May 18, 2012, Penny Fonches employed
Respondent to negotiate Fonches’s claims of her misclassification as a
"Human Resource Analyst II" with her employer, the County of
Riverside, and to recover back pay that Fonches claimed was owed to her as a
result of the misclassification. Respondent informed Fonches that his first
task would be to send a letter to Fonches’s employer. On that same date,
Fonches paid Respondent an advanced fee of $2,000.
2. On June 1, 2012, Fonches sent an email
to Respondent asking about Respondent’s progress on drafting the letter to her
employer.
3. On June 6, 2012, Respondent sent an
email to Fonches in response to Fonches’s June 1 email in which he told her
"I should have [the letter] completed within a week."
4. On June 20, 2012, Fonches sent another
email to Respondent, which he received, asking about Respondent’s progress on
drafting the letter to her employer. Respondent did not reply to this email.
5. On June 27, 2012, Fonches sent an email
to Respondent, which he received, asking about Respondent’s whereabouts, since
Respondent had not replied to her June 20 email. Respondent did not reply to
this email.
6. From June 27, 2012, until July 29,
2012, Fonches sent Respondent four additional emails asking for a response to
her question about the status of the drafting of the letter to her employer.
Respondent received all of the emails but did not reply to any of them.
7. Respondent ceased all communications
with Fonches after he sent her the June 6, 2012 email, and thereby
constructively withdrew from her employment, which he did without taking any
steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to her.
8. Respondent never sent a letter to the
County of Riverside on Fonches’s behalf and never performed any legal services
of any value to Fonches in connection with her claims against the County of
Riverside.
9. At the time Respondent constructively
withdrew from Fonches’s employment, he had earned no portion of her advanced
fee. Respondent provided Fonches a complete refund on July 18, 2013.
10. On October 24, 2012, and again on
November 8, 2012, a State Bar investigator sent letters to Respondent, both of
which he received, in which the investigator requested a written response by
Respondent to the allegations of misconduct by Fonches, by November 7, 2012,
and November 20, 2012, respectively. Respondent did not respond to either
letter, in writing or otherwise.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
11. By not responding to Fonches’s
numerous emails, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status
inquiries of a client in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide
legal services, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section
6068(m).
12. By performing no legal services of any
value to Fonches in connection with her claims against the County of Riverside,
Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal
services with competence, in willful violation of Rules of Professional
Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
13. By constructively withdrawing from
Fonches’s employment without taking steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable
prejudice to her, Respondent failed, upon termination of employment, to take
reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his client, in
willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2).
14. By not providing Fonches a refund of
her advanced fee, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid
in advance that has not been earned, in willful violation of Rules of
Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
15. By not responding to the State Bar
investigator’s letters, Respondent failed to cooperate and participate in a
disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent, in willful violation of
Business and Professions Code section 6068(i).
Case No. 12-O-17550 (Complainant: Anthony
Vieyra)
FACTS:
16. On December 10, 2012, and again on
December 28, 2012, a State Bar investigator sent letters to Respondent, both of
which he received, in which the investigator requested a written response by
Respondent to allegations of misconduct made by Respondent’s client, Anthony
Vieyra, by December 28, 2012, and January 11, 2013, respectively. Respondent
did not respond to either letter, in writing or otherwise.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
17. By not responding to the State Bar
investigator’s letters, Respondent failed to cooperate and participate in a
disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent, in willful violation of
Business and Professions Code section 6068(i).
FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Multiple Acts (Std. 1.2(b)(ii)):
Respondent failed to perform for Fonches, repeatedly failed to communicate with
her, abandoned her employment, and failed to promptly refund her unearned
advanced fees. In addition, Respondent failed to cooperate with the State Bar’s
investigation of Fonches’s and Vieyra’s allegations of misconduct. Respondent’s
multiple acts of misconduct are an aggravating circumstance.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE ADDITIONAL MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Prior Disciplinary Record: Although the
misconduct is serious, Respondent has no record of prior discipline in the
nearly 33 years since his admission. The Review Department and Supreme Court
have found respondents entitled to mitigation where the present misconduct was
clearly serious. (See, e.g. In the Matter of Riordan (Review 2007) 5 Cal. State
Bar Ct. Rptr. 41, 49; In the Matter of Stamper (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State
Bar Ct. Rptr. 96, 106, fn. 12.) (ln the Matter of Stamper (Review Dept. 1990) 1
Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 96, 106, fn. 13.)
Pre-trial Stipulation: Respondent is
entitled to mitigation for entering into a full stipulation with the Office of
Chief Trial Counsel prior to trial, thereby saving State Bar Court time and
resources, (In the Matter of Downey (Review Dept. 2009) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct.
Rptr. 151,156; In the Matter of Van Sickle (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar
Ct. Rptr. 980, 993-994.) The weight of this mitigating factor must be tempered
given Respondent’s failure to cooperate in the State Bar’s investigation,
despite that his failure to cooperate was explained to some degree by the
health emergency concerning his wife, as described below.
Family Problems/Emotional Difficulties:
Beginning in November 2012 and until late January 2013, Respondent’s wife
suffered sudden and intense abdominal pain which an MRI result led her
physician to describe as a "mass located near the pancreas" which the
physician could not rule out as malignant. Respondent accompanied his wife to
many hospital and doctor appointments, during which time he and his wife were
preparing to deal with the prospect of her demise. It was during this period
that Respondent received the State Bar investigator’s letters but did not
respond to them. Family problems are a mitigating factor. (See Sugarman v.
State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 609, 619.)
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for
Professional Misconduct provide a "process of fixing discipline"
pursuant to a set of written principles to "better discharge the purposes
of attorney discipline as announced by the Supreme Court." (Rules Proc. of
State Bar, tit. IV, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct,
Introduction (all further references to standards are to this source).) The
primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings and of the sanctions imposed are
"the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the
maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of
public confidence in the legal profession." (In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th
184, 205; std. 1.3.)
Although not binding, the standards are
entitled to "great weight" and should be followed "whenever
possible" in determining level of discipline. (In re Silverton (2005) 36
Cal.4th 81, 92, quoting In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205,220 and In re Young
(1989) 49 Cal.3d 257, 267, fn. 11.) Adherence to the standards in the great
majority of cases serves the valuable purpose of eliminating disparity and
assuring consistency, that is, the imposition of similar attorney discipline
for instances of similar attorney misconduct. (In re Naney (1990) 51 Cal.3d
186, 190.) Any discipline recommendation different from that set forth in the applicable
standards should clearly explain the reasons for the deviation. (Blair v. State
Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 762, 776, fn. 5.)
Standard 2.6 is the most severe standard
applicable to Respondent’s misconduct, applies to violations of Business and
Professions Code section 6068, and calls for a range of discipline from
suspension to disbarment. Standard 2.4(b), however, is more specific and more
applicable to Respondent’s violation of 6068(m), which provides that the
appropriate level of discipline for "wilfully failing to perform services
in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct
... or ... wilfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in
reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the
degree of harm to the client."
During his representation of Fonches,
Respondent committed multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct
and the State Bar Act: he failed to perform on her behalf in violation of rule
3-110(A), he failed to communicate with her in violation of section 6068(m), he
abandoned her representation in violation of rule 3-700(A)(2), and he failed to
promptly refund her unearned advanced fee in violation of rule 3-700(D)(2). In
both the Fonches and Vieyra matters, Respondent failed to cooperate with the
State Bar’s investigations, in violation of section 6068(i).
Respondent’s failure to perform was a
failure to complete a particular task on Fonches’s behalf only two months into
his representation of her, and his failure to communicate was for approximately
five weeks respondent’s abandonment of her representation is found in his
withdrawal from her matter after she had filed a State Bar complaint less than
three months after she employed him. There was no irreparable harm to Fonches,
since she retains the option of challenging her employment classification. And,
although it is not a mitigating factor, it is important to the analysis to note
that Respondent provided Fonches with a complete refund, albeit after the
initiation of these proceedings. (See Doyle v. State Bar (1982) 32 Cal.3d 12,
24.)
Although it does not excuse the
misconduct, Respondent’s failure to cooperate with the State Bar’s
investigations is mitigated by the fact that, concurrent with the unanswered
letters from the State Bar investigator, Respondent’s wife was misdiagnosed
with potential pancreatic cancer, which diverted his attention, time and
energy. Respondent also has no prior discipline in his nearly 33 years of
practice, a significant and compelling mitigating factor which suggests that
the misconduct addressed here is aberrational. Moreover, his willingness to
enter into this stipulation indicates a recognition of wrongdoing and further
supports the conclusion that his misconduct is aberrational.
The applicable standard (Std. 2.6) for
Respondent’s failure to cooperate calls for "suspension to
disbarment." Standard 1.6(b)(ii) permits deviation from Std. 2.6 and the
imposition of a lesser degree of sanction where, as here, the purposes of
imposing sanctions set forth in standard 1.3 will be properly fulfilled if a
lesser degree of sanction is imposed. Given the mitigating factors applicable
to Respondent’s failure to cooperate, as well as the mitigating and other
factors underlaying the other misconduct, it is appropriate under the
circumstances to deviate from the requirements of Standard 2.6. A public
reproval under these facts serves the purposes of attorney discipline.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court
to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No. Count Alleged
Violation
12-O-16873 4 Rule
4-100(B)(3)
12-O-17550 7 Rule
3-110(A)
12-O-17550 8 Section
6106
12-O-17550 9 Section
6068(m)
12-O-17550 10 Rule
3-700(A)(2)
12-O-17550 11 Rule
4-100(B)(3)
12-O-17550 12 Rule
3-700(D)(2)
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of
the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of August 30, 2013, the
prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $5,308. Respondent further
acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the
stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost
of further proceedings.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 12-O-16873, 12-O-17550
In the Matter of: JAMES PATRICK STONEMAN
II
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: JAMES PATRICK STONEMAN II
Date: 9/3/13
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Timothy G. Byer
Date:9/3/13
REPROVAL ORDER
Case Number(s): 12-O-16873-DFM, 12-O-17550
In the Matter of: JAMES PATRICK STONEMAN
II
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. The
stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below,
and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. All court
dates in the Hearing Department 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.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days
after service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions
attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for
willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Donald F.
Miles
Date: 9/5/13
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 September 6, 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:
JAMES PATRICK STONEMAN, II
100 W FOOTHILL BLVD
CLAREMONT, CA 91711
<<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:
TIMOTHY BYER, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on September 6, 2013.
Signed by:
Rose M. Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court