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-17100-DFM
In the Matter of: Michael L. Goolsby, Bar # 159660, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Lara Bairamian, Bar #253056,
Counsel for Respondent: Michael L. Goolsby, Bar #159660,
Submitted to: Assigned Judge.
Filed: March 27, 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 August 4, 1992.
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 12 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 following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.
B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.
checked. (1) Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]
checked. (a) State Bar Court case # of prior case 09-O-17012, 09-O-17600, and 10-O-02351.
checked. (b) Date prior discipline effective May 21, 2011.
checked. (c) Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: Rules of Professional Conduct, rules 300(B), 1-400(C), 4-100(B)(3), and 4-200(A)
checked. (d) Degree of prior discipline Two (2) years stayed suspension and two (2) years’ probation, conditioned on a thirty (30) day actual suspension
<<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 Attachment at page 9.
<<not>> checked. (8) No aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances: N/A.
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: See attachment at pages 9-10.
D. Discipline:
checked. (1) Stayed Suspension:
checked. (a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.
<<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 , 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 ninety (90) days.
<<not>> checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct
<<not>> checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.
<<not>> checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following: .
E. Additional Conditions of Probation:
<<not>> checked. (1) If Respondent is actually suspended for two years or more, he/she must remain actually suspended until he/she proves to the State Bar Court his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the general law, pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
checked. (2) During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.
checked. (3) Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.
checked. (4) Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with Respondent's assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.
checked. (5) Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.
In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.
<<not>> checked. (6) Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance. During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested, in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must cooperate fully with the probation monitor.
checked. (7) Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has complied with the probation conditions.
checked. (8) Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
<<not>> checked. No Ethics School recommended. Reason: .
<<not>> checked. (9) Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office of Probation.
<<not>> checked. (10) The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:
<<not>> checked. Substance Abuse Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Law Office Management Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Medical Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Financial Conditions.
F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:
checked. (1) Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination: Respondent must provide proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation during the period of actual suspension or within one year, whichever period is longer. Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) & (E), Rules of Procedure.
<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended. Reason: .
checked. (2) Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court: Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.
<<not>> checked. (3) Conditional Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court: If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90 days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 120 and 130 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.
<<not>> checked. (4) Credit for Interim Suspension [conviction referral cases only]: Respondent will be credited for the period of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual suspension. Date of commencement of interim suspension: .
<<not>> checked. (5) Other Conditions: .
Attachment language (if any):.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: Michael L. Goolsby, State Bar No. 159660
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-O-17100
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. 12-0-17100 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. On December 3, 2010, Respondent entered into a Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition ("Stipulation") with the State Bar of California in case numbers 09-0-17012, 09- 0-17600, and 10-O-02351.
2. On April 21, 2011, the California Supreme Court filed an Order (the "Order") in case number S190515 (State Bar case numbers 09-0-17012, 09-0-17600, and 10-O-02351) imposing the recommended discipline and suspending Respondent for one (1) year, stayed, placing him on probation for two (2) years on condition that he be actually suspended for the first thirty (30) days.
3. The Order became effective on May 21, 2011.
4. As a condition of probation, Respondent was ordered to contact the Office of Probation within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline or by June 20, 2011, to schedule a meeting with the probation deputy.
5. Respondent did not have a meeting with the assigned probation deputy by the due date of June 20, 2011. Respondent met with his assigned probation deputy on September 2, 2011.
6. As a condition of probation, Respondent was required to submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10 and October 10 of the condition period attached to his discipline.
7. Respondent failed to timely submit quarterly reports. Respondent submitted the quarterly report due July 10, 2011 on September 2, 2011. Respondent submitted the quarterly report due October 10, 2011 on December 12, 2011. Respondent submitted the quarterly report due April 10, 2012 on May 16, 2012. Respondent submitted the quarterly reports due July 10, 2012, October 10, 2012, and January 10, 2012 on January 16, 2013.
8. As a condition of probation, Respondent was required to pay restitution to Cherish Keddington in the principal amount of $2,745, with interest accruing from April 22, 2009, in the amount of $1,000 per month to be paid in full including interest not later than thirty (30) days before the last day of the period of probation and to provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly report.
9. Respondent failed to make a restitution payment of $1,000 to Cherish Keddington in the July 10, 2011 quarter and failed to timely provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with the July 10, 2011 quarterly report.
10. On September 21, 2011, Respondent made a payment to Cherish Keddington in the amount of $3,413.58.
11. As a condition of probation, Respondent was required to pay restitution to Susan Hughes in the principal amount of $8,985, with interest accruing from May 28, 2009, in the amount of $1,000 per month to be paid in full including interest not later than thirty (30) days before the last day of the period of probation and to provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly report.
12. Respondent failed to make a restitution payment of $1,000 to Susan Hughes in the July 10, 2011 quarter and failed to timely provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with the July 10, 2011 quarterly report.
13. The State Bar’s Client Security Fund ("CSF") made a payment of $8,985 to Susan Hughes. On September 2, 2011, Respondent made a payment to CSF in the amount of $9,168.92 as reimbursement for the payment made by CSF to Susan Hughes, the processing fee incurred by the State Bar and accrued interest.
14. On September 2, 2011, Respondent made an interest payment to Susan Hughes in the amount of $1,998.85.
15. As a condition of probation, Respondent was required to provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of Ethics School, and the passage of the test given at the end of that session, within one (1) year of the effective date of the Order or by May 21, 2012. Respondent failed to provide proof of attendance and completion of the Ethics School test to the Office of Probation by May 21, 2012.
16. On May 21, 2012, Respondent filed a motion for extension of time to take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE") and attend Ethics School ("Motion") with the State Bar Court. On May 31, 2012, the State Bar Court denied Respondent’s Motion.
17. On July 16, 2012, Respondent was suspended for his failure to take and pass the MPRE.
18. After the filing of State Bar’s Notice of Disciplinary Charges ("NDC"), Respondent submitted the quarterly reports due July 10, 2012, October 10, 2012, and January 10, 2012 on January 16, 2013; signed up to attend a session of Ethics School scheduled for March 21, 2013; and signed up to take the MPRE scheduled for April 6, 2013.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
19. By failing to contact the Office of Probation within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, failing to timely submit five (5) quarterly reports to the Office of Probation, failing to make a restitution payment of $1,000 to Cherish Keddington and Susan Hughes for the July 10, 2011 quarter, failing to timely provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with the July 10, 2011 quarterly report for Cherish Keddington and Susan Hughes, and failing to attend and pass Ethics School within one (1) year of the effective date of discipline, Respondent failed to comply with conditions attached to his discipline in willful violation of section 6068(k) of the Business and Professions Code.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE PRIOR RECORD OF DISCIPLINE.
In State Bar case no. 09-0-17012, et al., Respondent was disciplined after stipulating to misconduct in State Bar disciplinary proceedings stemming from his loan modification activities resulting in violations of Rules of Professional Conduct, rules 1-300(B), 1-400(C), 4-100(B)(3), and 4-200(A).
Respondent was suspended for one (1) year, stayed, placed on two (2) years of probation with a thirty (30) day actual suspension in case nos. 09-0-17012, 09-0-17600, and 10-O-02351, effective May 21, 2011.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Multiple Acts. Respondent engaged in multiple acts of misconduct by failing to timely contact the Office of Probation, timely submit quarterly reports to the Office of Probation, timely make restitution payments to his clients and provide proof of attendance and completion of Ethics School. (Standard 1.2(b)(ii).)
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Pre-trial Stipulation. In In the Matter of Downey (Review Dept. 2009) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 151, 156, the court found that Respondent was entitled to mitigation for cooperating with the State Bar by entering into a fairly comprehensive pretrial stipulation of facts. Although the stipulated facts were not difficult to prove, and Respondent did not admit culpability, the stipulation was relevant and assisted the State Bar’s prosecution of the case. The court accorded Respondent limited mitigation under standard 1.2(e)(v). Respondent is entitled to limited mitigation for entering into a full stipulation with the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel prior to trial in case no. 12-O-17100, thereby saving the State Bar Court time and resources. (Id.; In-the Matter of Van Sickle (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 993-94.)
Voluntary Ameliorative Behavior. After he was suspended for his failure to take and pass the MPRE, according to Respondent, he was under the belief that, since he was suspended, he no longer had to comply with the outstanding conditions of his probation. That belief was incorrect. When it was brought to his attention, to rectify his misconduct, Respondent submitted the quarterly reports due July 10, 2012, October 10, 2012, and January 10, 2013; registered to attend Ethics School scheduled for March 21, 2013; and registered to take the MPRE scheduled for April 6, 2013. By attempting to remedy the probation violations, Respondent exhibited voluntary ameliorative behavior, which disciplinary standards are designed to encourage and, thus, is entitled to mitigating weight. (In the Matter of Klein (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 1, 12.) Respondent is entitled to limited mitigation as the attempt to remedy the probation violations applies only to those violations that occurred after his July 16, 2012 suspension.
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 ln re Young (1989) 49 Cal.3d 257, 267, fn. 11.) Adherence to the standards in the great majority of cases serves the valuable purpose of eliminating disparity and assuring consistency, that is, the imposition of similar attorney discipline for instances of similar attorney misconduct. (In re Naney (1990) 51 Cal.3d 186, 190.) Any discipline recommendation different from that set forth in the applicable standards should clearly explain the reasons for the deviation. (Blair v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 762, 776, fn. 5.)
The sanction applicable to Respondent’s misconduct is found in standard 2.6(a), which applies to Respondent’s violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(k).
Standard 2.6(a) provides that Respondent’s violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(k) shall result in suspension or disbarment "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 standards.
In Conroy v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 799, the Respondent was publicly reproved and then failed to take and pass the MPRE within one year as required. Respondent defaulted in the matter before the Hearing Department, but participated in the Review Department and Supreme Court proceedings. The court found Respondent’s subsequent passage of the MPRE was mitigating but was outweighed by aggravating factors. In aggravation the court considered Respondent’s prior discipline, Respondent’s default at the Heating Department level and Respondent’s lack of remorse for the present violation. The discipline imposed in light of the aggravation was one year suspension, stayed, two years of probation and sixty-day actual suspension.
Similar to Conroy, Respondent belatedly complied with the conditions attached to his discipline and has a prior record of discipline. Unlike Conroy, Respondent participated in the disciplinary proceedings and has not displayed a lack of remorse during the proceedings. The level of discipline in the underlying matter is more severe than the private reproval received by Conroy in his underlying matter.
Although untimely, Respondent made efforts to satisfy the terms of his discipline. Respondent belatedly met with his probation deputy, submitted all written quarterly reports, and made the required restitution payments to his clients. To rectify his misconduct after the NDC was filed, Respondent submitted the quarterly reports due July 10, 2012, October 10, 2012, and January 10, 2012; signed up for Ethics School; and signed up for the MPRE. Respondent participated in the proceedings and agreed to enter into a full stipulation prior to trial. Progressive discipline is warranted to fulfill the purposes of discipline. Based on the above-described standards and taking Respondent’s history into consideration, a two (2) year stayed suspension accompanied by a two (2) year probationary period, conditioned on a ninety (90) day actual suspension serves the purpose of State Bar discipline.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was February 5, 2013.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of January 28, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are $3,349. 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, as a condition of suspension. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 12-O-17100
In the Matter of: Michael L. Goolsby
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: Michael L. Goolsby
Date: 3/6/13
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Lara Bairamian
Date: 3/12/13
ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 12-O-17100
In the Matter of: Michael L. Goolsby
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.
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: Donald F. Miles
Date: 3/26/13
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 March 27, 2013, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND
ORDER APPROVING ACTUAL SUSPENSION
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
MICHAEL L. GOOLSBY
GOOLSBY LAW GROUP
21163 NEWPORT COAST DR
STE 800
NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657
<<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:
LARA BAIRAMIAN, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 27, 2013.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court