State Bar Court of California
Hearing Department
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER
APPROVING
STAYED
SUSPENSION; NO ACTUAL SUSPENSION
Case Number(s): 12-O-17916
In the Matter of: MICHAEL KING GROVES, Bar # 110645, A Member
of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Elizabeth Gonzalez, Bar #256839
Counsel for Respondent: David Cameron Carr, Bar #124510
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.
Filed: July 2, 2013.
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION
REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any
additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be
set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g.,
"Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law,"
"Supporting Authority," etc.
A. Parties' Acknowledgments:
1.
Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December
14, 1983 .
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 10 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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following
effective date of discipline.
checked. Costs
are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following
membership years: 3 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 96-O-00634
(See Attachment at pages 7-8.).
checked. (b) Date prior discipline effective June 15, 1997
checked. (c) Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act
violations: Rules of Professional Conduct, rules 3- 310(B) and 3-300
checked. (d) Degree of prior discipline Public Reproval
<<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.
<<not>> checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern
of Misconduct: Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of
wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.
<<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: See
Attachment at page 8.
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:
.
<<not>> checked. (b) The above-referenced suspension is
stayed.
checked. (2) Probation: Respondent
must be placed on probation for a period of one year, which will commence upon
the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter. (See rule 9.18,
California Rules of Court.)
E. Additional Conditions of Probation:
checked. (1) During the probation
period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and
Rules of Professional Conduct.
checked. (2) 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. (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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. (8) 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. (9) 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 within one year. 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) Other
Conditions: .
Attachment language (if any): .
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL KING GROVES, State Bar No. 110645
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-O-17916
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- 17916 (Complainant: Victor and Maria Sevilla)
FACTS:
1. In December 2011, Victor and Maria Sevilla ("the Sevillas")
retained Respondent for legal services related to loan modifications for two
properties located at 639 Van Way, Perris, CA 92570 ("Perris
property") and 4096 Heidi Road, Riverside, CA 92504 ("Riverside
property").
2. Between January 23, 2012 and May 29, 2012, the Sevillas paid Respondent
a total of $4,000 in advanced fees. At the time Respondent collected the fee,
he had not fully performed each and every service he had agreed to perform.
3. Between April 2012 and July 2012, Respondent corresponded with Bank of
America with regard to obtaining a loan modification for the Sevillas’ Perris
property.
4. Between April 2012 and July 2012, Respondent corresponded with Nation
Star with regard to obtaining a loan modification for the Sevillas’ Riverside
property.
5. On May 15, 2013, Respondent refunded the advance fees paid by the
Sevillas.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
6. By agreeing to negotiate a mortgage loan modification for the Sevillas
and collecting fees from them when he had not completed all loan modification
services he had agreed to perform, Respondent negotiated, arranged or otherwise
offered to perform a mortgage loan modification for a fee paid by the borrower,
and demanded, charged, collected or received such fee prior to fully performing
each and every service Respondent had contracted to perform or represented that
he would perform, in violation of Section 2944.7(a)(1) of the Civil Code, and
thereby wilfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3(a).
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Prior Record of Discipline (Std. 1.2(b)(i)): In State Bar case no. 96-O-00634,
Respondent received a Public Reproval after stipulating to violations of Rules
of Professional Conduct, rules 3-310(B) (failure to obtain informed consent in
writing to representation of clients whose interests conflict) and 3-300
(entering into an agreement to represent adverse interests without adequate
disclosure) arising from drafting a general partnership agreement. (Standard
1.2(b)(i).)
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Pre-Filing Stipulation. Respondent admitted to the misconduct and entered
into this stipulation fully resolving these matters. Respondent’s cooperation
at this early stage has saved the State Bar significant resources and time.
Respondent’s stipulation to the facts, his culpability, and discipline is a
mitigating circumstance. (Silva-Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1071, 1079.)
Good Character. Respondent has participated in Prison Fellowship Ministries
and their Angel Tree program since 2005. The program delivers presents through
local churches to the children of the families of those who been incarcerated
and provides mentoring and camping programs at two to three camps each year at
Calicinto Ranch in San Jacinto.
Respondent has also worked with Stepping Stones, which is a school in
Cathedral City, California, for the last three years. This is a school which
serves the needs of children who have not been able to remain in public school,
or seek alternative means of education. The school offers an after school
program for the children who attend this school. Respondent and others train
them in boxing, weight training, and conditioning. Respondent and his son train
with the students two to three afternoons a week in the after school training
programs. Civic service and charitable work can be mitigation as evidence of
good character. (ln the Matter of Respondent K (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State
Bar Ct. Rptr. 335,359. Porter v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 518, 529.)
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. (ln re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 92,
quoting In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205, 220 and In re Young (1989) 49 Cal.3d
257, 267, fn. 11.) Adherence to the standards in the great majority of cases
serves the valuable purpose of eliminating disparity and assuring consistency,
that is, the imposition of similar attorney discipline for instances of similar
attorney misconduct. (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 1.7(a) states that if a member is found culpable of professional
misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member
has a record of one prior imposition of discipline, the degree of discipline
imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the
prior proceeding unless the prior discipline imposed was so remote in time to
the current proceeding and the offense for which it was imposed was so minimal
in severity that imposing greater discipline in the current proceeding would be
manifestly unjust. Here, applying Standard 1.7 would not be manifestly unjust.
Respondent has violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3 by
accepting advanced fees for loan modification services. The appropriate
Standard to assess Respondent’s misconduct is Standard 2.10, which calls for a
range of discipline from reproval to suspension depending on the gravity of the
offense or the harm, if any, to the client, with due regard to the purposes of
imposing discipline. Respondent’s misconduct in these matters occurred between
the time span of December 2011 and May 2012, and he has provided a full refund
in this matter, thereby lessening the harm to the clients. Thus, the period of
misconduct was limited, and the harm to the clients was lessened due to the
refunds.
In the present matter, Respondent has provided a full refund to his clients
and has agreed to enter into a stipulation fully resolving these matters at an
early stage. Following Standard 2.10 and considering the totality of the
misconduct particularly in light of the extent of the misconduct and
considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the imposition of a
one-year stayed suspension will be sufficient to protect the public, the courts
and the legal profession under Standard 1.3, and falls within the Standards for
discipline in these matters.
The stipulated discipline is also consistent with case law. In In the
Matter of Taylor (Review Dept. 2012) __ Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. __, 2012 WL
5489045 (Cal. Bar Ct.), 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,482, November 9, 2012, the
respondent was found culpable of violating Business and Professions Code
section 6106.3 and for collecting illegal fees in eight client matters. The
attorney there received a six-month actual suspension following trial and an
appeal. However, the facts in Taylor were more serious from those at hand. In
Taylor, the respondent attorney did not provide full refunds to any of his
clients which caused them harm. In addition, he was found to have engaged in
multiple acts of misconduct towards eight clients, causing and displaying
indifference toward rectification or atonement for his misconduct.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has
informed respondent that as of May 22, 2013, the prosecution costs in this
matter are approximately $2,865. 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 Ethic School or any other educational course(s) to be ordered as
a condition of suspension. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 12-O-17916
In the Matter of: MICHAEL KING GROVES
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 KING GROVES
Date: 6/4/13
Respondent’s Counsel: David Cameron Carr
Date: 6/6/13
Deputy Trial Counsel: Elizabeth Gonzalez
Date: 6/11/13
STAYED SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 12-O-17916
In the Matter of: MICHAEL KING GROVES
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: George E. Scott
Date: 6/28/13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over
the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to
standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles, on July 2, 2013,
I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND
ORDER APPROVING
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through
the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as
follows:
DAVID C. CARR
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID CAMERON CARR
530 B ST STE 1410
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
<<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:
Elizabeth Gonzalez, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los
Angeles, California, on July 2, 2013.
Signed by:
Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator
State Bar Court