Case Number(s): 12-O-17923, 12-O-18120
In the Matter of: CESAR A. LOPEZ , Bar # 195868, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Lara Bairamian, Bar #253056,
Counsel for Respondent: Arthur L. Margolis, Bar #57703,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.
Filed: August 26, 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 June 5, 1998.
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 15 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.
Attachment language (if any):.
MEDICAL CONDITIONS
Case Number(s): 12-O-17923,12-O-18120
In the Matter of: CESAR A. LOPEZ
<<not>> checked. a. Unless Respondent has been terminated from the Lawyer Assistance Program (“LAP”) prior to respondent’s successful completion of the LAP, respondent must comply with all provisions and conditions of respondent’s Participation Agreement with the LAP and must provide an appropriate waiver authorizing the LAP to provide the Office of Probation and this court with information regarding the terms and conditions of respondent’s participation in the LAP and respondent’s compliance or non-compliance with LAP requirements. Revocation of the written waiver for release of LAP information is a violation of this condition. However, if respondent has successfully completed the LAP, respondent need not comply with this condition.
<<not>> checked. b. Respondent must obtain psychiatric or psychological help/treatment from a duly licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker at respondent’s own expense a minimum of times per month and must furnish evidence to the Office of Probation that respondent is so complying with each quarterly report. Help/treatment should commence immediately, and in any event, no later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of the discipline in this matter. Treatment must continue for days or months or years or, the period of probation or until a motion to modify this condition is granted and that ruling becomes final.
If the treating psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker determines that there has been a substantial change in respondent’s condition, respondent or Office of the Chief Trial Counsel may file a motion for modification of this condition with the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court, pursuant to rule 5.300 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. The motion must be supported by a written statement from the psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker, by affidavit or under penalty of perjury, in support of the proposed modification.
checked. c. Upon the request of the Office of Probation, respondent must provide the Office of Probation with medical waivers and access to all of respondent’s medical records. Revocation of any medical waiver is a violation of this condition. Any medical records obtained by the Office of Probation are confidential and no information concerning them or their contents will be given to anyone except members of the Office of Probation, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, and the State Bar Court, who are directly involved with maintaining, enforcing or adjudicating this condition.
Other: Respondent has been under the care of Dr. Elias Rodriguez ("physician") for anxiety and adjustment disorder since 2011. Respondent must obtain treatment from the physician at Respondent’s own expense. Respondent has selected the physician for the purpose of submitting to an evaluation and treatment. The physician will determine the course of treatment including how many times per month Respondent is to obtain treatment. Respondent must comply with the treatment recommended by the physician and must furnish evidence to the Office of Probation that Respondent is so complying with each quarterly report. Help/treatment should commence and/or continue immediately, and in any event, no later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of the discipline in this matter. Treatment must continue as required by the physician for the period of probation or until a motion to modify this condition is granted and that ruling becomes final.
Within 45 days of signing this stipulation, Respondent shall provide a complete copy of this stipulation to the physician. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline in this matter, Respondent shall provide to the Office of Probation an original, signed declaration from the physician acknowledging receipt of a complete copy of this stipulation.
Within 45 days of signing this stipulation, Respondent shall execute all necessary waivers of confidentiality with the physician.
Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline in this matter, Respondent shall provide to the Office of Probation a copy of the waiver provided to the physician. Also within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline in this matter, Respondent shall provide to the Office of Probation an original, signed declaration from the physician acknowledging receipt of the waiver.
Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline in this matter, Respondent is to undergo an Evaluation with the physician. The Evaluation will be for the purposes of (a) determining whether Respondent has a current psychological diagnosis, (b) setting treatment conditions Respondent is to undertake as a result of the Evaluation, if any; and (c) obtaining a written report from the physician. Respondent shall bear all costs of the Evaluation, the resulting report, and any treatment conditions recommended by the physician. Respondent understands that his treatment conditions may change if the physician deems it necessary, and that he is to bear the cost of such treatment, which in some cases could include in-patient treatment. Respondent understands that (a) the treatment conditions, if any, shall become part of his probation conditions, (b) he must provide the Office of Probation with any proof of treatment compliance or waiver requested by the Office of Probation, and (c) any violation of the treatment conditions is a violation of the probation conditions.
Within 60 days of the effective date of the discipline in this matter, Respondent is to provide a copy of the physician’s written report to the Office of Probation. If the physician requires additional information in order to propose treatment conditions, including, but not limited to, interviewing third parties, Respondent will make good faith efforts to timely provide the additional information. Respondent will provide proof such good faith efforts to the Office of Probation within 10 days of any request.
Within 10 days of any change in treatment conditions, Respondent is to provide written notice to the Office of Probation specifically setting forth the changes. With that written notice, Respondent is to provide an original, signed declaration from the physician acknowledging receipt of the written notice and agreement with its accuracy.
Respondent shall report compliance with the treatment conditions by statement under penalty of perjury in each written quarterly report to the Office of Probation required pursuant to the discipline in this matter. Respondent shall have his physician submit to the Office of Probation an original, signed declaration that Respondent is in compliance with the treatment conditions by each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 covered by this discipline. Respondent understands that the declarations and reports may be shared with the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and the State Bar Court.
Respondent understands that treatment conditions associated with other issues or entities may not satisfy treatment conditions required by this section.
If treatment providers are added or changed, Respondent must notify the Office of Probation of the name, address, and telephone number of all such treatment providers within ten days of the retaining of each one. Within 30 days of retaining each such treatment provider, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation an original signed declaration from the treatment provider stating that it received a complete copy of this stipulation. Also within 30 days if retaining each such treatment provider, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation an executed waiver of confidentiality as well as an original, signed declaration from the treatment providers acknowledging receipt of the waiver.
If the treating physician determines that that there has been a substantial change in Respondent’s condition, Respondent or the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel may file a motion for modification of this condition with the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court, pursuant to rule 5.300 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. The motion must be supported by a written statement from the physician by affidavit under penalty of perjury, in support of the proposed modification
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: CESAR A. LOPEZ, State Bar No. 195868
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-O-17923,12-O-18120
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. 12-0-17923 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. On March 17, 2011, Respondent entered into a Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition ("Stipulation") with the State Bar of California in case number 08-0-12071.
2. On March 29, 2011, the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court filed an Order approving the Stipulation and recommending the discipline set forth in the Stipulation to the California Supreme Court.
3. On July 22, 2011, the California Supreme Court filed an Order in case number S193069 (State Bar case number 08-O-12071) (the "Order") imposing the recommended discipline and suspending Respondent for one (1) year, stayed, and placing him on probation for two (2) years subject to the conditions of probation recommended by the Hearing Department in its March 29, 2011 Order regarding the Stipulation. Respondent received the Order.
4. The Order became effective on August 21, 2011.
5. As a condition of probation, Respondent was ordered to contact the Office of Probation within thirty (30) days from the effective date of the Order or by September 20, 2011, to schedule a meeting with the probation deputy. Respondent did not contact the assigned probation deputy by the due date of September 20, 2011 to schedule a meeting. Respondent contacted his assigned probation deputy on October 3, 2011 and met with his assigned probation deputy on October 4, 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. Respondent failed to timely submit quarterly reports. Respondent submitted the quarterly report due October 10, 2011 on October 11, 2011, the quarterly report due April 10, 2012 on April 11, 2012, the quarterly report due July 10, 2012 on July 16, 2012, the quarterly report due January 10, 2013 on January 11, 2013, and the quarterly report due April 10, 2013 on May 23, 2013.
7. As a condition of probation, Respondent was required to pay restitution to Santiago Nunez in the principal amount of $4,000, with interest accruing at the rate of 10% per annum from June 16, 2005, to be paid in full including interest within ninety (90) days after the effective date of the Order, or by November 19, 2011. Respondent failed to pay the required restitution by the due date of November 19, 2011.
8. The State Bar’s Client Security Fund ("CSF") made a payment of $4,000 to Santiago Nunez. On July 15, 2013, Respondent made a payment to CSF in the amount of $1,000 as partial reimbursement for the payment made by CSF to Santiago Nunez.
9. On July 15, 2013, Respondent made an interest payment to Santiago Nunez in the amount of $1,000.
10. As a condition of probation, Respondent was required to provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of State Bar Ethics School and passage of the test given at the end of that session, within one (1) year of the effective date of the Order, or by August 9, 2012. Respondent attended Ethics School on August 9, 2012 but did not provide proof of attendance and completion to the Office of Probation until October 10, 2012.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
11. By failing to contact the Office of Probation within thirty (30) days from the effective date of the Order, failing to timely submit five (5) quarterly reports to the Office of Probation, failing to make restitution to Santiago Nunez within ninety (90) days of the effective date of the Order, and failing to provide proof of attendance and completion of Ethics School within one (1) year of the effective date of the Order, Respondent failed to comply with conditions attached to his discipline in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(k).
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Prior Record of Discipline (Std. 1.2(b)(i)): In State Bar case number 04-O-12830, Respondent was disciplined after stipulating to four (4) counts of misconduct in a probate matter. Respondent failed to perform legal services competently by failing to perform any services of value in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m), failed to refund unearned fees in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2), and failed to release all the client papers in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1). The misconduct occurred between July 2002 and March 2004. Respondent received a private reproval with conditions effective March 31, 2005.
In State Bar case number 08-O-12071, Respondent was disciplined after stipulating to four (4) counts of misconduct in a criminal matter. Respondent failed to perform legal services competently by failing to perform any services of value and substitute in as counsel in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), failed to communicate significant developments to his client by failing to advise his client that he did not substitute in as counsel and would not pursue the appeal or any writ in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m), failed to refund unearned fees in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2), and failed to cooperate with the State Bar investigation in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i). The misconduct occurred between June 2005 and June 2008. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one year, stayed, with a two-year period of probation with conditions effective August 21, 2011.
Multiple Acts of Misconduct (Std. 1.2(b)(ii)): Respondent engaged in multiple acts of misconduct by failing to timely contact the Office of Probation, timely submit five (5) quarterly reports to the Office of Probation, timely make restitution payments to his client and timely provide proof of attendance and completion of Ethics School.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Personal Problems: In September 2009, Respondent’s father suffered a stroke that left him bedridden and unable to talk or move his right side. During the period of misconduct, Respondent’s father was diagnosed with stomach and colon cancer. Respondent’s father was placed under hospice care in Salinas, California. Respondent repeatedly traveled to Salinas to help care for his father, until his passing in September 2012. Respondent reported experiencing anxiety and depression during this period.
Beginning in July 2011, Respondent sought the care of Elias Rodriguez, M.D., who diagnosed Respondent as suffering from anxiety and adjustment disorder caused by his father’s deteriorating health condition. Among other things, Dr. Rodriguez prescribed medication to treat Respondent’s mental health issues and recommended that Respondent reduce his workload if possible. Respondent limited his intake of cases in order to travel to Salinas and help care for his father and based on his doctor’s recommendations. Because he was working less and accepting fewer cases, Respondent’s financial condition deteriorated. Respondent’s financial circumstances contributed to Respondent not being able to afford to pay restitution. Respondent remains under the care of Dr. Rodriguez.
Stressful emotional difficulties may be considered in mitigation. (Rose v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 646, 667.) By seeking treatment with Dr. Rodriguez, Respondent undertook a program of steady progress toward rehabilitation. Respondent’s rehabilitation does not have to be complete to qualify as mitigating. (In the Matter of John Deierling, (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 552, 560-561.) Respondent is entitled to mitigation as his emotional and financial difficulties occurred at the same time as his misconduct and interfered with his ability to timely comply with probation conditions.
Pretrial Stipulation: Respondent is entitled to mitigation for entering into a full stipulation with the Office of Chief Trial Counsel prior to trial, thereby avoiding the necessity of a trial and saving the State Bar Court time and resources. (Silva-Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 1071, 1079 [where mitigation 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." (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.)
Because Respondent has two prior impositions of discipline, the most severe sanction applicable to Respondent’s misconduct is found in standard 1.7(b). Standard 1.7(b) provides 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 two prior impositions of discipline as defined by Standard 1.2(f), the degree of discipline in the current proceeding shall be disbarment unless the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate.
However, "merely declaring that an attorney has two impositions of discipline, without more analysis, may not adequately justify disbarment in every case." (ln the Matter of Miller (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 131,136.) In Howard v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 215, 221-222, the Court opined that it "is not bound to follow the standards in a talismanic fashion. As the final and independent arbiter of attorney discipline, we are permitted to temper the letter of the law with considerations peculiar to the offense and the offender."
Upon consideration of the "offense and offender" in the instant case, it would be manifestly unjust to apply standard 1.7(b). Respondent’s most recent prior record of discipline, involving a single client matter, resulted in a one-year stayed suspension. Respondent’s first record of discipline, also involving only a single client matter, resulted in a private reproval. Although Respondent has been disciplined on two previous occasions, neither matter involved extensive misconduct. As a result, Respondent has never served a period of actual suspension. Both the nature and extent of Respondent’s prior record lack the severity to warrant disbarment. (In the Matter of Meyer (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 697, 704.) Further, Respondent’s personal and emotional difficulties mitigate the misconduct providing some explanation for why it occurred.
Given that the application of standard 1.7(b) would be unjust, standard 2.6(a) is the controlling standard. 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.
With respect to the gravity of the offense, this is not a case in which Respondent ignored his probation obligations pursuant to the Order. Although untimely, Respondent made efforts to satisfy the terms of his discipline. Respondent belatedly met with his probation deputy, belatedly submitted written quarterly reports, and timely attended Ethics School though he belatedly reported that fact to the Office of Probation. To rectify his misconduct after the notice of disciplinary charges was filed, Respondent made a partial interest payment to Santiago Nunez and a partial reimbursement payment to CSF. 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 one (1) year actual suspension and until restitution is paid serves the purpose of State Bar discipline.
Case law also supports the level of discipline. In Conroy v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 799, Conroy was publicly reproved and then failed to take and pass the MPRE within one year as required. Conroy defaulted in the matter before the Hearing Department, but participated in the Review Department and Supreme Court proceedings. The Court found Conroy’s subsequent passage of the MPRE was mitigating but was outweighed by aggravating factors. In aggravation, the Court considered Conroy’s prior discipline, Conroy’s default at the Heating Department level and Conroy’s lack of remorse for the present violation. The discipline imposed in light of the aggravation was a one-year suspension, stayed, a two-year probation and a sixty-day actual suspension. Similar to Conroy, Respondent belatedly complied with the conditions attached to his discipline. Unlike Conroy, Respondent participated in the disciplinary proceedings and has not displayed a lack of remorse during the proceedings. However, Respondent has two prior impositions of discipline, and the level of discipline in the underlying matter is more severe than the private reproval received by Conroy in his underlying matter. Therefore, a longer period of actual suspension is warranted in this case.
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-18120 Two Rule 3-310(E)
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of July 26, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are $5,418. 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-17923, 12-O-18120
In the Matter of: CESAR A. LOPEZ
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: CESAR A. LOPEZ
Date: 8/3/13
Respondent’s Counsel: Arthur L. Margolis
Date: 8/6/13
Deputy Trial Counsel: Lara Bairamian
Date: 8/7/13
ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 12-O-17923, 12-O-18120
In the Matter of: CESAR A. LOPEZ
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 5.58 (E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: 8/26/13
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 August 26, 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:
ARTHUR LEWIS MARGOLIS
MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS LLP
2000 RIVERSIDE DR.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90039
<<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 August 26, 2013.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court