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): 13-C-11870
In the Matter of: TERRENCE JOHN HARDIN, Bar # 105767, A
Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Susan J. Jackson, Bar # 125042
Counsel for Respondent: Terrence John Hardin, Bar #105767
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
Filed: October 7, 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
3, 1982 .
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 14 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: two billing cycles following the effective date of the
Supreme Court order in this matter. (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.
<<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 10.
<<not>> checked. (8) No
aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances: Prior
DUI and Other Alcohol-Related Arrests and Convictions. See attachment, pages
10-11.
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. See attachment, page
11.
Pretrial Stipulation. See attachment, page 11.
D. Discipline:
checked. (1) Stayed Suspension:
checked. (a) Respondent must be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) 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 three (3) years, 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: .
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: .
checked. (2) Other Conditions:
Substance Abuse Conditions - Lawyer
Assistance Program ("LAP"]
1. During the probation period, Respondent
must continually participate in the Lawyer Assistance Program
("LAP"), and comply with all provisions and conditions of LAP,
including his Participation Plan During Evaluation, his Participation
Agreement/Plan, or any other Plan or Agreement or modification to any such Plan
or Agreement (the "Plan") which is in effect at any time during the
probation period.
2. Within thirty (30) days of commencing
participation in the Plan or any modifications thereof, Respondent must provide
a complete copy of the Plan and any modifications to the Office of Probation.
3, Withdrawal or termination from LAP,
whether voluntary or involuntary, is a violation of this condition.
4. Within ten (10) days of signing this
Stipulation, Respondent must provide a complete copy of this Stipulation to LAP
and the LAP Evaluation Committee, and obtain a letter from LAP acknowledging
its receipt of the Stipulation.
5. Within thirty (30) days of signing this
Stipulation, Respondent must provide a complete copy of this Stipulation to the
Office of Probation.
6. Within thirty (30) days of the effective
date of discipline, Respondent shall sign and return to the Office of Probation
the written waiver/authorization provided to him by the Office of Probation
authorizing LAP to provide all information and all documents in its possession
regarding Respondent to the Office of Probation, the Office of the Chief Trial
Counsel, and the State Bar Court, including but not limited to the terms and
conditions of the Plan, any subsequent modifications to the Plan as they may
occur during Respondent’s period of probation, and Respondent’s compliance or
failure to comply with the Plan (the "LAP Waiver").
7. Any revocation of the LAP Waiver by
Respondent shall constitute a violation of probation and Respondent must report
such revocation in writing to the Office of Probation within five (5) days of
revocation.
8. Respondent shall report in writing, and
under penalty of perjury, any incident of non-compliance with the terms and
conditions of the Plan to the Office of Probation within five (5) days of its
occurrence.
9. Respondent shall report his compliance
and/or non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the Plan in each written
quarterly and final report to the Office of Probation required by this
discipline, as set forth in the Additional Conditions of Probation, Section
E(4) at page 4 ("Section E(4)").
10. No later than 10 days before a quarterly
report or the final report is due as required by Section E(4), Respondent shall
provide LAP with written authorization instructing LAP to provide its own
separate written quarterly report regarding Respondent’s compliance and/or
non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the Plan to the Office of
Probation to be received by the Office of Probation no later than each January
10, April 10, July 10, and October 10, as well as a final LAP report that will
be due on the same date that Respondent’s final report is due as required by
Section E(4).
11. Participation in LAP shall be at
Respondent’s sole expense.
12. Failure to comply with these Substance
Abuse Conditions is a violation of Respondent’s probation.
Attachment language (if any): .
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: TERRENCE JOHN HARDIN, State Bar No. 105767
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-C-11870
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that the facts and
circumstances surrounding the offense for which he was convicted involved other
misconduct warranting discipline.
Case No. 13-C- 11870 (Conviction Proceedings)
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING:
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6102 and 6102 of the Business
and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On December 28, 2012, the Los Angeles County City Attorney filed a
criminal complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court ("LASC"),
Case Number 2VY05153 (the "Van Nuys case"), charging Respondent with
committing the following violations on December 13, 2012: one count of
violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) [driving under the influence of alcohol
and/or drugs], a misdemeanor (Count One); one count of violating Vehicle Code
section 14601.5(a) [driving when driving privilege is suspended or revoked
pursuant to Vehicle Code sections 13353, 13353.1, and 13353.2, with knowledge
of said suspension or revocation], a misdemeanor (Count Two); and one count of
violating Vehicle Code section 12500(a) [driving on a highway without a valid
driver’s license], a misdemeanor (Count Three).
3. Under Count One, it was further alleged that at the time of his arrest,
respondent willfully refused a peace officer’s request to submit to and to
complete a chemical test of his blood, breath, and urine to determine the
alcoholic and drug content of his blood, as required by Vehicle Code section
23612; and that Respondent had a prior conviction on June 30, 2010 in LASC Case
Number OPS00330 for violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(b) [driving with
blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher], committed on January 4, 2010.
4. On February 11, 2013, the court entered Respondent’s plea of nolo
contendere to the violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(a) [driving under the
influence of alcohol and/or drugs] in Count One; and to the violation of
Vehicle Code 14601.5(a) [driving when driving privilege is suspended or revoked
pursuant to Vehicle Code sections 13353, 13353.1, and 13353.2, with knowledge
of said suspension or revocation] in Count Two, and based thereon, found
Respondent guilty of those counts. In addition, Respondent admitted the prior
conviction on June 30, 2010 of violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(b),
committed on January 4, 2010, in LASC Case Number OPS00330.
5. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the court dismissed Count Three.
6. On February 11, 2013, the court suspended the imposition of sentence and
placed Respondent on summary probation for four years. The court ordered that
Respondent, among other things, serve 30 days in Los Angeles County jail,
surrender in court on February 22, 2013, attend an 18-month alcohol program,
and make restitution to Kristin Davis in an amount to be determined at a
restitution hearing,
7. On June 13, 2013, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an
order referring the matter to the Hearing Department for a hearing and decision
recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the Hearing
Department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense(s)
for which Respondent was convicted involved moral turpitude or other misconduct
warranting discipline.
FACTS:
8. On December 13, 2012, an officer of the Los Angeles Police Department,
working in uniform and driving a marked black and white police car at about
6:30 p.m., was driving northbound on Laurel Canyon Blvd. He noticed that the
cars ahead of him had to swerve and change lanes to avoid hitting a black
Mercedes that was facing northwest on the southbound Laurel left tum lane and
which he later learned was being driven by Respondent. The officer also saw a tan
SUV with damage to the front driver’s side and believed that Respondent’s car
had hit it and caused the damage. Kristina Davis, the driver of the tan SUV,
later confirmed that it was Respondent’s car that hit her car and then left the
scene of the accident without stopping to exchange information with her.
9. The officer followed Respondent who did not notice the flashing lights
or the siren of the police car and did not stop his car until about 600 feet
from the site of the accident. When the officer approached Respondent’s car, he
noticed a strong odor of alcohol. He also observed that Respondent’s eyes were
bloodshot and watery, he could not stand up without assistance, and his speech
was slurred and slowed. Respondent refused to take a breath test at the scene
of the detention and would not answer any questions. Due to his observation of
Respondent, the officer concluded that Respondent was under the influence of an
intoxicant and was unable to safely operate a motor vehicle. He placed
Respondent under arrest and took him to the Van Nuys police station for
booking. At the station, Respondent first refused to take a blood or breath
test, then agreed to take the breath test, but when asked to provide a breath
sample, again refused.
10. When Respondent’s car was inspected, an open bottle of Vodka was found.
After Respondent was booked, the officer spoke to Ms. Davis, who stated that
while she was stopped waiting for the light to change, Respondent’s car
collided with the front of her car and then Respondent left the scene of the
accident. Ms. Davis stated that in fear for her safety and the safety of her
son, who had been in her car, she parked, waited for the police to arrive, and
gave her statement.
11. The officer described Respondent as extremely uncooperative during the
investigation and the booking process. At one point, Respondent asked the
officer why he was under arrest, but claimed he did not recall a collision with
another car.
12. On December 13, 2012, the date of Respondent’s arrest, Respondent was
still on probation in LASC Case Number OPS00330.
13. Respondent had been ordered to surrender in court on February 22, 2013,
but failed to appear in court. As a result, a bench warrant was issued but then
held. On April 8, 2013, Respondent surrendered directly to the Los Angeles
County Jail Inmate Reception Center, instead of the court.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
14. The facts and circumstances surrounding the violation(s) that led to
Respondent’s February 11, 2013 convictions did not involve moral turpitude but
did involve other misconduct warranting discipline.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Multiple Acts of Misconduct (Std. 1.2(b)(ii)): Respondent engaged in
multiple acts of wrongdoing. He drove while intoxicated after his driving
privilege had been suspended or revoked, which was a violation of his probation
in LASC Case Number OPS00330, as well as a violation of the law. After his car
collided with Ms. Davis’s car, he failed to stop and exchange information with
her, and instead left the scene of the accident and would not have stopped had
the police not required him to stop. Prior DUI and other Alcohol-Related
Arrests and Convictions:
People v. Hardin, LASC, Case Number OPS00330 (Pasadena)
On January 4, 2010, the Pasadena Police Department received a call reporting
that a man was passed out inside a black Porsche with the engine running. An
officer was dispatched to the scene and approached the car. After finding
Respondent unconscious in the driver’s seat, the officer turned off the engine
and shook Respondent to wake him up. The officer administered a field sobriety
test and a breath test, determined that Respondent was driving while
intoxicated and arrested him for that charge. Respondent was later charged with
violations of Vehicle Code sections 23152(a) and (b). On June 30, 2010,
Respondent pled nolo contendere to violating Vehicle Code section 23152(b)
[driving with blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher]. The court
suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Respondent on summary probation
for three years with conditions, including the condition that he not drive with
any measurable or detectable amount of alcohol in his system.
People v. Hardin, lnyo County Superior Court, Case Number MICRM-11-51970
(Inyo)
On March 7, 2011, Respondent was arrested in Independence, California at a
Carl’s Jr. drive-through for violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) and (b)
and 23222(a) [open container]. On April 12, 2011, Respondent was charged with
violating Penal Code section 647(0 (public intoxication) in connection with the
March 7, 2011 arrest, plead nolo contendere to and was convicted of that
charge, was sentenced on the plea and ordered to pay $490 in fines and fees.
At the time of his arrest in the Inyo matter, Respondent was still on
probation in the Pasadena case and by consuming alcohol while driving was in
violation of that probation.
People v. Hardin, LASC, Case Number 2GN03137 (Glendale)
On August 7, 2012 at 3:45 a.m., an officer of the Glendale Police
Department, while on uniformed patrol in a marked police vehicle, noticed a car
driving without its tail lights on. He stopped the car and while questioning
the driver, who was Respondent, he noticed the odor of alcohol and observed
that Respondent’s eyes were bloodshot and watery. Respondent told the officer
that he was on his way home from his Pasadena office and was looking for a gas
station but the stations he passed were all closed. Based on the time of day
and the direction that Respondent was driving, the officer believed Respondent
was not telling the truth and continued to question Respondent, who denied that
he had been drinking alcohol. The officer performed a field sobriety test,
including two preliminary breath tests that indicated BAC (Blood Alcohol
Concentration) results of 0.186% and 0.182%, and concluded that Respondent was
impaired and under the influence of alcohol.
The officer transported Respondent to the Glendale City Jail. Respondent
first agreed to a breath test, then said he wanted a blood test instead. As a
result, the officer drove Respondent to the hospital. On the way there,
Respondent said he needed heart medication. The officer needed help to get
Respondent out of the car at the hospital since he would not cooperate. In the
hospital, Respondent refused to follow the directions of the staff, yelled and
cursed at them, and screamed at a nurse trying to insert an IV. Eventually
Respondent’s blood was drawn to evaluate his heart condition and test for
alcohol and drugs. When a nurse tried to insert a catheter (which Respondent
had granted permission to insert) to draw urine to evaluate Respondent’s heart
condition, Respondent screamed profanities, thrashed violently, and kicked and
grabbed at the nurses. He threatened hospital staff and the officers who tried
to restrain him with legal action because he is an attorney. Respondent was
released with a citation due to his asserted medical condition so that he could
take his heart medication.
On September 15, 2012, Respondent was charged with violations of Vehicle
Code section 23152 (a) and (b). (On February 11, 2013, while this case was
pending, Respondent was convicted in the Van Nuys case.)
On February 15, 2013, Respondent pled nolo contendere to violations of
Vehicle Code section 23152(a) and (b), admitted the prior convictions in Pasadena
and Van Nuys, and was placed on summary probation for 60 months with
conditions, including 30 days in county jail to run concurrent with jail time
in Case No. OPS00330, pay fines and fees to the court; enroll, participate in,
and successfully complete a 30-month licensed multiple-offender alcohol and
other drug education and counseling program; enroll in and complete the
Hospital and Morgue program; complete the victim impact program of Mothers
Against Drunk Driving; and operate a car only if it has an installed ignition
interlock device.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Additional Mitigating Circumstances:
No Prior Discipline: Although Respondent’s misconduct is serious, he has no
prior record of discipline in 28 years of practice prior to the first act of
misconduct herein and is entitled to some mitigation. ( In the Matter of
Riordan (Review Dept. 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. 13.)
Pretrial Stipulation: Respondent is entitled to mitigation for entering
into this stipulated settlement without the need of a trial to resolve this
matter (Silva-Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 1071, 1079 [where mitigative
credit was given for entering into a stipulation as to facts and culpability].)
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provide a
"process of fixing discipline" pursuant to a set of written
principles to "better discharge the purposes of attorney discipline as
announced by the Supreme Court." (Rules Proc. of State Bar, tit. IV, Stds.
for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, Introduction (all further references
to standards are to this source).) The primary purposes of disciplinary
proceedings and of the sanctions imposed are "the protection of the
public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high
professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence
in the legal profession." (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.)
Respondent’s offenses do not involve moral turpitude, but do involve other
misconduct warranting discipline.
Standard 3.4 provides that "[f]inal conviction of a member of a crime
which does not involve moral turpitude inherently or in the facts and
circumstances surrounding the crime’s commission but which does involve other
misconduct warranting discipline shall result in a sanction as prescribed under
part B of these standards appropriate to the nature and extent of the
misconduct found to have been committed by the member." Under Part B,
Standard 2.10 is most applicable to Respondent’s misconduct. Standard 2.10
states that the appropriate level of discipline for such misconduct is a
"reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or the
harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing
discipline set forth in standard 1.3."
To determine the appropriate level of discipline, consideration must also
be given to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. (Std 1.6(b).) In
mitigation, Respondent has no prior record of discipline since being admitted
to practice law in 1982 and is entering into this stipulation. In aggravation,
Respondent has three convictions for offenses involving alcohol and driving,
and one conviction for public intoxication at a Carl’s Jr. drive-through, with
the offense dates spanning the period from January 2010 to December 2012.
Further, Respondent committed the second, third and fourth offense while still
on probation for the first offense. With respect to the Van Nuys offense, the
offense involving the instant conviction matter, Respondent collided with
another car, failed to stop and exchange information with the driver of the
other car, and instead left the scene of the collision and would not have
stopped had the police not required him to stop. Each offense is serious
because it demonstrates a disregard for the law and safety of others, although
the misconduct does not involve the practice of law.
In In re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal.3d 487, the Supreme Court found a public
reproval appropriate for an attorney who committed a DUI offense while on
probation for a previous DUI. In this case, Respondent has three DUI
convictions and one conviction for public intoxication, another alcohol-related
offense. In addition, the Van Nuys offense involved a collision involving
property damage after which Respondent continued driving. Respondent’s
discipline should be greater than the discipline in Kelley, while taking into
account his many years of practice without discipline. Respondent’s behavior
evidences an alcohol problem and the attorney discipline system does not have
to wait until it begins to affect his practice of law. (In re Kelly, supra, 32
Cal. 3d at 495-496.)
Under these circumstances, the appropriate disposition is a one-year
suspension, stayed, and three years’ probation, with conditions including
substance abuse conditions.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has
informed respondent that as of September 20, 2013, the prosecution costs in
this matter are $2,392, plus approximately $300 for litigation expenses for
which billing statement have not yet been received by the State Bar. Respondent
further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief
from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to
the cost of further proceedings.
EXCLUSION FROM MCLE CREDIT
Pursuant to rule 3201, Respondent may not receive MCLE credit for
completion of State Bar Ethics School. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 13-C-11870
In the Matter of: Terrence John Hardin
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: Terrence John Hardin
Date: 9/24/13
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Susan J. Jackson
Date: 9/24/13
STAYED SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 13-C-11870
In the Matter of: TERRENCE JOHN HARDIN
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. Platel
Date: 10/3/13
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 October 7,
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:
TERRENCE JOHN HARDIN
301 E COLORADO BLVD #400
PASADENA, CA 91101
TERRENCE JOHN HARDIN
301 E. COLORADO BLVD., SUITE 430
PASADENA, CA 91101
<<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:
Susan J. Jackson, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los
Angeles, California, on October 7, 2013.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court