State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

REPROVAL

Case Number(s): 13-C-12258

In the Matter of: ALLISON JOYCE NELSON, Bar # 111867, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Maria L. Ghobadi , Bar #242945,

Counsel for Respondent: Allison Joyce Nelson, Bar #111867,

Submitted to: Settlement Judge .

Filed: January 9, 2014.

  <<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 12, 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):

checked. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).

<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).

<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: .  (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.)  If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.

<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".

<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.

9.    The parties understand that:

<<not>> checked.  (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.

<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.

checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.

B.     Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.

<<not>> checked. (1) Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)].

<<not>> checked. (a)    State Bar Court case # of prior case .
<<not>> checked. (b)    Date prior discipline effective .
<<not>> checked. (c)    Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations:
<<not>> checked. (d)    Degree of prior discipline  
<<not>> checked. (e)    If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below or a separate attachment entitled “Prior Discipline. .

<<not>> checked. (2) Dishonesty:  Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct. 

<<not>> checked. (3) Trust Violation:  Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property.

<<not>> checked. (4) Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

<<not>> checked. (5) Indifference:  Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his or her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (6) Lack of Cooperation:  Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings. 

<<not>> checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:  Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.

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: Pretrial Stipulation. See Attachment at page 8.

No Prior Discipline. See Attachment at page 8.

D. Discipline:

<<not>> checked. (1)  Private reproval (check applicable conditions, if any, below):

<<not>> checked. (a) Approved by the Court prior to initiation of the State Bar Court proceedings (no public disclosure).
<<not>> checked. (b)Approved by the Court after initiation of the State Bar Court proceedings (public disclosure).

or

checked. (2)                Public reproval (Check applicable conditions, if any below)

E. Additional Conditions of Reproval:

checked. (1)            Respondent must comply with the conditions attached to the reproval for a period of .

checked. (2)            During the condition period attached to the reproval, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.

checked. (3)            Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

checked. (4)            Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with Respondent's assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.

checked. (5)            Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.
In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of the condition period.

<<not>> checked. (6) Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance. During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish such reports as may be requested, in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must cooperate fully with the monitor.

checked. (7)            Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has complied with the conditions attached to the reproval.

checked. (8)            Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the State Bar Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
<<not>> checked. No Ethics School recommended.  Reason: .

checked. (9)            Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office of Probation.

checked. (10) Respondent must provide proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation within one year of the effective date of the reproval.
<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended.  Reason: .

<<not>> checked. (11) The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:

<<not>> checked. Substance Abuse Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Law Office Management Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Medical Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Financial Conditions.

F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

Respondent recognizes that the facts and circumstances of the offenses of which she stands convicted suggest an alcohol problem that needs to be addressed before it affects Respondent’s legal practice. Respondent agrees to take the steps necessary to control the use of alcohol and/or drugs such that it will not affect Respondent’s law practice in the future. Respondent’s agreement to participate in an abstinence-based self-help group (as defined herein), as a condition of discipline, is part of Respondent’s efforts to address such concerns.

 As a condition of Respondent’s public reproval, and during the period of her reproval, Respondent must attend a minimum of two (2) meetings per month of any abstinence-based self-help group of Respondent’s choosing, including without limitation Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, LifeRing, S.M.A.R.T., S.O.S., etc. Other self-help maintenance programs are acceptable if they include a subculture to support recovery, including abstinence-based group meetings. (See O’Conner v. State Of California. (C.D. Calif. 1994) 855 F. Supp. 303 [no First Amendment violation where probationer given choice between AA and secular program.] ) Respondent is encouraged, but not required, to obtain a "sponsor" during the term of participation in these meetings.

The program called "Moderation Management" is not acceptable because it is not abstinence-based and allows the participant to continue consuming alcohol.

Respondent must contact the Office of Probation and obtain written approval for the program Respondent has selected prior to attending the first self-help group meeting. If Respondent wants to change groups, Respondent must first obtain the Office of Probation’s written approval prior to attending a meeting with the new self-help group.

Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance of the meetings set forth herein with each Quarterly Report submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent may not sign as the verifier of his or her own attendance.

Respondent is encouraged, but is not required, to participate in the Lawyers’ Assistance Program, to abstain from alcohol and illegal drugs, and to undergo random urinalysis testing to complement abstinence.

Attachment language (if any):.

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: ALLISON JOYCE NELSON, State Bar No. 111867

STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-C-12258

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 misconduct warranting discipline.

Case No. 13-C-12258 (Conviction Proceedings)

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING:

1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.

2. On January 9, 2013, a preliminary hearing was conducted and Respondent was held to answer on all counts.

3. On January 24, 2013, the Attorney General’s Office filed an information in the Riverside County Superior Court, case no. RIF1203928, charging Respondent with violations of Vehicle Code section 23152(a) [Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol], a misdemeanor with a special allegation pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23578 [Excessive Blood Alcohol Above. 15%]; Vehicle Code section 20002 [Hit and Run Causing Property Damage], a misdemeanor; and two violations of Penal Code section 273a(a) [Child Endangerment], a felony, committed on June 25, 2012.

4. On April 12, 2013, Respondent pled guilty to a single violation of Penal Code section 273a(a) [Child Endangerment], a felony, and Vehicle Code section 23152(a) [Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol], a misdemeanor with a special allegation pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23578 [Excessive Blood Alcohol Above 15%]. Based thereon, the court found Respondent guilty of those counts. All other charges were dismissed.

5. On April 12, 2013, the court placed Respondent on formal probation for a period of three years, and ordered, among other things, that Respondent be committed to the custody of the Riverside County Sherriff’s Department for a period of 179 days with 179 days of credit for time served, successfully complete the First Offender DUI program, enroll and complete child abuse classes, install an ignition interlock device on any vehicle she owns or operates, and not consume alcohol for the duration of her probation.

6. On July 22, 2013, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order placing Respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6102 and referred the matter to the Hearing Department for a hearing and decision to recommend the level of discipline to be imposed in the event that the Hearing Department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the offenses for which Respondent was convicted involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.

FACTS:

7. On the afternoon of June 25, 2012, Respondent dropped her two minor children off at the local community pool. While leaving, Respondent collided with another vehicle causing minor property damage and then fled the scene. A witness to the hit and run called law enforcement and then followed Respondent in her vehicle until officers arrived on scene.

8. Officers arrived at approximately 1:30 p.m. and made contact with Respondent, the witness, and the victim of the collision. During their initial investigation they noticed that Respondent displayed objective signs of intoxication. After conducting field sobriety tests Respondent was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol.

9. On June 25, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. a blood test was administered to determine Respondent’s blood alcohol level. The blood test revealed that Respondent’s blood alcohol level was .34%.

10. Prior to her first court appearance Respondent reimbursed the victim of the collision for all expenses related to the accident, voluntarily enrolled in alcohol related treatment, and currently works with an alcohol sponsor as a part of a twelve step recovery program to ensure her sobriety.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

11. The facts and circumstances surrounding the above-described violation did not involve moral turpitude but did involve other misconduct warranting discipline.

ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

No Prior Discipline: At the time that Respondent committed the misconduct described in this stipulation, she had practiced law for 29 years without any discipline and is entitled to mitigation. (See In the Matter of Riordan (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 41 [Attorney who practiced for 17 years with no prior discipline was given mitigation notwithstanding that the misconduct was serious].)

Pretrial Stipulation: Respondent has voluntarily entered into this pretrial stipulation with the State Bar of California Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and should receive mitigation credit for her early admission of culpability and consent to the imposition of discipline. (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.)

Standard 3.4 is the applicable Standard in cases such as this, where a respondent has been convicted of a crime that does not on its face or in the surrounding facts and circumstances involve moral turpitude. This standard states such misconduct "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." In reference to part B of the standards, the applicable standard is 2.10. Standard 2.10 states that culpability of an attorney of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code or of a wilful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in the standards shall result in 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.

In the present case, Respondent dropped her two minor children off at the local community pool and while leaving, collided with another vehicle before fleeing the scene. After a police investigation, it was determined that Respondent had been driving under the influence of alcohol. While Respondent’s misconduct is serious and the potential and actual harm to the community and her children were real, Respondent has fully reimbursed the victim of the collision for all expenses related to the collision, voluntarily enrolled in alcohol-related treatments, and is maintaining a sponsor to ensure her sobriety. Respondent’s post-misconduct behavior, combined with the mitigation  given to her for her 29 years of discipline-free practice and her willingness to acknowledge her misconduct by entering into a prefiling stipulation suggests that a public reproval will achieve the purposes of attorney discipline as defined by the Supreme Court and standard 1.3 and is consistent with standard 2.10.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of November 26, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,392.00. 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 the State Bar Ethics School (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 13-C-12258

In the Matter of: ALLISON JOYCE NELSON

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: ALLISON JOYCE NELSON

Date: 12/18/13

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Maria L. Ghobadi

Date: 12/19/13

REPROVAL ORDER

Case Number(s): 13-C-12258

In the Matter of: ALLISON JOYCE NELSON

Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any, is GRANTED without prejudice, and:

checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AND THE REPROVAL IMPOSED.

<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.

<<not>> checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department are vacated.

The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 5.58 (E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.

Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval may constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.

Signed by:

Judge of the State Bar Court: Donald F. Miles

Date: 1/9/14

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 January 9, 2014, 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:

ALLISON JOYCE NELSON

1100 CALLE ALMADEN

SAN JOSE, CA 95120

<<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:

 Maria L. Ghobadi, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 9, 2014.

Signed by:

Paul Barona

Case Administrator

State Bar Court