Case Number(s): 13-H-10546
In the Matter of: CHRISTIAN RHADAMES JUAREZ, Bar # 175611, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Maria Ghobadi, Bar #242945,
Counsel for Respondent: Christian Rhadames Juarez , Bar #175611,
Submitted to: Assigned Judge.
Filed: August 6, 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 December 30, 1994.
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 9 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. 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.
<<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.
Attachment language (if any):
FINANCIAL CONDITIONS
Case Number(s): 13-H-10546
In the Matter of: CHRISTIAN RHADAMES JUAREZ
a. Restitution
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund (“CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
1. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than .
b. Installment Restitution Payments
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
1. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
<<not>> checked. 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.
c. Client Funds Certificate
<<not>> checked.
1. If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated as a “Trust Account” or “Clients’ Funds Account”;
b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:
i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.
c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
2. If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate described above.
3. The requirements of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct.
d. Client Trust Accounting School
checked. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTIAN RHADAMES JUAREZ, State Bar No. 175611
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-H-10546
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. 13-H-10546 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. On October 19, 2011, Respondent entered into a Stipulation Re Facts and Conclusions of Law ("Stipulation") with the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California in case number 11-O-12672. In the Stipulation, Respondent agreed to comply with certain reproval conditions among other things for the period of one year.
2. On November 1, 2011, the State Bar Court filed an order approving the Stipulation and imposing a private reproval with conditions as set forth in the Stipulation ("Reproval Order"). Respondent received due notice of the Reproval Order. On November 22, 2011, the Reproval Order became effective.
3. Pursuant to the Reproval Order, Respondent was ordered to comply with the following conditions of reproval, among others:
a) Submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation not later than January 10, 2012, April 10, 2012, July 10, 2012, and October 10, 2012;
b) Provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE") not later than November 22, 2012;
c) Provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of Ethics School and passage of the test given at the end of that session not later than November 22, 2012;
d) Provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of Client Trust Accounting School and passage of the test given at the end of that session not later than November 22, 2012;
4. Respondent untimely submitted on May 17, 2012, to the Office of Probation his quarterly report due April 10, 2012, and at no time did Respondent submit the written quarterly report due October 10, 2012.
5. At no time did Respondent submit to the Office of Probation proof of passage of the MPRE.
6. At no time did Respondent submit to the Office of Probation proof of attendance at a session of Ethics School.
7. At no time did Respondent submit to the Office of Probation proof of attendance at a session of Client Trust Accounting School.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
8. By failing to timely submit quarterly reports to the Office of Probation, by failing to submit proof of attendance at a session of Ethics School, by failing to submit proof of attendance at a session of Client Trust Accounting School, and by failing to submit proof of passage of the MPRE, Respondent failed to comply with the conditions attached to the private reproval in willful violation of rule 1-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Prior Record of Discipline (Std. 1.2(b)(i)): Respondent entered into a stipulation with the State Bar of California Office of the Chief Trial Counsel in State Bar case no. 11-O-12672. Respondent received a private reproval which became effective on November 22, 2011, with conditions for one year for violations of Business and Professions Code section 6068(j) (failure to update membership records information from July 12, 2011 to October 25,2011) and rule 4-100(B)(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (failure to provide an accounting to Respondent’s former client from November 3, 2010 to August 25, 2011).
Multiple Acts of Misconduct (Std. 1.2(b)(ii)): Respondent’s present misconduct involves the failure to timely submit his April 2012 quarterly report, failure to submit his October 2012 quarterly report, failure to submit proof of attendance at a session of Ethics School, failure to submit proof of attendance at a session of Client Trust Accounting School, and the failure to submit proof of passage of the MPRE. Respondent engaged in multiple acts of misconduct by violating numerous conditions of his reproval.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Pretrial Stipulation: On July 19, 2013, Respondent entered into a pretrial stipulation with the State Bar Of California Office of the Chief Trial Counsel. (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].)
Family Problems: On December 21, 2012, after a year and a half legal battle, Respondent ended his 15 year marriage. Respondent gained physical custody of his two young children, 11 and 12 years old. In order to care for his children full time, Respondent was forced to relocate his office to his home address. Due to Respondent’s new role as the primary provider and caregiver for his two young children combined with the disruption from his office move, Respondent was overwhelmed, which contributed to his failure to meet his reproval obligations. (Rose v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 646, 667 [Marital and other stressful emotional difficulties may be considered in mitigation].)
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.)
The sanction applicable to Respondent’s misconduct is found in standard 2.9, which provides that culpability of a member of a willful violation of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct, shall result in suspension.
Standard 1.7(a) further provides that if a member has a record of one prior discipline, the degree of discipline in the current proceeding shall be greater than the discipline imposed in the prior proceeding, subject to an exception not applicable here.
In evaluating Respondent’s misconduct and assessing the level of discipline, the standards require suspension. Based on the fact Respondent has a prior record of discipline, the standards also require progressive discipline. Although incomplete and untimely, Respondent made efforts to satisfy some of the terms of his reproval. Respondent was also in the middle of a contentious divorce and gained custody of his two young children. Respondent’s new role as primary caregiver to his two children forced him to move his office location to his home address. These disruptions to Respondent’s personal life contributed to his failure to fully comply with his reproval conditions. Respondent has since recognized and taken responsibility for his failure to complete the conditions of his reproval and agreed to enter into a pretrial stipulation with the Office of Chief Trial Counsel. Guided by the applicable standards and in consideration of the surrounding circumstances, the purpose of attorney discipline will be served by the imposition of a one year suspension, stayed, two years of probation and 60 days actual suspension.
The stipulated level of discipline is also supported by case law. In Conroy v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 799, the attorney was publicly reproved and then failed to take and pass the MPRE within one year as required. The attorney defaulted in the matter before the Hearing Department, but participated in the Review Department and Supreme Court proceedings. The court found the attorney’s subsequent passage of the MPRE was mitigating but was outweighed by aggravating factors. The Supreme Court found that not complying with the terms of the reproval were not merely a technicality and instead evidenced a lack of understanding of prior misconduct and the importance of the State Bar’s regulatory function. The court imposed a one-year suspension, stayed, two years of probation and a sixty-day actual suspension.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of July 16, 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 State Bar Ethics School, and State Bar Client Trust Accounting School. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201 .)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 13-H-10546
In the Matter of: CHRISTIAN RHADAMES JUAREZ
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: Christian R. Juarez
Date: 7/19/13
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Maria L. Ghobadi
Date: 7/19/13
ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 13-H-10546
In the Matter of: CHRISTIAN RHADAMES JUAREZ
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
At p. 1, item A.(3), delete "9" and insert "13."
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 5.58 (E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Donald F. Miles
Date: 8/6/13
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 6, 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:
CHRISTIAN R. JUAREZ
1506 DALMATIA DR.
SAN PEDRO, CA 90732
<<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 GHOBADI, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on August 6, 2013.
Signed by:
Angela Carpenter
State Bar Court
State Bar Court