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-O-10353
In the Matter of: SUSAN PATRICIA WIDULE, Bar # 166530, A Member
of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Heather E. Abelson, Bar #243691
Counsel for Respondent: Samuel C. Bellicini, Bar #152191
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.
Filed: July 8, 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
9, 1993.
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 12 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.
<<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.
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.
checked. (5) Indifference:
Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for
the consequences of his or her misconduct. See "Facts Supporting
Aggravating Circumstances" in the attachment hereto at page 9.
<<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 "Facts Supporting
Aggravating Circumstances" in the attachment hereto at page 9.
<<not>> checked. (8) No
aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances: .
C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting
mitigating circumstances are required.
<<not>> checked. (1) No Prior
Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of
practice coupled with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.
<<not>> checked. (2) No Harm:
Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the
misconduct.
<<not>> checked. (3) Candor/Cooperation:
Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims of
his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and
proceedings.
<<not>> checked. (4) Remorse:
Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse
and recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone
for any consequences of his/her misconduct.
<<not>> checked. (5) Restitution:
Respondent paid $ on in restitution to without the threat or force of
disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.
<<not>> checked. (6) Delay:
These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is not
attributable to Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.
<<not>> checked. (7) Good
Faith: Respondent acted in good faith.
<<not>> checked. (8) Emotional/Physical
Difficulties: At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional
misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical
disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible
for the misconduct. The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of
any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and
Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.
<<not>> checked. (9) Severe
Financial Stress: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from
severe financial stress which resulted from circumstances not reasonably
foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and which were directly
responsible for the misconduct.
<<not>> checked. (10) Family
Problems: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme
difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than emotional or
physical in nature.
<<not>> checked. (11) Good
Character: Respondent's good character is attested to by a wide range of
references in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent
of his/her misconduct.
<<not>> checked. (12) Rehabilitation:
Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred
followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.
<<not>> checked. (13) No
mitigating circumstances are involved.
Additional mitigating circumstances: See
"Additional Facts Re Mitigating Circumstances" in the attachment
hereto at page 9.
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 one (1) year, which will commence
upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter. (See rule 9.18,
California Rules of Court.)
E. Additional Conditions of Probation:
checked. (1) During the probation
period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and
Rules of Professional Conduct.
checked. (2) Within ten (10) days
of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the
State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California
("Office of Probation"), all changes of information, including
current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar
purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.
checked. (3) Within thirty (30)
days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office
of Probation and schedule a meeting with Respondent's assigned probation deputy
to discuss these terms and conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the
Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the probation deputy either
in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must
promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.
checked. (4) Respondent must
submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10
of the period of probation. Under penalty
of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied with the
State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of
probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state
whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar
Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the
first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be submitted on
the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.
In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same
information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the
period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.
<<not>> checked. (5) Respondent
must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms
and conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner
and schedule of compliance. During the period of probation, Respondent must
furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested, in addition to the
quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation.
Respondent must cooperate fully with the probation monitor.
checked. (6) Subject to assertion
of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully
any inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned
under these conditions which are directed to Respondent personally or in
writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has complied with the
probation conditions.
checked. (7) Within one (1) year
of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the
Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics
School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
<<not>> checked. No Ethics School recommended. Reason: .
<<not>> checked. (8) Respondent
must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal
matter and must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any
quarterly report to be filed with the Office of Probation.
<<not>> checked. (9) The
following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:
<<not>>
checked. Substance Abuse Conditions.
<<not>>
checked. Law Office Management Conditions.
<<not>>
checked. Medical Conditions.
<<not>>
checked. Financial Conditions.
F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:
checked. (1) Multistate
Professional Responsibility Examination: Respondent must provide proof of
passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination
("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners,
to the Office of Probation within one year. Failure to pass the MPRE results
in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule
9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) & (E), Rules of
Procedure.
<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended. Reason: .
<<not>> checked. (2) Other
Conditions: .
Attachment language (if any): .
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: SUSAN PATRICIA WIDULE, State Bar No. 166530
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-O-10353
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she
is-culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of
Professional Conduct.
FACTS:
1. On August 31, 2012, Mary L. Compton ("Compton") hired
Respondent to assist in a real estate transfer and to update her will and
living trust.
2. That same day, Compton paid Respondent $700 in advanced attorney’s fees.
3. Thereafter, Respondent failed to perform any work on behalf of Compton
and failed to communicate with Compton.
4. Respondent provided no services of value on behalf of Compton.
Respondent did not earn any portion of the advanced fees paid by Compton.
5. On September 15, 2012, Compton called Respondent’s office and left a
message for Respondent that she wanted to sign any necessary documents soon
because she was returning to Canada, where she lives for most of the year..
Respondent received Compton’s message, but did not return Compton’s call.
6. On September 19, 2012, Compton returned to Canada without having heard
from Respondent or signing any documentation.
7. In September 2012, after returning to Canada, Compton sent original
documents related to her original living trust, as well as a copy of the deed
to the property that she wanted transferred, to Respondent.
8. On November 6, 2012, Frederick Dean ("Dean"), Compton’s
son-in-law, went to Respondent’s office on behalf of Compton to speak to
Respondent. Respondent was not at her office. Therefore, Dean left a letter in
Respondent’s mailbox asking Respondent to contact Compton. Respondent received
the letter but failed to contact Compton or otherwise respond to the letter.
9. On November 13, 2012, Dean sent an email to Respondent Stating that he
had been unable to get in touch with Respondent. Dean also requested that
Respondent either perform the services for which she had been paid to do, or
refund all fees paid by Compton and return Compton’s documents to her.
Respondent received the email shortly after it was sent, but did not respond.
With this email and Respondent’s failure to respond, Respondent’s services were
constructively terminated.
10. Nonetheless, in November 2012, Dean spoke with Patricia Ann Scott
("Scott"), an attorney who shares office space with Respondent, and
told her that neither he nor Compton had been able to get in touch with
Respondent. Scott left two voicemail messages and one email for Respondent
asking that she contact Compton or Dean. On November 26, 2012, Respondent’s
assistant sent an email to Scott stating that she had given both voicemail
messages to Respondent. Respondent received the email and voicemail messages,
yet failed to contact Scott, Dean or Compton in response to Scott’s voicemail
messages or email.
11. On November 29, 2012, Compton filed a complaint against Respondent with
the State Bar ("Compton complaint").
12. On February 6, 2013, and again on February 28, 2013, a State Bar
Investigator sent two letters to Respondent regarding the Compton complaint
requesting a written response from Respondent. Respondent received the letters,
but failed to provide a substantive written response to either of these
letters. Instead, Respondent sent a fax to a State Bar Complaint Analyst
stating that she was attempting to "work matter out" with Compton.
13. In March 2013, Respondent refunded the $700.00 in advanced attorney’s
fees to Compton.
14. In May 2013, Respondent returned Compton’s entire client file to
Compton.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
15. By failing to perform any work on behalf of Compton, Respondent
intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with
competence, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule
3-110(A).
16. By failing to refund $700.00 in unearned fees to Compton, until four
months after her request and the termination of Respondent’s employment, Respondent
failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that had not been
earned, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
17. By failing to respond to Compton’s inquiries, or otherwise contact
Compton after August 31, 2012, Respondent failed to respond promptly to
reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which Respondent had
agreed to provide legal services, in wilful violation of Business and
Professions Code, section 6068(m).
18. By failing to promptly return the client file to Compton until six
months after her services were terminated and Compton requested the file,
Respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the
client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property, in
wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
19. By not providing a substantive written response to the State Bar
Investigator’s February 6 and February 28, 2013 letters regarding the
allegations in the Compton complaint, or otherwise cooperate in the
investigation of the Compton complaint, Respondent failed to Cooperate in a
disciplinary investigation, in wilful violation of Business and Professions
Code, section 60650).
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Indifference (Std. 1.2(b)(v)): Respondent took no steps to atone for the
consequences of her misconduct prior to her client filing a complaint with the
State Bar. Respondent’s failure to take remedial steps on behalf of her client
constitutes an aggravating factor pursuant to Standard 1.2(v). (ln the Matter
of Brockaway (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Rptr. 944, 959.)
Multiple Acts of Misconduct (Std. 1.2(b)(ii)): Respondent violated Rules of
Professional Conduct, rules 3-110(A), 3-700(19)(1) and 3-700(D)(2), and
Business and Professions Code, sections 6068(m) and 6068(i). Respondent’s
multiple acts of misconduct constitute an aggravating factor pursuant to
Standard 1.2(b)(ii).
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Pre-filing Stipulation: Although Respondent failed to participate in the
State Bar investigation, she has accepted responsibility for this misconduct,
and cooperated in resolving this matter without causing the State Bar to expend
any further resources to prosecute this matter. Therefore, Respondent is
entitled to some mitigation for entering into a full stipulation with the
Office of Chief Trial Counsel prior to filing an NDC, thereby saving State Bar
Court time and resources. (ln the Matter of Downey (Review Dept. 2009) 5 Cal.
State Bar Ct. Rptr. 151,156; In the Matter of Van Sickle (Review Dept. 2006) 4
Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 993-994.) The mitigation afforded to Respondent
is tempered by Respondent’s prior failure to Cooperate in the State Bar’s
investigation.
No Prior Discipline: Although Respondent’s misconduct is serious, she is
entitled to substantial mitigation for having practiced law for approximately
20 years without discipline. (In the Matter of Riordan (Review Dept. 2007) 5
Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 41, 49.)
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." (ln re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 205; std.
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.)
Here, Respondent committed five acts of professional misconduct. Standard
1.6 (a) requires that where a respondent commits two or more acts of misconduct,
and different sanctions are prescribed by the standards that apply to those
acts, the sanction imposed shall be the more or most severe Prescribed in the
applicable standards. The most severe Sanction is Standard 2.6(a) which
requires that a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068
"shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the
offense or harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purpose of
imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3." Pursuant to Standard 1.3,
the purposes for imposing discipline are to essentially protect the public, the
courts and the legal profession, to maintain high professional standards by
attorneys, and to preserve the public confidence in the legal profession.
Pursuant to Standard 2.6, the appropriate level of discipline is dependent
on the gravity of a respondent’s misconduct, and the gravity of the harm
suffered by the respondent’s client: Here, the gravity of Respondent’s
misconduct, as well the gravity of harm suffered by her client, warrant
imposition of discipline at the low end of the Standard, a stayed suspension.
This ease involves a single client who was not irreversibly or substantially
harmed because Respondent eventually refunded the $700 in advanced fees, and
returned the client file to Compton. Respondent’s misconduct is aggravated by
multiple acts of misconduct and indifference. Indifference shows a lack of
recognition of the seriousness of one’s misconduct, which indicates a potential
for future misconduct. Therefore, a suspension of some kind is warranted.
However, Respondent’s indifference is mitigated by the fact that she has 20
years of practice with no discipline, she recognized the seriousness of her
misconduct by refunding the advanced fees and returning the client file
eventually, and she entered into a pretrial stipulation with the State Bar.
Because Respondent’s multiple acts of misconduct and indifference are in
contrast to her 20 years of practice with no discipline, as well as the fact
that Respondent took affirmative steps to resolve this matter, a one year
stayed suspension is appropriate pursuant to Standard 2.6.
Bach v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1201, also supports a one year stayed
suspension. In Bach, the California Supreme Court ordered respondent Bach
actually suspended from the practice of law for thirty days, for failing to
perform legal services competently for a single client, failing to communicate with
his client, withdrawing from representation without client consent or court
approval, failing to refund unearned fees, and failing to cooperate in the
State Bar’s investigation. Id. at 1205. The Court noted that respondent had 26
years of prior practice with no discipline, ld. at 1204, 1208. The Court also
found that respondent’s refusal to accept any responsibility for the harm
caused to his client, was an aggravating factor, ld. at 1209.
Here, Respondent’s misconduct is similar to, yet less egregious than the
misconduct at issue in Bach. Respondent, unlike Bach, did eventually return her
client’s fee, and the fee at issue in Bach was substantially higher than the
fee at issue here. Further, Respondent has demonstrated a willingness to accept
responsibility for her misconduct by returning the $700 advanced fee, as well
as the client file, after the State Bar’s investigation commenced, as well as a
willingness to enter into a pre-trial stipulation, unlike respondent Bach who
refused to accept any responsibility for his misconduct through trial.
Balancing all of the appropriate factors, a one year stayed suspension is
consistent with the Standards and Bach, and achieves the purposes of discipline
as expressed in Standard 1.3.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has
informed respondent that as of June 15, 2013, the prosecution costs in this
matter are $2,865.00. 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. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 13-O-10353
In the Matter of: SUSAN PATRICIA WIDULE
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: Susan Patricia Widule
Date: 6/26/13
Respondent’s Counsel: Samuel C. Bellicini
Date: 6/28/13
Deputy Trial Counsel: Heather E. Abelson
Date: 7/1/13
STAYED SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 13-O-10353
In the Matter of: SUSAN PATRICIA WIDULE
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.
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: Lucy Armendariz
Date: July 8, 2013
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 San Francisco, on July 8,
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 , California, addressed as follows:
SAMUEL C. BELLICINI
FISHKIN & SLATTER, LLP
1575 TREAT BLVD, STE. 215
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94598
<<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:
HEATHER ABELSON, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San
Francisco, California, on July 8, 2013.
Signed by:
Mazie Yip
Case Administrator
State Bar Court