Case Number(s): 13-O-11596
In the Matter of: PATRICIA MARLENE BOAG, Bar # 174680, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Kelsey J. Blevings, Bar # 271271,
Counsel for Respondent: Arthur L. Margolis, Bar # 57703,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.
Filed: November 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 15, 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 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):
<<not>> checked. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: two billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.
Attachment language (if any):.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: PATRICIA MARLENE BOAG, State Bar No. 174680
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-O-11596
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she is culpable of violations of the specified statutes.
Case No. 13-O-11596 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. On November 26, 2012, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order suspending Respondent from the practice of law effective December 28, 2012, pending proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination. Respondent received and understood the order.
2. On January 28, 2013, Respondent’s client was due to appear in Orange County Superior Court for a pretrial hearing in a criminal matter. After waiting for two hours for her client to arrive, Respondent entered the courtroom and informed the court clerk of her inability to reach her client. The clerk then placed the court file on the bench and within a few moments the judge called the case. Knowing that she was suspended from the practice of law, Respondent appeared and informed the court that she was unable to reach her client. Respondent did not inform the court of her suspension during the hearing or at any time subsequent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
3. By appearing in court on behalf of a client at a time when she was suspended from the practice of law, Respondent held herself out as entitled to practice law and actually practiced law when she was not an active member of the State Bar in violation of Business and Professions Code, sections 6125 and 6126, and thereby in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
4. By making a court appearance on behalf of a client when she knew she was not entitled to practice law and by failing to disclose her status to the court, Respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Prior Record of Discipline (Std. 1.2(b)(i)): Effective September 30, 2011, Respondent was suspended for two years (stayed) and placed on disciplinary probation for three years, subject to certain conditions, including a 30-day actual suspension. Between 2002 and 2007, Respondent committed multiple acts of professional misconduct in five client matters, which included violations of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110 [failure to perform], rule 3-700(D)(1) [failure to return client property], and rule 3-700(D)(2) [failure to refund unearned fee].
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Good Character: Five attorneys and six former clients have submitted letters on Respondent’s behalf expressing high opinions of her honesty and praise of her legal ability and good reputation. This evidence is entitled to only limited weight in mitigation because none of the attorneys or former clients demonstrated an understanding of the full extent of Respondent’s misconduct. However, five of the former clients also submitted testimonials discussing how Respondent successfully represented them in immigration matters on a pro bono basis. (See In the Matter of Respondent K (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 335, 358-359 [limited weight accorded to evidence of good character where only one of the character witnesses demonstrated a full understanding of the attorney’s culpability]; see also In the Matter of DeMassa (Review Dept. 1991) Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 737, 751-752 [testimonials from clients regarding the attorney’s rendition of pro bono legal services on their behalf constituted mitigating evidence].)
Prefiling Stipulation: Respondent has voluntarily entered into this stipulation and should receive mitigative 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 is conduct. (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 sanctions applicable to Respondent’s professional misconduct are found in standards 2.3 and 2.6. The more severe of the applicable sanctions is found in standard 2.3, which states: culpability of an attorney of an act of moral turpitude, fraud, or intentional dishonesty toward a court, client or another person or of concealment of a material fact to a court, client or another person shall result in actual suspension or disbarment depending upon the extent to which the victim of the misconduct is harmed or misled and depending upon the magnitude of the act of misconduct and the degree to which it relates to the member’s acts within the practice of law.
Here, Respondent committed an act of moral turpitude by appearing in court on behalf of her client when she knew she was suspended and by failing to disclose her status to the court. Although this was an isolated act of misconduct, it relates directly to the practice of law and caused harm to the administration of justice. (See In the Matter of Trousil (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 229, 240 [harm to the public and administration of justice and risk of harm to the client is inherent in the unauthorized practice of law].) Further, Respondent’s prior record of discipline is a significant aggravating circumstance. Under standard 1.7(a), where an attorney has a prior record of discipline, the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding, subject to limited exceptions not applicable here.
In mitigation, by voluntarily entering into this stipulation Respondent has admitted her culpability at an early stage of the proceedings and consented to discipline. Additionally, five attorneys and six former clients have expressed high opinions of Respondent’s honesty and praise of her legal ability and good reputation. The weight of this evidence is diminished because none of the attorneys or former clients demonstrated a full understanding of Respondent’s misconduct. However, five of the former clients also noted that Respondent successfully represented them on a pro bono basis.
In consideration of the foregoing, a two-year suspension (stayed) and three years’ probation, subject to the conditions herein, including a 90-day actual suspension, is appropriate under the standards and will serve the purpose of attorney discipline as set forth in standard 1.3.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of October 15, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,925. 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 Bar Ethics School. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201 .)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 13-O-11596
In the Matter of: PATRICIA MARLENE BOAG
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: PATRICIA MARLENE BOAG
Date: 10/21/13
Respondent’s Counsel: Arthur L. Margolis
Date: 10/21/13
Deputy Trial Counsel: Kelsey J. Blevings
Date: 10/23/13
ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 13-O-11596
In the Matter of: PATRICIA MARLENE BOAG
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.
Page 5 E (6) – Remove checkmark from box.
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: 11/6/13
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 November 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:
ARTHUR LEWIS MARGOLIS
MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS LLP
2000 RIVERSIDE DR.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90039
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number . No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
KELSEY BLEVINGS, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on November 6, 2013.
Signed by:
Angela Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court