Case Number(s): 13-O-11661, 13-O-11738
In the Matter of: AALOK SIKAND, Bar # 248165, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Elizabeth Stine, Bar # 256839,
Counsel for Respondent: Aalok Sikand, Bar # 248165,
Submitted to: Assigned Judge.
Filed: December 18, 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 1, 2006.
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. 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):.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: AALOK SIKAND, State Bar No. 248165
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-O-11661 & 13-O-11738
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-O-11661 (Complainant: Anne Haywood)
FACTS:
1. Respondent is a California licensed attorney and is not admitted to practice law in any other state.
2. Virginia requires a person to be an active member of the Virginia State Bar in order to practice law or offer legal services in that state. (Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 5.5).
3. In May 2012, Anne Haywood received a mailer at her home in Virginia advertising and offering Respondent’s legal services related to mortgage loan modification services for her Virginia home.
4. Ms. Haywood responded to the mailer by telephone and spoke with Robert Newton, a nonattorney law office staff person of Financial Research Group (FRG), who informed her that Silver Law Center, Respondent’s law firm, could represent and assist her with obtaining a mortgage loan modification, and that the law office would charge her a fee of $2,995.00 for those loan modification services.
5. On June 5, 2012, Ms. Haywood hired Respondent for loan modification services related to her home in Virginia.
6. On June 21, 2012, Ms. Haywood paid the $2,995.00 retainer fee.
7. In November 2012, Respondent submitted a loan modification request to Ms. Haywood’s mortgage lender/servicer, Green Tree, but Green Tree denied the mortgage loan modification request on November 29, 2012.
8. Shortly, after Ms. Haywood’s loan modification request was denied, she wrote to Respondent and requested a refund, but he did not provide her with a refund.
9. On January 23, 2013, after submitting Ms. Haywood’s loan modification request, Respondent hired local counsel in Virginia to review potential loan modification and bankruptcy files.
10. In August 2013, after Ms. Haywood filed a complaint with the State Bar, Respondent provided a full refund to Ms. Haywood.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
11. By agreeing to represent and assist Anne Haywood with respect to obtaining a loan modification for client’s home in Virginia, when to do so was in violation of the regulations of the profession in Virginia, namely Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 5.5, Respondent practiced law in Virginia in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(B).
12. By entering into an agreement, charging and collecting a fee of $2,995 from Anne Haywood to perform legal services that were illegal because Respondent was not licensed to practice law in Virginia, Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-200(A).
Case No. 13-O-11738 (Complainant: Susan Shanahan)
FACTS:
13. Respondent is a California licensed attorney and is not admitted to practice law in any other state.
14. New York requires a person to be an active member of the New York State Bar in order to practice law or offer legal services in that state. (York Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility DR 3-101
15. In July 2012, Susan Shanahan received a mailer at her home in New York advertising and offering Respondent’s legal services related to mortgage loan modification services for her New York home.
16. Ms. Shanahan responded to the mailer by telephone and spoke with Robert Newton, a nonattorney law office staff person of FRG, who informed her that Silver Law Center, Respondent’s law firm, could represent and assist her with obtaining a mortgage loan modification, and that the law office would charge her a fee of $3,995.00 for those loan modification services.
17. On August 28, 2012, Ms. Shanahan hired Respondent for loan modification services related to her home in New York.
18. On August 28, 2012, Ms. Shanahan paid than initial deposit of $1,165. Ms. Shanahan also provided two post-dated checks: one for September 30, 2012 in the amount of $1,165 and one for October 31, 2012 in the amount of $1,165.
19. On October 1, 2012, Ms. Shanahan telephoned Respondent’s law office to terminate his services. She also placed a stop payment on the post-dated checks, and requested a refund of $1,165. Respondent did not provide a refund.
20. On December 12, 2012, after receiving notice of Ms. Shanahan terminating his services, Respondent hired local counsel in New York to review potential loan modification and bankruptcy files.
21. In August 2013, after Ms. Shanahan filed a complaint with the State Bar, Respondent provided a full refund to Ms. Shanahan.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
22. By agreeing to represent Susan Shanahan with respect to obtaining a loan modification for client’s home in New York, when to do so was in violation of the regulations of the profession in New York, namely New York Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility DR 3-101, Respondent practiced law in New York in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(B).
23. By entering into an agreement, charging and collecting a fee of $3,995 from Susan Shanahan to perform legal services that were illegal because Respondent was not licensed to practice law in New York, Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-200(A).
Case Nos. 13-O-11661 & 13-O-11738
24. From June 2012 through October 2012, Respondent aided non-attorneys operating under the name of Financial Research Group ("FRG"), none of whom were licensed to practice law in California, in the unauthorized practice of law, by knowingly allowing FRG to market legal services to prospective clients, sign up clients for legal representation by Respondent’s law firm, provide legal advice, and prepare loan modification requests without attorney supervision.
25. From June 2012 through October 2012, Respondent shared legal fees with a person or persons who are not lawyers, namely, the principals of FRG, in relation to loan modification services for his clients.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
26. By knowingly allowing non-attorneys at FRG to market legal services to prospective clients, sign up clients for legal representation by Respondent’s law firm, provide legal advice, and prepare loan modification requests without attorney supervision, Respondent aided in the unauthorized practice of law in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(A).
27. By sharing legal fees with a person or persons who are not lawyers, in relation to loan modification services for his clients Respondent shared legal fees with non-lawyers in in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-320(A).
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Harm (Std. 1.2(b)(iv)): Respondent’s clients, Ms. Haywood and Ms. Shanahan, were harmed because they were deprived of their money for over a year, and did not receive a refund until after the filing of their complaint with the State Bar.
Multiple Acts of Misconduct (Std. 1.2(b)(ii)): Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in two client matters, charged and collected two illegal fees, and aided in the unauthorized practice of law and shared fees with non-attorneys in conjunction with those two client matters. Therefore, Respondent engaged in multiple acts of misconduct.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Pre-filing Stipulation: Respondent was quick to respond to both investigation matters. Respondent candidly provided details of his misconduct in both matters, has admitted culpability, and has worked with the State Bar to resolve these matters before the filing of disciplinary charges. (Silva-Fidor 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." (ln 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 2.10 states a member’s culpability of violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in these standards or of a willful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or harm to the victim with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline. Here, in two nearly identical matters, Respondent violated Rule of Professional Conduct rule 1-300(B) by practicing law without a license in Virginia and New York and rule 4-200(A) by collecting an illegal fee. Additionally, by becoming involved with Financial Research Group, Respondent violated rule 1-320(A) by sharing legal fees with the non-lawyers, and rule 1-300(A) by aiding the unauthorized practice of law. These RPC sections are not otherwise specified in the Standards and so Standard 2.10 applies.
In these matters, the harm to the clients is that they were deprived of their money. However, Respondent has refunded the entire amounts paid by Ms. Hathaway and Ms. Shanahan, thereby lessening the harm to them. Additionally, the legal profession and public’s confidence are harmed when an attorney practices law in a jurisdiction where he is not licensed to practice law and aids non-attorneys in the practice of law. Aiding in the unauthorized practice of law of a non-attorney is a serious offenses and these types of activities including dividing legal fees with a non-lawyer can adversely affect an attorney’s independent judgment as a lawyer. (In the Matter of Nelson (Review Dept. 1993) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 187-188.)
The purpose of Standard 1.3 -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 - are well served by a significant period of actual suspension. In the present case, Respondent’s misconduct of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law spanned the course of a little over a year, and there was a collection of an illegal fee. Additionally, Respondent became involved with non-attorney and split legal fees with them, but most troublesome was that he aided them in the unauthorized practice of law. As such, six (6) months actual suspension satisfies the purposes of imposing discipline. An appropriate level of discipline is one (1) year stayed suspension, two (2) years’ probation, and six (6) months actual suspension.
This level of discipline is also consistent with case law. Engaging in the unauthorized practice of law is a grave breach of the duties of an attorney and therefore actual suspension is warranted. (See In the Matter of Wells (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 896 [Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in another jurisdiction in two cases and over several years, charged an illegal and unconscionable fee, failed to return unearned fees, failed to maintain funds in trust, and engaged in moral turpitude for misrepresenting her entitlement to practice law. Additionally, there was significant mitigation and aggravation present and Respondent had one prior discipline. Respondent received six months actual suspension and until restitution is paid in full].)
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of November 6, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $3,538. 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/or any other educational course(s) to be ordered as a condition of reproval or suspension. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201 .)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 13-O-11661, 13-O-11738
In the Matter of: AALOK SIKAND
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: AALOK SIKAND
Date: 11/18/13
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Elizabeth Stine
Date: 11/27/13
ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 13-O-11661, 13-O-11738
In the Matter of: AALOK SIKAND
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.
<<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.
Page 9, Paragraph 26: The words "market legal services to prospective clients," are deleted.
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: 12/17/13
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 December 18, 2013, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND
ORDER APPROVING ACTUAL SUSPENSION
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:
AALOK SIKAND
LAW OFFICE OF AALOK SIKAND
1000 TOWN CENTER DR. STE. 300
OXNARD, CA 93036
<<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:
ELIZABETH STINE, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 18, 2013.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court