State Bar Court of California
Hearing Department
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING DISBARMENT; ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE
ENROLLMENT
DISBARMENT
Case Number(s): 13-O-13554
In the Matter of: STANLEY LEWIS EVANS, Bar # 119091, A
Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Jonathan Cesena, Bar # 289721,
Counsel for Respondent: Stanley Lewis Evans, Bar # 119091,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.
Filed: December 13, 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 August
10, 1985.
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. Costs are awarded to the
State Bar.
<<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.
ORDER OF INACTIVE ENROLLMENT:
The parties are aware that if this stipulation is approved, the judge will
issue an order of inactive enrollment under Business and Professions Code
section 6007, subdivision (c)(4), and Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule
5.111(D)(1).
B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney
Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting
aggravating circumstances are required.
checked. (1) Prior record of
discipline
checked. (a) State Bar Court case # of prior case 89-C-14907
(See Stipulation Attachment, page 8.).
checked. (b) Date prior discipline effective December 29,
1990.
checked. (c) Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act
violations: Business and Professions Code 6068(a), for driving while under the
influence in violation of the California Vehicle Code section 23152,
subdivision (a).
checked. (d) Degree of prior discipline Public Reproval
checked. (e) If Respondent has two or more incidents of
prior discipline, use space provided below. See Stipulation Attachment, page 8..
<<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 Stipulation Attachment, page 8.
<<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 Stipulation Attachment,
page 8.
<<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: Pretrial Stipulation. (See Stipulation Attachment,
page 8)
D. Discipline: Disbarment.
E. Additional Requirements:
(1) Rule 9.20,
California Rules of Court: Respondent must comply with the requirements of
rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in
subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days,
respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this
matter.
<<not>> checked. (2) Restitution:
Respondent must make restitution to in the amount of $ plus 10 percent
interest per year from . If the Client Security Fund has reimbursed for all
or any portion of the principal amount, respondent must pay restitution to CSF
of the amount paid plus applicable interest and costs in accordance with
Business and Professions Code section 6140.5. Respondent must pay the above
restitution and furnish satisfactory proof of payment to the State Bar's Office
of Probation in Los Angeles no later than days from the effective date of the
Supreme Court order in this case..
checked. (3) Other: Restitution:
Respondent must make restitution to Lloyd Humes in the amount of $3,010.00 plus
10 percent interest per year from April 7, 2005. If the Client Security Fund
has reimbursed Lloyd Humes for all or any portion of the principal amount, respondent
must pay restitution to CSF of the amount paid plus applicable interest and
costs in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6140.5.
Respondent must pay the above restitution and furnish satisfactory proof of
payment to the State Bar’s Office of Probation in Los Angeles.
Respondent must make restitution to Roberto
Garcia in the amount of $15,024.00 plus 10 percent interest per year from
December 31, 2005. If the Client Security Fund has reimbursed Roberto Garcia
for all or any portion of the principal amount, respondent must pay restitution
to CSF of the amount paid plus applicable interest and costs in accordance with
Business and Professions Code section 6140.5. Respondent must pay the above
restitution and furnish satisfactory proof of payment to the State Bar’s Office
of Probation in Los Angeles..
Attachment language (if any):.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: STANLEY LEWIS EVANS, State Bar No. 119091
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-O-13554
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-13554 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. On September 25, 2007, Respondent entered into a Stipulation with the
State Bar in connection with his enrollment in the Alternative Discipline
Program ("ADP") in case number 05-O-00167. On April 28, 2008, the
Court issued an order accepting Respondent into ADP. On June 22, 2011, the
Court found Respondent was not in compliance with the conditions of ADP and
issued an order terminating Respondent from ADP and imposing discipline.
2. Effective June 27, 2011, Respondent was suspended from the practice of
law for a minimum of two years and placed on probation for five years, subject
to the following conditions:
a. Submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation by the due
dates of January 10, April 10, July 10, October 10;
b. Submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance as a
session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that
session by January 11, 2013;
c. Submit a waiver authorizing the Lawyer Assistance Program
("LAP") to provide the Office of Probation and the State Bar Court
information regarding the terms and conditions of Respondent’s participation
and compliance in LAP by the due date of February 10, 2012;
d. Submit written quarterly reports, from LAP, to the Office of Probation
due on April 10, 2012, July 10, 2012, October 10, 2012, January 10, 2013, and
April 10, 2013; and
e. Submit laboratory blood and/or urine reports to the State Bar Office of
Probation on or before the tenth day of each month.
3. Respondent failed to timely submit a Quarterly Report by its due date of
January 10, 2013.
4. Respondent failed to attend State Bar Ethics School by the due date of
January 11, 2013.
5. Respondent failed to submit a waiver authorizing LAP to provide the
Office of Probation and the State Bar Court information regarding the terms and
conditions of Respondent’s participation and compliance in LAP by the due date
of February 10, 2012.
6. Respondent failed to request that LAP submit written Quarterly Reports
to the Office of Probation due on April 10, 2012, July 10, 2012, October 10,
2012, January 10, 2013, and April 10, 2013.
7. Respondent failed to timely submit laboratory blood and/or urine reports
to the State Bar Office of Probation that were due no later than August 10,
2012, September 10, 2012, October 10, 2012, November 10, 2012, December 10, 2012,
February 10, 2013, March 10, 2013, April 10, 2013, May 10, 2013, and June 10,
2013.
8. Respondent failed to file laboratory blood and/or urine reports to the
State Bar Office of Probation that were due no later than February 10, 2012,
March 10, 2012, April 10, 2012, May 10, 2012, June 10, 2012, July 10, 2012, and
January 10, 2013.
9. Respondent remains out of compliance with his probation conditions.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
10. By failing to timely submit a quarterly report, by failing to attend
State Bar Ethics School by the due date of January 11, 2013, by failing to
submit a waiver authorizing the LAP to provide the Office of Probation and the
State Bar Court information regarding the terms and conditions of Respondent’s
participation and compliance in LAP by the due date of February 10, 2012, by
failing to request that LAP submit written Quarterly Reports, and by failing to
submit laboratory blood and/or urine reports to the State Bar Office of
Probation Respondent failed to comply with conditions of probation in willful
violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(k).
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Prior Record of Discipline (Std. 1.2(b)(i)): Respondent has been
disciplined on three prior occasions. On December 29, 1990, Respondent received
a public reproval in Case No. 89-C-14907 based on three convictions of
California Vehicle Code, section 23152, subdivision (a) [driving while under
the influence]. On January 11,2011, Respondent received a two-year actual
suspension with a restitution requirement in Case Nos. 05-O-00167 [05-O-01242;
05-O-05034; 06-O-12274], for the following violations in connection with four
client matters: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A) [failing to
perform], rule 3-700(D)(2) [failing to refund unearned fees], rule 4-100(A)
[failing to maintain funds in trust] and rule 4-100(B)(3) [failing to account],
and Business and Professions Code section 6106 [misappropriation]. On February
23, 2012, Respondent received a two-year actual suspension in Case Nos.
11-O-11605 [11-O-12050], to run concurrent with his prior discipline in January
2011, for a violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m)
[failing to communicate]
Indifference (Std. 1.2(b)(v)): Respondent’s repeated unwillingness to come
into compliance with his probation conditions demonstrates an indifference
toward rectification.
Multiple Acts of Misconduct (Std. 1.2(b)(ii)): Respondent’s present
misconduct involves numerous failings to comply with the conditions of a
reproval and represents multiple acts of misconduct. (See In the Matter of
Tiernan (Review Dept. 1996) 3 Cal State Bar Ct. Rptr. 523,529 [failing to
cooperate with the probation monitor and failing to timely file probation
.reports constitute multiple acts of misconduct].)
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Pretrial Stipulation: Respondent is entitled to mitigation for entering
into a full stipulation with the Office of Chief Trial Counsel prior to trial,
thereby saving State Bar Court time and resources. (In 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.) Any
mitigative credit is tempered by the fact that Respondent agreed to enter into
a stipulation on the eve of trial.
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 2.6 applies to Respondent’s violation of Business and Professions
Code section 6068(k). Standard 2.6 provides that a wilful violation of section
6068 "shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on 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.”
Here, Respondent failed to comply with almost all of his probation
conditions. Respondent’s misconduct is serious and aggravated by three prior
records of discipline, indifference for failing to come into compliance with
his probation and multiple acts of misconduct. Respondent is entitled to
limited mitigation for entering into the pretrial stipulation because he did so
on the eve of trial. Based on the gravity of Respondent’s misconduct, the
aggravation, and the limited mitigation, disbarment is appropriate under
standard 2.6.
Standard 1.7(b) is also applicable in this matter based on Respondent’s
prior records of discipline. Standard 1.7(b) provides: "If a member is
found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline
may be imposed and the member has a record of two prior impositions of
discipline as defined by Standard 1.2(0, the degree of discipline in the
current proceeding shall be disbarment unless the most compelling mitigating
circumstances clearly predominate."
In this matter, Respondent has three prior records of discipline.
Respondent is only entitled to mitigation for entering into this stipulation.
Such mitigation is of limited weight since the stipulation was entered on the
eve of trial. Hence, the most compelling mitigating circumstances do not
clearly predominate to support deviating from standard 1.7(b). In addition,
Respondent’s prior misconduct was neither remote in time nor minimal in severity.
On the contrary, Respondent’s prior misconduct was serious and widespread.
Disbarment is warranted under standard 1.7(b) and will serve the purposes
of attorney discipline.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has
informed respondent that as of November 25, 2013, the prosecution costs in this
matter are $2,291.00. 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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 13-O-13554
In the Matter of: Stanley Lewis Evans
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: Stanley Lewis Evans
Date: 12/3/13
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Jonathan Cesena
Date: 12/9/13
DISBARMENT ORDER
Case Number(s): 13-O-13554
In the Matter of: STANLEY .LEWIS EVANS
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.
1. On p. 1, A. (3), delete "9" and insert "10" in its
place because the stipulation consists of 10 pages.
2. On p. 2, B. (1)(a) and (e), delete "8" and insert
"7" in its place, to read "page 7" regarding prior record
of discipline.
3.. On p. 3 B. (5), delete "8" and insert "7" in its
place, to read "page 7" regarding indifference.
4. On p. 5, E. (3), "Llyod" is corrected to spell
"Lloyd" and delete "(Garcia" and insert "Gomez"
in its place, to read "Roberto Gomez."
5. On p. 6, paragraph 2, delete "June 27, 2011" and insert
"January 11, 2012" as the effective date of respondent’s suspension
in case No. 05-O-00167. Also, add ."four years, stayed, and" after
"suspended from the practice of law.”
6. On p. 7, the paragraph regarding Prior Record of Discipline, delete
"January 11, 2011" and insert "January 11, 2012" in its
place.
7. On p. 8, the paragraph regarding "Multiple Acts of
Misconduct," delete "a reproval" .and insert
"probation," because his present misconduct involved failure to
comply with probation conditions, not failure to comply with the conditions
attached to a reproval.
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.)
Respondent Stanley Lewis Evans, SBN 119091 is ordered transferred to
involuntary inactive status pursuant to Business and Professions Code section
6007, subdivision (c)(4). Respondent’s inactive enrollment will be effective
three (3) calendar days after this order is served by mail and will terminate
upon the effective date of the Supreme Court’s order imposing discipline
herein, or as provided for by rule 5.111(D)(2) or the Rules of Procedure of the
State Bar of California, or as otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court pursuant
to its plenary jurisdiction.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Pat E. McElroy
Date: 12/13/13
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 San Francisco, on December
13, 2013, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND
ORDER APPROVING; ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT
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 San Francisco, California, addressed as
follows:
STANLEY LEWIS EVANS
STANLEY L EVANS
484 WASHINGTON ST
MONTEREY, CA 93940
<<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:
JONATHAN R. CESENA, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San
Francisco, California, on December 13, 2013.
Signed by:
Mazie Yip
Case Administrator
State Bar Court