PILOT PROGRAM FOR RESPONDENTS WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
Case Number(s): 00-C-14169-2; 01-H-00963
In the Matter of: Monica M. Jimenez, Bar # 92740, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Susan J. Jackson, Bar # 125042; Charles A. Murray, Bar # 146069
Counsel for Respondent: David M. Nisson, Bar # 109075
Submitted to: Pilot Program Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: March 21, 2006
<<not >> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted May 30, 1980.
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. However, if Respondent is not accepted into the Lawyer Assistance Program, this stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on the Respondent or the State Bar.
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 26 pages.
4. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts." See Attachment 1, incorporated here.
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law". See Attachment 1, incorporated here.
6. 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.
7. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7 and will pay timely any disciplinary costs imposed in this proceeding.
Note: All information required by Ibis form and any additional informatlon which cannot be provided in the space provided, shall be set forth in the text component [attachment] of this stipulation under specific headings, l.e., "Facts”, "Dismissals", "Conclusions of Law."
Additional aggravating circumstances:
Additional mitigating circumstances:
Respondent has entered into an agreement to participate in the Lawyer Assistance Program of the State Bar and is complying with the conditions of that agreement.
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
ENFORCEMENT
SUSAN J. JACKSON, No. 125042
CHARLES A. MURRAY, No. 146069
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015-2299
Telephone: (213] 765-1000
FILED Mar 21 2006
State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
LODGED DEC 20 2002
STATE BAR COURT CLERK’S OFFICE LOS ANGELES
THE STATE BAR COURT HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES
In the Matter of MONICA MARIE JIMENEZ, No. 92740 A Member of the State Bar
Case Nos. 00-C-14169-SER; 01-H-00963-SER
JOINT STIPULATION AS TO FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 132)
The State Bar of California, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, by and through Deputy Trial Counsel Susan J. Jackson and Charles A. Murray ("State Bar”), Respondent Monica Marie Jimenez {"Respondent}, and David M. Nisson, counsel for Respondent, hereby submit the following Joint Stipulation as to Facts and Conclusions of Law to be considered by the Court, pursuant to Rule 132 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California.
A. JURISDICTION
Monica Marie Jimenez ("Respondent"} was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on May 30, 1980, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.
B. WAIVER
1. The Notice of Disciplinary Charges in Case No. 01-H-00963-SER (“NDC”) was filed with the State Bar Court on October 3 i, 2001. It is the intention of the State Bar and Respondent to dispose of the new and amended charges in Case No. 01-H-00963 without the necessity of filing an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. Respondent, therefore, by executing this Stipulation, specifically waives all variances between the facts and charges set forth in this Stipulation and the facts and charges set forth in the NDC filed October 31, 2001 (including but not limited to the facts and charges set forth in new Counts Five, Six and Seven), the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges, the right to file an answer thereto, a formal hearing thereon, and any other formal procedures.
B. PARTIES’ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1. This Stipulation consists of 21 pages.
2. This Stipulation includes State Bar Case Numbers 00-C-14169-SER and 01-H-00963-SER, which are consolidated.
3. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included in the "Facts and Conclusions of Law section of this Stipulation.
4. Respondent acknowledges that conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts admitted by Respondent, regarding Respondent’s culpability of violating specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct, are included under "Conclusions of Law’.
5. This Stipulation resolves the captioned disciplinary matters except as to disposition.
6. Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Business and Professions Code sections 6086.10 and 6140.7, pertaining to payment of disciplinary costs.
7. Respondent acknowledges that none of the charges pending against her are being dismissed.
8. The parties agree to be bound by the Stipulated Facts contained herein even if conclusions of law are rejected or changed by the State Bar Court or the Supreme Court and regardless of the degree of discipline recommended or imposed.
9. No more than thirty days prior to the filing of this Stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigations/proceedings not resolved by this Stipulation, except for criminal investigations. The disclosure date was May 3, 2002.
C. FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. 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.
I.
THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION - STATE BAR CASE NUMBER 00-C-14169
Procedural Background in Conviction Proceeding.
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 951 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On October 16, 2000, Respondent, with the assistance of private counsel, pled guilty to and was convicted of violation of California Penal Code section 647(f) (Public Intoxication), a misdemeanor, in People of the State of California v. Monica Marie Jimenez Bergquist (aka Monica Jimenez-Bergquist, Monica Mari Jimenez-Bergquist, Monica Marie Jimenez), Orange County Superior Court Case No. SH00SM04328.
3. On August 9, 2001, the Review Department issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department for a hearing and decision on the following issues:
Since the State Bar Court has not yet received evidence that the conviction of respondent MONICA JIMENEZ for a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 647(f) is final, the Hearing Department shall, after a hearing, file a decision limited to whether the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline. The decision shall not include a recommendation regarding discipline absent a complete waiver of the lack of finality of the conviction. (See rule 607, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California.) If respondent timely objects to a hearing on this issue before the conviction is final, the Hearing Department shall, after a hearing, file its finding, based only on the record of conviction, whether there is probable cause to believe that the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense involved moral turpitude. If the Hearing Department finds probable cause, the Review Department will consider placing respondent on interim suspension. {See In Re Patrick (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 891.)
4. On October 23, 2001, the Review Department issued an augmented order, stating as follows:
The reference heretofore ordered in the above entitled matter is augmented under the authority of subdivision (a) of rule 951, California Rules of Court, to include a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the Hearing Department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense of which MONICA MARIE JIMENEZ was convicted involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
The Charges
5. On July 26, 2000, a one-count complaint was filed against Respondent in People of the State of California v. Monies Marie Jimenezbergquist (aka Monica Jimenez-Bergquist. Monica Mari Jimenez-Bergquist, Monica Marie Jimenez), Orange County Superior Court Case No. SH00SM04328, charging Respondent with violation of California Penal Code section 647(f) (Public Intoxication), a misdemeanor.
The Conviction
6. On October 16, 2000, Respondent, with the assistance of private counsel, pled guilty to and was convicted of violation of California Penal Code section 647(f) (Public Intoxication), a misdemeanor.
7. California Penal Code section 647(f) provides:
Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:
(f] Who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance, or toluene, in such a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way.
The Sentence
8. On January 19, 2001, the court sentenced Respondent to 90 days in jail, stayed pending successful completion of probation, and placed Respondent on three years formal probation, with the following terms and conditions: obey all laws, all orders, rules and regulations of the Probation Department, Court and jail and report any violation in writing to the Court; comply with all directions of the Probation Officer; report as directed by the Probation Officer; seek training, schooling or employment and maintain residence as approved by the Probation Department; cooperate with the Probation Officer in any plan for psychiatric, psychological, medical, alcohol and/or drug treatment, counseling or therapy; associate with persons subject to the approval of the Probation Officer; pay the costs of probation as directed by the Probation Officer; consume no alcohol beverages and do not go to places where alcohol is the chief item sale; reveal probation terms upon request of Peace Officer; pay $100 State Restitution Fee as directed by Probation; and continue with 18 months of monitored antabuse with random testing.
Facts and Circumstances Surrounding Respondent’s Conviction
9. Respondent admits that the following facts and circumstances surrounding her conviction on October 16, 2000 for violation of California Penal Code section 647(f) (Public Intoxication), are true.
10. On June 28, 2000, Ernie Garcia Hernandez ("Hernandez") picked up Respondent from her office in Santa Ana, California and drove her to Mission Viejo, to pick up her two minor sons, Eric and Mark, then ages 13 and 11, from school.
11. On June 28, 2000, Respondent was not permitted to drive because her driver’s license was suspended due to a prior conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol.
12. Respondent’s ex-husband, James Bergquist ("Bergquist"), Eric’s and Mark’s father, had then and to date still has, sole physical custody of Eric and Mark Bergquist and their other three minor children, Brook, Lauren and Ashley Bergquist. Respondent was allowed monitored visits with the children and Hernandez was the monitor hired by Respondent for the visit on June 28, 2000. Respondent was not permitted to consume or be under the influence of alcohol during visitation.
13. On June 28, 2000, Hernandez drove Respondent and her sons, Eric and Mark, to a Target store in Mission Viejo. After arriving at the Target store, Respondent informed Hernandez that she was going to use the ATM machine near the front of the store. Respondent walked toward the ATM machine. Hernandez and the boys went to the toy section. After Respondent did not come to the toy section, Hernandez found her sitting on the floor being attended by paramedics.
14. Officer Schmaltz {"Schmaltz ) of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Santa Ana, was called to the Target store to investigate a situation involving a female, later identified as Respondent, who had possibly overdosed. He arrived at about 4:55 p.m. and was advised by the paramedics that Respondent was under the influence of alcohol.
15. When Schmaltz arrived, Respondent’s hair was disheveled, her lipstick was smeared and he smelled the odor of alcohol on her person.
16. Schmaltz interviewed Respondent, Bergquist, Hernandez, Eric, Mark and Paula Dianne Kivi ("Kivi"), the manager of the Target store.
17. Prior to Schmaltz’s arrival, Kivi had been called to the front of the store by another employee who told her there was a female down near the ATM machine.
18. Kivi went to the ATM machine and found Respondent sitting on the floor with her back against the ATM machine. Respondent’s head was slumped forward as she was sleeping. When Kivi approached Respondent and asked if she need help, Respondent lifted her head and opened her eyes but did not answer. Kivi called 911 for emergency assistance. Respondent was transported to the hospital for further evaluation.
19. Schmaltz spoke with Respondent at the hospital, where her blood was drawn for a blood alcohol test and other laboratory tests.
20. As Respondent spoke with Schmaltz, Respondent’s breath smelled of alcohol, her speech was slow and lethargic and she had difficulty keeping her eyes open.
21. In response to Schmaltz’s questions, Respondent denied drinking alcohol or using any medication that day.
22. As a result of what Schmaltz described as her "extreme intoxicated condition", no further sobriety tests were given to Respondent.
23. Respondent told Schmaltz that she felt normal and was tired. Respondent could not remember her birth date, and fell asleep several times as Schmaltz spoke to her.
24. Respondent’s blood alcohol level [BAC] was 0.327 percent shortly after she arrived at the hospital.
25. On February 26, 2001, Respondent was terminated from her court-ordered SB 38 18-month program for excessive absenteeism and for failure to maintain program sobriety. This resulted from Respondent appearing at a scheduled National Council of Alcoholism and Dangerous Drug group session under the influence of alcohol.
26. From April 9, 2001 to May 11, 2001, Respondent was admitted to the Betty Ford Center, Professional Recovery Program, failed to successfully complete treatment and was discharged at staff request.
27. From May 11, 2001 to June 8, 2001, Respondent was an inpatient at the Betty Ford Center, successfully completed treatment and was discharged with staff approval.
28. Respondent has five minor children, Eric, Mark, Brook, Lauren and Ashley Bergquist, who now live with their father, James Bergquist, in Massachusetts. On August 29, 2001, James Bergquist was awarded sole physical custody of the children and the 19 parties were awarded joint legal custody. Respondent currently is allowed to have the children visit her for eight weeks every year and some holidays, and is required to pay child support.
Probation Violation
29. On July 15, 2001, after completing the Betty Ford Program, Respondent testified positive for alcohol and was immediately transported to an inpatient facility. On July 16, 2001, she was scheduled for arraignment for a probation violation and was taken into custody. Bail was set at $10,000. On July 20, 2001, she was released on bail.
30. Prior to July 15, 2001, Respondent participated in Cornerstone of Southern California, a chemical dependency treatment program. As result of her positive alcohol test on July 15, 2001, Cornerstone recommended to Respondent that she participate in an inpatient program in their facility, for at least six months. Respondent was unwilling to agree to the recommended program and stopped participating in the Cornerstone program.
31. In its Advisement to the criminal Court dated August 6, 2001, Cornerstone stated that it recommended at least a six month commitment in their inpatient facility, but could not reach agreement with Respondent, who was unwilling to accept their terms.
32. On August 24, 2001, the Court ordered Respondent’s probation reinstated and modified. She was ordered to comply with additional conditions and placed on intensive supervision by the Probation Department.
33. Respondent admits that prior to her conviction on October 16, 2000 for violation of California Penal Code section 647(0 (Public Intoxication), she was previously convicted twice for alcohol-related matters, as set forth below. Respondent represents that she has not otherwise been arrested or convicted in alcohol-related matters.
The December 31, 1998 Arrest and Conviction
34. Respondent represents that her first arrest in an alcohol-related matter occurred on December 31, 1998.
35. On December 31, 1998, Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in People v. Jimenez, Orange County Superior Court Case No. SH99SM55049. At the time of her arrest, her blood alcohol level {BAC) was 0.34 percent.
36. On May 7, 1999, Respondent was convicted for violation of California Vehicle Code section 23152(b) (driving under the influence with alcohol with 0.08 or more], a misdemeanor, and placed on conditional probation for three years.
37. Respondent represents that her May 7, 1999 conviction was her first conviction in an alcohol-related matter.
38. Among the usual terms and conditions of probation, Respondent was ordered to serve two days in county jail, not drive without a valid driver’s license, not drive a motor vehicle with a measurable amount of alcohol or drugs in blood, obey all laws, orders, rules and regulations of the Probation Department, Court and Jail, complete a nine month first offender alcohol program and attend three meetings per week of Alcoholic Anonymous.
39. On November 23, 1999 and August 10, 2000, Respondent was found in violation of probation. On January 19, 2001, she was reinstated on formal probation for the balance of the term.
The April 18, 1999 Arrest and Conviction
40. Respondent represents that her second arrest in an alcohol-related matter occurred on April 18, 1999.
41. On April 18, 1999, Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and evading a peace officer, in People v. Jimenez, Orange County Superior Court Case No. CH99SM58125. She also refused to take a chemical test, and did not have her registration or proof of insurance.
42. On December 15, 1999, Respondent was convicted for violation of California Vehicle Code sections 23152(a) {driving under the influence} and 2800.1(a) (evading a police officer), misdemeanors, and placed on conditional probation for five years.
43. Respondent represents that her December 15, 1999 conviction was her second conviction in an alcohol-related matter.
44. Among the usual terms and conditions of probation, Respondent was ordered to serve 180 days in county jail, not drive without a valid driver’s license, not drive a motor vehicle with a measurable amount of alcohol or drugs in blood, obey all laws, orders, rules and regulations of the Probation Department, Court and Jail, complete an 18-month second offender alcohol program and consume no alcoholic beverages.
45. On April 18, 2000, October 16, 2000 and January 19, 2001, Respondent admitted to probation violations, in part due to her conviction on October 16, 2000 for violation of California Penal Code section 647(f) [Public Intoxication], as set forth above. Probation was modified from conditional to formal for the balance of the probation term.
46. Respondent’s December 15, 1999 conviction resulted in State Bar Case No. 99-C- 12275.
47. On August 15, 2000, Respondent entered into a Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition ("Stipulation") with the State Bar of California in Case No. 99-C-12275. On August 29, 2000, the State Bar Court filed an Order approving the Stipulation and imposing upon Respondent a public reproval with conditions, effective September 14, 2000.
48. Respondent failed to comply with conditions of her public reproval. As a result, on October 31, 2001, the State Bar filed a Notice of Disciplinary Charges in Case No. 01-H-00963, as set forth below.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By the foregoing conduct, Respondent violated the laws of the State of California, in wilful violation of Business and Professions code, section 6068(a), and committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in wilful violation of Business and Professions code, section 6106.
II.
CASE NO. 01-H-00963
NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES FILED OCTOBER 31, 2001
1. The Notice of Disciplinary Charges in Case No. 01-H-00963 ("NDC") was filed on October 31, 2001 and consists of four counts.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
2. On August 15, 2000, Respondent entered into a Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition ("Stipulation°] with the State Bar of California in Case No. 99-C-12275.
3. On August 29, 2000, the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court filed an Order approving the Stipulation and imposing upon Respondent a public reproval with conditions ("Order"). On August 29, 2000, the Order was properly served by mail upon Respondent.
4. The Order and the public reproval became effective on September 14, 2000.
5. Pursuant to the August 29, 2000 Order, and as set forth in the Stipulation, Respondent was required, to comply with certain terms and conditions attached to the public reproval for a period of three years, including the following conditions:
a. Comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct during the condition period attached to the reproval.
b. Submit to the State Bar Probation Unit written quarterly reports each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of each year or part thereof during the condition period attached to the reproval, declaring under penalty of perjury that she has complied with all provisions of the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct during the preceding calendar quarter or part thereof covered by the report and submit a final report no earlier than twenty days prior to the expiration of the condition period attached to the reproval and no later than the last day of said condition period.
c. Comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report required to be filed with the Probation Unit.
d. Within one year of the effective date of the reproval, attend State Bar Ethics School (Ethics School), pass the test given at the end of such session and provide proof of compliance to the Probation Unit.
6. On January 24, 2000, in the underlying criminal matter, Respondent pled guilty and was sentenced to conditional probation for five years.
7. By letter dated on September 22, 2000 (the "September 22, 2000 letter), Lydia Dineros, Probation Deputy, Probation Unit, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, State Bar of California, reminded Respondent of those terms and conditions of the reproval that required submissions of proof of compliance to the Probation Unit, including the requirement to submit quarterly reports, the requirement to comply with criminal probation and report such compliance quarterly and the requirement to attend Ethics School.
8. Attached to the September 22, 2000 letter were, among other documents, quarterly report forms, quarterly report instructions, and copies of those pages of the Stipulation setting forth the conditions of the reproval. The quarterly report forms contained, among other items, boxes for Respondent to check to indicate her compliance with the conditions of the reproval, including her compliance with the conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter, and spaces to fill in the dates that she enrolled in and completed Ethics School. Respondent was required to sign and date each quarterly report form under penalty of perjury.
9. In the September 22, 2000 letter, Ms. Dineros specifically advised Respondent that her first quarterly report would be due on January 10, 2001, that her first quarterly statement of compliance with criminal probation would be due on January 10, 2001. In the September 22, 2000 letter, Ms. Dineros also advised Respondent that she must complete Ethics School no later than September 18, 2001, thereby giving Respondent four days of additional time past the September 14, 2001 compliance date for that condition to allow for mailing time of the Order.
10. The September 22, 2000 letter and the attachments thereto were mailed on September 22, 2000 via the United States Postal Service first class mail, postage prepaid, m a sealed envelope addressed to Respondent at her official State Bar membership records address. The letter and attachments were not returned to the State Bar by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable or for any other reason.
COUNT ONE
Case No. 01-H-00963
Rule of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110
[Failure to Comply With Conditions Attached to Public Reproval- Quarterly Reports]
11. The allegations of General Allegations are incorporated by reference.
12. On January 16, 2001, Respondent submitted to the Probation Unit a copy of a preprinted quarterly report form that had been previously provided to Respondent as an attachment to the September 22, 2000 letter from Ms. Dineros. The form was not completed by Respondent in any way, was not signed or dated and contained no information regarding Respondent’s compliance with any of the conditions of her reproval.
13. On February 14, 2001, State Bar Probation Deputy Shuntinee Brinson left a voicemail message for Respondent at Respondent’s membership records phone number. In the message, Ms. Brinson informed Respondent that the quarterly report received from Respondent on January 16, 2001 was incomplete and that Respondent needed to submit a completed quarterly report. Ms. Brinson also provided her facsimile number to assist Respondent in submitting a completed quarterly report. Respondent failed to respond to Ms. Brinson’s message. On October 25, 2001, nine months late, the State Bar first received a completed quarterly report due January 10, 2001.
14. Respondent failed to submit to the Probation Unit a quarterly report due April 10, 2001.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to timely submit to the Probation Unit a quarterly report due January 10, 2001 and by falling to submit a quarterly report due April 10, 2001, Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of her public reproval ordered on August 29, 2000, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110.
COUNT TWO
Case No. 01-H-00963
Rule of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110
[Failure to Comply With Conditions Attached to Public Reproval - Compliance With Criminal Probation and Reporting Such Compliance
15. The allegations of General Allegations and Count One are incorporated by reference.
16. On October 10, 2001, the State Bar Probation Unit received a completed quarterly report due October 10, 2001, in which respondent stated that during the preceding calendar quarter ending September 30, 2001, she failed to comply with the conditions of probation imposed upon her in the underlying criminal matter.
17. On October 25, 2001, nine months late, the State Bar Probation Unit first received a completed quarterly report due January 10, 2001 in which respondent first stated that during the preceding calendar quarter she complied with the conditions of probation imposed upon her in the underlying criminal matter. Respondent failed to submit to the Probation Unit a quarterly report due April 10, 2001 and has never reported to the Probation Unit whether she has complied with the conditions of probation imposed upon her in the underlying criminal matter in the preceding calendar quarter ending March 31, 2001.
Conclusions of Law
1. By failing to comply with the conditions of probation imposed upon her in the underlying criminal matter during the quarter ending September 30, 2001, Respondent fated to comply with the terms and conditions of her public reproval ordered on August 29, 2000, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110.
2. By failing to timely submit to the Probation Unit a statement due January 10, 2001, declaring that during the preceding calendar quarter she complied with the conditions of probation imposed upon her in the underlying criminal matter, Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of her public reproval ordered on August 29, 2000, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110.
3. By failing to submit to the Probation Unit a statement due April 10, 2001, declaring that during the preceding calendar quarter ending March 31, 2001 she complied with the conditions of probation imposed upon her in the underlying criminal matter, Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of her public reproval ordered on August 29, 2000, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110.
COUNT THREE
Case No. 01-H-00963
Rule of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110
[Failure to Comply With Conditions Attached to Public Reproval - Ethics School]
18. The allegations of General Allegations, and Counts One and Two are incorporated by reference.
19. Within one year of the effective date of the reproval, Respondent failed to attend or enroll in Ethics School. Respondent also failed to attend or enroll in Ethics School by September 18, 2001.
20. Prior to December 7, 2001, Respondent failed to attend Ethics School, pass the test given at the end of such session and provide proof of compliance to the Probation Unit, as required by the public reproval ordered on August 29, 2000.
21. On December 7, 2001, after the NDC in this matter was filed, Respondent first attended Ethics School. On that date, she passed the test given at the end of the session.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to attend Ethics School, pass the test given at the end of such session and provide proof of compliance to the Probation Unit, all within one year of the effective date of the reproval, Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of public reproval ordered on August 29, 2000, in wilful violation of Rule of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110.
COUNT FOUR
Case No. 01-H-00963
Business and Professions Code, section 6103
[Failure to Obey a Court Order]
22. The allegations of General Allegations, and Counts One, Two and Three are incorporated by reference.
23. Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of her public reproval ordered on or about August 29, 2000.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to comply with the terms and conditions of her public reproval ordered on August 29, 2000, Respondent failed to obey a court order, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.
III.
CASE NO. 01-H-00963
NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES FILED OCTOBER 31, 2001
NEW COUNTS
1. Following are new Counts Five, Six and Seven to the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed in Case No. 01-H-00963 on October 31, 2001, in which the parties agree on facts and culpability,
COUNT FIVE
Case No. 01-H-00963
Rule of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110
[Failure to Comply With Conditions Attached to Public Reproval - Quarterly Reports]
2. The allegations of General Allegations and Counts One through Four are incorporated by reference.
3. Respondent failed to submit to the Probation Unit a quarterly report due January 10, 2002.
4. Respondent failed to submit to the Probation Unit a quarterly report due April 10, 2002.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to submit to the Probation Unit two quarterly reports due January 10, 2002 and April 10, 2002, respectively, Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of her public reproval ordered on August 29, 2000, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110.
COUNT SIX
Case No. 01-H-00963
Rule of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110
[Failure to Comply With Conditions Attached to Public Reproval - Reporting Compliance With Criminal Probation
5. The allegations of General Allegations and Counts One through Five are incorporated by reference.
6. Respondent failed to submit to the Probation Unit a quarterly report due January 10, 2002 and has never reported to the Probation Unit whether she has complied with the conditions of probation imposed upon her in the underlying criminal matter in the preceding calendar quarter ending December 31, 2001.
7. Respondent failed to submit to the Probation Unit a quarterly report due April 10, 2002 and has never reported to the Probation Unit whether she has complied with the conditions of probation imposed upon her in the underlying criminal matter in the preceding calendar quarter ending March 31, 2002.
Conclusions of Law
1. By failing to. timely submit to the Probation Unit a statement due January 10, 2002, declaring that during the preceding calendar quarter she complied with the conditions of probation imposed upon her in the underlying criminal matter, Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of her public reproval ordered on August 29, 2000, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110.
2. By falling to submit to the Probation Unit a statement due April 10, 2002, declaring that during the preceding calendar quarter she complied with the conditions of probation imposed upon her in the underlying criminal matter, Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of her public reproval ordered on August 29, 2000, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110.
COUNT SEVEN
Case No. 01-H-00963
Business and Professions Code, section 6103
[Failure to Obey a Court Order]
8. The a/legations of Genera/Allegations and Counts One through Six are incorporated by reference.
9. Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of her public reproval ordered on or about August 29, 2000.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to comply with the terms and conditions of her public reproval ordered on August 29, 2000, Respondent failed to obey a court order, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.
AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: May 7, 2002
Signed by Respondent: Monica M. Jimenez
Dated: May 7, 2002
Signed by Counsel for Respondent: David M. Nisson
Dated: May 7, 2002
Signed by Deputy Trial Counsel: Susan J. Jackson
Dated: May 7, 2002
Signed by Deputy Trial Counsel: Charles A. Murray
Respondent enters into this stipulation as a condition of his/her participation in the Pilot Program. Respondent understands that he/she must abide by all terms and conditions of Respondent’s Pilot Program Contract.
If the Respondent does not sign the Pilot Program contract or is not accepted into the Pilot Program, this Stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on Respondent or the State Bar.
If the Respondent is accepted into the Pilot Program, upon Respondent’s successful completion of the Program or termination from the Program this Stipulation will be filed and either the reduced or enhanced discipline as set forth in Pilot Program contract, as appropriate, will be imposed by the State Bar Court or recommended to the Supreme Court.
Date: 11-8-02
Signed by Respondent: Monica M. Jimenez
Date: 11-8-02
Signed by Respondent’s Counsel: David M. Nisson
Date: 11/8/02
Signed by Deputy Trial Counsel: Susan J. Jackson
Date: 11/08/02
Signed by Deputy Trial Counsel: Charles A. Murray
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 stipulation as to facts and law is APPROVED.
checked. The stipulation as to facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below.
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; or 3) Respondent is not accepted for participation in the Pilot Program (See rule 135(b) and 802(b), Rules of Procedure.)
The effective date of the disposition is the effective date for the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date of the Supreme Court Order. [See rule 953 (a), California rules of Court.]
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Paul Barigchipt
Date: 12-12-02
[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; 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 20, 2002, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER APPROVING, signed December 12, 2002
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:
DAVID MATHIAS NISSON ESQ
NISSON & NISSON
17501 IRVINE BLVD #9
TUSTIN, CA 92780
MONICA MARIE JIMENEZ ESQ
1313 W CIVIC CTR DR #4
SANTA ANA, CA 92703
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Susan Jackson, Enforcement, Los Angeles
Charles Murray, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 20, 2002.
Signed by:
Milagro del R. Salmeron
Case Administrator
State Bar Court
[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; 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 March 21, 2006, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; JOINT STIPULATION AS TO FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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:
DAVID M. NISSON, ESQ.
NISSON & NISSON
17501 IRVINE BLVD #9
TUSTIN CA 92780
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
CHARLES MURRAY, ESQ., Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 21, 2006.
Signed by:
Rose M. Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court