Case Number(s): 03-O-05075
In the Matter of: Maureen R. Kallins, Bar # 95038, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Erica Dennings, Bar # 145755
Counsel for Respondent: Charles M. Gretsch, Bar # 95038,
Submitted to: Assigned Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
<<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 16, 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.
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 11 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 284, Rules of Procedure.
<<not>> checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: (hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure
<<not>> checked. costs waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. costs entirely waived.
(5) Respondent has not refunded any money to Parker despite a judgment confirming an arbitration award of $3365.50 filed May 1, 2001.
IN THE MATTER OF: Maureen R. Kallins
CASE NUMBER(S): 03-0-05075
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
On or about September 19, 1995 Clara Parker ("Parker") employed respondent to file an appeal on behalf of grandson, Eric Parker, who had been convicted of murder. Parker paid respondent $12,500 for the appeal.
On or about October 29, 1997 respondent contacted Parker to inform her that she needed to file a writ of habeas corpus and that it would cost an additional $3,000. Parker paid respondent $2,500 for the habeas corpus petition. Respondent prepared and filed a writ of habeas corpus on Eric’s behalf in state court.
After receiving $2,500 for filing a federal habeas corpus petition, respondent failed to file the petition. Respondent agreed to refund the $2500 to Parker, but never did.
On or about November 20, 2000 an arbitrator awarded Parker $2,500 plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from October 29, 1997.
On or about May 1, 2001 the Marin County Superior Court entered a judgment confirming the arbitration award in the amount of $3,365.50.
Conclusion of Law
By not refunding the $2,500 to Parker, respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in wilful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was March 29, 2006.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
Case Number(s): 03-O-05075
In the Matter of: Maureen R. Kallins, # 95038
a. Restitution
checked. Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund (“CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
1. Payee: Clara Parker
Principal Amount: $2,500.00
Interest Accrues From: October 29, 1997
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than .
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
1. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
<<not>> checked. 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.
1. If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated as a “Trust Account” or “Clients’ Funds Account”;
b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:
i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.
c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
2. If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate described above.
3.
The requirements
of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of
Professional Conduct.
<<not>> checked. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 03-O-5075
In the Matter of: Maureen R. Kallins (#95038)
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: Maureen R. Kallins
Date: 4/24/06
Respondent’s Counsel: Charles Gretsch
Date: 4/24/06
Deputy Trial Counsel: Erica L.M. Dennings
Date: 27 April 2006
Case Number(s): 03-O-05075
In the Matter of: Maureen R. Kallins
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.
See attached “Court’s Modifications to Stipulated Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.”
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 135(b), 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 953(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Joann M. Remke
Date: 5/26/06
In The Matter of Maureen R. Kallins
State Bar Court Case No. 03-O-05075
Court’s Modifications to Stipulated Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition
1. On page 3, under "Mitigating Circumstances," an "x" is inserted in the box next to
paragraph (C)(13), indicating no mitigating circumstances are involved.
2. On page 4, under "Discipline," the court finds that an additional two-year actual suspension, even if retroactive to the effective date of respondent’s prior record of discipline, is excessive. Since the misconduct in the present case occurred during the same time as the misconduct in respondent’s prior record of discipline, the court will consider the totality of the findings to determine what the discipline would have been had all the charged misconduct in this period been brought as one case. (ln the Matter of Sklar (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 602, 619.) Thus, the discipline recommended on page 4 under section D is deleted and the following recommendation is inserted:
"Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, the execution of the suspension is stayed, and respondent must be placed on probation for a period of two years with an actual suspension of 30 days and until respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation."
The foregoing discipline will mn concurrent with the discipline imposed by the Supreme Court in case No. S132293 (State Bar Court ease Nos. 97-0-15422).
3. On page 5, under section E(8), the requirement that respondent take Ethics School is deleted. Respondent was ordered to take Ethics School as part of her prior discipline in Supreme Court case No. S132293 (State Bar Court case Nos. 97-0-15422).
4. On page 5, under section F(1), the requirement that respondent take the MPRE is deleted. Respondent was ordered to take the MPRE as part of her prior discipline.
5. On page 5, under section F(2), the requirement that respondent comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court is deleted. Respondent was ordered to comply with rule 955 as part of her prior discipline, effective August 21, 2005; Respondent has not been entitled to practice law since September 1, 2001. Thus, any and all requirements under rule 955 would have been satisfied as part of her compliance with the prior order.
6. On page 6, under section F(5), the paragraph under "Other Conditions" is deleted. While the discipline in this proceeding will rtm concurrent with respondent’s prior discipline, respondent will remain suspended until the two-year actual suspension period from the prior record is completed, until she pays all outstanding restitution (including to Clara Parker) and until she satisfies standard 1.4(e)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
Dated: May 26, 2006
Joann M. Remke
Judge of the 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 San Francisco, on May 26, 2006, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
CHARLES MARTIN GRETSCH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
PO BOX 2007
VANCOUVER, WA 98668 -2007
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ERICA L. M. DENNINGS, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on May 26, 2006.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court