Case Number(s): 04-O-12661
In the Matter of: Geoffrey Hutcheson, Bar # 71304, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Wonder J. Liang, Bar # 184357,
Counsel for Respondent: Vicki H. Young, Bar # 184357,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
Filed: April 21, 2006.
<<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 22, 1976.
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 13 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 added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<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.
9. The parties understand that:
<<not>> checked. (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
The checks drawn on the Client Trust Account were all honored by the bank, and Respondent took immediate steps to insure that no clients lost any funds. Respondent has since instituted new office procedures.
Case Number(s): 04-O-12661
In the Matter of: Geoffrey Hutcheson
a. Restitution
<<not>> 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:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
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.
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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Geoffrey Hutcheson, State Bar No. 71304
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-O-12661
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Facts:
1. At all times mentioned, Respondent maintained a client trust account at U.S. Bank -account number 1-534-0052-2691 ("Trust Account").
2. In or around March 2000, Respondent employed Kristin Harris ("Harris") to act as an office assistant in his law office. In or around March 2002, Respondent assigned Harris the office general bookkeeping and banking responsibilities for Respondent’s general business bank account and the Trust Account.
3. In or around December 2003, Respondent was absent from his office due to illness. During this absence, Harris stole approximately $8,155.88 from Respondent’s general business account by committing forgery and issuing unauthorized checks to herself.
4. In or around January 2004, Respondent moved his office and gave Harris the responsibility of submitting an address change with the bank. Respondent later asked Harris about the location of the Trust Account statements. Respondent relied on Harris’ assertion that the statements were not arriving at the new address due to the bank’s error. Respondent assigned Harris the task of correcting the address change with the bank. Respondent failed to supervise Harris and ensure that the statements arrived at the new address.
5. Respondent or his employee repeatedly issued checks and made electronic debits from the Trust Account against insufficient funds, as follows:
Check No.: 2698, Date Presented: 11-29-02, Amount: $1,740.00, Account Balance: $582.45
Check No.: 3057, Date Presented: 01-23-04, Amount: $2,162.17, Account Balance: $121.03
Check No.: Overdraft, Date Presented: 01-30-04, Amount: $7.29, Account Balance:$(-) 2,074.85
Check No.: 3059, Date Presented: 02-09-04, Amount: $4,020.65, Account Balance: $3,869.86
Check No.: 3061, Date Presented: 02-20-04, Amount: $4,819.90, Account Balance: $815.21
Check No.: 3067, Date Presented: 02-23-04, Amount: $1,000.00, Account Balance:$(-) 2,016.02
Check No.: Overdraft, Date Presented: 02-27-04, Amount: $7.14, Account Balance:$(-) 3,077.88
Check No.: 3069, Date Presented: 03-05-04, Amount: $476.26, Account Balance: $368.29
Check No.: 3065, Date Presented: 03-11-04, Amount: $598.07, Account Balance:$(-) 142.97
6. During the period between in or amend January through in oz around March 2004, the bank sent eight NSF notices to Respondent’s former office address. At no time during this period did Respondent oversee Harris’ bookkeeping or verify that the bank records accurately reflected his new office address.
7. During the period between in or around November 2003 through March 2004, Harris stole approximately $8,020.65 from the Trust Account, and moved approximately $34,520.65 to Respondent’s general business account. At no time during this period did Respondent verify the Trust Account balance or oversee Harris’ bookkeeping procedures.
8, On March 16, 2004, Respondent went to the bank to personally request his bank statement. At which point, he consulted with the bank and discovered that Harris had stolen money from the Trust Account and had committed several forgeries.
9. On or about March 18, 2004, Harris admitted that she had been stealing from her employer - Respondent - since in or around November 2002. On or about April 5, 2004, Harris was arrested for grand theft and forgery.
10. By allowing Harris’ embezzlement of the Trust Account to continue for approximately one-year and five months, Respondent failed to supervise the work of an employee.
Conclusions of Law:
By failing to supervise the work of an employee and by failing to routinely verify the balance in the Trust Account with the bank, Respondent failed to supervise a non-attorney employee in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was March 10, 2006.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trim Counsel has informed respondent that as of March 10, 2006, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $1,983.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only. 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.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.10 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provides that culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in these standards or of a wilful 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 the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
FACTS SUPPORTING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline in the approximate twenty-six years of practice prior to the beginning of the misconduct.
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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 04-O-12661
In the Matter of: Geoffrey Hutcheson
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: Geoffrey Hutcheson
Date: March 17, 2006
Respondent’s Counsel: Vicki H. Young
Date: March 20, 2006
Deputy Trial Counsel: Wonder J. Liang
Date: March 21, 2006
Case Number(s): 04-O-12661
In the Matter of: Geoffrey Hutcheson, State Bar No.: 71304
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 stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AND THE REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department are vacated.
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 125(b), Rules of Procedure.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Joann M. Remke
Date: April 21, 2006
[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 April 21, 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:
VICKI HUI-WEN YOUNG
240 STOCKTON ST #400
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108-5306
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
WONDER LIANG, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on April 21, 2006.
Signed by:
Laine Silber
Case Administrator
State Bar Court