Case Number(s): 05-O-04002
In the Matter of: Iris Claudette Brossard, Bar # 183429, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Rizamari C. Sitton, Bar # 138319
Counsel for Respondent: David Cameron Carr, Bar #
Submitted to: State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: October 3, 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 July 31, 1996.
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 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." See Attachment 1
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law". See Attachment 2
6. The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority." See Attachment 3
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):
<<not>> checked. costs added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2007, 2008 and 2009 (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.
Case Number(s): 05-O-04002
In the Matter of: Iris Claudette Brossard A Member of the State Bar
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: Martin Arcadia-Gutierrez
Principal Amount: $3,500.00
Interest Accrues From: April 20, 2005
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.
ATTACHMENT 1 : FACTS
IN THE MATTER OF: IRIS CLAUDETTE BROSSARD
CASE NUMBER: 05-O-04002
STIPULATED FACTS
Respondent admits and stipulates that the following facts are true:
Background Facts:
1. On April 18, 1997, Martin Arcadia-Gutierrez ("Arcadia-Gutierrez") retained Respondent to file a labor certification with the Immigration and Nationalization Services (" INS") on behalf of Arcadia-Gutierrez. As compensation for Respondent’s services, Arcadia-Gutierrez agreed to pay Respondent $4,500.
2. On April 18, 1997, Arcadia-Gutierrez paid Respondent $1,000 and agreed to make monthly payments of $300 on the remaining balance ($3,500) over the course of the subsequent year.
3. On November 7, 1997, the Employment Development Department ("EDD") sent a letter to Respondent acknowledging that the EDD had received Arcadia-Gutierrez’s Alien Labor Certification application. Respondent received the letter.
4. On September 30, 1999, the U.S. Department of Labor sent a letter to Respondent stating that Arcadia-Gutierrez’s labor certification had been approved. Respondent received the letter.
5. Based on the approval of the labor certification, Arcadia-Gutierrez’s employer was eligible to file an I-140 immigration petition ("I-140 Petition") on Arcadia-Gutierrez’s behalf. Respondent assisted in the preparation of the I-140 petition.
6. On September 26, 2000, the INS sent a letter to Respondent stating that Arcadia-Gutierrez’s I-140 immigration petition had been approved.
7. Based on the approval of the I-140 immigrant petition, Arcadia-Gutierrez was eligible to file an I-485 application for adjustment of status to permanent residence in the United States.
2001 Employment
8. On February 2, 2001, Arcadia-Gutierrez employed Respondent, through Respondent’s office manager, to represent him in an immigration matter, specifically to file an I-485 petition for permanent residence for Arcadia-Gutierrez and his family. Respondent agreed to perform related services, including but not limited to, preparing and processing the pertinent adjustment of status application, preparing and processing work authorization permits, and preparing pertinent document translations.
9. On February 12, 2001, Arcadia-Gutierrez and Respondent entered into a fee agreement pursuant to which Respondent would be paid $3500 as an advance for future attorney services, and Arcadia-Gutierrez would pay all filing fees and other legal costs, in advance, as well.
10. Between February 2001 and August 2001, inclusive, Arcadia-Gutierrez paid Respondent, through Respondent’s office manager, several installments of advanced attorney’s fees which totaled $3500.
11. At no time did Respondent, file an I-485 application on behalf of Arcadia-Gutierrez, or perform any other legal services for his benefit.
12. At no time did Respondent’s office staff perform any immigration services on behalf or for the benefit of Arcadia-Gutierrez.
13. Between February 2001 and August 2001, Respondent was unable to come into the office every day. She had given birth to her first baby in November 2000, and she was having difficulties in caring for her newborn baby and assuming the role of a new mother.
14. As a result of her frequent absences from the office, Respondent was unaware that any of the payments from Arcadia-Gutierrez had been received in her office.
15. As a result of her frequent absences from the office, Respondent was unaware that the I-485 application had not been filed on behalf of Arcadia-Gutierrez, or that no other immigration services had been performed on his matter.
16. On April 20, 2005, Arcadia-Gutierrez employed a new attorney, James E. Root ("Root").
17. Beginning on April 20, 2005, Root informed Respondent by fax, telephone and certified mail, that he had been employed by Arcadia-Gutierrez to handle his immigration matter.
18. As of April 20, 2005, Respondent had not earned any of the funds ($3500) advanced by Arcadia-Gutierrez for future services.
19. Respondent did not become aware that the fees advanced by Arcadia-Gutierrez had been received in her office, until July 11, 2006, when she met with a State Bar attorney regarding this matter.
State Bar Investigation
20. On July 1, 2005, the State Bar opened an investigation, Case no. 05-0-04002, based on a complaint submitted by Arcadia-Gutierrez.
21. On or about October 13, 2005, a State Bar investigator ("Investigator") sent a letter to Respondent informing her of the allegations against him in the Arcadia-Gutierrez matter, and requesting a written response to the allegations by October 26, 2005. The letter was sent to Respondent’s State Bar membership records address; it was not returned as undeliverable; and Respondent received the letter. Respondent did not respond to the letter.
22. On or about November 7, 2005, the Investigator sent a second letter to Respondent requesting a written response to allegations by November 18, 2005. The letter was sent to Respondent’s State Bar membership records address; it was not returned as undeliverable; and Respondent received the letter. Respondent did not respond to the letter.
23. Respondent did not provide the written response as requested by the Investigator; she did not reply in any way to any of the Investigator’s letters; and she did not otherwise communicate with the Investigator.
24. Respondent did not have actual notice of this disciplinary ease until she received a letter from the Client Security Fund (CSF) of the State Bar of California in June 2006 informing her that Arcadia-Gutierrez had filed an application for reimbursement. The letter from CSF was sent to Respondent’s membership address that went into effect on March 2, 2006.
ATTACHMENT 2: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
IN THE MATTER OF: IRIS CLAUDETTE BROSSARD
CASE NUMBER: 05-0-04402
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent admits that he is culpable of violations of the following statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
1. By not taking any steps to assure that her office staff had filed an I-485 application on behalf of Arcadia-Gutierrez, or that the immigration services for which she was hired were being performed for the benefit or on behalf of Arcadia-Gutierrez, Respondent failed to adequately supervise her employees, in wilful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, role 3-110(A).
2. By not refunding the unearned fees to Arcadia-Gutierrez after her employment terminated in April 2005, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, in wilful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
3. By not providing a written response to the allegations as requested by the Investigator, by not replying in any way to the Investigator’s letters, and by not otherwise communicating with the investigator, Respondent failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 60680(i).
ATTACHMENT 3: SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
IN THE MATTER OF: IRIS CLAUDETTE BROSSARD
CASE NUMBER: 05-0-04002
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
Culpability of a member of wilfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of wilfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client. Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, Standard 2.4(b).
Culpability of a member 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. Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, Standard 2.10.
Culpability of a member of a violation of Section 6068 of the Business and Professions Code 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. Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, Standard 2. 6.
In In the Matter of Aguiluz (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 32, the Supreme Court adopted the recommendation that the attorney be given one year stayed suspension and two years probation for failing to perform competently and abandonment of the client’s case. Both mitigating and aggravating circumstances were found, including the attorney’s lack of prior discipline. See, also, In the Matter of Hanson (Review Dept. 1994) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 703.
Business and Professions Code section 6068(i) contemplates that attorneys may be found culpable of violating their duty to cooperate if they fail to participate either in the investigation or in the formal proceedings. Indeed, the Supreme Court, though without addressing the question expressly, has sustained culpability for failing to cooperate at the investigation stage even where, as here, the respondent participated after the investigation has been completed, and the matter forwarded to a deputy trial counsel for formal proceedings. See, e.g., Friedman vs. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 235.
Section 6068 (i) requires attorneys to respond in some fashion to State Bar investigators’ letters. In the Matter of John Nicholas Bach (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 631.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-O-04002
In the Matter of: Iris Claudette Brossard
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: Iris Claudette Brossard
Date: 9/18/06
Respondent’s Counsel: David Cameron Carr
Date: 9/19/06
Deputy Trial Counsel: Rizamari C. Sitton
Date: 9/21/06
Case Number(s): 05-O-04002
In the Matter of: Iris Claudette Brossard
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 page 2, paragraph A.(8) Payment of Disciplinary Costs – after “costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years:”, “2007, 2008 and 2009” is deleted and “2008, 2009 and 2010” is inserted its place.
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: Richard A. Honn
Date: 9/29/06
[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 October 3, 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 Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
DAVID C CARR ESQ
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID CAMERON CARR
110 W C ST STE 1504
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Rizamari C. Sitton, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on October 3, 2006.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court