State Bar Court of California
Case Number(s): 06-O-13698
In the Matter of: Steven Joseph Cooper, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent), Bar # 81689
Counsel For The State Bar: Paul T. O’Brien, Bar # 171252
Counsel for Respondent: David A. Clare, Bar # 44971
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
<<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 November 29, 1978.
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 10 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):
<<not>>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.
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: two billing cycles following the effective date of Supreme Court order in this matter. (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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Steven Joseph Cooper
CASE NUMBER(S): ET AL. 06-O-13698
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.
FACTS
1. In or about March 2002, Audrey Kathleen Schumaker Williams ("Audrey") employed Respondent to take over representation of her in a personal injury/battery case against a former domestic partner, Walid Haz Abed, Williams v. Abed, Santa Cruz Superior Court Case No. CISCV138630 ("the P.I. case"). Audrey was also the joint owner, with Abed, of a piece of real property in Pine Grove, Amador County, California ("the Pine Grove property"). The Pine Grove property consisted of acreage and a cabin, which had been purchased in or about 1999 for approximately $110,000. Audrey enjoyed an undivided, one-half interest in the Pine Grove property.
2. Audrey had previously been represented by attorney Sally Williams (no relation to Audrey. Ms. Williams provided her entire file in the P.I. case to Respondent on or about March 14, 2002.
3. On or about April 15, 2002, Respondent entered into a verbal agreement with Audrey, which he reduced to writing in a draft Attorney-Client Fee Contract ("draft fee agreement"). The draft agreement was not, however, signed by Audrey or Respondent. By way of the draft fee agreement, Respondent and Audrey entered into an agreement that would confer one-half of Audrey’s one-half interest in the Pine Grove property as Respondent’s fee in the P.I. case. Respondent referred to the Pine Grove property in the draft fee agreement as being "of questionable value," but had not arranged for an appraisal or otherwise researched the property’s worth. Respondent estimated that his legal services in the P.I. case were anticipated to cost between $5,000 and $30,000.
4. The draft fee agreement included the following language, which Respondent intended to as a conflict waiver by Audrey in the transfer of her property interest as Respondent’s fee. "As a condition of attorney’s representation of Client in this matter, Client agrees to waive all claims of liability and hold attorney harmless for any purported conflict of interest herein."
5. Respondent did not at any time inform Audrey in writing that she could or should seek the advice of independent counsel regarding this transaction, although he did orally advise her to do so. Respondent gave Audrey the time to seek such advice. However, Audrey did not consent in writing to the transaction nor to the terms of the acquisition outlined in the draft fee agreement.
6. On or about August 22, 2003, Respondent filed a grant deed with the Amador County Recorder’s office, bearing Audrey’s notarized signature, which transferred one-half of Audrey’s interest in the Pine Grove property to Respondent. Subsequently, Respondent made no attempts to make use of the property, e.g., occupy, lease, leverage, or exercise any control over it.
7. Thereafter, Respondent performed some services on behalf of Audrey in the P.I. case; however, he was prevented from completing the services due, in large part, to Audrey’s failure to cooperate, including her failure to appear at hearings or trial, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of her case.
8. Due largely to Audrey’s conduct, Respondent was unable to perform services to earn the full value of the fee in the P.I. case, and he did not refund the unearned portion of the fee to Audrey upon termination of the representation. Respondent did not provide services equal to the value of the Pine Grove property to Audrey throughout the representation. At no time did Respondent re-convey the one-fourth interest in the Pine Grove Property, or any portion thereof, to Audrey.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
9. By accepting 50% interest in his client’s share of the Pine Grove property as his fee for legal services, Respondent knowingly acquired an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client, the terms of which were not fully disclosed to the client in a manner which should reasonably have been understood by the client. By not reducing to writing any advice regarding the conflict or potential conflict with Audrey, Respondent failed to advise his client in writing that She may seek independent counsel of her choosing and failed to provide the client a reasonable opportunity to seek such advice. By not securing Audrey’s signature, approving of the terms of the proposed division of the Pine Grove property, Respondent failed to obtain the written consent of his client to the terms of the transaction or acquisition. By each of the acts or omissions herein described, Respondent wilfully violated role 3-300.
10. By conditioning his representation of Audrey on her waiver of any claim of a conflict of interest, Respondent contracted with a client prospectively limiting Respondent’s liability to the client for the member’s professional malpractice, in willful violation of rule 3-400.
11. By not refunding the unearned portion of the fee paid upon termination of employment, Respondent failed, upon termination of his-employment, to promptly refund any part of a fee paid in advance that had not been earned, in violation of rule 3-700(D)(2).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(6), was February 19, 2010
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of February 12, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are $ 2,059.26 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 2.8 provides that culpability of a member of a willful violation of rule 3-300, Rules of Professional Conduct, shall result in suspension unless the extent of the member’s misconduct and the harm to the client are minimal, in which case, the degree of discipline shall be reproval. Here, the harm to Respondent’s client cannot be said to be minimal, as she has not for several years enjoyed the ownership interest in the Pine Grove property to which she should have been entitled.
OTHER CONDITIONS NEGOTIATED BY THE PARTIES.
Within the first 60 days after the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter, Respondent will convey his interest in the Pine Grove property to Audrey. In so doing, Respondent does not waive his right to any fees earned during the representation.
If the Pine Grove property has been sold by the time of the effective date. of the Supreme Court order, Respondent will release his claim to the proceeds from the sale, and will so instruct the party or entity acting as an escrow for the sale of the Pine Grove property.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 06-O-13698
In the Matter of: Steven Joseph Cooper
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: Steven J. Cooper
Date: 3/3/10
Respondent’s Counsel: David A. Clare
Date: 3/2/10
Deputy Trial Counsel: Paul T. O’Brien
Date: 3/9/10
Case Number(s): 06-O-13698
In the Matter of: Steven Joseph Cooper
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 DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> 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.
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 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: 3-17-10
[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 18, 2010, 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 ALAN CLARE ESQ
444 W OCEAN BLVD STE 800
LONG BEACH, CA 90802
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Paul T. O’Brien, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 18, 2010.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court