Case Number(s): 06-O-14861, 07-O-11019, 09-O-14230
In the Matter of: Albert Francis Quintrall, Bar #58066, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Hugh G. Radigan, Jean H.Cha
Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015
Bar # 94251
Counsel for Respondent: Ellen A. Pansky,
Pansky Markle Ham LLP
1010 Sycamore Ave., Unit 308
South Pasadena, California 91030
Bar # 77688,
Submitted to: Settlement 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 18, 1973.
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 18 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 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: three billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Albert Francis Quintrall, State Bar No. 58066
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-O-14861, 07-O-11019, 09-O-14230
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.
Case No. 06-O-14861 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. Respondent failed to submit proof of compliance with the Minimum Legal Education
("MCLE") requirement by January 31, 2005.
2. On September 23, 2005, the Certification Office properly mailed to Respondent at Respondent’s State Bar membership records address a MCLE Non-compliance Notice of Enrollment on Not Entitled Status notifying him that he had been enrolled on Not Entitled Status effective September 16, 2005 and was not eligible to practice law as of that date. The notice mailed to Respondent was not returned as undeliverable or for any other reason. Respondent received the notice on or about September 26, 2005.
3. On September 23, 2005, Respondent signed a release of mechanic’s lien as "Albert Quintrall, Esq./Quintrall & Associates, as authorized agent for claimant." As of September 16, 2005, Respondent was not entitled to practice law.
4. Respondent mailed the release of the mechanic’s lien, along with a letter dated October 5, 2005, to opposing counsel Peter A. Quint ("Quint") on behalf of Respondent’s client. In this letter, Respondent asked Quint to confirm that an October 14, 2005 petition for decree be "taken off calendar."
5. On October 14, 2005, a pleading was filed in the San Diego Superior Court in case IC855467 in which Respondent’s name appears on the letterhead, and which states "Albert F. Quintrall, Esq. Matthew R. Stohl, Esq. [...] Attorneys for Plaintiff," the pleading is signed by Matthew Stohl, but under the signature line reads "Albert F. Quintrall, Esq. Matthew R. Stohl, Esq. [...] Attomey for Plaintiff".
6. On October 24, 2005, the Office of Certification confirmed that the State Bar of California had received the MCLE compliance materials and payment of all outstanding MCLE non-compliance fees from Respondent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
7. By failing to remove his name from the pleading and by signing the release of the mechanic’s lien as counsel for a client, Respondent held himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law and practices and/or attempted to practice law when he was not an active member of the State Bar in willful violation of the Business and Professions Code sections 6125 and 6126 and thereby failed to support the laws of the State of California in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
Case No. 07-O-11019 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
8. On July 15, 2005, the Office of Certification’s MCLE Compliance Unit ("Office of Certification") notified Respondent that he would be enrolled as an inactive member of the State Bar by September 15, 2005, if he failed to comply with MCLE Requirements. Respondent did not respond to the July 15, 2005 notice.
9. On August 5, 2005, the Office of Certification sent Respondent a second notice. Respondent did not respond to the second notice.
10. In July 2005, Jessie L. Slife ("Slife")’s cleaning company, Christian Clean Up Crew, cleaned up a very large apartment complex owned by Slife’s landlord, Esperanza Garcia ("Garcia"), Dario De Luca ("Luca"), and Mirko Marrone ("Marrone"). Thereafter, Slife’s landlord refused to pay for the cleaning work and Slife employed Respondent to file a complaint against his landlord.
11. On August 24, 2005, Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of Slife and his cleaning company, Kern County Superior Court Case No. S 1500CV256279 (the "Slife matter".)
12. On September 12, 2005, Respondent sent a retainer agreement to Slife for his review and signature. On or about September 14, 2005, Slife’s office manager signed and returned the retainer agreement to Respondent.
13. On September 23, 2005, the Office of Certification’s MCLE Compliance Unit ("Office of Certification") notified Respondent that he was enrolled on Not Eligible Status, effective September 16, 2005, for failure to comply with MCLE Requirements.
14. On October 25, 2005, the Office of Certification notified Respondent that his active status was reinstated effective October 24, 2005.
15. Between September 16 and October 24, 2005, the period of time during which Respondent was not entitled to practice law, Respondent held himself out as entitled to practice law as follows:
a. On September 28, 2005, Respondent filed a Notice of Pending Action with the Kern County Recorder, notifying the Assessor-Recorder of the Slife matter against the real property of the defendants. The heading of the Notice of Pending Action identified Respondent as the attorney for the plaintiff;
b. On October 1, 2005, Respondent communicated with Slife as his counsel and Signed his name on the faxed communication from Slife;
c. On October 4, 2005, Respondent faxed a client’s demand to opposing counsel;
d. On October 17, 2005, Respondent filed the proof of service of summons in the Slife matter. The heading of the proof of service identified Respondent as the attorney for the plaintiff;
e. On October 18, 2005, Respondent billed for an "Appearance Date: 10/18/05/Hearing: OSC re: Service";
f. On November 15, 2005, Respondent billed for legal services described as: "10/17/05: review file; telephone call to Robert Ray & Associates; prepare Robert Ray & Associates appearance invoice and documents and arrange for special appearance attorney for 10/14 OSC hearing; note to file re: same."
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
16. By filing a notice of pending action and a proof of service on behalf of a client, communicating with a client as his counsel, and communicating with opposing counsel between September 28 and October 17, 2005, and billing a client for services performed on October 17 and 18, 2005, Respondent held himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law and practices and/or attempted to practice law when he was not an active member of the State Bar in willful violation of the Business and Professions Code sections 6125 and 6126 and thereby failed to support the laws of the State of California in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
Case No. 09-O-14230 (Complainant: Partition Specialties, Inc.)
FACTS:
17. At all relevant times herein, Respondent maintained a client trust account at Pacific Western Bank, in San Diego, California, account no. xxxx18331 (the "CTA"). Settlement Funds Belonging to The Allison Co.
18. In 2007, Respondent represented the Plaintiff in three lawsuits entitled The Allison Co. v. Eleven Western Builders, San Diego Superior Court Case Nos. GIS 27355/GIS 27356, and Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC 467147. In or about December 2007, all three lawsuits settled for one lump sum of $175,000.
19. On December 7, 2007, Eleven Western Builders’ counsel, Jeffrey Haile, sent Respondent the $175,000 settlement funds to be held in Respondent’s CTA on behalf of the Allison Company ("Allison").
20. On December 10, 2007, Respondent deposited the $175,000 settlement funds belonging to Allison into his CTA.
21. In June 2008 and July 2008, Respondent made disbursements to Allison totaling $146,131.88, as follows:
CTA check #1268, dated June 23, 2008, for $25,000, and posted on June 24, 2008;
CTA check #1269, dated July 16, 2008, for $46,131.88, and posted on July 21, 2008;
CTA check #1336, dated July 28, 2008, for $75,000, and posted on July 30, 2008.
Thus, between on or about December 10, 2007, and June 23, 2008, Respondent should have
maintained at least $146,131.88 in trust on behalf of Allison.
22. Respondent’s CTA records, however, indicate that Allison’s funds dissipated from
Respondent’s CTA,as follows:
Date Balance
Date: January 10, 2008, Balance $142,250.26;
Date: February 29, 2008, Balance $ 98,425.85;
Date: March 27, 2008, Balance $ 66,689.86;
Date: April 22, 2008, Balance: $ 52,677.44;
Date : June 10, 2008, Balance: $ 41,163.98;
Date: June 17, 2008, Balance: $ 34,531.54;
Date : June 18, 2008, Balance $ 25,915.54;
Date: June 19, 2008, Balance : $ 15,915.54;
Date : June 25, 2008, Balance: $ 3,305.04;
Date: July 21,2008, Balance: $ 1,184.18;
Funds Belonging to Partition Specialties, Inc.
23. In March 2008, Partition Specialties, inc. ("PSI") retained Respondent for representation in perfecting a mechanic’s lien of $39,021.64 against the Embassy Suites in Valencia, California (the "PSI matter"). PSI paid Respondent a total of $11,355.12 in attorney’s fees.
24. In June 2008, Respondent settled the PSI matter. On July 24, 2008, the opposing party, Camco Pacific Construction Company ("Camco"), sent Respondent a check of $39,021.64 representing full and final payment to PSI in connection with the Embassy Suites Hotel project.
25. On July 25, 2008, Respondent deposited PSI’s funds of $39,021.64 into his CTA.
26. On July 25, 2008, upon receiving then depositing PSI’s funds into his CTA, Respondent failed to notify PSI of the receipt of its funds.
27. Between June 2008 and June 2009, PSI sent Respondent several emails, inquiring into the PSI matter. In response, Respondent inaccurately represented to PSI the true status of its matter, stating on March 22, 2009 that he was going after the surety company to collect the funds due to PSI.
28. On June 17, 2009, PSI directly inquired with Camco as to the status of the funds owed to PSI. Camco informed PSI that it had sent a check of $39,021.64 a year ago to Respondent.
29. On June 18, 2009, PSI sent Respondent a letter, demanding that Respondent pay PSI a total of $60,639.01 that represented the $39,021.64 paid by Camco, $10,262.15 in interest on that amount, and $11,355.12 legal fees to be refunded.
30. On July 1, 2009, Respondent issued a $60,639.01 cashier’s check payable to PSI.
31. Between July 25, 2008, and July 1, 2009, Respondent should have maintained at least $39,021.64 in his CTA on behalf of PSI.
32. Respondent’s CTA records, however, indicate that PSI’s funds dissipated from Respondent’s CTA, as follows:
Date Balance
Date : July 30, 2008, Balance: $15,166.73;
Date : August 1, 2008, Balance : $10,166.73;
Date : August 4, 2008, Balance: $ 4,784.29;
Date : August 12, 2008, Balance: $ 3,784.29;
Date : August 20, 2008, Balance: $ 1,715.85;
Date : September 11, 2008, Balance: $ 358.01;
Date : September 15, 2008, Balance: $ 2,147.99;
33. On July 28, 2008, Respondent used part of PSI’s funds to cover CTA check #1336 in the amount of $75,000, made payable to the Allison Company.
34. On July 25, 2008, upon receiving the check of $39,021.64 representing the funds owed toPSI in connection with the PSI matter, Respondent failed to notify PSI of the receipt of the check.
35. In February and March 2009, PSI sent several emails to Respondent, stating that it learned several subcontractors had been paid on the Embassy Suites Hotel project when PSI was not.
36. On or about March 22, 2009, eight months after receiving and dissipating PSI’s funds, Respondent inaccurately represented to PSI that he "spoke to the surety of the Release of Lien Bond and [Respondent] can get [PSI] paid in full in 30 days..."
37. From March 2006 to the present, Respondent is the sole signatory on the following accounts held at First National Bank:
Account No. xxxx 1094, Respondent’s general operating account ("general acct");
Account No. xxxxl 124: Respondent’s payroll account ("payroll acct");
Account No. xxxx3156: Respondent Prolien payroll account;
Account No. xxxx0074: Respondent’s personal checking account ("personal acct");
Account No. xxxx0228:2 Respondent’s Prolien general account.
[The account numbers are excluded to protect them from identity theft.]
38. Between December 10, 2007, when Respondent deposited the $175,000 funds belonging to
Allison, and July 28, 2008, when he made his last disbursement to Allison, Respondent made several debit transfers from his CTA to Respondent’s other accounts, as follows:
Time Period/Date Amount Account No.
Time Period/Date :12/12/07 to 12/28/07, Amount: $30,000, Account No: general acct;
Time Period/Date :12/12/07 to 12/28/07, Amount: $10,325, Account No: payroll acct;
Time Period/Date :12/12/07 to 12/28/07, Amount: $500, Account No: personal acct;
Time Period/Date :1/2/08 to 1/31/08, Amount: $34,000, Account No: general acct;
Time Period/Date :1/2/08 to 1/31/08, Amount: $4,400, Account No: payroll acct;
Time Period/Date :1/2/08 to 1/31/08, Amount:$2,500, Account No: personal acct;
Time Period/Date :2/1/08 to 2/29/08, Amount:$77,250, Account No: general acct;
Time Period/Date :2/1/08 to 2/29/08, Amount:$5,650, Account No: payroll acct;
Time Period/Date :2/1/08 to 2/29/08, Amount:$8,600, Account No: personal acct;
Time Period/Date :3/10/08 to 3/27/08, Amount: $28,300, Account No: general acct;
Time Period/Date :3/10/08 to 3/27/08, Amount:$1,750, Account No: payroll acct;
Time Period/Date :3/10/08 to 3/27/08, Amount:$3,250, Account No: personal acct;
Time Period/Date :4/1/08 to 4/30/08, Amount:$9,000, Account No: general acct;
Time Period/Date :4/1/08 to 4/30/08, Amount:$870, Account No: payroll acct;
Time Period/Date :4/1/08 to 4/30/08, Amount:$6,500, Account No: personal acct;
Time Period/Date :5/1/08 to 5/30/08, Amount:$23,000, Account No: general acct;
Time Period/Date :5/1/08 to 5/30/08, Amount:$17,420, Account No: payroll acct;
Time Period/Date :5/1/08 to 5/30/08, Amount:$16,700, Account No: personal acct;
Time Period/Date :6/17/08 to 6/23/08, Amount:$11,500, Account No: personal acct general acct;
Time Period/Date :6/17/08 to 6/23/08 , Amount:$2,250 Account No: personal acct payroll acct;
Time Period/Date :6/17/08 to 6/23/08, Amount:$5,500 Account No: personal acct personal acct;
Time Period/Date :7/2/08 to 7/29/08, Amount:$ 1,000, Account No: general acct;
Time Period/Date :7/2/08 to 7/29/08, Amount:$ 7,650, Account No: payroll acct;
Time Period/Date :7/2/08 to 7/29/08, Amount:$ 6,750, Account No: personal acct;
39. Between July 25, 2008, and July 1, 2009, when Respondent deposited the $39,021.64 funds
belonging to PSI, and July 1, 2009, when he remitted to PSI a cashier’s check of $60,639.01,
Respondent made several debit transfers from his CTA to Respondent’s other accounts, as follows:
Time Period/Date :8/1/08 to 8/12/08, Amount: $2,500, Account No.: general acct
Time Period/Date :8/1/08 to 8/12/08, Amount: $6,500, Account No.: payroll acct
Time Period/Date :8/1/08 to 8/12/08, Amount: $8,000, Account No.: personal acct
Time Period/Date :9/3/08 to 9/24/08, Amount: $15,000, Account No.: general acct
Time Period/Date :9/3/08 to 9/24/08, Amount: $2,000, Account No.: payroll acct
Time Period/Date :9/3/08 to 9/24/08, Amount: $8,000, Account No.: personal acct
Time Period/Date :10/6/08 to 10/22/08, Amount: $17,848, Account No.: general acct
Time Period/Date :10/6/08 to 10/22/08, Amount: $1,200, Account No.: payroll acct
Time Period/Date :10/6/08 to 10/22/08, Amount: $74, Account No.: personal acct
Time Period/Date :11/5/08 to 11/28/08, Amount: $7,500, Account No.: general acct
Time Period/Date :11/5/08 to 11/28/08, Amount: $9,800, Account No.: payroll acct
Time Period/Date :11/5/08 to 11/28/08, Amount: $5,000, Account No.: personal acct
Time Period/Date :12/10/08 to 12/31/08, Amount: $23,500, Account No.: general acct
Time Period/Date :12/10/08 to 12/31/08, Amount: $14,750, Account No.: payroll acct
Time Period/Date :12/10/08 to 12/31/08, Amount: $11,000, Account No.: personal acct
Time Period/Date :1/2/09 to 1/29/09, Amount: $13,310, Account No.: general acct
Time Period/Date :1/2/09 to 1/29/09, Amount: $12,070, Account No.: payroll acct
Time Period/Date :1/2/09 to 1/29/09, Amount: $2,000, Account No.: personal acct
Time Period/Date :2/2/09 to 2/26/09, Amount: $21,600, Account No.: general acct
Time Period/Date :2/2/09 to 2/26/09, Amount: $8,400, Account No.: payroll acct
Time Period/Date :2/2/09 to 2/26/09, Amount: $500, Account No.: personal acct
Time Period/Date :3/9/09 to 3/27/09, Amount: $2,000, Account No.: general acct
Time Period/Date :3/9/09 to 3/27/09, Amount: $3,500, Account No.: payroll acct
Time Period/Date :3/9/09 to 3/27/09, Amount: $20 ,Account No.: personal acct
Time Period/Date :4/1/09 to 4/23/09, Amount: $44,000, Account No.: general acct
Time Period/Date :4/1/09 to 4/23/09, Amount: $9,400, Account No.: payroll acct
Time Period/Date :4/1/09 to 4/23/09, Amount: $3,750, Account No.: personal acct
Time Period/Date :5/1/09 to 5/29/09, Amount: $11,500, Account No.: general acct
Time Period/Date :5/1/09 to 5/29/09, Amount: $2,000, Account No.: payroll acct
Time Period/Date :5/1/09 to 5/29/09, Amount: $5,500, Account No.: personal acct
Time Period/Date :6/2/09 to 6/30/09, Amount: $8,500, Account No.: general acct
Time Period/Date :6/2/09 to 6/30/09, Amount: $17,050, Account No.: payroll acct
Time Period/Date :6/2/09 to 6/30/09, Amount: $7,700, Account No.: personal acct
[On June 25, 2009, Respondent deposited into his CTA $160,000 funds belonging to client Arrow Construction. ]
Time Period/Date :7/1/09 to 7/31/09, Amount: $12,900, Account No.: general acct
Time Period/Date :7/1/09 to 7/31/09, Amount: $19,675, Account No.: payroll acct
Time Period/Date :7/1/09 to 7/31/09, Amount: $ 5,000, Account No.: personal acct
40. By failing to maintain at least $146,131.88 in trust on behalf of the Allison Company and
$39,021.64 in trust on behalf of PSI, Respondent failed to maintain the balance of funds received four the benefit of clients, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
41. By failing to notify PSI of the receipt of its funds, Respondent failed to notify a client
promptly of the receipt of the client’s funds, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(1).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
42. By: (i) failing to maintain in trust at least $146,131.88 on behalf of the Allison Company,
and (ii) $39, 021.64 on behalf of PSI; (iii) using client funds belonging to PSI to cover a disbursement made to the Allison Company; and (iv) using client funds belonging to the Allison Company and to PSI to replenish his general account, his payroll account, and his personal checking account, Respondent acted with gross negligence which resulted in the misappropriation of funds belonging to clients, and thereby committed acts of moral turpitude, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was March 1, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.6(a) provides that, "The appropriate sanction for an act of professional misconduct shall be that set forth in the following standards for the particular act of misconduct found or acknowledged. If two or more acts of professional misconduct are found or acknowledged in a single disciplinary proceeding, and different sanctions are prescribed by these standards for said acts, the sanction imposed shall be the more or most severe of the different applicable sanctions."
Standard 1.6(b)(i) provides for a greater degree of discipline than the appropriate sanction where
aggravating circumstances are found to surround the complained of misconduct. The fact that
Respondent failed to distribute settlement proceeds to two clients or to advise them for over a year that their respective matters had concluded, constitutes significant aggravation. Using these separate settlement proceeds for the unintended purposes of continuing to operate his practice, meet payroll, and fund his personal account, cannot be condoned.
Standard 2.2(a) provides for disbarment where culpability for willful misappropriation of entrusted founds is found.
Standard 2.2(b) provides for at least a three month actual suspension where culpability for commingling entrusted funds with personal property is found, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
Standard 2.3 provides for actual suspension or disbarment for an act of moral turpitude, fraud, or
intentional dishonesty toward a client or concealment of a material fact from a client. There are two counts of moral turpitude pied herein and allegations of misappropriation of in excess of $185,000.00.
Standard 2.6 provides for disbarment or suspension depending upon the gravity of the offense or harm where culpability for violation of section 6068(a) is found.
The Standards should be followed whenever possible. In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 81, 92.
Based upon Standard 1.6(a), Standards 2.2 and 2.3 are the controlling standards in these matters due to Respondent’s failure to provide an accounting and timely acknowledge to the client that settlement had been achieved and his failure to make timely disbursement of those same settlement funds thereafter. Standard 2.2 requires at least a three month actual suspension, irrespective of mitigating circumstances. Standard .2.3 provides for actual suspension or disbarment for an act of moral turpitude as occurred herein where a misappropriation in excess of $185,000.00 took place. It would be manifestly unjust to strictly apply Standard 2.3 and good cause exists to deviate from its guidelines, inasmuch as the clients did not allege they were owed a fee refund and did not resort to pursuing fee dispute relief.
Respondent’s gross negligence with respect to this misappropriation further allows for a deviation from the strict application of these Standards.
In consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s misconduct, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances present, the parties submit that the intent and goals of the Standards are met in this matter by the imposition of an eighteen month actual suspension, a three year stayed suspension period and three years probation.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No.: 09-O-14230, Count: Three, Alleged Violation : Business and Professions Code section 6106 [moral turpitude misrepresentation]
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of March 1,2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $5,539.00. 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.
Case Number(s): 06-O-14861, 07-O-11019, 09-O-14230
In the Matter of: Albert Francis Quintrall
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: Albert Francis Quintrall
Date: March 2, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel: Ellen A. Pansky, Esq.
Date: March 3, 2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Hugh G. Radigan
Date: March 3, 2011
Case Number(s): 06-O-14861, 07-O-11019, 09-O-14230
In the Matter of: Albert Francis Quintrall
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.
On page 6 of the stipulation, an "X" is inserted in box F(2) so that respondent will be required to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.20 and to perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter.
On page 6 of the stipulation, the "X" in box F(3) is deleted to remove the conditional California Rules of Court, rule 9.20 requirement.
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 5.58 (E) & (F), 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: DONALD F. MILES
Date: March 9, 2011
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); 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 March 10, 2011, 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:
ELLEN ANNE PANSKY
PANSKY MARKLE HAM LLP
1010 SYCAMORE AVE UNIT 308
SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
HUGH RADIGAN/ JEAN CHA, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on March 10, 2011.
Signed by:
Laine Sibler
Case Administrator
State Bar Court