Case Number(s): 07-O-14974; [08-O-10248]
In the Matter of: Michael C. Hall, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent), Bar # 230319
Counsel For The State Bar: Esther Rogers, Bar # 148246
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
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 April 13, 2004.
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. 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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Michael C. Hall, State Bar No. 230319
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-O-14974 [08-O-10248]
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Case No. 07-0-14974
COUNT ONE
Facts
At all relevant times, respondent failed to maintain an attorney client trust account. At all relevant times, respondent maintained a business checking account at Tri Counties Bank ("business checking account.")
Prior to in or about August 2005, Mabel Lemley fell in a Michael’s store. In or about August 2005, Lemley employed respondent, whose office at the time was located in Chico, to represent her in a personal injury action-against Michael’s. At that. time, respondent and Lemley entered into a settlement agreement that entitled respondent to collect a contingency fee.
In or about June 2007, the parties settled their dispute and Michael’s agreed to pay Lemley $29,651.27 in settlement funds. In or about June 2007, respondent relocated to Utah and closed his law practice in California. On or about June 28, 2007, respondent received a settlement check in the amount of $29,651.27 and deposited the check into his business checking account.
At the time that respondent received the settlement check, Lemley was owed $12,315 as her portion of the settlement and a lien holder was owed $6,143.68, for a total of $18,458.68. Respondent was entitled to collect the remainder as his contingency fee and for reimbursement of costs. Respondent should have maintained $18,458.68 in a trust account until paid out for the benefit of Lemley.
At the time that respondent received the settlement check, he failed to provide Lemley with an accounting and failed to distribute the settlement proceeds. Between on or about June 28, 2007 and on or about November 26, 2007, respondent failed to maintain all of the $18,458.68 in the business checking account. On or about September 27, 2007, respondent provided the lien holder with a check for $6,143.68 drawn on his business checking account, which cleared the account on or about October 1, 2007. On or about October 11, 2007, respondent provided Lemley with a check for $12,315 drawn on his business checking account. At the time that respondent provided Lemley with the check, the balance in the business checking account was $11,734.21, with a shortfall of $580.79.
On or about October 15, 2007, the check respondent provided Lemley was rejected by respondent’s bank because it was written against insufficient funds. Between on or about October 15, 2007 and on or about November 26, 2007, Lemley attempted to locate respondent so that she could obtain her portion of the settlement proceeds. After Lemley was unable to reach respondent by telephone or at his office in Chico, Lemley filed a complaint with the State Bar, Chico Police Department and Butte County District Attorney’s Office.
As of on or about November 23, 2007, respondent did not have sufficient funds in the business checking account to pay Lemley, since he owed her $12,315, but only maintained $11,545.53 in the business checking account, for a shortfall of $769.47. On or about November 26, 2007, respondent provided Lemley a check for $12,325, which consisted ~of her settlement funds and reimbursement for the bank charges she incurred as a result of the check that was returned due to insufficient funds. Respondent wrote the check from an account he maintained at Mountain America Bank.
By falling to deposit and maintain Lemley’s funds into an attorney client trust account and by converting some of Lemley’s funds to his own use and purpose, respondent willfully misappropriated $769.47 from Lemley.
Conclusion of Law
By misappropriating funds from Lemley, respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6106.
COUNT TWO
Facts
Count One is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
By failing to deposit Lemley’s funds in the attorney client trust account, respondent willfully failed to maintain the balance Lemley’s funds received for Lemley’s benefit in a bank account labeled "trust account."
Conclusion of Law
By falling to deposit funds received for the benefit of a client in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import, respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
Case No. 08-0-10248
COUNT THREE
Facts
In or about February 2004, Erin Dunwell was injured in motor vehicle accident. In or about June 2005, Dunwell employed respondent to represent her in a personal injury action as a result of the injuries Dunwell suffered in the motor vehicle accident.
On February 7, 2006, respondent filed a complaint in the matter Dunwell v. Wang, Contra Costa County Superior Court, case number C06-00262. In or about June 2006, respondent ceased providing any services to Dunwell. At the time that respondent ceased providing services, discovery was ongoing in Dunwell v. Wang.
Commencing in or about June 2006, respondent failed to respond to outstanding discovery, failed to appear at case management conferences, failed to cooperate with opposing counsel in selecting an arbitrator, failed to respond to opposing counsel’s letters regarding the outstanding discovery, and failed to respond to Wang’s motion to compel discovery.
On July 17, 2007, after respondent failed to respond to Wang’s motion to compel discovery, the court issued an order compelling Dunwell to respond to discovery and sanctioning the respondent and Dunwell jointly $540 in fees and costs, payable in 30 days. Respondent was properly served with the July 17, 2007 order. Thereafter, respondent failed to prepare any discovery responses and failed to pay the discovery sanctions.
On or about August 24, 2007, Wang filed a motion to dismiss Dunwell’s matter because Dunwell failed to comply with the July 17, 2007. Respondent was properly served with the motion to dismiss. On August 24, 2007, after respondent failed to appear at a case management conference, the Court issued an order to show for respondent’s failure to appear at the conference, ordering respondent to appear on September 24, 2007. Respondent was properly served with the August 24, 2007 Order to Show Cause. Respondent failed to appear at the September 24, 2007 hearing. On or about September 24, 2007, Dunwell filed a motion requesting that the court relieve respondent as counsel and substitute Dunwell in pro per, which the court granted on November 9, 2007.
On or about February 12, 2009, respondent paid the $540 sanction.
Conclusions of Law
By ceasing to perform legal services in or about June 2006, including failing to respond to outstanding discovery, failing to appear at case management conferences, failing to cooperate with opposing counsel in selecting an arbitrator, failing to respond to opposing counsel’s letters regarding the outstanding discovery, failing to respond to Wang’s motion to compel discovery, failing to provide the court ordered discovery responses, causing sanctions of $540 to be issued jointly against Dunwell for respondent’s failure to respond to discovery requests, failing to pay the court ordered sanctions and failing to respond to the Wang’s motion to dismiss, respondent intentionally, recklessly and repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
COUNT FOUR
Facts
Count Three is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
On July 17, 2007, the court issued an order compelling Dunwell to respond to discovery and sanctioning the respondent and Dunwell jointly $540 in fees and costs, payable in 30 days. Respondent was properly served with the July 17, 2007 order: Thereafter, respondent failed to pay the discovery sanctions and failed to provide the discovery responses.
On August 24, 2007, the court issued an order to show for respondent’s failure to appear at the conference, ordering respondent to appear on September 24, 2007. Respondent was properly served with the August 24, 2007 Order to Show Cause. Respondent failed to appear at the September 24, 2007 hearing.
Conclusions of Law
By disobeying the Contra Costa County Superior Court orders, respondent disobeyed orders of a court requiring him to do an act connected with or in the course of respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to do, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6103.
COUNT FIVE
Facts
Count Three is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Respondent failed to inform Dunwell of the following significant developments: respondent had failed to respond to outstanding discovery, Wang filed a motion to compel discovery responses, respondent failed to respond to the motion to compel discovery responses, Wang filed a motion to compel discovery responses, respondent failed to respond to the motion to compel discovery responses, the court issued an order sanctioning respondent and Dunwell for failure to provide discovery responses, Wang filed a motion to dismiss Dunwell’s matter because respondent had failed to provide discovery responses.
Between in or about April 2007 and in or about September 2007, Dunwell repeatedly sent respondent letters and emails requesting that respondent execute a substitution of attorney so that Dunwell could substitute in pro per. Respondent received the letters and emails, but failed to respond to them and failed to provide Dunwell with an executed substitution of attorney.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to inform Dunwell of the items set forth above, respondent failed to keep Dunwell reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
By failing to respond to Dunwell’s letters and emails requesting that respondent provide her with an executed substitution of attorney, respondent willfully failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services, respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
COUNT SIX
Facts
Count Three is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
In or about June 2006, respondent constructively terminated his services when he ceased performing services for Dunwell. Between in or about April 2007 and in or about September 2007, Dunwell repeatedly sent respondent letters and emails requesting that respondent return her client file so that Dunwell could substitute in pro per. Respondent received the letters and emails, but failed to respond to them and failed to provide Dunwell with her client file.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to provide Dunwell with her client file, respondent willfully failed to release promptly to the client, upon termination of employment, all client papers, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
COUNT SEVEN
Facts
Count Three is. incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
In or about June 2006, respondent constructively withdrew from employment when he ceased performing services for Dunwell. At the time that respondent withdrew, Dunwell’s matter was pending before the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Respondent failed to seek permission from the Contra Costa County Superior Court before he withdrew.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to seek the court’s permission to withdraw, respondent willfully withdrew from employment in a proceeding before a tribunal without its permission, in wilful violation Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(1).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(6), was February 11, 2010.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of February 10, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,800. 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.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Standard 1.2(b)(iv). Harm. In the Dunwell matter, respondent’s failure to perform resulted in the significant harm to Dunwell since respondent abandoned Dunwell and since she was jointly sanctioned $540 for respondent’s failure to respond to the discovery.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Standard 1.2(e)(v) Cooperation. Respondent agreed to the imposition of discipline without requiring a hearing.
Other Mitigating Circumstances
Emotional Difficulties. Respondent presented proof from treating health care providers that respondent suffered from anxiety and depression at the time of the misconduct.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL EXCLUSION
Respondent resides outside California and is unable to attend State Bar Ethics School. As an alternative to State Bar Ethics School, the parties agree that respondent will complete the following courses: Respondent will complete six hours of MCLE in the subject of ethics.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 07-O-14974; [08-O-10248]
In the Matter of: Michael C. Hall
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: Michael C. Hall
Date: 2/20/2010
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Esther Rogers
Date: 2/23/2010
Case Number(s): 07-O-14974; [08-O-10248]
In the Matter of: Michael C. Hall
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: Pat McElroy
Date: March 22, 2010
[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 23, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
MICHAEL C. HALL
THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C HALL
2481 C AVE
OGDEN, UT 84401
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ESTHER J. ROGERS, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on March 23, 2010.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court