Case Number(s): 07-O-14994; 08-O-11564; and 08-O-10037
In the Matter of: Joseph Louis Lisoni, Bar # 55051, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Dane C. Dauphine, No. 121606
Supervising Trial Counsel
1140 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1000
Bar # 121606
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Joseph Louis Lisoni
PO Box 1614
Buellton, CA 93427
Bar#55051
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
<<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 January 8, 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 19 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 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
<<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.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in California in 1973 and has no prior record of discipline. He cooperated with the State Bar in entering into this Stipulation.
Respondent represents that: In 2004 and/or 2005, he suffered from a complete mental and physical breakdown; during portions of the period from 2004 to 2008, he was addicted fo prescription and illegal drugs (including Vicodin and cocaine), engaged in excessive gambling, participated in a 30-day detoxification program, was hospitalized for seven days on an involuntary psychiatric hold, and lived for 17 months in a sober living facility where he was actively involved in an Alcoholics Anonymous and Cocaine
Anonymous program; as a result of the treatment that he received, he has not been addicted to any drug since 2008; he has not had any alcohol to drink since 1981; in January 2008, he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and depression; in about March 2008, he was found to be disabled by the Social Security Administration due to mental health reasons (bipolar disorder and depression) and has been receiving Social Security Disability benefits; and he is currently being treated by a psychiatrist (on a monthly basis) and a psychologist (on a weekly basis).
IN THE MATTER OF: Joseph Louis Lisoni
CASE NUMBER(S): 07-O-14994, 08-O-11564, 08-O-10037
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. 07-0-14994 (COMPLAINANT: RENE BARELA)
FACTS:
1. Respondent and attorney Gail M. Lisoni were partners in the law firm of Lisoni & Lisoni from 1984 to 2007 and were married to each other from 1984 to 2010.
2. On June 8, 2000, Rene Barela Mationg ("Barela") hired Lisoni & Lisoni to represent him in a civil rights matter on a contingency basis and entered into a written fee agreement providing in part that he would pay attorney’s fees in the amount of 40 percent of any recovery after the case was filed with the court and reimburse any costs paid on his behalf.
3. Respondent and Ms. Lisoni (collectively, the "Lisonis") both worked on Barela’s case.
4. On September 27, 2000, Respondent filed a lawsuit on Barela’s behalf, in Rene Barela Mationg v. City of Los Angeles, et al., United States District Court, Central District of California ("USDC, CD Cal."), Case No. CV00-10367-GAF(AJWx) (the "Barela matter").
5. On March 18, 2004, the Lisonis settled the Barela matter for $240,000 with Barela’s consent.
6. At all times mentioned herein, the Lisonis maintained a client trust account at Bank of America, account number xxxxx-x0666 ("CTA") and were the only signatories on the CTA. (For privacy purposes, only the last four digits of the account number are shown.)
7. On June 18, 2004, the Lisonis received the $240,000 Barela settlement check and deposited it into the CTA.
8. Pursuant to their fee agreement, the Lisonis were entitled to receive $96,000 in attorneys’ fees (40 percent of $240,000) from the Barela settlement, and to be reimbursed for costs, but never sought reimbursement of any costs.
9. Barela was entitled to receive $144,000 as his share of the settlement.
10. In June 2004, Respondent notified Barela of his receipt of Barela’s settlement funds and asked Barela to lend him those funds for the purpose of funding another lawsuit in which Respondent was seeking or intended to seek class certification, Martin Frosini et al. v. Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire ("Bridgestone "), et al., USDC, CD Cal, Case No. CV05-00578-CAS-RZ (the "Class
Action").
11. Respondent did not memorialize in writing the terms of the loan that he requested from Barela.
12. Barela did not agree to lend any funds to Respondent. However, based on Respondent’s discussions with Barela, Respondent had a good faith belief that Barela agreed to the loan. Respondent’s belief was unreasonable, in part because the alleged agreement was not memorialized in writing and no agreement was reached regarding the interest rate and terms for repayment.
13. From July 13, 2000 to June 17, 2004, prior to their receipt of the settlement check, the Lisonis loaned funds to Barela as advances against any future settlement.
14. From June 18, 2004 to March 2, 2007, the Lisonis continued to make payments to Barela, which Barela believed to be additional advances against his settlement.
15. To date, the Lisonis have paid a total of $90,322 to Barela (against the $144,000 to which Barela was entitled from the settlement funds) and still owe him $53,678, which they were required to maintain in the CTA.
16. On May 10, 2005, the CTA balance was $17,230.48.
17. On May 8, 2007, the CTA balance was $4,941.33.
18. On May 9, 2007, the CTA balance was $7,458.85.
19. On August 15, 2007, the CTA balance was negative $15.95.
20. In February 2008, the Lisonis closed the CTA.
21. The Lisonis did not maintain in the CTA the sum of $53,678 on behalf of Barela because Respondent had a good faith belief that Barela had agreed to tend the settlement funds to Respondent. However, since Barela had not agreed to any loan and Respondent’s belief that Barela had agreed to the loan was unreasonable, Respondent, with gross negligence, misappropriated $53,678 of Barela’s funds.
22. On May 9, 2007, Barela met with the Lisonis and demanded that they pay him his share of the settlement funds.
23. During the May 9, 2007 meeting, the Lisonis and Barela reached an agreement by which Barela agreed to lend to Respondent the entire settlement in the amount of $240,000.
24. Respondent then signed and provided Barela a document in which, among other things, Respondent acknowledged receipt of a non-recourse loan from Barela in the amount of $240,000 with interest at 10 percent per annum, payable from the attorneys’ fees due from the anticipated settlement of the Class Action; and waived all payments made to Barela to date (the "Barela Loan Agreement").
25. On May 9, 2007, Barela agreed to the terms of the Barela Loan Agreement but did not sign it and was not asked to do so.
26. The terms of the Barela Loan Agreement were not fair and reasonable to Barela, in part because they provided for a non-recourse loan, with security limited to the attorneys’ fees from an anticipated settlement of the Class Action; and did not provide any due date for repayment of the entire loan or for periodic payments by dates certain.
27. The terms of the Barela Loan Agreement were not fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to Barela in a manner which should reasonably have been understood. Respondent did not inform Barela that the class had not yet been certified, that it might not be certified, and that there might not be any attorneys’ fees awarded to them.
28. Respondent did not advise Barela in writing that he may seek the advice of an independent lawyer of his choice, and consequently, did not give him a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice.
29. On August 24, 2007, the court granted defendant Bridgestone’s motion for summary adjudication in the Class Action and denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court dismissed the Class Action.
30. As a result, Respondents did not collect any attorneys’ fees in the Class Action and the $240,000 loan from Barela was not repaid.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
31. By not maintaining the settlement funds to which Barela was entitled in a trust account on behalf of Barela, Respondent failed to maintain the balance of funds received for the benefit of a client and deposited in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
32. By misappropriating settlement funds owed to Barela, due to gross negligence, Respondent willfully committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6106.
33. By providing the Barela Loan Agreement to Barela, pursuant to terms that were not fair and reasonable and that were not fully disclosed and transmitted in writing in a manner which should reasonably have been understood, and by not advising Barela that he may seek the advice of an independent lawyer of his choice and consequently not giving him a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice before agreeing to the terms of the Agreement, Respondent entered into a business transaction with a client, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-300.
CASE NO. 08-0-11564
(COMPLAINANT: ADAM ROLLINS ON BEHALF OF SALVADOR ARIAS)
FACTS:
34. On March 7, 2000, Salvador Luis Arias ("Arias") hired Lisoni & Lisoni to represent him and his minor daughter, Lisa Marie Arias ("Lisa") in a civil rights matter on a contingency basis, and entered into a written fee agreement providing in part that Arias would pay attorney’s fees in the amount of 40 percent of any recovery after the case was filed with the court, and reimburse any costs paid on his behalf.
35. The Lisonis both worked on Arias’s case and Lisa’s case.
36. On September 27, 2000, Gail Lisoni filed a lawsuit on Arias’s behalf, in Salvador Luis Arias v. City of Los Angeles, et al., USDC, CD Cal., Case No. CV00-10366-GAF (AJWx) (the "Arias matter").
37. On November 20, 2000, after the court appointed Arias as guardian ad litem for Lisa, Gail Lisoni filed a lawsuit on Lisa’s behalf, in Lisa Marie Arias, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Salvador Luis Arias v. City of Los Angeles, et al., USDC, CD Cal., Case No. CV00-12275GAF (AJWx) ("Lisa’s matter").
38. On December 3, 2001, the Lisonis settled Arias’s matter for $350,000 and Lisa’s matter for $10,000, totaling $360,000, and signed Arias’s name to the Release of All Claims and Parent’s Indemnification Agreement (the "Release") on behalf of Arias and Lisa.
39. On January 4, 2002, Gail Lisoni prepared a Petition of Guardian Ad Litem for Compromise of Disputed Claim of Minor ("Petition"), seeking court approval of a $10,000 settlement in Lisa’s matter. The Petition, which was filed on or about January 8, 2002, bears a signature that purports to be that of Arias. On January 10, 2002, the court authorized Respondent to be paid $2,500 in attorneys’ fees from Lisa’s settlement.
40. The court further ordered in part that a check was to be issued for Lisa’s share of the settlement, in the amount of $7,500, made payable both to Arias, as trustee for Lisa, and to Bank of America, bearing an endorsement on the face or reverse side of such check to the effect that the check was for deposit in a federally insured blocked account in the name of Arias as trustee for Lisa.
41. The court further ordered that within 48 hours of receiving the check for Lisa’s share of the settlement, Arias and Respondent must deposit the check in Arias’s name, as trustee for Lisa, in Bank of America, Lake and Colorado, Pasadena, CA, and that Respondent must deliver to the bank three copies of the Order to Deposit Money; and that Arias may make no withdrawal from Lisa’s account without first obtaining an order from the Court authorizing such withdrawal.
42. The City of Los Angeles (the "City") issued one settlement check in the amount of $360,000, in settlement of both Arias’s matter and Lisa’s matter.
43. On January 11, 2002, the Lisonis received the $360,000 settlement check from the City and deposited it in the CTA.
44. Pursuant to their fee agreement with Arias, the Lisonis were entitled to receive $140,000 in attorneys’ fees (40 percent of $350,000) for the Arias matter, and were entitled to be reimbursed for costs, but never sought reimbursement of any costs from Arias.
45. Arias was entitled to receive $210,000 as his share of the $350,000 settlement.
46. In January 2003, Respondent notified Arias of his receipt of the settlement funds for Arias’s case and Lisa’s case and asked Arias to lend him those settlement funds for the purpose of funding the Class Action.
47. Respondent did not memorialize in writing the terms of the loan he requested from Arias.
48. Arias did not agree to lend any funds to Respondent. However, based on Respondent’s discussions with Arias, Respondent had a good faith that Arias agreed to the loan. Respondent’s belief was unreasonable, in part because the alleged agreement was not memorialized in writing and no agreement was reached regarding the interest rate and terms for repayment.
49. From April 4, 2000 to January 10, 2002, prior to their receipt of the settlement check in the Arias mater, the Lisonis loaned funds to Arias as advances against any future settlement.
50. From January 11, 2002 to March 9, 2007, the Lisonis continued to make payments to Arias, which he believed to be additional advances against his future settlement.
51. The Lisonis were required to maintain the settlement funds to which Arias was entitled in the CTA.
52. As of May 28, 2004, the Lisonis had paid $158,630 to Arias (against the $210,000 to which Arias was entitled from his settlement funds) and still owed him $51,370, which Respondents were required to maintain in the CTA. On May 28, 2004, the balance in the CTA was $12,330.90, which was $39,039 less than the amount still owed to Arias at that time.
53. As of June 10, 2004, the Lisonis had paid a total of $162,130 to Arias and still owed him $47,870 from his settlement, which they were required to maintain in the CTA. On June 10, 2004, the balance in the CTA was $5,518.90, which was $42,351 less than the amount still owed to Arias at that time.
54. The Lisonis did not maintain in the CTA the settlement funds to which Arias was entitled because Respondent had a good faith belief that Arias had agreed to lend the settlement funds to Respondent. However, since Arias had not agreed to any loan and Respondent’s belief that Arias had agreed to the loan was unreasonable, Respondent, with gross negligence, misappropriated $42,351 of Arias’ s funds.
55. On May 9, 2007, Arias met with the Lisonis and demanded that they pay him his share of the settlement funds.
56. By that time, the Lisonis had paid over $300,000 to Arias.
57. During the May 9, 2007 meeting, the Lisonis and Arias reached an agreement by which Arias agreed to lend to Respondent the entire settlement in the amount of $360,000. Respondent then signed and provided Arias a document in which, among other things, Respondent acknowledged receipt of a non-recourse loan from Arias in the amount of $360,000 with interest at 10 percent per annum, payable from the attorneys’ fees due from the anticipated settlement of the Class Action; and waived all
payments made to Arias to date (the "Arias Loan Agreement").
58. On May 9, 2007, Arias agreed to the terms of the Arias Loan Agreement but did not sign it and was not asked to do so.
59. The terms of the Arias Loan Agreement were not fair and reasonable to Arias, in part because they provided for a non-recourse loan, with security limited to the attorneys’ fees from an anticipated settlement of the Class Action; and did not provide any due date for repayment of the entire loan or for periodic payments by dates certain.
60. The terms of the Arias Loan Agreement were not fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to Arias in a manner which should reasonably have been understood. Respondent did not inform Arias that the class had not yet been certified, that it might not be certified, and that there might not be any attorneys’ fees awarded to them.
61. Respondent did not advise Arias in writing that he may seek the advice of an independent lawyer of his choice, and consequently, did not give him a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice.
62. Respondents did not collect any attorneys’ fees in the Class Action and the $360,000 loan from Arias was not repaid.
63. The Lisonis failed to issue a check for Lisa’s share of the settlement in the amount of $7,500 made payable both to Arias, as trustee for Lisa, and to the bank; failed to deposit a check in Arias’s name, as trustee for Lisa, in the bank; and failed to deliver to the bank three copies of the Order to Deposit Money.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
64. By not maintaining the settlement funds to which Arias was entitled in a trust account on behalf of Arias, Respondent failed to maintain the balance of funds received for the benefit of a client and deposited in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
65. By misappropriating settlement funds to which Arias was entitled, due to gross negligence, Respondent willfully committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6106.
66. By failing to issue a $7,500 check for Lisa’s share of the settlement, made payable both to Arias, as trustee for Lisa, and to the bank, bearing the endorsement required by the court; deposit the check in Arias’s name, as trustee for Lisa; and deliver to the bank three copies of the Order to Deposit Money, Respondent willfully disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to do or forbear, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6103.
67. By providing the Arias Loan Agreement to Arias, pursuant to terms that were not fair and reasonable and that were not fully disclosed and transmitted in writing in a manner which should reasonably have been understood, and by not advising Arias that he may seek the advice of an independent lawyer of his choice and consequently not giving him a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice before agreeing to the terms of the Agreement, Respondent entered into a business transaction with a client, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-300.
CASE NO. 08-O-10037 (COMPLAINANT: A STATE BAR INVESTIGATION)
FACTS:
68. On August 1,2007, the CTA balance was $58.85, which consisted of personal funds belonging to the Lisonis that were maintained in the CTA.
69. On August 2, 2007, Respondent wrote CTA Check Number 7333, in the amount of $39.80, payable to Fair Oaks Pharmacy (the "Pharmacy"), as payment for a personal prescription.
70. On August 2, 2007, Check number 7333 was presented for payment to Bank of America and paid on or about August 6, 2007, resulting in a CTA balance of $19.05.
71. Subsequently, in August 2007, Respondent authorized the Pharmacy to deduct $356.42 from the CTA, as payment for another personal prescription. At that time, the CTA balance was $19.05.
72. The CTA balance of $19.05 was insufficient to cover the payment due. As a result, a returned item fee ("NSF fee") in the amount of $35.00 was charged to the CTA by the Bank, resulting in a balance of negative $15.95.
73. Respondent was grossly negligent in not knowing that there were insufficient funds in the CTA to honor the $356.42 charge.
74. Subsequently, the Pharmacy unsuccessfully attempted to process the charge on several other occasions, which resulted in an additional NSF fee in the amount of $35.00 for each attempt, which resulted in a CTA balance of negative $120.95 as of September 25, 2007.
75. On December 6, 2007, the CTA remained overdrawn with a balance of negative $120.95.
76. On December 28, 2007, Gail Lisoni deposited $120.95 of her personal funds into the CTA, which resulted in a zero balance.
77. On January 8, 2008, another NSF fee in the amount of $35.00 was charged to the CTA by the Bank. On January 29, 2007, another NSF fee in the amount of $35.00 was charged to the CTA by the Bank.
78. On January 31, 2008, the CTA remained overdrawn with a balance of negative $70.00.
79. On February 12, 2008, Gait Lisoni deposited $70.00 of her personal funds into the CTA, which resulted in a zero balance, and the account was closed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
80. By maintaining personal funds in the CTA and by withdrawing or attempting to withdraw funds from the CTA to pay personal expenses, Respondent willfully commingled funds belonging to him in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
81. By charging $356.42 against the CTA at a time when, due to gross negligence, Respondent did not know that there were insufficient funds in the CTA to honor that charge, Respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6106.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was May 12, 2011.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of May 6, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $4,796.59. 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 1.3, Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct (the "Standards"), provides that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar of California and of sanctions imposed are the protection of the public, the courts, and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys; and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession.
Standard 1.6 (a) provides that if different sanctions are prescribed for two or more acts of professional misconduct, the sanction imposed shall be the more or most severe of the different applicable sanctions.
Standard 2.2(a) provides for disbarment for willful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property, unless the amount misappropriated is insignificantly small or the most compelling mitigating circumstances exist, in which case the discipline will be at least a one-year actual suspension, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
Standard 2.6 provides for actual suspension or disbarment for a violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6103, depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline.
Standard 2.8 provides for suspension for a violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-300, unless the extent of the misconduct and the harm to the client are minimal, in which case, the degree of discipline shall be reproval.
While the Standards should be afforded great weight, we are not bound to follow them in talismanic fashion. In the Matter of Conner (Review Dept. 2008) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr 93,107 [Citations.] Each case should be decided on its own facts. Ibid. [Citations.]
The stipulated discipline is appropriate in this matter. Respondent has agreed to pay restitution to Barela. The public is adequately protected because respondent may not return to active status with the State Bar until he demonstrates his rehabilitation, present fitness to practice and learning and ability in the general law pursuant to Standard 1.4(c)(ii). (See In the Matter of Davis (Review Dept. 2003) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 576, 587-589 [The court recommended two years actual suspension and until payment of restitution, four years stayed suspension, and four years probation, after finding in part that respondent committed acts of moral turpitude in violation of section 6106, Business & Professions Code, by willfully misappropriating funds by gross negligence.])
Case Number(s): 07-O-14994, 08-O-11564, 08-O-10037
In the Matter of: Joseph Louis Lisoni
<<not>> checked. a. Unless Respondent has been terminated from the Lawyer Assistance Program (“LAP”) prior to respondent’s successful completion of the LAP, respondent must comply with all provisions and conditions of respondent’s Participation Agreement with the LAP and must provide an appropriate waiver authorizing the LAP to provide the Office of Probation and this court with information regarding the terms and conditions of respondent’s participation in the LAP and respondent’s compliance or non-compliance with LAP requirements. Revocation of the written waiver for release of LAP information is a violation of this condition. However, if respondent has successfully completed the LAP, respondent need not comply with this condition.
checked. b. Respondent must obtain psychiatric or psychological help/treatment from a duly licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker at respondent’s own expense a minimum of ** times per month and must furnish evidence to the Office of Probation that respondent is so complying with each quarterly report. Help/treatment should commence immediately, and in any event, no later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of the discipline in this matter. Treatment must continue for days or months or four (4) years or, the period of probation or until a motion to modify this condition is granted and that ruling becomes final.
If the treating psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker
determines that there has been a substantial change in respondent’s condition,
respondent or Office of the Chief Trial Counsel may file a motion for
modification of this condition with the Hearing Department of the State Bar
Court, pursuant to rule 5.300 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. The
motion must be supported by a written statement from the psychiatrist,
psychologist, or clinical social worker, by affidavit or under penalty of
perjury, in support of the proposed modification.
checked. c. Upon the request of the Office of Probation, respondent must provide the Office of Probation with medical waivers and access to all of respondent’s medical records. Revocation of any medical waiver is a violation of this condition. Any medical records obtained by the Office of Probation are confidential and no information concerning them or their contents will be given to anyone except members of the Office of Probation, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, and the State Bar Court, who are directly involved with maintaining, enforcing or adjudicating this condition.
Other:
Case Number(s): 07-O-14994, 08-O-11564, 08-O-10037
In the Matter of: Joseph Louis Lisoni
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: Rene Barela Mationg
Principal Amount: $53,678
Interest Accrues From: June 18, 2004
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.
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 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.
Case Number(s): 07-O-14994, 08-O-11564, 08-O-10037
In the Matter of: Joseph Louis Lisoni
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: Joseph Louis Lisoni
Date: 5-22-11
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Dane C. Dauphine
Date: 6-8-11
Case Number(s): 07-O-14994, 08-O-11564, 08-O-10037
In the Matter of: Joseph Louis Lisoni
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.
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: Richard A. Honn
Date: 7-1-11
Joseph Louis Lisoni, Case Nos. 07-0-14994, 08-O-11564, 08-0-10037
MODIFICATIONS TO STIPULATION
and the following text is INSERTED in its place:
and until respondent pays restitution to Rene Barela Mationg in the amount of $26,839 plus 10 percent interest per year from June 18, 2004 (or reimburses the Client Security Fund to the extent of any payment from the fund to Rene Barela Mationg in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6140.5) and furnishes satisfactory proof of payment to the State Bar’s Office of Probation in Los Angeles. Any restitution to the Client Security Fund is enforceable as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.5, subdivisions (c) and (d).
Respondent owes in restitution, to Rene Barela Mationg (or the Client Security Fund if it has paid), $53,678 together with 10 percent interest thereon per year from June 18, 2004. Under subdivision D(3)(a)(iii) above, respondent must pay one-half of that sum (i.e., $26,839 plus interest) before respondent’s suspension can terminate. Respondent must pay the remaining one-half during the period of his probation as follows:
Respondent must pay restitution to Rene Barela Mationg in the amount of $26,839 plus 10 percent interest per year from June 18, 2004 (or reimburse the Client Security Fund to the extent of any payment from the fund to Rene Barela Mationg in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6140.5) during the period of his probation and furnish satisfactory proof of payment to the State Bar’s Office of Probation in Los Angeles within that same time period. Any restitution to the Client Security Fund is enforceable as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.5, subdivisions (c) and (d).
[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 Los Angeles, on , 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:
JOSEPH LOUIS LISONI
JOSEPH LISONI
POST OFFICE BOX 1614
BUELLTON, CALIFORNIA 93427
checked by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Dane C. Dauphine, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on July 5, 2011.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court