State Bar Court of California
Hearing Department
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
ACTUAL SUSPENSION
Case Number(s): 08-O-11565
In the Matter of: Gail M. Lisoni, Bar # 90298, A
Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Dane C. Dauphine, Bar #121606,
Supervising Trial Counsel, The State Bar of California, 1149 S. Hill St., Los
Angeles, CA 90015, 213-765-1293
Counsel for Respondent: Susan L. Margolis, Bar #104629,
Margolis & Margolis, 2000 Riverside Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90039-3758, (323)
953-8996
Submitted to: Assigned Judge, State Bar Court Clerk’s
Office Los Angeles
Filed: August 26, 2011
<<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.
A. Parties' Acknowledgments:
1.
Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted November
29, 1979
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 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal
amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: over the next
two billing cycles following effective date of disciplinary 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.
B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for
Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts
supporting aggravating circumstances are required.
<<not>> checked. (1) Prior record of discipline [see
standard 1.2(f)]
<<not>> checked.
(a) State Bar Court case # of prior case
<<not>> checked.
(b) Date prior discipline effective
<<not>> checked.
(c) Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations:
<<not>> checked.
(d) Degree of prior discipline
<<not>> checked.
(e) If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior
discipline, use space provided below.
<<not>> checked. (2) Dishonesty: Respondent's
misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment,
overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional
Conduct.
<<not>> checked. (3) Trust Violation: Trust funds or
property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the
client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct
toward said funds or property.
<<not>> checked. (4) Harm: Respondent's misconduct
harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.
<<not>> checked. (5) Indifference: Respondent
demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the
consequences of his or her misconduct.
<<not>> checked. (6) Lack of Cooperation: Respondent
displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her misconduct or
to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings.
<<not>> checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:
Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or
demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.
checked. (8) No
aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating
circumstances:
C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting
mitigating circumstances are required.
checked.
(1)
No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over
many years of practice coupled with present misconduct which is not deemed
serious. Respondent has been admitted to the practice of law for over 31 years
without any prior discipline.
<<not>>
checked. (2) No Harm: Respondent did not harm the
client or person who was the object of the misconduct.
checked.
(3)
Candor/Cooperation: Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and
cooperation with the victims of his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during
disciplinary investigation and proceedings. Respondent’s candor and cooperation
with the State Bar throughout the course of its lengthy investigation and her
willingness to enter into a comprehensive stipulation at the outset of
proceedings is deserving of significant mitigation credit. Std. 1.2(e)(v); In
the Matter of Hertz (Review Dept. 1991) 1 State Bar Ct.Rptr. 456; In the Matter
of Dale (Review Dept. 2005) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 798, 811.
checked.
(4)
Remorse: Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously
demonstrating remorse and recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were
designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct.
While Respondent relied upon her law partner of over 20 years to place the
minor’s funds in the blocked account as ordered by the Court, she has not
disputed her responsibility to comply with the court’s order. She closed the
trust account shared with her law partner in February 2008 after learning that
he had issued insufficient funds checks on the account. She has demonstrated
remorse and recognition of her misconduct. (Std. 1.2(e)(vii)).
<<not>>
checked. (5) Restitution: Respondent paid $
on in restitution to without the threat or force
of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.
<<not>>
checked. (6) Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were
excessively delayed. The delay is not attributable to Respondent and the
delay prejudiced him/her.
<<not>>
checked. (7) Good Faith: Respondent acted in good
faith.
<<not>>
checked. (8) Emotional/Physical Difficulties: At the
time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent
suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert
testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct.
The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by
the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer
suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.
<<not>>
checked. (9) Severe Financial Stress: At the time of
the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress which resulted
from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control
and which were directly responsible for the misconduct.
<<not>>
checked. (10) Family Problems: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent
suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than
emotional or physical in nature.
<<not>>
checked. (11) Good Character: Respondent's good character is attested to
by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities who are
aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.
<<not>>
checked. (12) Rehabilitation: Considerable time has passed since the acts
of professional misconduct occurred followed by convincing proof of subsequent
rehabilitation.
<<not>>
checked. (13) No mitigating circumstances are involved.
Additional mitigating
circumstances:
Respondent has engaged in
considerable volunteer work over the years. She volunteered at the Pasadena
Union Foundation Homeless Shelter for 10 years, from approximately 1995 to
2005. She also participated in a free legal clinic at the shelter every other
week for approximately two years. Respondent was a Eucharistic Minister to the
Sick at Huntington Hospital through St. Andrews Catholic Church in Pasadena,
from 1990 until 2007. Her charitable work is entitled to weight in mitigation.
(In the Matter of Lais (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 907,926.)
D.
Discipline:
checked.
(1) Stayed
Suspension:
checked.
(a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one
year
<<not>>
checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar
Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning
and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii) Standards for Attorney
Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
<<not>>
checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the
Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.
<<not>>
checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following:
checked.
(b) The above-referenced suspension is stayed.
checked. (2) Probation: Respondent must be placed on probation
for a period two years of which will commence upon the effective date of the
Supreme Court order in this matter. (See rule 9.18, California Rules of
Court.)
checked. (3) Actual Suspension:
checked.
(a) Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State
of California for a period of 30 days
<<not>>
checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar
Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning
and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney
Sanctions for Professional Misconduct
<<not>>
checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the
Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.
<<not>>
checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following:
E. Additional Conditions of Probation:
<<not>>
checked. (1) If Respondent is actually suspended for two years or
more, he/she must remain actually suspended until he/she proves to the State
Bar Court his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability
in the general law, pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney
Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
checked.
(2)
During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the
State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.
checked.
(3)
Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership
Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar
of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of information,
including current office address and telephone number, or other address for
State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and
Professions Code.
checked.
(4)
Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must
contact the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with Respondent's
assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and conditions of probation.
Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the
probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of
probation, Respondent must promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed
and upon request.
checked.
(5)
Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on
each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation.
Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied
with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions
of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state
whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar
Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the
first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be submitted on
the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.
In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same
information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the
period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.
<<not>>
checked. (6) Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent
must promptly review the terms and conditions of probation with the probation
monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance. During the period of
probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be
requested, in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the
Office of Probation. Respondent must cooperate fully with the probation
monitor.
<<not>>
checked. (7) Subject to assertion of applicable privileges,
Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any inquiries of the
Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions
which are directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether
Respondent is complying or has complied with the probation conditions.
checked.
(8)
Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent
must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a
session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that
session.
<<not>> checked No Ethics School recommended.
Reason:
<<not>>
checked. (9) Respondent must comply with all conditions of
probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and must so declare under
penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with
the Office of Probation.
<<not>>
checked. (10) The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:
<<not>> checked. Substance
Abuse Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Law Office
Management Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Medical
Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Financial
Conditions.
F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:
checked.
(1)
Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination: Respondent must
provide proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility
Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar
Examiners, to the Office of Probation during the period of actual suspension or
within one year, whichever period is longer. Failure to pass the MPRE
results in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see
rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) & (E), Rules of
Procedure.
<<not>>
checked. No MPRE recommended. Reason:
<<not>> checked. (2) Rule 9.20, California
Rules of Court: Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule
9.20, California Rules of Court, and 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's Order in this matter.
<<not>> checked. (3) Conditional Rule 9.20,
California Rules of Court: If Respondent remains actually suspended for
90 days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20,
California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a)
and (c) of that rule within 120 and 130 calendar days, respectively, after the
effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.
<<not>> checked. (4) Credit for Interim
Suspension [conviction referral cases only]: Respondent will be credited
for the period of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of
actual suspension. Date of commencement of interim suspension:
<<not>> checked. (5) Other Conditions:
Attachment language (if any):
(Effective
January 1, 2011)
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: Gail M. Lisoni, State Bar No. 90298
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-0-11565
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and
that she is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of
Professional Conduct.
Case No. 08-O-11565 (Complainant: Adam L. Rollins obo
Salvador Arias)
FACTS:
1. On March 7, 2000, Salvador Luis Arias
("Arias") hired the law offices of Lisoni & Lisoni to represent
him and his minor daughter, Lisa Marie Arias ("Lisa"), in a civil rights
matter on a contingency fee basis. Respondent was a partner in the law firm of
Lisoni & Lisoni with Joseph L. Lisoni.
2. On September 27, 2000, Respondent, on behalf of Lisoni
& Lisoni, filed a lawsuit on Arias’s behalf in the United States District
Court, Central District of California, entitled Salvador Luis Arias v. City of
Los Angeles, et al., case no. CV00-10366-GAF (AJWx) (the "Arias
matter").
3. On November 20, 2000, the court appointed Arias as
guardian ad litem for Lisa, and Respondent filed a lawsuit in the district
court on Lisa’s behalf entitled Lisa Marie Arias, a minor, by and through her
guardian ad litem, Salvador Luis Arias v. City of Los Angeles, et al., case no.
CV0012275-GAF (AJWx) ("Lisa’s matter").
4. On or about December 3, 2001, settlements were reached
in Arias’s matter for $350,000 and in Lisa’s matter for $10,000, totaling
$360,000. On January 4, 2002, Respondent prepared a Petition of Guardian Ad
Litem for Compromise of Disputed Claim of Minor, seeking court approval of the
$10,000 settlement in Lisa’s matter.
5. On or about January 10, 2002, the court authorized
Lisoni and Lisoni to be paid $2,500 in attorneys’ fees from Lisa’s settlement.
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.
6. The court further ordered that within 48 hours of
receiving the check for Lisa’s share of the settlement, Arias and his attorneys
must deposit the check in Arias’s name, as trustee for Lisa, in Bank of
America, Lake and Colorado, Pasadena, CA, and that Arias’s counsel 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.
7. The City of Los Angeles issued one settlement check in
the amount of $360,000, in settlement of both the Arias matter and Lisa’s
matter. On January 11, 2002, Respondent’s firm received the settlement check.
Respondent’s law partner deposited the check in the firm’s client trust account
("CTA"). Respondent and her law partner were the signatories on the
CTA.
8. Respondent’s law partner exercised control over the
firm’s trust account and the handling of settlement funds. Respondent relied
upon him to handle the funds consistently with the court’s 01/10/02 order.
Respondent’s law partner failed to deposit the minor’s funds in a blocked
account or otherwise comply with the terms of the court order, and Respondent
did not follow through to ensure that her law partner properly deposited the
funds received for the minor’s settlement in a bank account on behalf of Lisa.
Respondent relied upon her law partner who sought an agreement from Arias for a
loan of settlement funds which included Lisa’s funds as well.
9. Respondent’s law partner took funds from the CTA
received on behalf of Lisa. Thereafter, Respondent’s law partner repaid to
Arias the funds due to him and Lisa. All reimbursement was completed by May 9,
2007.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
10. By failing to ensure that the settlement funds received
on behalf of the minor Lisa Arias were maintained in a blocked account,
Respondent acted in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule
4-100(A).
11. By failing to comply with the court’s order regarding
the handling and deposit of the $7,500 received on behalf of Lisa Arias,
Respondent acted in willful violation of Business and Professions
Code, section 6103.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7),
was August 10, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
According to the Standards for Attorney Sanctions,
culpability of a member for commingling of entrusted funds or property with
personal property or the commission of another violation of rule 4-100,
Rules of Professional Conduct, none of which offenses
result in the willful misappropriation of entrusted funds, shall result in at
least a three month actual suspension, irrespective of mitigating
circumstances. (Standard 2.2(b).) Culpability of failure to comply with a court
order warrants disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense
or the harm, if any. (Standard 2.6.)
Rule 4-100 is violated when an attorney commingles funds or
fails to deposit or manage the funds in the manner designated by the
rule..." (Guzzetta v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 962, 976.) Although
Respondent reasonably relied on her law partner of over 20 years to comply with
the court’s order regarding the deposit and maintenance of the minor’s funds,
Respondent still had a personal obligation of reasonable care to comply with
the rules regarding the safekeeping and disposition of client funds, and her
duty to monitor the use of the funds was non-delegable. (Coppock v. State Bar
(1988) 44 Cal.3d 665,680.)
In determining the appropriate level of discipline, the
court may consider relevant case law and may deviate from the Standards when a
balanced consideration of all factors, including mitigation and aggravation,
warrants a lesser discipline. The facts of this matter are closely akin to
those in In the Matter of Blum (Review Dept. 2002) 4 State Bar Ct. Rptr. 403
(recommending a 30 day actual suspension for grossly negligent trust account
violations where attorney relied unreasonably on her law partner/spouse to
handle trust funds); see also, Sternlieb v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 317
(suspending attorney for 30 days for misappropriating about $4,000 by acting
unreasonably but not dishonestly). Considering the facts of this case and the
compelling mitigation, a 30-day actual suspension as in the Blum and Sternlieb
cases is an appropriate discipline.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 08-O-11565
In the Matter of: Gail M. Lisoni, no. 90298
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: Gail M. Lisoni, Susan L. Margolis, Dane C.
Dauphine
Respondent: Gail M. Lisoni
Date: 08/14/2011
Respondent’s Counsel: Susan L. Margolis
Date: 08/18/2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Dane C. Dauphine
Date: 08/22/2011
ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 08-O-11565
In the Matter of: Gail M. Lisoni, no. 90298
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 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:
Richard A. Platel
Judge of the
State Bar Court: Richard A. Platel
Date:
08/24/2011
(Effective
January 1, 2011)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[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 August 26, 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 Los
Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
SUSAN LYNN MARGOLIS
MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS LLP
2000 RIVERSIDE DR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90039
checked. by interoffice mail through a
facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as
follows:
I hereby
certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles,
California, on August 26, 2011.
Signed by:
Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator:
Johnnie Lee Smith
State Bar
Court