Case Number(s): 08-O-11733-DFM
In the Matter of: Anthony Ukran, Bar # 234605, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Bita Shasty, Bar # 225177
Counsel for Respondent: Erica Tabachnick, Bar # 94324
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: July 24, 2009
<<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 2, 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 9 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. costs added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<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.
9. The parties understand that:
<<not>> checked. (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
Respondent has been a member of the California State Bar for 4 years and has no prior record of discipline.
IN THE MATTER OF: Anthony Ukran
CASE NUMBER: 08-O-11733
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violation of the specified statute and/or Rules of Professional Conduct:
1. From May 2007 through on or about November 21, 2007, Respondent was employed as an associate attorney at Stolar & Associates, LLP ("Stolar & Associates").
2. In October 2007, John Valerio ("John") employed Stolar & Associates to file a petition for marital dissolution ("marital dissolution matter") against his wife Kimberly Valerio ("Kimberly").
3. Thereafter, on October 30, 2007, the managing attorney at Stolar & Associates, Steven Stolar ("Stolar"), assigned Respondent to be the handling attorney in the marital dissolution matter.
4. On October 30, 2007, Respondent spoke with John on the telephone and informed him that he had been assigned to handle the marital dissolution matter. In this conversation, Respondent was presumed to have obtained confidential information material to the representation of John.
5. On November 21, 2007, Respondent terminated his employment at Stolar & Associates. Upon Respondent’s termination, Stolar & Associates remained John’s attorney of record in the marital dissolution matter.
6. On January 14, 2008, Stolar filed a petition for marital dissolution on behalf of John in Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled John Valerio v. Kimberly Valerio, case no. BD478761.
7. In February 2008, Kimberly employed Kaplan & Simon to represent her in the marital dissolution matter.
8. Thereafter, Respondent was assigned to be the handling attorney of the marital dissolution matter on behalf of Kimberly.
9. At no time did Respondent inform John that he had agreed to represent Kimberly.
10. At no time did John consent to Respondent’s representation of Kimberly in the marital dissolution matter.
11. At no time did Respondent obtain John’s informed written consent to represent Kimberly in the marital dissolution matter.
12. On February 11, 2008, Respondent filed a responsive pleading in the marital dissolution matter on behalf of Kimberly.
13. On February 8, 2008, February 15, 2008, and February 25, 2008, Sarah Engelbert ("Engelbert"), an associate attorney at Stolar & Associates, sent letters to Respondent on behalf of John asking Respondent to withdraw from representation of Kimberly because of a conflict of interest based upon Respondent’s prior representation of John. Respondent received the letters.
14. On or about February 15, 2008 and February 19, 2008, Respondent told Engelbert via telephone and by letter, respectively, that he would not withdraw from representation of Kimberly without proof of evidence that he performed work on the case.
15. On February 21, 2008, Stolar filed a motion on behalf of John to disqualify Respondent as Kimberly’s attorney in the marital dissolution ("motion to disqualify").
16. On or about March 13, 2008, Respondent filed an opposition to the motion to disqualify.
17. On or about March 26, 2008, the court granted John’s motion to disqualify and ordered that Respondent and Kaplan & Simon be disqualified as attorneys in the marital dissolution matter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (COUNT ONE)
22. By representing Kimberly against John in the marital dissolution matter until he was disqualified by the court, Respondent accepted and continued employment adverse to a former client where, by reason of the representation of the former client, pursuant to case law Respondent was presumed to have obtained confidential information material to the employment, without the informed written consent of the former client, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-310(E).
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY
The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on December 18, 2008, in case no. 08-0-11733, and the facts and/or conclusions of law contained in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The parties further waive the right to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to on Page 2, paragraph A.(7), was made on February 25, 2009.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of February 11, 2009, the costs in this matter are approximately $2,296 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 costs of further proceedings.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.3, Title IV, Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, provides that the primary purposes of the disciplinary system 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."
Recently, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the standards and held that great weight should be given to the application of the standards in determining the appropriate level of discipline. The Court indicated that unless it has "grave doubts as to the propriety of the recommended discipline," it will uphold the application of the standards. In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 81, 91-92.
Standard 2.10 provides that a violation of any provision or rule of the Business and Professions Code or Rules of Professional Conduct "not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3." Respondent failed to obtain informed written consent from his former client, John, and had potential conflicts of interest.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 08-O-11733-DFM
In the Matter of: Anthony Ukran (No. 234605)
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: Anthony Ukran
Date: 6/23/09
Respondent’s Counsel: Erica Tabachnick
Date: 6/24/09
Deputy Trial Counsel: Bita Shasty
Date: 6/26/09
Case Number(s): 08-O-11733-DFM
In the Matter of: Anthony Ukran (No. 234605)
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department 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 125(b), Rules of Procedure.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: 7/23/09
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY REGULAR MAIL
CASE NUMBER: 08-O-11733-DFM
I, the undersigned, over the age of eighteen (18) years, whose business address and place of employment is the State Bar of California, 1149 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90015, declare that I am not a party to the within action; that I am readily familiar with the State Bar of California’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service; that in the ordinary course of the State Bar of California’s practice, correspondence collected and processed by the State Bar of California would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day; that I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope or package is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit; and that in accordance with the practice of the State Bar of California for collection and processing of mail, I deposited or placed for collection and mailing in the City and County of Los Angeles, on the date shown below, a true copy of the within
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing at Los Angeles, on the date shown below, addressed to:
ERICA TABACHNICK, ESQ.
900 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE #1000
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
in an inter-office mail facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed to:
N/A
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Los Angeles, California, on the date shown below.
DATED: June 26, 2009
Signed: Camelia I. Escobar
[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles, on July 24, 2009, 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:
ERICA ANN TABACHNICK, ESQ.
900 WILSHIRE BLVD #1000
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
BITA SHASTY, ESQ., Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on July 24, 2009.
Signed by:
Rose Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court