Case Number(s): 08-O-13851; 10-O-09616
In the Matter of: Stephen Curtis Downey, Bar # 70689, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Paul T. O’Brien, 1149 S. HILL STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90015-2299
(213) 765-1378
Bar #171252
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
STEPHEN C. DOWNEY
22388 ALGUNAS RD.
WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364
(323) 870-3311
Bar # 70689
Submitted to: Assigned 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 December 22, 1976.
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 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.
IN THE MATTER OF: STEPHEN CURTIS DOWNEY
CASE NUMBER(S): 08-O-13851-RAH, et al.
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. 08-0-13851 (Complainant: Harry and Elizabeth Mezian)
1. On or about June 8, 2005, Harry and Elizabeth Mezian employed Eviction Services
Unlimited ("ESU") to evict a commercial tenant from Mezian’s property. ESU was owned and operated by Bruce Gendron who is not an attorney. At that time, the Mezians paid $1,000 in advanced fees to ESU. ESU or Gendron informed the Mezians that Respondent would be providing the legal services.
2. On or about July 17, 2005, Respondent filed an unlawful detainer complaint on behalf of Mezian in the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled, Harry Mezian and Elizabeth Mezian v Juan Villegas dba M&N Garage, case no. GC035761 ("Mezian case"). On the complaint, Respondent listed his office address as the address where ESU maintained its office.
3. On or about July 29, 2005, counsel for the defendant Juan Villegas ("the tenant") filed an answer in the Mezian case as well as a cross-complaint against the Mezians for damages, alleging interference with a business advantage and constructive eviction. On that same date, the tenant’s counsel served the answer and the cross-complaint by mail to Respondent’s law office address listed on the complaint.
4. On or about September 6, 2005, Respondent filed an answer to the cross-complaint on behalf of the Mezians.
5. In or about October through December 2005, ESU sent invoices to the Mezians, claiming to charge for legal services rendered by Respondent; the Mezians paid ESU an additional $1,075 in fees.
6. ESU paid Respondent a portion of the fees received from the Mezians.
7. On or about December 6, 2005, the tenant’s counsel served requests for admissions, interrogatories, and requests for production of documents by mailing those requests to Respondent’s address of record in the Mezian case. ESU received the discovery requests and sent an invoice to the Mezians on December 15, 2005, billing them for preparation of responses to the discovery. Thereafter, no discovery responses were provided to the tenant’s counsel. 8. During the period from in or about June 2005 to January 2006, Harry Mezian spoke to staff at ESU and was assured that the Mezian case was being handled. Harry Mezian never spoke to Respondent. Since the tenant moved from the premises, the Mezians concluded that Respondent and ESU had been successful in handling their case.
9. On or about January 17, 2006, Respondent sent attorney Ben Adelman ("Adelman") to appear for the Mezians at a case management conference in the Mezian case. Respondent did not file a case management conference statement. The court set a hearing for on or about July 20, 2006, for plaintiffs to show cause regarding their failure to file a statement, and the court directed Adelman to give notice of the order. At no time did Respondent file a case management conference statement in the Mezian case.
10. On or about February 12, 2006, the tenant’s counsel filed motions to compel and to have facts deemed admitted and served the motions on Respondent by mail at his address of record giving notice of the hearing on the motions. The motions were received at ESU’s office. At no time did Respondent or any staff at ESU inform the Mezians of the discovery motions.
11. On or about March 21, 2006, Respondent did not appear for the hearing on the discovery motions in the Mezian case, and the court granted the motions, ordering that discovery responses be provided within 10 days. The court also ordered that the Mezians pay sanctions to the tenant of $560 within 30 days: On that same date, the tenant’s counsel served notice of the rulings on Respondent by mail to Respondent’s address of record in the Mezian case. The notice was received at ESU’s office. At
no time did Respondent or any staff at ESU inform Harry Mezian or Elizabeth Mezian of the rulings. No one provided responses to the tenant’s discovery requests.
12. On or about April 17, 2008, the tenant’s counsel filed a motion for terminating sanctions and served Respondent by mail to Respondent’s address of record in the Mezian case giving notice of a hearing on the motion. A copy of the motion was received at ESU’s office. At no time did Respondent or any staff at ESU inform the Mezians of the motion for terminating sanctions.
13. On or about May 11, 2006, Respondent did not appear for the hearing on the motion for terminating sanctions in the Mezian case, and the court granted the motion, ordering that the complaint and answer to the cross-complaint be stricken. On that same date, the tenant’s counsel served notice of the ruling on Respondent by mail to Respondent’s address of record in the Mezian case. The notice was received at ESU’s office. At no time did Respondent or any staff at ESU inform the Mezians of the
ruling.
14. On or about June 9, 2006, the court entered a judgment against the Mezians in the sum of $72,779.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
15. By sharing with ESU the fees paid by Mezian for legal services, Respondent shared legal fees with a person who is not a lawyer, in willful violation of rule 1-320(A), Rules of Professional Conduct.
16. By not filing a case management conference statement, not providing responses to
discovery, not responding to the motions to compel discovery, deem facts admitted or for terminating sanctions, or otherwise advising Mezian on the prosecution of the Mezian case and defense to the cross-complaint, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in willful violation of rule 3-110(A), Rules of Professional Conduct.
17. By not informing Mezian and Elizabeth Mezian of the cross-complaint against them, the motions to compel discovery, deem facts admitted and for terminating sanctions as well as the court’s rulings on the motions, Respondent failed to keep a client 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). Case No. 10-O-09616 (State Bar Investigation)
18. On or about February 22, 2010, the Supreme Court of California issued an Order
imposing discipline ("Disciplinary Order") on Respondent in case number S 178386 (State Bar Court No. 05-0-04653). In the Disciplinary Order, the court placed Respondent on two (2) years’ probation subject to conditions of probation recommended by the Review Department of the State Bar Court in its Opinion filed on October 20, 2009, in State Bar Court case number 05-0-04653. Respondent was properly served with the Disciplinary Order. On March 24, 2010, the Disciplinary Order became effective.
19. Pursuant to the Disciplinary Order, the terms and conditions of probation imposed on Respondent included the following:
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, stating, under penalty of perjury, whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter; and a final report due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the probation period and no later than the last day of the probation period.
Respondent was also required to attend Ethics School and take and pass the test administered within the first year of the probationary period, or by March 24, 2011, and provide proof of attendance to the Probation Unit.
20. Respondent’s first probation report was due on July 10, 2010. To date, Respondent has not submitted quarterly reports due on July 10, 2010.
21. To date, Respondent has not submitted the quarterly reports due October 10, 2010 or January 10, 2011.
22. To date,. Respondent has not attended State Bar Ethics School.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
23. By not submitting quarterly reports to the Probation Unit by July 10, 2010, October 10, 2010, and January 10, 2011, and by not attending the State Bar Ethics School by March 24, 2011, Respondent failed to comply with conditions of his disciplinary probation, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(k).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was April 5,2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
Standard 1.3 -- the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings and imposing sanctions for professional misconduct 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 1.7(b) -- if a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of two prior impositions of discipline as defined by Standard 1.2(0, the degree of discipline in the current proceeding shall be disbarment unless the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate. While this is Respondent’s third imposition of discipline, the misconduct in his first disciplinary matter, though serious, occurred more
than 20 years ago, and is thus sufficiently remote in time to somewhat diminish its weight in aggravation. Moreover, the bulk of Respondent’s misconduct in connection with the Mezian case occurred during the same period as his misconduct in his most recent prior discipline. (See In the Matter of Sklar (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 602.)
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of April 5,2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $5,539. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
Case Number(s): 08-O-1385, et al.
In the Matter of: Stephen C. Downey
a. Restitution
<<not>> 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: Harry or Elizabeth Mezian
Principal Amount: $2,075
Interest Accrues From: 12/01/05
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than 180 days following the effective date of the disciplinary order..
<<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.
<<not>> 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 Respondent and/or 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.
<<not>> 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): 08-O-123851, et al.
In the Matter of: Stephen Curtis Downey
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: Stephen Curtis Downey
Date: April 6, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel: Paul O’Brien
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel:
Date: April 6, 2011
Case Number(s): 08-O-13851
In the Matter of: Stephen Curtis Downey
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.
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. Honn
Judge of the State Bar Court
Date: April 25, 2011
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles, on April 25, 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:
STEPHEN CURTIS DOWNEY ESQ
22388 ALGUNAS RD
WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Paul T. O’Brien, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on April 25, 2011.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court