Case Number(s): 09-O-13560, 11-O-11702
In the Matter of: J. Randy Dorcy, Bar # 170620, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Erin McKeown Joyce, Deputy Trial Counsel
State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299
Telephone: (213) 765-1356
Facsimile: (213) 765-1319
Bar # 149946
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
J. Randy Dorcy
9253 Eton Avenue
Chatsworth, CA 91311
(714) 560-3232
Bar # 170620
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 June 6, 1994.
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 11 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: two years following the effective date of the Supreme Court order of discipline. (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 in 1994, and had no record of discipline for the first 11 years of his practice.
The attachment to the Stipulation re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition comprises 7 to 10.
In the Matter of J. Randy Dorcy
Case Nos. 09-O-13560 and 11-O-11702
PENDING PROCEEDINGS:
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph A.(7), was June 21, 2011.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified Rules of Professional Conduct and Business and Professions Code sections.
Case No. 09-O-13560
FACTS
1. In January 2005, Rolando Sandoval hired Respondent for an immigration matter.
2. On January 13, 2005, Respondent filed a Notice of Entry of Appearance with the Immigration Court.
3. That same day, Respondent notified Sandoval that his previously filed asylum application was not supportable. Respondent told Sandoval one option was to seek cancellation of removal and adjustment of status based on his mother’s imminent citizenship.
4. On June 13, 2005, Respondent appeared in court for Sandoval. Sandoval did not appear due to a medical emergency which Respondent disclosed to the court. Over Respondent’s objection, the court proceeded against Sandoval and ordered him removed in abstentia.
5. Respondent promptly notified Sandoval of the outcome of the hearing. Sandoval terminated Respondent at that time.
6. Respondent took no steps to formally substitute out as Sandoval’s counsel of record.
7. On July 7, 2005, Sandoval filed a motion for reconsideration as a pro per litigant, which was denied, since Respondent was still his counsel of record.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By failing to file a substitution of counsel form in Sandoval’s immigration matter after he was terminated, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in willful violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A).
Dorcy stipulation attachment 7
Case No. 11-O-11702
FACTS
1. In 2008, Rafael Raz hired Respondent to file an answer and cross-complaint in a business lawsuit entitled Alpesh Diamond v. Yesh Diamonds, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Case no. BC422353.
2. Respondent filed the answer and cross-complaint.
3. The court set a post-mediation status conference for August 30, 2010.
Respondent received proper notice of the hearing. Respondent failed to appear at the
hearing.
4. The court set an OSC for Respondent’s failure to appear at the August 30, 2010 status conference for October 15, 2010. Respondent received proper notice of the OSC hearing.
5. Despite receiving proper notice of the OSC, Respondent failed to appear and failed to respond in any way to the OSC. At the hearing, the court imposed sanctions against Respondent and his client in the amount of $1,500 payable within 30 days of the hearing.
6. Respondent received proper notice of the sanctions order and never appealed the order, which has become final.
7. Respondent has never complied with the sanctions order of the court entered October 15, 2010.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By failing to appear at the post mediation status conference on August 30, 2010, and the OSC hearing on October 15, 2010, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in willful violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A).
By failing to comply with the court’s October 15, 2010 sanctions order, 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.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
STANDARDS FOR ATTORNEY SANCTIONS
To determine the appropriate level of discipline, the standards provide guidance. Drociak v. State Bar(1991) 52 Cal.3d 1085; In the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119. A disciplinary recommendation must be consistent with the discipline in similar proceedings. See Snyder v. State Bar(1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302. Also, the recommended discipline must rest upon
Dorcy stipulation attachment 8
a balanced consideration of relevant factors. In the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.119. A disciplinary recommendation must be consistent with the discipline in similar proceedings. See Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302. Also, the recommended discipline must rest upon a balanced considered of relevant factors. In the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119.
Pursuant to Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar
of California and of sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgment of
a member’s 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.
Pursuant to Standard 1.5 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
Reasonable duties or conditions fairly related to the acts of professional
misconduct and surrounding circumstances found or acknowledged by the
member may be added to a recommendation or suspension or; pursuant to
rule 9.19, California Rules of Court, to a reproval. Said duties may include,
but are not limited to, any of the following:
1.5(b): a requirement that the member take and pass an examination in
professional responsibility;
1.5(d): a requirement that the member undertake educational or rehabilitative
work at his or her own expense regarding one or more fields of substantive
law or law office management;
1.5(f): any other duty or condition consistent with the purposes of imposing a
sanction for professional misconduct as set forth in standard 1.3.
Pursuant to Standard 2.4(b) of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
Culpability of a member of willfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of willfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in reproval or suspension depending on the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
Pursuant to Standard 2.6 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
Culpability of a member of a violation of any of the following provisions of the
Business and Professions Code shall result in disbarment or suspension
depending on 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:
(b) Sections 6103 through 6105 ....
Dorcy stipulation attachment 9
The stipulated discipline of a thirty (30) day actual suspension is sufficient to protect the
interests of justice and the public.
FURTHER AGREEMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The factual statements contained in this Stipulation constitute admissions of fact and may not be withdrawn by either party, except with court approval.
REQUIREMENT TO COMPLY WITH OCTOBER 15, 2010 SANCTIONS ORDER
Before the expiration of the first year of his probation, Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of compliance with the Superior Court’s October 15, 2010 sanctions order in the Alpesh Diamond matter.
COSTS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of June 21, 2011, the estimated costs in this matter are $3,689. 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): 09-O-13560 and 11-O-11702
In the Matter of: J. Randy Dorcy
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: J. Randy Dorcy
Date: 6/21/11
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Erin McKeown Joyce
Date: 6/21/11
Case Number(s): 09-O-13560 and 11-O-11702
In the Matter of: J. Randy Dorcy
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:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Platel
Date: 7/8/11
[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 July 8, 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:
JR DORCY
9253 ETON AVENUE
CHATSWORTH CALIFORNIA 91311
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ERIN JOYCE, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on July 8, 2011.
Signed by:
Angela Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court