State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

ACTUAL SUSPENSION

Case Number(s): 09-O-15973 10-O-03119 11-O-10746

In the Matter of: John Martin Sinasohn, Bar #82861, 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: Daphne M. Pereat

Law Office of Daphne M. Pereat

4015 Stansbury Avenue

Sherman Oaks, CA 91423-4674

Telephone: (818) 981-4357

Facsimile: (818) 981-5246

Bar #181484

Submitted to: Assigned Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles

Filed: May 27, 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, 1978.

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 29 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 dote 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.

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: The facts surrounding Respondent’s professional misconduct are not aggravated. .

C.  Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigating circumstances are required.

<<not>> 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.

<<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. Throughout this proceeding, Respondent cooperated fully with the State Bar, answered the questions that were posed by the State Bar, and entered into this comprehensive stipulation acknowledging her misconduct and settling this case prefiling.

<<not>> 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. 

<<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 was admitted to practice in 1978 and had nearly 30 years of discipline-free practice prior to the onset of the misconduct.

Respondent fully paid $25,123 in restitution to the 27 clients affected by his misconduct pursuant to his stipulation with the U.S. Trustee to disgorge attorney compensation pursuant to ! 1 U.S.C. section 329

signed May 13, 2009. See Exhibit 1 attached hereto.

D. Discipline:

checked. (1)           Stayed Suspension:

checked. (a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

<<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 of two (2) years, 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:

<<not>> checked. (a) Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period of sixty (60) 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.

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.
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:

The Attachment to the Stipulation re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition comprises pages 7 to 28.

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

In the Matter of John Martin Sinasohn

Case Nos. 09-0-15973, 10-O-03119 and 11-O-10746

PENDING PROCEEDINGS:

The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph A.(7), was May 12, 2011.

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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-15973

FACTS

1. In February 2008, Brenda Turcios hired Respondent for a bankruptcy matter to

stop a foreclosure on her residence. Turcios paid Respondent $1,500 on February 25, 2008.

2. On April 7, 2008, Respondent’s office filed a bankruptcy petition on behalf of

Turcios.

3. The petition filed by Respondent’s office and signed by Respondent on April 3,

2008 was deficient, in that the following required documents were not filed with the petition: Schedule B, Schedule C, Schedule D, Schedule E, Schedule F, Schedule A, Schedule G, Statement - Form 22C, Schedule H, Schedule I, Schedule J, Statement of Financial Affairs, the Chapter 13 Plan, Statement of Assistance of Non-Attorney or Bankruptcy Petition Preparer, Summary of Schedules, Signed Declaration Concerning Debtor’s Schedules, Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor, Certified by Attorney, Certificate of Credit Counseling, Statistical Summary of Certain Liabilities and the Employee Income Record.

4. On April 7, 2008, the clerk of the Bankruptcy Court properly served an order to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 1007 and 3015(b) and notice of intent to dismiss case on Respondent, who received the order.

5. That same day, April 7, 2008, the clerk of the Bankruptcy Court properly served a

case commencement deficiency notice on Respondent, for other defects in the petition.

Respondent received the deficiency order.

6. Despite his receipt of the order to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 1007 and

3015(b) and the case commencement deficiency notice, Respondent failed to cure the

deficiencies in the petition.

7. On May 8, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed Turcios’ petition, since the

deficiencies were not corrected.

8. Respondent received proper notice of the dismissal of Turcios’ petition, but took

no steps to reinstate the petition.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

By failing to file the required Schedules and documents in connection with Turcios’ bankruptcy petition, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in wilful violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A).

Case No. 10-O-03119

FACTS

1. In the time period from February 20, 2008 to December 2, 2008, Respondent

filed petitions in United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California for 27 clients which were procedurally deficient.

2. On May 13, 2009, Respondent entered into a stipulation with the U.S. Trustee in

the 27 matters, acknowledging that he "failed to provide adequate legal representation,

including but not limited to filing cases without the credit counseling required for his clients to qualify as debtors, failure to file required Schedules; filing erroneous Schedules and Means Tests; failing to advise debtors to complete financial management education required for a discharge, failing to accurately disclose his compensation, failing to enter into required written contracts with clients, and failure to advise debtors of other duties required for successful

completion of their bankruptcy cases."

3. Pursuant to the stipulation, Respondent agreed to disgorge all attorney fees to

the affected clients in the amount of $25,123.

4. Respondent has made all required payments pursuant to the stipulation to

disgorge attorney fees.

5. A true and correct copy of the stipulation for disgorgement of attorney fees

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 329 is attached as Exhibit 1.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

By providing inadequate legal representation to 27 clients in bankruptcy matters between February 20, 2008 and December 2, 2008, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in wilful violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A).

Case No 11 -O-10746

FACTS

1. On March 5, 2008, Respondent became attorney of record for an applicant in a

workers’ compensation matter filed before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board

("WCAB"), Case No. MON 0356315, entitled Rosana Martin v. Jackie’s Hideaway et al.

2. On May 15, 2008, Respondent filed a declaration of readiness to proceed,

requesting an expedited hearing.

3. The WCAB set the matter for hearing on June 12, 2008 for a status conference,

and provided Respondent with proper notice of the hearing.

4. Respondent failed to appear at the June 12, 2008 status conference. The WCAB

issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Costs of $200, payable to State Fund for each of the two co-defendants appearing, and $200 in sanctions payable to the General Fund for Respondent’s unreasonable failure to appear.

5. Respondent received proper notice of the Notice of Intent hearing set for July 22, 2008.

6. Respondent appeared at the July 22, 2008 Notice of Intent hearing. The WCAB

set the matter for a trial regarding the OSC re contempt of Respondent and imposition of costs and sanctions on August 20, 2008. Respondent received proper notice of the hearing date.

7. At the August 20, 2008 hearing on the OSC re contempt, the WCAB issued an

order imposing costs of $200 to be paid to each of the co-defendants, and sanctions in the amount of $200 to be paid to the General Fund.

8. Respondent delayed payment of the $200 sanctions until December 22, 2010.

9. Respondent delayed payment of the costs to the co-defendants until March

2011, after he was contacted by the State Bar.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

By failing to timely comply with the WCAB’s order re payment of sanctions and costs,

Respondent wilfully 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 wilful 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 Sinasohn -- stipulation attachment.docx 9

Snyder v. State Bar(1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302. Moreover, the recommended discipline must rest upon a balanced consideration 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. Rehabilitation of a member is a permissible object of a sanction

imposed upon the member but only if the imposition of rehabilitative

sanctions is consistent with the above-stated primary purposes of sanctions

for professional misconduct.

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 1.6(a) of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional

Misconduct:

The appropriate sanction for an act of professional misconduct shall be that

set forth in the following standards for the particular act of misconduct found

or acknowledged. If two or more acts of professional misconduct are found or

acknowledged in a single disciplinary proceeding, and different sanctions are

prescribed by these standards for said acts, the sanction imposed shall be

the more or most severe of the different applicable sanctions.

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 upon 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 harm, if any, to the victim, with due

regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3.

(a) Sections 6067 and 6068;

(b) Sections 6103 through 6105;

The stipulated discipline in this matter of an actual suspension of 60 days is appropriate. When more than one act of professional misconduct is acknowledged in a single disciplinary proceeding, and different sanctions are prescribed by these standards for said acts, the sanction imposed shall be the most severe of the different applicable standards. Standard 1.6(a). Therefore, Standards 2.4(b) and 2.6 are applicable to Respondent’s admitted Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A) and Business and Professions Code section 6103 violations.

Standards 2.4(b) and 2.6 call for reproval or suspension depending on the extent of the

misconduct and the degree of harm to the client. The stipulated discipline of a sixty day actual suspension will demonstrate to the public that Respondent’s misconduct is unacceptable and is an appropriate deterrent to Respondent from repeating his misconduct.

COSTS

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of May 12, 2011, the estimated costs in this matter are $3,797. 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.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

Central District of California

I hereby attest and certify that on December 3, 2010 the attached reproduction(s),

containing 16 pages, is a full, true and correct copy of the complete document

entitled: Stipulation between the United States Trustee and John Sinasohn for disgorgement of Attorneys compensation pursuant to 11 US.C Sec. 329

Case #: 08-bk-11033-5m Doc #16

which includes: [] Exhibits [] Attachments

on file in my office and in my legal custody at the marked location:

[] 255 E. Temple Street Suite 940

   Los Angeles, CA 90012

[] 411 West 4^th Street, Suite2074

Santa Ana, CA 92701-4593

[] 3420 12^th Street, Suite 125

Riverside CA 92501-3819

Checked [] 21041 Burbank Bl

Woodland Hills CAS 91367

[] 1415 State Street

Santa Barbara CA 93101-2511

KATHLEEN J. CAMPBELL

Clerk of Court

THIS CERTIFICATION IS VALID ONLY WITH THE

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SEAL.

Revised August 2010

Case l:08-bk-11033-GM Doc 16 Filed 05/13/09 Entered 05/14/09 10:33:32 DescMain Document Page 1 of 16

PETER C. ANDERSON

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE

Jennifer L. Braun, Bar No. 130932

Assistant United States Trustee

S. Margaux Ross, No. 137152

Attorney for the United States Trustee

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE

21051 Warner Center Lane, Suite 115

Woodland Hills, California 91367

Telephone: (815) 716-8800

Facsimile: (815) 716-1576

Email: jennifer.l.braun@usdoj.gov

margaux.ross@usdoj.gov

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FERNANDO VALLEY DIVISION

In re: Case No. SV 08-11033 GM

Juan J, Villa, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 7

In re: Case No. SV 08-I 1626 MT

Filimon Godina, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-I1918 GM

Donald Alfaro, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-12007 MT

Maria Leticia Saravia, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-12109 GM

Brenda Turcios, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

Case 1:08-bk-11033-GM Doc 16 Filed 05/13/09 Entered 05/14/09 10:33:32

Main Document Page 2 of 16

In re: Case No. SV 08-12375 MT

Luis Gabriel Argote, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-12375 MT

Luis Gabriel Argote, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-14168 GM

Guillermina Shatley, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-14574 KT

Daniel Colin Gonzalez, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-14975 MT 

Walter Hernandez & Edith D. Hernandez,

Alleged Debtor, Chapter 7

In re: Case No. SV 08-16461 KT

Jubilio Escalera, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-17081 GM

Maritza Gonzalez, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-17790 GM

Luis Alberto Lopez, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-18390 KT

Francisco Zarate, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-18445 GM

Juan M. Rojas & Aurora A. De Rojas, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 7

In re: Case No. SV 08-18547 KT

Marylin E. Valer, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-18714 KT

Marcial C. Sanchez, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-18771 GM

Candelaria Ornelas, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-18806 MT

Salvador Alfredo Valencia, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 7

In re: Case No. SV 08-18841 MT

Humberto Tortes & Marina Torres, Alleged Debtors. Chapter 13

In re: Case No. ND 08-12900 RR

Ermilo Vasquez & Irma Vasquez, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-19083 GM

Fermin Plascencia, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-19245 KT

Maricruz Hernandez, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-19248 GM

Arturo Campos, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-12997 MT

Carmen C. Boza, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-19399 KT

Brenda Helena Rodriguez, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-19693 MT

Judith Marlene Escobar, Alleged Debtor, Chapter 13

In re: Case No. SV 08-19725 MT

Humberto Tortes & Marina Tones, Alleged Debtors, Chapter 13

STIPULATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE AND JOHN SINASOHN FOR DISGORGEMENT OF ATTORNEY’S COMPENSATION PURSUANT TO

11 U.S.C. § 329

Date: May 13, 2009

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 303

Case 1:08-bk, 11033-GM Doc 16 Filed 05/13/09 Entered 05/14/09 10:33:32

Main Document Page 5 of 16

The United States Trustee’s application for an order approving a stipulation for

the disgorgement of attorney compensation by John Sinasohn, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §

329, was heard before the Honorable Geraldine Mund at the above-referenced time     and  place, with appearances as noted on the record. In order to correct the amounts to be  disgorged, for the reasons stated on the record, the United States Trustee and John

Sinasohn hereby enter into the following Stipulation, which replaces and supersedes any prior stipulation or agreement between those parties.

STIPULATION

 This Stipulation is made by and between the United States Trustee for the Central

 District of California (hereinafter "U.S. Trustee"), and John Sinasohn (hereinafter

 "Sinasohn"). Together the U.S. Trustee and Sinasohn shall be collectively referred to

 herein as the "Parties."

 Recitals

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 586(a)(3), the U.S. Trustee is charged with supervisory

duties over the administration of bankruptcy cases.

Consistent with these duties the U.S. Trustee contends, and Sinasohn agrees, that  Sinasohn failed to provide adequate legal representation to debtors in 27 cases that he commenced during the period from and including February 20, 2008 through December 2, 2008. These cases demonstrated deficient legal representation, including but not limited to filing eases without the credit counseling required for his clients to qualify as debtors; failure to file required Schedules; filing erroneous Schedules and Means Tests, failing to advise debtors to complete financial management education required for a  discharge, failing to accurately disclose his compensation, failing to enter into required written contracts with clients, and failure to advise debtors of other duties required for successful completion of their bankruptcy cases.

Rather than litigating motions under 11 U.S.C. § 329, Sinasohn has agreed to

disgorge compensation in a monthly repayment plan, the terms of which are reflected on Exhibit I to this Stipulation ("Exhibit 1"), under the terms and conditions set forth below.

Case 1:08-bk-11033-GM Doc 16 Filed 05/13/09 Entered 05/14/09 10:33:32Desc

Main Document Page 6 of 16

 Accordingly, it is hereby stipulated that:

1. Sinasohn has agreed to and shall disgorge the amounts set forth on Exhibit l, in

the total amount of $25,123.00.

2. Sinasohn shall deliver payments to the Office of the U.S. Trustee on a monthly

basis consistent with the monthly payment plan reflected on Exhibit 1. Sinasohn shall

make each payment by cashier’s check or money order payable to the names of the

individual debtor(s) set forth on Exhibit I and deliver such payments on a monthly basis

to the Office of the U.S. Trustee, 21051 Warner Center Lane, Suite 115, Woodland Hills,  CA 91367, attn: Mafia D. Marquez. Sinasohn agrees to immediately and on an ongoing  basis provide the Office of the U.S. Trustee with the last known address of each debtor if  he has knowledge of any change in address from that reflected on the CM/ECF docket for  that debtor’s case. Sinasohn acknowledges and agrees that the Office of the U.S. Trustee  may directly contact the debtors in these cases, and also understands that the Office of the  U.S. Trustee may, in addition to serving a copy of this Stipulation on each debtor,  correspond with each debtor to request notification of any address changes to send  payments.

3. By entering into this Stipulation the U.S. Trustee does not waive any rights to

other forms of relief not included herein, including but not limited to actions to refer

Sinasohn to the State Bar or any disciplinary panel, for sanctions or fines, for

disgorgement of compensation in other amounts in the event that any debtor comes

forward with proof that the amounts disgorged pursuant to this Stipulation are incorrect, or for any actions against any other persons associated with Sinasohn, his office, or these  cases.

 Case 1:08-bk-11033-GM Doc 16 Filed 05/13/09 Entered 05/14/09 10:33:32

Main Document Page 7 of 16

4. The parties further agree to appear at a hearing on an Order to Show Cause to

be set by the court, for Sinasohn to appear and show whether he has complied with the terms of this Stipulation and whether he has been providing an acceptable quality of legal  services.

Dated: May 13, 2009 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN SINASOHN

Dated: May 13, 2009 OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE

Jennifer L. Braun

Assistant United States Trustee

Case 1:08-bk-11033-GM

Doc 16 Filed 05/13/09 Entered 05/14/09 10:33:32Desc

Main Document Page 8 of 16

EXHIBIT 1

20

Law Offices of John Sinasohn

Twelve-Month Payment Schedule

June 15, 2009

Payment date June 15, 2009, Debtor Juan J. Villa, BK Case Number SV08-11033 GM, Disgorgement Amount $925.00

Payment date June 15, 2009, Debtor Filimon Godina, BK Case Number SV08-11626 MT, Disgorgement Amount $725.00

Payment date July 15, 2009, Debtor Donald Alfaro, BK Case Number SV08-111918 GM Disgorgement Amount $750.00

Payment date July 15, 2009, Debtor Brenda Turcios, BK Case Number SV08-112109 GM, Disgorgement Amount $1,500.00

Payment date July 15, 2009, Debtor Luis Gabriel Argote, BK Case Number SV08-12375 MT, Disgorgement Amount $450.00

Payment date August 15, 2009, Debtor Maria Leticia Saravia, BK Case Number SV08-12007 MT, Disgorgement Amount $1,525.00

Payment date September 15, 2009, Debtor Guillermina Shatley, BK Case Number SV08-14168 GM, Disgorgement Amount $1,225.00

Payment date September 15, 2009, Debtor Daniel Colin Gonzalez, BK Case Number SV08-14574 KT, Disgorgement Amount $725.00

Payment date October 15, 2009, Debtor Walter & Edith Hernandez, BK Case Number SV08-14975 MT, Disgorgement Amount $900.00

Payment date October 15, 2009, Debtor Jubilio Escalera, BK Case Number SV08-16461 KT, Disgorgement Amount $1,225.00

Payment date November 15, 2009, Debtor Maritza Gonzalez, BK Case Number SV08-17081 GM, Disgorgement Amount $500.00

Payment date November 15, 2009, Debtor Luis Alberto Lopez, BK Case Number SV08-17790 GM, Disgorgement Amount $1,000.00  

Payment date December 15, 2009, Debtor Francisco Zarate, BK Case Number SV08-18390 KT, Disgorgement Amount $1,325.00  

Payment date December 15, 2009, Debtor Juan M. Rojas Aurora A. De Rojas, BK Case Number SV08-18445 GM, Disgorgement Amount $1,025.00

Payment date January 15, 2010, Debtor Marylin E. Valer, BK Case Number SV08-18547 KT, Disgorgement Amount $1,025.00

Payment date January 15, 2010, Debtor Candelaria Ornelas, BK Case Number SV08-18771 GM, Disgorgement Amount $1,500.00

Payment date February 15, 2010, Debtor Marcial C. Sanchez, BK Case Number SV08-18714 KT, Disgorgement Amount $1,525.00  

Payment date February 15, 2010, Debtor Salvador A. Valencia, BK Case Number SV08-18806 MT, Disgorgement Amount $750.00  

Payment date March 15, 2010, Debtor Humberto and Marina Torres, BK Case Number SV08-18841 MT, Disgorgement Amount $1,025.00  

Payment date April 15, 2010, Debtor Fermin Plascencia, BK Case Number SV08-19083 GM, Disgorgement Amount $475.00  

Payment date April 15, 2010, Debtor Maricruz Hernandez, BK Case Number SV08-19245 KT, Disgorgement Amount $625.00

Payment date April 15, 2010, Debtor Arturo Campos, BK Case Number SV08-19248 GM, Disgorgement Amount $700.00  

Payment date April 15, 2010, Debtor Carmen C.Boza, BK Case Number SV08-19297 MT, Disgorgement Amount $299.00  

Payment date April 15, 2010, Debtor Humberto and Marina Torres, BK Case Number SV08-19725 MT, Disgorgement Amount $299.00  

Payment date May 15, 2010, Debtor Brenda H. Rodriguez, BK Case Number SV08-19399 KT, Disgorgement Amount $1,325.00  

Payment date May 15, 2010, Debtor Judith M. Escobar, BK Case Number SV08-19693 MT, Disgorgement Amount $775.00  

Case l:08-bk-11033-GM Doc 16 Filed 05/13/09 Entered 05/14/09 10:33:32 DescMain Document Page 13 of 16

PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT

I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is: 2 ! 051 Warner Center Lane, Suite 115, Woodland Hills, CA 91367

The foregoing document described as STIPULATION BETVCEEN THE UNITED

 STATES TRUSTEE AND JOHN SINASOHN FOR DISGORGEMENT OF

ATTORNEY’S COMPENSATION PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 329 will be served or

 was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner indicated below:

I. TO BE SERVED BY THE CQURT VIA.NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

 ("NEF’} -Pursuant to controlling General Order(s) and Local Bankruptcy Rule(s) C’LBR"), the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and

determined that the following person(s) are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF  transmission at the email address(es) indicated below:

Service information continued on attached page

II. SERVED BY U.S. MAIL OR OVERNIGHT MAIL indicate method for each person or

entity,served):

On May 13, 2009, I served the following person(s) and/or entity(ies) at the last known

address(es) in this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy  thereof in a sealed envelope in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, and/or with an overnight mail service addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that  mailing to the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed.

X Service information continued on attached page

III. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL

(indicate method for each person or entity .served : Pursuant to F.R,Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling  LBR, on May 13, 2009, I served the following person(s) and/or entity(ies) by personal delivery, or (for those who consented in writing to such service method), by facsimile transmission and/or  email as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that personal delivery on the judge completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed.

Honorable Judge: Geraldine Mund, bin Inside of the lobby, San Fernando Valley Division Service information continued on attached page

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

May 13, 2009

Date

Veronica Hernandez  

Type Name

Legal Secretary

Case 1:08-bk-11033-GM Doc 16 Filed 05/13/09 Entered 05/14/09 10:33:32

Main Document Page 14 of 16

SERVICE LIST FOR PROOF OF SERVICE

SERVED BY U.S. MAIL DEBTOR’S ATTORNEY:

John Sinasohn

Law Offices of John Sinasohn

14522 Vanowen St Ste 3

Van Nuys, CA 91405

Steven Earl Smith

20969 Ventura Blvd Ste 230

Woodland Hills, CA 91364

SERVED BY U.S, MAIL TRUSTEE(S):

Brad D Krasnoff

221 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 1200

Los Angeles, CA 90012

David R Hagen

6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1400

Woodland Hills, CA 91367

Diane Weil

1888 Century Park East, Suite 1500

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Elizabeth Rojas

Noble Professional Center

15060 Ventura Blvd., Suite 240

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

26

1:08-bk- 11033-GM Doc 16 Filed 05/13/09 Entered 05/14/09 10:33:32

Main Document Page 15 of 16

SERVED BY U.S. MAIL DEBTOR(S):

Juan J Villa

6032 Cecilia St

Palmdale, CA 93550

Filimon Godina

29755 Shenandoah Lane

Canyon Country, CA 91387

Donald Alfaro

7503 Camelia St

North Hollywood, CA 91605

Maria Leticia Saravia

214 E Ave Q3

Palmdale, CA 93550

Brenda Turcios

15106 Roxford St

Sylmar, CA 91342

Luis Gabriel Argote

14659 Polk St

Sylmar, CA 91342

Guillermina Shatley

7061 Kester Ave #J

Van Nuys, Ca 91405

Daniel Colin Gonzalez

8820-8822 Canby Ave

Northridge, CA 91325

Walter Hernandez

Edith D Hernandez

6126 Bonner Ave

North Hollywood, CA 91606

SERVED By U.S., MAIL DEBTOR(S):

Jubilio Escalera

4050 Camino De La Cumbre

Sherman Oaks, CA 91423

Maritza Gonzalez

13409 Cranston Ave

Sylmar, CA 91342

Luis Alberto Lopez

8847 Willis Ave A4

Panorama City, CA 91402

Francisco Zarate

14328 Victory Blvd

Van Nuys, CA 91401

Juan M Rojas

Aurora A De Rojas

7246 Vanalden Ave

Reseda, CA 91335

Marylin E Valer

11150 Glenoaks Blvd #56

Pacoima, CA 91331

Martial C Sanchez

12839 Glenoaks Blvd

Sylmar, CA 91342

Candelaria Ornelas  

13920 Kopany Ave

Sylmar, CA 91342

Case 1:08-bk-11033-GM Doc 16 Filed 05/13/09 Entered 05/14/09 10:33:32

Main Document Page 16 of 16

DEBTOR(S):

Salvador Alfredo Valencia      

8834 Camby Ave

Northridge, CA 91325

Humberto Tortes and Marina Torres

14328 Victory Blvd.

Van Nuys CA 91401

Ermilo Vasquez and Irma Vasquez

934 Denver Pl.

Oxnard CA 93033

Fermin Plascencia

6256 Halbrent Ave

Van Nuys, CA 91411

Maricruz Hernandez

6256 Halbrent Ave

Van Nuys, CA 91411

Arturo Campos

9354 E Ave QI4

Little Rock, CA 93543

Carmen C. Boza

27010 Beauty Berry PI

Canyon Country, CA 91387

Brenda Helena Rodriguez

12529 Filmore St

Pacoima, CA 91331

Judith Marlene Escobar

9075 Costello Ave

Panorama City, CA 91402

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 09-O-15973, 10-O-03119, 11-O-10746

In the Matter of: John Martin Sinasohn and Daphne Maria Pereat and Erin McKeown Joyce

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: John Martin Sinasohn

Respondent: John Martin Sinasohn

Date: May 19, 2011

Respondent’s Counsel: Daphne Maria Pereat

Date: May 19, 2011

Deputy Trial Counsel: Erin McKeown Joyce

Date: May 20, 2011

ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER

Case Number(s): 09-O-15973, et al.

In the Matter of: John Martin Sinasohn

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: Donald F. Miles

Judge of the State Bar Court

Date: May 27, 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 San Francisco, on May 5, 2011, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:

                                                STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

                                                AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

                                                            DAPHNE M. PEREAT, ESQ.

                                                            LAW OFC DAPHNE M PEREAT

                                                            4015 STANSBURY AVE

                                                            SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91423 - 4674

checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:

                                                ERIN JOYCE, ESQ., Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on May 27, 2011.

Signed by:

Rose Luthi

Case Administrator

State Bar Court