Case Number(s): 09-O-17685; 10-O-02447; 10-O-01253; 10-O-05956; 10-O-07145 10-O-07575; 10-O-09666; 10-O-10780; 10-O-11192; 11-O-11826
In the Matter of: James Patrick McHenry Bar #179515, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Rizmari C. Sitton, The State Bar of Califomia
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
-(213) 765-1364
Bar #138319
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
James P. McHenry
4630 Campus Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 646-6100
Bar# 179515
Submitted to:
<<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 6, 1995.
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 21 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.
checked. (4) Harm: Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice. Respondent’s clients were seriously harmed by the misconduct described herein. The clients hired Respondent to assist them when they were financially distressed. For example, clients Jerry & Jacqueline Warren, and Jeffrey & Kristin Godley, lost the use of the money they had paid for
services that were not performed.
<<not>>
checked. (13) No mitigating circumstances are involved.
Additional mitigating circumstances: Although the misconduct described herein
is serious, Respondent has no prior record of discipline
over fifteen (15) years of IQW practice in California.
(a) Within three (3) months of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must initiate a binding fee arbitration with any duly-authorized fee dispute arbitration service regarding any and all fee disputes involving each of the following clients. If the client’s consent is required for the arbitration to be binding, and the client does not consent, Respondent shall proceed with a non-binding arbitration. Any mutual settlement agreement between client and Respondent would alleviate Respondent of his obligation to initiate and submit to arbitration under these conditions.
i. Alicia Maisincho & Jose Proano;
ii. Debra Keena
iii. Jennifer Flores
iv. Janet Shaw
v. Jeff Siragusa
(b) Within three (3) months of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof that he had initiated each of the fee arbitration matters listed in paragraph (5)(a) above. (c) Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of the completion of each of the fee arbitration matters listed in paragraph (5)(a) above. (d) Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof that he had fully complied with the findings and rulings in each of the fee arbitration matters listed in paragraph (5)(a) above.
Financial Conditions, pages 8-9.
Statement of Facts, pages 10-15.
Conclusions of Law, pages 16-19.
Supporting Authority, page 20.
Case Number(s): 09-O-17685, et al.
In the Matter of: James Patrick McHenry
a. Restitution
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: Jerry & Jacqueline Warren
Principal Amount: $2,499.00
Interest Accrues From: July 23, 2009
2. Payee: Jeffrey & Kristin Godley
Principal Amount: $3,200.00
Interest Accrues From: October 27, 2009
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than .
<<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.
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.
IN THE MATTER OF: State Bar No.
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
IN THE MATTER OF: JAMES P. McHENRY
CASE NUMBERS: 09-O-17685,10-O-02447,10-O-01253, 10-O-05956,10-O-07145
10-O-07575, 10-O-09666,10-O-10780,10-O-11192, 11-O-11826
Case No. 09-O-17685 (Client Alicia Maisincho)
1. In March 2009, Alicia Maisincho ("Maisincho") hired Respondent to obtain a
mortgage loan modification on her behalf. Maisincho paid Respondent approximately $2,950 as advanced attorney’s fees.
2. On June 3, 2009, Maisincho terminated Respondent’s employment and requested a refund of unearned fees.
3. Respondent did not provide to Maisincho any accounting of the attorney fees she had advanced.
4. A dispute arose between Respondent and Maisincho about whether Respondent earned all the fees she had advanced.
Case No. 10-O-02447 (Client Debra Keena)
5. In May 2009, a real estate agent Michael Hale ("Hale") referred Debra A. Keena ("Keena") to Respondent for legal services.
6. On May 12, 2009, as a result of the referral, Keena hired Respondent to obtain a mortgage loan modification for her. Keena paid Respondent approximately $2950 as advanced attorney fees.
7. On January 11, 2010, Respondent submitted a loan modification application on behalf of Keena to her lender.
8. On January 25, 2010, the lender denied Keena’s loan modification application.
9. Respondent paid Hale a certain fee for having referred Keena to him for legal services.
10. Respondent did not provide to Keena any accounting of the attorney fees she had advanced.
11. A dispute arose between Respondent and Keena about whether Respondent earned the fees she had advanced.
Case No. 10-O-01253 (Client Jennifer Flores)
12. In August 2009, a real estate mortgage broker, Wendy Kelly ("Kelly") referred
Jennifer Flores ("Flores") to Respondent for legal services. As a result of the referral, Flores hired Respondent to obtain a modification of a mortgage loan on her residential property in Corona, California. Flores paid Respondent $3,100 as advanced attorney fees.
13. Respondent paid Kelly a certain fee for having referred Flores to him for legal services.
14. In December 2009, Flores’s application for a loan modification was denied. Respondent’s employment was terminated.
15. Respondent did not provide to Flores any accounting of the attorney fees she had advanced.
16. A dispute arose between Respondent and Flores about whether Respondent earned the fees she had advanced.
Case No. 10-O-05956 (Client Todd L. Cregar)
17. In July 2009, Todd L. Cregar ("Cregar") hired Respondent to apply for and obtain a
modification of a mortgage loan on his residential property. Cregar paid Respondent $3,000 as advanced attorney fees.
18. In December 2009, Cregar terminated Respondent’s services, and requested a refund of unearned fees.
19. Between February 2010 and March 2010, inclusive, Respondent and Cregar
negotiated an agreement regarding a refund. During the negotiations, Respondent stated to Cregar, "if you proceed with any complaint or any action against me or my company, then I will immediately rescind my offer to refund your money in full."
20. After settlement of a small claims action, Respondent refunded $2,000 to Cregar.
Case No. 10-O-07145 (Client Steven M. Cartmill)
21. In June 2009, a real estate agent, Michael Hale ("Hale") referred Steven M. Cartmill ("Cartmill") to Respondent for legal services.
22. On June 25, 2009, as a result of the referral, Cartmill hired Respondent to apply for and obtain a modification of a mortgage loan on his residential property.
23. On July 14, 2009, Cartmill paid Respondent $3,200, as advanced attorney fees.
24. Respondent paid Hale a certain fee for having referred Cartmill to him for legal services.
25. In early December 2009, Cartmill terminated Respondent’s services and requested a refund of unearned fees. Respondent agreed to refund $2,500.
26. On February 1, 2010, Respondent made a partial refund of $1,000 to Cartmill.
27. On April 4, 2011, Respondent refunded to Cartmill the balance of the unearned fees in the amount of $1,500.
Case No. 10-O-07575 (Client Janet Shaw)
28. In September 2009, a real estate agent, Michael Hale ("Hale") referred Janet Shaw ("Shaw") to Respondent for legal services.
29. In September 2009, as a result of the referral, Shaw hired Respondent to apply for and obtain a modification of a mortgage loan on her residential property. Shaw paid Respondent $3,250 as advanced attorney fees.
30. Respondent paid Hale a certain fee for having referred Shaw to him for legal services.
31. In December 2009, Shaw’s application for a loan modification was denied. Respondent’s employment terminated.
32. Respondent did not provide to Shaw any accounting of the attorney fees she had advanced.
33. A dispute arose between Respondent and Shaw about whether Respondent earned the fees she had advanced.
Case No. 10-O-09666 (Client Jerry Warren)
34. On July 23, 2009, Jerry Warren and Jacqueline Warren (collectively "Warrens") hired Respondent to apply for and obtain a modification of a mortgage loan on their residential property. Respondent agreed to perform services involving the Warrens’s property located in Minnesota. At all times pertinent, the Warrens were permanent residents of Minnesota.
35. On July 23, 2009, pursuant to their attorney-client agreement, the Warrens paid Respondent $2,499 as advanced attorney fees.
36. Respondent is not, and never has been, licensed to practice law in Minnesota.
Case No. 10-O-10780 (Client Kristin Godley)
37. On October 27, 2009, Jeffrey Godley and Kristen Godley (collectively "Godleys") hired Respondent to apply for, negotiate and obtain a modification of a mortgage loan on their residential property. Respondent agreed to perform services involving the Godleys’s property located in Pennsylvania. At all times pertinent, the Godleys were permanent residents of Pennsylvania.
38. On October 27, 2009, the Godleys paid Respondent $3,000 as advanced attorney fees.
39. Respondent is not, and never has been, licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania.
40. Respondent did not fully perform each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform for the Godleys, prior to demanding, charging, collecting or receiving any fees.
Case No. 10-O-11192 (Client Patrick Coyle)
41. In January 2010, Patrick Coyle ("Coyle") hired Respondent to apply for, negotiate and obtain a modification of a mortgage loan on his residential property. Respondent agreed to perform services involving Coyle’s property located in Arizona. At all times pertinent, Coyle was a permanent resident of Arizona.
42. In January 2010, Coyle paid Respondent $1,900 as advanced attorney fees.
43. Respondent is not, and never has been, licensed to practice law in Arizona.
44. Respondent did not fully perform each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform for Coyle, prior to demanding, charging, collecting or receiving any fees.
45.In December 2010, Respondent’s employment terminated.
46. In December 2010, Respondent and Coyle negotiated and entered into an agreement whereby Respondent would refund $1,900 to Coyle. Respondent prepared a written agreement ("Agreement") which he asked Coyle to execute prior to issuing the refund. The agreement contained the following provision: "Client further agrees to waive, release, and rescind any complaint to or with the State Bar of California with regard to Attorney [James McHenry] in any manner whatsoever. Client further agrees not to cooperate with the State Bar of California with regard to any investigation of Attorney [James McHenry]."
47. Coyle and Respondent executed the Agreement on December 14, 2010. Respondent refunded $1,900 to Coyle in late December 2010.
Case No. 11-O-11826 (Client Jeff Siragusa)
48. In October 2009, Jeff Siragusa ("Siragusa") hired Respondent to apply for, negotiate and obtain a modification of a mortgage loan on his residential property in California.
49. In October 2009, Siragusa paid Respondent $3,000 as advanced attorney fees.
50. Respondent did not provide to Siragusa any accounting of the attorney fees he had advanced.
51. A dispute arose between Respondent and Siragusa about whether Respondent earned the fees he had advanced.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
IN THE MATTER OF: JAMES PATRICK McHENRY
CASE NUMBERS: 09-O-17685,10-O-02447,10-O-01253, 10-O-05956,10-O-07145,10-O-07575,10-O-09666,10-O-10780,10-O-11192, 11-O-11826
Case no. 09-O-17685 (Complainant Alicia Maisincho)
1. By not providing any accounting to Maisincho of the attorney fees she had advanced,
Respondent failed to render appropriate accounts to a client regarding all funds coming into
Respondent’s possession, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3).
Case no. 10-O-02447 (Complainant Debra Keena)
2. By paying Hale a monetary reward for having referred Keena to him for legal services,
Respondent compensated, gave, and promised something of value to a person or entity for the
purpose of recommending or securing employment of Respondent or Respondent’s law firm by a
client or as a reward for having made a recommendation resulting in employment of Respondent
or Respondent’s law firm, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-320(B). 3. By not providing any accounting to Keena of the attorney fees she had advanced, Respondent failed to render appropriate accounts to a client regarding all funds coming into Respondent’s possession, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3).
Case No. 10-O-09666 (Complainant Jerry Warren)
4. By entering into a contract with the Warrens in Minnesota to apply, negotiate and
obtain a modification of their loan on a property in Minnesota when Respondent was not
admitted in nor otherwise authorized to practice law in that state, Respondent practiced law in a jurisdiction where to do so is a violation of the regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(B).
Case No. 10-O-01253 (Complainant Jennifer Fiores)
5. By paying Kelly a monetary reward for having referred Flores to him for legal
services, Respondent compensated, gave, and promised something of value to a person or entity for the purpose of recommending or securing employment of Respondent or Respondent’s law firm by a client or as a reward for having made a recommendation resulting in employment of Respondent or Respondent’s law firm, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-320(B).
6. By not providing Flores with an accounting of the attorney fees she had advanced,
Respondent failed to render appropriate accounts to the client regarding all funds of a client coming into the possession of the attorney or his law firm, in willful violation of
Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3).
Case No. 10-O-05956 (Complainant Todd L. Cregar)
7. By asserting to Cregar: "if you proceed with any complaint or any action against me or my company, then I will immediately rescind my offer to refund your money in full", during negotiations of a fee dispute, Respondent acted as a party or as an attorney for a party and agreed or sought agreement that professional misconduct or the terms of a settlement of a claim for professional misconduct would not be reported to the disciplinary agency, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6090.5.
Case No. 10-O-07145 (Complainant Steven M. Cartmill)
8. By paying Hale a monetary reward for having referred Cartmill to him for legal services, Respondent compensated, gave, and promised something of value to a person or entity for the purpose of recommending or securing employment of Respondent or Respondent’s law firm by a client or as a reward for having made a recommendation resulting in employment of Respondent or Respondent’s law firm, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-320(B).
Case No. 10-O-07575 (Complainant Janet Shaw)
9. By not providing Shaw with an accounting of the attorney fees she paid to him, Respondent failed to render appropriate accounts to the client regarding all funds of a client coming into the possession of the attorney or his law firm, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3).
10. By paying Hale a monetary reward for having referred Shaw to him for legal services, Respondent compensated, gave, and promised something of value to a person or entity for the purpose of recommending or securing employment of Respondent or Respondent’s law firm by a client or as a reward for having made a recommendation resulting in employment of Respondent or Respondent’s law firm, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-320(B).
Case No. 10-O-10780 (Complainant Kristin Godley)
11. By negotiating, arranging or offering to perform a mortgage loan modification for a
fee paid by a borrower, and demanding, charging, collecting and receiving fees from the Godleys prior to fully performing each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform, in violation of subsection (a)(1) of Section 2944.7 of the Civil Code, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3. 12. By entering into a contract with the Godleys in Pennsylvania to apply, negotiate and obtain a modification of their loan on a property in Pennsylvania when Respondent was not admitted in nor otherwise authorized to practice law in that state, Respondent practiced law in a jurisdiction where to do so is a violation of the regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(B).
Case No. 10-O-11192 (Complainant Patrick Coyle)
13. By entering into a contract with Coyle in Arizona to apply, negotiate and obtain a
modification of their loan on a property in Arizona when Respondent was not admitted in nor otherwise authorized to practice law in that state, Respondent practiced law in a jurisdiction where to do so is a violation of the regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(B).
14. By negotiating, arranging or offering to perform a mortgage loan modification for a
fee paid by a borrower, and demanding, charging, collecting and receiving fees from Coyle prior
to fully performing each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform, in violation of subsection (a)(1) of Section 2944.7 of the Civil Code, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3.
15. By including in their refund agreement: "Client further agrees to waive, release, and rescind any complaint to or with the State Bar of California with regard to Attorney [James McHenry] in any manner whatsoever. Client further agrees not to cooperate with the State Bar of California with regard to any investigation of Attorney [James McHenry]", Respondent acted as a party or as an attorney for a party and agreed or sought agreement that Coyle would withdraw a disciplinary complaint or would not cooperate with the investigation or prosecution conducted by the disciplinary agency, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 6090.5(a)(2).
Case no. 11-O-11826 (Client Jeff Siragusa)
16. By not providing any accounting to Siragusa of the attorney fees he had advanced,
Respondent failed to render appropriate accounts to a client regarding all funds coming into Respondent’s possession, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3).
SUPPORTING AUTHORITIES
IN THE MATTER OF: JAMES PATRICK McHENRY
CASE NUMBERS: 09-O-17685, 10-O-02447,10-O-01253; 10-O-05956,10-O-07145
10-O-07575, 10-O-09666,10-O-10780,10-O-11192, 11-O-11826
In In re Ronald Robert Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, the California Supreme Court discussed the fact that the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct are entitled to great weight and the State Bar Court should follow their guidance whenever possible.
Standard 1.3 provides that the primary purposes of attorney discipline are, "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal professions; the maintenance of high legal professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession."
Standard 1.6(a) states that where two or more acts of professional misconduct are charged and different sanctions are prescribed by the standards for the acts, the sanction imposed shall be the more or most severe of the different applicable sanctions.
Standard 2.2(b) provides, "Culpability of a member of commingling of entrusted funds or property with personal property or the commission of another violation of rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct, none of which offenses result in the willful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in at least a three month actual suspension from the practice of law,
irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
Case Number(s): 09-O-17685, et al.
In the Matter of: James Patrick McHenry and Rizmari C. Sitton
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: James Patrick McHenry
Respondent: James Patrick McHenry
Date: June 10, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Rizmari C. Sitton
Date: June 14, 2011
Case Number(s): 09-O-17685, et al.
In the Matter of: James Patrick McHenry
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: Donald F. Miles
Judge of the State Bar Court
Date: June 20, 2011
(Effective January 1, 2011)
Actual Suspension Order
BY
REGULAR MAIL
CASE NUMBER: 09-O-17685; 10-O-02447; 10-O-01253; 10-O-05956; 10-O-07145; 10-O07575; 10-O-09666; 10-O-10780; 10-O-11192; 11-O-11826
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 ACTUAL SUSPENSION
in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing at Los Angeles, on the date shown below,
addressed to:
James P. McHenry
4630 Campus Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
in an inter-office mail facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California
addressed to:
STATE BAR COURT - HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES
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 15, 2011
Signed: Juli Jenewein
Declarant
[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, June 21, 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:
JAMES P. MCHENRY, ESQ.
JAMES MCHENRY, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
4630 CAMPUS DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
checked by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
RIZAMARI SITTON, ESQ., Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on June 21, 2011.
Signed by:Rose Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court