Case Number(s): 10-O-02489,10-O-03709, 10-O-04579, 10-O-05438,10-O-06067, 10-O-06488, 10-O-06492,10-O-06493,10-O-07903, 10-O-09732,10-O-09965, 10-O-09968
In the Matter of: Ghassan G. Bridi , Bar # 188070 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Rizmari C. Sitton, The State Bar of California
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
Ghassan G. Bridi
The Bridi Firm
15760 Ventura Blvd Ste 700
Encino, CA 91436
(818) 379-1700
Bar # 188070
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 June 2, 1997.
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 30 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. (c) Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: 3-1 I0(A), 6068(m), 3-700(D)(2), 3700(D)(1)
Personal problems caused Respondent to suffer depression and anxiety that necessitated hospitalization in 2008, and continued medical treatment thereafter. In April 2010, Respondent voluntarily enrolled in the Lawyer’s Assistance Program, and he continues to participate in that program. In additional recognition of his problems, Respondent made changes in his law practice in March 2010 and he stopped
accepting employment that involved loan modification matters or other real property issues.
The parties agreed to attach hereto Respondent’s unilateral Statement of Mitigation, as
Attachment 4, at page 8.
See, Respondent’s Statement of Mitigation, page 8.
See, Financial Conditions, pages 9-11.
See, Statement of Facts, pages 12-21.
See, Conclusions of Law, pages 22-28.
See, Supporting Authority, page 29.
Statement of Mitigation
In late 2008 I was hospitalized with severe abdominal pains that left me completely immobile, which was later determined to be a result of the stress associated with my work and the anxiety and depression resulting therefrom. I was hospitalized for 4 days and underwent a litany of diagnostic testing for nearly 2 months afterwards in outpatient procedures at various hospitals,
Unfortunately, due to my caseload, I could not afford to take prolonged time off, so I had to immediately return to work and deal with the workload that accumulated. I managed hang on and keep the practice afloat and deal with the challenges associated with a small practice, though the daily mental stress associated with this and the task of assistance, quickly became overwhelming again, and again I began falling behind on a few files.
My stomach pains returned, and due to financial restraint was unable to seek medical attention because I could not keep up with my health insurance premiums and let my policy lapse. I felt the weight of the world on my shoulder and knew I needed to do something to save my practice my reputation, and my career.
In order to more adequately deal with the physical and mental challenges associated with my health issues and work Issues, I paid out of my own pocket to hire a therapist whom I now see once e week and who has helped me tremendously in allowing me to manage tile mental difficulties associated with the running of a law practice.
In addition, I have taken it upon myself to enroll in the Lawyer Assistance Program sponsored by the California ear Association. Where I attend support meetings led by a psychologist once per week with saw other lawyers encountering similar Issues as I am.
Ghassan G. Bridi, Esq.
Case Number(s): 10-O-02489,10-O-03709, 10-O-04579, 10-O-05438,10-O-06067,
10-O-06488, 10-O-06492,10-O-06493,10-O-07903, 10-O-09732,10-O-09965,
10-O-09968
In the Matter of: Ghassan G. Bridi
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: See page 11
Principal Amount: See page 11
Interest Accrues From: See page 11
<<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.
Payee Matin L. Parra, Principal $3,000.00, Interest Accrues From
01/01/2010
Payee Randolph R. Meyer Principal $1,500.00 Interest Accrues From
02/01/2010
Payee Terry Danuser Principal $1,750.00 Interest Accrues From
02/16/2010
Payee Peter & Renee Fillmore Principal $2,500.00 Interest Accrues From
03/09/2010
Payee James A. & Janet A. Clausman Principal $3,000.00 Interest Accrues From 04/05/2010
Payee Jose Sanchez Principal $1,850.00 Interest Accrues From
06/07/2010
Payee Nancy Fairbanks Principal $ 973.00 Interest Accrues From
06/28/2010
Payee Arturo Sequeira Principal $1,500.00 Interest Accrues From
09/01/2010
Payee Dianna Walter Principal $2,500.00 Interest Accrues From
09/17/2010
IN THE MATTER OF: State Bar No.
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
IN THE MATTER OF: GHASSAN G. BRIDI
CASE NUMBERS: 10-O-02489, 10-O-03709, 10-O-05438, 10-O-06067,10-O-6488,
10-O-6493, 10-O-6492,10-O-07903,10-O-09732, 10-O-09968,10-O-04579,10-O-09965
Respondent acknowledges and stipulates that the following facts are true:
Case No. 10-O-02489
1. In August 2009, James A. Clausman and Janet A. Clausman (collectively
"Clausmans"), husband and wife, hired Respondent to provide them with loan
modification and loss mitigation services, including negotiations with their mortgage
lender about restructuring their debt and avoiding foreclosure of their home. The
Clausmans paid Respondent approximately $3000, in advanced attorney’s fees.
2. Between October 28, 2009, and November 17, 2009, inclusive, the Clausmans
contacted Respondent by email and by telephone at least six times, and each time they
inquired about the status of their loan matter. Respondent did not reply to any of the
emails and he did not return any of the calls.
3; Between October 28, 2009, and November 17, 2009, inclusive, on at least
three occasions, the Clausmans received past-due notices and payment demands from
their lenders. On each occasion, the Clausmans informed Respondent about the notices and demands.
4. On November 18, 2010, having not heard back from Respondent, the
Clausmans contacted their lender directly and learned that negotiations to restructure
their loan had not started. Immediately thereafter, the Clausmans terminated
Respondent’s employment, and they asked him for a refund of the advanced fees.
5. Between August 2009, and January 2010, Respondent did not initiate
negotiations with the Clausmans’s lender; he did not submit any proposal to the lender;
and, he did not otherwise submit to the lender an application for a loan modification on
behalf of the Clausmans.
6. In January 2010, the lender informed the Clausmans that their home would be
foreclosed in February 2010.
7. On April 5, 2010, the Clausmans sent Respondent a letter requesting their files
and documents, and a refund of all advanced fees.
8. Respondent did not provide the services that the Clausmans had hired him to
perform. Respondent did not earn any part of the fees advanced by the Clausmans.
9. To date, Respondent has not paid to the Clausmans the unearned fees.
10. To date, Respondent has not returned to the Clausmans any of their files and
documents.
Case No. 10-O-03709
11. In September 2009, Terry Danuser ("Danuser") hired Respondent to represent
him in an audit of his mortgage loan. Danuser paid Respondent $1,750, in advanced
attorney’s fees.
12. Between September 2009, and February 2010, Danuser left telephone messages
and sent emails to Respondent, on at least 13 occasions, asking about the status of his loan audit matter. Respondent did not return the phone calls; he did not reply to the emails; and, he did not otherwise provide Danuser with information regarding the status of his matter.
13. Between September 2009 and February 2010, Respondent did not perform any
services on behalf of Danuser.
14. On February 16, 2010, Danuser terminated Respondent’s employment. Danuser
requested his files and documents, and he requested a refund of the advanced fees.
15. Respondent did not earn any of the fees advanced by Danuser.
16. To date, Respondent has not released to Danuser any of his documents or files.
17. To date, Respondent has not refunded any portion of the uneamed fees.
Case no. 10-O-05438
18. On May 19, 2009, Mary K. Hanson ("Hanson") hired Respondent on a
contingency fee basis to file and handle to conclusion a certain mortgage fraud lawsuit on her behalf. Respondent knew that time was of the essence in filing the lawsuit.
19. Beginning in August 2009, Respondent stopped communicating with Hanson.
Between August 2009, and December 2009, inclusive, Hanson telephoned Respondent at least once each month, and she sent him at least one letter by mail, and two email messages. Each time, Hanson inquired about the status of her lawsuit. Respondent did not respond to any of Hanson’s calls, letter and email between August 2009 and December 2009.
20. Respondent did not file a mortgage fraud lawsuit, and he did not otherwise
perform any services on behalf of Hanson.
21. In late December 2009, Hanson terminated Respondent’s employment, and she
began looking for another attorney.
22. Between December 2009 and June 2010, Hanson requested her files and
documents from Respondent.
23. To date, Respondent has not released to Hanson any of her files and documents.
Case no. 10-O-06067
24. At all times pertinent herein, Respondent was the counsel of record for Jose A.
Hernandez in a certain federal lawsuit, Jose A. Hernandez vs. City of Simi Valley, et al.,
filed in the Central District of California.
25. Respondent did not comply with certain federal statutes regarding filing
requirements.
26. On December 21, 2009, the Court issued an order requiring compliance with the
filing requirements. Respondent received notice of the order. Respondent did not comply with the order.
27. On February 3, 2010, as a result of Respondent’s non-compliance with the
court’s December 21, 2009, order, the court issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) requiring Respondent to personally appear in court on March 1, 2010, and to show cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed against Respondent. The OSC also required Respondent to file a written response no later than February 22, 2010. Respondent received notice of the OSC and the hearing.
28. Respondent did not file the requisite written response to the OSC. Respondent
did not make appear at the OSC hearing. As a result, the court imposed personal sanctions against Respondent in the amount of $500. The court issued a further Order to Show Cause (second OSC) requiring Respondent to comply with the federal filing rules and to appear in court at a hearing on March 29, 2010. Respondent received notice of the sanctions, and notice of the second OSC.
29. Respondent did not appear at the hearing on March 29, 2010; he did not pay the
$500, sanctions; and he did not comply with the federal filing rules.
30. Consequently, on March 29, 2010, the court ordered Respondent to pay
additional personal sanctions of $1,000. Respondent received notice of the additional
sanctions.
31. To date, Respondent has not paid the $500 sanctions; he has not paid the $1000
sanctions; and, he has not otherwise complied with the OSC and the second OSC.
32. Respondent did not report to the State Bar the sanctions of $1000, imposed by
the court on March 29, 2010.
Case no. 10-O-t1488
33. In September 2009, Nancy Fairbanks ("Fairbanks") hired Respondent to
represent her in a certain real estate dispute. Fairbanks paid Respondent $3,500, as
advanced attorney’s fees.
34. Beginning in mid-October 2009, Respondent stopped communicating with
Fairbanks.
35. Between October 2009, and June 201 O, inclusive, Fairbanks telephoned
Respondent on several occasions, sent him at least two emails, and sent him at least two letters by mail. Each time, she inquired about the status of her real estate matter, and asked Respondent to respond. Respondent did not return any of the phone calls, he did not reply to the emails, he did not reply to the letters, and he did not otherwise provide Fairbanks with information about the status of her matter. 36. On April 23, 2010, Fairbanks sent Respondent a letter requesting the return of certain documents. Respondent did not reply to the letter.
37. On June 28, 2010, Fairbanks terminated Respondent’s employment, and she
began looking for a new attorney.
38. Respondent did not perform any services on behalf of Fairbanks.
39. Respondent did not earn any part of the attorney’s fees advanced by Fairbanks.
40. To date, Respondent has refunded a total of approximately $2,527 to Fairbanks.
41. To date, Respondent has not released to Fairbanks any of her files or documents.
42. To date, Respondent has not refunded to Fairbanks the balance of the unearned
fees.
Case no. 10-O-6493
43. On January 28, 2010, Elsa M. Flores ("Flores") hired Respondent to file and
handle to conclusion a bankruptcy petition on her behalf. Flores paid Respondent $1,800, as advanced attorney’s fees.
44. On February 1 I, 2010, Respondent filed an incomplete bankruptcy petition on
behalf of Flores. Respondent received court notice that the bankruptcy petition was
incomplete, and that certain additional documents must be filed by February 25, 2010.
Respondent also received notice that a Meeting of Creditors will be held on March 30, 2010.
45. Respondent did not file the requisite additional documents in Flores’ bankruptcy
matter.
46. Respondent did not attend the Meeting of Creditors on March 30, 2010.
47. Between January 28, 2010, and March 30, 2010, Flores telephoned Respondent
at least ten times, and sent him at least one email. On each call and email, Flores inquired about the status of her bankruptcy matter. On each call, Respondent was not available, and Flores left a message asking him to call back. Respondent did not return any of Flores’s calls; he did not reply to Flores’s email; and, he did not otherwise provide Flores with information about the status of her case.
48. On April 12, 2010, the court issued an order and notice of dismissal of Flores’s
bankruptcy petition for failure to file the requisite additional documents. Respondent
received the order and notice of dismissal.
49. Respondent did not reply to the April 12, 2010, order and notice of dismissal,
and he did not otherwise take any action regarding the order and notice.
50. On April 16, 2010, Respondent informed Flores that he would file a motion to
reopen her bankruptcy matter. Respondent did not file a motion to reopen Flores’s
bankruptcy case, and he did not otherwise take any further action in Flores’s matter.
51. In June 2010, Flores terminated Respondent’s employment, and she hired a new
attorney.
52. Respondent did not earn the fees advanced by Flores.
53. In June 2010, Respondent refunded the unearned fees to Flores, and released a
portion of her files to Flores.
54. In June 2010, Flores asked Respondent for the remainder of her files and
documents.
55. To date, Respondent has not released to Flores the remainder of her files and
documents.
Case no. 10-O-06492
56. On May 17, 2010, Jose Sanchez ("Sanchez") hired Respondent to apply for,
negotiate and obtain a mortgage loan modification. Sanehez paid Respondent $1,850 as advanced attorney fees.
57. In early June 2010, Sanchez discovered that Respondent had not been in contact
with his lender, and that Respondent had not otherwise performed any work on his matter. 58. During the first week of June 2010, Sanchez repeatedly telephoned Respondent and sent emails to him, requesting to discuss the status of his matter. Respondent did not return any of the phone calls; he did not reply to any of the emails; and, he did not otherwise communicate with Sanchez about the status of his loan matter.
59. On June 7, 2010, Sanchez terminated Respondent’s services.
60. Respondent did not earn any of fees advanced by Sanchez.
61. In June 2010, Sanchez requested his files and documents, and a refund of the
unearned fees.
62. Respondent released to Sanchez his files and documents in November 2010.
63. To date, Respondent has not refunded to Sanchez any portion of the unearned
fees.
Case no. 10-O-07903
64. In January 2010, Rudolph Meyer ("Meyer") hired Respondent to represent him
in a real property line dispute with a neighbor. Meyer paid Respondent $1,500 as advanced attorney fees.
65. Between January 8, 2010, and February 24, 2010, Meyer repeatedly telephoned
Respondent and sent him emails, each time asking about the status of his matter.
Respondent did not return any of the telephone calls; hc did not reply to any of the emails; and, he did not otherwise communicate with Meyer about the status of his matter.
66. In February 2010, Meyer terminated Respondent’s employment, and he hired a
new attorney.
67. Respondent did not earn any portion of the fees advanced by Meyer.
68. In February 2010, Meyer asked Respondent for a refund of the unearned fees,
and a return of his files and documents.
69. To date, Respondent has not returned any of Meyer’s files and documents.
70. To date, Respondent has not refunded to Meyer any portion of the unearned
fees.
Case no. 10-O-09732
71. On June 8, 2009, Maria Parra ("Parra") hired Respondent to handle a mortgage
loan audit, and to apply for, negotiate and obtain a mortgage loan modification on her
behalf. Parra paid Respondent $3,000 as advanced attorney fees.
72. In August 2009, Respondent stopped communicating with Parra. He did not
return any of her telephone calls, and he did not otherwise provide her with information
about the status of her matter.
73. In January 2010, Parra terminated Respondent’s employment.
74. Respondent did not perform any services for Parra.
75. Respondent did not earn any of the fees advanced by Parra.
76. To date, Respondent has not refunded to Parra any portion of the unearned fees.
Case no. 10-O-09968
77. On August 21, 2010, Diarma Walter ("Walter") hired Respondent to pursue a
certain civil lawsuit against her mortgage lenders. Walter paid Respondent $2,500 as
advanced attorney fees.
78. Between August 21, 2010, and September 17, 2010, Walter repeatedly
telephoned Respondent and sent him emails, each time asking about the status of her
lawsuit. Respondent did not return any of her calls; he did not reply to any of her emails;
and, he did not otherwise provide her with any information regarding the status of her
lawsuit.
79. On September 17, 2010, Walter discovered that Respondent had not had any
contact with her lender. Walter terminated Respondent’s services on September 17, 2010.
80. Respondent did not earn any portion of the fees advanced by Walter.
81. To date, Respondent has not refunded to Walter any portion of the unearned
fees.
Case no. 10-O-04579
82. On May 29, 2009, Peter Fillmore and Renee Fillmore (collectively
"Fillmores"), husband and wife, hired Respondent to handle a mortgage loan audit, and to apply for, negotiate and obtain a mortgage loan modification on their behalf. The Fillmores paid Respondent $2,500 as advanced attorney fees.
83. Between May 29, 2009, and March 9, 2010, the Fillmores repeatedly telephoned
Respondent, sent him emails, and sent him letters, each time asking Respondent about the status of their matter. Respondent did not return any of the telephone calls; he did not reply to any of the emails; he did not respond to any of the letters; and, he did not otherwise provide the Fillmores with information about the status of their matter.
84. In early March 2010, the Fillmores discovered that Respondent had not
performed any work on their behalf.
85. Respondent did not earn any portion of the attorney fees advanced by the
Fillmores.
86. On March 9, 2010, the Fillmores terminated Respondent’s services, and asked
for a refund of the advanced attorney fees.
87. In January 2011, Respondent returned to the Fillmores their loan audit
documents.
88. To date, Respondent has not refunded to the Fillmores any portion of the
unearned fees.
Case no. 10-O-09965
89. On March 12, 2010, Arturo Sequeira ("Sequeira") hired Respondent to
represent him in a dispute with his mortgage lender regarding his impound account.
Sequeira paid Respondent $1,500 as advanced attorney fees.
90. Beginning in May 2010, Respondent stopped communicating with Sequeira
despite Sequeira’s repeated telephone calls to Respondent. Between May 2010 and
September 2010, Sequeira repeatedly telephoned Respondent, each time asking about the
status of his matter. Respondentdid not return any of Sequeira’s phone calls, and he did not otherwise provide him with information about the status of his matter.
91. In September 2010, Sequeira terminated Respondent’s services.
92. Respondent did not perform any work on behalf of Sequeira.
93. Respondent did not earn any portion of the fees advanced by Sequeira.
94. To date, Respondent has not refunded to Sequeira any portion of the unearned
fees.
Case nos. 10-O-06488 and 10-O-011493
95. Between June 2010 and December 2010, the State Bar was conducting
disciplinary investigations concerning Respondent’s conduct in Case no. 10-0-06488,
which arose out of a complaint filed by Nancy Fairbanks, and Case no. 10-0-06493, which arose out of a complaint filed by Elsa M. Flores.
96. The State Bar sent letters to Respondent requesting that respondent cooperate
and participate in the investigations by providing a written response to the allegations under investigation. The State Bar mailed its letters on July 29, 2010, August 3, 2010, August 20, 2010, and on August 27, 2010.
97. Respondent received the State Bar letters sent and dated July 29, 2010, August
3, 2010, August 20, 2010, and on August 27, 2010, shortly after they were sent.
98. The State Bar gave Respondent a reasonable period of time to respond to its
letters.
99. Respondent did not respond to the State Bar letters. Respondent did not raise
any statutory or constitutional privilege in failing to cooperate and participate in the State
Bar investigations.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
IN THE MATTER OF: GHASSAN G. BRIDI
CASE NUMBERS: 10-0-02489, 10-0-03709, 10-0-05438, 10-O-06067, 10-O-6488, 10-O-6493, 10-0-6492, 10-0-07903, 10-0-09732, 10-O-09968, 10-O-04579, 10-O-09965
Respondent admits, and the parties stipulate, that by his conduct described in the attached Statement of Facts, Respondent is culpable of the following violations.
Case no. 10-O-02489
1. By not submitting an application for a mortgage loan modification on behalf of
the Clausmans, by not otherwise initiating negotiations to restructure their loan, and by
not otherwise performing any services on behalf of the Clausmans, Respondent
intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence
in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
2. By not replying to the Clausmans’s emails and by not returning their phone calls,
between October 28, 2009, and November 17, 2009, Respondent failed to respond
promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which Respondent had
agreed to provide legal services in willful violation of Business and Professions Code
section 6068(m).
3. By not refunding the unearned fees to the Clausmans, Respondent failed to refund
promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of
Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
4. By not returning to the Clausmans their files and documents, Respondent failed to
release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the
client, all the client papers and property in willful violation of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
Case no. 10-O-03709
5. By not performing any services which Danuser had hired Respondent to perform,
Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with
competence in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
6. By not releasing to Danuser his documents and files, Respondent failed to release
promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all
the client papers and property, Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional
Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
7. By not refunding to Danuser the unearned fees, Respondent failed to refund
promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
8. By not providing Danuser with any information about the status of his loan matter
despite Danuser’s repeated requests for approximately five months, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which
Respondent had agreed to provide legal services, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
Case no. 10-0-05438
9. By not filing or otherwise pursuing the lawsuit that he had agreed to file on behalf
of Hanson, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal
services with competence in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule
3-110(A).
10. By not replying to any of Hanson’s calls, letters and e-mails between
approximately August 2009 and December 2009, and by not otherwise providing Hanson with information regarding the status of her lawsuit, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which Respondent had
agreed to provide legal services in willful violation of Business and Professions Code,
section 6068(m).
11. By not releasing to Hanson her file and documents, Respondent failed to release
promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all
the client papers and property in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
rule 3-700(D)(1).
Case no. 10-O-06067
12. By not complying with the OSC nor with the second OSC, and by not paying the
monetary sanctions as ordered by the court, 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.
13. By not reporting to the State Bar the $1000, personal sanctions ordered by the
court on March 29, 2010, Respondent failed to report to the agency charged with attorney discipline, in writing, within 30 days of the time Respondent had knowledge of the imposition of any judicial sanctions against Respondent, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(0)(3).
Case no. 10-0-06488
14. By not taking any action in Fairbanks’s real estate dispute, Respondent
intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence
in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
15. By not returning any of Fairbanks’s telephone calls, by not replying to her emails,
and by not replying to her letters, between October 2009, and June 2010, inclusive, and
by not otherwise providing Fairbanks with information about the status of her matter
during that time period, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status
inquiries of a client in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
16. By not releasing any files or documents to Fairbanks after Respondent’s
employment terminated, Respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of
employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
17. By not paying Fairbanks the unearned fees, Respondent failed to refund promptly
any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of the
Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
Case no. 10-O-06493
18. By not filing the requisite documents for Flores’s bankruptcy case, by not
attending the Meeting of Creditors, and by not taking any action in response to the
dismissal of Flores’s case, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to
perform legal services with competence in willful violation of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
19. By not releasing to Flores her complete set of documents and files, Respondent
failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request
of the client, all the client papers and property in willful violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
20. By not providing Flores with any information about the status of her bankruptcy
matter despite Flores’s repeated requests for approximately two months, Respondent
failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which
Respondent had agreed to provide legal services in willful violation of Business and
Professions Code, section 6068(m).
Case nos. 10-O-06488 and 10-O-06493
21. By not responding to the State Bar letters, Respondent failed to cooperate and
participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent in willful violation
of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i).
25
Case no. 10-O-06492
22. By not releasing to Sanchez his files and documents for five months, Respondent
failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request
of the client, all the client papers and property in willful violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
23. By not providing Sanchez with any information about the status of loan matter
despite Sanchez’s repeated inquiries, Respondent failed to respond promptly to
reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to
provide legal services in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section
6068(m).
24. By not refunding to Sanchez the unearned fees, Respondent failed to refund
promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
Case no. 10-0-07903
25. By not releasing to Meyer his files and documents, Respondent failed to release
promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all
the client papers and property in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
rule 3-700(D)(1).
26. By not providing Meyer with any information about civil dispute despite
Meyers’s repeated inquiries, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
27. By not refunding to Meyer the unearned fees, Respondent failed to refund
promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
Case no.’ 10-O-09732
28. By not providing Parra with any information about civil dispute despite Parra’s
repeated inquiries, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries
of a client in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services in willful
violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
29. By not performing any services which Parra had hired Respondent to perform,
Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with
competence in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
30. By not refunding to Parra the unearned fees, Respondent failed to refund
promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
Case no. 10-O-09968
31. By not providing Walter with any information about her civil lawsuit against her
mortgage lenders despite Waiter’s repeated inquiries, Respondent failed to respond
promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which Respondent had
agreed to provide legal services in willful violation of Business and Professions Code,
section 6068(m).
32. By not refunding to Walter the unearned fees, Respondent failed to refund
promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
Case no. 10-O-04579
33. By not releasing to the Fillmores their files and documents for ten months,
Respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at
the request of the client, all the client papers and property in willful violation of the Rules
of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
34. By not providing the Fillmores with any information about their loan matter
despite the Fillmores’s repeated inquiries, Respondent failed to respond promptly to
reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to
provide legal services in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section
6068(m).
35. By not performing any of the services that the Fillmores had hired Respondent to
perform, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal
services with competence in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule
3-110(a).
36. By not refunding to the Fillmores the unearned fees, Respondent failed to refund
promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
Case no. 10-O-09965
37. By not providing Sequeira with any information about his civil dispute with his
mortgage lender despite Sequeira’s repeated inquiries, Respondent failed to promptly
respond to reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which Respondent had
agreed to provide legal services in willful violation of Business and Professions Code,
section 6068(m).
38. By not performing any of the services that Sequeria had hired Respondent to
perform, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal
services with competence in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule
3-110(A).
39. By not refunding to Sequeira the unearned fees, Respondent failed to refund
promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
IN THE MATTER OF: GHASSAN G. BRIDI
CASE NUMBERS: 10-O-02489,10-O-03709,10-O-05438, 10-O-06067,10-O-6488,
10-O-6493, 10-O-6492,10-O-07903,10-O-09732, 10-O-09968,10-O-04579,10-O-09965
Culpability of a member of willfully failing to perform services in 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. Rules of Procedure of the
State Bar of California, Standard 2.4.
Culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions
Code not specified in these standards or of a willful violation of any Rules of
Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or
suspension according to the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with
due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3. Rules of
Procedure of the State Bar of California, Standard 2.10.
In a case where in one matter, the respondent improperly used his client trust account; in two client matters, the respondent failed to promptly refund unearned costs advances; and, in one of those two matters, respondent failed to perform legal services competently, the court determined that discipline of three years suspension, stayed, on conditions of a five-year probation with six months actual suspension was well grounded in the standards and was fairly reflective of the balancing of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. One aggravating circumstance was respondent’s act of moral turpitude by concealing from the California Franchise Tax Board personal funds which respondent improperly maintained in a client trust account. Respondent’s prior record that manifestly showed his failure to abide by his duties of proper client representation was also properly considered to be an aggravating circumstance, and was not too remote in time, given the circumstances of the present case. In the Matter of Henry James Koehler, IV (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 615. 29
Case Number(s): 10-O-02489, 10-O-03709, 10-O-04579, 10-O-05438, 10-O-06067,
10-O-06488, 10-O-06492, 10-O-06493, 10-O-07903, 10-O-09732,10-O-09965,
10-O-09968
In the Matter of: Ghassan G. Bridi
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: Ghassan G. Bridi and Rizamari C. Sitton
Respondent: Ghassan G. Bridi
Date: May 6, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Rizamari C. Sitton
Date: May 11, 2011
Case Number(s): 10-O-02489
In the Matter of: Ghassan G. Bridi
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.
Page 11- First listed payee should read “Maria L. Parra”
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 5.58 (E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Richard A. Platel
Judge of the State Bar Court
Date: June 6, 2011
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and
County of Los Angeles , on June 2, 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:
GHASSAN G BRIDI
THE BRIDI FIRM
15760 VENTURA BLVD STE 700
ENCINO CA 91436
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
GHASSAN G BRIDI
THE BRIDI FIRM
15760 VENTURA BLVD STE 700
ENCINO CA 91436
<<not>> checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
RIZAMARI SITTON, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on June 2, 2011.
Signed by:
Angela Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court