State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

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

REPROVAL

Case Number(s): 11-O-13077-DFM

In the Matter of: Ted S. Ward, Bar # 143810, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Victoria Christiansen

Deputy Trial Counsel

1149 South Hill Street

Los Angeles, CA 90015

Bar # 255296

Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent

Ted S. Ward

12115 Magnolia Blvd., Suite 261

Valley Village, CA 91607

213-995-2500

Bar# 143810

Submitted to: Settlement Judge State - Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.

Filed: February 7, 2012.

  <<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 December 11, 1989.

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 8 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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).

checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).

<<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.

9. The parties understand that:

<<not>> checked.  (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.

checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.

<<not>> checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.

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 or a separate attachment entitled “Prior Discipline”. .

<<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.

checked. (4)            Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.  The client, Mark Robinson, had to obtain a substitution of attorney from Respondent and retain new counsel to file a motion to vacate a default for failure to file a response brief, and to file a response brief once a default was lifted.

<<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.

<<not>> checked. (8) No aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances: .

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.  Respondent has been cooperative in stipulating to facts, and level of discipline.

<<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.

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.  Respondent’s wife became seriously ill at the time of misconduct.  In 2009 and through 2010, Respondent’s wife had multiple surgeries.  During intermittent periods of time, Respondent was out of the office caring for his wife and did not adequately attend to his practice.  Respondent has provided the State Bar with medical evidence to support mitigation.   This information remains in the State Bar file.

<<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 the State Bar on December 11, 1989 and has no record of prior discipline.

D. Discipline:

checked. (1)     Private reproval (check applicable conditions, if any, below):

<<not>> checked. (a) Approved by the Court prior to initiation of the State Bar Court proceedings (no public disclosure).

checked. (b)Approved by the Court after initiation of the State Bar Court proceedings (public disclosure).

or

<<not>> checked. (2)  Public reproval (Check applicable conditions, if any below)

E. Additional Conditions of Reproval:

checked. (1)            Respondent must comply with the conditions attached to the reproval for a period of one (1) year.

checked. (2)            During the condition period attached to the reproval, 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 the condition period.

<<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 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 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 conditions attached to the reproval.

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 State Bar Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.

<<not>> checked. 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.

checked. (10) 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 within one year of the effective date of the reproval. 

<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended.  Reason:

<<not>> checked. (11) 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:

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF:  Ted S. Ward, State Bar No.143810

STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 011-O-13077

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.

Case No. 11-O-13077 (Complainant: Mark Robinson)

FACTS:

1. Respondent represented Mark Robinson (Robinson) and Robinson’s partnership, Cannell Production Services, defendants in a civil matter titled Modern Props, lnc. v. Mark Robinson et al, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 357510. After a seven day jury trial in August 2008, judgment was entered in Robinson’s favor. The plaintiff appealed.

2. In July 2010, Modern Props filed an opening appellate brief in case number B211761. Robinson never signed a separate retainer agreement in regards to the Modern Props appeal. Respondent was to file Robinson’s response brief.

3. Between August 2010 and December 2010, Respondent requested, and received, multiple extensions from the court to file the response brief in the appeal. By appearing as Robinson’s attorney and requesting extensions of time in the appeal, Respondent was Robinson’s attorney of record for the appeal.

4. On December 14, 2010, Respondent assured Robinson that Robinson’s response brief       was completed and would be filed the next day, December 15, 2010. Respondent did not     file Robinson’s response brief.

5. On December 22, 2010, the appellate court ordered that the response brief was due December 23, 2010. Respondent received notice of the appellate court order. Respondent         did not file a response brief on Robinson’s behalf. The Court entered Robinson’s default.

6. In January 2011, Robinson learned from a clerk with the Court of Appeal that Respondent failed to file a response brief.  Subsequently, Robinson obtained a substitution of attorney from Respondent and obtained new counsel. New Counsel filed a motion to vacate the default, and to file a response brief once the default was lifted. Robinson was permitted to file a response brief and did so.

7. In February 2011, Robinson filed a complaint with the State Bar of California about Respondent’s conduct and an investigation was opened.

8. On May 23,2011, a State Bar investigator sent a letter to the Respondent requesting a response to the allegations in Robinson’s complaint. This letter was properly addressed and mailed. Respondent did not respond to the letter.

9. On June 9, 2011, a second letter was sent by a State Bar investigator to Respondent requesting a written response to the allegations in the Robinson complaint. The letter was properly addressed and mailed. Respondent did not respond to the letter.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

By failing to file a response brief on Robinson’s behalf, despite repeated requests for extension of time, knowledge of the due date and assurances to his client that it would be done, Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), by intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failing to perform legal services with competence.

By not providing a written response to the allegations in Robinson’s complaint and failing to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against him, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6068(i).

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was January 26, 2012.

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

Standard 1.3 provides that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings.., are the protection of the public, the courts[,] and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys[;] and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession.”

Standard 1.6 provides that the appropriate sanction for the misconduct found must be balanced with any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, with due regard for the purposes of imposing discipline.  If two or more acts of professional misconduct are found in a single disciplinary proceeding, the sanction imposed shall be the most severe of the applicable sanctions unless, as outlined in Standard 1.6(b)(ii), mitigating circumstances are found to surround the particular act of misconduct and the net effect of those mitigating circumstances demonstrates that the purpose of imposing sanctions as set forth in Standard 1.3 will be properly fulfilled in a lesser degree of sanction is imposed.

Standard 2.4(b) provides that “culpability of a member of wilfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a matter of wilfully 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.”

Standard 2.6 culpability of a member of a violation of any of the following provisions of the Business and Professions Code shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with the due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3: sections 6068, including 6068(i).

In light of the specific facts and circumstances of this case, including the mitigating circumstances, the parties believe that the recommended discipline set forth in the stipulation is sufficient to protect the public, courts and the legal profession.

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 11-O-13077

In the Matter of: Ted S. Ward

By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitation and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.

Signed by:

Respondent: Ted S. Ward

Date: February 3, 2012

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Victoria Christiansen

Date: February 6, 2012

REPROVAL ORDER

Case Number(s): 11-O-13077-DFM

In the Matter of: Ted Scott Ward

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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.

<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.

checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department 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.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.

Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.

Signed by:

Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard Honn

Date: February 7, 2012

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 Los Angeles, on February 7, 2012, 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 , California, addressed as follows:

                              TED S. WARD

                              WARD & WARD LLP

                              12115 MAGNOLIA BLVD STE 261

                              VALLEY VILLAGE, CA 91607

checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of

California addressed as follows:

                              VICTORIA CHRISTIANSEN, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on February 7, 2012.

Signed by:

Rose Luthi

Case Administrator

State Bar Court