Case Number(s): 13-O-10122; 12-O-17980
In the Matter of: STEVE SAEED GOHARI, Bar # 189339, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Kim Kasreliovich, Bar # 261766,
Counsel for Respondent: Stephen Strauss, Bar # 129648,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.
Filed: December 16, 2013.
<<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 8, 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 11 pages, not including the order.
4. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".
6. The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."
7. No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
8. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):
<<not>> checked. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: one billing cycle following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (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.
Attachment language (if any):.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: STEVE SAEED GOHARI, State Bar No. 189339
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-O-10122; 12-O-17980
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. 13-O-10122 (Complainant: Gilbert Farias)
FACTS:
1. In early February 2012, Gilbert Farias ("Farias") met with non-attorney Edison Castro ("Castro") regarding filing a civil complaint against his mortgage lender. Castro is the owner of a company called BKLAW4U. Farias paid Castro $4,000 as advanced attorney fees.
2. On February 22, 2012, Castro emailed Farias with an update on the research that Castro had conducted on Farias case. The email included legal analysis.
3. On March 7, 2013, Respondent filed a civil complaint on behalf of Farias in Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number BC480333, Gilbert Farias v. National City Bank, et. al.
4. On March 23, 2012, Castro sent Farias a fee agreement with Respondent’s law firm to sign. Farias signed the agreement.
5. On April 30, 2012, Respondent filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of Farias. On May 4, 2012, the motion for a temporary restraining order was denied. Respondent called Farias to discuss the ruling and dismissal of Farias’ case.
6. On May 17, 2012, Respondent filed a request for dismissal in Gilbert Farias v. National City Bank, et. al. On May 24, 2012, the case was dismissed.
7. At all times relevant hereto, Castro was Respondent’s employee or agent. One of Castro’s duties was to interview potential clients. Other duties included data entry, translation, and research/analysis of the case and parties.
8. Respondent failed to properly supervise Castro which resulted in Castro exceeding his client intake duties. As a result, Castro assessed Farias’ case, accepted Farias as a client, set and collected legal fees, and gave Farias legal advice.
9. On August 30, 2013, Respondent severed all ties with Castro.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
10. By failing to supervise his non-attorney employee, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
Case No. 12-O-17980 (Complainant: Servando Catalan)
FACTS:
11. At all times relevant herein, Respondent employed the owner of BKLAW4U, Edison Castro, a non-attorney, for paralegal services on a regular basis. One of Castro’s duties was to interview potential clients. Other duties included data entry, translation, and research/analysis of the case and parties.
12. On August 23, 2012, Servando Catalan ("Catalan") met with a non-attorney employee of BKLAW4U regarding filing a civil complaint against his mortgage lender. On the same day, Catalan signed a fee agreement with Respondent’s office for legal services related to a civil suit against his mortgage lender. Catalan paid BKLAW4U $5,650 for Respondent’s services.
13. The employee of BKLAW4U assessed Catalan’s legal matter and discussed legal remedies.
14. Catalan hired Respondent to sue his lender. However, there was an eviction action pending against Catalan as a result of foreclosure. Respondent filed motions for Catalan in the eviction action because Catalan had defaulted and secured a one month extension for Catalan to remain in the house.
15. Respondent failed to properly supervise Castro which resulted in Castro exceeding his client intake duties. As a result, Castro assessed Catalan’ s case, accepted Catalan as a client, set and collected legal fees, and gave Catalan legal advice.
16. Catalan received a full refund subsequent to the State Bar complaint.
17. On August 30, 2013, Respondent severed all ties with Castro.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
18. By failing to supervise his non-attorney employees, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Good Character (Std. 1.2(e)(vi)): Respondent has offered an extraordinary demonstration of good character attested to by a wide range of references in the legal community and who are aware of the full extent of Respondent’s misconduct. Almost all of Respondent’s seven character references had known him for between 10 and 20 years. Without exception all the references praised Respondent’s good character, community involvement and dedication to his clients and the practice of law. (ln the Matter of Wells (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 896, 912-913, [eight character witnesses is sufficient for mitigation]; In the Matter of Davis (Review Dept. 2003) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 576, 592, [three character witness, although not an extraordinary demonstration of good character, are entitled to mitigation due to their familiarity with Respondent].)
Prefiling Stipulation: Respondent has entered into this stipulation prior to filing the Notice of Disciplinary Charges. (Silva-Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1071, 1079 [where mitigation credit was given for entering into a stipulation as to facts and culpability].)
No Prior Discipline: Respondent has been in practice for 16 years without discipline. Over 10 year in practice without discipline is worth significant weight in mitigation. (Hawes v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 587, 596.)
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provide a "process of fixing discipline" pursuant to a set of written principles to "better discharge the purposes of attorney discipline as announced by the Supreme Court." (Rules Proc. of State Bar, tit. IV, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, Introduction (all further references to standards are to this source).) The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings and of the sanctions imposed 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." (ln re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 205; std. 1.3.)
Although not binding, the standards are entitled to "great weight" and should be followed "whenever possible" in determining level of discipline. (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 92, quoting In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205,220 and In re Young (1989) 49 Cal.3d 257, 267, fn. 11.) Adherence to the standards in the great majority of cases serves the valuable purpose of eliminating disparity and assuring consistency, that is, the imposition of similar attorney discipline for instances of similar attorney misconduct. (In re Naney (1990) 51 Cal.3d 186, 190.) Any discipline recommendation different from that set forth in the applicable standards should clearly explain the reasons for the deviation. (Blair v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 762, 776, fn. 5.)
Standard 2.4(b) provides that culpability of a member of willfully failing to perform services in an individual client matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct shall result in reproval or suspension depending on the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client. This standard applies to both of Respondent’s violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A) for failing to supervise his non-attorney employee.
Although the extent of the misconduct is not great, each of the clients involved were impacted by Respondent’ s misconduct. As a result of Respondent’ failure to supervise his non-attorney staff, both clients had their cases evaluated, legal fees set, and were given legal advice by non-attorneys. If Respondent had properly supervised his non-attorney employee, Catalan would have been advised that his default in the eviction matters needed to be resolved prior to a possible civil suit. As a result of this, Catalan was refunded the fees he paid. However, it is important to note that Respondent did perform work on behalf of each client. In addition, Respondent’s 16 years in practice without discipline as well as the mitigation for good character and entering to the stipulation pre-filing, amount to significant mitigation. When the extent of misconduct and the degree of harm is weighed against the mitigation present in the case and lack of aggravation, 30-days of actual suspension will achieve the purposes of attorney discipline.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of October 31, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are $3,898. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
EXCLUSION FROM MCLE CREDIT
Pursuant to rule 3201, Respondent may not receive MCLE credit for completion of State Bar Ethics School. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, role 3201.)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 13-O-10122; 12-O-17980
In the Matter of: STEVE SAEED GOHARI
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: STEVE SAEED GOHARI
Date: 11/18/13
Respondent’s Counsel: Stephen Strauss
Date: 11/19/13
Deputy Trial Counsel: Kim Kasreliovich
Date: 11/21/13
ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 13-O-10122; 12-O-17980
In the Matter of: STEVE SAEED GOHARI
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 5.58 (E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: 12/16/13
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 December 16, 2013, 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:
STEPHEN I. STRAUSS ESQ
LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN STRAUSS
1107 FAIR OAKS AVE # 885
SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030
<<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:
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Kimberly G. Kasreliovich, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 16, 2013.
Signed by:
Paul Barona
Case Administrator
State Bar Court