PILOT PROGRAM FOR RESPONDENTS WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
Case Number(s): 01-O-03939
In the Matter of: Robert B. Beauchamp, Bar # 132198, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Charles Weinstein, Bar # 138554
Counsel for Respondent: Richard Beauchamp, Ellen R. Peck Bar #
Submitted to: Pilot Program Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: June 19, 2006
<<not >> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 11, 1987.
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. However, except as otherwise provided in rule 804.5(c) of the Rules of Procedure, if Respondent is not accepted into the Alternative Discipline Program, this stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on the Respondent or the State Bar.
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 13 pages.
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. 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.
7. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7 and will pay timely any disciplinary costs imposed in this proceeding.
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, shall be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, i.e., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law.”
Additional aggravating circumstances:
Additional mitigating circumstances:
See attached
Respondent enters into this stipulation as a condition of his/her participation in the Pilot Program. Respondent understands that he/she must abide all terms and conditions of Respondent’s Pilot Program Contract.
If the Respondent does not sign the Pilot Program contract or is not accepted into the Pilot Program, this Stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on Respondent or the State Bar.
If the Respondent is accepted into the Pilot Program, upon Respondent’s successful completion of the Program or termination from the Program this Stipulation will be filed and either the reduced or enhanced discipline as set forth in Pilot Program contract, as appropriate, will be imposed by the State Bar Court or recommended to the Supreme Court.
Date: 2/24/03
Respondent’s Signature: Robert Beauchamp
Date: 2/24/03
Deputy Trial Counsel’s Signature: Charles Weinstein
DISMISSALS
Count Two (01-O-03939) Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 5-200
Count Three 1.01-O-03939) Business and Professions Code, section 6106
FACTS
JURISDICTION
1. ROBERT B. BEAUCHAMP ("Respondent") was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on December 11, 1987, was a member at all times Pertinent to these charges, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
2. In or about 1979, Respondent and Melinda Hoose ("Melinda") were married.
3. On or about January 17, 1988, Respondent and Melinda obtained a loan from Melinda’s father, Clinton M. Hoose, Jr. ("Hoose"), and executed a promissory note ("Note") in the face amount of $158,000.00, in favor of Hoose.
4. In or about January 1994, Respondent and Melinda separated. Respondent subsequently filed for divorce, in In re Marriage of Robert B. Beauchamp and Melinda L Beauchamp, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 94D 01280 (the "dissolution matter"). Their marital status ended on October 15, 1994.
5. In or about early 1994, Hoose initiated a civil action to enforce the Note against Respondent in Clinton Hoose v. Robert Beauchamp, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 17 727207 (the "Hoose matter"). Respondent cross-complained against Melinda. On or about January 23, 1995, the court issued a Judgment After Trial. On or about May 17, 1995, the court issued a Judgment After Trial by Court as Amended and Corrected Nunc Pro Tune. The court found, among other findings, that the Note would become due and payable on December 31, 1998, that Respondent and Melinda were jointly and severally liable to Hoose upon the Note, that the principal balance of the Note was $158,000 as of December 19, 1994 and that the balance due on the Note would continue to accrue interest until paid in full.
6. On or about March 17, 1995, the court in the dissolution matter filed a Judgment on Reserved Issues, approving the stipulation of Respondent and Melinda regarding the division of assets, child support, spousal support and other issues, including the parties’ agreement that each party is responsible for one-half the debt owed on the Note to Hoose, as reflected in the Judgment After Trial in the Hoose matter, or as that Judgment may be amended or corrected. The court awarded Robert and Melinda joint legal custody of their children, Brooke Beauchamp, born January 12, 1983, and Robert Beauchamp, born December 15, 1985.
7. Respondent and Mynette D. Dufresne ("Mynette’) were married in August 1995.
8. On or about March 16, 1996, at Respondent’s request, Mynette opened Eldorado Bank checking account number 351419709 ("Eldorado Account"), for the purpose of depositing attorneys fees paid to Respondent. Mynette opened the account with a check payable to Respondent for attorneys fees, which Respondent endorsed over to her.
9. From on or about March 16, 1996 to on or about May 21, 1996, Respondent endorsed checks to Mynette in the total amount of approximately $14,776, and, at Respondent’s request, Mynette deposited those checks into the Eldorado Account. After some withdrawals, the balance in the account on or about May 21, 1996 was approximately $10, 935. Mynette was the sole signatory on the Eldorado Account, which was in her name alone, but Mynette and Respondent both understood that the funds in the Eldorado Account belonged to Respondent.
10. On or about May 16, 1996, Melinda filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. On or about May 16, 1996, Respondent was informed by another attorney that Melinda had filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Subsequently, all but a small portion of Melinda’s debt to Hoose on the Note was discharged, leaving Respondent responsible for virtually the entire amount.
11. On or about May 16, 1996, Respondent hired counsel to prepare a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on his behalf. On that day, Respondent spoke by telephone to a paralegal in his attorney’s office and provided that paralegal with information regarding his assets and liabilities, so that the petition could be prepared. Respondent failed to disclose the Eldorado Account to the paralegal and, as a result, the petition that was prepared for him did not include the funds in the Eldorado Account. On or about May 17, 1996, Respondent signed his Chapter 7 petition, which did not include the Eldorado Account. Respondent signed the petition declaring under penalty of perjury that the information provided therein was true and correct. The petition specifically required disclosure of all assets.
12. On May 21, 1996, through counsel, Respondent filed his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in In re Robert Beauchamp, Debtor, United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Santa Aria Division, case number SA96-15984-JR ("Petition"). In the schedules attached to the Petition, Respondent listed total assets of approximately $14,800, consisting solely of personal property, but failed to identify the Eldorado Account or include the funds in the Eldorado Account, which contained a balance of approximately $10,935 on or about May 21, 1996.
13. On or about June 5, 1996, Hoose gave notice to Respondent of his intent to seek a Rule 2004 examination of Respondent and Mynette, to obtain further information regarding Respondent’s acts, conduct, property, financial condition or any other matter which may affect the administration of Respondent’s estate or his right to a discharge. On or about June 10, 1996, the court ordered the examinations and production of documents. Both Respondent and Mynette were served with orders to appear for examination and produce documents. They received those orders no later than June 13, 1996.
14. On or about June 27, 1996, Respondent executed amended schedules to his Bankruptcy petition to include, among other things, the Eldorado Account. On or about June 28, 1996, the amended schedules were filed with the court. On or about July 3, 1996, the Section 341 meeting of creditors was held.
15. In or about October 1996, Hoose filed a complaint objecting to discharge of Respondent’s debt to Hoose on the Note, in Clinton Hoose v Robert Beauchamp, United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Santa Ana Division, Adv. No. SA96-2070 JR.
16. In its Judgment Denying Discharge After Trial by Court, entered on or about May 6, 1998, the Bankruptcy Court found, in part, that Respondent should be denied a discharge of any debts pursuant to 11 United States Code section 727(a)(2), because he transferred funds to Eldorado Bank under the control of Mynette with the intent to hinder and delay creditors.
17. In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law After Trial by Court, entered May 6, 1998, the Bankruptcy Court found that: Respondent transferred funds totaling $14,776 to Mynette with the intent to hinder and delay a creditor; Melinda and Hoose were creditors of Respondent; Respondent was aware at the time that he executed his Chapter 7 petition on May 17, 1996, that Melinda had filed a Chapter 13 petition on May 16, 1996; Respondent filed his bankruptcy petition on May 21, 1996, because of Melinda’s filing on May 16, 1996; Respondent was aware at the time that he executed the amendment to his petition that Hoose had served upon him an order authorizing examination of him and Mynette and for production of documents; Respondent’s omission of the Eldorado Account from the original petition was material and constituted intentional concealment with the intent to hinder and delay a creditor even in light of his eventual amendment to the Petition prior to the Section 341 meeting of creditors.
18. Respondent appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit ("BAP"). BAP affirmed the trial court decision, in In re Robert Beauchamp, Debtor; Robert Beauchamp v. Clinton Hoose (9th Cir. BAP 1999) 236 B.R. 727.
19. Respondent then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which summarily affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s decision in an unpublished per curiam opinion in In re Robert Beauchamp, Debtor, Robert Beauchamp v, Clinton Hoose (9th Cir. 2001) 2001 WL 246057.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By being grossly negligent in failing to include the Eldorado Account as an asset in his
Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition filed with the court, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(d).
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
COOPERATION WITH THE STATE BAR
Respondent has been consistently cooperative with the State Bar, including by quickly providing all requested information and documents.
GOOD CHARACTER
Respondent has presented character evidence from several lawyers who have known Respondent for several years, including several who knew Respondent at the time of the misconduct in 1996, and attest to Respondent’s otherwise high standing in the legal community and high ethical standards and substantial community service.
NO HARM
Respondent’s misconduct did not harm any of the creditors, as Respondent filed amended schedules to his Bankruptcy Petition about five weeks after filing the petition and before the section 341 creditors meeting was held. In addition. Respondent’s former father-in-law, Hoose, ultimately benefitted from Respondent’s misconduct in that Respondent’s substantial debt to Hoose was declare to be non-dischargeable.
CIVIC SERVICE AND PRO BONO WORK
Respondent has performed a variety of civic service and pro bono work since becoming an attorney. He is one of the founders of, and has been an active participant in, his church’s (Compostela de Santiago Catholic Church) Men’s Fellowship Chapter which provides community service and support for its members. Respondent is also active in the St. Thomas More Society, an organization of judges and attorneys who endeavor to maintain their religious values in the practice of law. Respondent has spent at least an average of 50 hours a year over the last several years on pro bono matters. Respondent is currently assisting a retired member of his parish in a dispute over damages to his property.
[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; 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 July 24, 2006, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
Decision and Discipline Order; Order Filing and Sealing Certain Documents;
Stipulation Re Facts and Conclusions of Law
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:
Robert R. Beauchamp
3151 Airway Ave Ste U2
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Charles Murray, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on July 24, 2006.
Signed by:
Tammy R. Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court