State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE PROGRAM

Case Number(s): 02-C-14879

In the Matter of: Andrea Selene Burger Bar #173351 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Charles A. Murray, Deputy Trial Counsel

1149 S. Hill Street

Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299

(213) 765-1236

Bar #146069

Counsel for Respondent: Arthur L. Margolis, Margolis & Margolis

2000 Riverside Drive

Los Angeles, CA 90039-3758

(323) 953-8996

Bar #57703

Submitted to: Program Judge

Filed: September 10, 2009 State Bar Court Clerk's Office Los Angeles

  <<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 12, 1994.

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, except for Probation Revocation proceedings. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals."  The stipulation consists of 9 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. 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.

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

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.  See page 8

<<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.

<<not>> checked. (4) Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice. See page 8

<<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. 

<<not>> 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. 

<<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.

<<not>> 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.

<<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: Cooperation with Law Enforcement: (See page 8)

ATTACHMENT TO STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: PETER HOUGH NORELL, JR.

CASE NUMBER(S): 10-C-03089

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. 10-C-03089 (Conviction Proceedings)

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING:

1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.

2. On March 26, 2010, Respondent was convicted of violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 1030 (a) (2) (B), a misdemeanor.

3. On November 1, 2010, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues: for a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the hearing department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation of which Respondent was convicted involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.

FACTS:

4. Respondent admits he was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on December 2, 1993, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.

5. Throughout 2005, Peter H. Norell, Jr. was a Special Agent ("SA") with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") in Santa Ana, California within the Central District of California. The FBI is an agency of the United States. On August 23, August 29, and September 2, 2005, Norell intentionally used an FBI computer in his office to access FBI data bases to search for information about an individual referred to herein as T.S. Norell thereby obtained information from the FBI about T.S. as a result of his intentional access of the FBI computer on those dates. Norell obtained the information related to T.S. to assist a personal acquaintance’s efforts to collect a debt owed by T.S. to Norell’s personal acquaintance and, according to Norell’s understanding, other investors. The amount of the debt was in dispute between T.S. and Norell’s personal acquaintance. Although Norell never intended to and never did initiate a legitimate FBI investigation into T.S., Noreil threatened to initiate and FBI investigation into T.S. if T.S. did not repay the debt. Norell communicated his threats to initiate an FBI investigation to T.S. in multiple phone calls, as well as in person when Norell went to T.S.’s home at 6:45 am on September 6, 2005. Norell was informed that T.S. thereafter paid a portion of the debt to Norell’s

personal acquaintance. Norell knew that he was not authorized to obtain information from the FBI computer for the purpose of assisting his personal acquaintance in obtaining payment of the debt.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

6. Norell’s access of the FBI computer on the above-mentioned dates to obtained information about T.S. therefore exceeded his authorization in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1030 (a) (2) (B), a misdemeanor.

7. The facts and circumstances surrounding the above-described violation(s) did not involve moral turpitude but did involve other misconduct warranting discipline.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

8. Respondent’s current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing (Standard 1.2 (b) (ii). Respondent had multiple improper contacts with T.S. Respondent’s misconduct does not demonstrate a pattern of misconduct.

9. Respondent’s misconduct toward T.S., in his capacity as an FBI Agent, significantly harmed T.S. and the administration of justice (Standard 1.2 (b) (iv). Re spondent’s threats caused T.S. to feel fearful and emotionally upset. Respondent’s misconduct significantly harmed the administration of justice because he misused his authority as a Special Agent and as a representative of the United States government.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

10. Respondent has been a member of the State Bar of California since December 2, 1993 and he does not have a record of prior State Bar discipline.

11. As part of the criminal proceeding in Case number SA CR 10-0046 AG, Respondent provided the Court with numerous good character letters from attorneys and former Special Agents with whom he worked at the FBI. These letters are an extraordinary demonstration of good character attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities and who are aware of the full extent of Respondent’s misconduct.

ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

12. In his capacity as a Special Agent with the FBI, Respondent assisted in the investigation of one or more attorneys engaged in real estate loan modifications. Respondent cooperated with the State Bar by sharing information about his investigations with the State Bar.

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was April 21,2011.

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

RULE 5-100(A)

Rule 5-100(a) provides that a member shall not threaten to present criminal, administrative, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute.

STANDARD 1.3

Standard 1.3 provides that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar of California and of sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgement of a member’s professional misconduct are the protections 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 2.10

Standard 2.10 provides that culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in the 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.

The appropriate level of discipline in this case is one (1) year actual suspension. Respondent illegally used his FBI computer to obtain confidential information about T.S., and threatened T.S. with a criminal investigation to gain an advantage for Respondent’s personal acquaintance and according to Respondent’s understanding, other investors. Both of these acts involve the abuse of authority--both his authority as an attorney and his authority as an F.B.I. agent. The range of discipline in Standard 2.10 is from reproval through suspension. Applying Standard 2.10, one year actual suspension is within the range of discipline of this Standard and is an appropriate level of discipline. A review of reported decisions did not produce any cases sufficiently similar to the present proceeding to reach a different conclusion.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of April 5, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $4953.50. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from this stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 02-C-14879                              

In the Matter of: Andrea Selene Burger

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: Andrea Selene Burger and Arthur L. Margolis

Respondent: Andrea Selene Burger

Date: June 30, 2009

Respondent’s Counsel: Arthur L. Margolis

Date: June 30, 2009

Deputy Trial Counsel: Charles A. Murray

Date: July 13, 2009

ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE PROGRAM ORDER

Case Number(s): 02-C-14879

In the Matter of: Andrea Selene Burger

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 conclusions of law is APPROVED.

<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below.

<<not>> checked. All 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; or 3) Respondent is not accepted for participation in the Program or does not sign the Program Contract.the file date. (See rule 5.58(E) & (F) and 5.382(D), Rules of Procedure.)

Signed by: Donald F. Miles

Judge of the State Bar Court:

Date: September 8, 2009

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 September 10, 2009, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

                                    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:

ARTHUR LEWIS MARGOLIS

                                                            MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS LLP

                                                            2000 RIVERSIDE DR

                                                            LOS ANGELES, CA 90039

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 September 10, 2009.

Signed by:

Tammy Cleaver

Case Administrator

State Bar Court