Case Number(s): 02-C-15709-RAH
In the Matter of: Xavier V. Chavez, Bar # 174470, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Eli D. Morgenstern, Bar # 190560,
Counsel for Respondent: Susan Margolis, Bar # 104629,
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: March 16, 2006.
<<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 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.
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 10 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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> 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.
<<not>> 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.
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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Xavier V. Chavez, State Bar No. 174470
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 02-C-15709-RAH
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING.
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 951 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On October 1, 2002, a jury found Respondent guilty of violating Penal Code § 148(a)(1), resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer.
3. On January 29; 2003, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department.
4 On May 28, 2003, the Court filed an Order of Abatement; and the matter remained abated until it was resolved by way of the instant stipulation.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Facts
On September 23, 2001, Respondent allegedly violated a traffic law and was pursued by a police officer. Respondent proceeded to his nearby home and entered his driveway. An altercation ensued which led to the arrest of Respondent and his wife, and their eventual conviction of resisting arrest.
Legal Conclusion
It is not herein alleged that the facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s conviction involved moral turpitude. However, Respondent admits that his conviction of Penal Code § 148(a)(1) violated Business and Professions Code § 6068(a).
OTHER FACTORS IN CONSIDERATION.
After the criminal conviction, Respondent filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the individual police officers and the County of Los Angeles alleging various violations of his constitutional rights arising from the arrest. The civil action resulted in a judgment of liability based on Respondent’s claim of illegal entry, and Respondent’s motion to proceed on the issue of punitive damages was granted. The civil proceeding is still pending. Additionally, Respondent continues to seek habeas relief from his conviction in the state and federal courts.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page one, paragraph A.(7), was February 6, 2006.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standards
Standard 3.4 of the Standards For Attorney Sanctions For Professional Misconduct, Title IV of the Rules of Procedure ("Standards") provides that: "Final conviction of a member of a crime which does not involve moral turpitude inherently or in the facts mad circumstances surrounding the crime’s commission but which does involve other misconduct warranting discipline shall result in a sanction as prescribed under Part B of these standards appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct found to have been committed by the member."
Among the purposes of disciplinary proceedings set forth in Standard 1.3, "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."
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, Respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 02-C-15709-RAH
In the Matter of: Xavier V. Chavez
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: Xavier V. Chavez
Date: February 27, 2006
Respondent’s Counsel: Susan L. Margolis
Date: March 1, 2006
Deputy Trial Counsel: Eli D. Morgenstern
Date: March 2, 2006
Case Number(s): 02-C-15709-RAH
In the Matter of: Xavier V. Chavez
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.
<<not>> 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 125(b), 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 A. Honn
Date: March 16, 2006
[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 March 16, 2006, 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:
SUSAN L MARGOLIS ATTORNEY AT LAW
MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS LLP
2000 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90039-3758
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Eli D. Morgenstern, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 16, 2006.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court