State
Bar Court of California
Hearing
Department
STIPULATION
RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
ACTUAL SUSPENSION
Case Number(s): 03-O-1837
In the Matter of: H. Joseph Jung, Bar # 184215, A Member of
the State Bar of California, (Respondent)
Counsel For The State Bar: Donald R. Steedman, Bar # 132699
Counsel for Respondent: Edward O. Lear, Bar # 132699
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s
Office San Francisco
Filed: March 17, 2008
<<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 3, 1996.
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 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. 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.
until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from
the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.
<<not>>checked.
costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following
membership years: (hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule
284, Rules of Procedure.)
<<not>>
checked. costs waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled
"Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>>
checked. costs entirely waived.
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.
<<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.
<<not>>checked. (4) Harm: Respondent's misconduct harmed
significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.
<<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.
checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct: Respondent's current
misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of
misconduct. See statement of facts establishing multiple acts of wrongdoing.
<<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. Respondent provided an early
statement to law enforcement officers and the State Bar, and has cooperated in
this proceeding.
<<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. See page
8.
<<not>>checked.
(5) Restitution: Respondent paid $ in restitution to her client 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. In 2006, Respondent experienced family problems that
contributed to his stress.
<<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:
D.
Discipline:
checked. (1) Stayed Suspension:
checked.
(a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one
year.
<<not>>
checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar
Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning
and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii) Standards for Attorney
Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
<<not>>
checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the
Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.
<<not>>
checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following: .
checked.
(b) The above-referenced suspension is stayed.
checked. (2) Probation: Respondent must be placed on probation for a
period of two years, which will commence upon the effective date of the Supreme
Court order in this matter. (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court.)
checked. (3) Actual Suspension:
checked.
(a) Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State
of California for a period of sixty days.
<<not>> checked.
i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of
rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability
in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions
for Professional Misconduct
<<not>>
checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the
Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.
<<not>>
checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following:
E. Additional Conditions of Probation:
<<not>>
checked. (1) If Respondent is actually suspended for two years or more, he/she
must remain actually suspended until he/she proves to the State Bar Court
his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the
general law, pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions
for Professional Misconduct.
checked.
(2) During the probation period, 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 probation.
<<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 to the monitor 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 probation
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 probation conditions.
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 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.
<<not>>checked.
(10) 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:
checked. (1) Multistate Professional Responsibility
Examination: 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 during the
period of actual suspension or within one year, whichever period is longer. Failure
to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing until
passage. But see rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 321 (a)(1)
& (c), Rules of Procedure.
<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended. Reason:
<<not>>checked. (2) Rule 9.20, California Rules of
Court: Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California
Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of
that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective
date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.
<<not>> checked. (3) Conditional Rule 9.20,
California Rules of Court: If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90
days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California
Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of
that rule within 120 and 130 calendar days, respectively, after the effective
date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.
<<not>> checked. (4) Credit for Interim Suspension
[conviction referral cases only]: Respondent will be credited for the period
of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual
suspension. Date of commencement of interim suspension:
<<not>> checked. (5) Other Conditions:
Attachment
language begins here (if any):
FACTS
Respondent
has been admitted to practice since December 3, 1996, and has practiced
personal injury law in Oakland since that time. In October 2001, respondent
employed James Son to act as office manager for a satellite office that
respondent established in Santa Clara. Son was not an attorney and was not
qualified as a paralegal, although he had experience in the personal injury
field. Son and respondent signed a written agreement wherein respondent agreed
to pay Son a percentage (generally 60%) of the net profits generated in the
Santa Clara office. The agreement provided Son a financial incentive to bring
clients into the office. Son was given authority to sign checks drawn on the
satellite office trust account.
During
the time the office was in operation, Son conducted client intake interviews,
oversaw the processing of cases and settled cases. Son typically performed both
of these functions without respondent’s supervision. However, in unusual cases
wherein the insurance company offered an insufficient settlement, Son
transferred the case to respondent for handling. Respondent states that during
the time the office was in operation, respondent visited the satellite office
every two weeks and spoke with Son on the telephone daily. Respondent was the
only attorney involved in the satellite office. Respondent paid Son the
above-mentioned percentage of the profits from the satellite office.
The
office operated in this manner until May, 2003, at which point law enforcement
officers executed a search warrant at the satellite office. As of that date,
the satellite office had 56 open cases. At the time the warrant was served,
respondent gave a full statement to the State Bar and law enforcement officers
in which he admitted the essential facts stated above but denied committing
fraud. After the search, respondent terminated his business relationship with
Son. Both respondent and Son were charged criminally, but both were acquitted
of all charges.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
1.
Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-310, by
forming a partnership with Son--a person who is not a lawyer--where the
activities of that partnership consisted of the practice of law.
2.
Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(A), by
aiding Son in the unauthorized practice of law, i.e., settlement of cases.
3.
Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-320(A), by
sharing legal fees with Son, who was not a lawyer.
DISCLOSURE
OF PENDING INVESTIGATIONS
The
disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was December 7,
2007.
AUTHORITIES
SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
The
Standards prescribe reproval or suspension for violations of the rules of
professional conduct, depending upon the gravity of the offense or harm, if
any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline
(Std. 2.10). Cases involving improper partnerships with non-attorneys have
resulted in actual suspensions of six months (In the Matter of Nelson (Review
Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 178) or longer (In the Matter of Jones
(Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Court 211). However, unlike those cases,
this stipulation does not include findings that respondent committed acts or
moral turpitude and does not include findings that his subordinate engaged
capping or fraud. The State Bar is proposing this lower level of discipline for
the additional reason that respondent has fully cooperated throughout this
proceeding (including his statement to law enforcement authorities) and has
agreed to a settlement at an early stage of the State Bar proceedings.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 03-O-1837
In the Matter of: H. Joseph Jung
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: H.
Joseph Jung
Date: 12/17/07
Respondent’s
Counsel: Edward O. Lear
Date: 12/21/07
Deputy Trial
Counsel: Donald R. Steedman
Date: 3/3/08
ORDER
Case Number(s): 03-O-1837
In the Matter of: H. Joseph Jung
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 135(b), 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: Pat McElroy
Date: March 17,
2008
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
[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 San Francisco, on March 17, 2008, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
EDWARD
O. LEAR
CENTURY
LAW GROUP LLP
5200
W CENTURY BLVD #345
LOS
ANGELES, CA 90045
checked. by
interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of
California addressed as follows:
DONALD
STEEDMAN, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby
certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California,
on March 17, 2008.
Signed by:
Lauretta
Cramer
Case
Administrator
State Bar
Court