Case Number(s): 04-C-11818-RAP
In the Matter of: Mark Carlson Lee, Bar # 157247, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Cydney Batchelor, Bar # 114637
Counsel for Respondent: H. Wayne Green, Bar # 92671
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
Filed: June 1, 2007
<<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 16, 1991.
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):
<<not>> checked. costs added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2008 and 2009 (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.
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.
None
See attachment
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
IN THE MATTER OF: MARK CARLSON LEE
CASE NUMBERS: 04-C-11818-RAP
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the State Bar Act and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Procedural Background: 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. On April 26, 2006, respondent pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code section 23153(b) [driving while intoxicated, causing physical injury to another person]. On August 10, 2006 and January 8, 2007, the Review Department of the State Bar issued its orders referring the matter to the Hearing Department for a hearing and decision recommending the decision to be imposed in the event that the facts and circumstances surrounding the convictions involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
Facts: On August 23, 2003, respondent was involved in a traffic collision with another vehicle in Fresno, California. In the course of investigating the accident, the California Highway Patrol determined that respondent was under the influence of alcohol, and placed him under arrest. The driver in the other vehicle complained of pain to his shoulder and neck at the time; however, he did not require medical treatment at the scene or subsequently. Respondent voluntarily submitted to a blood test, and his blood alcohol level was determined to be .14%. On January 9, 2004, respondent was charged with felony violations of Vehicle Code section 23153(a) and 23153(b). The matter was continued a number of times to allow the parties to investigate the circumstances of the accident. As a result of those investigations, and on April 28, 2006, the district attorney reduced the charges to one misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(b), and respondent plead nolo contendere to the amended violation. Respondent was thereafter placed on three years informal probation.
Conclusions of Law: The facts and circumstances surrounding respondent’s misdemeanor conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 23153(b) does not involve moral turpitude, but does involve other misconduct warranting discipline. The respondent acknowledges that by the conduct described herein, he willfully violated Business and Professions Code sections 6068(a).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(6), was May 1, 2007.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Harm: Respondent caused minor physical injuries to the other driver in the collision, and damage to his vehicle.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Candor and cooperation: Although respondent was not required to do so, he voluntarily reported his criminal charge to the State Bar on August 12, 2004. Through his counsel, respondent has been completely cooperative with the State Bar in the resolution of this matter.
Objective steps demonstrating remorse: Respondent submitted to a chemical test for his blood alcohol level, and plead guilty in the underlying criminal offense. In addition, he paid full restitution to the other driver for the damage to his vehicle. Finally, on his own volition before the intervention of the State Bar, respondent enrolled in and successfully completed a 22-month chemical dependency program through Kaiser Permanente.
Financial Problems: In late 2002, respondent’s law practice dissolved, causing extreme financial hardship to him.
Family Problems: During the year before the misconduct herein, respondent had the following family problems: his brother died and respondent assumed temporary custody of his brother’s two teenaged sons; and respondent’s daughter was placed in a care facility as a result of her Downs Syndrome.
Physical Difficulties: In February 2003, respondent was in an auto accident and suffered back, neck and head injuries.
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Compliance with Underlying Probation: Respondent has fully and completely complied with all conditions of his criminal probation since he entered his plea in April 2006.
No prior record of discipline: Although the misconduct herein is serious, respondent has had no prior record of discipline since being admitted in December 1991, which was 12 years before the misconduct herein.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct 1.2(b)(ii), 1.2(e)(v),
1.2(e)(vii), 2.6(a), 3.4; In re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal.3d 487; and see generally In Re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81.
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF PROBATION IN UNDERLYING CRIMINAL MATTERS.
Respondent shall comply with all conditions of his probation that were imposed in the underlying criminal matters, and shall so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report required to be filed with the State Bar Office of Probation.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation; therefore, he may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit toward his required number of MCLE credits.
ELECTION NOT TO REQUEST STATE BAR COURT’S ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE PROGRAM.
By signing this stipulation, Respondent acknowledges that he was provided information about the State Bar Court’s Alternative Discipline Program, that he was offered the opportunity to request referral to and participation in that program, and that he has elected not to do so.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 04-C-11818-RAP
In the Matter of: Mark Carlson Lee
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: Mark Carlson Lee
Date: 5/3/07
Respondent’s Counsel: H. Wayne Green
Date: May 3, 2007
Deputy Trial Counsel: Cydney Batchelor
Date: 5/11/07
Case Number(s): 04-C-11818-RAP
In the Matter of: Mark Carlson Lee
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: George Scott
Date: 5/31/07
[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 June 1, 2007, 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:
HAROLD WAYNE GREEN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
7522 N COLONIAL AVE #130
FRESNO, CA 93711-5706
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
CYDNEY BATCHELOR, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on June 1, 2007.
Signed by:
Laine Silber
Case Administrator
State Bar Court