State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

ACTUAL SUSPENSION

Case Number(s): 04-N-15845-PEM

In the Matter of: Scott L. Grady, Bar # 153760, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Charles Calix, Bar # 146853,

Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar # ,

Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.

Filed: August 10, 2005.

<<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 July 19, 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 13 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. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Procedure.

checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2006.  (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.).

<<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.

B.        Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.

checked. (1) Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]

(a) State Bar Court case # of prior cases

(i) Supreme Court Case No. S114799 (State Bar Court Case Nos. 01-O-02658, 01-O-11272 & 01-O-02974)

(ii) Supreme Court Case No. S 126670 (State Bar Court Case No. 03-N-03727)

(iii) Supreme Court Case No. S 114799 (State Bar Court Case No. 03-PM-04773)

(b) Date(s) prior discipline effective

(i) Supreme Court Order filed July 2, 2003. Supreme Court Order effective August 1, 2003

(ii) Supreme Court Order filed October 12, 2004. Supreme Court Order effective November 11, 2004

(iii) Supreme Court Order filed August 26, 2004. Supreme Court Order effective August 1, 2004

(c) Rules of Professional Conduct/State Bar Act violations

(i) B&P 6068(b), 2 counts of B&P 60580), B&P 6068(m), B&P 6103, 2 counts of RPC 3-110(A), 2 counts of RPC 3-700(A)(2), and RPC 3700(D)(1)

(ii) B&P 6103 and Rule 955(c) of the California Rules of Court.

(iii) 2 counts of B&P 6068(k)

(d) Degree(s) of prior discipline

(i) Two year suspension stayed with three year probation including a seven month actual suspension and until restitution was paid.

(ii) & (iii) Two year suspension stayed and until he has shown proof satisfactory of rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law pursuant to Standard 1.4(c)(ii) stay with a three year probation including a one year actual suspension and until he has shown proof satisfactory of rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law pursuant to Standard 1.4(c)(ii)

checked. (e)                  If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below. See Attachment Titled “Prior Discipline.”.

<<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.

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.

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 Three Years.

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: .

<<not>> checked. (b) The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

checked. (2) Probation:  Respondent must be placed on probation for a period of Three Years, which will commence upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter.  (See rule 953, 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 fourteen months.

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.

<<not>> 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.

<<not>> 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.
checked No Ethics School recommended.  Reason: Previously ordered in Supreme Court Case No. S114799 (State Bar Court Case Nos. 01-O-02658, 01-O-11272 7 01-O-02974.

<<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:

<<not>> 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 5.162(A) & (E), Rules of Procedure.
checked. No MPRE recommended.  Reason: Previously ordered in Supreme Court Case No. S114799 (State Bar Court Case Nos. 01-O-02658, 01-O-11272 7 01-O-02974.)

<<not>> checked. (2)   Rule 955, California Rules of Court:  Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 955, 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 955, California Rules of Court:  If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90 days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of rule 955, 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 (if any):.

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: Scott L. Grady, State Bar No. 153760

STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-N-15845

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

1. Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he/she is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.

2. On or about October 12, 2004, the California Supreme Court filed an order in Case No. S126670 (State Bar Court Case No. 03-N-03727) that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years and until Respondent complied with standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, that execution of suspension be stayed, and that Respondent be placed on probation for three years on condition that he be actually suspended for one year and until he has complied with standard 1.4(c)(ii). Respondent was also required to comply with additional conditions of probation recommended by the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court in the stipulation tiled February 5, 2004, as modified by orders tiled March 19, 2004, and June 23, 2004, including the condition that Respondent be actually suspended for nine months. The October 12, 2004 California Supreme Court order further ordered Respondent to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court and to perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of role 955 within thirty and forty days, respectively, after the effective date of the order.

3. On or about October 12, 2004, the Clerk of the California Supreme Court properly served upon Respondent a copy of the October 12, 2004 order requiring that he comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court.

4. Rule 955, subdivision (a) required Respondent to notify all clients and any co-counsel of his suspension, deliver to all clients any papers or other property to which the clients were entitled, refund any unearned attorney fees, notify opposing counsel or adverse parties of his suspension, and tile a copy of said notice with any court, agency, or tribunal before which litigation was pending. Rule 955 subdivision (c) required Respondent to file with the clerk of the State Bar Court an affidavit stating that he fully complied with the requirements of rule 955, subdivision (a).

5. The October 12, 2004 California Supreme Court order became effective on November 11, 2004, thirty days after it was entered. Accordingly, pursuant to the October 12, 2004 order, Respondent was to have complied with subdivision (a) of rule 955 no later than December 11, 2004 and was to have complied with subdivision (e) of rule 955 no later than December 21, 2004. Respondent should have notified his clients and others of his suspension by December 6, 2004 and should have filed with the clerk of the State Bar Court an affidavit stating that he had fully complied with rule 955 by December 21, 2004.

6. On or about October 22, 2004, Probation Deputy Lydia Dineros of the Office of Probation ("Dineros") wrote a letter to Respondent in which she reminded Respondent of the terms and conditions of the disciplined imposed pursuant to the October 12, 2004 California Supreme Court order. In the October 22, 2004 letter, Dineros also advised Respondent that the California Supreme Court had ordered him to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court. Dineros specifically advised Respondent that his affidavit required by rule 955 was due to be field with the Clerk of the State Bar Court no later than December 21, 2004. Enclosed with Dineros’ October 22, 2004 letter to Respondent were, among other things, a copy of the October 12, 2004 California Supreme Court order, a copy of rule 955, and a form affidavit for Respondent to use to report his compliance with rule 955.

7. Dineros’ October 22, 2004 letter to Respondent with its enclosures was mailed on or about October 22, 2004 via the United States Postal Service, first class postage prepaid, in a sealed envelope address to Respondent at his official State Bar membership records address. The October 22, 2004 letter was not returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service.

8. Respondent claims that on November 1, 2004, he filed an affidavit with the Clerk of the State Bar Court as required by rule 955, subdivision (c). The Clerk of State Bar Court and Office of Probation have no record of the filing.

9. Respondent failed to file an affidavit with the Clerk of the State Bar Court as required by rule 955, subdivision (c), prior to the filing of the Notice of Disciplinary Charges on February 15, 2005.

10. On or about February 16, 2005, Respondent filed an affidavit with the Clerk of the State Bar Court as required by rule 955, subdivision (c).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

11. By failing to file with the Clerk of the State Bar Court the compliance affidavit required by rule 955, subdivision (c), Respondent wilfully failed to comply with the October 12, 2004 California Supreme Court order requiring Respondent to do acts connected with or in the course of his profession which he ought in good faith to do in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was July 11, 2005.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of July 11, 2005, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $1,641.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does not include State Bar Court costs which will be included in any final cost assessment. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

Standard 2.6(b) provides for disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense for violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103

hi In the Matter of Rose(Review Dept. 1993) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 192, the Review Department suspended an attorney for nine months who was found to have willfully failed to timely comply with Rule 955 even though the attorney had no clients.

In Shapiro v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 251, the Supreme Court ordered an attorney to be suspended for one year who failed to file his Rule 955 declaration for three months.

STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.

It is recommended that Respondent not be required to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this Stipulation, because he was ordered to take and pass the examination by Supreme Court Order filed July 2, 2003 in connection with Supreme Court Case No. S 114799 (State Bar Court Case Nos. 01-O-02658, 01-O-11272 and 01-O-02974).

MULTISTATE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EXAMINATION EXCLUSION.

It is recommended that Respondent not be required to take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE") as part of this Stipulation, because he was ordered to take and pass it by Supreme Court Order filed July 2, 2003 in connection with Supreme Court Case No. S 114799 (State Bar Court Case Nos. 01-O-02658, 01-O-11272 and 01-O-02974).

RULE 955, CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT.

It is recommended that Respondent not be required to comply with Rule 955, California Rules of Court as part of this Stipulation, because he was ordered to comply with Rule 955 by Supreme Court Order filed July 2, 2003 in connection with Supreme Court Case No. S114799 (State Bar Court Case Nos. 01-O-02658, 01-O-11272 and 01-O-02974), Supreme Court Order filed October 12, 2004 in connection with Supreme Court Case No. S126670 (State Bar Court Case No. 03-N-03727), and Supreme Court Order filed August 26, 2004 in connection with Supreme Court Case No. S114799 (State Bar Court Case No. 03-PM-04773), and has been suspended since on or about September 1, 2001 for failure to comply with his MCLE requirements.

STANDARD 1.4(e)(ii), STANDARDS FOR ATTORNEY SANCTIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.

It is recommended that Respondent show proof satisfactory to the State Bar Corot 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, even though the actual suspension in the case is 14 months because he was suspended for seven months in connections with Supreme Court Case No. S114799 (State Bar Court Case Nos. 01-O-02658, 01-O-11272 and 01-O-02974) and for one year in connection with Supreme Court Case No. S126670 (State Bar Court Case No. 03-N-03727), and Supreme Court Case No. S114799 (State Bar Court Case No. 03-PM-04773), and was ordered to comply with Standard 1.4(c)(ii) in Supreme Court Case Nos. S126670 and S114799.

RELATION TO PROBATION IN SUPREME COURT CASE NO. S114799 (STATE BAR COURT CASE NOS. 01-O-02658, 01-O-11272 AND 01-O-02974), SUPREME COURT CASE NO. $126670 (STATE BAR COURT CASE NO. 03-N-03727), AND SUPREME COURT CASE NO. $114799 (STATE BAR COURT CASE NO. 03-PM-04773).

It is understood and expected that Respondent’s probation in this proceeding may overlap with his probation in Supreme Court Case No. S114799 (State Bar Court Case Nos. 01-O-02658, 01-O-11272 and 01-O-02974), Supreme Court Case No. S126670 (State Bar Court Case No. 03-N-03727), and Supreme Court Case No. S114799 (State Bar Court Case No. 03-PM-04773). However, it is not understood nor expected that he will be required to file two quarterly reports during that overlap. It is understood and expected that one quarterly report may be filed in all of his cases with the appropriate eases numbers on it.

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 04-N-15845

In the Matter of: Scott L. Grady

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: Scott L. Grady

Date: July 27, 2005

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Charles T. Calix

Date: August 1, 2005

ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER

Case Number(s): 04-N-15845

In the Matter of: Scott L. Grady

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 953(a), California Rules of Court.)

Signed by:

Judge of the State Bar Court: Robert M. Talcott

Date: August 8, 2005

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 August 10, 2005, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING, filed August 10, 2005.

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:

SCOTT L. GRADY

14723 VENTURA BLVD PH

SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403

checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:

CHARLES CALIX, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on August 10, 2005.

Signed by:

George Hue

Case Administrator

State Bar Court