Case Number(s): 04-O-12291-RAH
In the Matter of: Robert E. Riemer, Bar # 94337, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Eric H. Hsu, Bar # 213039
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: settlement judge 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.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 16, 1980.
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):
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 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 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.
IN THE MATTER OF: ROBERT E. RIEMER
CASE NUMBER: 04-O-12291-RAH
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violating the specified statute.
I. Facts.
1. On July 4, 2003, Raquel Hall, Steve Hall, Jessica Session, Ashleh Hall, and La Shawna Lewis (collectively "the Halls") were injured in an automobile accident ("the Hall matter").
2. On July 8, 2003, the Halls employed Mark S. Greenberg ("Greenberg") to represent them in the Hall matter.
3. On November 14, 2003, the Halls employed Respondent to represent them in the Hall matter.
4. On November 14, 2003, Respondent sent a letter to Greenberg stating that Greenberg’s services had been terminated by the Halls in the Hall matter.
5. On February 12, 2004, Respondent sent a letter to Greenberg stating that he had settled the Hall matter.
6. On February 16, 2004, State Farm Automobile Insurance Company Insurance ("State Farm") issued five checks ("settlement check(s)"), totaling $29,755, in settlement of the Hall matter. Each of those settlement checks were made payable to "Law Offices of Robert E. Riemer & Mark Greenberg," in addition to the respective name of the Halls.
7. On February 16, 2004, Respondent received the settlement checks from State Farm.
8. On February 17, 2004, Respondent deposited the settlement checks into his client trust account at Union Bank of California, account number 0720054604 ("CTA").
9. On February 17, 2004 when Respondent deposited the settlement checks into his CTA, he was grossly negligent in not knowing that Greenberg neither signed nor authorized his signature to be affixed to any of the settlement checks.
10. On February 17, 2004, Greenberg asserted a lien in the aggregate amount of $3,904.64 for his fees and costs in the Hall matter.
11. On February 19, 2004, Respondent issued eight CTA cheeks relating to the Hail matter: check number 2021, in the amount of $157.23, was made payable to Greenberg for costs; check numbers 2022, 2024, 2025, 2026, and 2028, in the aggregate amount of $3,833.50, were made payable to Respondent’s law firm for attorney fees and costs; check numbers 2023 and 2027, each in the amount of $179, were made payable to Freeman Emergency Physicians Medical Group.
12. On March 15, 2004, the State Bar commenced its investigation case number 04-012291, concerning a State Bar complaint filed by Greenberg against Respondent (the "Greenberg matter").
13. On March 22, 2004, Greenberg filed a lawsuit against Respondent and his law firm, in an action titled Mark S. Greenberg v. Law Offices of Robert E. Riemer, Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 04C00468, to recover for Greenberg’s lien asserted in the Hall matter ("Greenberg v. Riemer"). On May 3, 2005, a judgment was entered against Respondent and in favor of Greenberg for $2,374.64. By October 25, 2005, Respondent paid $2,374.64 to Greenberg, in satisfaction of the judgment.
14. On March 10, 2005, a State Bar investigator ("the investigator") sent a letter to Respondent requesting that he "list all the individuals who had possession of [the settlement checks] from the initial time of receipt to the time of deposit."
15. On March 16, 2005, in response to the investigator’s letter of March 10, 2005, Respondent wrote the State Bar and stated in his letter that:
On or about February 18, 2004, Steve Hall picked up the envelope containing the five unsigned settlement drafts. On or about February 27, 2004, someone on behalf of all clients, dropped off the settlement drafts which were fully signed except for [Respondent’s] signature. Immediately upon receiving the signed drafts, [Respondent] stamped and deposited (but did not sign) the settlement drafts to [his] Client Trust Account.
However, Respondent deposited the settlement checks on February 17, 2004, and issued eight CTA checks relating to the Hall matter on February 19, 2004.
16. At the time Respondent sent his March 16, 2005 letter to the State Bar, he knew that his statement that the settlement checks were picked on or about February 18, 2004, and that those checks were returned on or about February 27, 2004, was false, because he knew that he had deposited the settlement checks into his CTA on February 17, 2004, and that he had issued CTA checks against the settlement funds on February 19, 2004.
II. Conclusions of Law.
A. By depositing the settlement checks into Respondent’s client trust account when Respondent was grossly negligent in not knowing that Greenberg neither signed nor authorized his signature to be affixed to any of the settlement checks, Respondent wilfully committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, in willful violation of California Business and Professions Code section 6106.
B. By informing the State Bar that the settlement checks were picked up on or about February 18, 2004, and that those checks were returned to Respondent on or about February 27, 2004, when Respondent knew that his statement was false, Respondent wilfully committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, in willful violation of California Business and Professions Code section 6106.
DISMISSAL.
The parties respectfully request this court to dismiss the following alleged violation, in the interest of justice:
Case Number 04-0-12291; Count Two; Alleged Violation Business and Professions Code section 6106.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A(7), was October 18, 2006.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
The presumptively appropriate level of discipline for attorney misconduct is as set forth in the Standards. (Morgan v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 598,607.) In this case, standard 2.3 provides, in pertinent parts, that the culpability of a member of an act of moral turpitude, fraud, or intentional dishonesty toward a court, client, or another person shall result in actual suspension or disbarment, depending on the gravity of harm.
The California Supreme Court views misrepresentation to the State Bar as an offense greater than other types of misconduct (See, e.g., Worth v. State Bar (1978) In Olguin v. State Bar (1980) 28 Cal.3d 195, the attorney was charged with presenting the State Bar with false statements that he had forwarded to subsequent counsel a substitution of attorneys and had given or mailed a notice of suspension to the client and opposing counsel, and with documents fabricated to deceive the State Bar in its investigation, with the intent to avoid culpability in the client-abandonment charge. The Court imposed 18 months of stayed suspension with probation for that period, conditioned upon actual suspension for the first six months.
Following the established jurisprudence, the review department has held that a deliberate attempt to mislead a State Bar investigation constitutes moral turpitude in violation of section 6106. (In the Matter of Gillis (Review Dept. 2002) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 387, 398-399.) In Gillis, the attorney lied to the State Bar by stating that, in the underlying sale of real property to his client, the client had assumed a note and mortgage as part of their contract of sale and that she was billed for the payments after the sale, when no such assumption took place and that the client was never billed for the payment on the property. The recommended discipline was three years of stayed suspension with probation for three years, conditioned upon actual suspension for the first six months.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Respondent’s misconduct is surrounded by the following aggravating circumstances: Respondent’s misconduct evinces multiple acts of wrongdoing. (Std. 1.2(b)(ii).) His misconduct also harmed Greenberg, in that Greenberg had to sue Respondent to recover for fees and costs owed. (Std. 1.2(b)(iv).)
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Respondent has been admitted to practice law in California since December 16, 1980, and has no prior record of discipline in California.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of October 18, 2006, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,449.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only. 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.
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY
The parties hereby waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on June 23, 2006, and the facts and conclusions of law contained in this stipulation. The parties also waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The parties further waive the fight to a formal hearing and to the filing of a Notice of Disciplinary Charges on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
RESTRICTIONS WHILE ON ACTUAL SUSPENSION.
During the period of actual suspension, Respondent shall not do any of the following: 1) render legal consultation or advice to a client; 2) appear on behalf of a client in any hearing or proceeding or before any judicial officer, arbitrator, mediator, court, public agency, referee, magistrate, commissioner, or hearing officer; 3) appear as a representative of a client at a deposition or other discovery matter; 4) negotiate or transact any matter for or on behalf of a client with third parties; 5) receive, disburse, or otherwise handle a client’s funds; or 6) engage in activities which constitute the practice of law.
Respondent shall declare under penalty of perjury that he has complied with this provision in all quarterly reports required to be filed with the Office of Probation, pertaining to periods in which Respondent was actually suspended from the practice of law.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 04-O-12291-RAH
In the Matter of: Robert E. Riemer Member #: 94337
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: Robert E. Riemer
Date: 10/19/06
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Eric H. Hsu
Date: Oct. 19, 2006
Case Number(s): 04-O-12291-RAH
In the Matter of: Robert E. Riemer Member #: 94337
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: Richard A. Platel
Date: 10-20-06
[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 , 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:
ROBERT E. RIEMER
LAW OFC ROBERT E RIEMER
280 S BEVERLY DR #402
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Eric Hsu, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on October 24, 2006.
Signed by:
Milagro del R. Salmeron
Case Administrator
State Bar Court