Case Number(s): 04-O-14887
In the Matter of: Ellen Mafred Rollins, Bar # 96626 A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Kristin L. Ritsema, Bar # 149966
Counsel for Respondent: Bar # Ellen A. Pansky, Bar# 77688
Submitted to: judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office
Filed:
<<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 21pages, 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.
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 of the two membership years following the effective date of discipline. (hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 282, 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.
See Attachment, page 15.
IN THE MATTER OF: ELLEN MAFRED ROLLINS
CASE NUMBER: 04-O-14887
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND FACTS
1. On March 4, 1994, Respondent entered into a Stipulation As To Facts and Disposition ("Stipulation 1") with the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California in case numbers 93-H-12755 and 93-0-12276. In Stipulation 1, Respondent agreed to make restitution within one year to her former client, Francisco F. Martinez ("Mr. Martinez"), or the Client Security Fund if appropriate, in the amount of $2,500.00 plus interest at the rate often percent (10%) per annum from July 29, 1992 until paid in full.
2. On March 24, 1994, the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court filed an order approving Stipulation 1 and recommending the disposition set forth in Stipulation 1 to the California Supreme Court. On March 24, 1994, the Heating Department’s order approving Stipulation 1 was properly served by mail upon Respondent.
3. On August 4, 1994, the California Supreme Court filed order number S040204 (State Bar Court case numbers 93-H-12755 and 93-0-12276) (the "1994 disciplinary order) that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, that execution of suspension be stayed, and that Respondent be placed on probation for two (2) years subject to the conditions of probation, including restitution, recommended by the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court in its order approving Stipulation 1 filed on March 24, 1994.
4. On August 4, 1994, the Clerk of the California Supreme Court properly served upon Respondent a copy of the 1994 disciplinary order.
5. The 1994 disciplinary order became effective on September 3, 1994. Therefore, pursuant to the terms of the 1994 disciplinary order, Respondent was required to make restitution to Mr. Martinez and provide satisfactory proof of same to the Probation Unit on or before September 3, 1995. Respondent failed to do so. Respondent failed to make any restitution payments to Mr., Martinez.
6. The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel initiated probation violation case number 95-0-13578. On February 1, 1996, Respondent entered into a Stipulation as to Facts and Disposition ("Stipulation 2") with the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel in case number 95-0-13578. In Stipulation 2, Respondent again agreed to make restitution to Mr. Martinez, or the Client Security Fund if appropriate, in the amount of $2,500.00 plus interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from July 29, 1992 until paid in full. She agreed to pay the restitution within four years of the effective date of the disciplinary order and to make monthly payments of at least $50.00 until paid in full.
7. On February 9, 1996, the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court entered an order approving Stipulation 2 and recommending the disposition set forth in Stipulation 2 to the California Supreme Court. On February 9, 1996, the Hearing Department’s order approving the Stipulation was properly served by mail upon Respondent through her counsel.
8. On June 20, 1996, the California Supreme Court filed order number S052789 (State Bar Court case number 95-O-13578) (the "1996 disciplinary order") that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, that execution of suspension be stayed and that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of four (4) years subject to the conditions of probation, including sixty (60) days actual suspension and restitution, recommended by the Hearing Department in its order approving Stipulation 2 filed on February 9, 1996.
9. On June 20, 1996, the Clerk of the California Supreme Court properly served upon Respondent a copy of the 1996 disciplinary order.
10. The 1996 disciplinary order became effective on July 20, 1996, thirty days after it was entered. Therefore, pursuant to the terms of the 1996 disciplinary order, Respondent was required to make monthly restitution payments of at least $50.00 to Mr. Martinez commencing August 1996 and provide satisfactory proof of same to the Probation Unit.
11. Respondent complied with all terms and conditions of her probation imposed pursuant to the 1996 disciplinary order except the condition that she make restitution to Mr. Martinez. She did not make the required monthly payments to Mr. Martinez.
12. On January 6, 1997, the State Bar’s Client Security Fund paid Mr. Martinez’ claim in the amount of $2,500.00.
13. On April 1 I, 1997, Respondent sent a restitution payment in the amount of $100.00 to Mr. Martinez, representing a portion of the interest owed to Mr. Martinez for the period prior to January 6, 1997 when the Client Security Fund paid Mr. Martinez.
14. On February 26, 1998, Respondent sent a restitution payment in the amount of $250.00 to Mr. Martinez, representing a portion of the interest owed to Mr. Martinez for the period prior to January 6, 1997 when the Client Security Fund paid Mr. Martinez.
15. Thereafter and until June 2000, Respondent made no further restitution payments to Mr. Martinez or to the Client Security Fund.
16. Accordingly, the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel initiated probation violation Case No. 00-0-10312.
COUNT ONE
Case No. 04-O-14887
Business and Professions Code section 6068(k)
[Failure to Comply With Conditions of Probation
Imposed Pursuant to Court Disciplinary Order]
17. The background facts set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16 are hereby incorporated by reference.
18. On February 16, 2000, Respondent entered into a Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition ("Stipulation 3") with the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel in case number 00-0-10312. In Stipulation 3, Respondent again agreed to make restitution to Mr. Martinez and the Client Security Fund.
19. On February 23, 2000, the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court entered an order approving Stipulation 3 and recommending the disposition set forth in Stipulation 3 to the California Supreme Court. On February 24, 2000, the Hearing Department’s order approving Stipulation 3 was properly served by mail upon Respondent through her counsel.
20. On June 2, 2000, the California Supreme Court filed order number S087001 (State Bar Court case number 00-O-10312) (the "2000 disciplinary order") that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years and until compliance with standard 1.4(c)(ii), that execution of suspension be stayed and that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of four (4) years subject to the conditions of probation, including ninety (90) days actual suspension and restitution, recommended by the Hearing Department in its order approving Stipulation 3 executed on February 23, 2000.
21. On June 2, 1996, the Clerk of the California Supreme Court properly served upon Respondent a copy of the 2000 disciplinary order.
22. The 2000 disciplinary order became effective on July 2, 2000, thirty days after it was entered.
23. Pursuant to the 2000 disciplinary order, Respondent was ordered to comply with the following restitution conditions of probation:
a. within four (4) years of the effective date of the disciplinary order, to make restitution to Mr. Martinez in the principal amount of $1,070.00 (representing the interest accrued at 10% per annum on the $2,500.00 owed to Mr. Martinez from July 29, 1992 until the Client Security Fund paid him $2,500.00 on January 6, 1997, minus the $250.00 payment Respondent sent to Mr. Martinez on February 26, 1998) plus interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from January 6, 1997 until paid in full. No payments were required during the first year of Respondent’s probation. However, minimum monthly payments of $50.00 were due to be paid to Mr. Martinez on the first day of each month during Respondent’s second, third and fourth years of probation. All remaining sums were to be paid in full no later than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of Respondent’s probation. Respondent was to include in each required quarterly report satisfactory evidence of all restitution payments made to Mr. Martinez during that reporting period; and
b. within four (4) years of the effective date of the disciplinary order, to make restitution to the client Security Fund in the principal amount of $2,500.00 (representing the payment made by the Client Security Fund to Mr. Martinez on January 6, 1997) plus interest at the rate often percent (10%) per annum from January 6, 1997 until paid in full. No payments were required during the first year of Respondent’s probation. However, minimum monthly payments of $50.00 were due to be paid to the Client Security Fund on the first day of each month during Respondent’s second, third and fourth years of probation. All remaining sums were to be paid in full no later than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of Respondent’s probation. Respondent was to include in each required quarterly report satisfactory evidence of all restitution payments made to the Client Security Fund during that reporting period.
24. On July 6, 2000, Probation Deputy Yolanda Acosta ("Ms. Acosta") of the Probation Unit wrote a letter to Respondent in which she summarized the terms and conditions of Respondent’s suspension and probation imposed pursuant to the 2000 disciplinary order. In the July 6, 2000 letter, Ms. Acosta reminded Respondent of her restitution obligation by noting that proof of “monthly payments of $50" would be due quarterly commencing July 10, 2001. Enclosed with the July 6, 2000 letter to Respondent were, among other things, copies of the 2000 disciplinary order, the relevant portion of Stipulation 3 setting forth the conditions of Respondent’s probation, a Quarterly Report Instructions sheet and a Quarterly Report form for Respondent to use in submitting her quarterly reports.
25. Ms. Acosta’s July 6, 2000 letter to Respondent and the enclosures thereto were mailed the same day via the United States Postal Service, first class postage prepaid, in a sealed envelope addressed to Respondent at her official State Bar membership records address at the time. The July 6, 2000 letter was not returned as undeliverable or for any other reason by the United States Postal Service.
26. According to Respondent, when she received Ms. Acosta’s July 6, 2000 letter, she read and relied upon the statement that proof of "monthly payments of $50" would be required commencing in July 2001. Although Respondent fully agrees that she had a duty to become aware of and comply with the actual terms of the Supreme Court order, as a result of her reliance upon the July 6, 2000 letter, Respondent formed the belief that she was required to make a restitution payment of at least (but not necessarily more than) $50 per month.
27. Although the 2000 disciplinary order did not become effective until July 2, 2000, and despite the fact that the order did not require restitution payments to commence until July 2001, Respondent commenced making payments to the Client Security Fund in June 2000. She made periodic restitution payments to the Client Security Fund as follows:
Date posted 06/21/00; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 08/16/00; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 09/09/00; Payment amount $25.00;
Date posted 02/14/01; Payment amount $25.00;
Date posted 03/23/01; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 10/20/01; Payment amount $20.00;
Date posted 11/13/01; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 11/29/01; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 02/06/02; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 03/12/02; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 04/30/02; Payment amount $20.00;
Date posted 05/21/02; Payment amount $25.00;
Date posted 07/12/02; Payment amount $25.00;
Date posted 07/27/02; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 08/17/02; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 10/16/02; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 01/14/03; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 02/19/03; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 04/04/03; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 05/07/03; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 06/17/05; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 07/15/03; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 10/24/03; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 11/14/03; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 01/01/04; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 03/25/04; Payment amount $150.00;
Date posted 06/02/04; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 07/14/04; Payment amount $50.00;
Date posted 07/28/04; Payment amount $100.00;
Date posted 09/09/04; Payment amount $50.00;
28. Respondent did not make any restitution payments to Mr. Martinez as required by the conditions of probation imposed by the 2000 disciplinary order. According to Respondent, this was because of her erroneous interpretation of the restitution condition of the disciplinary order (based on the July 6, 2000 letter from Ms. Acosta) as well as her poor financial condition.
29. Subsequent to the State Bar’s initiation of probation violation case number 04-0-14887, Respondent paid off her remaining restitution obligation to the Client Security Fund as follows:
Date posted 08/18/05; Payment amount $250.00;
Date posted 09/14/05; Payment amount $750.00;
Date posted 09/21/05; Payment amount $1,199.68
30. Subsequent to the State Bar’s initiation of probation violation case number 04-0-14887, Respondent paid off her restitution obligation to Mr. Martinez as follows:
Date 01/04/06; Payment amount $300.00;
Date 02/09/06; Payment amount $1,000.00;
Date 03/08/06; Payment amount $500.00
31. Pursuant to the 2000 disciplinary order, in addition to minimum monthly payments of $50..00 to Mr. Martinez and the Client Security Fund commencing in July 2001 (the second year of Respondent’s probation), all restitution remaining owing to Mr. Martinez and the Client Security Fund was to be paid in full by no later than June 2, 2004, thirty days before Respondent’s four-year probation period expired.
32. Respondent failed to make any monthly payments to Mr. Martinez and failed to pay him in full by June 2, 2004 as required by the 2000 disciplinary order.
33. Although Respondent made many of the required minimum monthly payments to the Client Security Fund as reflected in the list above, she failed to make all of them and failed to pay the Client Security Fund in full by June 2, 2004 as required by the 2000 disciplinary order.
34. Respondent timely complied with all other conditions of probation imposed by the 2000 disciplinary order.
Conclusions of Law
35. By failing to comply with the restitution conditions of the 2000 disciplinary order, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6068(k).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page one, paragraph A.(6), was April 17, 2006.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, Title IV of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California (hereinafter "Standard"), provides that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings and imposing sanctions for professional misconduct 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."
Standard 1.6(a) provides that the appropriate sanction for an act of professional misconduct shall be the sanction set forth in the standards for the particular misconduct found.
Standard 2.6 provides that culpability of a member of violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068 (including 6068(k)) "shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3."
Standard 1.7(b) provides that if an attorney is found culpable of professional misconduct and the attorney has a record of two prior impositions of discipline, the attorney shall be disbarred unless the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate.
This is a case in which compelling mitigating circumstances do exist. For years, Respondent has experienced extreme financial hardship and has received mitigation credit in the discipline that has been imposed. Despite her continuing financial hardship, Respondent made periodic payments to the Client Security Fund after .the imposition of her fourth prior.
Commencing in 2002, Respondent made significant, good faith efforts to acquire the ability to comply with the restitution requirement. Although her search for full time employment as an attorney took longer than she had hoped, she continued her search and was ultimately successful. On July 25, 2005, Respondent began a new full-time attorney job. Respondent used half of her first paycheck to make a significant payment on the restitution obligation to the Client Security Fund. Within the next month, she paid of the remaining restitution obligation to the Client Security Fund, both with wages from her new employment and with the help of a loan from her brother. Respondent also took steps to locate Mr. Martinez to pay her remaining restitution obligation to him.
Although Respondent has four prior impositions of discipline, the first prior is now remote in time as it relates to one incident of driving with a suspended license back in 1991. Further, only the second prior involved a client complaint, and that complaint dates back to the single underlying failure to complete services and refund unearned fees in the Martinez case back in 1992.
Although the stipulated discipline herein is a departure from the Standards, the public, the courts and the legal profession will be adequately protected by the imposition of the stipulated discipline herein. Respondent’s misconduct poses little, if any, threat to the public in California. However, it is important for the maintenance of high professional standards and preservation of public confidence in the legal profession for Respondent to comply with her ethical obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of disciplinary orders imposed against her. Respondent understands her obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of probation to be imposed as a result of the disciplinary order that will result from this Stipulation.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
PRIOR DISCIPLINE
Respondent has a prior record of four (4) impositions of discipline. Respondent’s first prior record of discipline is discussed at page 2 of the Stipulation.
a. Respondent’s Second Prior
On August 4, 1994 (effective September 3, 1994), the California Supreme Court filed disciplinary order number S040204 (State Bar Court case numbers 93-H-12755 and 93-0-12276) that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, that execution of suspension be stayed, and that she be placed on probation for two (2) years with conditions.
The August 4, 1994 California Supreme Court order was based on a Stipulation as to Facts and Disposition in which Respondent stipulated to the following willful misconduct: (1) failing to comply with the terms and conditions of the private reproval imposed in State Bar Court case number 91-C-07303 (Respondent’s first prior) in violation of rule 1-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct; (2) failing to competently perform legal services for client Francisco Martinez in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct; and (3) failing to refund unearned fees to Mr. Martinez in violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. One of the conditions of probation was that Respondent was to make restitution to Mr. Martinez in the amount of $2,500.00 plus interest.
b. Respondent’s Third Prior
On June 20, 1996 (effective July 20, 1996), the California Supreme Court filed disciplinary order number S052789 (State Bar Court case number 95-0-13578) that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, that execution of suspension be stayed, and that she be placed on probation for four (4) years with conditions including sixty (60) days actual suspension and restitution to Mr. Martinez.
The June 20, 1996 California Supreme Court order was based upon a Stipulation as to Facts and Disposition in which Respondent stipulated to willful misconduct involving failing to comply with the terms and conditions of probation imposed pursuant to the August 4, 1994 California Supreme Court order (Respondent’s second prior) in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(k).
c. Respondent’s Fourth Prior
Respondent’s fourth prior imposition of discipline consists of the underlying proceeding which resulted in the June 2, 2000 California Supreme Court disciplinary order (effective July 2, 2000), the violation of which gives rise to this proceeding.
The June 2, 2000 California Supreme Court order was based upon a Stipulation as to Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition in which Respondent stipulated to willful misconduct involving failure to comply with the restitution condition of probation imposed pursuant to the June 20, 1996 California Supreme Court order (Respondent’s third prior) in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(k).
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Respondent was unable to pay her restitution obligations to Mr. Martinez and the Client Security Fund because of continuing financial hardship. Respondent has submitted to the State Bar declarations regarding her financial circumstances as well as income tax returns for the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004. According to Respondent, her income was insufficient to require her to file an income tax return for the year 2003.
Commencing in 2002, Respondent made significant, good faith efforts to acquire more steady, higher paying law jobs. Although the process took much longer than Respondent had hoped, she continued her search. Recently, for the first time in years, Respondent became fully and gainfully employed as an attorney as of July 25, 2005.
According to Respondent, she carefully read the July 6, 2000 letter she received from Ms. Acosta of the Probation Unit, in which the reference to the term of the California Supreme Court’s disciplinary order regarding restitution payments specifically set forth the "Reporting Frequency or Compliance Due Date" for "restitution" as "Quarterly; Beginning July 10, 2001 (Monthly payments of $50)." While Respondent acknowledges that it was her responsibility to comply with the terms of the Supreme Court order, she neglected to double check the probation deputy’s advice regarding the restitution condition and relied on the representation in the July 6, 2000 letter that a $50 monthly restitution payment had been ordered.
During the succeeding two years after the probationary term commenced, Respondent submitted her quarterly reports in a timely fashion, including documents corroborating the restitution payments made (to the extent they were made) in the preceding quarterly period. Respondent commenced making payments before she was required to do so. Respondent’s payment history and the information provided in the quarterly reports implicitly reflect her (incorrect) understanding that she was required to make monthly restitution payments in the amount of $50. In those quarters in which Respondent was financially incapable of making $50 restitution payments, she explained such in her quarterly report.
At no time between July 2000 and late Summer 2005 when the problem was brought to her attention, did any representative of the State Bar bring to Respondent’s attention that she was required to make two separate $50 monthly restitution payments.
Respondent has been spontaneously and fully cooperative with the State Bar, and has expressed full awareness of her ethical duties and complete willingness to fulfill them.
OTHER CONDITIONS NEGOTIATED BY THE PARTIES.
A. Mental Health Conditions
Respondent has participated in a clinical evaluation by an expert agreed upon by the parties in this matter. These mental health conditions are based upon the recommendations of that expert. The mental health conditions set forth below are conditions of Respondent’s probation and are to be monitored by the Office of Probation.
1. Individual Psychotherapy Treatment:
a. Commencing within twenty (20) days of the effective date of the disciplinary order resulting from this stipulation, if she has not done so already, Respondent shall commence participating and shall continue to participate in individual psychotherapy treatment, a minimum of once per week, with a duly licensed psychiatrist or psychologist ("therapist"). b. No later than her first therapy session, Respondent shall provide this therapist with (1) a copy of this Stipulation; (2) a copy of the expert’s report upon which these conditions are based; and, (3) a release waiving rights of privacy and privilege and authorizing the Office of Probation access to all of Respondent’s medical and treatment records. Revocation of the medical release/waiver constitutes a violation of this condition.
c. Respondent shall comply with all treatment recommendations of her therapist, as may be made initially or as may be later recommended or modified, including without limitation, group therapy and/or medication regimen (prescribed by the therapist if qualified or by a psychiatrist working in conjunction with her therapist).
d. Respondent shall authorize and instruct her therapist to prepare and submit to the Office of Probation a written report each calendar quarter describing her condition, including a prognosis, and her compliance with therapy and treatment recommendations.
e. Respondent shall further authorize and instruct her therapist to advise the Office of Probation within five (5) days of any non-compliance by Respondent with the conditions of her treatment.
2. Reporting Compliance to the Office of Probation:
a. With each written quarterly report or final report required as a condition of probation by the disciplinary order resulting from this stipulation, Respondent shall report, in writing and under penalty of perjury, her compliance with her mental health conditions; and she shall provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of her attendance at the above-described therapy sessions. Proof of compliance and attendance shall be as requested by the Office of Probation and may include submission of a writing which clearly sets forth for each therapy session she attends the date and time of the session and which bears the signature of the therapist verifying Respondent’s attendance at that session.
b. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the disciplinary order resulting from this stipulation, Respondent shall provide the Office of Probation with:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of her therapist; and,
(2) Proof satisfactory to the Office of Probation that she has provided her therapist with (a) a copy this stipulation; (b) the expert’s report; and, (c) a written release and authorization for disclosure of medical/treatment records and information, including non-compliance with treatment recommendations, to the Office of Probation.
3. Responsibility for Costs:
All costs related to the above-described conditions shall be the responsibility of the Respondent.
4. Modification of Conditions:
Modification of these mental health condition shall be made pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, rules 550 et seq. If Respondent’s treating therapist determines that there has been a substantial change in Respondent’s condition, Respondent or the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel may file a motion for modification of this condition with the Heating Department of the State Bar Court, pursuant to rule 550 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. The motion must be supported by a written statement from the therapist by affidavit or under penalty of perjury, in support of the proposed modification.
5. Termination of Conditions:
If Respondent’s treating therapist determines that there has been a substantial change in Respondent’s condition such that treatment is no longer required or recommended, Respondent shall authorize and instruct her treating therapist to prepare and submit to the Office of Probation a written report describing the substantial change in Respondent’s condition, setting forth the therapist’s opinion that treatment is no longer required or recommended, and setting forth the basis for the therapist’s opinion. Respondent shall also authorize and instruct her therapist to respond to any questions and/or requests for further explanation or clarification that the Office of Probation may have with respect to the therapist’s report. Upon receipt by the Office of Probation of a satisfactory report from Respondent’s therapist describing the substantial change in Respondent’s condition, setting forth the therapist’s opinion that treatment is no longer required or recommended for Respondent, and setting forth the basis for the therapist’s opinion, Respondent shall be relieved of her obligation to comply with these mental health conditions.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 04-O-14887
In the Matter of: Ellen Mafred Rollins
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: Ellen M. Rollins
Date: 5/11/2006
Respondent’s Counsel: Ellen A. Pansky
Date: 5/11/2006
Deputy Trial Counsel: Kristin L. Ritsema
Date: 05/12/06
Case Number(s): 04-O-14887
In the Matter of: Ellen Mafred Rollins
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. Honn
Date: 5/26/06
[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 May 31, 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:
ELLEN ANNE PANSKY
PANSKY &MARKLE
500 S GRAND AVE 14 FL
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-2563
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Kristin L. Ritsema, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on May 31, 2006.
Signed by:
Milagro del R. Salmeron
Case Administrator
State Bar Court