Case Number(s): 05-H-00388
In the Matter of: Patsy V. Moore, Bar # 193933, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Gordon L. Grenier, Bar # 225430
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: September 15, 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.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 29, 1997 .
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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2007 and 2008. (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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Patsy v. Moore, State Bar No. 193933
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 05-H-00388
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and Rules of Professional conduct.
Statement of Facts:
On March 17, 2004, Patsy Moore ("Respondent") entered into a Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition ("Stipulation") with the State Bar of California in case number 03-0-03262. On March 24, 2004, the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court filed an order approving the Stipulation and imposing the reproval with conditions set forth in the Stipulation (the "reproval order").
On or about March 24, 2004, the reproval order was properly served by mail upon Respondent. Pursuant to the March 24, 2004 reproval order, Respondent was ordered to comply with the following terms and conditions, among others:
1) To comply with the conditions attached to the reproval for a period of one year;
2) To comply with the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct during the condition period attached to the reproval;
3) To submit to the Probation Unit written quarterly reports each January 10, April 10, July 10 and October 10 of the condition period attached to the reproval, certifying under penalty of perjury whether she has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of the reproval during the preceding calendar quarter and to file a final report no earlier than twenty days prior to the last day of the condition period and no later than the last day of the condition period; and
4) To pay restitution to Lewis Adams in the amount of $2,500.00, plus interest accruing at 10% per annum from March 29, 2002 until paid in full, by paying Mr. Adams at least $250.00 per month during the condition period attached to the reproval until the principal plus interest is paid in full, and to provide proof of restitution payments with each quarterly report required as a condition of the reproval.
The March 24, 2004 reproval order became effective thirty days later, on April 13, 2004. On or about May 19, 2004, Probation Deputy Eddie Esqueda ("Mr. Esqueda") of the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reminded Respondent of the terms and conditions of her reproval imposed pursuant to the March 24, 2004 reproval order. In the May 19, 2004 letter, Mr. Esqueda specifically advised Respondent regarding her obligations to file quarterly reports, with the first due on July 10, 2004, make monthly restitution payments of $250.00, and provide proof of restitution quarterly beginning July 10, 2004. Enclosed with the May 19, 2004 letter to Respondent were, among other things, copies of the relevant portion of the Stipulation setting forth the conditions of Respondent’s reproval; a Quarterly Report Instructions sheet; a Quarterly Report form specially tailored for Respondent to use in submitting her quarterly reports; and a Proof of Payment instructions sheet regarding providing proof of restitution payments.
Mr. Esqueda’s May 19, 2004 letter to Respondent was mailed on or about May 19, 2004 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. The May 19, 2004 letter was not returned as undeliverable or for any other reason by the United States Postal Service. Respondent received the May 19, 2004 letter from Mr. Esqueda.
Respondent failed to timely file the first quarterly report that was due on July 10, 2004. In addition, Respondent failed to timely submit the proof of monthly restitution payments that was due on July 10, 2004. Therefore, on or about September 2, 2004, Mr. Esqueda wrote a letter to Respondent in which he advised Respondent that her first quarterly report and proof of monthly restitution payments required as conditions of her reproval had been due on July 10, 2004 and that the Office of Probation had not received the quarterly report or proof of restitution. Mr. Esqueda requested Respondent to submit the overdue report and proof of restitution payments immediately. Enclosed with the September 2, 2004 letter was a copy of Mr. Esqueda’s May 19, 2004 letter to Respondent.
Mr. Esqueda’s September 2, 2004 letter to Respondent was mailed on or about September 2, 2004 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. The September 2, 2004 letter was not returned as undeliverable or for any other reason by the United States Postal Service.
Respondent received the September 2, 2004 letter from Mr. Esqueda. Respondent failed to timely file with the Office of Probation the quarterly reports that were due on July 10, 2004, October 10, 2004, and January 10, 2005. Respondent did not file the above-listed quarterly reports until on or about August 27, 2005.
To date, Respondent has failed to submit to the Office of Probation proof of having made monthly restitution payments to Mr. Adams (or the Client Security Fund) in the amount of $250.00, which proof was due on July 10, 2004, October 10, 2004, and January 10, 2005.
On or about August 27, 2005, Respondent sent Probation proof of one payment of $250.00 to Mr. Adams and a second payment of $150.00 to CSF. Including interest and fees, Respondent currently owes CSF $2,973.03.
Conclusion of Law:
By failing to comply with the terms and conditions of the reproval order, Respondent wilfully violated rule 1-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
In Conroy v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 878, the respondent failed to take and pass the Professional Responsibility Examination within one year of his private reproval. In mitigation, the court noted that respondent did take and pass the PRE on the date next available after the expiration of the one year period. In aggravation, the court found that respondent had a prior record of discipline, had a contemptuous attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and failed to participate in the proceedings. The respondent received a one year suspension, stayed, with 60-days actual suspension.
The instant case also involves a single count of failing to comply with the terms of a reproval. While the facts surrounding the instant case are similar to Conroy, the instant case does not contain the same level of aggravation. For in the instant case, Respondent has demonstrated a good attitude and has actively participated in the disciplinary proceedings. Respondent has also effectuated efforts to belatedly comply with the conditions of her probation, including filing her quarterly reports and completing Ethics School.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-H-00388
In the Matter of: Pasty v. Moore
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: Pasty V. Moore
Date: September 7, 2005
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Gordon L. Grenier
Date: September 7, 2005
Case Number(s): 05-H-00388
In the Matter of: Pasty v. Moore
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: September 13, 2005
[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 September 15, 2005, 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:
PATSY V. MOORE
12811 1/2 PACIFIC AVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90066
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
GORDON GRENIER, ESQ., Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on September 15, 2005.
Signed by:
Rose M. Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court