Case Number(s): 05-J-03765-RAP,
In the Matter of: Matthew A. Bromund, Bar # 220152, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Brooke A Schafer, Bar # 194824,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #,
Submitted to: Program Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: October 28, 2009.
<<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 June 10, 2002.
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. However, except as otherwise provided in rule 804.5(c) of the Rules of Procedure, if Respondent is not accepted into the Alternative Discipline Program, this stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on the Respondent or the State Bar.
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, except for Probation Revocation proceedings. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The stipulation consists of __ 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. 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.
7. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7 and will pay timely any disciplinary costs imposed in this proceeding.
Additional aggravating circumstances: .
Additional mitigating circumstances: See attached.
IN THE MATTER OF: Matthew Allan Bromund, State Bar No. 220152
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 05-J-03765-RAP
I. JURISDICTION
1. Respondent, Matthew A. Bromund, bar no. 220152, was admitted to the practice of law California on June 10, 2002, and since that time has been a member of the State Bar of California. The State Bar Court of California has jurisdiction over this matter.
II. STATEMENT OF ACTS OR OMISSIONS ACKNOWLEDGED BY RESPONDENT AS CAUSE OR CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINE, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Facts
2. On August 8, 2005, the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the North Carolina State Bar issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Discipline in its case no. 05 DHC 16 ("NC Decision"). The NC Decision disbarred Respondent. That order is now final and Respondent has been disbarred in that jurisdiction.
3. In the disciplinary matter in North Carolina, Respondent was afforded a hearing where he was afforded a due process opportunity to participate, to present evidence and to cross examine witnesses.
4. The misconduct which forms the basis of this matter is described fully in the NC Decision, a true, and correct copy of which is appended hereto as an Exhibit and it is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth in this stipulation.
Conclusions of Law
Respondent’s culpability as determined in the disciplinary proceeding by the North Carolina State Bar, as described in the NC Decision, warrants the imposition of discipline in the State of California under the laws or rules in effect in California at the time the misconduct was committed. To wit, Respondent’s misconduct constitutes at minimum four violations of Business and Professions Code section 6106 (moral turpitude).
The proceedings in the North Carolina State Bar disciplinary hearing, as described in the NC Decision, provided Respondent with fundamental constitutional protections.
The matters herein and as described in the NC Decision fall within the terms of Business and Professions Code, section 6049.1, due to the professional misconduct in another jurisdiction.
III. ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Good Character: Respondent has provided six letters of reference attesting to his good character from a variety of references, both professional and personal.
Additional Restitution: Respondent attests that he had earned approximately $5000.00 for the last month he worked for Mr. Capote and that he waived payment of it and assumed it would more than make up for the remaining restitution owed. Respondent made the remaining restitution of $500.00 to Mr. Capote on the day of trial. Although not entitled to full mitigation under State Bar law because it was made on the day of trial, the parties stipulate that some mitigation should be given for making the remainder of restitution owed.
IV. RULE 133 NOTICE OF PENDING MATTERS
The notice referred to on page 2 was provided in writing dated April 25, 2006.
V. EXHIBIT - THE NC DECISION
A true and correct copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Discipline in case no. 05 DHC 16 (North Carolina State Bar Hearing Commission, Wake County) (referred to herein as the "NC Decision"), filed August 8, 2005, immediately follows as an exhibit.
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR (PLAINTIFF)
V.
MATTHEW A. BROMUND, (Attorney – Defendant)
This matter came on to be heard on June 30, 2005 before a hearing committee of the Disciplinary Hearing Commission composed of Carlyn G. Poole, Chair; M. Ann Reed and-Johnny A. Freeman; with A. Root Edmonson representing the North Carolina State Bar and Matthew A. Bromund appearing pro se. Based upon the admission in the Answer, the stipulations of fact in the Pre-Hearing Order and the evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing committee finds that the following facts have been established by clear, cogent and convincing evidence:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The plaintiff, the North Carolina State Bar, is a body duly organized under the laws of North Carolina and is the proper party to bring this proceeding under the authority granted it in Chapter 84 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, and the Rules and Regulations of the North Carolina State Bar promulgated thereunder.
2. The defendant, Matthew A. Bromund ("Bromund"), was admitted to the North Carolina State Bar on August 21, 1999 and is, and was at all times referred to herein, an Attorney at Law licensed to practice in North Carolina, subject to the rules, regulations, and Rules of Professional Conduct of the North Carolina State Bar and the laws of the State of North Carolina.
3. During the times relevant to this complaint, Bromund actively engaged in the private practice of law in the State of North Carolina and was employed in a law office in the city of Greensboro, Guilford County, North Carolina.
4. In March 2004, Bromund accepted employment as a salaried associate in the law
office of Nestor Capote ("Capote").
5. Pursuant to his employment arrangement with Capote, all fees that Bromund received from clients were the property of Capote and should have been deposited into one of Capote’s law office accounts.
6. On or about June 17, 2002, Gary D. Thomas ("Thomas") retained Bromund to represent him in a matter.
7. Thomas made the check for his $200 fee payable to Bromund rather than to Capote’s law office.
8. Thomas paid Bromund his $200 fee by check number 1121 dated June 17, 2004 made payable to Bromund.
9. On or before July 14, 2004, Bromund deposited the Thomas fee check number 1121 into his personal account at USAA Federal Savings Bank, account number 314074269.
10. Bromund appropriated the $200 Thomas fee that was the property of Capote to his own use in violation of N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-90.
11. When confronted by Capote about the Thomas fee matter on July 30, 2004, Bromund initially misrepresented to Capote that the Thomas check was a payment to his wife and that Thomas had mistakenly made the check payable to him.
12. That same day, Bromund admitted he took the Thomas fee and paid it back to Capote.
13. On or about June 15, 2004, Jorge Luis Jimenez ("Jimenez") retained Bromund to represent him in a domestic matter in High Point in Guilford County District Court.
14. Jimenez paid Bromund $350 in cash as the attorney fee for the representation.
15. Bromund used a Capote law office receipt book to prepare receipt number 1051 for Jimenez in the amount of $350. Bromund gave Jimenez the white copy of receipt number 1051.
16. Bromund destroyed the yellow copy of receipt number 1051 that was supposed to go in the Jimenez file and the pink copy of receipt number 1051 that was supposed to go to the law office bookkeeper.
17. Bromund then created a new receipt for the Jimenez fee, being receipt number 1052, in the amount of $150. Bromund placed the yellow copy of this receipt in the Jimenez file and gave the pink copy Of this receipt to the law office bookkeeper.
18. Bromund created receipt 1052 to conceal the true amount of the fee paid by Jimenez from Capote and his law office personnel.
19. Bromund appropriated $200 of the Jimenez fee that was the property of Capote to his own use in violation of N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-90.
20. On or about June 16, 2004, Francisco Cabrera ("Cabrera") retained Bromund to represent him in a domestic matter.
21. When he retained Bromund, Cabrera paid Bromund $300 in cash as the attorney fee for the representation.
22. Bromund used a Capote law office receipt book to prepare receipt number 1100, the last receipt in the book, for Cabrera in the amount of $300. Bromund gave Jimenez the white copy of receipt number 1100.
23. Bromund destroyed the yellow copy of receipt number 1100 that was supposed to go in the Cabrera file and the pink copy of receipt number 1100 that was supposed to go to the law office bookkeeper.
24. Bromund appropriated the $300 Cabrera fee that was the property of Capote to his own use in violation of N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-90.
BASED UPON the foregoing Findings of Fact, the hearing committee makes the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. All parties were properly before the hearing committee of the Disciplinary Heating Commission and the hearing committee had jurisdiction over Bromund and the subject matter.
2. Bromund’s conduct, as set out above, constitutes grounds for discipline pursuant to N.C. Gen. Star. § 84-28(a) & (b)(2) in that Bromund violated the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct as follows:
(a) by appropriating the all or part of the fees paid by Thomas, Jimenez and Cabrera to his own use instead of remitting the fees to Capote, Bromund committed a criminal acts that reflect adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in violation of Revised Rule 8.4(b); and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Revised Rule 8.4(c);
(b) by misrepresenting to Capote that the Thomas check was a payment to his wife that was mistakenly written to him, Bromund engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Revised Rule 8.4(c);
(c) by creating the fictitious receipt number 1052 to conceal the true amount of the fee paid by Jimenez from Capote and his law office personnel, Bromund engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Revised Rule 8.4(c);
(d) by destroying the office copies of the Cabrera receipts to conceal the receipt of the fee, Bromund engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Revised Rule 8.4(c).
BASED UPON the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence presented at the heating and the arguments of counsel, the hearing committee hereby makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING DISCIPLINE
1. At the hearing, Bromund apologized to Capote, the State Bar, and to the heating committee. Through these apologies, Bromund expressed remorse for his misconduct.
2. On July 30, 2004, the day that Capote confronted Bromund with his discovery of the Thomas fee, Bromund went home, got $200 in cash; and returned it to Capote.
3. Bromund didn’t tender anything further to Capote at that time because Bromund assumed that, by Capote not having to pay him any bonus for the last-month of his employment, Bromund had made restitution for the remaining fees owed. However, Bromund’s assumption didn’t consider the other economic and professional losses his conduct caused Capote, including the refunds Capote had to make to Bromund’s clients because Capote couldn’t handle the caseload caused by Bromund’s sudden departure.
4. Bromund’s assumption that he didn’t have to make further restitution to Capote shows that Bromund failed to fully appreciate the seriousness of his misconduct.
5. At the hearing, Bromund tendered a check to Capote for $500 representing the amount of the Jimenez and Cabrera fees that he had taken from Capote,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING DISCIPLINE
1. Bromund’s misconduct is aggravated by the following factors:
(a) dishonest or selfish motive;
(b) a pattern of misconduct; and
(c) multiple offenses.
2. Bromund’s misconduct is mitigated by the following factors:
(a) absence of a prior disciplinary record;
(b) a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings;
(c) expressions of remorse through his apologies to Capote and others; and
(d) an attempt to make restitution, although his attempt didn’t fully reimburse Capote for the economic and professional damage caused.
3. The aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors.
4. An order calling for any discipline short of disbarment would not sufficiently protect the public for the following reasons:
(a) Theft is one of the most serious offenses that an attorney can commit, whether the theft is from a client or from a law firm. Such an offense demonstrates that the offending attorney is not trustworthy. Clients are entitled to have trustworthy attorneys. When an attorney violates that trust, it harms the public. No discipline short of disbarment can protect the public from an untrustworthy member of the legal profession.
(b) In addition to the public harm, an untrustworthy attorney harms, the legal profession and the administration of justice. No discipline short of disbarment can maintain the reputation of the legal profession and instill the public’s trust in the administration of justice.
(c) Entry ,of an order imposing discipline short of disbarment would fail to acknowledge the seriousness of the offenses that Bromund committed and would send the wrong message to attorneys and the public regarding the conduct expected of members of the Bar in this State.
(d) The protection of the public, the legal profession and the administration of justice requires that Bromund not be permitted to resume the practice of law until he demonstrates that he has reformed, and that permitting him to practice law will not be detrimental to the public or the integrity and standing of the legal profession or the administration of justice. Disbarred attorneys must show reformation, among other things, before they resume the practice of law, whereas no such showing of reformation is required of an attorney whose license is merely suspended for a term certain.
BASED UPON the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Discipline and the arguments of counsel, the hearing committee hereby enters the following:
ORDER OF DISCIPLINE
1. The Defendant, Matthew A. Bromund, is hereby DISBARRED.
2. Bromund shall surrender his license and membership card to the Secretary within 30 days of the effective date of this order.
3. Bromund shall comply with the requirements of 27 NCAC 1B, § .0124.
4. The costs of this proceeding are taxed to Bromund and shall be paid as assessed by the Secretary.
Signed with the Chair with the consent of the other members of the hearing committee this the 8 day of August 2005.
Signed By:
Carlyn G. Poole, Chair
Hearing Committee
The foregoing 6 pages are true and accurate copies of the official records of the N.C. State Bar
Signed by:
L. Thomas Lunsford II
Secretary, N.C. State Bar
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-J-03765-RAP
In the Matter of: Matthew Allan Bromund, State Bar No.: 220152
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.
Respondent enters into this stipulation as a condition of his/her participation in the Program. Respondent understands that he/she must abide by all terms and conditions of Respondent’s Program Contract,
If the Respondent in not accepted into the Program or does not sign the Program contract, this Stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on Respondent or the State Bar.
If the Respondent is accepted into the Program, upon Respondent’s successful completion of or termination from the Program, this Stipulation will be filed and the specified level of discipline for successful completion of or termination from the Program as set forth in the State Bar Court’s Statement Re: Discipline shall be imposed or recommended to the Supreme Court.
Signed by:
Respondent: Matthew A. Bromund
Date: April 30, 2006
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Brooke A. Schafer
Date: May 2, 2006
Case Number(s): 05-J-03765-RAP
In the Matter of: Matthew Allan Bromund, State Bar No.: 220152
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 conclusions of law is APPROVED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below.
<<not>> checked. All 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; or 3) Respondent is not accepted for participation in the Program or does not sign the Program Contract the file date. (See rule 135(b) and 802(b), Rules of Procedure.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: George Scott
Date: October 17, 2006
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); 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 October 17, 2006, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
CONFIDENTIAL STATEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSITION AND ORDERS; STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; CONTRACT AND WAIVER FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE BAR COURT’S ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE PROGRAM
checked. By personal delivering such documents to the following individuals at 1149 S. Hill street, 5th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90015:
BROOKE SCHAFER, ESQ
MATTHEW ALLAN BROMUND
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on October 17, 2006.
Signed by:
Angela Owens-Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court