Case Number(s): 05-0-02605, 05-0-00458, 06-0-10082, 06-0-13487
In the Matter of: John Wongoo Rhee, Bar # 114109, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Melanie Lawrence, Bar # 230102
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 June 13, 1984.
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 16 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 284, Rules of Procedure.
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2 billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court Order. (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.
Case Number(s): 05-O-02605, 05-O-00458, 06-O-10082, 06-0-13487
In the Matter of: John Wongoo Rhee
a. Restitution
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund (“CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
1. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than .
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
1. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
<<not>> checked. If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
checked.
1. If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated as a “Trust Account” or “Clients’ Funds Account”;
b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:
i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.
c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
2. If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate described above.
3.
The requirements
of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of
Professional Conduct.
checked. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
Case Number(s): 05-O-02605, 05-O-00458, 06-O-10082, 06-0-13487
In the Matter of: John Wongoo Rhee A Member of the State Bar
<<not>> checked. a. Within days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
checked. b. Within days/6 months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than 6 hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
<<not>> checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
IN THE MATTER OF: JOHN WONGOO RHEE
CASE NUMBER(S): 05-O-02605, 05-O-00458, 06-O-10082, 06-0-13487
A. FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
Respondent admits that the following facts are tree and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY:
The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on July 12, 2006, and the facts and/or conclusions of law contained in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges, The parties further waive the right to the filing of a Notice of Disciplinary Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
CASE NO. 05-0-02605
Facts:
1. From December 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005, respondent maintained client trust account no. 16643-06946 at Bank of America.
2. Between December 1, 2004 and December 31, 2004, respondent did not promptly remove funds that he had earned as fees from the Bank of America trust account as soon as his interest in the funds became fixed, and instead left his fees in the account for payment of personal expenses as needed.
3. Between December 1, 2004 and December 31, 2004, respondent issued eleven separate checks totaling $1,467.32, drawn upon the Bank of America trust account to pay his personal expenses.
4. On February 18, 2005, Bank of America paid a check respondent had issued from the Bank of America trust account, against insufficient funds. The check was made payable to Alejandro Platon for $846.55 when the trust account balance was $661.10.
5. Respondent issued the check to Alejandro Platon when he knew or should have known that there were insufficient funds in the Bank of America trust account to pay the check.
6. On May 10, 2005, a State Bar investigator wrote to respondent as a result of a referral from Bank of America regarding activity in respondent’s client trust account no. 16643-06946, requesting that respondent explain in writing the trust account activity. Respondent did not respond.
7. On June 2, 2005, the State Bar opened an investigation as a result of the referral from Bank of America regarding activity in respondent’s client trust account.
8. On June 16, 2005, a State Bar investigator wrote to respondent requesting that respondent respond in writing to specified allegations of misconduct being investigated regarding respondent’s Bank of America trust account.
9. On June 30, 2005, respondent requested in writing an extension until July 14, 2005 to reply to the June 16, 2005 letter. On July 13, 2005, respondent’s request was granted in writing by the investigator, with the response due July 15, 2005. Respondent did not respond to the specified allegations as requested in the investigator’s June 16, 2005, letter or participate in the investigation in any way.
Legal Conclusion:
By commingling his earned fees in the Bank of America trust account and using the trust account to pay personal expenses, respondent commingled funds belonging to respondent in a client trust account in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A): By issuing the check to Alejandro Platon drawn upon the Bank of America trust account when respondent knew or should have known there were insufficient funds on deposit to pay the check, respondent failed to maintain the balance of funds received for the benefit of a client in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A). By not providing a written response to the allegations of misconduct being investigated regarding respondent’s Bank of America trust account or otherwise cooperating in the investigation, respondent failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 60680(i).
CASE NO. 05-O-00458
Facts:
10. On July 22, 2003 respondent was employed by Richard Soo Hyun Hwang ("Hwang’), to represent him in the U.S. District Court, Southern District in a criminal matter entitled U.S.A. v Hwang, case no. 03CR1991 - MJL.
11. Hwang’s native language is Korean and he does not speak or understand English with proficiency.
12. Respondent represented Hwang from July 22, 2003 until on or about October 23, 2003, and represented Hwang at a jury trial in the criminal matter that was held on September 3, 2003 and September 4, 2003.
13. During the preliminary stage of Hwang’s case and prior to Hwang’s trial, the U.S. attorney first conveyed to respondent an offer of a plea agreement in the criminal case of 18 months in prison, the standard offer upon a plea of guilty made in the course of like criminal proceedings in the United States District Court, Southern District. Thereafter, the U.S. attorney offered to resolve the case by plea with a 24-month prison term.
14. Respondent failed to advise Hwang, prior to trial, of the court’s sentencing guidelines that required the imposition of a mandatory sentence of three years in prison if Hwang’s case were taken to trial and resulted in a guilty verdict, so that Hwang could decide whether or not he wished to accept a plea deal.
15. During the course of his representation of Hwang, Respondent failed to file any pretrial or trial motions to suppress evidence or statements in Hwang’s case, despite the fact that Hwang’s lack of English proficiency may have provided a legal basis for suppressing evidence.
16. On September 4, 2003, Hwang was convicted of all counts and was remanded to custody.
17. On June 29, 2004, a newly appointed defense attorney filed a motion for a new trial on Hwang’s behalf.
18. On August 13, 2004, the Honorable M. James Lorenz, of the United States District Court of the Southern District of California, who presided over Hwang’s criminal trial, granted the motion for a new trial, citing respondent’s lack of competent representation including, among other things, his failure to understand and to communicate the sentencing guidelines to Hwang so that he could consider a plea agreement and his failure to file motions to suppress for which there was a legal basis to do so.
Legal Conclusions:
By failing to understand and to communicate to Hwang, the sentencing guidelines required upon a guilty verdict, and failing to file motions to suppress evidence when there was a legal basis to do, respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
CASE NO. 06-0-10082
Facts:
19. From December 1, 2004 to about November 17, 2005, respondent maintained client trust account no. 16643- 06946 at Bank of America.
20. On November 17, 2005, Bank of America paid a check respondent issued from the Bank of America trust account against insufficient funds. The check was made payable to Aria Marroquin for $481.20 when the balance was $421.01.
21. Respondent issued the check to Ana Marroquin when he knew or should have known that there were insufficient funds in the Bank of America trust account to pay the check.
Legal Conclusions:
By issuing the check to Ana Marroquin drawn upon the Bank of America trust account when respondent knew or should have known there were insufficient funds on deposit to pay the check, respondent failed to maintain the balance of funds received for the benefit of a client in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
CASE NO. 06-0-13487 (UNFILED)
Respondent waives the right to formal filing of a Notice of Disciplinary Charges and the opportunity to respond and present a defense.
Facts:
22. From December 1, 2004 to about May 17, 2006, respondent maintained client trust account no. 16643-06946 at Bank of America.
23. On May 17, 2006, Bank of America failed to honor check number 1430 respondent had issued to Martha Medina in the amount of $3,333.33, because there were insufficient funds in the trust account.
24. Respondent issued the check to Martha Medina when he knew or should have known that there were insufficient funds in the Bank of America trust account to pay the check.
Legal Conclusions:
By issuing the check to Martha Medina drawn upon the Bank of America trust account when respondent knew or should have known there were insufficient funds on deposit to pay the check, respondent failed to maintain the balance of funds received for the benefit of a client in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
B. SUPPORTING AUTHORITIES
Standards:
Standard 1.7(a) provides that if a member has one prior record of discipline, the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding, unless the prior discipline was so remote in time or the offense for which it was imposed was so minimal in severity that imposing greater discipline would be manifestly unjust.
Standard 1.6(a) states that where two or more acts of professional misconduct are charged and different sanctions are prescribed by the standards for the acts, the sanction imposed shall be the more or most severe of the different applicable sanctions.
Standard 2.2(b) provides that discipline for commingling of entrusted funds or the commission of any other violation of rule 4-100 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, none of which offenses result in wilful misappropriation shall result in at least a three month actual suspension, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
Standard 2.6 provides for 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, for violations of Business and Professions Code, section 6068.
Standard 2.4(b) provides that the discipline for willfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of wilfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
Case Law:
In Matter of Doran (1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 871, respondent was suspended for eighteen months and placed on probation for three years on condition that he be actually suspended for six months and until he satisfactorily completed certain educational courses for multiple violations of 4-100 and B&PC 6106, for writing NSF checks and using his trust account for personal expenses. Doran was also culpable for recklessly violating rule 3-110. In aggravation, the court found an uncharged rule 3-700(A)(2) violation, that Doran’s CTA violations amounted to a pattern of misconduct, and that Doran was culpable of multiple acts of misconduct.
In Matter of Koehler, IV(1991) Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 615, respondent was found culpable of violating (former) rule 8-101 (A) by repeatedly misusing his trust account as a personal account in that he issued checks from the account for business (non-trust) expenses, placed his personal funds into the account, and paid a secretary’s salary from the account; that he violated (former) rule 8-101(B)(4) in two matters by failing to return a client’s unused cost advance and; failed to perform services competently in violation of(former) rule 6-101(A)(2) in one matter. For his misconduct Koehler received three years stayed suspension mad six months actual suspension. In aggravation, respondent had one prior public reproval and the court considered respondent’s own admission that he had sought to conceal funds from the Franchise Tax Board. In mitigation the court considered that with regard to paying taxes, respondent acted in good faith, respondent had cooperated with the State Bar and had performed a variety of pro bono services worthy of recognition.
C. AGGRAVATION / MITIGATION
Respondent has a prior record of discipline. (Standard 1.2(b)(i)).
The current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing (Standard 1.2(b)(ii)). Respondent’s misconduct related to Hwang, significantly harmed Hwang in that he was found guilty of all of the criminal comets against him and faced a more significant sentence than if he had agreed to a plea. The misconduct also harmed the public and administration of justice in that Hwang’s conviction was set aside and he was granted a new trial. (Standard 1.2(b)(iv)).
D. RESTRICTIONS WHILE ON ACTUAL SUSPENSION
During the period of actual suspension, respondent shall not:
Render legal consultation or advice to a client;
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;
Appear as a representative of a client at a deposition or other discovery matter;
Negotiate or transact any matter for or on behalf of a client with third parties;
Receive, disburse, or otherwise handle a client’s funds; or
Engage in activities which constitute the practice of law
Respondent shall declare under penalty of perjury that he or she has complied with this provision in any quarterly report required to be filed with the probation unit, pertaining to periods in which the respondent was actually suspended from the practice of law.
E. COST ESTIMATE
The cost assessment for the use of State Bar resources in the instant case is estimated at $4,153.00.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-0-02605, 05-0-00458, 06-0-10082, 06-0-13487
In the Matter of: John Wongoo Rhee
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: John Wongoo Rhee
Date: 12/26/06
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Melanie J. Lawrence
Date: 12/26/06
Case Number(s): 05-0-02605, 05-0-00458, 06-0-10082, 06-0-13487
In the Matter of: John Wongoo Rhee
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: 01-04-07
[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 January 5, 2007, 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:
JOHN WONGOO RHEE
LAW OFC JONATHAN W RHEE
801 S FLOWER ST 5TH FL
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017-4628
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Melanie Lawrence, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 5, 2007.
Signed by:
Milagro del R. Salmeron
Case Administrator
State Bar Court