Case Number(s): 05-O-02771
In the Matter of: Jennifer Liu, Bar # 164618, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Susan I. Kagan, Bar # 214209,
Counsel for Respondent: Michael E. Wine, Bar # 58657,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
Filed: June 20, 2006.
<<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 15, 1993.
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 8 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. Costs added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<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 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) 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.
<<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.
9. The parties understand that:
<<not>> checked. (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Facts
1. In or about September 2001, respondent was director of legal and business affairs for a large corporation.
2. Effective September 1, 2001, respondent was suspended for failure to pay State Bar membership dues.
3. Effective September 1,2001, respondent was placed on not entitled status for failure to comply with minimum continuing legal education (=MCLE") requirements.
4. On or about September 6, 2001, respondent’s supervisor informed her that he had become aware that she was not entitled to practice law according to the State Bar website.
5. On or about September 6, 2001, respondent called and sent a letter to the Office of Certification of the State Bar of California enclosing a MCLE compliance card, certificates from MCLE classes attended and a check in the amount of $200.00. Respondent stated in the letter as follows: “From our discussions today, I understand this is the only payment I need to make in order to restore me to active status in the State Bar’s records." She also requested that she be contacted if further information was needed to restore her status to active. After sending the letter, respondent did not take any further steps to determine whether she had been restored to active status.
6. In fact, respondent did not provide all of the documents necessary to comply with her MCLE requirements. Although Membership Services Operations sent notices to respondent’s official membership address advising that she was delinquent in the payment of her membership dues, respondent was not aware of the delinquency and failed to take steps to pay her membership dues. Consequently, she remained on not entitled status.
7. On or about September 20, 2001, the Office of Certification sent respondent a "MCLE Non-Compliance Notice of Enrollment on Not Entitled Status" that stated: "YOU HAVE BEEN ENROLLED ON NOT ENTITLED STATUS EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2001." Respondent received the letter. Because she believed her September 6, 2001 conversation with the Office of Certification resolved all issues, she did not take any steps to determine whether she had been restored to active status.
8. On or about October 18 and 26, 2001, an employee from the Office of Certification called respondent and left messages concerning her MCLE compliance. Although respondent returned a call, she did not take any other affirmative steps to determine whether she had been restored to active status.
9. On or about December 28, 2001, the Membership Services Operations office of the State Bar sent respondent a letter outlining the procedures necessary to reinstate her membership with the State Bar of California. Respondent was not aware of this letter until the beginning of 2002 and did not take any immediate steps to pay her dues or to determine whether she had been restored to active status.
10. Respondent was restored to active status effective February 21, 2002.
11. Between September 6, 200! and February 21, 2002, respondent practiced law as director of legal and business affairs for the corporation and held herself out as entitled to practice law.
Conclusions of Law
By practicing law when she was not entitled to do so, respondent violated section 6125 of the Business and Professions Code and failed to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 6068(a).
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 December 15, 2005, 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.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to on page two. paragraph A (7) was May 3, 2006.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL
Because respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
Standard 2.6(d) suggests disbarment or suspension for a violation of Business and Professions Code sections 6125 and 6126. Due to respondent’s compelling mitigation, a public reproval is the appropriate level of discipline.
FACTS SUPPORTING AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
None.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Standard 1.2(e)(i). Respondent has been in practice since 1993. She has no prior record of discipline.
Standard 1.2(e)(iii). Respondent’s client was not harmed by her misconduct.
Standard 1.2(e)(iv). Respondent represents that she suffered extreme difficulties in her personal life which expert testimony would establish were directly responsible for the misconduct and have since been resolved.
Standard 1.2(e)(v). Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation to the State Bar during the disciplinary investigation and proceedings.
Standard 1.2(e)(vii). Respondent displayed remorse for her misconduct.
Standard 1.2(e)(viii). Since February, 2002. respondent has paid all bar dues timely and has been in compliance with her MCLE obligations.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-O-02771
In the Matter of: Jennifer Liu
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: Jennifer Liu
Date: May 27, 2006
Respondent’s Counsel: Michael E. Wine
Date: May 26, 2006
Deputy Trial Counsel: Susan I. Kagan
Date: May 29, 2006
Case Number(s): 05-O-02771
In the Matter of: Jennifer Liu
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
checked. All court 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. (See rule 135(b), Rules of Procedure.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Pat McElroy
Date: June 19, 2006
[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 San Francisco, on June 20, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
MICHAEL E. WINE
301 N LAKE STE 800
PASADENA, CA 91101-5113
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
SUSAN KAGAN, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on June 20, 2006.
Signed by:
Laine Silber
Case Administrator
State Bar Court