Case Number(s): 05-O-03568
In the Matter of: Ronald W. Brilliant, Bar # 194694, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Manuel Jimenez, Bar # 218234
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: February 20, 2007
<<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 March 17, 1998.
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 11 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 to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: (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.
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.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: Ronald W. Brilliant
CASE NUMBER(S): 05-0-3568
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Ronald Brilliant ("Respondent") was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on March 17, 1998, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.
Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m), by failing to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client, and by failing to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services, as follows:
From October 7, 1998 to at least June 2005, Respondent maintained a client trust account at Bank of America, Account No. 16645-01834 (hereinafter "CTA"). Respondent was the sole signatory on this account.
On August 28, 2003, Edna Melancon Snyder hired Respondent to obtain a visa for Dianna Teubert, the fiance of Ms. Snyder’s son, Christopher Melancon. Ms. Teubert was a citizen of Germany. Ms. Snyder had a power of attorney from her son. Mr. Melancon was a solider serving in the U.S. Army. In August 2003, he was stationed in Iraq.
Respondent charged Ms. Snyder a flat fee of $1,200 for his services. On August 28, 2003, Ms. Snyder paid Respondent $500 from her son’s funds. On or about September 1, 2003, Ms. Snyder paid Respondent another $700 from her son’s funds, for a total of $1,200.
On or about October 15, 2003, Ms. Snyder provided Respondent with biographic information and other information to assist respondent in preparing the appropriate visa forms. Ms. Teubert, who attended the meeting with Respondent, signed some forms for Respondent to prepare. Ms. Snyder also provided Respondent with a check for $240 from her son’s funds for filing fees. Respondent, however, failed to deposit those funds into his CTA.
From February 27, 2004 through September, 2004 Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of Ms. Snyder, Ms. Teubert, or Mr. Melancon, despite their numerous attempts to communicate with Respondent. While Respondent would occasionally contact his clients to request further information, he failed to keep his clients reasonably informed of the status of their matter or respond to their inquiries about the matter. Respondent also failed to provide them with a prepared application form.
On or about February 24, 2004, Ms. Snyder wrote Respondent terminating his services. Ms. Snyder had this letter hand delivered to Respondent on February 24, 2004. Respondent received the letter.
Subsequently, Respondent contacted Ms. Snyder and requested a meeting. On or about February 27, 2004, Respondent met with Ms. Snyder. She agreed to let Respondent continue to represent them. At that meeting, they discovered that Respondent had failed to cash the previous check for filing fees for $240 and place it in his CTA. Subsequently, on or about March 1 I, 2004, Respondent deposited those funds into his CTA.
Respondent also failed to communicate with Mr. Melancon. On or about October 1, 2004, Mr. Melancon returned to his home from an out of state Army training facility and reviewed the forms sent. Subsequently, Respondent failed to communicate with Mr. Melancon or anyone else regarding this matter, despite Mr. Melancon’s or Ms. Snyder’s attempts to contact him and correct the errors in the visa application forms. Respondent failed to reasonably return Mr. Melancon’s telephone messages.
Respondent, in September of 2004, sent his client a visa petition for review, correction and signature. Subsequently, being on October 1, 2004, Respondent failed to communicate with Mr. Melancon or anyone else regarding this matter, despite Mr. Melancon’s or Ms. Snyder’s attempts to contact him to get him to correct the errors in their visa application. Respondent did not return Mr. Melancon’s telephone
messages.
Respondent failed to respond promptly to the reasonable status inquiries of Ms. Snyder, Ms. Teubert, or Mr. Melancon, despite their attempts to communicate with Respondent; by failing to respond promptly to the reasonable status inquiries of his clients; Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of his clients in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services.
Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A), by failing to deposit funds received for the benefit of a client in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import, as follows:
On October 15, 2003, Ms. Snyder provided Respondent with a check for $240 for filing fees. These funds were an advance for costs and expenses in this matter. Subsequently, Respondent, failed to deposit those funds into his CTA, as required.
From October 15, 2003 through March 11, 2004, Respondent failed to deposit those funds into his CTA. On March 11, 2004, Respondent deposited those funds into his CTA.
By failing to deposit $240 of client funds received by Respondent as advanced costs and expenses in a matter in which Respondent was representing clients, Respondent failed for almost five months to deposit funds received for the benefit of a client in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was January 29, 2007. As of that date, there are no other pending proceedings.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of January 29, 2007, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,296.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does not include State Bar Court costs which will be included in any final cost assessment. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
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.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standards
Standard 2.2(b): "Culpability of a member of commingling of entrusted funds or property with personal property or the commission of another violation of rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct, none of which offenses result in the wilful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in at least a three month actual suspension from the practice of law, irrespective of mitigating circumstances."
Standard 2.6: "Culpability of a member of a violation of [6068]...of the Business and Professions Code 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"
Case Law
The standards are entitled to great weight. [ln re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81 (citing In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205,220)]
Despite the need to examine cases on an individual basis to determine appropriate discipline, it is also a goal of disciplinary proceedings that there be consistent recommendations as to discipline, a goal that has been achieved in large measure through the application of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct. [ln the Matter of Marsh Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 96)]
The Supreme Court has instructed the State Bar Court to use the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct as guidelines in determining discipline. [In the Matter of Mapps (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 1]
A respondent with one prior discipline was suspended for three years for failure to return unearned fees, failure to communicate, and misrepresentations. [Sullivan v. State Bar (1958) 50 Cal. 2d 491]
Sodikoff v. State Bar (1975) 14 Cal.3d 422: "An act of violating professional standards of behavior is not excused merely because the client or a third person suffers no loss."
In the Matter of Hindin (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 657: Attorney’s failure to adequately communicate with a client may also constitute incompetent legal practice or abandonment of the client when the facts demonstrate that attorney’s failure to communicate resulted in the effective cessation of work on client’s cause of action, foreclosed client from choices regarding her cause of action, or indicated a withdrawal from employment.
In the Matter of Valinotti (Review Dept. 2002) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 498: Attorney’s fiduciary duty to develop and maintain adequate management and accounting procedures for proper operation of his law office is fundamental to fulfillment of multiple duties, including duties to competently perform legal services, adequately communicate with clients, protect client confidential information, and properly handle and account for client funds and other property.
In the Matter of Sampson (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119, held in part, that attorneys must put all funds received for benefit of clients in a trust account.
In the Matter of Mapps (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 1, held in part, that an attorney’s failure to deposit into his trust account settlement funds received for the benefit of a client is a direct violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct governing client trust funds.
In the Matter of K (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 335, respondent with no prior discipline was privately reproved for failing to keep the disputed portion of a legal fee in trust until resolution of the dispute.
Aggravating Circumstances.
Trust Violation
Respondent failed to deposit $240 of client funds received by Respondent as advanced costs and expenses in a matter in which Respondent was representing clients. The check had been left in his client folder. When apprized of the failure, respondent deposited the funds. Respondent, immediately subsequent to being informed of the nature of the complaint on which this case is premised, successfully attended the State Bar Client Trust Accounting School class on October 21, 2005. Recognizing that the complainant filed her complaint with the State Bar in May, 2005, and that the State Bar sent its first correspondence to the respondent on July 13, 2005, the aggravation is mitigated to some extent.
Mitigating Circumstances.
No Prior Discipline.
Standard 1.2(e)(i) states: Circumstances which shall be considered mitigating are: (i) absence of any prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.
Respondent was admitted to practice on March 17, 1998. There should be no, or minimal credit towards mitigation because the misconduct in the present case started on or around October, 2003.
No Harm (Standard 1.2(e)(iii)). There was no harm to any client, the public, or the administration of justice.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-O-03568
In the Matter of: Ronald W. Brilliant
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: Ronald W. Brilliant
Date: 2/13/07
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Manuel Jimenez
Date: Feb. 15, 2007
Case Number(s): 05-O-03568
In the Matter of: Ronald W. Brilliant
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:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AND THE REPROVAL IMPOSED.
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
1. On page 5, section E (6) the “x” in front of the box must be deleted. In short, respondent will not be assigned a probation monitor.
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: Feb. 16, 2007
[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 February 20, 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:
RONALD W BRILLIANT ESQ
1439 W TEXAS ST
FAIRFIELD, CA 94533
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Manuel Jimenez, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on February 20, 2007.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court