Case Number(s): 05-O-03823
In the Matter of: Leslie Michael Alberts, Bar # 194907, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Christine Souhrada, Bar # 228256,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: April 28, 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 May 20, 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 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 (public reproval).
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.
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.
<<not>> 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.
Case Number(s): 05-O-03823
In the Matter of: Leslie Michael Alberts, State Bar No.: 194907
a. Restitution
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: James Slatic
Principal Amount: $625.00
Interest Accrues From: September 21, 2004
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 .
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): James Slatic
Minimum Payment Amount: $250.00
Payment Frequency: Quarterly for 1st Three Qtrs.
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.
<<not>> 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.
<<not>> 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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Leslie Michael Alberts, State Bar No. 194907
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 05-O-03823
I. Facts
1. On August 30, 2004, James Slatic ("Slatic") employed Respondent to represent him in a family law matter, including modifying Slatic’s spousal and child support obligations, and appearing at an order to show cause ("OSC") on September 21, 2004. Slatic paid Respondent $625.
2. Respondent did not appear on behalf on Slatic at the OSC on September 21, 2004, or take any action to modify Slatic’s spousal support and child support obligations.
3. At no time did Respondent inform Slatic that Respondent did not appear at the OSC, or that Respondent had not taken any action to modify Slatic’s spousal support and child support obligations.
4. Between late September 2004 and December 2004, Slatic placed 10 to 12 telephone calls to Respondent’s office telephone number. Slatic was unable to speak with Respondent, but left messages for Respondent on his telephone voice message system requesting that Respondent return his calls regarding the status of the case. When Respondent failed to return Slatic’s calls Slatic left messages terminating Respondent and requesting that Respondent refund the $625 that he had paid to Respondent.
5. Respondent did not respond to any of Slatic’s telephone calls.
6. Respondent provided no services of value to Slatic and did not earn the advanced fees paid by Slatic. At no time did Respondent refund any of the $625 paid by Slatic.
7. On September 23, 2004, the State Bar sent an "MCLE Non-Compliance Notice of Enrollment on Not Entitled Status" to Respondent at his State Bar membership records address for failure to comply with MCLE requirements. The Notice was returned by the U.S. Post Office on October 15, 2004 as undeliverable.
8. On August 29, 2005, the State Bar sent a letter to Respondent, which was properly mailed but which was returned by the U.S. Post Office on or about September 20, 2005 as undeliverable.
9. On October 12, 2005, a State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel Charles Calix called Respondent at his State Bar membership records telephone number. The person who received the telephone call identified himself as Respondent’s father, Leslie George Alberts, and stated that Respondent had not resided at that address or used that telephone number in approximately ten months and that he did not know how to contact Respondent.
II. Legal Conclusions
10. By failing to appear on behalf on Slatic at the OSC on September 21, 2004, and failing to take any action to modify Slatic’s spousal support and child support obligations, Respondent failed to perform legal services with competence in violation of Rule 3-110 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
11. By failing to inform a Slatic that Respondent did not appear at the OSC and had not taken any action to modify Slatic’s spousal support and child support obligations, Respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services in violation of Section 6068(m) of the Business and Professions Code.
12. By failing to respond to the 10 to 12 messages left on Respondent’s office telephone number from September to December 2004, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in violation of Section 6068(m) of the Business and Professions Code.
13. By not refunding the $625 to Slatic, Respondent failed to refund unearned fees in violation of Rule 3-70003)(2) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
14. By failing to maintain a mailing address and telephone number at which he can be contacted, Respondent failed to comply with section 6002.1, which requires the member to maintain his current office address and telephone number with official membership records of the State Bar in violation of Business and Professions Code section 60680).
III. Supporting Authority
15. Standard 2.4(b) states "Culpability of a member of wilfully 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."
16. Standard 2.10 states "Culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in these standards or of a wilful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to 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.
17. Standard 1.6(b) states "The appropriate sanction shall be the sanction imposed unless: ... (ii) Mitigating circumstances are found to surround the particular act of misconduct found or acknowledged and the net effect of those mitigating circumstances, by themselves and in balance with any aggravating circumstances found, demonstrates that the purposes of imposing sanctions set forth in standard 1.3 will be properly fulfilled if a lesser degree of sanction is imposed. In that case, a lesser degree of sanction than the appropriate sanction shall be imposed or recommended."
IV. Dismissals
18. The parties respectfully request that the Court dismiss the following alleged violation in the interest of justice:
19. Count five, Failure to Cooperate in State Bar investigation in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(i).
V. Mitigation
20. Once Respondent was notified of the charges against him in State Bar Court, he was very cooperative in coming to a stipulation. Respondent also demonstrated genuine remorse and an interest in making amends to the client.
VI. Miscellaneous
21. Respondent is currently serving in the United States Army and is stationed in Hawaii. Respondent is scheduled to receive training at the United States National Training Center at Fort Irwin from April 19, 2006 to June 3, 2006. Respondent is then scheduled to be deployed to the Middle East for 13 months on or around August 1, 2006.
22. As respondent is not currently practicing law and will not be practicing law during his period of reproval, and as he will be overseas for most of his reproval period, the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel is not requiring that respondent comply with the following conditions under section "E. Conditions Attached to Reproval" of this stipulation: (4), (6), (8), and (10).
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-O-03823
In the Matter of: Leslie Michael Alberts
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: Leslie M. Alberts
Date: April 12, 2006
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Christine Souhrada
Date: April 19, 2006
Case Number(s): 05-O-03823
In the Matter of: Leslie Michael Alberts
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.
<<not>> 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: Richard A. Platel
Date: April 27, 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 Los Angeles, on April 28, 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 Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
LESLIE M ALBERTS
HHC 3RD IBCT #132
SCHOFIELD BARRACKS HI 96857
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
CHRISTINE SOUHRADA, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on April 28, 2006.
Signed by:
Angela Owens-Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court