Case Number(s): 06-C-12759
In the Matter of: Richard Allen Espinoza, Bar # 74367, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent)
Counsel For The State Bar: Miho Murai, Bar # 235178
Counsel for Respondent: Gabriel Castellanos, Bar # 227702
Submitted to: Assigned Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
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 28, 1977.
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):
<<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: for the three (3) 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.
N/A
Although Respondent acknowledges the seriousness of his misconduct, his actions were influenced by his desire to protect his son. At the time of the misconduct giving rise to his conviction, Respondent suffered and still suffers from numerous health conditions, including coronary artery disease, severe atherosclerotic disease, severe atherosclerotic heart disease, transient ischemic attacks, cerebral vascular disease at the basal artery with severe stenosis/blockages, cerebral vascular disease of the middle cerebral artery with severe stenosis/blockages, syncopal episodes, diabetes, sleep apnea syndrome, dyslipidemia, sensorineural hearing loss, diplopia, and vertigo.
IN THE MATTER OF: RICHARD ALLEN ESPINOZA
CASE NUMBER: 06-C-12759
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING
This is a proceeding pursuant to section 6101 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
On January 29, 2007, Respondent Richard Allen Espinoza ("Respondent") was convicted of violating Penal Code section 496(a), receiving stolen property, a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, after pleading nolo contendere to the count. Respondent was placed on summary probation for a period of three (3) years with probationary conditions, including paying restitution to the victim. Two felony charges of perjury by declaration were dismissed.
On or about February 16, 2007, the State Bar received a letter from Respondent, self-reporting that he entered a no-contest plea, which resulted in a misdemeanor conviction on or about January 29, 2007.
On June 22, 2007, the Review Department of the State Bar Court ("Review Department") issued an order pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6102 that, "respondent be suspended from the practice of law, effective July 25, 2007, pending final disposition of this proceeding." He was also ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
On August 31, 2007, the Review Department issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department for a hearing and a decision recommending the discipline to be imposed.
A Notice of Hearing on Conviction was filed by the State Bar Court on September 12, 2007. On or about October 22, 2007, Respondent’s counsel, Gabriel Castellanos, on behalf of Respondent, filed a Response.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Richard Allen Espinoza admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
FACTS
1. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on June 28, 1977, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.
2. From on or between September 9, 2005 through January 26, 2006, Respondent unlawfully received and held an automobile at his home, which had been stolen and obtained by extortion by his son.
3. According to Respondent, his son told him that he had obtained the car from its owner (the mother of a former girlfriend) for $500.00. Respondent believed his son, and agreed to have the car stored at his house since the car was not street legal because of body damage to its front hood and fenders.
4. Thereafter, Respondent discovered that his son had obtained the car from its owner upon false promises that he would have the car repaired for $500.00. Respondent also discovered that his son had obtained the owner’s signature on the "pink slip" upon false promises that he would pay the registration fees and register the car in the name of the owner’s daughter.
5. On January 29, 2007, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the misdemeanor count of receiving stolen property. Thereafter, Respondent was convicted of violating Penal Code section 496(a), a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, and was placed on summary probation for a period of three (3) years with probationary conditions, including paying restitution to the victim. Two felony charges of perjury by declaration were dismissed.
6. On or about February 16, 2007, Respondent self-reported to the State Bar that he had entered a no-contest plea to receiving stolen property and was convicted of a misdemeanor. In his letter, Respondent stated that he has accepted responsibility for his actions and has chosen to resolve this matter due to his health and family turmoil.
7. According to Respondent’s doctor, although Respondent is presently stable and stationary, Respondent suffers from numerous health conditions, including coronary artery disease, severe atherosclerotic disease, severe atherosclerotic heart disease, transient ischemic attacks, cerebral vascular disease at the basal artery with severe stenosis/blockages, cerebral vascular disease of the middle cerebral artery with severe stenosis/blockages, syncopal episodes, diabetes, sleep apnea syndrome, dyslipidemia, sensorineural hearing loss, diplopia, and vertigo.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Having pled nolo contendere to violating Penal Code section 496(a), receiving stolen property, a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, Respondent has been convicted of misconduct involving moral turpitude and warranting discipline. Respondent acknowledges that by the conduct described above, he failed to support the laws of California in willful violation of Business and Professions Code § 6068(a).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to on page one, paragraph A(7), was March 10, 2008.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
Pursuant to Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings and imposing sanctions for professional misconduct are "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession."
Here, the requested discipline complies with Standard 1.3.
Standard 3.2 provides that:
Final conviction of a member of a crime which involves moral turpitude, either inherently or in the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime’s commission shall result in disbarment. Only if the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate, shall disbarment not be imposed. In those latter cases, the discipline imposed shall not be less than a two-year actual suspension, prospective to any interim suspension imposed, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
By definition, every criminal conviction involves a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a). Pursuant to Standard 2.6, the culpability of a member of a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068 (including section 6068(a)) "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."
The Supreme Court gives the Standards "great weight," and will reject a recommendation consistent with the Standards only where the Court entertains "grave doubts" as to its propriety. In re Naney (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 186, 190; see also In re Silverton (2005) 3 Cal. 4th 81, 91, 92. Further, although the Standards are not mandatory, it is well established that the Standards may be deviated from only when there is a compelling, well-defined reason to do so. See Aronin v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 276, 291; see also Bates v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 1056, 1060, fn. 2.
The State Bar recognizes that the Standards should not be applied in a talismanic fashion. Gary v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal. 3d 820, 828. However, Respondent bears the burden to demonstrate that the State Bar should deviate from the Standards, which has been done in this particular case.
The stipulated discipline of two years stayed suspension and three years probation with conditions, including an eighteen-month (18) period of actual suspension is slightly less than what the Standards dictate (a two-year actual suspension with the most compelling mitigating circumstances). However, given the particular facts of this case, the compelling mitigating circumstances involved, and the additional safeguard of Respondent’s compliance with standard 1.4(c)(ii), a slight deviation from the standards is appropriate and the stipulated discipline would adequately protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession from further misconduct from this Respondent.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Respondent has displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the State Bar throughout the disciplinary investigation and proceedings, and has expressed full awareness of his ethical duties and complete willingness to fulfill them.
At the time of the misconduct giving rise to his conviction, Respondent suffered and still suffers from numerous health conditions, including coronary artery disease, severe atherosclerotic disease, severe atherosclerotic heart disease, transient ischemic attacks, cerebral vascular disease at the basal artery with severe stenosis/blockages, cerebral vascular disease of the middle cerebral artery with severe stenosis/blockages, syncopal episodes, diabetes, sleep apnea syndrome, dyslipidemia, sensorineural hearing loss, diplopia, and vertigo.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that, as of March 10, 2008, the costs in this matter are $1,636.00. Costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following two (2) billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court Order. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from this stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the costs of further proceedings.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 06-C-12759
In the Matter of: Richard Allen Espinoza
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: Richard Allen Espinoza
Date: 3-12-08
Respondent’s Counsel: Gabriel Castellanos
Date: 3/12/08
Deputy Trial Counsel: Miho Murai
Date: 3.13.08
Case Number(s): 06-C-12759
In the Matter of: Richard Allen Espinoza
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 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: 3-14-08
[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 March 17, 2008, 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:
GABRIEL CASTELLANOS ESQ
LAW OFFICES OF GABRIEL CASTELLANOS
2 N LAKE AVE STE 1080
PASADENA, CA 91101 - 1858
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Miho Murai, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 17, 2008.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court