Case Number(s): 06-C-13418-RAP
In the Matter of: Pamela Jean Elliott, Bar # 163874, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Fumiko D. Kimura, Bar # 208763
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: assigned judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: January 23, 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 23, 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 12 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 added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
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.
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.
Respondent was admitted to the State Bar of California on March 23, 1993 and has no prior record of Discipline.
IN THE MATTER OF: PAMELA JEAN ELLIOTT
CASE NUMBER: 06-C-13418-RAP
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 951 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On July 7, 2006, Respondent was convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 23152 (b), driving while having a 0.08% or higher blood alcohol, a misdemeanor.
3. On August 28, 2006, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issue:
(1) whether the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense involve moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline
4. On September 28, 2006, the Review Department augmented its August 28, 2006 order to include a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the Hearing Department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense of which Respondent was convicted involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she 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 March 23, 1993, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.
2. In November 2005, Respondent was in South Lake Tahoe to take care of her son who was ill. On November 11, 2005, at approximately 6:45 p.m., Respondent was driving on Lake Tahoe Boulevard when she was stopped by the South Lake Tahoe Police Department. Respondent was given a field sobriety test and a breath test. The breath test returned the results of 0.12% and 0.13%. Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and was taken into custody.
3. On July 7, 2006, Respondent was convicted of violating one count of Vehicle Code section 23152 (b), driving while having a 0.08% or higher blood alcohol, a misdemeanor. Respondent was sentenced to a summary probation for a period of 48 months with various terms and conditions including an 18-month alcohol program as she had a prior conviction in July 2001. Respondent’s first conviction resulted from her arrest in October 2000 for driving under the influence of alcohol, and Respondent was convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 23103, reckless driving, a misdemeanor, in the Riverside County. In September 2006, Respondent enrolled in the Alternate Action Programs.
Conclusions of Law
Respondent was convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 23152 (b), driving while having a 0.08% or higher blood alcohol, a misdemeanor, and the facts and circumstances surrounding her conviction involved other misconduct warranting discipline. Respondent acknowledges that by the conduct described above, she failed to support the laws of the State of California in wilful violation of the Business and Professions Code section 6068 (a).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A (7), was January 12, 2007.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, Title IV of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California ("Standard")
Standard 1.3 states that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar of California and of sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgment of a member’s 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. Rehabilitation of a member is a permissible object of a sanction imposed upon the member but only if the imposition of rehabilitative sanctions is consistent with the above-stated primary purposes of sanctions for professional misconduct.
Standard 1.6 states that the appropriate sanction for the misconduct found must be balanced with any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, with due regard for the purposes of imposing discipline.
Standard 3.4 states that final conviction of a member of a crime which does not involve moral turpitude inherently or in the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime’s commission but which does involve other misconduct warranting discipline shall result in a sanction as appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct found to have been committed by the member.
Case Law
The purpose of State Bar disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the attorney, but to protect the public, to preserve public confidence in the profession and to maintain the highest possible professional standards for attorneys. (Chadwich v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 103, 111; See also, Cooper v. State Bar (1987)43 Cal.3d 1016, 1025.)
The standards provide guidance and deserve "great weight." (In re Morse, 11 Cal.4th 184, 205; In re Naney (1990) 51 Cal.3d 186, 190; Van Sloten v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 921,933, fn. 5.) "[A]dherence to the standards in the great majority of cases serves the valuable purpose of eliminating disparity and assuring consistency, that is, the imposition of similar attorney discipline for instances of similar attorney misconduct." (In re Naney, supra, 51 Cal. 3 d at p. 190; see also In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205, 220.) The California Supreme Court accepts a disciplinary recommendation resulting from application of the standards unless it has "grave doubts" about the recommendation’s propriety. (In re Morse, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 206; In re
Lamb (1989) 49 Cal.3d 239, 245.)
In In re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal.3d 487, the attorney was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol with a prior conviction for the same offense and of violating the terms of her probation imposed for the first conviction. The prior conviction occurred about two and a half years before her second conviction. Her blood alcohol level in the second case was between 0.16% and 0.17%. The Supreme Court found that the attorney’s behavior demonstrated a lack of respect for the legal system and an alcohol abuse problem, and determined that the imposition of a public reproval was appropriate in this matter as the facts and circumstances surrounding the misconduct involved other misconduct warranting discipline.
Unlike Kelley, Respondent was not on criminal probation when her second conviction occurred and her first conviction was for reckless driving while Kelley was twice convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. Respondent’s prior conviction occurred five years ago and her blood alcohol level in the second case was between 0.12% and 0.13%. Respondent stated in her response filed with the State Bar Court that at the time of her arrest, she was in Lake Tahoe in order to take care of her son who was ill. She further explained that the offense occurred at a time when she had no intention of driving but as a result of circumstances relating to her son’s care, she went to a market for him in the evening and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. At the initial meeting with the State Bar, Respondent immediately acknowledged her wrongdoing and demonstrated remorse. Respondent fully cooperated with the State Bar throughout the disciplinary proceeding. Respondent was admitted to the State Bar on March 23, 1993 and has no prior record of discipline. In September 2006, Respondent began attending the alcohol program as ordered by the criminal court, and has provided proof of enrollment and attendance to the State Bar.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 06-C-13418-RAP
In the Matter of: Pamela Jean Elliott Bar # 163874
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: Pamela Jean Elliott
Date: 1-17-07
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Fumiko D. Kimura
Date: 1-18-07
Case Number(s): 06-C-13418
In the Matter of: Pamela Jean Elliott Bar # 163874
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 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.) 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: 01-22-07
[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 23, 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:
PAMELA JEAN ELLIOTT
1800 S ROBERTSON BLVD #948
LOS ANGELES CA 90035
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
FUMIKO KIMURA, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 23, 2007.
Signed by:
Angela Owens-Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court