Case Number(s): 06-H-12155
In the Matter of: Robin C. Carr, Bar # 154023, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Djinna M. Gochis, Bar # 108360
Counsel for Respondent:, Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: December 11, 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 September 23, 1991.
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 14 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.
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.
see attached at page 8
see page 11-12
IN THE MATTER OF: ROBIN C. CARR
CASE NO.: 06-H-12155
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. At all times pertinent to these charges, Respondent was and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.
2. On March 25, 2005, Respondent entered into and executed a Stipulation as to Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition ("Stipulation") with the State Bar of California in Case No. 04-0-15587.
3. On April 13, 2005, the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court filed an Order approving the Stipulation and imposing upon the Respondent a private reproval with conditions (the "Order").
4. The Order was properly served by mail upon the Respondent on the same day, April 13, 2005.
5. Respondent had actual notice of the Order, the Stipulation and the contents of both of them.
6. The Order and private reproval became effective on May 4, 2005.
7. Pursuant to the April 13, 2005 Order, Respondent was required to comply with certain terms and conditions attached to the private reproval for a period of one year, including:
(1) To comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.
(2) To submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation beginning July 10, 2005.
(3) To attend Ethics School, pass the test given at the end of the class and provide proof of attendance and passage of the test, within a year of the effective date of the private reproval.
8. On April 19, 2005, a Probation Deputy of the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California wrote a letter to Respondent in which the Respondent was reminded of the terms and conditions of the private reproval. The letter warned Respondent that failure to timely submit reports or any other proof of compliance would result in a non-compliance referral to the Office of the Chef Trial Counsel.
9. Enclosed with the April 19, 2005 letter were copies of the conditions of probation, a Quarterly Report form with instructions, a Notice of Counsel Representation form and the enrollment information for Ethics School.
10. The April 19, 2005 letter was mailed via the United States Postal Service, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to Respondent at her official membership records address. The Respondent received the letter.
11. Respondent failed to file the quarterly report that was due July 1, 2005 until November 7, 2005.
12. Respondent failed to file the quarterly report that was due on October 10, 2005 until November 7, 2005.
13. Respondent failed to file the quarterly report that was due on January 10, 2006.
14. Accordingly, on February 7, 2006, a Probation Deputy of the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California wrote a letter to the Respondent advising that the Office of Probation had not received the January 10, 2006 report and reminding Respondent of the due date of her April 10, 2006 report as well as the requirement to file a final report for the period from April 1 through May 4, 2006 by May 4, 2006.
15. The February 7, 2006 letter was mailed via the United States Postal service, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to Respondent at her official membership records address. Respondent received the letter.
16. Respondent did not file the January 10, 2006 or the April 10, 2006 quarterly reports, nor the final report due May 4, 2006.
17. Respondent did not take or pass the State Bar Ethics School within a year of the effective date of the private reproval.
18. By failing timely to file her July and October quarterly reports, by failing to file the January, April, and final report due May 4, 2006, and by failing to take and pass Ethics School by May 4, 2006, Respondent failed to comply with the conditions of the private reproval, in willful violation of rule 1-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A(7), was November 1, 2006.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of November 1, 2006, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $1,636.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only. 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.
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
In 2004, prior to the time that Respondent stipulated to the underlying private reproval, Respondent and her husband of 14 years had effectively separated but lived in the community home in consideration of their two children. From and after that time, financial, emotional and physical conditions began to develop as a result of the stress of the familial circumstances. On January 1, 2006 (six months after the first quarterly report was due, which was filed on November 7, 2005), Respondent and her husband decided to seek a divorce. However, Respondent’s husband did not move out of the family home until June 1, 2006.
Beginning in December 2005, Respondent’s medical doctor has prescribed Wellbutrin for symptoms associated with stress and concomitant depression.
From January until June 2006, while they were effectively separated but while he continued living in the home, Respondent’s husband paid the rent and most of the bills. Respondent was not making enough income from her business to contribute to the expenses. This added to the stress but also made it difficult for Respondent to pay the cost of attending Ethics School. Respondent realizes that she should have either requested a waiver of the fee or filed a motion to modify the terms and conditions of the private reproval.
By March 20, 2006, Respondent had begun to lose a great deal of weight. By June 9. 2006, she weighed 121 pounds. She has continued to lose weight. Tests were done to determine the reasons for the loss of weight and other symptoms, and medication was given to her for chronic heartburn and acid reflex. Respondent’s primary care physician has concurred that it is likely stress that has caused the various complaints.
Although Respondent offers these circumstances as a significant part of the context and cause of her failures, she also admits directly and with remorse that she simply forgot to calendar the due dates for the conditions.
Her business and financial circumstances have improved. (She recently concluded a large settlement for which she has received fees). Although she is still completing financial paperwork related to her divorce, her family situation has otherwise stabilized. She and her ex-husband have established a regular visitation schedule for their children.
Respondent is taking on immigration cases, but she does get help from a non-attorney in preparing the necessary paperwork, under her supervision.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provide the parameters of and guidance for the appropriate discipline. Standard 1.3 provides for consideration of the primary purposes of discipline, the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession. Rehabilitation of the member is a permissible object in determining the sanction, but only if it is consistent with the primary purposes of discipline. Standard 1.7 states that the discipline shall be greater than in the prior proceeding unless the prior was so remote in time and the offense was so minimal in severity that imposing greater discipline would be manifestly unjust. Standard 2.9 provides that culpability of a member of a willful violation of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct shall result in suspension.
The level of suspension could be actual or stayed.
In In the Matter of Posthuma (1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 813, an attorney who received a private reproval failed to take and pass the California Professional Responsibility Examination. He did take it two months after the filing of the Notice of Disciplinary Charges. He received a public reproval for the failure to comply timely.
In Conroy v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 799, an attorney who received a private reproval failed to take the Professional Responsibility Examination within the required period. His mitigation was that he ultimately passed the examination, although it was after the time required. The aggravating circumstances were his prior private, his failure to participate in the State Bar Court proceedings and his lack of remorse. He was suspended for the period of sixty (60) days, actual.
Respondent here presents more mitigation than Posthuma, who received a public reproval and certainly more than Conroy who received actual suspension. However, unlike both Conroy and Posthuma, Respondent herein either failed to comply timely or complied not at all with conditions attached to her reproval. Both Conroy and Posthuma brought themselves complied with the conditions, albeit tardily.
The primary purposes of discipline and the permissible object of rehabilitation of the member may not require an actual period of suspension, but they do require stayed suspension with conditions to provide a level of assurance that the circumstances which led to the violations will not re-occur.
Case Number(s): 06-H-12155
In the Matter of: Robin C. Carr
<<not>> checked. a. Unless Respondent has been terminated from the Lawyer Assistance Program (“LAP”) prior to respondent’s successful completion of the LAP, respondent must comply with all provisions and conditions of respondent’s Participation Agreement with the LAP and must provide an appropriate waiver authorizing the LAP to provide the Office of Probation and this court with information regarding the terms and conditions of respondent’s participation in the LAP and respondent’s compliance or non-compliance with LAP requirements. Revocation of the written waiver for release of LAP information is a violation of this condition. However, if respondent has successfully completed the LAP, respondent need not comply with this condition.
<<not>> checked. b. Respondent must obtain psychiatric or psychological help/treatment from a duly licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker at respondent’s own expense a minimum of times per month and must furnish evidence to the Office of Probation that respondent is so complying with each quarterly report. Help/treatment should commence immediately, and in any event, no later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of the discipline in this matter. Treatment must continue for days or months or years or, the period of probation or until a motion to modify this condition is granted and that ruling becomes final.
If the treating psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker
determines that there has been a substantial change in respondent’s condition,
respondent or Office of the Chief Trial Counsel may file a motion for
modification of this condition with the Hearing Department of the State Bar
Court, pursuant to rule 5.300 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. The
motion must be supported by a written statement from the psychiatrist,
psychologist, or clinical social worker, by affidavit or under penalty of
perjury, in support of the proposed modification.
checked. c. Upon the request of the Office of Probation, respondent must provide the Office of Probation with medical waivers and access to all of respondent’s medical records. Revocation of any medical waiver is a violation of this condition. Any medical records obtained by the Office of Probation are confidential and no information concerning them or their contents will be given to anyone except members of the Office of Probation, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, and the State Bar Court, who are directly involved with maintaining, enforcing or adjudicating this condition.
Other: 1) Respondent shall obtain a mental health evaluation from a licensed psychiatrist (or other mental health professional approved by the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and/or State Bar Office of Probation, who is qualified to perform the evaluation described herein) within thirty (30) days of the effective date of discipline. The approved evaluator shall, at the earliest practicable time, prepare a written report based on an evaluation utilizing the DSM IV axis. The evaluator’s report shall include, without limitation, a treatment plan, if any, to be followed for the duration of Respondent’s period of probation. The treatment plan, if any, may be modified from time to time during the probation based on subsequent written evaluations conducted by an approved psychiatrist or other mental health professional. The mental health evaluation discussed herein, and any follow-up evaluation as well as all treatment, shall be at the Respondent’s expense.
2) Copies of all evaluations conducted under this section shall be provided to the Office of Probation as well as to the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel within ten (10) days of preparation.
3) Respondent is to comply with any and all mental health treatment plans developed by the licensed psychiatrist, psychologist or other approved mental health professional as a result of the mental health conditions. Along with every Quarterly Report required to be furnished to the Office of Probation, Respondent shall enclose a written status report from all treatment providers indicating whether Respondent was in compliance during the preceding quarter, and any other relevant information. Should Respondent terminate from treatment prior to successful completion (as described in subsection (e) below), respondent shall immediately self-report this to the Office of Probation.
4) Respondent understands the court will refer this condition to the Office of Probation for monitoring. Pursuant to box c checked above, Respondent shall execute all waivers necessary to effect this provision.
5) If Respondent’s treating therapist determines that there has been a substantial change in Respondent’s condition such that treatment is no longer required or recommended, Respondent shall authorize and instruct her treating therapist to prepare and submit to the Office of Probation a written report describing the substantial change in Respondent’s condition, setting forth the therapist’s opinion that treatment is not or is no longer required or recommended and setting forth the basis for the therapist’s opinion. Respondent shall also authorize and instruct her therapist to respond to any questions and/or requests for further explanation or clarification that the Office of Probation may have with respect to the therapist’s report. Upon receipt by the Office of Probation of a satisfactory report from Respondent’s therapist describing the substantial change in Respondent’s condition, setting forth the therapist’s opinion that treatment is not, or is no longer required or recommended for Respondent, and setting forth the basis for the therapist’s opinion, Respondent shall be relieved of her obligation to comply with the mental health conditions set forth herein.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 06-H-12155
In the Matter of: Robin C. Carr
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: Robin C. Carr
Date: 11-15-06
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Djinna M. Gochis
Date:11/27/06
Case Number(s): 06-H-12155
In the Matter of: Robin C. Carr # 154023
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 953(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: 12/11/06
[Rule 62, 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 December 11, 2006, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING STAYED SUSPENSION; NO ACTUAL SUSPENSION
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:
ROBIN C. CARR
3065 ROSECRANS PL STE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
DJINNA M. GOCHIS, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 11, 2006.
Signed by:
Tammy R. Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court