Case Number(s): 06-O-12427, 06-O-12803; 06-O-13144; 06-O-15066; 07-O-10489
In the Matter of: Patricia M. Boag, Bar # 174680, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Monique T. Miller, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2211
(213) 765-1486
Bar #212469
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Patricia M. Boag
1641 Rainbow Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
(213) 926-6568
Bar # 174680
Submitted to: Program Judge
Filed: October 6, 2008 State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
<<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 December 15, 1994.
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. However, except as otherwise provided in rule 804.5(c) of the Rules of Procedure, if Respondent is not accepted into the Alternative Discipline Program, this stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on the Respondent or the State Bar.
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, except for Probation Revocation proceedings. 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. 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.
7. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7 and will pay timely any disciplinary costs imposed in this proceeding.
Additional aggravating circumstances:
Additional mitigating circumstances:
IN THE MATTER OF: PATRICIA M. BOAG
CASE NUMBERS: 06-6-12427;06-O-12803;06-O-13144; 06-O-15066;07-O-10489
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND
STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY
The parties hereby waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on August 31, 2007, and the facts and conclusions of law contained in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary charges relating to cases that are the subject matters of this stipulation.
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
State Bar Court Case Number 06-O-12427 (the "Flores matter")
1. In February 2006, Jesus M. Flores ("Flores") employed Respondent to file an appeal with the U.S. Department of Justice, Board of Immigration Appeals ("Appeals Board") on behalf of Flores and his wife, Leticia Cervantes ("Cervantes"). Said appeal was to be filed with the
Appeals Board by March 17, 2006. Flores paid Respondent $1,110 for attorney fees and costs.
2. Thereafter, Respondent failed to file an appeal on behalf of Flores and Cervantes.
3. On April 25, 2006 Flores sent Respondent a certified letter requesting a refund of the $1,110 he paid Respondent as advance attorney fees on behalf of Flores and Cervantes.
4. Respondent did not provide services of any value to Flores and Cervantes. Respondent did not earn the attorney fees Flores paid to her.
5. On May 15, 2008, Respondent refunded the unearned $1,110 fees to Flores.
State Bar Court Case Number 06-O-12803 (the "Corona matter")
On September 18, 2003, Everardo M. Corona ("Corona") employed Respondent to represent him with an immigration matter. Corona paid Respondent $4,208 as attorney fees and costs.
On February 3, 2004, Respondent filed a Motion to Reopen with the U.S. Department of Justice Immigration Court ("Immigration Court").
On February 6, 2004, the Department of Homeland Security filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Reopen.
o On February 10, 2004, the Immigration Court sent Respondent a letter informing her that the removal proceedings regarding Corona were ordered reopened.
10. On February 20, 2004, the Immigration Court sent Respondent a Notice of Heating in Removal Proceedings regarding Corona scheduled for March 12, 2004.
11. On March 12, 2004, the Immigration Court sent Respondent a Notice of Hearing in Removal Proceedings regarding Corona scheduled for July 9, 2004.
12. On or about June 29, 2004, Respondent filed a Motion to Continue the proceeding calendared for July 9, 2004, with the Immigration Court.
13. On July 9, 2004, the Immigration Court sent Respondent a Notice of Heating in Removal Proceedings regarding Corona scheduled for August 27, 2004.
14. On August 27, 2004, the Immigration Court sent Respondent a Notice of Hearing in Removal Proceedings regarding Corona scheduled for January 20, 2005.
15. On the morning of December 12, 2005, Corona received a call on his cellular phone from Respondent’s assistant, Chris Fernandez ("Fernandez"), advising Corona not to attend the hearing that was scheduled for that afternoon at 1:00 p.m. Fernandez further informed Corona that Respondent’s father passed away and that she had requested a Continuance of the hearing with the Immigration Court.
16. At the Removal Proceeding hearing on December 12, 2005, the Immigration Court filed a Decision ordering that Corona be removed to Mexico for his failure to appear and failure to file any applications for relief for the removal proceedings.
17. On December 13, 2005, the Immigration Court sent Respondent a copy of their Order for Corona’s removal.
18. In or about April 2006, Fernandez called Corona and informed him that his file was now with attorney Joseph Porta ("Porta"). Corona decided not to hire Porta to complete his matter.
19. In May 2006, Corona hired attorney Carlos Vellanoweth ("Vellanoweth") to continue with his immigration matter.
20. On May 24, 2006, Vellanoweth e-mailed Respondent and informed her that he was now representing Corona with his immigration matter. Vellanoweth also informed Respondent that during a review of Corona’s file, he discovered an unfiled Motion to continue that she originally
prepared in order to have the December 12, 2005 hearing continued. Vellanoweth requested that Respondent prepare a Declaration to the Immigration Court explaining her failure to appear so that Vellanoweth could file the Declaration with his Motion to Reopen Corona’s matter.
Respondent did not respond to Vellanoweth’s request.
21. On June 7, 2006, Vellanoweth filed a Motion to Reopen Corona’s matter with the Immigration Court.
22. On July 13, 2006, the Immigration Court sent Vellanoweth a letter informing him that his Motion to Reopen Corona’s matter was granted.
23. Respondent failed to inform Corona that-she did not file a Motion to Reopen after her failure to appear at the removal hearing resulted in a removal order. State Bar Court Case Number 06-O-13144 (the "Tobar matter")
24. In May 1999, alien Carlos Jair Tobar Orejuela ("Tobar") employed Respondent to file a Notice of Appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Immigration Board") after his application for asylum was denied. Tobar initially paid Respondent $1,300 for her services.
25. Thereafter, Tobar received a letter from the Immigration Board acknowledging that his Notice of Appeal was received.
26. In March 2000, Tobar received a packet from the Immigration Board, which he delivered to Respondent’s office. Tobar was requested by Respondent’s staff to execute some documents, and was informed that Respondent would file the appeal brief.
27. Blank
28. On April 4, 2000, Orejuela appeared at the Immigration Board for Tobar’s immigration review. Ogletree represented himself to the Immigration Board as Tobar’s attorney.
29. On September 24, 2002, the Immigration Board signed an Order that Tobar be allowed to voluntarily depart the United States within thirty (30) days from the date of the Order. A copy of the Immigration Board’s decision and Order was mailed to Ogletree at his State Bar membership
records address.
30. On June 7, 2005, the Immigration Board sent a Notice - Immigration Bond Breached to Tobar regarding his failure to depart the United States by October 24, 2002 as their Order dated September 24, 2002 indicated. The Notice also informed Tobar that he was permitted to file a Notice of Appeal within thirty (30) days from date of the Notice. Prior to the Immigration Board’s Notice to him, Tobar was not aware that he had been ordered to depart the United States.
31. On June 29, 2005, Tobar again employed Respondent when he learned of the deport order for the purpose of filing a Motion to Reopen his immigration matter. Tobar paid Respondent $1,500 of a quoted fee by Respondent of $5,000 to file a Motion to Reopen.
32. On October 22, 2005, Tobar signed a Declaration prepared by Respondent’s office stating that Ogletree never made him aware of the Immigration Board’s Order for him to voluntarily depart the United States by October 24, 2002.
33. On March 15, 2006, Respondent became ill and all of her client files were turned over to attorney Joseph Porta ("Porta").
34. On April 26, 2006, Porta, while reviewing Respondent’s files, called Tobar and informed him that Respondent had closed her law office, and that Respondent had not filed a Motion to Reopen on Tobar’s behalf with the Immigration Appeals Board.
35. On April 27, 2006, Tobar employed attorney John Ayala ("Ayala") to find out the status of his matter and to continue with the matter.
36. On June 20, 2006, Ayala filed a Motion to Reopen Sua Sponte to Re-Issue Board Decision Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Stay of Removal, with the United States Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review, Board of Immigration Appeals,
Case No. A72-439-130.
37. On April 27, 2007, the Immigration Board sent Ayala a copy of its decision to vacate the Board’s Order of September 24, 2002, and reinstating the proceedings due to incompetent representation
by Respondent and Ogletree.
38. By failing to file a Motion to Reopen on behalf of Tobar, Respondent did not earn the entire $1,500 advanced attorney fees paid by Tobar.
At no time has Respondent refunded any unearned portion of the $1,500 advanced by Tobar.
Respondent failed to inform Tobar that he had been ordered to depart the United States by October 24, 2002, and failed to inform Tobar that she did not file a Motion to Reopen his immigration matter.
State Bar Court Case Number 06-O-15066 (the "Sanchez matter")
41. In August 2003, Alfonso Sanchez ("Sanchez") employed Respondent to represent him and his wife, Maria Ruis ("Ruis") in an Application of Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents. Sanchez paid Respondent a total of $3,300 as
advanced attorney fees.
42. On September 9, 2003, Respondent filed a Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney for Sanchez and Ruis with the U.S. Department of Justice Immigration Court ("Immigration Court"), in the Sanchez and Ruis matters.
43. On October 10, 2003, Respondent filed a Motion for Change of Venue from Nevada to San Francisco with the Immigration Court in the Sanchez and Ruis matters.
44. On October 20, 2003, the Immigration Court approved a change of venue from Nevada to San Francisco, California in the Sanchez and Ruiz matters.
45. On November 3, 2003, the Immigration Court sent Respondent a Notice of Hearing in Removal Proceedings regarding Sanchez and Ruis scheduled for December 11, 2003.
46. On November 26, 2003, Respondent filed a Motion for Telephonic Master Heating in the Sanchez and Ruis matters.
47. On December 10, 2003, the Immigration Court granted Respondent’s Motion for Telephonic Master Hearing.
48. On June 24~ 2004, the Immigration Court sent Respondent a Notice of Hearing in Removal Proceedings regarding Sanchez and Ruis scheduled for May 18, 2005. On or about January 28, 2005, the Immigration Court sent Respondent a Notice of Hearing in Removal Proceedings
regarding Sanchez and Ruis scheduled for November 29, 2005.
49. On July 25, 2005, the Immigration Court sent Respondent a Notice of Hearing in Removal Proceedings regarding Sanchez and Ruis scheduled for June 5, 2006.
50. Blank.
51. Thereafter, Sanchez contacted the Immigration Court to advise them that he could not locate Respondent to discuss his and Ruis’s matters.
52. On May 17, 2006, the Immigration Court mailed Sanchez and Ruis a letter advising them to seek a new attorney, and that the Court would postpone their case for a short time.
53. At the hearing scheduled for June 5, 2006, Sanchez noted that Respondent failed to appear.
54. On July 27, 2006, Sanchez retained attorney Martha Cordoba ("Cordoba") to continue with his and Ruis’ matter.
55. Through Cordoba’s representation, on or about December 6, 2006, the Immigration Court granted Sanchez’s and Ruis’ Application for Cancellation, and made them lawful permanent residents of the United States as of December 6, 2006.
56. Respondent failed to provide any further services on behalf of Sanchez and Ruis.
57. In September 2006, Sanchez attempted to contact Respondent by calling her office, and by having attorney Cordoba to write Respondent, for a refund of the unearned portion of the $3,300 advanced attorney fees paid by Sanchez.
58. At no time has Respondent refunded any portion of the $3,300 Sanchez paid to her as advanced attorney fees.
59. On July 28, 2006 and September 25, 2006, attorney Cordoba sent Respondent letters advising that Cordoba had been retained to represent Sanchez and Ruis. Cordoba enclosed copies of a Release signed by Sanchez and Ruis authorizing Respondent to release their files to Cordoba.
Respondent did not release Sanchez’s and Ruis’s files as requested.
State Bar Court Case Number 07-O-10489 (the "Cortez matter")
60. From December 2003 to January 2005, Ricardo Moran Cortez ("Cortez") employed Respondent to appeal a denial of permanent resident status by the USCIS administration. Cortez paid $2,500 in advanced fees to Respondent. Respondent won the appeal on January 31, 2005.
61. On February 8, 2005, Cortez employed Respondent to file a Form 1-485, and an Application to Adjust Status with the U.S. Department of Justice Immigration Court ("Immigration Court"). Between March and June 2005, Cortez paid Respondent a total of $2,100 as advanced attorney fees for the adjustment of status.
62. On March 21, 2006, Cortez received a call from Respondent’s employee, Chris Fernandez who informed Cortez that Respondent was no longer practicing law, and to pick-up his client file.
63. Thereafter, Respondent failed to provide any further services regarding Cortez’s adjustment of status.
64. On August 20, 2006, Cortez sent a letter to Respondent requesting a refund of the $2,100 advanced attorney fees Cortez paid to Respondent.
65. On May 15, 2008, Respondent refunded the $2,100 Cortez paid to her as advanced attorney fees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
State Bar Court Case Number 06-O-12427 (the "Flores matter")
1. By failing to file an appeal on behalf of Flores and Cervantes, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in wilful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. By failing to promptly refund any portion of the $1,110 advanced attorney fees to Flores, Respondent failed to refund unearned fees, in wilful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
State Bar Court Case Number 06-O-12803 (the "Corona matter")
3. By failing to file a Motion to Reopen the Corona matter, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in wilful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
State Bar Court Case Number 06-O-13144 (the "Tobar matter")
4. By failing to file a Motion to Reopen on behalf of Toby, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with
competence, in wilful violation of role 3-110(A) of the Califomia Rules of Professional Conduct.
5. By failing to refund any portion of the $1,500 advanced attomey fees to Tobar, Respondent failed to refund unearned fees, in wilful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
State Bar Court Case Number 06-O-15066 (the "Sanchez matter")
6. By failing to appear at Sanchez’s and Ruis’s hearings, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in wilful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
7. By failing to refund any unearned portion of the $3,300 advanced attorney fees to Sanchez,
Respondent failed to refund unearned fees, in wilful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
8. By failing to return or otherwise release Sanchez’s and Ruis’s client files, Respondent failed, upon termination of employment, to release promptly to a client, at the request of the client, all the client’s papers and property, in wilful violation of rule 3-700(D)(1) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
State Bar Court Case Number 07-O-10489 (the "Cortez matter")
I0. By failing to file a Form 1-485 and an Application to Adjust Status on Cortez’s behalf, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in wilful violation of rule 3-110(A) of ttie California Rules of Professional Conduct.
11. By failing to promptly refund any portion of the $2,100 advanced attomey fees to Cortez, Respondent failed to refund uneamed fees, in wilful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
RESTITUTION
Upon being admitted into ADP and during her participation in ADP, Respondent shall take the appropriate measures to initiate arbitration for attomey fees and engage in arbitration proceedings, pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 6201, in the following matters:
(i) The Corona matter;
(ii) the Tobar matter; and
(iii) the Sanchez matter:
Respondent agrees that the arbitrators’ decision(s) will be binding upon her and to pay the amounts awarded by the arbitrators to:
(i) Everardo M. Corona;
(ii)Carlos Jair Tobar; and
(iii)Alfonso Sanchez
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A(6), was April 30, 2008.
Case Number(s): 06-O-12427; 06-0.12803; 06-O-13144;06-O-15066; 07-O-10489
In the Matter of: Patricia M. Boag
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: Patricia M. Boag and Monique T. Miller
Respondent: Patricia M. Boag
Date: May 15, 2008
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Monique T. Miller
Date: May 15, 2008
Case Number(s): 06-O-12427, et al.
In the Matter of: Patricia M. Boag
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 conclusions of law is APPROVED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below.
<<not>> checked. All 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; or 3) Respondent is not accepted for participation in the Program or does not sign the Program Contract.the file date. (See rule 5.58(E) & (F) and 5.382(D), Rules of Procedure.)
Signed by: Richard A. Platel
Judge of the State Bar Court
Date: September 29, 2008
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); 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 October 6, 2008, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW;
CONTRACT AND WAIVER FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE BAR
COURT’S ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE PROGRAM; CONFIDENTIAL STATEMENT
OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSITIONS AND ORDERS
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:
PATRICIA M BOAG
BOAG LAW OFFICES
1641 RAINBOW DRIVE
SANTA ANA CA 92705
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
MONIQUE MILLER, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on October 6, 2008.
Signed by:
Angela Owens-Carpenter
State Bar Court