Case Number(s): 06-o-12988-1
In the Matter of: Robert M. Conley, Bar # 127144, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Lee Ann Kern, Bar # 156623
Counsel for Respondent: Erica A. Tabachnick, Bar # 94324
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: January 9, 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 January 8, 1987.
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 9 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.
Within one year of the effective date of discipline here, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than 6 hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in stress management and/or anger management. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and respondent will not receive MCLE Credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201 Rules of Procedure of the State Bar).
IN THE MATTER OF: ROBERT M. CONLEY
CASE NUMBER(S): 06-0-12988
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of a violation of the specified Rule of Professional Conduct.
COUNT ONE : Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 5-320(D)
[Harassing or Embarrassing a Discharged Juror]
1. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, role 5-320(D), by asking questions of or making comments to a member of a jury, after discharge of the jury from further consideration of a case, that was intended to harass or embarrass the juror or to influence the juror’s actions in future jury service, as follows:
2. At all relevant times, Respondent was counsel for a defendant in a criminal case ("the criminal matter").
3. On or about April 7, 2006, the jury returned a guilty verdict against the defendant in the criminal matter. After the defendant was taken into custody, Respondent approached six jurors and the deputy district attorney ("the DA") who had been talking in a group in the hallway of the court house.
4. Respondent walked to the jurors and the DA and said words to the effect of, "I hope you realize what you have done. It is because of you that my client will get a life sentence."
5. The DA informed Respondent that Respondent’s actions were inappropriate and that the DA was going to get a deputy. Respondent then said words to the effect of, "I don’t care. Go get a deputy." Respondent then got on the elevator and left.
6. Immediately thereafter, the DA and the six jurors returned to the court room and informed the judge of Respondent’s actions. The six jurors were individually questioned in the presence of a court reporter. The jurors informed the court that Respondent’s actions caused them to feel uncomfortable. One juror told the court that she did not want to be a juror again.
7. LEGAL CONCLUSION: By expressing his dissatisfaction and anger at the jury’s guilty verdict following the criminal trial of his client, Respondent made comments to members of a jury, after discharge of the jury, that were intended to harass or embarrass the jurors or to influence the juror’s actions in future jury service, in wilful violation of rule 5-320(D), Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was December 21, 2006.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.3 provides that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings 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.
Standard 2.10 provides that culpability of a member of a wilful violation of any Rules of Professional Conduct not specified in the standards shall result in reproval or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or harm, if any, to the victim.
In the Matter of Respondent A (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 255, is the only State Bar case that speaks to rule 5-320, Rules of Professional Conduct. In that matter, the attorney represented the plaintiff in a civil matter. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants and, in response, the attorney wrote a letter to the jurors to provide them with additional information regarding the case. The attorney testified that his motive in writing the letter was to "communicate and inform, not to harass or embarrass the jurors." Id., at p. 259.
The instant matter can be distinguished from Respondent A in that the Respondent’s intent was not to "communicate and inform" the jury. As such, the recommended discipline is just and reasonable and supported by both the standards and the case law.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 06-O-12988
In the Matter of: Robert M. Conley
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: Robert M. Conley
Date: 12-16-06
Respondent’s Counsel: Erica Tabachnick
Date: 12/19/06
Deputy Trial Counsel: Lee Ann Kern
Date: 12/21/06
Case Number(s): 06-O-12988
In the Matter of: Robert M. Conley
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 125(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. Honn
Date: 1-2-07
[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 9, 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:
ERICA TABACHNICK
900 WlLSHIRE BLVD #1000
LOS ANGELES CA 90017
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
LEE ANN KERN, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles , California, on January 9, 2007.
Signed by:
Angela Owens-Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court