Case Number(s): 07-C-12114-RAH
In the Matter of: Donald Edward Roach, Bar # 180050, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Michael J. Glass, Bar # 102700,
Counsel for Respondent: Phillip Feldman, Bar # 40792,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: April 3, 2008.
<<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 12, 1995.
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 are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: prior to February 1 in three billing cycles following the effective date of the State Bar Court Order. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.)
<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. Costs are 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.
<<not>> 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.
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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Donald Edward Roach, State Bar No. 180050
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-C-12114
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violation of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 07-C-12114
1. On September 12, 2007, Respondent Donald E. Roach ("Respondent") pled guilty to and was convicted of violating Penal Code section 242 (Battery), a misdemeanor.
2. The underlying offense occurred on April 23, 2007, when Respondent was arrested for violating Penal Code sections 240 (Assault) and 242 (Battery). Respondent and another adult driver got into an altercation over a parking spot. Respondent pushed his adversary causing the person to fall to the ground.
3. On September 12, 2007, Respondent was sentenced to three (3) years informal probation with conditions, including, but not limited to, payment of a $100.00 fine, completion of 150 hours of community service, and completion of a 10 week anger management program.
Conclusions of Law
4. The parties stipulate that the facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s guilty plea to and conviction for violating Penal Code section 242 (Battery), a misdemeanor, involved other misconduct warranting discipline.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was March 18, 2008.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of March 18, 2008, the costs in this matter are $3,530.00. 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.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING.
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On September 12, 2007, Respondent was convicted of violating Penal Code section 242 (Battery), a misdemeanor.
3. On October 26, 2007, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues: Whether the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
4. On January 2, 2008, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order augmenting its prior order dated October 26, 2007, 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 Donald Edward Roach was convicted involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 3.4 provides 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 prescribed under part B of these standards appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct found to have been committed by the member."
In In the Matter of Stewart (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal.State Bar Ct. Rptr. 52, the Respondent was convicted of misdemeanor battery on a police officer. He drank a 100 proof alcoholic beverage while his 18- month -old son was in his sole care, trespassed on his ex-wife’s apartment, refused to leave when officers told him to, berated his ex-wife, bear hugged an officer when the officer took hold of his arm, and made racial epithets towards one of the officers. In the criminal matter, the Respondent received two years of probation with conditions including 2 days in jail, attendance at 30 meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, and 40 hours of community service. The Review Department recommended discipline consisting of a two- year stayed suspension, and two years of probation with conditions including a 60-day actual suspension. In aggravation, the Respondent had one prior discipline just one year prior to the misconduct which was also of a different nature and not imposed until after his criminal conviction so that the Respondent could not have learned from it.
In In re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal 3d 487, while the Respondent was on probation for a prior April 1984 DUI conviction, in November 1986 the Respondent received a second DUI conviction. The Supreme Court imposed discipline consisting of a public reproval and three years of probation with conditions. In aggravation the court found that Respondent made no attempts to show rehabilitative efforts and maintained she had no alcohol-abuse problem.
FACTS SUPPORTING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Under standard 1.2(b)(iv), Respondents misconduct significantly harmed the public as Respondent got into an altercation with a member of the public, over a parking spot, which resulted in Respondent’s September 12, 2007, guilty plea and conviction for violating Penal Code section 242 (Battery), a misdemeanor.
FACTS SUPPORTING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Under standard 1.2(e)(vii), Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and recognition of wrongdoing, designed to timely atone for any consequences of his misconduct by performing various Pro Bono activities, whose subject includes anger management. In this regard, Respondent is a legal advisor to "House of Hope" a homeless shelter for women and children, who are often victims of domestic violence. Respondent also volunteers as a family law and domestic violence counselor at Covenant Blessing Fellowship, a church in Gardena, California. Respondent also volunteers at "Family Outreach", a domestic violence clinic. Respondent also qualified for and sits as a Judge Pro Tem in Orange and Los Angeles County. The aforementioned Pro Bono activities performed by Respondent are separate from any community service required by Respondent under the conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, Respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 07-C-12114-RAH
In the Matter of: Donald Edward Roach
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.
Respondent: Donald Edward Roach
Date: April 2, 2008
Respondent’s Counsel: Phillip Feldman
Date: March 29, 2008
Deputy Trial Counsel: Michael J. Glass
Date: April 3, 2008
Case Number(s): 07-C-12114-RAH
In the Matter of: Donald Edward Roach
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.
Judge of the State Bar Court: Donald F. Miles
Date: April 4, 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 April 4, 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:
PHILLIP FELDMAN ESQ
LAW OFC PHILLIP FELDMAN
15250 VENTURA BLVD #610
SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403
DONALD E. ROACH ESQ
LAW OFC OF JONES & ROACH
3777 N HARBOR BLVD
FULLERTON, CA 92835-1336
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Michael J. Glass, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on April 4, 2008.
State Bar Court