Case Number(s): 07-C-12961
In the Matter of: Paul C. Meidus, Bar # 230334, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Treva R. Stewart, Bar # 239829,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement Judge Ė State Bar Court Clerkís Office San Francisco.
Filed: April 10, 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 April 14, 2004.
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 ßß6086.10 & 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: 2009, 2010, 2011.† (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 respondentís official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Barís 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 respondentís official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Barís web page.
checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondentís official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Barís web page.
IN THE MATTER OF: PAUL MEIDUS, State Bar No. 230334
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-C-12961
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
1. On December 26, 2006, respondent and his then fiancť, Shelly Houston ("Houston") were living together,
2. On December 26, 2006, respondent and Houston were involved in an argument in the kitchen of their home concerning household finances.
3. Respondent yelled at Houston and used profanity.
4. As respondent was leaving the kitchen, he kicked a plastic chair in the direction of Houston. After respondent kicked the chair, Houston came into contact with the chair. Houston fell onto the floor as a result of coming into contact with the chair.
5. After Houston arose from the floor, respondent placed his arms around her. Houstonís mobility was restricted by respondent placing his arms around her.
6. Houston objected to respondent placing his arms around her.
7. Respondent continued to place his arms around Houston after she objected to him doing so.
8. Respondent subsequently removed his arms from Houston. Houston left the house and contacted the local police department.
9. Houston sustained a one-inch laceration to her left lower leg.
10. Respondent was arrested on December 28, 2006. He was jailed from December 28, 2006 until January 2, 2007, at which time he was released on his own recognizance.
11. On January 2, 2007, the Shasta County District Attorney charged respondent with (1) Corporal Injury to Person Cohabitating With,. in violation of Penal Code Section 273.5(A), a felony, (2) Criminal Threats, in violation of Penal Code Section 422, a felony and (3) False Imprisonment By Violence, in violation of Penal Code Section 236, a felony.
12. The matter proceeded to jury trial on July 11, 2007.
13. On July 13, 2007 the jury convicted respondent of Assault, in violation of Penal Code Section 240, a misdemeanor and False Imprisonment Without Violence, in violation of Penal Code Section 236, a misdemeanor.
14. Respondent received a suspended sentence, three years informal probation, a $650 fine, and a ten year firearm restriction. He is also required to attend a 52-week anger management class.
15. Respondent did not appeal his conviction.
16. Respondent self reported his conviction by letter faxed to the State Bar on July 25, 2007.
17. Respondent has promptly responded to inquiries and requests for information from the State Bar since reporting his conviction.
18. At the time of this incident, respondent was experiencing personal and financial stress.
19. Respondentís brother passed away unexpectedly in October 2006.
20. Respondent and Houston had ongoing relationship problems. Further, respondent was experiencing financial stress related to the recent purchase of the home in which he, Houston and her son resided. Also, unbeknownst to respondent, Houston had been utilizing his ATM and credit cards and overdrawing his bank account in the several months preceding this incident.
21. Respondent has received numerous references attesting to his good character from members of the legal and general community who are fully aware of the circumstances of his conviction.
Conclusions of Law
As evidenced by his conviction for violation of Penal Code Sections 236 and 240, respondent is culpable of committing a crime that did not involve moral turpitude, but did involve other misconduct warranting discipline.
Standard 3.4 states that conviction of a crime not involving moral turpitude but involving misconduct warranting discipline shall result in discipline appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct.
Although respondentís misconduct is less severe than that in In re Otto (1989) 48 Cal.3d 970, (convictions of felony assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury and infliction of corporal punishment on a cohabitant of the opposite sex resulting in a traumatic condition, reduced by the trial court to misdemeanors) and In the Matter of Stewart (Rev. Dept. 1994) 3 Cal.State Bar Ct. Rptr. 52 (misdemeanor battery on a police officer), it is sufficiently severe to warrant discipline.
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-012961
In the Matter of: Paul C. Meidus
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: Paul C. Meidus
Date: April 4, 2008
Deputy Trial Counsel: Treva R. Stewart
Date: April 7, 2008
Case Number(s): 07-C-012961
In the Matter of: Paul C. Meidus
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.
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; or 3) Respondent is not accepted for participation in the Program or does not sign the Program Contract. (See rule 135(b) and 802(b), Rules of Procedure.)
Judge of the State Bar Court: Pat McElroy
Date: April 10, 2008
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., ß 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 San Francisco, on April 10, 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 San Frnacisco, California, addressed as follows:
PAUL C. MEIDUS
HALKIDES MORGAN & KELLEY
833 MISTLETOE LN
REDDINGS, CA 96002
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
TREVA R. STEWART, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on April 10, 2008.
Bernadette C.O. Molina
State Bar Court