Case Number(s): 07-j-10524
In the Matter of: Lawrence Ying Dat Ho, Bar # 134536, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Eli Morgenstern, Bar # 07-J-10524
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #,
Submitted to: Assigned Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: June 6, 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 June 14, 1988.
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 10 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).
<<not>> checked. case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: three billing cycles following the effective date of discipline herein. (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.
<<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.
CASE NUMBER(S): 07-J-10524
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts
1. Respondent has been an active member of the State Bar of California since June 14, 1988. At all times relevant to the proceedings herein, Respondent was a member of the State Bar of California who represented others before the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") in trademark cases. As such, he is a "practitioner" subject to the USPTO Disciplinary Rules.
2. Respondent is a founder of Lawrence Y.D. Ho & Associates PTE LTD ("the Firm"), which has offices located in Singapore and Malaysia. The Firm was founded in 1992.
3. In 1992, Respondent applied for registration to practice before the USPTO. However, the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline ("OED Director") of the USPTO issued a decision denying Respondent’s application for registration because he did not satisfy the requirements for registration under 37 C.F.R. § 10.7.
4. On February 13, 1993, Respondent’s attorney informed the OED Director that Respondent would not elect to seek Review or Reconsideration of the decision.
5. On December 16, 2005, the web site for the Firm, under the headings, "Members of the Firm," and "Lawrence Y.D. Ho, B.Sc., M.B.A., J.D., Founder, "stated that Respondent was "a U.S. Patent attorney registered with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office." The web site had indicated that Respondent was registered with the USPTO since 2001.
6. In February 2006, OED informed Respondent that his web site improperly indicated that he was a registered practitioner. Thereafter, Respondent corrected the firm’s web site.
7. On January 17, 2007, the Office of Enrollment and Discipline entered a Final Order that Respondent be reprimanded for misleading people with prospective applications or other persons having immediate or prospective business before the USPTO, by advertising on the Firm’s web site that he is registered with the USPTO, when he knew that he was not registered, in violation of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility as outlined in 37 C.F.R. § 10.31(a).
Conclusions of Law
By including on the Firm’s web site that he was registered with the USPTO when he knew that he was not a registered practitioner, Respondent included an untrue statement on the Firm’s web site, in wilful violation of rule 1-400(D)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was April 16, 2007.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of April 16, 2007, the costs in this matter are $1,983. The costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following three billing cycles following the effective date of the discipline herein.
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.
AGREEMENTS AND WAIVERS PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6049.1.
1. Respondent’s culpability determined in the disciplinary proceeding before the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of the United States Patent and Trademark Office would warrant the imposition of discipline in the State of California under the laws or rules in effect in this State at the time the misconduct was committed; and
2. The proceeding in the above jurisdiction provided respondent with fundamental constitutional protection.
OTHER FACTORS IN CONSIDERATION.
There is no evidence that the untrue statement on Respondent’s firm’s web site deceived any of Respondent’s clients, or that Respondent attempted to appear before the USPTO in patent, as opposed to, trademark cases. An investigator at the Office of Enrollment and Discipline discovered the incorrect statement on the Firm’s website.
Respondent did not indicate that he was registered with the USPTO on his business card, and there is no evidence that any other untrue statements were included in any other of the Firm’s communications as defined by rule 1-400(A).
Respondent has been a qualified Singapore Patent Agent since January 24, 2002.
Respondent served as a board member of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore from April 1, 2002 through March 31, 2005. Respondent’s busy travel schedule prevented him from continuing his service on the board. Respondent served three years (March 18, 2002 - March 31, 2005) as a member of the Singapore Patent Agents Qualifying Examination Committee.
The IP Academy and National University of Singapore ("University") offers a Graduate Certificate in Intellectual Property ("GCIP") to candidates who are interested in pursuing a career as patent agents. Between 2004 and 2006, Respondent was a lecturer at the University. Respondent’s presentation was entitled "Patent Agents: Their Roles and Ethical Responsibilities," and consisted of a three hour lecture followed by a question and answer session. The presentation covered topics such as comparative ethics and professional responsibilities of patent professionals in the USA, UK, and Singapore.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
The appropriate level of discipline for the culpability of a member who violates rule 1-400 of the Rules of Professional Conduct is not specified in the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct ("Standard(s)").
Consequently, pursuant to Standard 2.10, the appropriate level of discipline for a violation of rule 1-400 is a reproval or suspension, according to the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL EXCLUSION
Respondent resides in Singapore and is unable to attend State Bar Ethics School. As an alternative to State Bar Ethics School, the parties agree that within one year of the effective date of discipline, Respondent must provide sufficient proof to the Office of Probation of six (6) hours of MCLE approved courses in General Legal Ethics. The course(s) must be in-person, live courses in General Legal Ethics.
MULTISTATE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EXAMINATION EXCLUSION
It is recommended that Respondent not be required to take the MPRE, because he resides in Singapore and there is no evidence that his misconduct harmed or deceived any clients.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 07-J-10524
In the Matter of: Lawrence Y.D. Ho
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: Lawrence Y.D. Ho
Date: 8 May 2007
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Eli Morgenstern
Date: May 14, 2007
Case Number(s): 07-J-10524
In the Matter of: Lawrence Y.D. Ho
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: Donald F. Miles
Date: 6/1/07
[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 June 6, 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:
LAWRENCE Y. HO, ESQ.
LAWRENCE Y D HO & ASSOCIATES PTE LTD
THONGSIA BLDG
30 BIDEFORD RD #02-02
SINGAPORE 229922,
SINGAPORE
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ELI MORGENSTERN, ESQ., Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on June 6, 2007.
Signed by:
Rose M. Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court