Case Number(s): 07-O-10350
In the Matter of: Stephen Craig Clark, Bar #102064, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: BRANDON K. TADY, Bar #83045
Counsel for Respondent: , Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: May 2, 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 24, 1981.
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 not listed 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.
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.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
<<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.
Stayed Suspension
See attachment to Stipulation re facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.
IN THE MATTER OF: Stephen Craig Clark (102064)
CASE NUMBER(S): 07-0-10350
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits the following facts are true and that he is culpable of the violations of the specified statutes.
CASE NUMBER 07-0-10350
FACTS
1. In May, 1987, Respondent prepared the Skedd Family Trust. The original trustees of the Skedd Family Trust were Lois Skedd and her husband Jack Skedd. Respondent also prepared the Last Wills and Testaments of Jack and Lois Skedd. When Jack Skedd died in November, 1991, Respondent amended the Skedd Family Trust to add Lois Skedd as the sole trustee.
2. Jack and Lois Skedd’s three adult children are John M. Skedd, Russell M..Skedd, and Susan K. Taylor ("the Skedd children").
3. On July 3, 2004, Lois Skedd died. At the time of her death, the title to Lois Skedd’s home was held by the Skedd Family Trust.
4. When Lois Skedd passed away in 2004, John Skedd contacted Respondent for assistance. Respondent met with John Skedd and his wife at his request for at least 1.5 hours in August 2004. There was discussion of the possibility, at some future date, of transferring Lois Skedd’s single family home ("Lois Skedd’s home") out of the Skedd Family Trust to the Skedd children who were the beneficiaries. Respondent agreed to assist John Skedd with matters connected with his mother’s estate. Respondent agreed to prepare and file an Affidavit of Death of Trustee, and to file the Last Will and Testament of Lois Skedd with the probate court. No written fee agreement was prepared setting forth the scope of Respondent’s employment. In or about February, 2005, John Skedd paid Respondent $150.00 for his services.
5. John Skedd faxed Respondent a letter on February 12, 2005, asking that he prepare documents including a Quitclaim Deed transferring title from the trust to the Skedd children who were the trust beneficiaries. Respondent did not reply to this fax.
6. On April 26, 2005, Respondent sent a letter to John Skedd with an unsigned Affidavit of Death re Trustee ("Affidavit") and asked John Skedd to sign and return the original notarized Affidavit to him.
7. On May 8, 2005, John Skedd sent a letter to Respondent enclosing a signed and notarized Affidavit and a certified copy of Lois Skedd’s Death Certificate ("Death Certificate"). John Skedd asked Respondent to file it as soon as possible. The May 8, 2005 letter also asked that Respondent prepare the Quitclaim Deed transferring title from the Skedd Family Trust to the trust beneficiaries. Respondent did not respond to this letter.
8. Respondent received the signed and notarized Affidavit and Death Certificate and the May 8, 2005, letter. Respondent did not respond to the May 8, 2005 letter.
9. On August 31, 2005, Respondent sent a letter to John Skedd stating that he filed the Affidavit with the San Diego County Recorder’s Office but the Affidavit had not been returned to him. In the letter dated August 31, 2005, Respondent enclosed a second, Affidavit of Death re: Trustee and asked John Skedd to sign and return the original notarized Affidavit to him with another certified copy of the Death Certificate. John Skedd received the letter.
10. On September 24, 2005, John Skedd sent Respondent a second, signed original notarized Affidavit. On October 12, 2005 John Skedd sent Respondent a second, certified copy of the Death Certificate.
11. Respondent received the second Affidavit and filed it with the San Diego County Recorder’s Office. Once it was returned to Respondent, he forwarded it to John Skedd. Respondent also filed the Last Will & Testament of Lois Skedd with the probate court. Once it was returned to Respondent, he forwarded a copy of the same and the receipt for the Last Will & Testament to John Skedd.
12. Between November 2005 and November 2006, John Skedd made efforts to contact Respondent but was unsuccessful in speaking with him.
13. On November 2, 2006, John Skedd sent a letter to Respondent stating that he made numerous attempts to contact Respondent and had not received answers to his inquiries about the Quitclaim Deed. In that letter, John Skedd stated that he did not know the status of the Skedd Family Trust and that he hired another attorney to draft the Quitclaim Deed he wanted. Respondent did not respond to this letter because John Skedd stated he had hired another attorney to draft the Quitclaim Deed.
14. John Skedd’s understanding was that the $150.00 he paid to Respondent was payment for the consultation, the preparation and filing of the Affidavit of Death of Trustee, the filing of the Last Will and Testament of Lois Skedd, and preparing and filing the Quitclaim Deed. Respondent did not believe that he had been employed to prepare and file the Quitclaim Deed and he would have charged Mr. Skedd an additional fee for the Quitclaim Deed. However, Respondent did not communicate this limitation on the scope of his representation in writing.
15. On January 3, 2007, John Skedd filed a complaint against Respondent with the State Bar of California ("State Bar Complaint")
16. On February 2, 2007, a State Bar of California ("State Bar") investigator sent a letter to Respondent concerning John Skedd’s State Bar Complaint and asking Respondent to respond in writing to the State Bar’s questions and to provide copies of documents contained in Respondent’s legal file for John Skedd.
17. Respondent received the State Bar’s letter dated February 2, 2007. Respondent did not respond to the State Bar’s letter.
18. On February 22, 2007, a State Bar investigator sent Respondent a second letter again asking Respondent to respond to the State Bar’s questions and to provide copies of documents contained in Respondent’s legal file for John Skedd.
19. Respondent received the State Bar’s letter dated February 22, 2007, Respondent did not respond to the State Bar’s letter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
20. By not responding to John Skedd’s fax of February 12, 2005, and letter of May 8, 2005, and John Skedd’s other attempts to communicate with him, requesting that he prepare documents transferring title, Respondent was grossly negligent in failing to communicate a significant development in a matter with regard to which he had agreed to provide legal services, e.g. that limitations existed on the scope of his employment (Nichols v. Keller (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1672, 1678: "if counsel elects to limit or prescribe his representation of the client .... then counsel must make such limitations in representation very clear to his client"), in violation of Business and Professions Code Section 6068(m).
21. By failing to respond to the State Bar’s letters dated February 2, 2007 and February 22, 2007, Respondent failed to cooperate in the State Bar’s disciplinary investigation pending against him in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068 (i).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
None.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
None.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
No prior discipline (Standard 1.2 (e) (i)).
Respondent was admitted to the State Bar on December 24, 1981 and has no prior record of discipline since admission.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
In this matter, Respondent has admitted violating the following statutes: Business and Professions Code, sections 6068 (i) and 6068 (m). The stipulated discipline of one- year suspension stayed and one-year probation is supported by applicable law.
Standard 1.3 provides [he primary purposesof discipline 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 2.6 provides that the culpability of a member for violating Business and Professions Code, section 6068, including section 6068 (i) shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3.
Standard 2.4 (b) states the culpability of a member for wilfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in reproval or suspension depending on the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
In re Silverton, (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 81, the Supreme Court held that application of the Sanction Standards are entitled to great weight in determining the appropriate level of State Bar discipline. A departure from the Sanction Standards is only warranted where there is clear and convincing evidence by the Respondent of extraordinary circumstances" or a demonstration that adherence to the Standards would result in manifest injustice. (In re Silverton, supra, 36 Cal. 4th 92.)
Standard 2.6 provides suspension to disbarment for a member found culpable of violating Business and Professions Code, section 6068 (i).
Case law supports the level of discipline of one- year suspension stayed and one- year probation. (Van Sloten vs. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 921, where a single act of failing to perform requested services without serious consequences to the client and failure to attend a hearing in the State Bar’s Review Department merits six months stayed suspension and one year probation.).
Case Number(s): 07-O-10350
In the Matter of: Stephen Craig Clark
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 DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates 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 5.58 (E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: April 30, 2008
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY REGULAR MAIL
CASE NUMBER: 07-0-10350
I, the undersigned, over the age of eighteen (18) years, whose business address and place of employment is the State Bar of California, 1149 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90015, declare that I am not a party to the within action; that I am readily familiar with the State Bar of California’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service; that in the ordinary course of the State Bar of California’s practice, correspondence collected and processed by the State Bar of California would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day; that I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope or package is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit; and that in accordance with the practice of the State Bar of California for collection and processing of mail, I deposited or placed for collection and mailing in the City and County of Los Angeles, on the date shown below, a true copy of the within
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING STAYED SUSPENSION; NO ACTUAL SUSPENSION.
in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing at Los Angeles, on the date shown below, addressed to:
David C. Carr
Law Office of David Cameron Carr
3333 Camino Del Rio S Ste 215
San Diego, CA 92108
in an inter-office mail facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed to:
N/A
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Los Angeles, California, on ~he date shown below.
DATED: April 28, 2008
Michael Angelo Kanterakis
Declarant
Case Number(s): 07-O-10350
In the Matter of: Stephen Craig Clark
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: Stephen Craig Clark
Date: April 28, 2008
Respondent’s Counsel: David Cameron Carr
Date: April 28, 2008
Deputy Trial Counsel: Brandon K. Tady
Date: April 28, 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 May 2, 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:
DAVID C CARR
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C CARR
3333 CAMINO DEL RIO S STE 215
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
BRANDON TADY, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on May 2, 2008.
Signed by:
Angela Owens-Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court