Case Number(s): 07-O-10654, 07-O-12499, 10-O-08657 (Inv.)
In the Matter of: Lawrence R. Young, Bar # 38323, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Michael J. Glass, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299
(213) 765-1254
Bar # 102700,
Counsel for Respondent: David A. Clare, 444 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 800
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 624-2837
Bar # 44971,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
<<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 5, 1966.
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 15 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. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
checked. Costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: prior to February 1 in the three billing cycles following the effective date of discipline. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, 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.
(a) State Bar Court Case No. 84-O-13573; (b) September 27, 1991;(c) former rules 8-101(B)(4) and 6-101(A)(2), and B &P Code section 6106; (d) Two year stayed suspension, two years probation with conditions, including a 60 day actual suspension and until restitution paid; (a) State Bar Court Case No. 91-O-00678; (b) October 9, 1993; (c) rule 3-110(A); (d) Ten day stayed suspension, one year probation with conditions; (a) State Bar Court Case No. 08-C-13176; (b) April 10, 2010; (c) B & P Code section 6100, 6101~ and 6102, (Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence). (d) One year stayed suspension, three years probation with conditions, including a 30 day actual suspension.
Case Number(s): 07-O-10654; 07-O-12499; 10-O-08657 (Inv.)
In the Matter of: Lawrence R. Young, State Bar No.: 38323
a. Restitution
checked. Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund (“CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
1. Payee: Richard Dominguez
Principal Amount: $10,000.00
Interest Accrues From: April 1, 2010
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than .
checked. Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
1. Payee/CSF (as applicable) Richard Dominguez
Minimum Payment Amount: $200.00 per month on the first day of each month, for the first (5) months, beginning the month following the effective date of discipline, and thereafter, a minimum payment of $500 per month must be made on the first day of each month.
Payment Frequency Minimum payment of 200.00 per month must be made on the first day of each month; for the first (5) months, beginning the month following the effective date of discipline, and thereafter, a minimum payment of $500 per month must be made on the first day of each month.
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
<<not>> checked. 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.
1. If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated as a “Trust Account” or “Clients’ Funds Account”;
b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:
i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.
c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
2. If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate described above.
3. The requirements of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct.
<<not>> checked. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
IN THE MATTER OF: Lawrence R. Young, State Bar No. 38323
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-O-10654; 07-O-12499
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent Lawrence R. Young ("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 Nos. 07-O-10654; 07-O-12499
1. Respondent maintained a client trust account at Wells Fargo Bank, account number xxxxxx8525 ("Cta-I"), and a client trust account at Washington Mutual Bank, account number xxxxxx 1994 ("Cta-II").1 [Footnote 1: The full account numbers are omitted for privacy purposes.]
2. Between October 2006 and July 2007, Respondent repeatedly and routinely deposited and maintained personal funds in Cta-I, and withdrew the funds to pay numerous personal expenses (i.e. 10/4/06-check card purchase on 10/2/06 from Chevron for $31.69; 10/10/06-point of sale purchase on 10/8/06 from Vons for $62.18; 12/5/06-check card purchase for $25.98 from Macy’s; 1/3/07-check card purchase on 1/2/07 for $36.51 from Omlette and Waffle Sh., etc.).
3. In October and November 2006, Respondent deposited and maintained personal funds in Cta-II, and withdrew personal funds to pay personal expenses (i.e. 10/29/06-Check No. 637 for $122.99 payable to Rite Aid; Check No. 638 for $133.64 payable to Vons, etc.).
4. Between November 2006 and May 2007, Respondent issued the following checks from Cta-I when he knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that there were insufficient funds in the Cta to honor the checks:
Presentment Date: 11/1/07
Check No.: 2541
Amount: $1,500.00
Presentment Date: 11/7/06
Check No.: 2440
Amount: $120.00
Presentment Date: 11/7/06
Check No.: 2524
Amount: $800.00
Presentment Date: 12/11/06
Check No.: 2588
Amount: $5.00
Presentment Date: 12/11/06
Check No.: 2601
Amount: $500
Presentment Date: 1/18/07
Check No.: 2676
Amount: $1,895.00
Presentment Date: 1/18/07
Check No.: 2687
Amount: $427.02
Presentment Date: 1/18/07
Check No.: 2700
Amount: $500.00
Presentment Date: 1/18/07
Check No.: 2701
Amount: $400.00
Presentment Date: 1/23/07
Check No.: 2685
Amount: $66.03
Presentment Date: 1/24/07
Check No.: 2684
Amount: $300.00
Presentment Date: 1/24/07
Check No.: 2686
Amount: $59.91
Presentment Date: 1/24/07
Check No.: 2704
Amount: $146.58
Presentment Date: 1/24/07
Check No.: 2708
Amount: $700.00
Presentment Date: 1/24/07
Check No.: 2709
Amount: $700.00
Presentment Date: 5/22/07
Check No.: 2834
Amount: $43.47
Total $8,163.01
5. Between November 2006 and July 2007, Respondent made the following withdrawals from Cta-I when he knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that there were insufficient funds in Cta-I to honor the withdrawals:
Amount:
Date: 11/1/06, Amount: $ 14.95
Date: 11/2/06, Amount: $ 61.75
Date: 11/2/06, Amount: $ 85.07
Date: 11/2/06, Amount: $ 50.10
Date: 12/11/06, Amount: $ 209.96
Date: 12/11/06, Amount: $ 67.79
Date: 12/11/06, Amount: $ 65,61
Date: 12/11/06, Amount: $ 60.64
Date: 12/11/06, Amount: $ 45.00
Date: 12/11/06, Amount: $ 40.11
Date: 12/11/06, Amount: $ 28.90
Date: 12/11/06, Amount: $ 25.66
Date: 12/11/06, Amount: $ 20.37
Date: 1/18/07, Amount: $ 75.00
Date: 1/22/07, Amount: $ 24.48
Date: 1/22/07, Amount: $ 21.95
Date: 1/23/07, Amount: $ 118.59
Date: 1/23/07, Amount: $ 93.90
Date: 1/23/07, Amount: $ 75.85
Date: 1/23/07, Amount: $ 42.93
Date: 1/23/07, Amount: $ 32.55
Date: 1/24/07, Amount: $ 101.50
Date: 1/24/07, Amount: $ 41.50
Date: 5/22/07, Amount: $ 101.75
Date: 5/22/07, Amount: $ 50.00
Date: 5/22/07, Amount: $ 32.57
Date: 5/22/07, Amount: $ 31.11
Date: 6/20/07, Amount: $ 26.41
Date: 6/20/07, Amount: $ 25.16
Date: 6/20/07, Amount: $ 21.95
Date: 6/21/07, Amount: $ 156.00
Date: 6/21/07, Amount: $ 66.94
Date: 6/21/07, Amount: $ 25.12
Date: 7/2/07, Amount: $122.00
Date: 7/2/07, Amount: $ 90.97
Date: 7/2/07, Amount: $ 84.68
Date: 7/2/07, Amount: $ 67.25
Date: 7/2/07, Amount: $ 45.00
Date: 7/3/07, Amount: $ 36.41
Date: 7/5/07, Amount: $ 40.60
Total $2,428.08
6. Wells Fargo honored all of the checks and withdrawals against insufficient funds referenced above, except Check Number 2701 which was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in Cta-I. No client funds were involved in the checks and withdrawals made against insufficient funds.
7. On October 19, 2006, Check Number 632 for $1,700.00, issued by Respondent from Cta-II, was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in Cta-II at the time of presentment. Respondent issued Check Number 632 when he knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that there were insufficient funds in Cta-II to honor the check. No client funds were involved in this transaction.
Conclusions of Law
8. By depositing and maintaining personal funds in Cta-I and Cta-II, and withdrawing the funds to pay personal expenses, Respondent wilfully deposited and commingled funds belonging to Respondent in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account," or words of similar import in violation of rule 4-100(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
9. By issuing checks and making withdrawals when he knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that there were insufficient funds in Cta-I and Cta-II to honor them, Respondent wilfully committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
Case No. 10-O-08657 (Inv.)
1. In July 2006, Mr. Richard Dominguez ("Dominguez"), who is incarcerated, employed Respondent to file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Mr. Dominguez paid Respondent $10,000.00.
2. As of April 2010, Dominguez had not heard from Respondent with regard to the status of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Dominguez sent a letter to Respondent inquiring as to the status of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On April 18, 2010, the letter was returned to Dominguez by prison officials because Respondent was not eligible to practice law. As of April 2010, Dominguez requested a refund of the $10,000.00 Dominguez paid Respondent to file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
3. Respondent never filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, never advised Dominguez as to the status of the filing of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and never refunded Dominguez any portion of the $10,000.00 Dominguez paid Respondent to file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Conclusions of Law
4. By not performing any legal services of value to Dominguez, including not filing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
5. By not advising Dominguez as to the status of the filing of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of a significant matter with regard to which Respondent agreed to provide legal services in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
6. By not refunding the $10,000.00 in attorneys fees, in spite of Dominguez’s request, Respondent wilfully failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in violation of rule 3-700(D)(2).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was November 29, 2010.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of November 29, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are $5,062.50. 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.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.2(b) provides that "Culpability of a member of commingling of entrusted funds or property with personal property or the commission of another violation of rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct, none of which offenses result in the wilful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in at least a three month actual suspension from the practice of law, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
Standard 2.3 provides that "Culpability of a member of an act of moral turpitude, fraud, or intentional dishonesty toward a court, client or another person or of concealment of a material fact to a court, client or another person shall result in actual suspension or disbarment depending upon the extent to which the victim of the misconduct is harmed or misled and depending upon the magnitude of the act of misconduct and the degree to which it relates to the member’s acts within the practice of law."
Standard 1.7(b) provides that "If a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of two prior impositions of discipline as defined by Standard 1.2(f), the degree of discipline in the current proceeding shall be, disbarment unless the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate."
In Arm v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 763,778-779, the Supreme Court noted that the discipline recommended by the standards may be rejected when there are "grave doubts as to the propriety of the recommended discipline." In Arm, the Respondent was found culpable of misleading the court, commingling, and the engaging in the. unauthorized practice of law. The Respondent also had three prior impositions of discipline. The Hearing Panel and Review Department recommended discipline consisting of disbarment based on standard 1.7(b). The Supreme Court found that due to compelling mitigating circumstances, including a lack of harm to the clients and a lack of bad faith, the standards could be deviated from and imposed discipline consisting of a five year stayed suspension, five years probation with conditions, including an 18 month actual suspension.
In In the Matter of Heiser (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 47, in a period spanning less than one year, the Respondent issued seven checks to pay for personal obligations on either closed trust accounts or overdrawn personal accounts. At the time of the hearing, two of the creditors had still not been paid. Additionally, he failed to maintain his current office address with the State Bar in its investigation. He defaulted in the State Bar action. The court recommended discipline consisting of a one year stayed suspension, six months actual suspension and until restitution plus ten per cent interest is paid in full. In mitigation, the court cited Respondent’s lack of a prior record of discipline since 1973. In aggravation, Respondent engaged in multiple acts of misconduct, Respondent had shown no contrition to his victims or made complete restitution and his lack of cooperation and default demonstrate an indifference to the regulatory process and his obligations under it.
In Amante v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 247, Respondent stipulated to facts concerning five counts of misconduct. In three matters, Respondent failed to perform services, failed to return phone calls from clients, failed to return unearned fees and, in two of the matters, misappropriated cost money advanced by the clients. In the two remaining matters, Respondent wrote NSF checks on his client trust account when he knew or should have known he did not have the funds on deposit in that account to pay the checks. The court imposed discipline consisting of a three year stayed suspension, three years probation with conditions, including a six month actual suspension. Respondent was given some mitigation for his complaint free period of practice following the present complaints. In aggravation, the court noted that the misconduct occurred approximately one year after Respondent was admitted to the State Bar.
In In the Matter of Sklar (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 602, Respondent was found culpable of six counts of misconduct in seven client matters, including the misappropriation of $13,807.34 in trust funds, failure to perform competently, failure to communicate with clients and failure to advise clients of potential conflicts of interest, and a failure to comply with the terms of a previously imposed disciplinary probation.
The hearing department recommended that Respondent be actually suspended for two years. Both the Respondent and the State Bar appealed. One of the issues on appeal was whether the Hearing Department appropriately declined to consider Respondent’s prior disciplinary matter, where Respondent was actually suspended for 80 days, as aggravating because the misconduct in the prior matter and the cases at issue, aside from the probation violation, occurred during the same time period. 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. at 618.
Respondent argued that the prior disciplinary matter should not have been considered a "true ’prior’ since the misconduct occurred during the same period of time as the current charges and could have been brought in one proceeding." 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rpt. at 608. The Review Department found that although it was proper to consider the prior discipline, its impact was diminished because it occurred during the same time as the misconduct in the case at issue. 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. at 618. Accordingly, the Review Department considered the "totality of the findings in the two cases to determine what the discipline would have been had all the charged misconduct in this period been brought as one case." Id. Considering the totality of the findings in both cases, the Review Department ultimately concluded that disbarment was the appropriate discipline in Sklar. 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rpt. at 621.
In the instant case, the misconduct in issue occurred between October 2006 and July 2007. In Case No. 08-C-13176, Respondent’s misconduct occurred between April 16, 2008, and October 16, 2008. Considering the "totality of findings in the two cases," discipline consisting of a two year stayed suspension, three years probation with conditions, including a six month actual suspension is appropriate.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
FACTS SUPPORTING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Under standard 1.2(b)(ii), Respondent’s current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing as indicated above in Case Nos. 07-O-10654, 07-O-12499, and 10-O-08657 (Inv.).
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
FACTS SUPPORTING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Under standard 1.2(e)(vi), Respondent has made an extraordinary demonstration of good character attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities and who are aware of Respondent’s misconduct. In this regard, two Los Angeles County Superior Court Judges and several Attorneys have attested to Respondent’s commitment, work ethic and legal ability as a criminal defense attorney handling serious felony matters.
Additionally, in 1990, Respondent founded the Adams Harbor Food Kitchen at St. John’s Cathedral in Los Angeles, California. The purpose of the Adams Harbor Food Kitchen is to feed the needy and homeless, and to provide clothing and other essentials of life to the underprivileged. During the past twenty years Respondent has served as a volunteer and Chairman of the Board for the Adams Harbor Food Kitchen. Respondent is still active as a volunteer with the Adams Harbor Food Kitchen.
Several members of St. John’s Cathedral and the Adams Harbor Food Kitchen have attested to Respondent’s continued service, dedication, and commitment to the underprivileged.
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-O-10654; 07-O-12499; 10-O-08657 (Inv.)
In the Matter of: Lawrence R. Young, State Bar No.: 38323
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 R. Young
Date: December 3, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel: David A. Clare
Date: December 3, 2010
Deputy Trial Counsel: Michael J. Glass
Date: December 6, 2010
Case Number(s): 07-O-10654; 07-O-12499; 10-O-08657 (Inv.)
In the Matter of: Lawrence R. Young, State Bar No.: 38323
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 135(b), 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. Platel
Date: December 17, 2010
[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 December 21, 2010, 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 ALAN CLARE
DAVID A CLARE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
444 W OCEAN BLVD STE 800
LONG BEACH, CA 90802
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number . No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Michael John Glass, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 21, 2010.
Signed by:
Cristina Patter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court