Case Number(s): 07-O-10925
In the Matter of: Gregg Fowler, Bar # 210811, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Timothy G. Byer, Bar # 172472,
Counsel for Respondent: Arthur L. Margolis, Bar # 57703,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: March 25, 2009.
<<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 5, 2000.
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 8 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):
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).
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: . (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.
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: Gregg Fowler, State Bar No. 210811
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-O-10925
A. FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violation of the specified Rule of Professional Conduct.
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO FILING OF NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES:
The parties waive the right to the filing of a Notice of Disciplinary Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
07-O-10925
Facts:
On February 23, 2004, Consuela Sanchez-Fuentes employed Respondent to represent her in a personal injury matter relating to a motor vehicle accident that had occurred on October 25, 2003. On September 15, 2005, Respondent filed Sanchez-Fuentes’s summons and complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BC 339 857, Sanchez-Fuentes v. Orellana, et al. ("Sanchez-Fuentes Case").
On December 15, 2005, the court provided notice to Respondent that an Order to Show Cause Against Plaintiff for Failure to File Proof of Service was set for December 28, 2005 ("December OSC"). On December 28, 2005, Respondent appeared at the December OSC, and advised the court of his intention to seek to serve defendant Maria Orellana by publication. The court continued the Order to Show Cause until March 9, 2006 ("March OSC"), and so advised Respondent.
On January 12, 2006, Respondent filed an Application for Publication ("Application") on behalf of Sanchez-Fuentes, seeking an order allowing service of the summons and complaint on defendant Maria Orellana to be effected by publication. The Application did not include a "Certificate of Merit" signed by Sanchez-Fuentes, and on that ground, on or about January 10, 2006, the court denied Respondent’s Application.
On March 10, 2006, Respondent filed a Request for Dismissal of the Sanchez-Fuentes Case, seeking dismissal of the entire action without prejudice. Prior to filing the Request for Dismissal, Respondent had failed to ensure that Sanchez-Fuentes fully understood the implications of the dismissal (i.e. that, since the statute of limitations had by that date run on her case, even a dismissal without prejudice was effectively a dismissal with prejudice), and thus did not obtain the informed consent of Sanchez-Fuentes before filing the
Request for Dismissal.
Legal Conclusions:
By not ensuring that Sanchez-Fuentes fully understood the implications of a dismissal without prejudice after the statute of limitations had run on her matter, Respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments relating to the employment or representation, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-500.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE:
Standard 2.10 provides that "[c]ulpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in these standards or of a willful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the harm, if any to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3."
Those purposes 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 1.3.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 07-O-10925
In the Matter of: Gregg Fowler
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: Gregg Fowler
Date: March 6, 2009
Respondent’s Counsel: Arthur L. Margolis
Date: March 10, 2009
Deputy Trial Counsel: Timothy G. Byer
Date: March 13, 2009
Case Number(s): 07-O-10925
In the Matter of: Gregg Fowler
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: Richard A. Honn
Date: March 20, 2009
[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 March 25, 2009, 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:
ARTHUR L. MARGOLIS ESQ
MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS LLP
2000 RIVERSIDE DR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90039
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Timothy G. Byer, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 25, 2009.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gozales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court