Case Number(s): 07-O-11571
In the Matter of: Francis X Hoffman, Bar # 108399, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Djinna M. Gochis, Bar # 10860,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: May 27, 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 June 3, 1983.
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 12 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 (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: 2010 and 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 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.
<<not>> 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: Francis X. Hoffman, State Bar No. 108399
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-O-11571
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of wilfully violating sections 6103 and 6068(o)(3) of the California Business and Professions Code.
1. Francis X. Hoffman ("Respondent") was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on June 3, 1983, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.
COUNT ONE
2. Respondent was sanctioned on February 22, 2007 in the matter of Zhang v. The Angeles Plaza et al. Superior Court Case no. 05K17043 in the total sum of $3,500.00 as follows:
3. Respondent did not seek a motion to reconsider the sanctions, nor did he appeal the sanctions, nor, did he pay them, up to the time these charges were filed. The sanctions have now been paid as of January 14, 2009.
Conclusions of Law
4. By this conduct, Respondent disobeyed an order of the court requiring him to do or to forbear and act connected with his profession which he ought in good faith to do or forbear in willful violation of section 6103 of the California Business and Professions Code.
COUNT TWO
5. Respondent was required to report the sanctions imposed by the court within thirty (30) days of the time that Respondent had knowledge of them, in writing.
6. Respondent has no record of having reported the sanctions in writing to the State Bar within the time specified. The State Bar has no record of receiving a written report by the Respondent as required.
Conclusions of Law
7. Respondent failed to comply with the requirement to report to the agency charged with attorney discipline, in writing, within 30 days of the time Respondent had knowledge of the imposition of judicial sanctions in willful violation of section 6068(o) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was May 27, 2009.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of October 16, 2008, the prosecution costs in this matter are $$3,654. 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.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
As previously noted, Respondent has been an attorney in California since 1983 and has had no prior discipline. While there is harm to the administration of justice when an attorney fails to abide by a court order or to seek relief from the court imposing the sanctions or to appeal them in a court of competent jurisdiction, no client was hurt.
Respondent has been cooperative in the conclusion of this matter at the pre-filing (of the Notice) stage.
Respondent subjectively believed, and continues to believe, that the sanctions were imposed improperly. Although Respondent has not provided any objective evidence of his claim, he is being credited, for purposes of this stipulation only, with having this subjective belief in good faith. He has believed and continues to believe that he has a right to recourse in either the court of public opinion and/or the electorate. While that may be true, Respondent understands that he also had an obligation under the California Business and Professions Code either to pay the sanctions as ordered or to seek relief from them. (See, for example, Matter of Boyne (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 289, where the Respondent raised an inability to pay, but had not sought relief from an order of the civil court). Appeal to a Board, to the Legislature, to the electorate, may be a proper adjunct to seeking court relief, but it is not a substitute.
Respondent has represented to the State Bar that he believes he reported the sanctions to it; however, in light of the fact that neither the State Bar nor Respondent has any written record of a report, Respondent understands that the clear and convincing evidence is that it was not reported as required by 6068(o)(3). Respondent has demonstrated to the State Bar his understanding of the requirement sufficient to conclude that this failure to properly report was an aberration and not likely to be repeated.
AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF THE DISPOSITION
The starting point for the determination of appropriate discipline is the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, and the purposes of discipline, that is, the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession, the maintenance of high professional standards and the preservation of public confidence. A permissible object of the sanctions is the rehabilitation of the member as long as that object is consistent with the primary purposes. Standard 1.3. For violations under California Business and Professions Code section 2.6 provides that culpability "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".
Clearly, a public reproval is below the stated standard. However, it has been long recognized that the sanctions, while an important starting place, are not fixed guidelines and in the appropriate circumstances, there may be deviation from them. In this limited factual area,, the case law is not legion. There are cases with more substantive sanctions (e.g. In the Matter of Varakin (Review Department 1994) 3 Cal.State Bar Ct. Rptr. 179, one sanction was for $25,000; failure to cooperate with Bar resulting in disbarment) or other misconduct intermixed (see for example, In Re Maloney (Review Dept. 2005) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 774). In Respondent Y (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 862, a member who did not report sanctions and also did not pay them. The court let stand a private reproval recommendation of the Hearing Department for two apparent reasons. One was that, though misinformed, the Respondent’s position was that he did not have to report the sanctions pending his appeal. It had been the State Bar’s interpretation that the language of the statute did not except matters on appeal, but Respondent Y was the first public case that clarified this. The Court gave Respondent Y credit that his conduct in this regard was not in bad faith or dishonest. But they pointed out that they did not deem it appropriate to enhance the discipline solely for this violation. The second reason was that the State Bar, although having requested stayed suspension at hearing level, did not request an level, did not request an enhancement at review.
Respondent Y is over ten years old and the membership has long been on notice of its findings in addition to the long extant California Business and Professions Code Sections 6068(o)(3) and 6103..
However, balancing the standards, the facts in this case and the case law, a public reproval serves both the primary and permissible objects of disciplinary sanctions.
In Mitigation, Respondent has a long and distinguished record of public service, including the following:
Elected Member, Orange County Board of Education, 1984 through 1992
Democratic Candidate- State Senate (32nd District) 1986
Democratic Candidate - Congress, (39th District) 1990
Member, Orange County Democratic Central Committee, 1986 through 1992
Candidate, Garden Grove City Council 1997
Served Pro Bono 4 IRC 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational corporations
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 07-O-11571
In the Matter of: Francis X Hoffman
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: Francis X. Hoffmann
Date: May 27, 2009
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Hugh G. Radigan
Date: May 27, 2009
Case Number(s): 07-O-11571
In the Matter of: Francis X Hoffman
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: May 27, 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 May 28, 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:
FRANCIS X HOFFMAN
LAW OFC FRANK HOFFMAN & ASSOC
2225 W COMMONWEALTH STE 111
ALHAMBRA, CA 91803
<<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:
HUGH RADIGAN, Enforcement,
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on May 28, 2009.
Signed by:
Angela Owens-Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court