Case Number(s): 07-O-12236, 07-O-12875, 07-O-12959, 07-O-13278
In the Matter of: Melissa Soyoung Lee , Bar # 195720 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Erin McKeown Joyce,
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles CA 90015
Tel: (213) 765-1356
Bar # 149946 ,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent, Melissa Soyoung Lee, 447 West Garvey Avenue, Suite 202, Monterey Park, CA 91754, Telephone: (626) 863-305, Facsimile: (626) 571-7939, Bar# 195720
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: January 13, 2011
<<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 2, 1998.
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 13 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 are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2012 and 2013 (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.
Additional mitigating circumstances:
Respondent was admitted to practice in 1998, and experienced eight years of discipline free practice before the onset of the misconduct in these matters.
The attachment to the stipulation comprises page 8 through 12 of the stipulation.
Case Number(s): 07-O-12236, 07-O-12875, 07-O-12959, 07-O-13278
In the Matter of: Melissa Soyoung Lee
checked. a. Within ninety (90) days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
checked. b. Within days/ nine (9) months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
checked. c. Within 30 days of the
effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice
Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the
dues and costs of enrollment for two (2) year(s). Respondent must furnish
satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation
of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
IN THE MATTER OF: Melissa Lee, State Bar No. 195720
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-O-12236, 07-O-12875, 07-O-12959, 07-O-13278
PENDING PROCEEDINGS:
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph A.(7), was December 29, 2010.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she is culpable of violations of the specified Rules of Professional Conduct and Business and Professions Code sections set forth below:
Case No. 07-0-12236
FACTS
1. In January 2006, Sirvard Oroujyan hired Respondent to file an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denied her request for review of the dismissal of her asylum application and the subsequent court hearing where she was ordered removed from the United States. Respondent charged Oroujyan $2,500 for the 9th Circuit appeal.
2. Respondent filed a petition for review with the 9th Circuit on behalf of Oroujyan.
3. Respondent requested and received an extension from the 9th Circuit to file the opening brief.
4. Despite receiving the extension, Respondent failed to file the opening brief.
5. On August 18, 2006, the 9th Circuit dismissed Oroujyan’s appeal because of the failure to file the opening brief.
6. Respondent received proper notice of the order dismissing the appeal. Respondent failed to notify Oroujyan of the dismissal order.
7. Respondent undertook no steps to reinstate Oroujyan’s appeal.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By failing to file the opening brief in Oroujyan’s appeal before the 9th Circuit, and failing to take any steps to reinstate the appeal after receiving notice of the 9th Circuit’s order dismissing the appeal, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A). By failing to notify Oroujyan of the 9th Circuit’s order dismissing Oroujyan’s appeal, Respondent failed to keep Oroujyan reasonably informed of significant developments in her legal matter in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
Case No. 07-O-12875
FACTS
1. In December 2005, Chen Zhe hired Respondent to file an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after the BIA denied her request for review of the dismissal of her asylum application and the subsequent court hearing where she was ordered removed from the United States.
2. Respondent filed a petition for review with the 9th Circuit on behalf of Zhe.
3. Respondent failed to file the opening brief in Zhe’s appeal before the 9th Circuit.
4. On September 12, 2006, the 9th Circuit dismissed Zhe’s appeal because of the failure to file the opening brief.
5. Respondent received proper notice of the order dismissing the appeal. Respondent failed to notify Zhe of the dismissal order.
6. Respondent undertook no steps to reinstate Zhe’s appeal.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By failing to file the opening brief in Zhe’s appeal before the 9th Circuit, and failing to take any steps to reinstate the appeal after receiving notice of the 9th Circuit’s order dismissing the appeal, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A).
By failing to notify Zhe of the 9th Circuit’s order dismissing Zhe’s appeal, Respondent failed to keep Zhe reasonably informed of significant developments in her legal matter in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
Case No. 07-O-12959
FACTS
1. In November 2005, Jian Guo Yang hired Respondent to file an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after the BIA denied his request for review of the dismissal of his asylum application and the subsequent court hearing where he was ordered removed from the United States. Respondent charged Yang $950 for the 9th Circuit appeal.
2. Respondent filed a petition for review with the 9th Circuit on behalf of Yang.
3. Respondent failed to file the opening brief in Yang’s appeal before the 9th Circuit.
4. On June 20, 2007, the 9th Circuit dismissed Yang’s appeal because of the failure to file the opening brief.
5. Respondent received proper notice of the order dismissing the appeal. Respondent failed to notify Yang of the dismissal order.
6. Respondent undertook no steps to reinstate Yang’s appeal.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By failing to file the opening brief in Yang’s appeal before the 9th Circuit, and failing to take any steps to reinstate the appeal after receiving notice of the 9th Circuit’s order dismissing the appeal, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A).
By failing to notify Yang of the 9th Circuit’s order dismissing Yang’s appeal, Respondent failed to keep Yang reasonably informed of significant developments in his legal matter in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
Case No. 07-O-13278
FACTS
1. In September 2005, Zhenjin Nan hired Respondent to file an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after the BIA denied her request for review of the dismissal of her asylum application and the subsequent court hearing where she was ordered removed from the United States. Respondent charged Nan $2,550 for the 9th Circuit appeal.
2. Respondent filed a petition for review with the 9th Circuit on behalf of Nan. 9th Circuit.
3. On May 10, 2006, Respondent filed the opening brief in Nan’s appeal before the 9th Circuit.
4. The 9th Circuit rejected the filing of the brief since Respondent failed to provide the requisite number of copies of the brief. The court properly served Respondent with the deficiency notice and notified her of the deadline to correct the deficiencies in the filing.
5. Despite her receipt of the deficiency order of the 9th Circuit, Respondent never corrected the deficiencies in the brief she filed on behalf of Nan.
6. On September 27, 2007, the 9th Circuit dismissed Nan’s appeal because of the failure to file the corrected opening brief.
7. Respondent received proper notice of the order dismissing the appeal. Respondent failed to notify Nan of the dismissal order.
8. Respondent undertook no steps to reinstate Nan’s appeal.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By failing to correct the filing of the opening brief in Nan’s appeal before the 9th Circuit, and failing to take any steps to reinstate the appeal after receiving notice of the 9th Circuit’s order dismissing the appeal, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A).
By failing to notify Nan of the 9th Circuit’s order dismissing Nan’s appeal, Respondent failed to keep Nan reasonably informed of significant developments in her legal matter in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
STANDARDS FOR ATTORNEY SANCTIONS
To determine the appropriate level of discipline, the standards provide guidance. Drociak v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1085; In the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119. A disciplinary recommendation must be consistent with the discipline in similar proceedings. See Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302. Moreover, the recommended discipline must rest upon a balanced consideration of relevant factors. /n the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119.
Pursuant to Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar of California and of sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgment of a member’s professional misconduct 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. Rehabilitation of a member is a permissible object of a sanction imposed upon the member but only if the imposition of rehabilitative sanctions is consistent with the above-stated primary purposes of sanctions for professional misconduct.
Pursuant to Standard 1.5 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
Reasonable duties or conditions fairly related to the acts of professional misconduct and surrounding circumstances found or acknowledged by the member may be added to a recommendation or suspension or; pursuant to rule 9.19, California Rules of Court, to a reproval. Said duties may include, but are not limited to, any of the following:
1.5(b): a requirement that the member take and pass an examination in professional responsibility;
1.5(d): a requirement that the member undertake educational or rehabilitative work at his or her own expense regarding one or more fields of substantive law or law office management;
1.5(f): any other duty or condition consistent with the purposes of imposing a sanction for professional misconduct as set forth in standard 1.3.
Pursuant to Standard 2.10 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:
Culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in these standards or of a wilful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to 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.
A sixty (60) day actual suspension with appropriate conditions is the appropriate discipline in this matter, when balancing the nature of the misconduct engaged in by Respondent and her mitigation. In In the Matter of Nees (Review Dept. 1996) 3 Cal State Bar Ct. Rptr. 459, the attorney who was found culpable of violating Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(D)(2), as well as Rules of Professional Conduct 3-110(A) and 3-700(D)(1) and Business and Professions Code section 6068(m) was actually suspended for six months. However, in that case the attorney’s conduct was aggravated and the attorney lacked the substantial mitigation afforded Respondent.
As set forth in Section C on page 3, Respondent is entitled to significant mitigation for candor and cooperation and physical difficulties which directly attributed to her failing to perform with competence in her clients’ immigration matters. The stipulated discipline is sufficient to address Respondent’s admitted violations of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A).
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS:
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of December 29, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,296.00. 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.
Case Number(s): 07-O-12236, 07-O-12875, 07-O-12959, 07-O-13278
In the Matter of: Melissa Soyoung Lee
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: Melissa Soyoung Lee
Date: December 30, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Erin McKeown Joyce
Date: December 29, 2010
Case Number(s): 07-O-12236, 07-O-12875, 07-O-12959, 07-O-13278
In the Matter of: Melissa Soyoung Lee
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.
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: January 12, 2011
[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 January 13, 2011, 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:
MELISSA S LEE ATTORNEY AT LAW
447 W GARVEY AVE STE 202
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Erin M. Joyce, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 13, 2011.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court