Case Number(s): 07-O-12913-4; 08-O-11661 & 08-O-14847
In the Matter of: Keith M. Davidson, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent), Bar # 212216
Counsel For The State Bar: Jean Cha, Bar # 228137
Counsel for Respondent: Arthur Margolis, Bar # 57703
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
<<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 20 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 284, Rules of Procedure.
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: (hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.)
<<not>> checked. costs waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. costs entirely waived.
From March 2007 to May 2007, Respondent was in the process of moving office locations from Calabasas to Los Angeles. The move was necessitated because the partnership that prompted Respondent’s initial move to Calabasas in 2006 was dissolved. This disruption caused calendaring problems for Respondent and contributed to the delay in filing a motion to set aside the dismissal in the Forsyth matter.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: KEITH M. DAVIDSON, 212216
CASE NUMBERS: 07-0-12913; 08-O-11661; 08-0-14847- PEM
Respondent admits the facts set forth in the stipulation are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and Rules of Professional Conduct.
Forsyth Matter (07-0-12913)
FACTS
1. In May 2006, Charles Forsyth and Bernadine Forsyth employed Respondent to represent their son in a medical malpractice matter. The Forsyths’ son suffered from complications stemming from a brain injury.
2. On September 20, 2006, Respondent filed a civil action entitled, Charles Forsyth, as Conservator and Guardian Ad Litem for Ronald Forsyth, et. al. v. Metropolitan State Hospital, Steve Gholamhosein Rahimi, M.D. et. al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number VC047329 (the medical malpractice action).
3. On September 20, 2006, the court issued a notice setting a case management conference in the medical malpractice action for January 23, 2007. Respondent received proper notice of the Case Management Conference.
4. On November 27, 2006, the California Office of Attorney General (the Attorney General’s office) filed a Notice of Hearing on Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss on behalf of defendant Metropolitan State Hospital in the medical malpractice action. Pursuant to the notice, the hearing on the Demurrer was scheduled for January 29, 2007. On November 27, 2006, the Attorney General’s office properly served Respondent with the Notice of Hearing on Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss. Respondent received the Notice of Hearing on Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss.
5. On December 1, 2006, the Attorney General’s office filed a Notice of Hearing on Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss on behalf of defendant Dr. Steve Gholamhosein Rahimi in the medical malpractice action. Pursuant to the notice, the hearing on the second demurrer also was scheduled for January 29, 2007. On December 1, 2006, the Attorney General’s office properly served Respondent with the second Notice of Hearing on Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss. Respondent received the second Notice of Hearing on Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss.
6. On January 16, 2007, Respondent filed a First Amended Complaint in the medical malpractice action.
7. On January 23, 2007, the court held the Case Management Conference in the medical malpractice action. Respondent failed to appear at the Case Management Conference. During the Case Management Conference, the defendants acknowledged receiving the First Amended Complaint and therefore would be taking the January 29, 2007 hearing regarding the demurrers and motions to dismiss off calendar. During the January 23, 2007 hearing, the court set an Order to Show Cause (OSC) regarding dismissal for plaintiff’s failure to appear at the Case Management Conference. The heating on the OSC was scheduled for March 12, 2007. The court also continued the Case Management Conference to March 12, 2007.
8. On January 26, 2007, the Attorney General’s office properly served Respondent with notice of the continuance of the Case Management Conference and with notice of the OSC. Specifically, the notice stated that the Case Management Conference had been continued to March 12, 2007. The notice also stated that the OSC regarding dismissal for plaintiff’s failure to appear at the January 23, 2007 Case Management Conference had also been scheduled for March 12, 2007. Respondent received notice of the Case Management Conference and notice of the OSC regarding dismissal.
9. On February 21, 2007, the Attorney General’s office filed a Notice of Hearing on Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss on behalf of the defendants in the medical malpractice action. Pursuant to the notice, the hearing on the demurrer and motion to dismiss was scheduled for March 28, 2007. On February 21, 2007, the Attorney General’s office properly served Respondent with the Notice of Hearing on Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss. Respondent received the Notice of Hearing on Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss.
10. On March 12, 2007, Respondent appeared telephonically at the OSC regarding dismissal and Case Management Conference. During the March 12, 2007 hearing, Respondent told the court that his failure to appear on January 23, 2007 was due to a calendaring error. As a result, the court discharged the OSC regarding dismissal and scheduled the next hearing for April 30, 2007. During the March 12, 2007 hearing, the court noted that the hearing regarding defendants’ demurrer was set for March 28, 2007.
11. As of on March 21, 2007, Respondent had not filed any opposition to the defendants’ demurrer to the first amended complaint and motion to dismiss. As a result, on March 21, 2007, the Attorney General’s office filed a Notice of No Receipt of Opposition to Defendants’ Demurrer to First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss in the medical malpractice action. On March 21, 2007, the Attorney General’s office properly served Respondent with the notice. Respondent received the notice but still did not file any opposition to the demurrer or to the motion to dismiss.
12. On March 28, 2007, the court held a hearing on the defendants’ demurrer and motion to dismiss. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing. On March 28, 2007, the court sustained the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the first amended complaint in the medical malpractice action. In sustaining the demurrer, the court noted that the plaintiff had not filed any opposition.
13. On March 29, 2007, the Attorney General’s office properly served Respondent with the proposed judgment and order of dismissal in the medical malpractice action. Respondent received, and acknowledged receiving, the proposed judgment and order of dismissal but failed to take any action to prevent the order of dismissal from being entered against his clients.
14. On April 16, 2007, the court signed and filed the order dismissing the medical malpractice action.
15. Respondent did not immediately inform the Forsyths that the medical malpractice action had been dismissed.
16. As of April 2007, Charles Forsyth (Charles) had had little to no contact from Respondent regarding the medical malpractice action. However, Charles followed the proceedings in the medical malpractice action via the Los Angeles County Superior Court website. In April 2007, Charles saw that the defendants’ demurrer had been granted and contacted Respondent.
17. On April 30, 2007, Charles and Bernadine Forsyth met with Respondent regarding the medical malpractice action. During the April 30, 2007 meeting, Respondent informed the Forsyths that the medical malpractice action had been dismissed. During the meeting, Respondent told the Forsyths that he would file a motion to set aside the dismissal.
18. On May 5, 2007, the Forsyths wrote Respondent confirming their April 30, 2007 discussion. In the May 5, 2007 letter, the Forsyths confirmed that Respondent would be filing a motion to set aside the dismissal right away in the medical malpractice action. In the May 5, 2007 letter, the Forsyths told Respondent that it was very important that he file the motion to set aside the dismissal immediately. On May 5, 2007, the Forsyths properly mailed the letter to Respondent. Respondent did not respond.
19. On June 25, 2007, the Forsyths wrote Respondent regarding the status of the medical malpractice action. In the June 25, 2007 letter, the Forsyths stated that they had stopped by his office to obtain the progress of the "473 pleading with the court."
20. On July 11, 2007, the Forsyths sent Respondent an email regarding the medical malpractice action. In the July 11, 2007 email, the Forsyths stated that they had been patiently waiting for Respondent to file the "473 motion." In the email, they asked Respondent to file the motion to set aside the dismissal immediately and let them know the status.
21. On August 7, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to set aside the dismissal in the medical malpractice action. In the motion to set aside the dismissal, Respondent stated that he had not filed a response to the defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint because of a calendaring error. The court scheduled the hearing regarding the motion to set aside the dismissal for September 17, 2007.
22. On September 17, 2007, the court in the medical malpractice action held a hearing regarding the motion to set aside the dismissal. Respondent appeared at the September 17, 2007 hearing. On September 17, 2007, the court granted the motion to set aside the dismissal. On September 19, 2007, Respondent filed two substitutions of attorney in the medical malpractice action substituting out as the counsel of record for Bernadine Forsyth and Charles Forsyth.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
23. By failing to appear at the January 23, 2007 Case Management Conference, by failing to file opposition to the defendants’ demurrer to the first amended complaint and motion to dismiss, by failing to appear at the March 28, 2007 hearing, by taking three months to file the motion to set aside the dismissal, or by otherwise failing to properly pursue the Forsyths’ medical malpractice action, Respondent repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
Linder Matter (08-O-11661)
FACTS
24, In August 2007, Ronald Linder (Linder) consulted with Respondent via telephone regarding a potential medical malpractice matter. Following their telephone conversation, Linder sent his medical records to Respondent for review. Respondent received the records.
25. Linder was later contacted by Respondent’s secretary. During their conversation, the secretary informed Linder that Linder needed to pay $750 to cover the expense of having his medical records reviewed by a medical expert.
26. On November 28, 2007, Linder issued a check made payable to Respondent in the amount of $750 to pay the expert on Linder’s behalf. Linder believed that he was paying to have his medical records reviewed by a doctor. Respondent did not inform Linder that the documents would be reviewed by a registered nurse who was not a doctor.
27. On December 10, 2007, Respondent deposited the check from Linder for $750 into his general account rather than his client trust account.
28. As of December 2007, Respondent was still reviewing and investigating Linder’s case and had not yet agreed to take the medical malpractice matter. Respondent did not make clear to Linder that Respondent was only evaluating the viability of the medical malpractice matter.
29. On January 7, 2008, Respondent purportedly wrote Linder advising Linder that he was declining to represent Linder in the medical malpractice matter. In the January 7, 2008 letter, Respondent stated that his office was discontinuing work on the matter and Linder’s file was administratively closed.
30. From January 4, 2008 through February 14, 2008, Linder called Respondent’s office twenty times inquiring about his medical malpractice matter believing that Respondent was still his attorney. Although Linder left a message each time with Respondent’s secretary, Respondent failed to return Linder’s calls believing that his January 7, 2008 letter was sufficiently responsive to Linder’s voicemails.
31. On March 4, 2008, Linder went to Respondent’s office and left a message asking Respondent to contact him. Respondent did not respond.
32. On March 10, 2008, Linder wrote Respondent regarding Respondent’s lack of communication. In the March 10, 2008 letter, Linder told Respondent that he was seeking new counsel due to Respondent’s lack of communication. In the letter, Linder requested all of his medical records and any information collected, including any filed lawsuits. On March 10, 2008, Linder properly mailed the letter to Respondent via certified mail. On March 11, 2008, Respondent received Linder’s letter.
33. In January 2010, Respondent made a $750 refund to Linder.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
34. By failing to adequately advise Linder that Respondent was merely evaluating the medical malpractice matter and not yet accepting to represent Linder in the medical malpractice matter, by ceasing all work on the medical malpractice matter without properly informing and making it clear to Linder that he would not be handling Linder’s medical malpractice matter, by not responding to Linder’s numerous messages, and by failing to inform Linder that Respondent’s a registered nurse, who was not a doctor, would be the person reviewing his medical records, Respondent failed to inform Linder of significant developments in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
35. By depositing the $750 check from Linder issued for costs into his general account rather than his client trust account, Respondent failed to deposit and maintain funds received for the benefit of a client in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import, in willful violation of rule 4-100(A), Rules of Professional Conduct.
NSF Matter (08-0-14847)
FACTS
36. Respondent maintained a client trust account at Bank of America, account number ending in 00129.
37. Respondent’s client, a member of the Screen Actor’s Guild, had been involved in an automobile accident, and had received medical treatment under the Screen Actor’s Guild’s medical insurance policy for which he was required to reimburse the Screen Actor’s Guild once his claim was resolved. In the summer of 2008, the client’s matter was resolved and a settlement draft was sent to Respondent. Respondent deposited those funds into his CTA. All appropriate disbursements were made in July and August 2008.
38. On August 21, 2008, Respondent issued CTA check number 2095 payable to the Screen Actor’s Guild on behalf of his client.
39. On September 15, 2008, the check was presented for payment when the balance in the CTA was insufficient to cover the full amount. Bank of America returned check number 2095 unpaid due to insufficient funds in the CTA and charged an insufficient funds fee to the CTA.
40. On September 23, 2008, Respondent deposited funds into his CTA from his general operating account to replenish the shortfall in his CTA. Respondent promptly rectified the full satisfaction of the Screen Actor’s Guild’s lien on behalf of his client.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
41. By failing to maintain the balance of funds received for the benefit of a client and deposited in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import, Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY.
The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on June 3, 2009 and the facts and/or conclusions of law contained in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The parties further 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.
MITIGATION.
Respondent cooperated during the pendency of the instant proceedings by stipulating. He also recognized his wrongdoing and admitted culpability. His candor and cooperation are mitigating factors. (Std. 1.2(e)(v).)
Respondent has fully refunded the $750.00 fee to Linder and acknowledges his fiduciary obligations to his client which supports Respondent’s rehabilitation. (ln the Matter of Taggart (Review Dept. 2001) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 302, 312.)
AUTHORITIES.
The purpose of State Bar disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the attorney, but to protect the public, to preserve public confidence in the profession, and to maintain the highest possible professional standards for attorneys. (Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 103,111; Cooper v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1016, 1025; Std. 1.3.)
Standard 2.2(b) of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, Rules Proc. Of State Bar, Title IV, provides that a violation of rule 4-100 shall result in at least a three-month suspension, irrespective of mitigation circumstances. Standard 2.4(b) provides that a violation of 3-100(A) and 6068(m) shall result in reproval or suspension. Here, suspension is sufficient to serve the purposes of attorney discipline. (ln the Matter of Bouyer (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 404.)
Thus, 3-months actual suspension is sufficient to serve the purposes of attorney discipline.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court dismiss six alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No. 07-0-12913; Count Two; Alleged Violation Section 6068(m), Business and Professions Code;
Case No. 08-0-11661; Count Three; Alleged Violation Rule 3-700(A)(2), Rules of Professional Conduct;
Case No. 08-O-11661; Count Four; Alleged Violation Section 6068(m), Business and Professions Code;
Case No. 08-O-11661; Count Six; Alleged Violation Rule 3-700(D)(1), Rules of Professional Conduct
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was January 22, 2010.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of January 22, 2010, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $4,892.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it might not include State Bar Court costs that will be included in any final cost assessment (see Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068.10(c)) or taxable costs (see C.C.P. section 1033.5(a)), which will be included in any final cost assessment. 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. It is also noted that if Respondent fails to pay any installment of disciplinary costs within the time provided herein or as may be modified by the State Bar Court pursuant to section 6086.10, subdivision(c), the remaining balance of the costs is due and payable immediately unless relief has been granted under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 286). The payment of costs is enforceable both as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, Respondent will receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
Case Number(s): 07-O-12913; 08-O-11661 & 08-O-14847-PEM
In the Matter of: Keith M. Davidson A Member of the State Bar
<<not>> checked. a. Within 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 0 days/SIX months/ 0 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.)
<<not>> 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 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.
Case Number(s): 07-O-12913; -8-O-11661 & 08-O-14847-PEM
In the Matter of: Keith M. Davidson A Member of the State Bar
a. Restitution
<<not>> 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:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
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
<<not>> 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)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
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.
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.
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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 07-O-12913 & 08-O-11661-PEM
In the Matter of: Keith M. Davidson
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: Keith M. Davidson
Date: 2/24/10
Respondent’s Counsel: Arthur Margolis
Date: 2/27/10
Deputy Trial Counsel: Jean Cha
Date: 3/2/10
Case Number(s): 07-O-12913 & 08-O-11661-PEM
In the Matter of: Keith M. Davidson
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. Honn
Date: 3-16-10
[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 San Francisco, on March 17, 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 San Francisco California, addressed as follows:
ARTHUR LEWIS MARGOLIS
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:
JEAN H. CHA, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on March 17, 2010.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
State Bar Court