Case Number(s): 08-O-10955-RAP
In the Matter of: Dusan Pavlovic, Bar # 228509, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Larry DeSha, Bar # 117910,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: April 17, 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 2, 2003.
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):
<<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.
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: Dusan Pavlovic, State Bar No. 228509
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-C-10955-RAP
IN THE MATTER OF: DUSAN PAVLOVIC
CASE NO.: 08-C-10955-RAP
FACTS:
1. On the evening of February 21, 2008, Respondent and a male friend were exploring downtown Santa Barbara. They had had several drinks when they stopped at another bar at around 10:30 p.m., where they ordered drinks.
2. The bartender decided that one or both of the men were too intoxicated to be served more drinks, and requested that they leave. Respondent and his friend refused, and became what the bartender later described as "intoxicated and disruptive". The bartender and bouncer then forcibly ejected Respondent and his friend out the back door of the building and locked the door.
3. Respondent and/or his friend then banged against the locked door, causing a lot of noise. The local police were called at an unknown time, and one officer appeared promptly on the scene. The police officer found Respondent and his friend out in the parking lot, and determined that they were too intoxicated to be allowed to wander around town. They were then handcuffed, booked, and released on bail.
4. On August 21, 2008, the local District Attorney allowed Respondent to plead no contest to a violation of Penal Code § 602.1 (a) for unlawful interference with a business establishment open to the public, and a violation of Penal Code § 415(1) for fighting in a public place. Respondent was sentenced to 100 hours of community service to be performed in Los Angeles and a fine of $645. Respondent promptly paid the fine and has until June 3, 2009 to complete the public service.
5. No one was harmed in the scuffle inside the bar, or during the subsequent arrest. The misconduct did not involve legal services or clients. It is unlikely that any witness to the misconduct was aware that Respondent is an attorney, prior to inquiry by the arresting officer.
6. Respondent did not contest the criminal charges, and he has readily admitted all of the operable facts to the State Bar’s investigators.
7. Respondent practices law for a government agency and does not represent individuals. This matter was referred to the State Bar by the prosecuting attorney, as required by law. No other such referral has ever been made against Respondent. No complaint against Respondent has ever been made to the State Bar by any member of the public.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. By his violations of Penal Code sections 602.1 (a) and 415(1), Respondent failed to support the laws of the State of California in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY:
Standard 2.6(a) of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct is applicable to § 6068(a) violations. It requires "disbarment or suspension depending upon the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim."
In the Matter of Babero (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 327 holds that driving under the influence of alcohol and fighting in public were not such "disrespect for the law or dangerous or violent criminal behavior or other aggravating circumstances" as to warrant discipline.
In In re Kelly (1990) 52 Cal.3d 487, attorney Kelly was convicted for the second time of driving under the influence of alcohol, which offense occurred while she was still on criminal probation for her first offense. The California Supreme Court held that this was not moral turpitude, but was other conduct warranting discipline. There were mitigating circumstances of no harm to the public or the courts, good character, and candor and cooperation. There were no aggravating circumstances. The imposed discipline was a public reproval with conditions of probation for three years and attendance at the State Bar’s alcohol abuse program.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS:
The disclosure date referred to on page 2, paragraph A.(7), was April 16, 2009.
COSTS:
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of April 16, 2009, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $1,636.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only, and that costs will increase to the next level of $3,530.00 if this matter is not resolved by stipulation no later than April 16, 2009, and will further increase to $4,569.00 if the Pretrial Statements are filed.
If Respondent fails to pay any installment within the time provided in paragraph A.(8) above or as modified by the State Bar Court pursuant to section 6068.10 (c), the remaining balance of costs will be due and payable immediately and enforceable as a money judgment unless relief is granted under rule 286 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 08-C-10955-RAP
In the Matter of: Dusan Pavlovic
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: Dusaqn Pavlovic
Date: April 16, 2009
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Larry DeSha
Date: April 16, 2009
Case Number(s): 08-C-10955-RAP
In the Matter of: Dusan Pavlovic
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 Honn
Date: April 17, 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 April 17, 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:
DUSAN PAVLOVIC
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
HALL OF ADMINISTRATION
500 W TEMPLE ST
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
<<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:
Ernest Larry DeSha, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on April 17, 2009.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court