Case Number(s): 08-C-14125-1
In the Matter of: David Carriere, Bar # 178002, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Treva R. Stewart, Bar # 239829
Counsel for Respondent: Doron Weinberg, Bar # 46131
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
Filed: July 14, 2010
<<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 1, 1995.
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 added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts for the following membership years: three billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (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.
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.
See Stipulation Attachment.
IN THE MATTER OF: David Carriere
CASE NUMBER(S): ET AL. 08-C-14125
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING.
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On February 9, 2009, respondent was convicted of violating Penal Code section 243(e)(1), battery on a cohabitant, and Penal Code section 417(a)(1), brandishing a deadly weapon.
3. On January 8, 2010, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues: for a hearing and decision recommending discipline to be imposed should the hearing department find that the facts and circumstances surrounding respondent’s conviction for violation of Penal Code sections 243(e)(1) and 417(a)(I) involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Facts
1. During the evening of October l I, 2008, respondent and his then wife (“wife") were involved in an altercation at their home ("altercation"). The altercation stemmed from the misplacement of wife’s cell phone and was initially verbal. Respondent and wife’s one year old daughter ("daughter) was present in the home and was sleeping when the altercation began.
2. At the time of the altercation, respondent and wife were experiencing substantial financial difficulties. This factor, and other issues present in the marriage, had caused a substantial deterioration in the marital relationship and resulted in frequent arguments between respondent and wife.
3. Respondent had been consuming alcohol and was intoxicated at the time of the altercation.
4. Daughter was awakened by the commotion. Wife picked her up and held her for the duration of the altercation.
5. The verbal altercation escalated to physical contact between respondent and wife. Respondent bumped wife with his hips while wife was holding daughter.
6. When wife attempted to utilize the telephone to summon emergency assistance, respondent removed the telephone from wife and disconnected it.
7. Respondent obtained a knife, which he wielded while standing inside the doorway of a bedroom in which wife was standing holding daughter.
8. Wife left the house with daughter and went to the sheriff’s department to report the incident. Respondent was subsequently arrested for violation of the following Penal Code sections: 245(a),assault with a deadly weapon, 243(c)(1), battery on a cohabitant, 273a(b), willful cruelty to a child, 591 injury to telephone/power lines, 136.1(b)(I), preventing a witness from reporting.
9. On October 22, 2008 the Marin County District Attorney’s office filed a complaint against respondent charging him with violation of Penal Code sections 243(e)(I), 273a(b), and 417(a)(1), all misdemeanors.
10. On February 9, 2009, respondent pled to violation of Penal Code sections 243(e)(I) and 417(a)(I).
Conclusions of Law
As evidenced by his conviction for violation of Penal Code sections 243(e)(1) and 417(a)(1), respondent is culpable of committing a crime that did not involve moral turpitude, but did involve other misconduct warranting discipline
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.,
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(6),was June 10, 2010.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of June 10, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $4,007.50. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 3.4 states that conviction of a crime not involving moral turpitude but involving misconduct warranting discipline shall result in discipline appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct.
Respondent’s misconduct is sufficiently severe to warrant discipline. (See In re Otto (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 970, In the Matter of Stewart (Rev. Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 52 and In re Hickey (1990) 50 Cal.3d 571).
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF PROBATION IN UNDERLYING CRIMINAL MATTER.
Respondent shall comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and shall so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report required to be filed with the Office of Probation.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 08-C-14125
In the Matter of: David Carriere
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: David Carriere
Date: 6/24/10
Respondent’s Counsel: Doron Weinberg
Date: 6/25/10
Deputy Trial Counsel: Treva R. Stewart
Date: 7/7/10
Case Number(s): 08-C-14125
In the Matter of: David Carriere
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:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AND THE REPROVAL IMPOSED.
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.
On page 2, A(8). The costs are to be paid in equal amounts for the following membership years-three billing cycles (2011, 2012 & 2013) following the effective date of this order.
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: Pat E. McElroy
Date: July 13, 2010
[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; 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 July 14, 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:
DORON WEINBERG
523 OCTAVIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Treva R. Stewart, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on July 14, 2010.
Signed by:
George Hue
Case Administrator
State Bar Court