State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE PROGRAM

Case Number(s): 08-H-10868

In the Matter of: Michael A. Gulla Bar # 80133 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Susan Chan, Deputy Trial Counsel

180 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Bar #233229

Counsel for Respondent: Vicky Young

Law Offices of Ephraim Margolin

240 Stockton Street, Suite 400

San Francisco, CA 94108

Bar #73261

Submitted to: Assigned Judge

Filed: August 31, 2009 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.

A.      Parties' Acknowledgments:

1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted June 23, 1978.

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. However, except as otherwise provided in rule 804.5(c) of the Rules of Procedure, if Respondent is not accepted into the Alternative Discipline Program, this stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on the Respondent or the State Bar.

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, except for Probation Revocation proceedings. 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. 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.

7. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7 and will pay timely any disciplinary costs imposed in this proceeding.

B.     Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.

checked. (1)            Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)].

checked. (a)             State Bar Court case # of prior case 05-C-04115 - PEM, et al.

checked. (b)              Date prior discipline effective October 9, 2007.

checked. (c)   Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: Business and Professions Code section

6OS8(a)

checked. (d)  Degree of prior discipline Public Reproval including probation conditions.

.

<<not>> checked. (e)          If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below.

<not>> checked. (2)    Dishonesty:  Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct.

<<not>> checked. (3) Trust Violation:  Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property.

<<not>> checked. (4) Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

<<not>> checked. (5) Indifference:  Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his or her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (6) Lack of Cooperation:  Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings.

<<not>> checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:  Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (8) No aggravating circumstances are involved.

Additional aggravating circumstances:

C.   Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigating circumstances are required.

<<not>> checked. (1) No Prior Discipline:  Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.

<<not>> checked. (2) No Harm:  Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the misconduct. 

checked. (3)            Candor/Cooperation:  Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims of his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings. 

checked. (4)            Remorse:  Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct. 

<<not>> checked. (5) Restitution:  Respondent paid $  on  in restitution to without the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.

<<not>> checked. (6) Delay:  These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed.  The delay is not attributable to Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

<<not>> checked. (7) Good Faith:  Respondent acted in good faith.

<<not>> checked. (8) Emotional/Physical Difficulties:  At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct.  The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.

<<not>> checked. (9) Severe Financial Stress:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and which were directly responsible for the misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (10) Family Problems:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature.

<<not>> checked. (11) Good Character:  Respondent's good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (12) Rehabilitation:  Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.

<<not>> checked. (13) No mitigating circumstances are involved.

Additional mitigating circumstances:

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL A. GULLA

CASE NUMBER(S): ET AL. 08-H-10868

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Case No. 08-H-10868

A. Statement of Facts

On or about August 10, 2007, respondent signed a Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition and Order Approving in State Bar Case No. 05-C-04115-PEM, et al, in which he admitted multiple acts of misconduct, agreed to receive a public reproval, and agreed to comply with conditions attached to the reproval. The conditions attached to the reproval were specified in the stipulation that respondent signed.

On or about September 17, 2007, acting under the authority of Business and Professions Code section 6077, the State Bar Court of California issued an order imposing a public reproval upon respondent in case number 05-C-04115-PEM, et al. Pursuant to former California Rule of Court 956, the State Bar Court order required respondent to comply with the stipulated conditions attached to the

reproval.

The September 17, 2007, State Bar Court decision became effective on October 9, 2007, and at all times thereafter has remained in full force and effect.

On or about September 18, 2007, the State Bar Court Clerk served the order upon respondent’s counsel by mail. Respondent received the order shortly thereafter. At all times pertinent hereto, respondent was aware of all the conditions attached to the reproval. The order required respondent to comply with the specified conditions for a period of one year, i.e., from on or about October 9, 2007, until October 9, 2008.

One of the conditions of reproval required Respondent to report to Membership Records and to the Office of Probation all changes in contact information as follows:

"Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code."

Attachment Page 1

At all relevant times, respondent’s current office address as maintained on the official

membership records of the State Bar of California, referred to herein as the "Chinowth Rd. address," was: Kloster Ruddell, et al., 1102 N. Chinowth Rd., #A, Visalia, CA 93291-4113.

By at least on or about November 27, 2007, respondent was no longer reachable at the Chinowth Rd. address and had otherwise ceased receiving mail at the Chinowth Rd. address. Respondent did not report to the Membership Records Office and to the Office of Probation his change in contact information within 10 days as required by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code. On or about May 20, 2008, after the Notice of Disciplinary Charges in State Bar Case No. 08-H-10868 was filed, did respondent update his official membership records address to 1375 N. Academy Ave., Sanger, CA 93657.

One of the conditions of reproval required respondent to contact the Office of Probation for an initial meeting as follows:

"Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact

the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with Respondent’s assigned probation

deputy to discuss these terms and conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the

Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request."

The terms of respondent’s public reproval imposed by the State Bar Court became effective on or about October 9, 2007, and remained in full force and effect at all times thereafter. Respondent was required to contact the Office of Probation by November 8, 2007, for a meeting to discuss the terms and conditions of his reproval. However, respondent did not do so by said date or at any time thereafter.

One of the conditions of reproval required respondent to submit quarterly reports as follows:

"Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each

January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the condition period attached to the

reproval. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has

complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of

the reproval during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state in each

report whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar

Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the first report

would cover less than 30 (thirty) days, that report must be submitted on the next

following quarter date, and cover the extended period."

"In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the condition period and no later than the last day of the condition period."

One of the conditions of reproval provided as follows:

"Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying

criminal matter and must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any

quarterly report to be filed with the Office of Probation."

One of the conditions of reproval provided as follows:

"Respondent must obtain psychiatric or psychological help/treatment from a duly

licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker at respondent’s own expense a minimum of two (2) times per month and must furnish evidence to the Office of Probation that respondent is so complying with each quarterly report. Help/treatment

should commence immediately, and in any event, no later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of the discipline in this matter."

Respondent violated these conditions attached to a public reproval by failing to timely file quarterly reports, proof of mental health treatment and criminal probation statements with each quarterly report, that were due no later than January 10, 2008 and April 10, 2008. To date, Respondent has not filed the January 10, 2008 and April 10, 2008, quarterly reports.

One of the conditions of the reproval provided as follows:

"Respondent must obtain psychiatric or psychological help/treatment from a duly

licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker at respondent’s own expense a minimum of two (2) times per month and must furnish evidence to the Office of Probation that respondent is so complying with each quarterly report. Help/treatment

should commence immediately, and in any event, no later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of the discipline in this matter."

On or about November 26, 2007, the Office of Probation received a letter from Dr. Richard Blak regarding Respondent’s mental health treatment condition. Dr. Blak reported that respondent sought treatment on the following dates: 6/7/07 (initial appointment), 6/12/07, 7/10/07, 7/24/07, 8/7/07, 9/17/07, 9/27/07, 10/9/07, 10/16/07 and 11/13/07.

Based on the dates of treatment, respondent received only one (1) treatment session in November 2007 and failed to receive any treatment in December 2007.

Respondent violated a condition of reproval by failing to obtain mental health treatment a minimum of two (2) timers per month.

B. Legal Conclusions

By failing to contact the Office of Probation for an initial meeting within 30 days from effective date of discipline, failing to submit quarterly reports and proof of compliance with conditions of probation in the underlying criminal matter and proof of mental health treatment that were due no later than January 10, 2008 and April 10, 2008, and failing to report to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California of any change in contact information within 10 days, and failing to receive the requisite two (2) times per month mental health

treatment in November 2007 and December 2007, respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110, by failing to comply with the conditions attached to a public reproval administered by the State Bar pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 6077 and 6078 and former rule 956, California Rules of Court.

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(6), was February 24, 2009.

Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 08-H-10868

In the Matter of: Michael A. Gulla

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: Michael A. Gulla and Vicki H. Young and Susan Chan

Respondent: Michael A. Gulla

Date: March 4, 2009

Respondent’s Counsel: Vicki H. Young

Date: March 4, 2009

Deputy Trial Counsel: Susan Chan

Date: March 5, 2009

ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE PROGRAM ORDER

Case Number(s): 08-H-10868

In the Matter of: Michael A. Gulla

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 conclusions of law is APPROVED.

<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below.

<<not>> checked. All 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; or 3) Respondent is not accepted for participation in the Program or does not sign the Program Contract.the file date. (See rule 5.58(E) & (F) and 5.382(D), Rules of Procedure.)

Signed by:

Judge of the State Bar Court: Pat McElroy

Date: August 31, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[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  August 31, 2009, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

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:

MICHAEL ANTHONY GULLA

                                    71-650 SAHARA RD STE 2

RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 -4336

checked. By personal service:  

                                    VICKI YOUNG

                                    180 HOWARD STREET, 6TM FLOOR

                                    SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:

                                    SUSAN CHAN - ENFORCEMENT - San Francisco

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on August 31, 2009.

Signed by: Lauretta Cramer

August 31, 2009

State Bar Court