Case Number(s): 08-J-14668
In the Matter of: Henry Steelman, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent), Bar # 67676
Counsel For The State Bar: Bita Shasty, Bar # 225177
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
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 18, 1975.
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 10 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.
See Attachment Page 2
IN THE MATTER OF: Henry Steelman
CASE NUMBERS: 08-J-14668-RAH
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent Henry Steelman ("Respondent") admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statues and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
FACTS
Respondent entered into a stipulation with the United States Trustee which is incorporated herein. See Exhibit 1.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (COUNT ONE)
By abdicating his obligations and responsibilities to supervise non-attorney staff and allowing them to engage in the unauthorized practice of law, Respondent failed to properly supervise Simon, Cervantes and Rabbeth, thereby intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (COUNT TWO)
By entering into the above described arrangements with Simon, while having knowledge of the solicitation method used by Simon to obtain clients, Respondent aided non-attorneys in the unauthorized practice of law, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-300(A).
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of October 27, 2009, the approximate costs in this matter is $1,983. 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.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), January 26, 2010.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Prior Record of Discipline (Standard 1.2(b)(i))
Respondent has one prior imposition of discipline in case no. 84-O-13740, effective January 6, 1989, where Respondent received five years suspension stayed, five years probation, with two-years actual suspension for violations of Business and Professions Code Sections 6068(c), 6068(d), 6068(g), 6103, 6106.5 (a), 6106.5 (b) and former Rules of Professional Conduct 7-105 (1).
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Cooperation and Remorse
Respondent has been very cooperative during these proceedings with the State Bar. Respondent recognizes his mistakes and the wrongfulness in his actions and is remorseful. Respondent demonstrated acknowledgment of his mistakes by voluntarily resigning from practicing in Bankruptcy court. Furthermore, upon learning of the actions taken by Simon, Cervantes and Rabbeth, Respondent severed ties with all three persons. In addition, in recognition of his wrongfulness and remorse, Respondent agreed to a stipulation in this matter with the State Bar prior to the Notice of Disciplinary Charges being filed with the State Bar Hearing Department, thus, saving the Office of Chief Trial Counsel and the State Bar Court from expending further time and resources on this matter.
Physical Disabilities
Respondent presented the State Bar with medical documents from Kaiser Permanente which show that he had three surgeries performed between November 2004 and September 2008. Per these documents, Respondent was also on numerous medications during this period of time which is the same period of time that the misconduct occurred.
Good Character
Respondent presented the State Bar with three letters from references in the legal and general community attesting to his good character. These letters are from people who are aware of the full extent of Respondent’s misconduct and who have worked with Respondent in a professional capacity. These letters attested to Respondent’s highly ethical character, honesty and trustworthiness. He is described as dedicated to his clients, trustworthy, unusually honorable and a person of high integrity.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.3, Title IV, Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, provides that the primary purposes of the disciplinary system 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."
The Supreme Court gives the Standards "great weight," and will reject a recommendation consistent with the Standards only where the Court entertains "grave doubts" as to its propriety. (In re Naney (1990) 51 Cal.3d 186, 190; In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 91-92.) Although the Standards are not mandatory, it is well established that the Standards may be deviated from only where there is a compelling, well-defined reason to do so. See Aronin v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 276, 291; Bates v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1056, 1060 fn.2.
Standard 2.4(b) provides that "culpability of a member of wilfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client. Respondent failed to supervise his non-attorney staff which resulted in the staff soliciting, interviewing, and collecting money from prospective clients and causing legal filings in court on behalf of those clients.
Standard 2.10 provides that a violation of any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct "not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3." Respondent was familiar with the solicitation method used by Simon to obtain clients, having discussed such letter with Simon. Furthermore, Respondent received three referrals from Simon and never inquired whether any cases were solicited in his name or whether there were any cases Respondent was associated with out of Simon’s officer, other than the three cases that had been referred to him.
Standard 1.7(a) addresses the effects of prior discipline as follows: "If a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of one prior imposition of discipline as defined by standard 1.2(f), the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding unless the prior discipline imposed was so remote in time to the current proceeding and the offense for which it was imposed was so minimal in severity that imposing a greater discipline in the current proceeding would be manifestly unjust."
Respondent’s prior misconduct occurred in 1984, approximately 23 years prior to the current misconduct. Although Respondent’s prior misconduct was serious, it was not related to the practice of law. Imposing a greater discipline in the current proceeding would be manifestly unjust as the intent and goals of Standard 1.3 are met in this matter by the imposition of six months actual suspension with 2 years stayed suspension and 2 years of probation in addition to attending Ethics School and taking the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 08-J-14668-RAH
In the Matter of: Henry Steelman, No. 67676
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: Henry Steelman
Date: 1-21-10
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Bita Shasty
Date: 1-27-10
PETER C. ANDERSON
United States Trustee
JILL M. STURTEVANT
Assistant United States Trustee (SBN #89395)
RON MAROKO, Trial Attorney (SBN #124770)
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 894-6811; Fax: (213) 894-2603
Email: ron. maroko@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES DIVISION
In re MICHAEL F. CHUA,
Case No. 2:07-bk-14626-VZ
STIPULATION BETWEEN HENRY STEELMAN AND THE UNITED STATES
TRUSTEE RE: DISGORGEMENT OF FEES, FINDINGS OF FACT; REFERRAL
TO THE DISCIPLINARY PANEL OF THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DATE: June 24, 2008 (Status Conference)
TIME: 11:30 a.m.
CTRM: "1368", Los Angeles
TO: HONORABLE VINCENT P. ZURZOLO, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:
The United States Trustee for the Central District of California (hereinafter "United States Trustee") filed a motion against attorney Henry Steelman ("Steelman") requesting an accounting of fees received from or on account of debtor Michael F. Chua ("Debtor" or "Chua") and for the disgorgement under 11 U.S.C. § 329 of all amounts that the Court deems to be unreasonable. In addition, the United States Trustee requested that the Court make findings that Steelman violated certain Rules of Professional Conduct. In the event the Court made those findings, the United States Trustee further requested that Henry Steelman be referred to the Disciplinary Panel of the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (hereinafter "Disciplinary Panel") for further action. The motion also sought to have Steelman’s agents Stanley Simon and Maria Cervantes be found to be jointly and severally liable for the disgorgement. The motion also sought, in supplement or as an alternative remedy fines against Cervantes and an award of damages against her under l 1 U.S.C. § 110. This stipulation proposes to resolve issues the issues against Steelman presented in the motion. Accordingly, upon entry of this Stipulation and the reimbursement of the monies described herein to Chua, the request to have Simon and Cervantes 5 be jointly and severally liable for the monies disgorged will be moot. The petition preparer aspect 6 of the United States Trustee motion is not being resolved by this stipulation.
After receiving the motion, filing appropriate pleadings with the Court and attending a hearing on the United States Trustee’s motion on March 24, 2008, the United States Trustee and Steelman, through their respective counsel entered into discussions to resolve the matter. As a result of discussions, this stipulation is being entered between Henry Steelman and the United States Trustee. Together, Steelman and the United States Trustee shall sometimes collectively be referred to herein as the "Parties". The Parties have also entered a stipulation for the Disciplinary Panel to consider, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1 ".
STIPULATIONS AS TO FINDINGS OF FACT
Steelman acknowledges and admits to the following facts and the parties request that the Court enter findings of fact consistent with the following:
1. Henry Steelman is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California under bar # 67676 and before the District Court for the Central District of California.
2. Prior to May 1, 2008, Steelman worked as debtor’s counsel in four cases filed in 1988, one in 1990, and one in 1993.
3. On or about May 2, 2007, Henry Steelman entered negotiations with Stanley Simon (“Simon") to use Simon’s office space on 16400 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 305, Encino, California, Simon’s telephone number of 818-990-3300, Simon’s facsimile number of 818-990-1821, and Simon’s services, which included secretarial and marketing services.
4. Steelman, as lessee, drafted an "Office Space Rental Agreement" regarding the lease of space at 16400 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 305, Encino, California from Stan Simon, as lessor. A true copy of the agreement was attached as Exhibit "B" to the Response and Opposition to the United States Trustee’s Motion.
5. Steelman drafted a "Service Agreement" for certain services between himself and EZ Solutions, Inc. For services necessary to conduct a law practice, excluding the actual practice of law. The Service Agreement listed the following services to be provided by EZ Solutions, Inc.:
a. Handling incoming and outgoing telephone calls;
b. Handling incoming and outgoing correspondence;
c. Scheduling appointments;
d. Calendaring appearances and dead-lines;
e. Interviewing clients;
f. Filling out and preparing petitions, legal forms, and pleadings;
g. Copying and providing necessary postage and office supplies; and
h. Filing and serving legal petitions, pleadings, forms, and documents.
6. The name of Mercedes D. Bojorquez was interlineated on the Service Agreement as the agent of EZ Solutions, Inc. authorized to sign the Service Agreement. Steelman understood, based upon statements by Simon, that Bojorquez was Simon’s spouse. A true copy of the agreement was attached as Exhibit "C" to the Response and Opposition to the United States Trustee’s Motion.
7. Neither the Office Space Rental Agreement nor the Service Agreement were signed by Steelman and Steelman did not take physical possession of Suite 305.
8. Steelman operated consistent with the Office Space Rental Agreement and the Service Agreement, both before and after drafting the agreements.
9. Steelman did use the third floor conference room, associated with the 16400 Ventura Boulevard space, and did use the secretarial services of Maria Cervantes and Bob Rabbeth.
10. Steelman believed that Maria Cervantes and Bob Rabbeth worked for Stanley Simon. Steelman had personal knowledge that Cervantes, Rabbeth, and Simon were not attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of California.
11. Steelman continued, until October 12, 2007, to list on his bankruptcy documents: (1) his address as 16400 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 305, Encino; (2) his telephone number as 818-990-3300; and (3) his fax number as 818-990-1821. Objection to Claim of the U.S. Department of Education in case 2:07-bk-15270-AA.
12. Between May 2, 2007 and October 12, 2007, Steelman’s address of record with the State Bar of California was P.O. Box 3066, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359.
13. Steelman used the services of Maria Cervantes until at least August 29, 2007, as evidenced by the proof of service for the Notice of Motion and Motion to Reimpose Stay filed in case 2:07-bk-15270-AA. At no time did he directly supervise her work on bankruptcy matters.
14. Steelman did not pay and has not paid Simon or Cervantes for: (1) their services; (2) 8 for the use of office, telephone, facsimile, or clerical staff; (3) a referral or processing fee; or (4) reimburse them for any expenses incurred, such as postage, messenger, or filing services.
15. Steelman was familiar with the solicitation method used by Simon to obtain clients, namely mailing a solicitation letter to homeowners who had received a Notice of Default from their lender, having discussed such letter with Simon and having been shown by Simon a similar letter used under the name of attorney Allan Sarkin.
16. Steelman received three referrals from Simon: Jeremiah Kyle Tatum (2:07-bk- 13654VK, filed May 4, 2007), Francer Olivia Ekeke (2:07-bk-15270-AA, filed June 25, 2007) and Cabral-Gentle (1:07-bk-12310-MT, filed July 5, 2007).
17. Steelman, using the 16400 Ventura Boulevard, #305, Encino address, signed and caused a substitution of attorney form to be filed in the Tatum case on May 18, 2007. Bob 19 Rabbeth signed the substitution of attorney proof of service. The Tatum Statement of Financial Affairs showed that $500.00 was paid Steelman on 4/23/07.
18. Steelman believes that Tatum used Simon’s office to file his pro se bankruptcy petition.
19. Steelman, using the 16400 Ventura Boulevard, #305, Encino address, signed the Ekeke bankruptcy petition and caused it to be filed with the Court. Ekeke’s Statement of Financial Affairs showed that Steelman received $1,500.00 on 5/23/07. Steelman has no financial records that show that he received or deposited $1,500.00 from Ekeke prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case.
20. Steelman believes Ekeke used Simon’s office to file his prior pro se bankruptcy petition, case number 2:07-bk- 13326-AA.
21. Steelman, using the 16400 Ventura Boulevard, #305, Encino address, signed the Cabral-Gentle bankruptcy petition and caused it to be filed with the Court. Cabral-Gentle’s Statement of Financial Affairs showed that Steelman received $2,000.00 on 7/5/07. Steelman has no financial records that show that he received or deposited $2,000.00 from Cabral-Gentle on or prior to that date.
22. Cabral-Gentle had a prior case filing, case number 1:07-bk-11423-MT, which was disclosed on the petition. However, Steelman did not disclose the amounts paid by Cabral-Gentle to Legal Alternatives in the year prior to the filing of the case in response to Statement of Affairs question 9, nor did he inquire as to whether any such payments were made.
23. Steelman believes Cabral-Gentle used Simon’s office to file her prior pro se bankruptcy petition, case number 1:07-bk- 11423-MT.
24. Steelman did not appear at Cabral-Gentle’s section 341(a) meeting because he was informed by Bob Rabbeth that another attorney, Galina Blank, was representing Cabral-Gentle. Steelman did not contact or make inquiry of Cabral-Gentle or Blank-to verify the substitution of counsel, nor did he sign a substitution of attorney form.
25. Chua received a Solicitation fetter dated May 22, 2007, signed by Stan Simon, Administrator, under the letterhead of the ."Law Offices of Henry Steelman", with an address of 16400 Ventura Blvd., Suite 305, Encino, CA 91436 and a telephone number of 818-990-3300.
26. As a result of the solicitation, Michael Chua contacted the Law Offices of Henry Steelman at 818-990-3300 and engaged the law firm to prepare bankruptcy documents to stop a foreclosure sale.
27. As a result of the solicitation and subsequent engagement, Michael Chua caused to be paid $2,849 for the bankruptcy services.
28. Simon and Cervantes acted as Steelman’s agent with regards-to the Chua case.
29. Steelman never met with nor spoke to Michael Chua.
30. Steelman never met not spoke to Michael Chua’s wife, Lennie C. Chua.
31. Steelman never received any monies related to the Chua bankruptcy filings.
32. Steelman was never informed by Simon, Cervantes, or Rabbeth of the Chua filing and did not learn of it until October 2007.
33. Steelman did not make inquiry of Simon, Cervantes, or Rabbeth whether: (1) any cases were solicited by Simon’s office in Steelman’s name; or (2) there were any cases Steelman was associated with out of Simon’s office, other than Taturn, Ekeke, and Cabral-Gentle.
34. Steelman failed to adequately supervise non-attorneys Simon, Cervantes, and Rabbeth.
35. Steelman’s did not directly supervise Simon or Cervantes with regards to the Chua case.
36. The Chuas paid Cervantes $2,849 for bankruptcy services, believing that they had retained Steelman as their attorney.
37. Michael. Chua’s bankruptcy petition was filed on June 5, 2007 and was dismissed by an order entered on August 21, 2007.
38. The bankruptcy services the Chuas paid for were legal services.
39. As a result of Steelman’s arrangement with Simon, Steelman aided non-attorneys in the unauthorized practice of law.
40. Steelman’s conduct, described in these findings, was reckless.
41. By signing this stipulation, Steelman admits that he is not competent to render bankruptcy services to debtors.
42. Steelman is not competent to render bankruptcy services to debtors.
43. Other than the cases mentioned herein, Steelman has no knowledge of any other bankruptcy petitions filed in his name as attorney of record.
ADDITIONAL STIPULATED TERMS RESOLVING THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE’S MOTION
IN LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WHICH THE PARTIES REQUEST THAT THE COURT ADOPT, THE PARTIES AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION AND REQUEST THAT THE COURT ENTER AN ORDER CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION:
1. Steelman agrees to disgorge $2,849.00 and turn over that $2,849.00 in certified funds 3 payable to Lennie Ching-Chua by delivering the $2,849.00 to Nikki Hashemi of the Ray Bulaon Law Office, within thirty (30) days of the entry of this stipulated order. Steelman also agrees to and deliver a copy of the certified fund instrument to the Office of the United States Trustee, 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2600, Los Angeles, CA 90017, attn: Ron Maroko within that same time period.
2. Steelman agrees to attend and complete at least 10 hours of legal ethics continuing legal education and the 3 hour "State Bar Trust Accounting School" (collectively hereinafter "CLE") by August 31, 2008. Within 30 days thereafter, Steelman agrees to mail a copy of his CLE completion certificates to the Office of the United States Trustee, 725 South Figueroa Street, #2600, Los Angeles, CA 90017, attn: Ron Maroko, or the current address for that office, if it is different.
3. Steelman has voluntarily offered to cease practicing in the bankruptcy courts as debtor’s counsel, in light of his admission that he is not competent to render bankruptcy related services to debtors. The United States Trustee has no objection to Steelman’s offer and to the extent necessary, neither party has an objection to the Disciplinary Panel considering this offer as part of the disciplinary resolution proposed in this stipulation.
4. Steelman agrees, for the sixty month period commencing from the entry of this stipulation, to file a copy of this stipulation in every bankruptcy case that he represents a debtor, including acting as appearance counsel for another attorney. During that same period Steelman agrees to contribute any and all remuneration, gross proceeds, fees, monies, or wages earned or received from such an engagement to either the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles or Public Counsel. Both these non-profit entities provide free or low-cost legal services to the public.
5. Steelman offer not to practice in the bankruptcy courts was to all aspects of practice before the bankruptcy court and not just debtor representation. The United States Trustee takes no position with regards to Steelman representing creditors before the bankruptcy court. However, since Steelman admits that is not competent to render bankruptcy related services, Steelman agrees, as a measure of demonstrating minimum competency in representing creditors, to take a minimum of 20 additional hours of continuing legal education related to the representation of creditors prior to representing creditors before the bankruptcy court. Steelman also agrees to read and become familiar with the Local Bankruptcy Rules, then in effect, before he commences such creditor representation.
5. Steelman consents to having this matter referred to the Disciplinary Panel for further consideration. In light of Steelman’s voluntary offer not to practice, the Parties intend to request that the Disciplinary Panel issue an order of public reproval and retention of jurisdiction to take further disciplinary action should Steelman fail to timely complete the CLE described in paragraph 2, or the disgorgement of the fees described in paragraph 1. To that end the Parties have entered a separate stipulation, which is attached as Exhibit "1".
Dated: 6/19/08
Peter C. Anderson
United States Trustee
By: Ron Maroko, Esq.
Attorney for the United States Trustee
Dated:
Henry Steelman, Esq.
Approved as to form and content:
Nikki Hashemi, Esq.
Ray Bulaon Law Offices
Counsel for Michael F. Chua
Approved as to form and content:
James T. King, Esq.
Counsel for Henry Steelman
Steelman agrees, as a measure of demonstrating minimum competency in representing creditors, to take a minimum of 20 additional hours of continuing legal education related to the representation of creditor prior to representing creditors before the bankruptcy court. Steelman also agrees to mad and become familiar with the Local Bankruptcy Rules, then in effect, before he commences such creditor representation.
Steelman consents to having this matter referred to the Disciplinary Panel for further consideration. In light of Steelman’s voluntary offer not to practice, the Parties intend to request that the Disciplinary Panel issue an order of public reproval and retention of jurisdiction to take further disciplinary action should Steelman fail to timely complete the CLE described in paragraph 2, or the disgorgement of the fees described in paragraph 1. To that end the Parties have entered a separate stipulation, which is attached as Exhibit "1".
Dated:
Peter C. Anderson
United States Trustee
By: Ron Maroko, Esq.
Attorney for the United States Trustee
Dated: 6-19-08
Henry Steelman, Esq.
Approved to as form and content:
Nikki Hashemi, Esq.
Ray Bulaon Law Offices
Counsel for Michael F. Chua
Approved as to form and content:
James T. King, Esq.
Counsel for Henry Steelman
Case Number(s): 08-J-14668-RAH
In the Matter of: Henry Steelman
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 DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
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.
1) Respondent’s name in the caption is corrected to read "HENRY."
2) On page 7, under "Conclusions of Law (count one) the sentence is corrected to read "or repeatedly failing to perform..."
3) On page 7, under Pending Proceedings, the sentence is corrected to read "paragraph A.(7), was January..."
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: 2-4-10
[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 Los Angeles, on February 5, 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 Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
HENRY STEELMAN
PO BOX 3066
THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91359
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Bita Shasty, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on February 5, 2010.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court