State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING DISBARMENT; ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT

Case Number(s): 08-N-10603

In the Matter of: Richard D. Corona, Bar # 56795, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Ashod Mooradian, Deputy Trial Counsel

1149 S. Hill Street

Los Angeles, CA 90015

(213) 765-1004

Bar #194283,

Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent

Richard D. Corona

3504 Caroway Ct

El Cajon, CA 92019

(619) 202-6899

Bar # 56795

Submitted to: Assigned Judge, State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles

Filed: December 28, 2011

  <<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 December 18, 1973.

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):

 checked. Costs are awarded to the State Bar.

<<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) ORDER OF INACTIVE ENROLLMENT:

The parties are aware that if this stipulation is approved, the judge will issue an order of inactive enrollment under Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4), and Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule 5.111(D)(1).

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

<<not>> checked. (1)      Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)].

<<not>> checked. (a)      State Bar Court case # of prior case .

<<not>> checked. (b)      Date prior discipline effective .

<<not>> checked. (c)       Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations:

<<not>> checked. (d)      Degree of prior discipline

<<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.

 checked. (4)                    Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.  See Stipulation Attachment, section “C”, page 7, paragraph 1.

<<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: None

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.  See Stipulation Attachment, section “D”, page 7, paragraph 1.

<<not>> 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: None

D. Discipline: Disbarment.

E. Additional Requirements:

F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

<<not>> checked. (1)      Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (2)      Restitution:  Respondent must make restitution to  in the amount of $  plus 10 percent interest per year from .  If the Client Security Fund has reimbursed  for all or any portion of the principal amount, respondent must pay restitution to CSF of the amount paid plus applicable interest and costs in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6140.5.  Respondent must pay the above restitution and furnish satisfactory proof of payment to the State Bar's Office of Probation in Los Angeles no later than  days from the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this case..

<<not>> checked. (3)      Other:

Attachment language (if any):

 (Effective January 1, 2011 Disbarment.)

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: Richard D. Corona         State Bar No. 56795

STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-N-10603

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 March 27, 2008 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.

B.   FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

RICHARD D. CORONA ("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.

Statement of Facts:

1. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on

December 18, 1973, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.

2. Respondent violated Business and Professions Code, section 6103, by wilfully disobeying or violating an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession, which he ought in good faith to do or forbear, as follows:

3. On August 31, 2007, the Review Department of the California State Bar (Review Dept.) filed an Order placing Respondent on interim suspension and requiring that Respondent comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.20, by performing the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of the rule within 30 and 40 days, respectively, after the effective date of his suspension.

4. On September 28, 2007, the Review Dept. modified the August 31, 2007, Order by staying Respondent’s suspension until December 7, 2007.

5. Respondent received proper notice of the Review Dept. orders dated August 31, 2007, and September 28, 2007.

6. The September 28, 2007, Order required Respondent to comply with subdivision (a) of rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court no later than January 6, 2008, by notifying all clients and any co-counsel of his suspension, delivering to all clients any papers or other property to which the clients are entitled, refunding any unearned attorney fees, notifying opposing counsel and adverse parties of his suspension, and filing a copy of said notice with the court, agency, or tribunal before which the litigation is pending.

7. The September 28, 2007, Order required Respondent to comply with subdivision (c) of rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court no later than January 16, 2008, by filing with the Clerk of the State Bar Court an affidavit showing that he fully complied with those provisions of the Suspension Order regarding rule 9.20.

8. Respondent did not file an affidavit as required by rule 9.20(c) ("9.20 affidavit") by January 16, 2008, with the Clerk of the State Bar Court.

9. The State Bar Office of Probation contacted Respondent on January 30, 2008, about his failure to comply with the Review Dept.’s September 28, 2007, Order. Respondent filed a Rule 9.20 affidavit on February 1, 2008. That affidavit was rejected by the Probation department.

10. On February 8, 2008, Respondent filed a Rule 9.20 affidavit that was accepted by the State Bar Office of Probation.

Conclusion of Law:

11. By failing to file, with the Clerk of the State Bar Court, a 9.20 affidavit as required by the Suspension Order by January 16, 2008, Respondent wilfully disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring him to do an act connected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession, which he ought in good faith to do in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.

C. FACTS SUPPORTING AGGRAVATION.

1. Respondent’s failure to timely comply with the subject 9.20 order, an order of the highest court in this State, is significant harm to the administration of justice)

D. FACTS SUPPORTING MITIGATION.

1. Respondent cooperated with the State Bar in that he has stipulated to facts, conclusions of law and level of discipline.2   Standard 1.2(b)(iv). Standard 1.2(e)(v).

E. AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

Applicable Standards:

The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings 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. 3 Although no Standard specifically addresses a violation of California Rules of Court, rule 9.20, the misconduct inherent in its violation is most closely analogous to a violation of section 6103 which is addressed by Standard 2.6. Standard 2.6 provides that the culpability "...of a member of a violation of [section 6103] shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on 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...".

In addition, California Rules of Court, rule 9.20, subdivision (d), provides that a "...willful failure to comply with the provisions of this rule is a cause for disbarment or suspension. Thus, by its own terms, California Rules of Court, rule 9.20 provides the range of discipline which coincides with the range of discipline required under Standard 2.6 discussed above.

Aggravating & Mitigating Circumstances:

Standard 1.2(b) provides for a greater degree of sanction set forth in the standards where aggravating circumstances exist. In this matter there is one aggravating circumstance. Specifically, pursuant to Standard 1.2(b)(iv), Respondent’s failure to comply with the subject 9.20 order, an order of the highest court in this State, is significant harm to the administration of justice. , Standard 1.2(e) provides for a more lenient degree of sanction than set forth in the

standards where mitigating circumstances exist. In this matter there is one mitigating circumstance. Specifically, pursuant to Standard 1.2(e)(v), Respondent cooperated with the State Bar in that he has stipulated to facts, conclusions of law and level of discipline.

Caselaw:

In Bercovich v. State Bar,4 the attorney filed a belated declaration attempting to justify his failure to comply with rule 9.20. The attorney argued that his inaction was based on emotional and medical problems. Also, the attorney had been active and involved in bar activities and had even been judge pro tempore of the municipal court. However, neither this evidence nor the other evidence the attorney offered in mitigation were found by the Supreme Court to justify discipline less than disbarment.

Standard 1.3. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 116.

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 08-N-10603

In the Matter of: Richard D. Corona

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:  Richard D. Corona

Date: November 30, 2011

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Ashod Mooradian

Date: December 5, 2011

DISBARMENT ORDER

Case Number(s):  08-N-10603

In the Matter of: Richard D. Corona

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.

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 5.58 (E) & (F), 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.)

Respondent  is ordered transferred to involuntary inactive status pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4). Respondent’s inactive enrollment will be effective three (3) calendar days after this order is served by mail and will terminate upon the effective date of the Supreme Court’s order imposing discipline herin, or as provided for by rule 5.111(D)(2) or the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, or as otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court pursuant to its plenary jurisdiction.

Signed by:

Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn

Date: 12-20-2011

(Effective January 1, 2011)

Disbarment Order

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 Los Angeles, on December 28, 2011, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSION OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING; ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT

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:

Richard David corona ESQ

3504 Caroway CT

El Cajon, CA 92019

Richard David Corona ESQ

7988 Stromesa Court

San Diego, CA 92126

Courtesy copy:

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

Ashod Mooradian, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 28, 2011.

Signed by:

Julieta E. Gonzales

Case Administrator

State Bar Court