Case Number(s): 08-O-10934
In the Matter of: John S. Sargetis, Bar # 80630, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Donald R. Steedman, Bar # 104927
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: Assigned Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
Filed: July 30, 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 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.
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 prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2011 and 2012. (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.
FACTS
1. The Myers Matter. On October 17, 2003 Stephanie Myers ("Myers") hired respondent to represent her in a civil matter. On May 5, 2005 respondent filed a complaint for damages on behalf of Myers. On May 10, 2005 and May 27, 2005, respondent filed two Applications for Waiver of Court Fees and Costs. Both Fee Waivers were denied, respectively on May 10, 2005 and May 31, 2005. On June 28, 2005, the complaint filed on behalf of Myers was voided. Respondent received notice that the complaint had been voided.
At the time the Fee Waivers were denied and the complaint voided, respondent failed to inform Myers that her Fee Waivers had been denied, and that the complaint had been voided.
On November 29, 2006, respondent filed a third Application for Waiver of Court Fees and Costs, which was granted on December 1, 2006. On May 8, 2007, the court vacated its order granting the Fee Waiver nunc pro tunc as error. Also on May 8, 2007, the court affirmed the voiding of the complaint filed on May 5, 2005. Respondent received notice that the complaint had been voided.
On December 17, 2007, respondent met with Myers to discuss the possibility of filing a Writ on the Order voiding the complaint. The office meeting with Myers on December 17, 2007, was the first time respondent informed Myers of the denial of the first two waivers, the voiding of the complaint and the decision of the court on May 8, 2007 affirming the voiding of the complaint.
Myers thereafter terminated the services of respondent and sought other counsel.
2. Violation of the Agreement in lieu of Discipline.
Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(1), by failing to keep all agreements made in lieu of disciplinary prosecution with the agency charged with attorney discipline, as follows:
At all times mentioned, the State Bar of California was the agency charged with attorney discipline in the State of California.
On or about April 3, 2009, respondent signed a written agreement in lieu of disciplinary prosecution (ALD) to resolve case number 08-O-10934. The Agreement became effective on April 8, 2009, and at all times thereafter respondent was aware of that the agreement was in effect and he was aware of his duties under the agreement. Respondent also agreed that the ALD would have the following effect:
"1. Business and Professions Code section 6068(1) provides that it is the duty of any attorney ’to keep all agreements made in lieu of disciplinary prosecution with the agency charged with attorney discipline.’ Any conduct by the Respondent within the effective period of this agreement which violates this agreement may give rise to prosecution for violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(1) in addition to prosecution for the underlying allegations.
"2. The facts stipulated to as to the underlying misconduct are binding upon the Respondent, and the Stipulation as to Facts and Agreement in Lieu of Discipline, while confidential, may be admitted as evidence without further foundation at any disciplinary hearing held in conjunction with Respondent’s failure to comply with the conditions of this agreement.
"3. Should Respondent comply fully with the terms and conditions of this agreement as specified herein, the matter(s) referenced herein will thereafter be closed by the State Bar and the State Bar agrees that it will be precluded from reopening the referenced matters for any reason other than as stated in this agreement."
As consideration for this agreement, respondent promised inter alia to comply with specified conditions for a period of one year:
(a) Quarterly Reporting Condition
One of the conditions specified:
"That during the effective period of this agreement, Respondent shall report not later than January 10, April 10, July 10 and October 10 of each year or part thereof during which the conditions of this agreement are in effect, in writing, to the Office of Probation, State Bar Court, Los Angeles, which report shall state that it covers the preceding calendar quarter or applicable portion thereof, certifying by affidavit or under penalty of perjury (provided, however, that if the effective date of this agreement is less than thirty (30) days preceding any of said dates, Respondent shall file said report on the due date next following the due date after said effective date):
"(a) in Respondent’s first report, that Respondent has complied with all provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct since the effective date of said agreement;
"(b) in each subsequent report that Respondent has complied With all provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct during said period;
"(c) provided, however, that a final report shall be filed covering the remaining portion of the effective period of this agreement following the last report required by the foregoing provisions of this paragraph certifying to the matters set forth in subparagraph (b) thereof.
Respondent violated the quarterly reporting condition by submitting all of his quarterly reports late by 7 to 15 days.
(b) MPRE CONDITION
One of the conditions required respondent to take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination within one year of the execution of the agreement. Respondent violated the condition because, to date, he has not passed the examination.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
The Respondent acknowledges that by the conduct described above, he willfully violated Business and Professions Code sections 6068(m) and 6068(1), and Rules of Professional Conduct 3-110(A).
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 08-O-10934
In the Matter of: John S. Sargetis
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: John S. Sargetis
Date: 7/10/10
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Donald R. Steedman
Date: 7/16/2010
Case Number(s): 08-O-10934
In the Matter of: John S. Sargetis
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: Pat McElroy
Date: July 30, 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 30, 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:
JOHN STEVE SARGETIS
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN S SARGETIS
3013 DOUGLAS BLVD STE 200
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
DONALD STEEDMAN, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on July 30, 2010.
Signed by:
Lauretta Cramer
Case Administrator
State Bar Court