Case Number(s): 08-O-14248; 09-O-17879; 09-O-18141
In the Matter of: Julius Harmond Hughey, Bar #151196, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Robin Brune, Deputy Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Bar # 149481
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Julius Harmond Hughey
3145 Geary Blvd. #735
San Francisco, California 94118
Bar # 151196
Submitted to: Assigned Judge
Filed: January 3, 2011– 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.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 12, 1990 .
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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2012, 2013, 2014. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
<<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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Julius Harmond Hughey, State Bar No. 151196
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-O-14248; 09-O-17879; 09-O-18141
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
1. 09-0-18141 (Leticia Graves)
The client hired respondent in March, 2009 and paid him the sum of $2,500 for a loan modification. Respondent advised the client that the modification would likely be completed by August 1, 2009. Respondent wrote a letter to the bank and thereafter failed to pursue the matter on behalf of the client. The client made numerous efforts to contact the respondent to ascertain the status of the case. She called respondent on at least five occasions between March, 2009 and December; 2009. Respondent received the messages. Commencing in or about August, 2009, respondent failed to return the calls. The client enlisted a friend, Badillo, who sent respondent an email on her behalf. Respondent advised Badillo that he would not speak to Badillo, about the client’s case, but advised Badillo that he would get back to the client directly. Thereafter, respondent failed to do so in a timely fashion. On several occasions, respondent sought to communicate to the client by giving ve.rbal messages to a third party, directing the third party to convey the messages to the client, but these efforts were unsuccessful. The client sent respondent a certified letter on January 10, 2010, in which she terminated respondent and requested her file and information regarding her fee ("itemization"). Respondent failed to respond to the phone messages and letter. Respondent refunded the client’s full retainer in September, 2010.
Conclusions of Law
1. By failing to take action on behalf of Graves’ loan modification after his initial letter to the bank, respondent failed to perform, in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
2. By failing to respond to the client’s letter, and the client’s contact efforts made in and after August, 2009, respondent failed to respond to the reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which he agreed to provide legal services, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
3. By failing to refund Graves the $2,500 until September, 2010, when she terminated him in January, 2010, respondent failed to promptly refund an unearned fee in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(I))(2).
09-O-17897 (Carmelita Adimora)
The client hired respondent on 3/30/09 to bring one or more suits related to her home mortgage and allegations of a fraudulent loan, including claims that her business partner absconded with the loan proceeds. She paid respondent the sum of $2,500. The respondent made an initial contact with the bank, (Bank of America) on the client’s behalf in April, 2009. He made approximately three additional phone calls to the bank but thereafter failed to pursue either the loan fraud or home mortgage matter to completion. Respondent spoke to the client in June, 2009. The client then called respondent in July, and August 2009 in an effort to ascertain the progress on her case. Respondent received her messages but failed to return her calls. On several occasions, respondent sought to communicate to the client by giving verbal messages to a third party, directing the third party to convey the messages to the client, but these efforts were unsuccessful. The client enlisted a friend, Badillo to assist her. In August, 2009, Badillo sent respondent an email on behalf of the client, requesting the return of the client’s money. Respondent replied to the email, refusing to further communicate with Badillo since he was not the client, but not otherwise responding directly to the client regarding her inquiries. Respondent refunded the full sum to the client in September, 2010.
Conclusions of Law
1. By failing to complete the representation on behalf of Adimora’s loan modification or her potential lawsuit for loan fraud, respondent failed to perform, in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
2. By failing to respond to the client’s numerous phone calls commenc!ng in or about August, 2009, and by failing to provide the client with updated: information after Badi!lo informed him of the client’s concerns in an email, respondent failed to respond to the reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which he agreed to provide legal services, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
3. By failing to refund Adimora the $2,500 until September, 2010, when she terminated him in August, 2009 (through Badillo) respondent failed to promptly refund an unearned fee in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
08-0-14248 (Emiliano Acepio)
This client hired respondent in March, 2008 to prepare and file a bankruptcy. She paid respondent $1500. Respondent delayed for over one year before filing the bankruptcy, filing it in October, 2010. Respondent is continuing to represent this client and has recently filed schedules in the bankruptcy proceeding.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to take action on behalf of Acepio’s bankruptcy for over a one year period, respondent failed to perform, in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was November 15, 2010.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of November 15, 2010, the prosecution costs in this matter are $3,251.00 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.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct
The Standards call for reproval or suspension for willful failures to communicate and perform (Standard 2.4(b)).
Case Law
Case law for abandonment of more than one matter demonstrates a range of discipline from stayed suspension through actual suspension. In Stuart v. State Bar (1985) 40 Cal. 3d. 838, the attorney failed to answer defense interrogatories in one client matter, resulting in the dismissal of his client’s case, and he received thirty days of actual suspension. In Franklin v. State Bar (1986) 41 Cal. 3d. 700, the attorney abandoned two matters, resulting in a 45-day actual suspension. In Wren, the attorney had 22 years with no prior discipline. He nonetheless misrepresented to the client that his matter was proceeding when in fact the case had never been filed. He received two years stayed suspension and forty-five days of actual suspension. (Wren v. State Bar (1983) 34 Cal.3d. 81) In Van Sloten v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal. 3d. 921, the attorney received six months of suspension, stayed, for taking no action in a dissolution matter in a one year period. In In re Riordan (2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr, 41, the attorney abandoned a criminal appeal and disregarded Supreme Court orders. He was sanctioned by the Supreme Court in discipline for failure to perform, failure to abide by court orders, and failure to report the sanctions to the Bar, the attorney received six months of suspension, stayed. His failure to take action on the case spanned a two year period and he had seventeen years of discipline free practice.
In In the Matter of Aguiluz (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 32, the attorney was representing the clients in a Department of Social Services action to revoke the license for their residential care home. He obtained one continuance due to the fact that his son was murdered. Thereafter, the hearing was again postponed, the attorney left on some travels, and the court found his further inaction on the case was tantamount to a withdrawal. The Court imposed a stayed suspension. The Court took into account the attorney’s emotional mitigation due to the death of his son.
Additional Information on Mitigation
Respondent was admitted in 1990 and has no priors. He reports debilitating back pain which commenced in or about July 2009 and culminated with surgery in February, 2010. The surgery was delayed due to financial constraints. During the period of illness respondent would be incapacitated for 2-3 days a week and would try to work from a bedridden condition. Respondent’s illness impacted his practice.
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.
Respondent admits that the aforementioned facts are tree 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-O-14248; 09-O17879; 09-O-18141
In the Matter of: Julius Harmond Hughey
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: Julius Harmond Hughey
Date: December 2, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Robin Brune
Date: December 9, 2010
Case Number(s): 08-O-14248; 09-O-17879; 09-O-18141
In the Matter of: Julius Harmond Hughey
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.
<<not>> 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 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: Patricia McElroy
Date: January 3, 2011
[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 January 3, 2011, 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:
JULIUS H. HUGHEY
J. HARMOND HUGHEY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW
3145 GEARY BLVD #735
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94118
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ROBIN BRUNE, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on January 3, 2011.
Signed by:
Lauretta Cramer
Case Administrator
State Bar Court