Case Number(s): 09-C-14092-RAH Investigation No. 10-O-11022
In the Matter of: Christopher J. Young, Bar # 262913, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Jessica A. Lienau,
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Bar # 269753,
Counsel for Respondent: Ellen A. Pansky,
Pansky Markle Ham LLP
1010 Sycamore Ave., Ste. 308
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Bar # 77688,
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: March 3, 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.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted May 18, 2009.
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 9 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 (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: the three years immediately following the effective date of discipline. (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.
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.
IN THE MATTER OF: Christopher J. Young, State Bar No. 262913
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-C-14092-RAH (Investigation No. 10-O-11022)
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of engaging in conduct which involved other misconduct warranting discipline.
Criminal Conviction (Case 09-C-14092)
Facts.
Respondent Christopher J. Young ("Respondent") was admitted to the State Bar of California on May 18, 2009.
On June 8, 2008, two individuals, Despemona Deantoni ("Deantoni") and Gregory Gardner ("Gardner"), .went to Respondent’s residence in Newport Beach, California. Deantoni was employed as a dancer by an escort service, Unlimited Referrals. Gardner was a part-time driver for Unlimited Referrals. Respondent initially allowed Deantoni and Gardner into his residence. When they asked Respondent if he had hired them, he stated that he had not and he requested that they leave. Deantoni and Gardner claimed that Respondent had to pay a cancellation fee and stated that they would not leave
until they were so paid. Deantoni and Gardner refused to leave and shouting ensued. At the time, Respondent had two friends asleep in his residence.
Fearing for his safety, Respondent retrieved an unloaded shotgun from his bedroom. Respondent confronted Deantoni and Gardner while displaying the shotgun and ordered them to leave his home. Respondent called 9-1-1, and reported that there were two individuals in his home, Deantoni and Gardner, who would not leave.
Subsequent to Respondent’s call to 9-1-1, the Newport Beach Police Department received a 9-11 call from an Unlimited Referrals dispatcher. The Unlimited Referrals dispatcher stated to the 9-1-1 dispatcher that one of Unlimited Referrals’ dancers and her bodyguard were being held at gunpoint at a residence identified as Respondent’s residence.
Four Newport Beach Police Officers arrived on the scene and saw Deantoni and Gardner exiting Respondent’s residence. Deantoni and Gardner were detained for questioning. Respondent was instructed by the 9-1-1 operator to exit his home and walk to the police officers, which Respondent did. Respondent gave the Officers permission to search his residence. The Officers then proceeded with the search and found an unloaded shotgun in a case inside Respondent’s bedroom closet.
On August 25, 2008, the People of the State of California ("People") filed charges against Respondent in the California Superior Court for Orange County ("Orange County Court") consisting of Count One, brandishing a firearm, a misdemeanor, and Counts Two and Three, making criminal threats, a misdemeanor. On October 20, 2009, Respondent, who was represented by counsel, pled guilty to Counts One and Two,. brandishing a firearm and one count of making criminal threats. Count Three, making criminal threats, was dismissed by the People.
On January 21, 2010, Respondent, who was represented by subsequent criminal defense counsel, filed a motion to set aside his guilty plea. The Orange County Court granted Respondent’s Motion to Set Aside Guilty Plea on February 5, 2010. Respondent then entered a plea of not guilty to Counts One and Two on February 5, 2010. On March 19, 2010, Respondent, represented by counsel, plead guilty to Counts Four and Five, both counts for misdemeanor assault, which were added by interlineation by the People on March 19, 2010.
Conclusion of Law.
The foregoing conduct establishes that Respondent engaged in conduct that did not involve moral turpitude, but which did involve other misconduct warranting discipline.
Investigation Matter (Investigation No. 10-0-11022)
Facts.
On June 28, 2007, Respondent completed and signed his State Bar of California Confidential Moral Character Application and Questionnaire ("Application"). It was received by the Committee of Bar Examiners shortly thereafter. On page 12 of the Application, which is rifled "Convictions," the Application states that, "The applicant has a continuing duty to update in writing responses to questions under the moral character section of the application whenever there is an addition to or change in information previously furnished (Rule VI, Section 7 of the Rules).
Page 12 of the Application states: "IN ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, YOU SHOULD INCLUDE ALL SUCH INCIDENTS AND CONVICTIONS, NO MATTER HOW MINOR THE INCIDENT. Traffic violations which must be reported under this question include Failure to Appear, Driving Without a License, Driving with a Suspended License, and Reckless Driving, as well as all traffic violations that resulted in a misdemeanor or felony conviction." Page 12 of the Application states, "YOU ARE EXCLUDED FROM ANSWERING QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FOLLOWING INCIDENTS: A. Arrests that did not result in a conviction and for which you are not awaiting final adjudication."
Page 12 of the Applications then asks several questions, including, "Have you ever been convicted of the violation of a misdemeanor or felony? As used herein, a conviction includes a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a verdict or finding of guilt, regardless of whether sentence is imposed by the court." Respondent checked the box indicating "No" to this question. The next question asked, "Are you awaiting final adjudication for any incident?" Respondent checked the box indicating "No" to this question.
At the time Respondent submitted his Application, he had no incidents to report. Before Respondent was certified as possessing the requisite moral character by the Committee of Bar Examiners and admitted to the State Bar on May 18, 2009, at no time did Respondent update his Application in writing to reflect his arrest on June 8, 2008. Respondent did not believe that either an arrest or a criminal complaint was required to be reported as an update to a Moral Character Application.
Although Respondent breached his duty to update his Application, the State Bar does not believe that the unreported June 8, 2008 incident would likely have caused the Committee of Bar Examiners to deny Respondent’s Application.
Conclusion of Law.
By failing to disclose his June 8, 2008 arrest and the August 25, 2008 charges filed against him to the Committee of Bar Examiners, prior to his admission to the State Bar of California on May 18, 2009, Respondent willfully violated rule 1-200(A), Rules of Professional Conduct.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was February 18, 2011.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of February 18, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,255.00. 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.
The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct support a public reproval with one year of reproval conditions in this matter.
Standard 1.3 provides guidance as to the imposition of discipline and interpretation of specific Standards. That Standard states that the primary purpose of discipline is the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession.
Standard 2.10 states that where an attorney has wilfully violated a Rule of Professional Conduct not otherwise discussed in the Standards, such as rule 1-200(A), the discipline shall be reproval or suspension, depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim.
Standard 3.4 states that where an attorney is convicted of a crime that does not involve moral turpitude, but which involves other misconduct warranting discipline, then the discipline shall be that delineated in the Standards which is appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct.
The Standards support a public reproval with one year of reproval conditions in this case.
Caselaw.
In In the Matter of Pasyanos (Review Dept. 2005) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 746, the respondent was publicly reproved for her failure to update an Application for Determination of Moral Character submitted to the Committee of Bar Examiners in order to disclose a misdemeanor complaint charging battery and disobedience of a restraining order.
Case Number(s): 09-C-14092-RAH
In the Matter of: Christopher J. Young
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: Christopher J. Young
Date: February 24, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel: Ellen A. Pansky
Date: February 24, 2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Jessica A. Lienau
Date: February 25, 2011
Case Number(s): 09-C-14092-RAH
In the Matter of: Christopher J. Young
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 5.58 (E) & (F), 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: Richard A. Honn
Date: February 28, 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 Los Angeles, on March 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 Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
ELLEN ANNE PANSKY
PANSKY MARKLE HAM LLP
1010 SYCAMORE AVE UNIT 308
SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number . No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Jessica A. Lienau, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 3, 2011.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court