Case Number(s): 09-c-15843-2
In the Matter of: Gerald V. Barron, Bar # 53118, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Susan Chan, Bar # 23229
Counsel for Respondent: Charles R. Keller, Bar # 37542
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
Filed: July 7, 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 December 14, 1972.
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):
checked. costs added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<not>> 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.
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.
See Stipulation attachment.
IN THE MATTER OF: Gerald V. Barron
CASE NUMBER(S): 09-C-15843
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
1. Case No. 09-C-15843
A. Statement of Facts
The facts and circumstances leading to respondent’s conviction occurred on November 28, 2008 on State owned property in Fergus County, Montana. Respondent was legally hunting on State owned property when respondent saw an 4-wheel motorized vehicle ("ATV") with two men he did not know who were also hunting on the State owned property. Respondent then heard a rifle shot from one of the men. Respondent believed the two men were hunting illegally with a motorized vehicle, which was not permitted on State land. Respondent approached the two men intending to find out who they were and if they knew it was illegal to hunt from a vehicle.
Based on a comment from one of them, respondent concluded that the two men were local residents whom he had previously reported to the local game warden for illegally hunting from a vehicle. The encounter quickly became hostile and confrontational. Words were exchanged between the parties. In order to diffuse the situation, respondent decided to take the hunters rifles and the keys to the ATV and return to his house a mile and a half away. Both parties called the sheriff with their versions of the encounter and respondent also called the Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks TIP MONTANA hotline.
Respondent was subsequently arrested and in July 2009 pled guilty to one count, a misdemeanor, of engaging in conduct while hunting that created a substantial risk of bodily injury to another and no contest to three counts, a misdemeanor, of purposely, without consent, interfering with another’s use of his own property, namely two rifles and the keys to an ATV.
B. Conclusions of law
By engaging in conduct while hunting that created a substantial risk of bodily injury to another, respondent violated Montana Code Annotated section 45-5-208, a misdemeanor. By tampering with property belonging to another, without consent, so as to interfere with the property’s use, respondent violated Montana Code Annotated section 45-6-101 (b), a misdemeanor. By violating Montana Code Annotated section 45-5-208 and 45-6-101 (b), respondent failed to support the law in violation of section 6068(a) of the Business and Professions Code. Neither offense involved moral turpitude.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was June 11, 2010.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of June 11, 2010, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $1,747.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does not include State Bar Court costs which will be included in any final cost assessment. 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.
Standard 3.4 provides that "Final conviction of a member of a crime which does not involve moral turpitude inherently or in the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime’s commission, but which does involve other misconduct warranting discipline shall result in a sanction as prescribed under part B of these standards appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct found to have been committed by the member."
In re Titus (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1105.
In re Hickey (1990) 50 Cal.3d 571.
In the Matter of Stewart (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 52.
In the Matter of Burns (Review Dept. 1995) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 406.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
FACTS SUPPORTING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Standard 1.2(b)(iv): Respondent’s misconduct harmed the administration of justice by purposely taking, without consent, possession of the hunter’s property. Respondent negligently engaged in conduct while hunting that created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to David Gill.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
FACTS SUPPORTING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Standard 1.2(e)(i): Respondent has been admitted to the practice of law since 1972 without a prior record of discipline.
Standard 1.2(e)(v): Respondent has displayed candor and cooperation to the State Bar during the disciplinary proceedings.
Additional Mitigating Circumstances,
Respondent did not act with premeditation, but under the stress of a highly charged situation. Respondent had a good faith belief that his actions were necessary to prevent the situation from escalating into a violent confrontation. No one was physically injured.
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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 09-C-15843
In the Matter of: Gerald V. Barron
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: Gerald V. Barron
Date: 6/28/2010
Respondent’s Counsel: Charles R. Keller
Date: 6-15-2010
Deputy Trial Counsel: Susan Chan
Date: 7/1/2010
Case Number(s): 09-C-15843
In the Matter of: Gerald V. Barron
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.
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: Lucy Armendariz
Date: July 7, 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 7, 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:
CHARLES R. KELLER
FENTON & KELLER
P O BOX 791
MONTEREY, CA 93942 - 0791
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
SUSAN CHAN, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on July 7, 2010.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court