Case Number(s): 09-O-13757
In the Matter of: Fernando Vargas Hernandez, Bar # 40498, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Christine Souhrada, Deputy Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 538-2183
Fax: (415) 538-2284
Bar # 228256,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Fernando Vargas Hernandez, Attorney at Law
4 N 2nd St Ste 590
San Jose, CA 95113
Bar # 40498,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – 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 June 13, 1967.
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 11 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. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: two billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court Order. (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.
Case Number(s): 09-O-13757
In the Matter of: Fernando Vargas Hernandez
a. Restitution
checked. Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund (“CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
1. Payee: Bernardo and Maria Elena Lopez
Principal Amount: $2,027.50
Interest Accrues From: May 29, 2009
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than .
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
1. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
2. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
3. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
4. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
<<not>> checked. 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.
1. If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated as a “Trust Account” or “Clients’ Funds Account”;
b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:
i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.
c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
2. If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate described above.
3. The requirements of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of Professional Conduct.
checked. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
IN THE MATTER OF: Fernando Vargas Hernandez, State Bar No. 40498
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-O-13757
I. FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FACTS
1. On November 11, 2008, Maria Elena Lopez (hereinafter, “Lopez”), and her husband, Bernardo Lopez, hired respondent to represent then in a dispute involving a construction contract, and paid respondent an advanced fee of $3,000 towards his services.
2. On November 12, 2008, and again on December 3, 2008, respondent wrote to the construction contractor, Hahn Ha, on Lopez’s behalf.
3. On December 16, 2008, Lopez met with respondent and gave him two additional payments totaling $3,320. One payment was the sum of $3,000 for advanced legal fees. The second payment, in the amount of $320, was an advanced cost for the filing fee for filing suit.
4. Respondent did not file suit on behalf of Lopez.
5. Respondent failed to deposit Lopez’s check in the sum of $320 for filing fees in his CTA account. Respondent also failed to maintain these funds in his CTA account. This money was not spent on behalf of Lopez as respondent did not file suit on her behalf.
6. On January 6, 2008, respondent sent another letter to the contractor on behalf of Lopez.
7. In February of 2009, respondent called Lopez and asked for an additional $1,500. Thereafter, Lopez terminated respondent’s services.
8. On May 29, 2009, Lopez wrote a letter to respondent, requesting that a portion of their fees be returned to her. Respondent failed to refund any fees to Lopez.
9. On August 24, 2009, in response to the State Bar investigation of this matter, respondent provided a Statement for Legal Services on the Lopez matter. Respondent’s Statement of Account indicated that he had earned $4,292.50. This would leave $2,027.50 due and payable to Lopez according to Respondent’s own accounting.
10. To date, respondent had failed to make any payment to Lopez.
Conclusions of Law:
11. By failing to deposit and maintain Lopez’s advanced cost, the $320 filing fee, in his CTA, respondent failed to deposit funds received for the benefit of a client in a bank account labeled “Trust Account”, “Client’s Funds Account” or words of similar import, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
12. By failing to refund a sum at minimum $2,027.50 (representing respondent’s accounting of what was due in refund) to Lopez, respondent failed , upon termination of his services, to refund any unearned fees and costs to Lopez, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
II. SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
“An attorney has a ‘personal obligation of reasonable care to comply with the critically important rules for the safekeeping and disposition of client funds.’ [citation omitted] This duty is nondelegable. [citation omitted]…” In the Matter of Malek-Yonan (Rev. Dept. 2003) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 627, 635.
The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.7 dictates the effect of prior discipline. Specifically, standard 1.7(a) states that where a respondent has no prior imposition of discipline the discipline in the current matter “shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding.” Under standard 1.7(a) discipline in the present case must be above the 90 days actual suspension Respondent received in 1985.
III. PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to in paragraph A(7) of this stipulation, was November 12, 2010.
IV. 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 July 22, 2010 and the facts and/or conclusions of law in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
V. DISMISSALS
The parties respectfully request that the Court dismiss count 2 (Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3) and count 4 (Business and Professions Code, section 6106) with prejudice in the interest of justice.
VI. ESTIMATE OF COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of November 12, 2010, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,669.18. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from this stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 09-O-13757
In the Matter of: Fernando Vargas Hernandez
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: Fernando Vargas Hernandez
Date: November 12, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Christine Souhrada
Date: November 15, 2010
Case Number(s): 09-O-13757
In the Matter of: Fernando Vargas Hernandez
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 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: Lucy Armendariz
Date: November 29, 2010
[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 November 29, 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:
FERNANDO VARGAS HERNANDEZ
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4 N 2ND ST STE 590
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
<<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:
Christine Souhrada, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on November 29, 2010.
Signed by:
George Hue
Case Administrator
State Bar Court