Case Number(s): 09-O-16750; 10-O-02585
In the Matter of: Ronald White, Bar # 85723, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Mia R. Ellis,
State Bar of California
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Bar # 228235
Counsel for Respondent:, In Pro Per Respondent
Ronald White
17625 S. Central Avenue, Suite D
Carson, CA 90746
Bar # 85723
Submitted to: Settlement Judge es
Filed: June 20, 2011 State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angel
<<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 31, 1979.
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):
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.
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: **. (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: Ronald White
CASE NUMBER(S): 09-O-16750, 10-O-02585
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 09-0-16750 (Complainant: Deion Haggerty)
FACTS:
1. In 2007, Respondent represented Deion Haggerty ("Haggerty") in a criminal trial.
2. On June 28, 2009, Haggerty wrote Respondent requesting that Respondent release Haggerty’s client file so that he may pursue a habeas corpus petition. On June 28, 2009, Haggerty properly mailed the letter to Respondent. The June 28, 2009 letter was not returned as undeliverable or for any other reason. Respondent did not respond to the letter and did not release the client file.
3. On August 12, 2009, Haggerty wrote Respondent again requesting his file. On August 12, 2009, Haggerty properly mailed the letter to Respondent. The August 12, 2009 letter was not returned as undeliverable. Respondent did not respond to the letter and did not release the client file.
4. On December 7, 2009, Respondent wrote the State Bar stating that he had not received the two letters from Haggerty.
5. On April 20, 2010 and May 7, 2010, a State Bar investigator wrote Respondent and enclosed copies of Haggerty’s June 28, 2009 and August 12, 2009 letters, including the proofs of service. The letters with the enclosures were properly mailed to Respondent at his official membership records address. Respondent received the investigator’s letters with their enclosures, but Respondent did not promptly release the client file to Haggerty.
6. In April 2010, Respondent spoke to Haggerty by telephone and Haggerty again asked for documents from his file. Respondent failed to timely provide any client documents to Haggerty.
7. In December 2010, Respondent met with the State Bar, and Respondent was asked to release the client file to Haggerty.
8. In December 2010, Respondent released the client file to Haggerty.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
By not timely releasing the client file to Haggerty despite his requests, Respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
Case No. 10-0-02585 (Complainant: Christian Martinez)
FACTS:
1. In February 2008, Christian Martinez ("Martinez") hired Respondent to represent Martinez in a criminal appeal. In February 2008, Respondent was paid $3,000 in advanced attorney’s fees to pursue Martinez’s criminal appeal before the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, case no. B204770.
2. On April 7, 2008, Respondent substituted in as counsel for Martinez in the criminal appeal.
3. On June 4, 2008, the California Court of Appeal issued a notice regarding the failure to file the opening brief in Martinez’s appeal.
4. On June 12, 2008, the California Court of Appeal issued a Notice of Default in Martinez’s criminal appeal. The Notice of Default was properly served on Respondent. Respondent received notice of the default but did not notify Martinez that default had been entered in her appeal.
5. On June 16, 2008, Respondent filed a request for extension of time to file the opening brief and a request to set aside the default, which was granted o
n June 17, 2008.
6. On July 15, 2008, Respondent filed the opening brief in Martinez’s appeal. Respondent did not inform Martinez that the opening brief had been filed in her criminal appeal.
7. On March 2, 2010, the California Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Martinez’s criminal appeal modifying Martinez’s sentence. Respondent was properly served with the opinion in the criminal appeal. Respondent received the opinion but did not inform Martinez that the opinion was issued and did not inform Martinez that her sentence had been altered.
8. On August 30, 2010, Martinez wrote Respondent asking him to provide the transcripts and other documents from her file. On or about August 30, 2010, Martinez properly mailed the letter to Respondent. Respondent received the letter but failed to respond and failed to release the client file to Martinez.
9. In February 2011, Respondent released the client file to Martinez’s mother
10. On March 17, 2010, the State Bar opened an investigation, case no.
11. 10-0-02585, pursuant to a complaint made against Respondent regarding Christian Martinez (the "Martinez matter").
12. On April 5, 2010 and April 23, 2010, a State Bar investigator mailed letters to Respondent at his official membership records address regarding the Martinez matter. Respondent received the letters but failed to provide a response.
13. On May 12, 2010, Respondent contacted the State Bar investigator and requested an extension of time to provide a response, which was granted. Respondent failed to provide a response.
14. On November 24, 2010, Respondent telephoned the State Bar investigator and requested another copy of the April 5, 2010 letter regarding the Martinez matter. On or about November 29, 2010, the State Bar investigator faxed the April 5, 2010 letter to Respondent. Respondent receive the letter but did not provide a response
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
By failing to inform Martinez that default had been entered in her appeal, by failing to inform Martinez that he had filed an opening brief on her behalf and by failing to provide Martinez with the outcome of her appeal, Respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
By not timely releasing the client file to Martinez despite her request, Respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).
By not providing a written response to the allegations in the Martinez matter or otherwise cooperating in the investigation of the Martinez matter, Respondent failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions
Code, section 60680).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was May 12, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the Standards and held that great weight should be given to the application of the Standards in determining the appropriate level of discipline. The Court indicated that unless it has "grave doubts as to the propriety of the recommended discipline," it will uphold the application of the Standards. In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 81, 91-92.
Standard 1.3 provides that the primary purposes of attorney discipline are, "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high legal professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession."
Standard 1.7(a) The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provide, as follows: If a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of one prior imposition of discipline as defined by standard 1.2(f), the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding unless the prior discipline imposed was so remote in time to the current proceeding and the offense for which it was imposed so minimal in severity that imposing greater discipline in the current proceeding would be manifestly unjust.
Standard 2.6 provides that culpability of a member of a violation of sections 6125 and 6126, 6103 of The Business and Professions Code shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense of the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3.
Standard 2.10 provides culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in these standards or a willful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in Standard 1.3
Balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors and the facts of the case, the 90-day actual suspension recommended is appropriate.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial
Counsel has informed respondent that as of May 12, 2011, the prosecution costs
in this matter are $4371. Respondent further acknowledges that the cost is an
estimate and 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.
Case Number(s): 09-O-16750; 10-O-02585
In the Matter of: Ronald White
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: Ronald White
Date: 6-3-11
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Mia Ellis
Date: 6/7/11
Case Number(s): 09-O-16750; 10-O-02585
In the Matter of: Ronald White
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:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
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 5.58 (E) & (F), 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: Richard A. Platel
Date: 06-20-11
[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 June 20, 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 **, California, addressed as follows:
RONALD WHITE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
17625 SOUTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE D
CARSON, CALIFORNIA 90746
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Mia R. Ellis, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on June 20, 2011.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court