Case Number(s): 09-O-17011, 09-O-19216
In the Matter of: Rhonda Kay Walker, Bar # 175108, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Rizamari C. Sitton, Deputy Trial Counsel
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015
Tel: (213) 765-1364
Fax: (213) 765-1318
riza.sitton@calbar.ca.gov
Bar # 138319,
Counsel for Respondent: Matthew S. Gibbs, 137 North Larchmont Blvd., Ste. 193
Los Angeles, California 90004
Tel: (310) 351-0145
Bar # 176048,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
<<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, 1004.
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 17 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.
Case Number(s): 09-O-17011, 09-O-19216
In the Matter of: Rhonda Kay Walker
a. Restitution
<<not>> 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:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
<<not>> 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: RHONDA KAY WALKER, State Bar No. 175108
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-O-17011, 09-O-19216
ATTACHMENT 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS
STIPULATED FACTS
Respondent acknowledges and stipulates that the following facts are true:
Case no. 09-O-17011
1. At all times pertinent herein, Elite Mortgage Services, Inc. (EMS) was a company that offered a variety of real estate products and services to other professionals in the real estate industry, including lawyers.
2. At all times pertinent herein, Respondent maintained her own law practice as a solo practitioner.
3. In February 2009, EMS referred Lynn Johnson ("Johnson") to Respondent for certain legal services. Johnson employed Respondent to perform legal services relating to a home mortgage loan, including but not limited to, negotiating with lenders "in an attempt to obtain the loss mitigation solution appropriate to [Johnson’s] situation."
4. In February 2009, Johnson contemporaneously executed two separate agreements: one with EMS; the other with Respondent. Each contract provided for the same set of loss mitigation services. The contract with EMS required Johnson to pay advance-fees of $3,495, to EMS. The contract with Respondent provided that Respondent would be compensated by EMS for her services to Johnson.
5. On April 10, 2009, Johnson paid EMS advanced-fees in the approximate amount of $3,495. EMS paid Respondent approximately $1200 in advanced-fees for her services to Johnson.
6. In or about April 2009, Johnson provided to EMS all of her financial information and documents relating to her mortgage loan, including her loan modification application.
7. In or about May 2009, Respondent terminated her working relationship with EMS. Respondent did not promptly retrieve Johnson’s financial documents from EMS, and she did not otherwise protect Johnson’s financial information and documents. Respondent did not inform Johnson that her professional relationship with EMS ended.
8. After May 2009, Respondent continued to be responsible for Johnson’s loss mitigation matters.
9. Respondent did not retrieve Johnson’s financial documents from EMS until August 2010, and up until that date, she did not otherwise protect Johnson’s financial information and documents.
Case no. 09-0-19216
10. In 2009, Respondent and her law firm was a member of The Profit Sharing Group, Inc., a company that offered consumer services including legal services relating to mortgage loan modifications.
11. At all times pertinent herein, Respondent maintained her own law practice.
12. On May 1, 2009, The Profit Sharing Group, Inc. referred Justin Pebelier and Diane Pebelier ("Pebeliers") to Respondent for certain legal services. The Pebeliers employed Respondent to perform legal services relating to a modification of their home mortgage loan, including but not limited to, "negotiate[ing] with their current lenders on real estate to restructure the current debt In a way that will allow [the Pebeliers] to achieve and maintain financial stability."
13. On or about May 5, 2009, the Pebeliers paid Respondent advanced-fees in the amount of $1,500.
14. Respondent did not perform any of the legal services for which she was hired.
15. Between June 2009, and September 2009, inclusive, the Pebeliers repeatedly sent messages, by telephone and email, to Respondent inquiring about the status of their matter, and asking for a reply. Respondent did not reply to any of the telephone messages and email, and she did not communicate with the Pebeliers in any other manner.
16. In September 2009, the Pebeliers terminated Respondent’s employment.
17. At the time the Pebeliers terminated Respondent’s employment, Respondent had not earned the fees that the Pebeliers had advanced.
18. In April 2010, the Pebeliers sent a letter to Respondent requesting their file including all financial and other personal documents that they had provided to the Respondent. Respondent did not respond to the letter.
19. Respondent did not refund any part of the unearned fees until September 2010.
20. To date, Respondent has not release to the Pebeliers any of their client papers and property.
ATTACHMENT 2: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
IN THE MATTER OF: RHONDA KAY WALKER
CASE NUMBERS: 09-0-17011, 09-0-19216
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent admits, and the parties stipulate, that by his conduct described in the attached Statement of Facts, Respondent is culpable of violations of the following Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case no. 09-O-17011
By accepting compensation from a non-client, and allowing the non-client to maintain possession and control of her client’s financial information and documents even after her professional relationship with the non-client has ended, Respondent failed to protect Johnson’s confidential financial information as required by Business and Professions Code section 6068(e), in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-310(F).
Case no. 09-0-19216
By not performing the services for which the Pebeliers hired her, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, role 3-110(A).
By not responding to the Pebeliers’ inquiries about the status of their matter over a four-month period, Respondent failed to respond promptly to her clients’ reasonable status inquiries about the loan modification matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
By not refunding the unearned fees to the Pebeliers until September 2010, and after disciplinary investigation had begun, Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
By not releasing to the Pebeliers their client papers and property, after termination of her employment, despite their requests, Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(i).
ATTACHMENT 3: SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
IN THE MATTER OF: RHONDA KAY WALKER
CASE NUMBERS: 09-O-17011, 09-0-19216
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
Culpability of a member of wilfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of wilfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client. Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, Standard 2.4(b).
Culpability of a member of a wilful 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. Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, Standard 2.10.
Respondent violated rule 3-310(F) by permitting the non-attorney immigration services providers who referred immigration clients to him to pay his attorney’s fees for representing the clients they referred to him. Under rule 3-310(F), an attorney may accept payment of his legal fees from a third party only if there is no interference with independence of attorney’s professional judgment or the attorney-client relationship, information relating to the representation remain protected as client confidences and secrets, and the attorney obtains the clients’ informed written consent. Where respondent permitted the referring non-attorneys to restrict the nature and extent of the legal advice he provided to the alien clients, and to restrict the legal services he provided to the alien clients, all to the detriment of the clients, respondent is found to have violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rul6 3-310(F). In the Matter of James Robert Valinoti (Review Dept. 2002) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 498.
In In the Matter of Aguiluz (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 32, the Supreme Court adopted the recommendation that the attorney be given one year stayed suspension and two years probation for failing to perform competently and abandonment of the client’s case. Both mitigating and aggravating circumstances were found, including the attorney’s lack of prior discipline. See, also, In the Matter of Hanson (Review Dept. 1994) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 703.
Case Number(s): 09-O-17011, 09-O-19216
In the Matter of: Rhonda Kay Walker
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: Rhonda Kay Walker
Date: September 15, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel: Matthew S. Gibbs
Date: September 14, 2010
Deputy Trial Counsel: Rizamari C. Sitton
Date: September 15, 2010
Case Number(s): 09-O-17011, 09-O-19216
In the Matter of: Rhonda Kay Walker
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
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.
Respondent’s dated of admittance to the State Bar is December 12, 1994 [not 1004]. (Para, A(1).)
The Stipulation consists of 16 pages, [not 17 pages], not including the order. [Para. A(3).]
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: Donald F. Miles
Date: October 8, 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 Los Angeles, on October 13, 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 Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
MATTHEW S. GIBBS, ESQ.
137 N LARCHMONT BLVD #193
LOS ANGELES, CA 90004
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
RIZAMARI SITTON, ESQ., Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on October 13, 2010.
Signed by:
Rose Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court