State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING DISBARMENT; ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT

Case Number(s): 09-O-17889, 11-O-10859, 10-O-06217,10-O-09377,10-O-10634, 10-O-11280

In the Matter of: Vincent L. Goodwin Bar # 158570, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel for The State Bar: Jean Cha

Deputy Trial Counsel

1149 S. Hill Street

Los Angeles, CA 90015

(213) 765-1000

Bar# 228137

Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent

Vincent L. Goodwin

25108 Marguerite Pkwy, A424

Mission Viejo, CA 92692

Bar# 158570

Submitted to: Settlement Judge, State Bar Court Clerk’s Officer San Francisco.

Filed: November 09, 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.

A. Parties' Acknowledgments:

1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted June 9, 1992.

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 (14) 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 are awarded to the State Bar.

<<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.  ORDER OF INACTIVE ENROLLMENT:

The parties are aware that if this stipulation is approved, the judge will issue an

 Order of inactive enrollment under Business and Professional Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4), and Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule 5.111 (D)(1).

B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.

<<not>> checked. (1)   Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)].

<<not>> checked. (a)          State Bar Court case # of prior case

<<not>> checked. (b)          Date prior discipline effective

<<not>> checked. (c)          Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations:

<<not>> checked. (d)          Degree of prior discipline

<<not>> checked. (e)          If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below.

<<not>> checked. (2)  Dishonesty:  Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct.

<<not>> checked. (3)  Trust Violation:  Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property.

checked. (4)     Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

Client Propst in case no. 11-O-10859 was deprived of the use of her funds for almost three years.  Client Bravo in case no. 10-O-06217 was harmed by the detrimental delay to his cause of action due to Respondent’s misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (5)     Indifference:  Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his or her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (6)     Lack of Cooperation:  Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings.

<<not>> checked. (7)     Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:  Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (8)     No aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances: N/A

C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigating circumstances are required.

<<not>> checked. (1)             No Prior Discipline:  Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.

<<not>> checked. (2)     No Harm:  Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the misconduct.

checked. (3)                   Candor/Cooperation:  Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims of his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings.  Respondent cooperated during the pendency of the instant proceeding by stipulating.  He also recognized his wrongdoing and admitted culpability.  His candor and cooperation are mitigation factors. (Std. 1.2(e)(v).)

 checked. (4)                  Remorse:  Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct.  Respondent is remorseful and once his depression was under control he immediately took efforts to review his files and provide accounting and return client files.  Furthermore, Respondent’s misconduct did not arise out of any maleficent intent.  (Std. 1.2(e)(vii); In the Matter of Johnson (Review Dept. 2000)  4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 179.)  Concerted, though recent, efforts to rectify any harm to clients is mitigating under these circumstances.

<<not>> checked. (5)     Restitution:  Respondent paid $ on  in restitution to without the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.

<<not>> checked. (6)     Delay:  These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed.  The delay is not attributable to Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

<<not>> checked. (7)     Good Faith:  Respondent acted in good faith.

checked. (8)                   Emotional/Physical Difficulties:  At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct.  The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities. During the timeframe of the misconduct, Respondent was suffering from health issues that disrupted his work from February 2010 through August 2010 and major depressive disorder from June 2009 through January 2011.

<<not>> checked. (9)     Severe Financial Stress:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and which were directly responsible for the misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (10)   Family Problems:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature.

checked. (11)                 Good Character:  Respondent's good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.  Respondent has provided 16 character references from a cross-section of members in the legal and general community.  These references attest to his character, truthfulness, integrity, skill and dedication as a lawyer and honesty even with the knowledge of the misconduct and belief that the conduct was an anomaly and but for the depression would not have occurred.  They attest to his excellent moral character and in their opinions they, the misconduct will not recur. (Std. 1.2(e)(vi).)

<<not>> checked. (12)   Rehabilitation:  Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.

<<not>> checked. (13)   No mitigating circumstances are involved.

Additional mitigating circumstances:

Respondent was admitted in 1992 and has no prior discipline in over 16 years of Misconduct-free practice prior to the commencement of the misconduct addressed herein in 2008. In July 2009, Respondent transitioned to working out of his home. Without support staff and a filing clerk, Respondent gradually became overwhelmed. Respondent’s depression was not diagnosed until after Respondent took the initiative to seek out professional medical attention in order to discover what was causing his 2010 fatigue and moodiness. After all physical testing lead to a clean bill of health, a physical health explanation was ruled out in July 2010. Respondent’s condition reached its debilitative height in the Fall of 2010 so he sought out a mental health specialist. After treatment and proper diagnosis of major depressive disorder in November 2010, Respondent’s depression was brought under control in January 2011 with medication. Although Respondent had a contingency plan in place should anything happen to him, he and his wife did not recognize that he needed help until it was already too late and misconduct had occurred. While in the throes of depression, Respondent was unable to adequately supervise his trust account and timely disburse the Propst funds after he stopped performing in that matter. The misappropriation did not involve intentional dishonesty. From March 2011 through May 2011, Respondent took great efforts to organize and repair the damage to his practice. Respondent has since organized his office and made full restitution in the Propst matter as of September 15, 2011 in the amount of $100,059.73.

D. Discipline: Disbarment.

E. Additional Requirements:

<<not>> checked. (1)  Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (2)  Restitution:  Respondent must make restitution to ** in the amount of $ ** plus 10 percent interest per year from ** .  If the Client Security Fund has reimbursed ** for all or any portion of the principal amount, respondent must pay restitution to CSF of the amount paid plus applicable interest and costs in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6140.5.  Respondent must pay the above restitution and furnish satisfactory proof of payment to the State Bar's Office of Probation in Los Angeles no later than ** days from the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this case..

<<not>> checked. (3)     Other:

Attachment language (if any):.

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: Vincent Lee Goodwin, State Bar No.158570

STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-O-17889-LMA, 11-O-10859,

(10-O-06217; 10-O-09377; 10-O-10634; 10-O-11280 (Inv.))  

Respondent Vincent Goodwin, admits the facts set forth in the stipulation are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and Rules of Professional Conduct.

(1) The Propst Matter- Case No. 11-O-10859

FACTS

1. On October 5, 2006, Linda Propst ("Propst") employed Respondent to represent her in a dissolution of marriage action.

2. On November 21, 2006, Respondent filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on behalf of Propst in Orange County Superior Court, Case no. 06D010508 (the "Propst divorce case").

3. Propst’s husband was represented in the Propst divorce case by attorney Philip Seastrom ("Seastrom").

4. On July 10, 2008, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the court in the Propst divorce case filed a judgment and order: that resolved the dissolution matter and Propst’s ex-husband was ordered to pay her $175,500.

5. On August 15, 2008, Seastrom, on behalf of Propst’s ex-husband, sent to Respondent a check in the amount of $175,500 made payable to Respondent and Propst. Respondent received the check, and on August 21, 2008, Respondent deposited the $175,500 check into his client trust account, Wells Fargo Bank account number ending in -6461 ("CTA").

6. On May 9, 2009, December 23, 2009, and December 31, 2009, Propst sent Respondent email messages in which she asked Respondent about the status of the Propst divorce case and, in particular, the status of the $175,500 to which she was entitled. Respondent received the emails but did not respond to Propst’s email messages or otherwise communicate with Propst.

The complete account number has been omitted due to privacy concerns.

7. On August 16, 2010, Propst sent Respondent a letter via U.S. mail in which she asked Respondent about the status of the Propst divorce case and, in particular, the status of the $175,500 to which she was entitled. Respondent received the letter but did not respond to the letter or otherwise communicate with Propst until September 2011.

8. Respondent was required to maintain at least $100,059.73 in his CTA on behalf of Propst until he disbursed the funds to her. But by March 31,2011, the balance in Respondent’s CTA had dropped to $1,502.39. At no time on or prior to March 31, 2011 had Respondent disbursed any portion of the $100,059.73 to Propst or to anyone on her behalf.

9. On September 15, 2011, Respondent disbursed $100,059.73 to Propst.

10. Respondent misappropriated at least $98,557.34 ($100,059.73 - $1,502.39) of

Propst’s funds.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

11. By failing to maintain $100,059.73 in the CTA on behalf of Propst, Respondent failed to maintain the balance of funds received for the benefit of a client and deposited in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import in wilful violation of Rule 4-100(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

12. By misappropriating $98,557.34 of Propst’s funds, Respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.

13. By failing to timely respond to Propst’s email messages and letter, Respondent failed to respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).

(2) The Mefford Matter- Case No. 09-O-17889

FACTS

14. On October 5, 2006, Robert Mefford ("Mefford") employed Respondent to represent him in seeking a modification of a child custody order. Mefford agreed to compensate Respondent on an hourly fee basis.

15. On November 30, 2006, Respondent filed a substitution of attorney and an order to show cause requesting modification of child custody/visitation and support orders as well as seeking attorney fees in Mefford’s family law case in Riverside County Superior Court Case no. RID1183372. In 2007 and 2008, there were several communications between Respondent and Mefford.

16. From December 2008 through June 2009, Respondent performed no further services for Mefford.

17. On June 18, 2009, Mefford sent an email to Respondent requesting that Respondent sign a substitution of attorney form and release his client file and provide a refund.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

18. By failing to take further action in the child custody modification matter on behalf of Mefford after December 2008, Respondent recklessly failed to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3-110(A).

19. By not releasing the client file to Mefford in June 2009 as requested, Respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3-700(D)(1).

(3) The Bravo Matter - Case No. 10-O-06217 (Inv.)

FACTS

20. On July 28, 2009, Roger Bravo ("Bravo") hired Respondent to represent him in civil matter for injunctive and declaratory relief against Granada Park Cerritos Homeowner Association in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case no. VC054162, filed August 1, 2009. Bravo paid Respondent $5,000 in advanced legal fees and signed a retainer agreement.

21. On January 13, 2010, Bravo was ordered to provide further discovery responses. Although Respondent received notice of the order, he failed to provide further discovery responses on behalf of Bravo.

22. On April 5, 2010, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failing to comply with the discovery order. Respondent failed to notify Bravo that his case had been dismissed. Bravo learned of the dismissal after he was not able to reach Respondent and went online to check the status of the complaint.

23. In May 2010, Bravo and subsequent counsel Lee Burrows ("Burrows") contacted Respondent to request Bravo’s client file. Respondent provided a partial client file to Burrows in June 2010. Documents regarding discovery were absent from the file.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

24. By failing to provide further discovery responses on behalf of Bravo as ordered on January 13, 2010 and by failing to further prosecute the injunction matter resulting in judgment for dismissal, Respondent recklessly failed to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3-110(A).

25. By not releasing the entire client file to Bravo in June 2010 as requested, Respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct rule

3-700(D)(1).

            (4) The Blaseo Matter - Case No. 10-O-09377 (Inv.)

FACTS

26. In August 2009, Darlene Blasco ("Blasco") hired Respondent to represent her in a dissolution action in Orange County Superior Court Case no. 06D009526. Blasco paid Respondent $7,500 in advanced fees.

27. In August 2010, Respondent became very ill and Blasco hired subsequent counsel, Shelly Hanke ("Hanke"). In September 2010 and October 2010, Hanke sent several letters to Respondent requesting Blasco’s file. Respondent did not respond to the letter and did not return Blasco’s file.

28. Hanke had to reconstruct a file for Blasco without Respondent’s assistance.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

29. By not releasing Blasco’s client file in the Fall of 2010 as requested, Respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3-700(D)(1).

            (5) The Ruiz Matter - Case No. 10-O-10634 (Inv.)

FACTS

30. On June 22, 2009, Ann Ruiz ("Ruiz") hired Respondent to represent her in three matters, one of which was a dissolution matter in Orange County Superior Court Case no. 09D003563, Ruiz paid Respondent $5,000 in advanced fees.

31. In April 2010 through September 2010, Respondent did not respond to Ruiz’s many emails requesting status updates, despite the fact that he received them.

32. In October 2010, Ruiz learned that Respondent missed a hearing in her dissolution matter on September 27, 2010 and that a default judgment was pending with the court. Respondent received notice and at no time had Respondent notify Ruiz regarding the default judgment.

33. Because Respondent failed to complete services for which he was employed, Ruiz filed a request with the court to remove Respondent as her counsel of record on October 22, 2010.

34. On November 15, 2010, the court filed a notice of entry of judgment.

35. On December 3, 2010, the court granted Ruiz’s request and removed Respondent as counsel of record. On December 8, 2010, Ruiz filed a motion to set aside judgment. On January 21,201 l, Ruiz was successful in getting the court to set aside the judgment. On June 15,2011, Ruiz retained new counsel and the dissolution matter was concluded on September 2 l, 2011.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

36. By failing to take any further action in the dissolution matter on behalf of Ruiz after September 2010, Respondent recklessly failed to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3-110(A).

37. By failing to respond to Ruiz’s email messages, Respondent failed to respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).

(6) The Ericsson Matter- Case No. 10-O-11280 (Inv.)

FACTS

38. On April 20, 2010, Lena Ericsson ("Ericsson") hired Respondent to represent her in a malpractice action against her previous family law attorneys. On June 4, 2010, Respondent filed a malpractice complaint on behalf of Ericsson in Orange County Superior Court Case no. 30-2010-00378398. After filing the malpractice action, Respondent failed to take any further action in the matter on behalf of Ericsson.

39. In July 2010 through September 2010, Ericsson sent emails, left Respondent numerous voicemails, and sent a letter to Respondent on September 11, 2010, to request status updates on her malpractice action. Respondent received the emails, messages and letter but did not respond to Ericsson’s status inquiries.

40. On September 7, 2010, Respondent failed to appear at an order to show cause hearing for failure to file a proof of service in the malpractice action. The court set an order to show cause regarding dismissal for October 25, 2010. Ericsson retained new counsel to remove Respondent and substitute into her matter. On October 25, 2010, Respondent was removed as Ericsson’s counsel of record and subsequent counsel substituted into Ericsson’s malpractice action.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

41. By failing to take further action in the malpractice action other than filing the complaint, Respondent recklessly failed to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3-110(A).

42. By failing to respond to Ericsson’s email messages, voicemails and letter, Respondent failed to respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).

DISMISSALS

The parties respectfully request the Court dismiss six alleged violations from the NDCs in the interest of justice:

Case No.; 09-O-17889, Count; Four, Alleged Violation; Business and Professions Code section 6068(i)

Case No.; 10-O-09214, Count; Five, Alleged Violation; Business and Professions Code section 6068(m)

Case No.; 10-O-09214, Count; Six, Alleged Violation; Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2)

Case No.; 10-O-09214, Count; Seven, Alleged Violation; Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3)

Case No.; 10-O-09214, Count; Eight, Alleged Violation; Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2)

Case No.; 10-O-09214, Count; Nine, Alleged Violation; Business and Professions Code section 6068(i)

Case No.; 11-O-10859, Count; Four, Alleged Violation; Business and Professions Code section 6608(i)

SUPPORTING AUTHORITY

The purpose of State Bar disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the attorney, but to protect the public, to preserve public confidence in the profession, and to maintain the highest possible professional standards for attorneys. (Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 103, 111; Cooper v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1016, 1025; Std. 1.3.)

Standard 2.2(a) of The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, Rules Proc. Of State Bar, Title IV, provides for disbarment where an attorney misappropriates entrusted funds. (Stds. 1.6(a), 2.3, 2.4(b), 2.6(a).) An exception is provided when the misappropriated amount is insignificantly small or the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate.

The standards are guidelines (Drociak v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1085, 1090; In the Matter of Koehler (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 615, 628) and are afforded great weight (ln re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 91-92) and although they are not applied in a talismanic

fashion (In the Matter of Van Sickle (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 994) the amount of the misappropriation was not insignificant. Therefore, in balancing the gravity of the misconduct and mitigating circumstances in this matter, disbarment is appropriate. (Std. 1.6(b); Segal v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1077, 1089; Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302, 1310-11; Chang v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 114.)

PENDING PROCEEDINGS

The disclosure date referred to, on page two, paragraph A. (7), was October 27, 2011.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of October 27, 2011, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $4,387.78. Respondent acknowledges that this is an estimate and that additional State Bar Court costs may be included in any final cost assessment (see Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068.10(c)) or taxable costs (see C.C.P. section 1033.5(a)). Should this stipulation be rejected or relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to further proceedings.

Respondent must pay installment of disciplinary costs within the time provided or as may be modified by the State Bar Court pursuant to section 6086.10, subdivision (c); also see Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.134 (old rule 286) and Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 money judgments).

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 09-O-17889, 11-O-10859, 10-O-06217, 10-O-09377, 10-O-10634, 10-O-11280

In the Matter of: Vincent L. Goodwin, 158570

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: Vincent L. Goodwin

Date: 11/1/11

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel:  Jean Cha

Date: 11/02/2011

DISBARMENT ORDER

Case Number(s): 09-O-17889, 11-O-10859, 10-O-06217, 10-O-09377, 10-O-10634, 10-O-11280

In the Matter of: Vincent L. Goodwin 158570

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.

Page 1- Case Number (s):  -Insert under case number 09-O-17889-LMA “10-O-09214”

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.)

Respondent Vincent L. Goodwin is ordered transferred to involuntary inactive status pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4). Respondent’s inactive enrollment will be effective three (3) calendar days after this order is served by mail and will terminate upon the effective date of the Supreme Court’s order imposing discipline herin, or as provided for by rule 5.111(D)(2) or the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, or as otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court pursuant to its plenary jurisdiction.

Signed by:

Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Platel

Date: 11-08-11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[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 9, 2011 I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSION OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING; ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT

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:

                              Vincent L. Goodwin

                              Goodwinlaw A424

                              25108 Marguerite PKWY

                              Mission Viejo, CA 92692

<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:

<<not>> checked. by ovemight 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:

                              Jean Cha, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on November 9, 2011.

Signed by:  Laine Silber, Case Administrator

State Bar Court