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-19377

In the Matter of: Theodore A. Pinnock, Bar # 153434, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Christine Souhrada, Deputy Trial Counsel, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, 180 Howard Street, 7th fl, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 538-2183, Bar # 228256

Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent, Theodore A. Pinnock, Blk 4 Lot 10 Phase 4, Carmona Estates, Carmona, 4116 Cavite PHILIPPINES, Bar# 153434

Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.

Filed: April 10, 2012.

  <<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 10, 1991.

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 13 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 Professions 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.

checked. (1)             Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)].

checked. (a)                  State Bar Court case # of prior case 10-O-05378.

checked. (b)                  Date prior discipline effective January 27, 2012.

checked. (c)                  Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: Misappropriation – Moral Turpitude (Business and Professions Code section, 6106) and seeking to mislead a judge or judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law (Business and Professions Code section, 6068(d)

checked. (d)                  Degree of prior discipline three months of actual suspension

<<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.

<<not>> checked. (4)   Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

<<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:

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.

<<not>> 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.

<<not>> 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.

<<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.

<<not>> 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.

<<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.

<<not>> 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.

<<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 has provided statements from Angel V. Luna, M.D., and David J. Bostic, PT, regarding his medical condition and history. Respondent has Cerebral Palsey and is primarily wheel-chair bound, The Cerebral Palsey affects Respondent’s movement and speech, and makes him dependent upon his wife for the activities of daily living. Respondent also suffers from pulmonary issues, respiratory issues, chronic pain, and Osteoarthritis. Respondent’s treating physical therapist, David J. Bostlc PT, stated that Respondent’s experience of chronic pain led to a diminution of his functioning and worsened his abilities, and noted that Cerebral Palsey has a cumulative deleterious effect on the muscles and joints of the body especially in later years. Bostic further stated:

"From 2005 through 2009 as a result of cerebral palsy, aging and chronic pain Mr. Pinnock endured extreme physiological impairments and functional limitations that he had yet to experience in his lifetime as a person with a disability. In my opinion, this represented to Mr. Pinnock not only the loss of personal independence, but also failure in his ability to be able to provide for himself and his family, as he was accustomed. The pain he experienced and the physical changes resulted in a dependency upon other individuals for all of his basic needs. After a life of tremendous struggle to maintain his independence this major shift in his physical and mental capabilities was exceedingly difficult to bear. As a result, work performance, attention to detail, and his ability to make every day decisions may have been negatively impacted."

D. Discipline: Disbarment.

E. Additional Requirements:

(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 Client Security Fund in the amount of $77,555 (Based upon a 40% fee as the maximum reasonable feel collectable by respondent. See also Hyland v. State Bar(1963) 59 Cal. 2d 765) plus 10 percent interest per year from January 1, 2010. 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 90 days from the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this case..

<<not>> checked. (3)   Other:

Attachment language (if any):

Nolo Contendere Plea

Case Number(s): Theodore A. Pinnock

In the Matter of: 09-O-19377

Nolo Contendere Plea Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition

The terms of pleading nolo contendere are set forth in the Business and Professions Code and the Rules of Procedures of the State Bar. The applicable provisions are set forth below:

Business and Professions Code § 6085.5 Disciplinary Charges; Pleas to Allegations

There are three kinds of pleas to the allegations of a notice of disciplinary charges or other pleading which initiates a disciplinary proceeding against a member:

(a) Admission of culpability.

(b) Denial of culpability.

(c) Nolo contendere, subject to the approval of the State Bar Court. The court shall ascertain whether the member completely understands that a plea of nolo contendere will be considered the same as an admission of culpability and that, upon a plea of nolo contendere, the court will find the member culpable. The legal effect of such a plea will be the same as that of an admission of culpability for all purposes, except that the plea and any admissions required by the court during any inquiry it makes as to the voluntariness of, or the factual basis for, the pleas, may not be used against the member as an admission in any civil suit based upon or growing out of the act upon which the disciplinary proceeding is based.

Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule 5.56. Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition

“(A) Contents. A proposed stipulation to facts, conclusions of law, and disposition must comprise:

[¶] . . . [¶]

(5) a statement that the member either:

(a) admits the truth of the facts comprising the stipulation and admits culpability for misconduct; or

(b) pleads nolo contendere to those facts and misconduct;

[¶] . . . [¶]

(B) Plea of Nolo Contendere. If the member pleads nolo contendere, the stipulation must also show that the member understands that the plea is treated as an admission of the stipulated facts and an admission of culpability.”

I, the Respondent in this matter, have read the applicable provisions of Business and Professions Code section 6085.5 and rule 5.56 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. I plead nolo contendere to the charges set forth in this stipulation and I completely understand that my plea will be considered the same as an admission of culpability except as stated in Business and Professions Code section 6085.5(c).

Signed by:

Respondent: Theodore A. Pinnock

Date: March 19, 2012

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: Theodore A. Pinnock, State Bar No. 153434

STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-O-19377

Respondent pleads nolo contendere to the following facts and violations. Respondent completely understands that the plea of nolo contendere shall be considered as set forth in the Nolo Contendere Plea form attached hereto.

I. Facts

1. Respondent represented Noni Gotti (“Gotti") in Civil Rights cases under the American with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the Disabled Persons Act.

2. Respondent filed 76 cases in Gotti’s name. Beginning In February 2010, Gotti requested a complete accounting from respondent for the 76 cases. In April 2010, respondent provided an accounting, which listed the name of the case, the case number and either an amount Gotti allegedly received or that the case had been dismissed without prejudice, but did not provide the settlement amount, costs disbursed or any other information relating to the disbursement of the funds received. Respondent later provided an additional partial accounting listing a fee and settlement amount in some of the cases.

3. Between July 11, 2008 and January 29, 2009, respondent settled fifteen of the cases in which Gotti was a plaintiff and received settlement checks totaling $27,300, which Respondent did not deposit into a client trust account.

4. Gotti was entitled to a substantial portion of the $27,300 in settlement funds. Respondent dishonestly or with gross negligence misappropriated Gotti’s share of the $27,300 in settlement funds for his own use and benefit.

5. Between on January 1, 2008 and on December 31, 2009, respondent did not promptly remove funds which he had earned as fees from respondent’s Client Trust Account ("CTA") as soon as his interest in the funds became fixed and, instead, left his fees in respondent’s CTA for the payment of his personal expenses as needed.

6. Between on January 1, 2008 and on December 31, 2009, respondent repeatedly issued checks drawn upon respondent’s CTA to pay his personal expenses, including but not limited to, the following:

CHECK: 9842, DATE: 3/14/08, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $300

CHECK: 9965, DATE: 5/20/08, PAYEE: Michael Wiggins, AMOUNT: $150

CHECK: 10046, DATE: 6/2/08, PAYEE: Yvonne Pinnock, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10047, DATE: 6/2/08, PAYEE: Yvonne Pinnock, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 9949, DATE: 6/18/08, PAYEE: Kassandra Pinnock, AMOUNT: $900

CHECK: 9951, DATE: 6/19/08, PAYEE: Chona Nancy Pinnock, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 9931, DATE: 6/26/08, PAYEE: Michael Wiggins, AMOUNT: $510

CHECK: 9939, DATE: 6/26/08, PAYEE: Nancy Pinnock, AMOUNT: $1,800

CHECK: 9953, DATE: 6/30/08, PAYEE: Claremont McKenna College, AMOUNT: $740

CHECK: 9912, DATE: 7/21/08, PAYEE: Michael D. Wiggins, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 9915, DATE: 7/21/08, PAYEE: Nancy Pinnock, AMOUNT: $1,000

CHECK: 9908, DATE: 7/25/08, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $300

CHECK: 10075, DATE: 8/1/08, PAYEE: Michael D. Wiggins, AMOUNT: $1,000

CHECK: 10076, DATE: 8/6/08, PAYEE: Jennifer Watson, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10105, DATE: 8/8/08, PAYEE: T.I.E.E., AMOUNT: $1,000

CHECK: 9909, DATE: 8/12/08, PAYEE: Western Reserve Life, AMOUNT: $400

CHECK: 10102, DATE: 8/12/08, PAYEE: Jennifer Watson, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10101, DATE: 8/15/08, PAYEE: Jennifer Watson, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10108, DATE: 8/15/08, PAYEE: Jennifer Watson, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 9954, DATE: 8/18/08, PAYEE: Claremont McKenna College, AMOUNT: $740

CHECK: 10106, DATE: 8/21/08, PAYEE: Claremont McKenna College, AMOUNT: $1,000

CHECK: 10111, DATE: 8/21/08, PAYEE: TIEE, AMOUNT: $1,000

CHECK: 10112, DATE: 9/2/08, PAYEE: Jennifer Watson, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10129, DATE: 9/2/08, PAYEE: Kassandra Pinnock, AMOUNT: $2,500

CHECK: 9896, DATE: 9/12/08, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10141, DATE: 9/17/08, PAYEE: TIEE, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: 10169, DATE: 9/26/08, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: 10187, DATE: 10/3/08, PAYEE: M.C.T., AMOUNT: $967.60

CHECK: 10198, DATE: 10/3/08, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: 10200, DATE: 10/09/08, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: 10230, DATE: 10/09/08, PAYEE: Kassandra Pinnock, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: 10233, DATE: 10/09/08, PAYEE: Kassandra Pinnock, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: 10241, DATE: 10/10/08, PAYEE: Nancy Pinnock, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10246, DATE: 10/10/08, PAYEE: Kassandra Pinnock, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: 10152, DATE: 10/14/08, PAYEE: TIEE, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: 10188, DATE: 10/14/08, PAYEE: Norman Edelson, AMOUNT: $100

CHECK: 10264, DATE: 10/14/08, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $150

CHECK: 10279, DATE: 10/14/08, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10277, DATE: 10/15/08, PAYEE: Kassandra Pinnock, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10229, DATE: 10/17/08, PAYEE: T.I.E.E., AMOUNT: $100

CHECK: 10232, DATE: 10/17/08, PAYEE: T.I.E.E., AMOUNT: $100

CHECK: 10276, DATE: 10/17/08, PAYEE: T.I.E.E, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10295, DATE: 10/17/08, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10285, DATE: 10/20/08, PAYEE: Jennifer Watson, AMOUNT: $150

CHECK: 10268, DATE: 10/21/08, PAYEE: Sprint, AMOUNT: $366.55

CHECK: 10226, DATE: 10/22/08, PAYEE: Atel Communications, AMOUNT: $821.68

CHECK: 10300, DATE: 10/22/08, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $600

CHECK: 10317, DATE: 10/24/08, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10324, DATE: 10/24/08, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: 10323, DATE: 10/28/08, PAYEE: Mike Wiggins, AMOUNT: $1,400

CHECK: 10359, DATE: 10/31/08, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10377, DATE: 11/3/08, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: 10333, DATE: 11/4/08, PAYEE: Staples, AMOUNT: $446.65

CHECK: 10334, DATE: 11/4/08, PAYEE: Printing on Fifth Avenue, AMOUNT: $900

CHECK: 10385, DATE: 11/10/08, PAYEE: Claremont McKenna College, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10386, DATE: 11/10/08, PAYEE: Claremont McKenna College, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10288, DATE: 11/17/08, PAYEE: Franchise Tax Board, AMOUNT: $390

CHECK: 10381, DATE: 11/17/08, PAYEE: Claremont McKenna College, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10398, DATE: 11/17/08, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: 10418, DATE: 12/11/08, PAYEE: Yvonne Pinnock, AMOUNT: $150

CHECK: 10332, DATE: 12/29/08, PAYEE: Jennifer Watson, AMOUNT: $400

CHECK: 10447, DATE: 12/29/08, PAYEE: Jennifer Watson, AMOUNT: $350

CHECK: 10450, DATE: 12/29/09, PAYEE: Jennifer Watson, AMOUNT: $750

CHECK: 10460, DATE: 1/6/09, PAYEE: Mike Wiggins, AMOUNT: $870.16

CHECK: 10461, DATE: 1/7/09, PAYEE: Alex Gutierrezz, AMOUNT: $1,450

CHECK: 10459, DATE: 1/8/09, PAYEE: Anna Wiggins, AMOUNT: $672.36

CHECK: 10458, DATE: 1/9/09, PAYEE: Jennifer Watson, AMOUNT: $1,590.65

CHECK: 10468, DATE: 1/15/09, PAYEE: Alejandro Gutierrez, AMOUNT: $1,412

CHECK: 10469, DATE: 1/15/09, PAYEE: Alejandro Gutierrez, AMOUNT: $200

CHECK: 10477, DATE: 1/21/09, PAYEE: French Maid Cleaning Service, AMOUNT: $400

CHECK: 10476, DATE: 1/26/09, PAYEE: French Maid Cleaning Service, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: 10480, DATE: 1/27/09, PAYEE: Staples, AMOUNT: $109.87

CHECK: 10483, DATE: 1/27/09, PAYEE: French Maid Cleaning Service, AMOUNT: $550

CHECK: 10491, DATE: 1/29/09, PAYEE: Michael D. Wiggins, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10493, DATE: 1/30/09, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $300

CHECK: 10513, DATE: 2/5/09, PAYEE: French Maid Cleaning Service, AMOUNT: $400

CHECK: 10500, DATE: 2/6/09, PAYEE: Lexis Nexis, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10502, DATE: 2/6/09, PAYEE: Kaiser Permanente, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10503, DATE: 2/9/09, PAYEE: Crown Investments Co., AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10504, DATE: 2/9/09, PAYEE: Crown Investments Co, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: 10516, DATE: 2/9/09, PAYEE: French Maid Cleaning Service, AMOUNT: $300

CHECK: 10522, DATE: 2/9/09, PAYEE: Crown Investments Co., AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10523, DATE: 2/12/09, PAYEE: Kaiser Permanente, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10519, DATE: 2/17/09, PAYEE: Yvonne Pinnock, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: 10532, DATE: 2/23/09, PAYEE: French Maid Cleaning Service, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10538, DATE: 2/27/09, PAYEE: French Maid Cleaning Service, AMOUNT: $450

CHECK: 10539, DATE: 2/27/09, PAYEE: French Maid Cleaning Service, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: 10559, DATE: 2/27/09, PAYEE: Crown Investments Co., AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10540, DATE: 3/2/09, PAYEE: Nancy Pinnock, AMOUNT: $400

CHECK: Online, DATE: 3/3/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $1,000

CHECK: Online, DATE: 3/3/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $1,800

CHECK: 10537, DATE: 3/4/09, PAYEE: French Maid Cleaning Service, AMOUNT: $1,500

CHECK: Online, DATE: 3/4/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10548, DATE: 3/5/09, PAYEE: Nancy Pinnock, AMOUNT: $400

CHECK: 10542, DATE: 3/6/09, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $900

CHECK: 10535, DATE: 3/12/09, PAYEE: Michelle Talamayan, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: Online, DATE: 3/12/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: Online, DATE: 3/13/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $1,600

CHECK: Online, DATE: 3/17/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: 10536, DATE: 3/18/09, PAYEE: French Maid Cleaning Service, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: Online, DATE: 3/18/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: Online, DATE: 3/19/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $1,000

CHECK: Online, DATE: 3/20/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $1,000

CHECK: 10521, DATE: 3/24/09, PAYEE: Anna M. Wiggins, AMOUNT: $150

CHECK: 10529, DATE: 3/24/09, PAYEE: French Maid Cleaning Service, AMOUNT: $400

CHECK: Online, DATE: 3/24/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $700

CHECK: Online, DATE: 3/27/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $700

CHECK: Online, DATE: 3/30/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: Online, DATE: 4/7/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: Online, DATE: 4/8/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: Online, DATE: 4/9/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $1,000

CHECK: Online, DATE: 4/14/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $500

CHECK: Online, DATE: 4/17/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $1,300

CHECK: 10617, DATE: 4/29/09, PAYEE Capital One, AMOUNT: $2,000

CHECK: Online, DATE: 5/25/09, PAYEE: Cash, AMOUNT: $250

CHECK: Online, DATE: 6/29/09, PAYEE: Capital One, AMOUNT: $250

7. Gotti was entitled to a substantial portion of the settlement amounts from the 76 cases filed in her name. Respondent had at most a quantum meruit claim for each case and settlement amount. The total of the settlements of these 76 eases is $143,425.00. Of these 76 cases, there are 25 cases for which respondent has claimed to have settled the matter, but for which there is no evidence of the settlement amount.

8. From on January 1, 2008 through on January 1, 2010, the total amount of payments to Noni Gotti from the client trust account was $8,500. As of on January 1, 2010 and continuing thereafter there should have been a substantial sum of money representing Gotti’s share of the settlement proceeds in the CTA.

9. As of on January 1, 2010, the balance in respondent’s trust account was zero.

10. Respondent dishonestly or with gross negligence misappropriated the settlement funds received on behalf of Gotti.

11. Respondent filed many of the 76 cases without Gotti’s knowledge or consent.

II. Conclusions of Law

1. By failing to provide a complete accounting to Ootti for the 76 cases, respondent failed to render appropriate accounts to a client regarding all funds coming into respondent’s possession in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4100(B)(3).

2. By failing to deposit into the CTA fifteen chocks totaling $27,300 of Gotti settlement funds, 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 wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).

3. By misappropriating Gotti’s share of the $27,300 of settlement funds, respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6106.

4. By leaving at least $69,037.52 of his fees in respondent’s CTA for withdrawal as needed to pay personal expenses, respondent commingled funds belonging to respondent in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import, in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4100(A).

5. By failing to maintain a substantial amount of money representing Gotti’s share of the settlement funds in the CTA, 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 Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).

6. By misappropriating a substantial amount of Gotti’s settlement funds from the 76 cases, respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6106.

7. By filing cases without Gotti’s knowledge or consent, respondent corruptly or wilfully and without authority appeared as attorney for a party to an action or proceeding, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6104.

III. Supporting Authority

Standard 2.2(a) mandates disbarment in this case. Disbarment is further warranted under standard 1.7(a) given respondent’s prior record of discipline.

IV. Pending Proceedings

The disclosure date referred to in paragraph A(7) of this stipulation, was March 16, 2012.

V. Estimate Of Costs Of Disciplinary Proceedings

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of January 23, 2012, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $5,317.81. This does not include the costs of the upcoming deposition. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only. 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.

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 09-O-19377

In the Matter of: Theodore A. Pinnock

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: Theodore A. Pinnock

Date: March 19, 2012

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Christine Souhrada

Date: March 21, 2012

DISBARMENT ORDER

Case Number(s): 09-O-19377

In the Matter of: Theofore A. Pinnock

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 5 – E.(2) Place X in Box.

Page 5 – E.(2) Insert after last sentence” “Restitution owed to Client Servicing Fund is enforceable as provided in Business & Professions Code Section 6140.5, Subdivision (c) and (d).”

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 Theodore A. Pinnock 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 herein, 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: April 9, 2012

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 April 10, 2012, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS 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:

THEODORE A. PINNOCK

BLK 4 LOT 10 PHASE 4

CARMONA ESTATES

CARMONA, 4116 CAVITE

PHILIPPINES

checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:

CHRISTINE A. SOUHRADA, Enforcement, San Francisco

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on April 10, 2012.

Signed by:

Bernadette C.O. Molina

Case Administrator

State Bar Court