Case Number(s): 10-J-00535-RAH
In the Matter of: Susan L. Dill, Bar # 132607, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Larry DeSha, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1336
Bar # 117910,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Susan L. Dill
818 Grand Blvd., Ste. 550
Kansas City, MO 64106
(816) 221-9199
Bar # 132607
Submitted to: Assigned 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 11, 1987.
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 12 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: Susan L. Dill, State Bar No. 132607
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-J-00535-RAH
FACT:
1. Respondent became a member of the State Bar of California on December 11, 1987. She practiced law in California for only about 25 months before moving to the state of Missouri in March 1990, never to return to practice in California. She promptly changed her State Bar membership status to voluntarily inactive as of April 1, 1990, and paid the annual inactive membership fee until calendar year 1996. She has been on involuntary inactive status since August 12, 1996, for failure to pay the annual membership fees for inactive status. All events described herein occurred in the state of Missouri.
2. In October 2006 Respondent was hired to represent a client to recover damages for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident. They made an oral contingency fee agreement which provided that Respondent would receive one-third of the damages recovered. The case was settled on October 5, 2007 for $15,000.00. Respondent did not have a client trust account when she received the settlement check shortly thereafter, and she deposited the $15,000.00 into her general office account.
3. There were no medical liens on the settlement funds, Respondent was entitled to take a fee of $5,000.00, and the client was entitled to the remaining $10,000.00. (
4. On November 27, 2007, Respondent sent the client a check for $2,500.00, with a short handwritten explanation that it was "one-fourth of your settlement." Respondent sent the remaining $7,500.00 to the client about four weeks later, which was more than 60 days after Respondent deposited the funds into her general office account.
5. Respondent never gave the client an accounting for the settlement funds, i.e., anything showing how much was received and how the funds were disbursed.
6. The client contacted the attorney disciplinary authorities in Missouri, complaining of the delayed payment and lack of an accounting. Respondent cooperated fully in the resulting investigation, and readily admitted the facts set forth above.
7. On January 4, 2010, the Supreme Court of Missouri issued its disciplinary order no. SC90579 for the case of In Re Susan Dill. The order found Respondent culpable of violating three rules of the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys in Missouri, which rules have a similar counterpart under the California Rules of Professional Conduct. These violations of Missouri rules were of (1) rule 4-1.15(a) by failing to keep the client’s funds separate from her own, (2) rule 4-1.15(d) by failing to promptly deliver client funds, and (3) rule 4-1.15 (d) by failing to provide the client with a written settlement statement upon the conclusion of the matter.
8. The Supreme Court of Missouri found a mitigating factor of remorse, holding that Respondent (1) "deeply regrets that she failed to correctly assess her professional obligations in this matter," (2) "acknowledges that [her client] deserved better treatment," and (3) "learned from her mistake."
9. The Supreme Court of Missouri found a mitigating factor of good character, holding that "Respondent is able to produce references and statements tending to demonstrate her overall good character and reputation."
10. The Supreme Court of Missouri imposed discipline of a public reprimand of Respondent.
11. Respondent has cooperated fully with the State Bar of California in its investigation of this matter, has readily admitted all of the facts set forth in this stipulation, and has agreed that her misconduct in Missouri is appropriate for discipline in California.
12. On November 5, 2009, Respondent attended a course of 1.8 hours on client trust account procedures, sponsored by the Missouri Bar. She received credit for 1.8 hours toward the Missouri Bar’s requirements for continuing legal education.
13. On November 10, 2009, Respondent attended a course of 3.0 hours on time management and efficiency, sponsored by the Missouri Bar. She received credit for 3.0 hours toward the Missouri Bar’s requirements for continuing legal education.
14. On December 4, 2009, Respondent attended a course of 8.1 hours on law office management, sponsored by the Missouri Bar. She received credit for 8.1 hours toward the Missouri Bar’s requirements for continuing legal education, which included 3.0 hours for legal ethics.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Respondent’s failure to deposit the settlement funds in a client trust account was a willful violation of rule 4-100(A) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Respondent’s failure to promptly pay $10,000.00 to the client was a willful violation of
rule 4-100(B)(4) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
3. Respondent’s failure to provide the client with a written accounting after the completion of legal services was a willful violation of rule 4-100(B)(3) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY:
Statute
"A certified copy of a final order made by any court ... authorized by law ... to conduct disciplinary proceedings against attorneys, of... any state ... of the United States, ... determining that a member of the State Bar of California committed professional misconduct in such other jurisdiction shall be conclusive evidence that the member is culpable of professional misconduct in this state, subject only to the exceptions of [an issue as to whether the misconduct warrants discipline under California law and rules, and an issue as to whether the proceedings lacked fundamental constitutional protection]." Business & Professions Code, section 6049.1
Standards
Standard 2.2(b) requires an actual suspension of at least three months for commingling client funds with personal funds, irrespective of mitigating circumstances. It also requires an actual suspension of at least three months for any other violation of rule 4-100 without misappropriation. Respondent has three violations of rule 4-100 without misappropriation, including one count of commingling.
However, the California Supreme Court is "not bound to follow the standards in a talismanic fashion," but is "permitted to temper the letter of the law with considerations peculiar to the offense and the offender. (Citations.) ... [A]lthough the standards were established as guidelines, ultimately, the proper ... discipline rests on a balanced consideration of the unique factors in each case. (Citations.)" In the Matter of Van Sickle (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 984.
The Review Department in Van Sickle imposed discipline of an actual suspension of one-half of that in the pertinent standard, i.e., three months instead of six months. A greater reduction from 90 days to 30 days is appropriate here because (1) the Supreme Court of Missouri has already determined that a public reproval was sufficient to protect its citizens and the integrity of its courts and legal profession, and (2) Respondent promptly made her client whole, in less than three months after her misconduct. Van Sickle was ordered to pay restitution totaling $8,124.99, with simple interest of 10 percent per annum for more than 10 years, making the restitution order for more than $16,300.00.
Case Law
"In a proceeding under section 6049.1, the appropriate degree of discipline is not presumed by the other state’s discipline, but is open to determination in this state. (Citation.)" In the Matter of Kauffman (Review Dept. 2001) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 213, 217
PENDING PROCEEDINGS:
The disclosure date referred to on page 2, paragraph A.(7), was September 3, 2010.
COSTS:
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of September 8, 2010, the costs in this matter are $1,636.00. 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.
Case Number(s): 10-J-00535-RAH
In the Matter of: Susan L. Dill
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: Susan L. Dill
Date: September 27, 2010
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Larry DeSha
Date: September 27, 2010
Case Number(s): 10-J-00535-RAH
In the Matter of: Susan L. Dill
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 135(b), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: October 20, 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 25, 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:
SUSAN L DILL ATTORNEY AT LAW
818 GRAND BLVD STE 550
KANSAS CITY, MO 64106
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Ernest Larry DeSha, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on October 25, 2010.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court