Case Number(s): 10-O-00321, et al.
In the Matter of: Thomas Damien Pamilla, Bar # 259931 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Suzan J. Anderson, Supervising Trial Counsel, 1149 S. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015, (213) 765-1209, Bar # 160559
Counsel for Respondent: Susan L. Margolis,
MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS, LLP
2000 Riverside Drive
Los Angeles, California 90039
(323) 953-8996
Bar # 104629
Submitted to: Assigned Judge
<<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 4, 2008.
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 18 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):
<<not>> 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.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following three billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (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.
Please see Attachment, pages 14 and 15.
Case Number(s): 10-O-00321, et al.
In the Matter of: Thomas Damien Pamilla, Member Number 259931
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: Thomas Damien Pamilla
Date: 5/24/11
Case Number(s): 10-O-00321, et al.
In the Matter of: Thomas Damien Pamilla, Member Number 259931
a. Restitution
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: John Roensch
Principal Amount: $100
Interest Accrues From: 8/26/09
2. Payee: Phillip and Suzanne Draughon
Principal Amount: $100
Interest Accrues From: 9/10/09
3. Payee: Please See Attachment, page 16 for required restitution.
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than 30 days prior to the end of Respondent’s probationary period.
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 quarterly
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.
Case Number(s): 10-O-00321, et al.
In the Matter of: Thomas Damien Pamilla, Member Number 259931
<<not>> checked. a. Within days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
checked. b. Within days/ SIX months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than SIX hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
<<not>> checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
Other:
IN THE MATTER OF: THOMAS DAMIEN PAMILLA
This Stipulation includes the following case numbers:
CASE NUMBER(S): 10-O-00321, 10-O-01782, 10-O-02043, 10-O-02345, 10-O-02945,
10-O-03211, 10-O-03884, 10-O-05194, 10-O-05255, 10-O-05985,
10-O-06287, 10-O-06290, 10-O-06442, 10-O-06444, 10-O-06446,
10-O-06650, 10-O-07582, 10-O-07629, 10-O-09236, 10-O-09375.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent pleads nolo contendere to the following facts and violations. Respondent
completely understands that the plea for nolo contendere shall be considered the same as an admission of the stipulated facts and of his culpability of the statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct specified herein.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On August 1, 2009, Respondent became the principal attorney for a loan modification company entitled Waypoint Law Group ("Waypoint"). Waypoint was owned and operated by non-attorneys. Respondent ended his association with Waypoint on September 23, 2009, when another attorney took over the company.
2. Waypoint advertised on radio and television throughout various markets in the United States, and advertised on the internet.
3. Respondent and Waypoint were employed by the following clients to represent them in order to negotiate with their home mortgage lender and obtain a modification of their home mortgage loans:
Case Number 10-O-00321;, Client John Roensch;,
Date Client Employed Respondent 8/26/09;,
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint $3,450 (check to Waypoint);,
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Hawaii
Case Number 10-O-01782;, Client Phillip & Suzanne Draughon;,
Date Client Employed Respondent 9/10/09;,
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 5,295 (check to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Hawaii
Case Number 10-O-02043;, Client Tyrone & Tonika Talton;,
Date Client Employed Respondent 8/27/09;,
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 1,475 (check to Waypoint) ;,
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Arizona
Case Number 10-O-02345;, Client Harold & Judith Richmond;,
Date Client Employed Respondent 8/25/09;,
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 3,450 (checks and credit card payment to Waypoint);, Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Tennessee
Case Number 10-O-02925;, Client Marie Celestin;,
Date Client Employed Respondent 9/9/09;
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 1,500 (check to Waypoint) ;,
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: New York
Case Number 10-0-03211;, Client: Alonso Robinson
Date Client Employed Respondent 8/09;
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 2,006 (paid to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Washington DC
Case Number 10-O-03884;, Client: Sophia Peele
Date Client Employed Respondent : 8/24/09
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 3,450 (paid to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: New Jersey
Case Number 10-O-05194;, Client: Torrence Chapman and Dewey Keaton;,
Date Client Employed Respondent : 9/14/09
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 3,450 (paid to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: North Carolina
Case Number 10-O-05255;, Client Brad Ingram;,
Date Client Employed Respondent : 9/27/09
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 1,725 (paid to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Hawaii
Case Number 10-O-05985;, Client John & Maria Koyama;,
Date Client Employed Respondent : 9/14/09
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 6,000 (paid to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Nevada
Case Number 10-O-06287;, Client Russell & Tammy Brayfield;,
Date Client Employed Respondent : 8/17/09
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 1,500 (paid to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Indiana
Case Number 10-O-06290;, Client: Solomon Cox ;,
Date Client Employed Respondent : 9/8/09
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 3,450 (paid to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Hawaii
Case Number 10-O-06442;, Client Darlene Butay;,
Date Client Employed Respondent : 9/19/09
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 5,000 (paid to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Hawaii
Case Number 10-0-06444;, Client Melvin & Carol Revilla
Date Client Employed Respondent : 8/21/09
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 3,000 (paid to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Hawaii
Case Number 10-0-06446;, Client Sam and Rosemarie Ahia
Date Client Employed Respondent : 8/21/09
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 3,000 (paid to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Hawaii
Case Number 10-O-06650;, Client Dale Littlefield ;,
Date Client Employed Respondent : 8/28/09
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 4,650 (paid to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Hawaii
Case Number 10-0-07582;, Client Klemer and Jean Prieto;,
Date Client Employed Respondent : 9/14/09
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 4,650 (paid to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Hawaii
Case Number 10-0-07629 ;, Client Ji Won Keeley;,
Date Client Employed Respondent : 9/15/09
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 2,000 (paid to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Hawaii
Case Number 10-O-09236;, Client Anthony and Carolyn Bethel
Date Client Employed Respondent : 8/30/09
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 4,650 (paid to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Hawaii
Case Number 10-O-09375 ;, Client Edward Trevino
Date Client Employed Respondent : 8/3/09
Advanced Fees Client Paid to Waypoint 3,400 (paid to Waypoint)
Client’s State of Residency and Location of Property: Hawaii
Total paid to Waypoint: $67,551.00
4. Each of these clients entered into a contract for legal services with Waypoint and Respondent whereby Respondent agreed to modify their home mortgage loans on properties in the states where they resided. Respondent is not presently, and has never been, licensed to practice law in any state other than California. Respondent knew that the clients and their properties were located in jurisdictions in which he was not entitled to practice law. Respondent failed, prior to undertaking to represent the aforementioned individuals, to adequately research the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct and state statutes governing the practice of law and defining the unauthorized practice of law in those jurisdictions.
5. Respondent received a fee of $100 from Waypoint for each of the clients listed above.
6. To date, no refunds have been provided to any of the clients listed above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By failing, prior to undertaking to represent the aforementioned clients to adequately research the applicable rules of professional conduct and state statutes governing the practice of law and defining the unauthorized practice of law in those jurisdictions, Respondent was grossly negligent in holding himself out as entitled to practice law in those jurisdictions, in willful violation of rule 1-300(B) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. By entering into agreements for, charging, and collecting legal fees for services from the clients listed above in jurisdictions where Respondent was not admitted and was not entitled to practice law, Respondent was grossly negligent in entering into agreements for, charging and collecting, illegal fees in willful violation of rule 4-200(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
3. By receiving funds from the advanced fees paid to Waypoint for the above listed clients, for Respondent’s legal services, Respondent indirectly shared legal fees with a person who is not a lawyer in willful violation of rule 1-320(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
FACTORS IN MITIGATION
Respondent displayed candor and cooperation with the State Bar throughout these investigations.
Respondent has fully recognized his wrongdoing and by entering into this Stipulation has fully demonstrated his remorse.
Respondent provided character letters from a range of the community.
Respondent was employed by Waypoint as their principal attorney for a very short period of time, August 1, 2009 to September 23, 2009.
IF RESPONDENT WERE TO TESTIFY TO MITIGATION, RESPONDENT WOULD SO
STATE:
I was admitted to practice in December 2008. My first job after admission was working for a law center that did loan modification work. I was advised by my employer that assisting clients with loan modifications did not constitute the practice of law. As a result, I held the good faith, but mistaken belief, that I could do loan modification work in other jurisdictions without being admitted to practice in those jurisdictions.
I entered into the arrangement at Waypoint intending to supervise all aspects of the work performed by the non-attorney staff. I soon became concerned about the conduct of certain staff members, their treatment of clients and handling of firm finances. When I realized that, despite my best efforts, I would not be able to adequately supervise or control the behavior of those staff members, I left Waypoint after only two months because of these concerns. I took steps to find another attorney to take over the practice before I left, and believed I had adequately safeguarded my clients’ interests before disassociating from Waypoint.
I was not motivated by personal enrichment by my association with Waypoint. Other than the nominal $100 fee I received per case, I received no other profit.
I have performed significant charitable and volunteer work in the community.
I have volunteered significant amounts of time at the Stevenson House in Palo Alto, a non-profit independent living community for low-income seniors, programming community events for the tenants.
I also volunteer 4-5 hours a day for a non-profit foreign exchange program, "NACEL Open Door," a world-wide federation of organizations that provide tutorials, home stays, and touring programs for students seeking to study abroad and to learn other cultures. I serve as a coordinator, as well as an English-as-a-second-language teacher. My aunt is a nun who serves at a church in Argentina. I have visited her in past years and volunteered at her church, helping homeless children living in the shelters overseen by her church.
I am also the primary caregiver and financial support of my younger sister who suffers from emotional and physical disabilities.
FACTORS IN AGGRAVATION
Respondent’s clients, most of whom, hired Waypoint and Respondent to assist them with their home loan modifications did so because they were financially distressed and the loss of their money caused them harm.
DISCUSSION RE STIPULATED DISCIPLINE
Standard 1.3 of the Standards For Attorney Sanctions For Professional Misconduct provides that the primary purpose of discipline is the protection of the public, the courts and legal profession; maintenance of high professional standards; and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession.
Standard 2.7 states that a violation of rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct shall result in at least a six-month actual suspension, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
The parties submit that the stipulated discipline in this matter complies with the
Standards both specifically and with regard to the general purposes and goals of the disciplinary process.
Respondent’s misconduct is aggravated by the fact that it harmed his clients and deprived them of funds they could have used for their mortgages for a substantial period of time. Given the aggravating and mitigating circumstances present in this case, a one year suspension, along with the probationary conditions set forth herein, is consistent with the Standards.
Finally, the parties submit that given Respondent’s recognition of wrongdoing, along with his conduct in attempting to rectify the harm he caused, the stipulated discipline and probationary conditions in this matter are sufficient to assure that Respondent will conform himself in future conduct to ethical standards and, therefore, protect the public, courts, and profession. This is consistent with Standard 1.3.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(6) was May 4, 2011.
FINANCIAL CONDITIONS, RESTITUTION (continued from page 8)
Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the payees listed below. If the Client Security Fund ("CSF") has reimbursed one or more of the payees for all or any portion of the principal amounts listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amounts paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
PAYEE Harold & Judith Richmond PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 8/25/09
PAYEE Marie Celestin PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 9/9/09
PAYEE Sophia Peele PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 8/24/09
PAYEE Torrence Chapman and Dewey Keaton PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 9/14/09
PAYEE Brad Ingram PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 9/27/09
PAYEE John and Maria Koyama PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 9/14/09
PAYEE Russell and Tammy Brayfield PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 8/17/09
PAYEE Solomon Cox PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 9/8/09
PAYEE Darlene Butay PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 9/19/09
PAYEE Melvin and Carol Revilla PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 9/21/09
PAYEE Sam and Rosemarie Ahia PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 8/20/09
PAYEE Dale Littlefield PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 8/28/09
PAYEE Klemer and Jean Prieto PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 9/14/09
PAYEE Ji Won Keeley PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 9/15/09
PAYEE Anthony and Carolyn Bethel PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 8/30/09
PAYEE Edward Trevino PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $100
INTEREST ACCRUES FROM 8/3/09
Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of Respondent’s probationary period.
Respondent waives any objection to payment by the State Bar Client Security fund upon a claim for the principal amount of restitution set forth herein.
ESTIMATE OF COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of May 4, 2011, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $19,745. 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 costs of further proceedings.
STATE BAR ETHICS AND CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT SCHOOLS
Because Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School and State Bar Client Trust Account School as part of this stipulation, Respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School and State Bar Client Trust Account School.
Case Number(s): 10-O-00321, et al.
In the Matter of: Thomas Damien Pamilla, Member Number 259931
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: Thomas Damien Pamilla
Date: 5/12/2011
Respondent’s Counsel: Susan L. Margolis
Date: 5/23/2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Suzan J. Anderson
Date: 5/24/2011
Case Number(s): 10-O-00321, et al.
In the Matter of: Thomas Damien Pamilla
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 5.58 (E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: 6-15-11
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles, on June 20, 2011, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
SUSAN LYNN MARGOLIS
MARGOLIS AND MARGOLIS LLP
2000 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90039
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Suzan J. Anderson, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on June 20, 2011.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court