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): 10-O-01668 and 10-O-07426

In the Matter of: Mark Ira Rose, 9777 Wilshire Boulevard, #1000

Beverly Hills, CA 90212

310-276-1967

Bar # 6255, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Melanie J. Lawrence,

1149 South Hill Street

Los Angeles, CA 90015

(213)765-1066

Bar # 230102

Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent

Mark Ira Rose

Bar # 62557

Submitted to: Settlement Judge

Filed: August 2, 2011 at State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco

<<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 December 20, 1974.

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 94-O-18920

checked. (b) Date prior discipline effective August 7, 1977

checked. (c) Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: Rule 3-110(A) and Business and Professional Code section 6068(i)

checked. (d) Degree of prior discipline Private Reproval

<<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. See Attachment.

<<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. **

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.

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. See Attachment

<<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.

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. See attachment.

<<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: See Attachment

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: See Attachment.

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: Mark Ira Rose

CASE NUMBER(S): 10-0-01668,10-0-07426

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.

Case No. 10-O-01668 (Complainant: Mona Ahmed)

FACTS:

At all times pertinent to these charges, Respondent maintained a client trust account at Union Bank of California, account number xxxxxx7565 (only the last four digits of the account are being provided in light of privacy concerns) (hereinafter "Respondent’s client trust account").

In March 2004, Mona Ahmed hired Respondent to represent her in a personal injurymatter arising from an accident that occurred on January 27, 2004. Ms. Ahmed and Respondent agreed that Respondent would receive a contingency fee of 33 1/3% of any recovery made on her behalf if the matter was resolved prior to the institution of a lawsuit or arbitration proceeding and 40% if the matter was resolved after the institution of a lawsuit or arbitration proceeding.

In November 2004, prior to the institution of any lawsuit or arbitration proceeding, Ms. Ahmed’s personal injury claim settled for $15,000, the insurance policy limits of the party responsible for the accident. On November 3, 2004, Robert Moreno Insurance Services on behalf of Topa Insurance Company issued and sent to Respondent check number D 008318, dated November 3, 2004, in the amount of $15,000 and made payable to Mona Ahmed and L/O of Mark I. Rose in full and final settlement of Ms. Ahmed’s personal injury matter. Respondent received the settlement check. Ms. Ahmed subsequently endorsed the check.

On November 15, 2004, Ms. Ahmed’s settlement check in the amount of $15,000 was deposited into Respondent’s client trust account.

Pursuant to his fee agreement with Ms. Ahrned, Respondent was entitled to a contingency fee of 33 1/3% of the $15,000 settlement, or $5,000. On November 15, 2004, Respondent disbursed $5,000 from his client trust account to himself for attorney’s fees in Ms. Ahmed’s personal injury claim via his client trust account check number 4535.

After disbursing $5,000 to himself for attorney’s fees, Respondent was required to maintain the remaining $10,000 of Ms. Ahmed’s settlement funds in Respondent’s client trust account until its appropriate distribution on behalf of Ms. Ahmed.

However, Respondent failed to maintain $10,000 in Respondent’s client trust account on behalf of Ms. Ahrned. By September 16, 2009, although Respondent had not made any additional disbursements from his client trust account on behalf of Ms. Ahmed, the balance in Respondent’s client trust account had dropped to $2.62.

Respondent dishonestly, or with gross negligence, misappropriated $9,997.38 belonging to Ms. Ahmed.

At the time of the settlement of her personal injury claim, Ms. Ahmed’s outstanding medical liens totaled $14,895 as follows:

Peter M. Newton, M.D.: $1,201

Eugene Inagaki, R.P.T.: $205

Dr. Fierstein/Beverly Hills Imaging: $3,531

Forster Physical Therapy: $9,958

After settling Ms. Ahmed’s claim Respondent failed to resolve the medical liens on behalf of Ms. Ahmed, for the following four years, failed to pay out any funds to Ms. Ahmed’s medical providers, and failed to file an interpleader or take other appropriate action if he was unable to resolve the medical liens and appropriately disburse Ms. Ahmed’s settlement funds himself. As a result, Beverly Hills Imaging referred its outstanding bill to a collection agency, Financial Debt Recovery.

On January 14, 2010, after Ms. Ahmed filed a complaint with the State Bar, Respondent paid Financial Debt Recovery $5,200 to settle Beverly Hills Imaging’s outstanding bill (which had been only $3,531 at the time Ms. Ahmed’s case settled) via Respondent’s client trust account check number 5147. Check number 5147 cleared against funds in Respondent’s client trust account unrelated to Ms. Ahmed.

On February 12, 2010, on behalf of Ms. Ahmed, Respondent paid Forster Physical Therapy $3,500 to resolve its outstanding bill via Respondent’s client trust account check number 5152. Check number 5152 cleared against funds in Respondent’s client trust account unrelated to Ms. Ahmed.

On February 12, 2010, Respondent sent Ms. Ahmed $2,000 via Respondent’s client trust account check number 5133, which Respondent indicated represented her portion of the settlement funds. Check number 5133 cleared against funds in Respondent’s client trustaccount unrelated to Ms. Ahmed. On March 1, 2010, Respondent sent Ms. Ahmed an additional $1,000 via Respondent’s client trust account check number 5155, which Respondent indicated represented additional settlement funds that he was providing as a courtesy and accommodation to Ms. Ahmed as a result of having reduced his fee. Check number 5155 cleared against funds in Respondent’s client trust account unrelated to Ms. Ahmed.

Respondent still has not satisfied the lien held by Eugene Inagaki, R.P.T.

On February 24, 2010, the State Bar opened an investigation based on Ms. Ahmed’s complaint. On April 6, 2010 a State Bar investigator mailed a letter to Respondent regarding the Ahmed matter, which he received. In the letter, the investigator requested Respondent respond in writing to specified allegations of misconduct being investigated by the State Bar in the Ahmed matter and to provide specified documents, by April 20, 2010. Respondent failed to do so. On May 7, 2010, the investigator sent a second letter, which Respondent received, requesting Respondent provide a written response and documents by May 20, 2010. Respondent failed to do so.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

By failing to maintain $10,000 in Respondent’s client trust account on behalf of Ms. Ahmed, Respondent willfully 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 violation of Rule 4-100(A).

By dishonestly, or with gross negligence, misappropriating $9,997.38 belonging to Ms. Ahmed Respondent willfully committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in violation of Business & Professions Code section 6106.

By failing to pay Ms. Ahmed’s medical providers or Ms. Ahmed any portion of Ms. Ahmed’s settlement funds until more than five years after Ms. Ahrned’s case settled, Respondent willfully failed to pay promptly, as requested by a client, funds in Respondent’s possession which his client and her medical providers were entitled to receive in violation of Rule 4-100(B)(4).

By failing, for more than five years after Ms. Ahmed’s case settled, to take appropriate steps to resolve the medical liens on behalf of Ms. Ahmed, failing to pay out any funds to Ms. Ahmed’s medical providers, failing to file an interpleader or take other appropriate action if he was unable to resolve the medical liens and appropriately disburse Ms. Ahmed’s settlement funds himself, and failing to resolve the outstanding lien of Eugene Inagaki R. P. T. even to date, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or

repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in violation of Rule 3-110(A).

By failing to respond to the investigator’s letters or otherwise cooperate or participate in the State Bar’s investigation of the Ahmed matter, Respondent willfully failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation in violation of Business & Professions Code section 6068(i).

Case No. 10-O-07426 (Complainant: Carmella Sarkisian)

FACTS:

16. On April 8, 2008, Carmella Sarkisian hired Respondent to represent her and her daughter, Claudia D. (last name not provided in light of privacy concerns), a minor, in a personal injury matter arising from an accident that occurred on or about April 8, 2008. Ms. Sarkisian and Respondent agreed that Respondent would receive a contingency fee of 33 1/3% of any recovery made on her behalf if the matter was resolved prior to the institution of a lawsuit or arbitration proceeding and 40% if the matter was resolved after the institution of a lawsuit or arbitration proceeding.

17. In January 2009, prior to the institution of a lawsuit or arbitration proceeding, Respondent settled Claudia D.’s personal injury claim for $1,500. On January 22, 2009, USAA Casualty Insurance Company issued and sent to Respondent check number 17679023, dated January 22, 2009, in the amount of $1,500 and made payable to Mark I. Rose Law Office and Carmella Sarkisian as Parent of Claudia D. Respondent received the settlement check.

18. On January 26, 2009, Claudia D.’s settlement check in the amount of $1,500 was deposited into Respondent’s client trust account.

19. Pursuant to his fee agreement with Ms. Sarkisian, Respondent was entitled to a contingency fee of 33 1/3% of Claudia D.’s $1,500 settlement, or $500. On January 26, 2009, Respondent disbursed $500 from his client trust account to himself for attorney’s fees in Claudia D.’s personal injury claim via his client trust account check number 5063.

20. After disbursing $500 to himself for attorney’s fees, Respondent was required to maintain the remaining $1,000 of Claudia D.’s settlement funds in Respondent’s client trust account until its appropriate distribution on behalf of Claudia D.

21. However, Respondent failed to maintain $1,000 in Respondent’s client trust account on behalf of Claudia D. By February 5, 2009, although Respondent had not made any additional disbursements from his client trust account on behalf of Claudia D., the balance in Respondent’s client trust account had dropped to $240.31.

22. On March 3, 2009, Respondent disbursed $1,000 to Ms. Sarkisian on behalf of Claudia D. via Respondent’s client trust account check number 5065. Check number 5065 cleared in part against funds in Respondent’s client trust account unrelated to Claudia D.

23. Respondent dishonestly or with gross negligence, misappropriated $759.69 of Claudia D.’s funds.

24. In June 2009, prior to the institution of any lawsuit or arbitration proceeding, Respondent settled Ms. Sarkisian’s personal injury claim for $18,000. On June 15, 2009, USAA Casualty Insurance Company issued and sent to Respondent check number 26879775, dated June 15, 2009, in the amount of $18,000 and made payable to Mark I. Rose Law Office and Carmella Sarkisian in full and final settlement of Ms. Sarkisian’s personal injury matter. Respondent received the settlement check.

25. On June 19, 2009, Ms. Sarkisian’s settlement check in the amount of $18,000 was deposited into Respondent’s client trust account.

26. Pursuant to his fee agreement with Ms. Sarkisian, Respondent was entitled to a contingency fee of 33 1/3% of the $18,000 settlement, or $6,000. After disbursing $6,000 to himself for attorney’s fees, Respondent was required to maintain the remaining $12,000 of Ms. Sarkisian’s settlement funds in Respondent’s client trust account until its appropriate distribution on behalf of Ms. Sarkisian.

27. However, Respondent failed to maintain $12,000 in Respondent’s client trust account on behalf of Ms. Sarkisian. By September 16, 2009, although Respondent had not made any additional disbursements from his client trust account on behalf of Ms. Sarkisian, the balance in Respondent’s client trust account had dropped to $2.62.

28. At the time of the settlement of her personal injury claim, Ms. Sarkisian had outstanding medical bills, secured by liens, relating to medical services provided to her as a result of the underlying accident.

29. Respondent failed to take prompt action to resolve the medical bills on behalf of Ms. Sarkisian and failed to pay out any funds to Ms. Sarkisian’s medical providers or to Ms. Sarkisian. As a result, the medical providers continuously contacted Ms. Sarkisian for payment and at least one provider referred its outstanding bill to a collection agency.

30. From June 19, 2009 through January 1, 2010, Ms. Sarkisian contacted Respondent’s office on numerous occasions to inquire about the status of the settlement funds. On each occasion, Ms. Sarkisian left a message, which he received, requesting that Respondent contact her. Respondent failed to return any of Ms. Sarkisian’s calls.

31. On June 24, 2010, Ms. Sarkisian filed a complaint with the State Bar regarding Respondent’s failure to turn over her settlement funds.

32. On January 24, 2011, Respondent sent Ms. Sarkisian a letter with which he enclosed a settlement disbursement sheet and his client trust account check number 5243 in the amount of $6,860.21 made payable to Ms. Sarkisian, which Respondent represented was her share of the settlement of her personal injury claim. Check number 5243 was issued against funds in Respondent’s client trust account unrelated to Ms. Sarkisian.

33. In the settlement disbursement sheet provided with the January 24, 2011 letter, Respondent represented to Ms. Sarkisian that he had compromised/reduced the medical liens of her medical providers, and paid them.

34. On August 10, 2010, the State Bar opened a disciplinary investigation based on Ms. Sarkisian’s complaint.

35. On October 19, 2010, a State Bar investigator mailed a letter to Respondent, which he received, requesting Respondent respond in writing to specified allegations of misconduct and to provide specified documents by November 2, 2010. Respondent failed to do so.

36. On November 22, 2010, the investigator mailed a second letter to Respondent which he received. In that letter, the investigator requested a written response and documents by December 6, 2010. Respondent did not respond.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

By failing to maintain $1,000 in Respondent’s client trust account on behalf of Claudia D., Respondent willfully 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 violation of Rule 4-100(A).

By misappropriating $759.69 belonging to Claudia D., Respondent willfully committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in violation of Business & Professions Code section 6106.

By failing to maintain $12,000 in Respondent’s client trust account on behalf of Ms. Sarkisian, Respondent willfully 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 violation of Rule 4-100(A).

By misappropriating $11,997.38 belonging to Ms. Sarkisian, Respondent willfully committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in violation of Business & Professions Code section 6106.

By failing to pay Ms. Sarkisian’s medical providers or Ms. Sarkisian any portion of Ms. Sarkisian’s settlement funds until more than a year and a half after Ms. Sarkisian’s case settled and he received the funds, Respondent willfully failed to pay promptly, as requested by a client, funds in Respondent’s possession which his client and her medical providers were entitled to receive in violation of Rule 4-100(B)(4).

By failing for more than a year and a half after Ms. Sarkisian’s case settled to take appropriate steps to negotiate and resolve the medical liens on behalf of Ms. Sarkisian, failing to pay out any funds to Ms. Sarkisian’s medical providers, and failing to file an interpleader or take other appropriate action if he was unable to resolve the medical liens and appropriately disburse Ms. Sarkisian’s settlement funds himself, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with

competence in violation of Rule 3-110(A).

By failing to respond to Ms. Sarkisian’s numerous telephone calls inquiring about the status of her settlement funds from June 19, 2009 through January 1, 2010, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services in violation of Business & Professions Code section 6068(m).

By failing to respond to the investigator’s letters or otherwise cooperate or participate in the State Bar’s investigation of the Sarkisian matter, Respondent willfully failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation in violation of Business & Professions Code section 6068(i).

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct ("Std.") provides that the primary purposes of attorney discipline are, "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high legal professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession."

Std. 2.2(a) applies. It requires disbarment for willful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Respondent cooperated in resolving this matter prior to trial. (Std. 1.2 (e)(v).)

During the time of the misconduct, Respondent’s marriage ended resulting in a lengthy dissolution process which caused Respondent significant financial and emotional stress. Moreover, beginning in January 2007, Respondent became the caretaker for his ailing father including for his personal, health, and financial needs. Doing so caused him to be away from the office for extended periods so he was unable to adequately attend to his law practice.

The mitigating circumstances do not call for deviation from Std. 2.2(a). (Std. 1.6(b)(ii).)

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Both Ms. Ahmed and Ms. Sarkisian had outstanding medical bills referred to collections. (Std. 1.2(b)(iv).)

Respondent’s misconduct involves multiple acts of misconduct in two separate matters. (Std. 1.2(b)(ii).)

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of June 29, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $4,161. 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.

OTHER FINANCIAL CONDITIONS

Respondent must satisfy the lien held by Eugene Inagaki, R.P.T.

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was June 29, 2011.

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 10-O-01668, 10-O-07426

In the Matter of: Mark Ira Rose

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: Mark Ira Rose and Melanie J. Lawrence

Respondent: Mark Ira Rose

Date: 7/22/2011

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Melanie J. Lawrence

Date: 7/22/11

DISBARMENT ORDER

Case Number(s): 10-O-01668-PEM

In the Matter of: Mark Ira Rose

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.

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.)

Respondent Andrew E. Rubin 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: 8/1/11

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 August 2, 2011, 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:

by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows: