Case Number(s): 10-O-02513, 10-O-04907
In the Matter of: Christopher G. Weston, Bar # 174808, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Timothy G. Byer, DTC
1149 S. Hill St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1325
Bar # 172472
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Christopher G. Weston
Western Law Connection Group
4311 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 615
Los Angeles; CA 90010
(323) 936-0815
Bar# 174808
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: September 28, 2011.
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 12, 1994.
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 11 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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2012, 2013. (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 Christopher G. Weston
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-O-02513 and 10-O-04709
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-02513
FACTS:
1. On June 16, 2009, Yoon Jae Park employed Respondent to negotiate and obtain for Park a home mortgage loan modification, and paid Respondent an advanced fee of $3,500.
2. On February 22, 2004, Michael Choi resigned from the practice of law. Respondent either knew or reasonably should have know that Choi had resigned from practice, but employed Choi on Park’s matter and did not disclose, in writing, his employment of Choi to the State Bar, and did not disclose Choirs resignation to Park, in writing.
3. In July 2009, Choi advised Park that, although the Trustee’s Sale of Park’s home had been put off until August 13, 2009, nothing could be done to obtain a loan modification for him. Choi advised Park to file for bankruptcy petition, and Park agreed. Choi prepared a bankruptcy petition for Park in Park’s name as a debtor in pro per.
4. In late August 2009, Park went to Respondent’s office and confronted Choi, asked him directly whether he was an attorney, and Choi admitted he was not. Park terminated Respondent’s representation, demanded a refund of his unearned advanced fee, and was provided his file materials.
5. At the time Park terminated Respondent’s employment, Respondent had performed no legal services of any value to Park.
6. On August 31, 2009, Respondent terminated Choi’s employment.
7. On January 21, 2011, Respondent finally provided Park a complete refund of his unearned advanced fee.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
8. By not disclosing to the State Bar and to Park, in writing, his employment of Choi, Respondent employed a member he knew or reasonably should have known was a disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member, without serving upon the State Bar written notice of the employment, including a full description of such person’s current bar status, and without serving similar written notice upon each client on whose specific matter such person will work, prior to or at the time of employing such person to work on the client’s specific matter, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-311 (D).
9. By not providing Park a refund of his unearned advanced fee until 17 months after Park terminated Respondent’s employment, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
Case No. 10-O-04709
FACTS:
10. On February 22, 2004, Michael Choi resigned from the practice of law.
11. On April 15, 2009, Ki Hyun Lim employed Respondent to commence litigation against his real estate lender in order to protect his residence from foreclosure. All of Lim’s dealings were with Respondent’s employee, Choi, who advised Lira he was an attorney.
12. Respondent either knew or reasonably should have know that Choi had resigned from practice, but employed Choi on Lim’s matter and did not disclose, in writing, his employment of Choi to the State Bar, and did not disclose Choi’s resignation to Lim, in writing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
13. By not disclosing to the State Bar and to Lim, in writing, his employment of Choi, Respondent employed a member he knew or reasonably should have known was a disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member, without serving upon the State Bar written notice of the employment, including a full description of such person’s current bar status, and without serving similar written notice upon each client on whose specific matter such person will work, prior to or at the time of employing such person to work on the client’s specific matter, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-311 (D).
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct: Respondent’s failure to disclose his employment of Choi to Park, to Lim, and to the State Bar, demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Remorse: Respondent terminated Choi’s employment on August 31, 2009, prior to the filing of State Bar complaints in either of these matters.
Candor/Cooperation: Respondent agreed to settle this matter at a very early stage in the disciplinary proceedings. (Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, Standard 1.2(e)(v).)
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.7(b) provides that "If a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of two prior impositions of discipline as defined by standard 1.2(0, the degree of discipline in the current proceeding shall be disbarment unless the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate."
One of Respondent’s two prior impositions of discipline occurred after the misconduct addressed in this stipulation, and the instant misconduct could have been addressed as the same time. In In the Matter of Sklar (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 602, the Review Department held that the impact of a prior disciplinary matter was diminished because it occurred during the same time as the misconduct in the case at issue. 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. at 618. Accordingly, the Review Department considered the "totality of the findings in the two cases to determine what the discipline would have been had all the charged misconduct in this period been brought as one case." ld. Sklar. The misconduct addressed here could reasonably have been expected to not increase the level of discipline as was imposed in Respondent’s second imposition of discipline, 90 days actual suspension.
The instant discipline also comports with standard 1.7(a), which states that "the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding unless the prior discipline imposed was so remote in time to the current proceeding and the offense for which it was imposed was so minimal in severity that imposing greater discipline in the current proceeding would be manifestly unjust." Respondent’s single prior instance of discipline which occurred before the misconduct addressed here resulted in 6 months stayed suspension; as such the one year stayed suspension imposed in this stipulation is in accord with standard 1.7(a).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was August 29, 2011.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of August 29, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $3,689.00. 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-O-02513
In the Matter of: Christopher G. Weston
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: Christopher G. Weston
Date: September 7, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Timothy G. Byer
Date: September 12, 2011
Case Number(s): 10-O-02513 and 10-O-04907
In the Matter of: Christopher G. Weston
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 2, Paragraph A(8): Membership years "2012 and 2013" is replaced with "2013 and 2014."
Page 7, Paragraph 2: The words "with charges pending" is added to the first sentence of the paragraph.
Page 8, Paragraph 10: The words "with charges pending" is added to the first sentence of the paragraph.
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: Donald F. Miles
Date: September 27, 2011
[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 September 28, 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:
CHRISTOPHER G. WESTON
4311 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 615
LOS ANGELES, CA 90010
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
TIMOTHY BYER, Enforcement, Los Angles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on September 28, 2011.
Signed by:
Rose Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court