Case Number(s): 10-O-09487; 10-O-09643; Investigation No. 11-O-17554
In the Matter of: Mayra I. Laureano, Bar # 194702, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Jessica A. Lineau,1149 S. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015, (213) 765-1165, Bar # 269753
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent, Mayra I. Laureano, 1200 Gaviota Ave., Apt. 301, Long Beach, CA 90813, Bar # 194702
Submitted to: State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: February 6, 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.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted April 6, 1998.
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 15 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: 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.
Additional aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional mitigating circumstances:
(Effective January 1, 2011)
Actual
Suspension
IN THE MATTER OF: Mayra I. Laureano, State Bar No. 10-O-09643
CASE NUMBER(S): 10-0-09487; 10-0-09643; Investigation No. 11-O- 17554
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
1. On or about March 6, 2010, Stephen Delgadillo ("Delgadillo") employed Respondent to file and represent him in an unlawful detainer action. Delgadillo paid Respondent $750 in advance fees.
2. At the time Delgadillo employed Respondent, he impressed upon her the urgent need to expedite the eviction process.
3. On or about March 26, 2010, Respondent filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, case number MVC 10001834 ("the UD action"), on behalf of Delgadillo.
4. On or about April 15, 2010, the defendant in the UD action filed an answer denying every allegation of the complaint. After on or about April 15, 2010, Respondent could have requested a trial date.
5. Between on or about April 15, 2010, and June 2, 2010, Delgadillo repeatedly asked
Respondent about the status of the UD action. At times, Respondent failed to respond entirely. On other occasions, Respondent told Delgadillo the UD eviction process takes longer than one month or that she was going to "check with the court." In fact, Respondent did not file a request to set the case for trial until on or about June 3, 2010.
6. On or about June 3, 2010, Delgadillo terminated Respondent, and requested that she provide him with an accounting and a refund of any unearned fees. Respondent failed to provide Delgadillo with an accounting or a refund of any unearned fees. Respondent did not earn all of the advanced fees.
7. On or about October 20, 2010, the State Bar opened an investigation based on Delgadillo’s complaint.
8. On or about January 18, 2011, a State Bar investigator sent Respondent a letter, which she received, requesting that she respond to specified allegations of misconduct by February 1, 2011. Respondent failed to do so.
9. On or about July 13, 2011, a State Bar investigator sent Respondent a second letter, which she received, requesting that she respond to specified allegations of misconduct by July 29, 2011. Respondent failed to do so.
10. On or about July 29, 2011, a State Bar investigator sent Respondent a third letter, which she received, requesting that she respond to specified allegations of misconduct by August 16, 2011. Respondent failed to do so.
11. By delaying in requesting a trial date when Respondent knew time was of the essence, and failing to provide any substantive response to Delgadillo’s status inquiries, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
12. By failing to provide Delgadillo with an accounting of the advanced fees he had paid, Respondent failed to render appropriate accounts to a client regarding all funds coming into Respondent’s possession in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3).
13. By failing to refund any of the unearned fees, 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).
14. By failing to provide a written response to any of the three letters as requested, Respondent failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i).
15. On or about February 22, 2008, Dinorah Dao ("Dao"), employed Respondent on a contingency fee basis, to represent her in a civil dispute against Storage Etc.
16. On or about October 28, 2008, Respondent filed a civil lawsuit against Storage Etc. on behalf of Dao, in San Diego County Superior Court, Dinorah Dao vs. Storage Etc., 37-2008-00094916 ("the complaint").
17. On or about January 13, 2009, counsel for Storage Etc. filed a demurrer to the complaint ("the demurrer").
18. On or about January 16, 2009, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") re: Failure to File Certificate of Service, with a hearing scheduled for February 13, 2009. Respondent received notice of the OSC and OSC Hearing scheduled for February 13, 2009.
19. On or about February 13, 2009, Respondent failed to appear for the OSC Hearing.
20. On or about February 18, 2009, the Court issued an OSC, why the case should not be dismissed due to Respondent’s failure to appear on February 13, 2009, and set an OSC Hearing set for March 13, 2009. Respondent received notice of the OSC and OSC Hearing scheduled for March 13, 2009.
21. On or about March 12, 2009, the Court issued its tentative ruling ("the tentative ruling") sustaining the demurrer and granting Dao two weeks to file and serve a First Amended Complaint.
22. Respondent did not appear at the March 13, 2009 OSC Hearing. On or about March 13, 2009, the Court confirmed the tentative ruling. Respondent received notice of the ruling.
23. Respondent did not file and serve a First Amended Complaint.
24. On or about June 22, 2009, counsel for Storage Etc. filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to Prosecute ("the Motion") and served it on Respondent. The Court set a hearing on the Motion for September 3, 2009. Respondent received notice of the hearing on the Motion. Respondent did not oppose the Motion. The Court granted the Motion and dismissed the complaint.
25. On or about October 9, 2009, Respondent filed a Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal, based on California Civil Code of Procedure § 473(b). On or about November 25, 2009, the Court denied the Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal.
26. On or about January 22, 2010, Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal on behalf of Dao, with the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, Dinorah Dao v. Storage Etc., D056638.
27. On or about August 17, 2010, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for Respondent’s failure to file an opening brief. Respondent did not inform Dao that the Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal, which was a significant development in Dao’s appeal case.
28. On or about October 26, 2010, the State Bar opened an investigation based on Dao’s complaint.
29. On or about January 25, 2011, a State Bar investigator sent a letter to Respondent, which she received, requesting that she provide responses to specific allegations of misconduct by February 8, 2011. Respondent failed to do so.
30. On or about July 13,2011, the investigator sent a second letter to Respondent, which she received, requesting that she provide responses to specific allegations of misconduct by July 29, 2011. Respondent failed to do so.
31. By failing to appear at the OSC hearings, failing to file and serve a First Amended
Complaint, failing to oppose the Motion, and failing to file an opening brief on appeal, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
32. By failing to inform Dao that the appeal had been dismissed, Respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
33. By failing to provide a written response to either of the two letters as requested, Respondent failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i).
34. In or about September 2010, Martin Ruelas ("Martin") and his daughter Lucia Elias ("Elias") consulted with attorney Patricia Vargas ("Vargas") about representing Martin’s son, Ramon de Jesus Ruelas ("Ramon"), in a criminal matter. Vargas told Martin and Elias that she could not take Ramon’s case due to the declining health of her mother.
35. In or about October 2010, Martin and Elias came back to Vargas’ office seeking representation for Ramon. Vargas informed Martin and Elias that she still could not take the case but that Vargas would find an attorney associated with Vargas’ office.
36. Vargas spoke to Respondent about representing Ramon in the criminal matter and Respondent agreed to represent Ramon on the condition that the retainer agreement be between Ramon and Vargas’ office and that payments would be made from Ramon’s family to Vargas’ office.
37. On or about October 4, 2010, Martin, on behalf of Ramon, signed a Fee Agreement with Vargas’ office.
38. From between in or about October 2010 until in or about April 2011, Martin and Elias made payments to Vargas on behalf of Ramon totaling $13,000.00. Vargas forwarded fees to Respondent at various intervals.
39. Between in or about October 13, 2010 until January 27, 2011, Respondent appears in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of Ramon in Case No. KA091532, People v. Ramon de Jesus Ruelas.
40. On or about January 18, 2011, the State Bar of California filed a Notice of Disciplinary Charges ("NDC") against Respondent in the State Bar Court, Case No. 09-0-14973. Respondent was properly served with the NDC. Respondent received the NDC.
41. On or about February 14, 2011, the States Bar filed a Motion for Entry of Default in Case No. 09-0-14973. Respondent was properly served with the Motion for Entry of Default. Respondent received the Motion for Entry of Default.
42. On or about March 2, 2011, the State Bar Court in Case No. 09-0-14973 entered
Respondent’s default and ordered Respondent to involuntary inactive status, to be effective on or about March 5, 2011. Respondent was properly served with the Court’s March 2, 2011 Order. Respondent received the Court’s March 2, 2011 Order.
43. From on or about March 5,2011 until on or about May 23,2011, Respondent’s status with the State Bar of California was involuntary inactive.
44. On or about May 23,2011, the State Bar Court, in Case No. 09-0-14973, on its own motion, vacated the default entered on or about March 2, 2011 and vacated the order enrolling Respondent to involuntary inactive status entered on or about March 2, 2011.
45. On or about March 18,2011, April 1,2011, and April 5, 2011, Respondent appeared on behalf of Ramon in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of Ramon in Case No. KA091532, People v. Ramon de Jesus Ruelas, when Respondent knew that she was on involuntary inactive status.
46. On or about April 5, 2011, the Court in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of Ramon in Case No. KA091532, People v. Rarnon de Jesus Ruelas, ordered Respondent removed as counsel for Ramon due to the fact that she was on involuntary inactive status and had a public defender appointed for Ramon.
47. On or about April 201 l, Vargas reimbursed Martin and Elias $5,000.00.
48. On or about April 5, 2011, Respondent was in receipt of $4,000.00 in advance fees from Elias and Martin. Respondent earned no portion of the $4,000.00 in advanced fees paid from Elias and Martin. To date, Respondent has refunded no portion of the $4,000.00 in advanced attorney fees.
49. By failing to refund any of the unearned fees, 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).
50. By appearing on behalf of Ramon in Los Angeles County Superior Court in Case No. KA091532, People v. Ramon de Jesus Ruelas, on at least three occasions when Respondent knew that she was enrolled as involuntary inactive status in violation of section 6125 and 6126(b), Business and Professions Code, Respondent failed to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state in willful violation of section 6068(a), Business and Professions Code.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was January 5, 2012.
Standard 1.3, Title IV, Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, provides that the primary purposes of the disciplinary system are: "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession."
Standard 1.7 holds that if a Respondent has a prior record of discipline, the degree of discipline in the current stipulation should be greater than that imposed in the prior discipline. Respondent has one prior imposition of discipline, which was a one-year stayed suspension, so the level of discipline should be greater than a one-year stayed suspension.
Standard 2.2 holds that violations of rule 4-100 that do not result in misappropriation shall result in at least a three month actual suspension, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
Standard 2.4 states failing to perform or failing to communicate in individual matter not
evidencing a pattern shall result in reproval or suspension depending on the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
Standard 2.6 holds that a violation of § 6068 shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or harm, if any, to the victim.
Standard 2.10 holds that the violation of rule 3-700(D(2), failure to return unearned fees, shall result in reproval or suspension, depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm to the victim.
In the Matter of Kaplan (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 509, the Review
Department found the member culpable of misconduct in nine matters, including the failure to sign substitution of attorney forms and/or to forward client files in seven matters, failure to communicate properly in five matters, reckless or repeated failure to perform legal services competently in three matters, failure to endorse and return a settlement draft in one matter and failure to pay court-ordered sanctions in one matter. The Review Department recommended that the member be suspended from the practice of law for two years stayed, with probation of two years and an actual suspension of 90 days.
Additionally, in In the Matter of Lais (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 907, the Review Department found the member culpable of misconduct in five client matters, including acts of moral turpitude in two of the matters by inducing two clients to withdraw discipline complaints. The member was also found culpable of appearing without a client’s authority, failing to promptly return unearned fees and client papers, failure to communicate properly with clients and recklessly and repeatedly failing to provide competent legal services. The Review Department recommended that the member be suspended from the practice of law for two years stayed, with probation of three years and an actual suspension of 90 days.
Although Respondent’s current matter only involves three client matter, Respondent has a previous imposition of discipline and mitigating factors are not present.
See also, Matthew v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 784 [actual suspension of 60 days for member’s failure to competently perform legal services in three client matters and failure to refund unearned fees in two of the matters]; In the Matter of Kennon (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 267 [30 days actual suspension for member’s failure to competently perform services, failure to communicate and failure to refund unearned fees in two client matters].
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of January 5, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are $5,053.00. 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.
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.
Payee Stephen Delgadillo Principal Amount $750 Interest Accrues From March 6, 2010
Payee Martin T. Ruelas Principal Amount $4000 Interest Accrues From October 4, 2010
Payee Jesus Ruelas Principal Amount $4000 Interest Accrues From October 4, 2010
Payee Lucia Elias Principal Amount $4000 Interest Accrues From October 4, 2010
Checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than the end of the probation period.
not 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.
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. 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.
(Effective January 1, 2011)
Financial Conditions
Case Number(s): 10-O-9487
In the Matter of: Mayra I. Laureano
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: Mayra I. Laureano
Date: January 24, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Jessica A. Lienau
Date: January 25, 2012
Case Number(s): 10-O-09487
In the Matter of: Mayra I. Laureano
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.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Donald F. Miles
Date: February 6, 2012
(Effective January 1, 2011)
Actual
Suspension Order
[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 February 14, 2012, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING ACTUAL SUSPENSION
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:
MAYRA I. LAUREANO
LAW OFC MAYRA I LAUREANO
1522 E 4TH ST
SANTA ANA, CA 92701
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
JESSICA LIENAU, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on February 6, 2012.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court