Case Number(s): 11-C-13178-RAH
In the Matter of: Gregory Mark Williams, Bar # 219036, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Rosalba L. Gutierrez,
Deputy Trial Counsel
State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Bar # 270469
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Submitted to: Assigned Judge
Filed: November 14, 2011 State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted April 9, 2002.
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 8 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 (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: two (2) billing cycles following the effective date of the Hearing Department 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.
9. The parties understand that:
<<not>> checked. (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
Respondent acknowledged his wrongdoing and has cooperated with the State Bar by entering into a stipulation to settle this matter.
IN THE MATTER OF: Gregory Mark Williams (SBN: 219036)
CASE NUMBER(S): 11-C-13178-RAH
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On April 26, 2011, Respondent pled no contest and was convicted of violating section 166(a)(4) of the Penal Code.
3. On September 28 ,2011, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order for case 1 l-C-13178, referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issue: hearing and decision recommending discipline to be imposed in the event that the Hearing Department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation of Penal Code section 166(a)(4) involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
II. FACTS
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he violated Penal Code section 166(a)(4), as set forth below, and that said conduct involved other misconduct warranting discipline.
1. On February 23, 2011, Respondent was placed under arrest for violating a restraining order that ordered Respondent to stay at least 100 yards away from Ms. Christy Larsheid ("Ms. Larsheid"). Respondent leased an office in the same office building as Ms. Larsheid. The landlord asked Respondent to vacate the premises. On the same day, Respondent went to the premises thereby coming within 100 yards of Ms. Larsheid and violated the restraining order.
2. Respondent explained that he violated the restraining order when he went to his office to gather his belongings and surrender the premises.
3. On April 26, 2011, Respondent pled no contest to and was convicted of violating Penal Code section 166(a)(4), willful disobedience of the terms as written of any process or a court order or out-of-state court order, lawfully issued by any court, including orders pending trial, a misdemeanor in Case No. 1 SY02368 in Los Angeles Superior Court.
4. Respondent contends that he is in compliance with his criminal probation.
IIl. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The parties stipulate that by violating Penal Code section 166(a)(4), Respondent did not commit an act of moral turpitude. However, Respondent acknowledges that by the conduct described above, he committed other misconduct warranting discipline.
IV. SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
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 the legal profession; maintenance of high professional standards; and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession.
Standard 3.4 of the Standards of Professional Conduct, states:
Final conviction of a member of a crime which does not involve moral turpitude inherently or in the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime’s commission but which does involve other misconduct warranting discipline shall result in a sanction as prescribed under part B of these standards appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct found to have been committed by the member.
In assessing the level of discipline in a criminal conviction case, even where those convictions do not directly involve the practice of law, the court has found it to be its duty to impose a discipline that will protect the public from potential harm. In re Kelley, (1990) 52 Cal. 3d. 487, 496.
The parties further submit that the intent and goals of the Standards of Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct are met in this matter by the imposition of a public reproval with probationary conditions articulated herein.
V. PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was November 7, 2011.
VI. COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of November 4, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,287. 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): 11-C-13178-RAH
In the Matter of: Gregory Mark Williams
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: Gregory Mark Williams
Date: 11/7/11
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Rosalba L. Gutierrez
Date: 11/7/11
Case Number(s): 11-C-13178-RAH
In the Matter of: Gregory Mark Williams
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department 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.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: 11-7-11
[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 November 14, 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;
GREGORY M. WILLIAMS
329 COMMONS PARK DRIVE
CAMARILLO, CALIFORNIA 93012
checked by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Rosalba L. Gutierrez, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in, Los Angeles, California, on November 14, 2011.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court