Case Number(s): 11-O-10059, 11-O-13440, 11-O-13636
In the Matter of: Peter L. Nisson, Bar # 62276, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Robert J. Melone, 1149 S. Hill St.
Los Angleles, CA 90015
Bar # 270556
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Peter L. Nisson
222 Ocean Ave Ph
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Bar # 62276
Submitted to: Settlement Judge at State Bar Court Clerk’s Office of 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 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):
<<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: 2013 and 2014. (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 OF: Peter L. Nisson – State Bar Number 62276
CASE NUMBER(S): 11-O-10059, 11-O-13440, and 11-O-13636
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. 11-O-10059 (Complainant: Alfredo and Raquel Guzman)
FACTS:
1. On August 21, 2009, Alfredo and Raquel Guzman (the "Guzmans") employed Respondent through Century Loan Services to negotiate a loan modification on their home mortgage. The Guzmans gave Respondent prewritten checks totaling $4,500 to pay for Respondent’s loan modification services.
2. Respondent deposited, or caused to have deposited a total of $2,500 in prewritten checks after Civil Code §2944.7(a) went into effect on October 11, 2009. Respondent had not fully performed each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform for the Guzmans before he deposited the prewritten checks.
3. Respondent did not fully perform each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform for the Guzmans, prior to demanding, charging, collecting or receiving the advanced attorney fees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
4. By negotiating, arranging or offering to perform a mortgage loan modification for a fee paid by a borrower, and demanding, charging, collecting and receiving fees from the Guzmans prior to fully performing each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform, in violation of subsection (a)(1) of Section 2944.7 of the Civil Code, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3.
Case No. 11-O-13440 (Complainant: Sandra Hernandez)
FACTS:
5. On or about September 11, 2009, complainant’s mother Lilia Sanchez ("Sanchez") employed Respondent through Century Loan Services to negotiate a loan modification on her home mortgage. Sanchez gave Respondent prewritten checks totaling $4,500 to pay for Respondent’s loan modification services.
6. Respondent deposited, or caused to have deposited $2,500 in prewritten checks after Civil Code §2944.7(a) went into effect on October 11, 2009. Respondent had not fully performed each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform for Sanchez before he deposited the prewritten checks.
7. Respondent did not fully perform each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform for Sanchez, prior to demanding, charging, collecting or receiving the advanced attorney fees.
8. Respondent did not contact Sanchez’s lender to negotiate the loan modification.
9. Respondent did not earn $3,050 of the fees paid by Sanchez. Respondent did not refund any portion of the $3,050 in unearned fees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
10. By negotiating, arranging or offering to perform a mortgage loan modification for a fee paid by a borrower, and demanding, charging, collecting and receiving fees from Sanchez prior to fully performing each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform, in violation of subsection (a)(1) of Section 2944.7 of the Civil Code, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3.
11. By failing to contact Respondent’s lender, 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 refund $3,050 in unearned fees to Sanchez, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
Case No. 1 l-O-13636 (Complainant: Florence R. Albert)
FACTS:
13. On or about March 29, 2010, complainant’s clients, Vinicent and Vanessa Orozco (the "Orozcos"), employed Respondent and paid him $5,000 to negotiate loan modifications on two mortgages.
14. Respondent did not fully perform each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform for the Orozcos, prior to demanding, charging, collecting or receiving the advanced attorney fees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
15. By negotiating, arranging or offering to perform a mortgage loan modification for a fee paid by a borrower, and demanding, charging, collecting and receiving fees from the Orozcos prior to fully performing each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform, in violation of subsection (a)(1) of Section 2944.7 of the Civil Code, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was December 27, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Pursuant to Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions forProfessional Misconduct, the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings and imposing sanctions for professional misconduct are "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attomeys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession."
Pursuant to Standard 1.7(a), 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 one prior imposition of discipline as defined by standard 1.2(0, 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.
Pursuant to Standard 2.4(b) culpability of a member of wilfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of willfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
Pursuant to Standard 2.10 Culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in the standards or of a willful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in the standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3.
Here, under either Standard 2.4(b) or Standard 2.10, the range of discipline for Respondent’s misconduct is reproval to suspension. Under Standard 1.7(a), Respondent’s discipline should be greater than his prior discipline. However, good cause exists to deviate from Standard 1.7 in this case. The stipulated discipline of ninety days actual suspension is appropriate given Respondent’s prior discipline was over
twelve years ago, Respondent cooperated with the State Bar, made partial restitution, and has shown remorse. The purposes of public discipline, namely public protection, are satisfied by the terms of this stipulation.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct
The current misconduct acknowledged by Respondent evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Candor and Cooperation
Respondent’s stipulation herein to the facts, his culpability, and his discipline is a mitigating circumstance. (In the Matter of Spaith (Review Dept. 1996) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 96, 106, fn. 13.)
Remorse
Respondent went to great lengths to secure client files from Century Loan Services after he stopped receiving referrals from them. Respondent went as far as calling the West Covina Police Department to assist him in recovering client files.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of December 22, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2797.00. 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.
RESTITUTION
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.
Case Number(s): 11-O-10059, 11-O-13440 and 11-O-13636
In the Matter of: Peter L. Nisson State Bar Number 62276
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: Alfredo and Raquel Guzman
Principal Amount: $2,500
Interest Accrues From: August 2009
2. Payee: Lilia Sanchez
Principal Amount: $3,050
Interest Accrues From: September 2009
3. Payee: Vincent and Vanessa Orozco
Principal Amount: $5,000
Interest Accrues From: March 2010
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 six (6) months after the effective date of discipline.
<<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.
1. Payee/CSF (as applicable)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
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.
<<not>> 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): 11-O-10059, 11-O-13440 and 11-O-13636
In the Matter of: Peter L. Nisson State Bar Number 62276
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: Peter L. Nisson and Robert J. Melone
Respondent: Peter L. Nisson
Date: 12/28/11
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Robert J. Melone
Date: 12/29/11
Case Number(s): 11-O-10059, 11-O-13440 and 11-O-13636
In the Matter of: Peter L. Nisson State Bar Number 62276
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: 1/10/12
[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 January 24, 2012, 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:
by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
PETER L. NISSON
NISSON & NISSON
222 OCEAN AVE PENTHOUSE
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92651
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
, Robert Melone, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in, California, on January 11, 2012.
Signed by:
Rose Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court