Case Number(s): 11-O-11605 and [11-O-12050]
In the Matter of: Stanley L. Evans, Bar # 119091, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Susan I. Kagan
Deputy Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 538-2037
Bar# 214209
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Stanley L. Evans
479 Pacific St
Monterey, CA 93940
(831) 372-0122
Bar# 119091
Submitted to: Assigned Judge - 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.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted August 10, 1985.
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 10 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. 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.
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: (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.
State Bar Court case # of prior case: 05-O-00167, 05-O-01242, 05-O-05034 and 06-O-12274. Date prior discipline effective: Pending before Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct/State Bar Act violations: RPC’s 3-110(A), 3-700(D)(1), 3-700(D)(2) and 4-100 and B&P Code sections 6068(m), 6068(i) and 6106. Degree of prior discipline: two years’ actual suspension.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Case No. 11-O-11605
Facts
On November 3, 2011, Respondent was appointed to represent Jacque Baskin ("Baskin") in the criminal matter, People v. Baskin, Monterey County Superior Court Case No. SS101954A ("criminal matter"). At all relevant times herein, Baskin was incarcerated.
On December 6, 2010, and February 15, 2011, Baskin sent letters to Respondent requesting an update on the status of the criminal matter. Respondent received Baskin’s letters soon after they were sent, but failed to respond to them.
Legal Conclusions
By failing to respond to Baskin’s letters requesting an update on the status of his criminal matter, 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 willful violation of section 6068(m) of the Business and Professions Code.
Case No. 11-O-12050
Facts
On September 1, 2010, Respondent was appointed to represent Kevin Nichols ("Nichols") in the criminal matter, People v. Nichols, Monterey County Superior Court Case No. SS 101389B ("criminal matter"). At all relevant times herein, Nichols was incarcerated.
On October 21, 2010, December 18, 2010, and February 10, 2011, Nichols sent letters to Respondent requesting an update on the status of the criminal matter. Respondent received Nichols’ letters soon after they were sent, but failed to respond to them.
Legal Conclusions
By failing to respond to Nichols’ letters requesting an update on the status of his criminal matter, 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 willful violation of section 6068(m) of the Business and Professions Code.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph A (7) was August 12, 2011.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent acknowledges that the State Bar has informed respondent that as of August 12, 2011, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $3,799.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does not include State Bar Court costs which will be included in any final cost assessment. 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.
FACTS SUPPORTING AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Standard 1.2(b)(i). Respondent has two prior records of discipline.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Standard 1.2(e)(v). Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation to the State Bar during the disciplinary proceedings.
Standard 1.2(e)(vii). Respondent displayed remorse for his misconduct.
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
Standard 2.6 requires that a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m) shall result in disbarment or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purpose of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3.
Standard 1.7(b) requires disbarment if a member has a record of two prior impositions of discipline unless the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate.
While disbarment would generally be the level of discipline
for a third imposition of discipline, based on the mitigation and lack of
aggravating factors in this matter, the lengthy suspension and probationary
period will protect the public. Respondent is aware that should he commit any
additional misconduct, or violate the conditions of probation in Case Nos.
05-0-00167, 05-0-01242, 05-0-05034 and 06-0-12274, disbarment is likely.
Case Number(s): 11-O-11605 [11-O-12050]
In the Matter of: Stanley L. Evans
Nolo Contendere Plea Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition
The terms of pleading nolo contendere are set forth in the Business and Professions Code and the Rules of Procedures of the State Bar. The applicable provisions are set forth below:
Business and Professions Code § 6085.5 Disciplinary Charges; Pleas to Allegations
There are three kinds of pleas to the allegations of a notice of disciplinary charges or other pleading which initiates a disciplinary proceeding against a member:
(a) Admission of culpability.
(b) Denial of culpability.
(c) Nolo contendere, subject to the approval of the State Bar Court. The court shall ascertain whether the member completely understands that a plea of nolo contendere will be considered the same as an admission of culpability and that, upon a plea of nolo contendere, the court will find the member culpable. The legal effect of such a plea will be the same as that of an admission of culpability for all purposes, except that the plea and any admissions required by the court during any inquiry it makes as to the voluntariness of, or the factual basis for, the pleas, may not be used against the member as an admission in any civil suit based upon or growing out of the act upon which the disciplinary proceeding is based.
Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rule 5.56. Stipulations to Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition
“(A) Contents. A proposed stipulation to facts, conclusions of law, and disposition must comprise:
[¶] . . . [¶]
(5) a statement that the member either:
(a) admits the truth of the facts comprising the stipulation and admits culpability for misconduct; or
(b) pleads nolo contendere to those facts and misconduct;
[¶] . . . [¶]
(B) Plea of Nolo Contendere. If the member pleads nolo contendere, the stipulation must also show that the member understands that the plea is treated as an admission of the stipulated facts and an admission of culpability.”
I, the Respondent in this matter, have read the applicable provisions of Business and Professions Code section 6085.5 and rule 5.56 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. I plead nolo contendere to the charges set forth in this stipulation and I completely understand that my plea will be considered the same as an admission of culpability except as stated in Business and Professions Code section 6085.5(c).
Signed by:
Respondent: Stan Evans
Date: September 2, 2011
Case Number(s): 11-O-11605 [11-O-12050]
In the Matter of: Stanley L. Evans
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: Stanley L. Evans
Date: September 9, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel:N/A
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Susan I. Kagan
Date: September 7, 2011
Case Number(s): 11-O-11605 [11-O-12050]
In the Matter of: Stanley L Evans
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.
Respondent is not required to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.20, and standard 1.4 ( c ) (ii) because it has already been recommended that he be ordered to comply with these requirements in case no. 05-O-00167, et al.
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: Patricia McElroy
Date: September 20, 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 San Francisco, on September 20, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
STANLEY LEWIS EVANS
479 PACIFIC ST
MONTEREY, CA 93940
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No., with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Susan Kagan, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on September 20, 2011
Signed by:
George Hue
Case Administrator
State Bar Court