Case Number(s): 11-O-13390 and 11-O-13545
In the Matter of: Jeffrey T. Bell, Bar # 184876, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Kimberly G. Anderson
The State Bar of California
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 76 -1083
Bar# 150359
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Jeffrey T. Bell
8728 Valley Boulevard, Suite 209
Rosemead, CA 91770
(626) 280-8787
Bar# 184876
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: January 25, 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 December 5, 1996.
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 9 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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<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.
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.
Though the misconduct is serious, Respondent has had no prior discipline in the fifteen years he has practiced law. See also, Stipulation Attachment at page 8 (Attachment page 3).
IN THE MATTER OF: Jeffrey T. Bell, State Bar No. 184876
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-O-13390 and 11-O-13545
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-13390 (Complainant: Gui L. Sun)
FACTS:
1. On February 6, 2009, Gui L. Sun (a passenger in a vehicle involved in a solo traffic accident) employed Respondent to pursue a personal injury claim against the County of San Bernardino. On the same date, the driver of the vehicle, Qian Liang also employed Respondent to pursue a personal injury claim arising from the same traffic accident. Respondent did not obtain written conflict waiver to represent both Sun and Liang.
2. On June 25, 2009, the city of San Bernardino sent a letter to Respondent advising him that Sun’s claim was rejected, and that he had six months to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of Sun. Respondent received the letter. Thereafter, Respondent determined he could not represent Sun and he directed his non-attorney office assistant, Wei (William) Zhang to advise Sun of the reasons. Unbeknownst to Respondent, Mr. Zhang did not advise Sun of Respondent’ s intention not to file a lawsuit.
3. Respondent did not timely file a lawsuit and Respondent did not advise his client that he had failed to file any lawsuit on his behalf.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
4. By failing to advise Sun that he had not filed a lawsuit on his behalf, Respondent failed to communicate a significant development to Sun in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
5. By agreeing to represent Sun (the passenger) and Liang (the driver) in a single car automobile accident without obtaining a written conflict waiver from them, Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-310(c)(1) 6
Case No. 11-O-13545 (Complainant: Yifan Zhu)
FACTS:
6. On February 10, 2008, Yifan Zhu ("Zhu") and his family employed Respondent to pursue personal injury claims on their behalf.
7. On December 10, 2008, Respondent filed a lawsuit on behalf of Zhu and his family in the case entitled Yifan Zhu, et. al. v. Victor J. Almacellas, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 08C04310 ("the personal injury case"). Thereafter, Respondent determined that the case should not be pursued due to problems with liability and problems with locating and serving the defendant. Respondent directed his non-attorney office assistant, Wei (William) Zhang to advise Zhu of the reasons. Unbeknownst to Respondent, Mr. Zhang did not advise Zhu of Respondent’s intention to stop pursuing the lawsuit. Mr. Zhang also advised Respondent that Zhu had agreed not to pursue the litigation even though Zhu had not in fact agreed to this course of action. Thereafter, Respondent stopped litigating the personal injury case, believing that Zhu had agreed to his proposed course of action. Respondent did not move to dismiss the case even though he had no intention of litigating it.
8. On April 29, 2009, Respondent failed to appear for a case management conference in the personal injury case, for which he received proper notice.
9. On May 27, 2009, Respondent failed to appear for a status conference in the personal injury case for which he receive proper notice and the court set the case for an Order to Show Cause hearing (OSC) on July 8, 2009 as to why the case should not be dismissed. Respondent received proper notice of the July 8, 2009 OSC.
10. On July 8, 2009, Respondent failed to appear at the OSC and the court ordered the case dismissed without prejudice.
11. Respondent failed to take any action to prosecute the personal injury case.
12. Respondent decided not to prosecute the case in approximately April or May 2009, but he did not tell his clients of his decision not to prosecute the case and he did not substitute out of the case or file a motion to withdraw.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
13. By relying upon Zhang to accurately communicate to Zhu that the case should be dismissed, by relying on Zhang when Zhang confirmed that Zhu agreed not to pursue the litigation, by failing to supervise Zhang, and by failing to take any steps to prosecute the personal injury case on behalf of his clients when he should have filed a dismissal if he and his clients did not intend to prosecute the case, Respondent repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
14. By failing to tell Zhu of his decision not to pursue the personal injury case, Respondent failed to communicate a significant development to Zhu in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was January 19, 2012.
MITIGATION.
Candor and Cooperation (Standard 1.2(e)(v): Respondent agreed to enter into a full and complete stipulation to facts and legal conclusions and to disposition of this matter prior to the State Bar having to file disciplinary charges in this matter.
Additional Mitigation: Though the misconduct was serious, Respondent has had no prior discipline in the fifteen years he has practiced law. Respondent’s misconduct occurred during the time he had employed Mr. Zhang, a non-attorney, as his office assistant. Mr. Zhang did not follow Respondent’s directions in communicating with Respondent’s clients and Respondent has terminated his relationship with Mr. Zhang. Because Mr. Zhang and Respondent’s clients were Chinese, Respondent delegated the tasks of interacting with his clients to Mr. Zhang, who is also Chinese, even though the clients spoke English as well as Mandarin. Respondent acknowledges his obligation to supervise non-attorney employees and he will take steps in the future to ensure that he supervises his non-attorney staff.
AGGRAVATION.
Harm (Standard 1.2(b)(iv): Respondent’s misconduct resulted in the dismissal of Zhu’s case and the loss of Sun’s cause of action.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standards 2.4(b), 1.2(b)(iv) and 1.2(e)(v) of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of January 19, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $3,689. 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-O-13390 and 11-O-13545
In the Matter of: Jeffrey T. Bell
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: Jeffrey T. Bell
Date: January 19, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Kimberly G. Anderson
Date: January 24, 2012
Case Number(s): 11-O-13390 and 11-O-13545
In the Matter of: Jeffrey T. Bell
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: Donald F. Miles
Date: January 25, 2012
[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 25, 2012, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING PUBLIC REPROVAL
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:
Jeffrey T. Bell
Law Offices of Jeffrey T. Bell
8728 Valley Blvd Ste 209
Rosemead, CA 91770
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
KIMBERLY ANDERSON, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 25, 2012.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court