Case Number(s): 11-O-15166,11-O-16688,11-O-16873,11-O-16983,11-O-17028,11-O-17121,11-O-17264,11-O-17861,11-O-18067, 11-O-18083,11-O-18835,11-O-19260,12-O-10979,12-O-12106
In the Matter of: Christopher J. Van Son , Bar # 133440 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Suzan J. Anderson
Senior Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015
213-765-1209
Bar# 160559
Counsel for Respondent: David A. Clare
444 West Ocean Boulevard
Suite 800
Long Beach, California 90802
Bar # 44971
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – 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 June 6, 1988.
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 18 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: Costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following two 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.
Please see Attachment, pages 11 through 17.
Case Number(s): 11-O-15166, et al.
In the Matter of: Christopher J. Van Son, State Bar No. 133440
<<not>> checked. a. Within days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
checked. b. Within days/ six (6) months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
<<not>> checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
Other:
Case Number(s): 11-O-15166, et al.
In the Matter of: Christopher J. Van Son, State Bar No.:133440
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: Daniel Belcher
Principal Amount: $1,650
Interest Accrues From: July 27, 2011
2. Payee: Richard Nerserian
Principal Amount: $1,650
Interest Accrues From: August 9, 2011
3. Payee: Charity and Francisco Gonzalezs
Principal Amount: $947.50
Interest Accrues From: January 31, 2010
Please see Attachment, page for further required restitution
checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than one month prior to the end of his probationary 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.
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.
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.
IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTOPHER J. VAN SON, State Bar No. 133440
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-O-15166, et. al.
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.
STATEMENT OF FACTS (11-O-16873, 11-O-16983, 11-O-17264, 11-O-17861, 11-O-18083, 12-O-10979, 12-O-12106)
1. In February 2011, Respondent became associated with another attorney to process clients for mass joinder litigation and loan modifications and formed a company for this association called Consolidated Litigation Group.
2. Consolidated Litigation Group sent out mailers advertising the mass joinder litigation throughout various markets in the United States.
3. Respondent was employed by the following clients to represent them in order to join the mass joinder litigation and/or obtain a modification of their home mortgage loans and charged and collected the fees as detailed below prior to fully performing each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform:
Case Number: 11-O-16873, Client: Charity and Francisco Gonzales, Date Client employed Respondent: 1/31/11, Advanced fees Client paid to Respondent: $947.50, Client’s State of Residence and Location of Property: California;
Case Number: 11-O-16983, Client: Therese Austin, Date Client employed Respondent: 3/9/11, Advanced fees Client paid to Respondent: $1,610, Client’s State of Residence and Location of Property: California;
Case Number: 11-O-17264, Client: Leticia and Orlando Bastides, Date Client employed Respondent: 5/13/11, Advanced fees Client paid to Respondent: $5,000, Client’s State of Residence and Location of Property: California;
Case Number: 11-O- 17861, Client: Joseph Carlos, Date Client employed Respondent: 7/10/11, Advanced fees Client paid to Respondent: $4,994, Client’s State of Residence and Location of Property: California;
Case Number: 11-O-18083, Client: Steve Merino, Date Client employed Respondent: 3/1/11, Advanced fees Client paid to Respondent: $5,000, Client’s State of Residence and Location of Property: California;
Case Number: 12-O-10979, Client: Maria Pavlova, Date Client employed Respondent: 6/1/11, Advanced fees Client paid to Respondent: $5,000, Client’s State of Residence and Location of Property: California
Case Number: 12-0-12106, Client: Vennie Forks, Date Client employed Respondent: 6/15/11, Advanced fees Client paid to Respondent: $5,000, Client’s State of Residence and Location of Property: California
4. Respondent failed to add the clients listed above to the ongoing mass joinder litigation, failed to negotiate loan modifications for these clients and failed to perform any other legal services of value to the clients listed above.
5. To date, Respondent has not provided any refunds to the clients listed above.
6.Due to Respondent’s involvement in the mass joinder litigation/loan modification arenas, on August 15, 2011, the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles assumed jurisdiction of Respondent’s law practice pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6190 in Case Number LS021818. That same day the Attorney General’s Office obtained a Temporary Restraining Order against Respondent’s law office in their complaint entitled, The People of the State of California v. The Law Offices of Kramer and Kaslow, et al., Case Number LC094571. These actions amounted to Respondent’s effective withdrawal from representation of the above-listed clients.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .(11-O-16873, 11-O-16983, 11-O-17264, 11-O-17861, 11-O-18083, 12-O-10979, 12-O-12106)
The parties hereby stipulate and Respondent specifically admits that by his conduct described above, Respondent engaged in acts of serious misconduct warranting the discipline described herein as follows:
1. By failing to add the above-listed clients to mass joinder litigation, failing to negotiate loan modifications for those clients and failing to perform any other legal services of value in the representation of the above-listed clients, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. By failing to perform any legal services of value for the above-listed clients in connection with the mass joinder litigations and/or loan modifications, and conducting himself in a manner which allowed the Superior Court to assume jurisdiction of his practice and allowed the Attorney General to obtain a TRO and take control of the law firm, Respondent effectively withdrew from representation of his clients, and failed, upon termination of employment to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his clients, hereby improperly withdrawing from representation and abandoning the above-listed clients in willful violation of rule 3-700(A)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
3. By negotiation, 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 above-listed clients in California 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 California Civil Code, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3.
STATEMENT OF FACTS (11-O-15166, 11-O-16688, 11-O-17028, 11-O-17121, 11-O-18067,
11-O-18835, 11-O-19260)
7. The facts of paragraphs One, Two, Four, Five and Six are incorporated by reference.
8. Respondent was employed by the following clients to represent them in order to join the mass joinder litigation and/or obtain a modification of their home mortgage loans:
Case Number: 11-O-15166, Client: Daniel Belcher, Date Client employed Respondent: 7/27/11, Advanced fees Client paid to Respondent: $1,650, Client’s State of Residence and Location of Property: Florida;
Case Number: 11-O-16688, Client: Richard Nerserian, Date Client employed Respondent: 8/9/11, Advanced fees Client paid to Respondent: $1,650, Client’s State of Residence and Location of Property: New Jersey;
Case Number: 11-O-17028, Client: Kenneth Preston, Date Client employed Respondent: 6/3/11, Advanced fees Client paid to Respondent: $5,000, Client’s State of Residence and Location of Property: Arizona
Case Number: 11-O-17121, Client: John Burkin, Date Client employed Respondent: 5/11/11, Advanced fees Client paid to Respondent: $1,500, Client’s State of Residence and Location of Property: Nevada
Case Number: 11-O-18067, Client: Dean and Shareece Kowal, Date Client employed Respondent: 7/25/11, Advanced fees Client paid to Respondent: $1,650, Client’s State of Residence and Location of Property: Arizona
Case Number: 11-O-18835, Client: Dania Kreiger, Date Client employed Respondent: 7/18/11, Advanced fees Client paid to Respondent: $4,300, Client’s State of Residence and Location of Property: Arizona
Case Number: 11-O-19260, Client: Darlene Mulvanity, Date Client employed Respondent: 6/2/11, Advanced fees Client paid to Respondent: $2,500, Client’s State of Residence and Location of Property: Delaware
9. Respondent entered into an agreement for, charged, and collected fees from the above referenced clients in a jurisdiction in which he was not admitted to practice law.
10. Each of those clients listed above who resided outside the state of California entered into a contract for legal services with Respondent whereby Respondent agreed to add them to ongoing mass joinder litigation and/or modify their home mortgage loans on properties in the states where they resided. Respondent is not presently, and has never been licensed to practice law in any of the states listed above in paragraph 8. Respondent knew that the clients and their properties were located in jurisdictions in which he was not entitled to practice law. The representation of the above-listed clients would have required that Respondent be licensed to practice in their jurisdictions.
LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
4. By entering into contracts for legal services with clients in states in which Respondent was not entitled to practice, to perform legal services in connection with mass joinder litigation and obtain modifications of home mortgage loans on properties located in those states, Respondent held himself out as able to practice law in jurisdictions where to do so would be a violation of the regulations of the profession in those jurisdictions, in willful violation of rule 1-300(B) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
5. By entering into agreements for, charging, and collecting legal fees for services from the clients listed above in states other than California, where Respondent is not entitled to practice law, Respondent willfully entered into agreements for, charged, and collected illegal fees in willful violation of rule 4-200(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
FACTORS IN MITIGATION
Respondent was admitted to the State Bar of California in May 1988, and he has no prior record
of discipline in over twenty (20) years of practice.
In February 2011, Respondent became associated with another attorney to process clients for mass joinder litigation and loan modifications, and formed a company called Consolidated Litigation Group, as a result of his reliance on misrepresentations of fact made to him by the other attorney concerning the status and success of the subject matter of the litigation. Respondent did not contribute to, nor was he involved in, the false advertising used in contacting prospective clients to join the mass joinder action.
In August 2011, when the State Bar and the Attorney General’s office filed an action in Los Angeles County Superior Court to assume jurisdiction of Respondent’s law practice, and the law practices of several other attorneys involved in the subject mass joinder action, Respondent was fully cooperative and candid with the State Bar. In September 2011, Respondent stipulated to a permanent order in the Superior Court action allowing the State Bar to assume jurisdiction over his practice without the need for further litigation. In that same month, he met with the State Bar Attorney and Investigator in charge of the Superior Court action, and candidly discussed his involvement in the mass joinder action, providing them with valuable information and his declaration. He also obtained the declarations of certain of his former employees and associates for use by the State Bar, along with all the relevant records he had. He also turned off his internet website for his law office and did everything asked of him by the State Bar.
Respondent is remorseful for his professional misconduct although he did not fully understand the situation he was getting into when he became involved in the mass joinder action.
FACTORS IN AGGRAVATION
Respondent’s clients were seriously harmed by the above described misconduct. Most, if not all, of the clients who hired Respondent to assist them with the home loan modifications did so because they were financially distressed. Thus, the loss of the use of the money they paid to Respondent for services that were not performed, caused significant harm to Respondent’s clients. And as there are multiple clients involved in Respondent’s misconduct, it evidences that Respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct.
DISCUSSION RE STIPULATED DISCIPLINE
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 2.4(b) holds that a failure to perform in individual client matters, not demonstrating a pattern, shall result in reproval or suspension depending on the extent of the misconduct and the extent of harm to the client.
Standard 2.10 holds that the violation of rule 1-300(B), Rules of Professional Conduct [Unauthorized Practice of Law in Another Jurisdiction], rule 4-200(A) [Illegal Fee], and § 6106.3 [Violation of California Civil Code § 2944.7(a) and 2944.6(a)] shall result in reproval or suspension, depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm to the victim.
The Standards call for a level of discipline ranging between reproval and suspension. Based on the facts of this case, a two year suspension with 18 months of actual suspension and three years of probation is an appropriate level of discipline.
Respondent’s misconduct consists of seven failures to perform (rule 3-110(A)), seven failures to properly withdraw from employment (rule 3-700(A)(2), seven violations of SB 94 (§6106.3) and seven counts of the unauthorized practice of law/accepting an illegal fee (rules 1-300(B) and 4-200(A)).
Although there are no cases with a substantially similar fact pattern, case law supports a two year suspension with 18 months of actual suspension and three years of probation.
In In the Matter of Wells (Review Dept. 2005) 2005 WL 3293313, the Review Department recommended that the respondent be suspended for two years, stayed, with six months of actual suspension. In Wells, the respondent was found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in South Carolina on two occasions. The respondent was also found to have held herself out as entitled to practice in South Carolina when she was not. The respondent charged not only illegal fees, but her fees were found to be excessive and unconscionable. The respondent was found culpable of moral turpitude by lying to both the State Bar and the South Carolina Solicitor’s Office during the course of the investigation of her conduct. In aggravation, the respondent had a prior record of discipline, was found to have engaged in multiple acts of wrongdoing, was found to have harmed the public the administration of justice and her clients, and the respondent demonstrated indifference to the consequences of her misconduct.
Although Respondent here has engaged in more instances of the unauthorized practice of law, at the time, Respondent did not understand this to be the unauthorized practice of law, whereas the Wells court found that the respondent there was not acting in good faith. Respondent has not engaged in any conduct involving moral turpitude. Respondent here did not charge excessive and unconscionable fees. Respondent has cooperated with the State Bar during these investigations.
In In the Matter of Harney (Review Dept. 1995) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 266, the Review Department placed the respondent on a six month actual suspension for concealing the statutory fee limit under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act ("MICRA") from both the court and his client. The respondent collected a fee that was $266,850 in excess of the MICRA limit. The respondent was found culpable of a number of other violations, including conduct involving moral turpitude.
Respondent’s misconduct is surrounded by some aggravating circumstances, specifically that his misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing. However, the UPL violations occurred within an approximately seven month period when Respondent mistakenly believed that he was not engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
Respondent’s misconduct is aggravated by the fact that it harmed his clients and deprived them of funds they could have used for their mortgages for a substantial period of time. However, Respondent has cooperated with the State Bar throughout these investigations by providing all information requested of him, and in the assumption of jurisdiction of his office by stipulating to the permanent order pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6190 and voluntarily taking his website off line. Respondent has also cooperated with the Attorney General’s office in their prosecution of the complaint referenced above.
Given the aggravating and mitigating circumstances present in this case, a two year suspension with eighteen months of actual suspension and three years of probation is consistent with the Standards and case law.
Finally, the parties submit that given Respondent’s cooperation throughout these matters, the stipulated discipline and probationary conditions in this matter are sufficient to assure that Respondent will conform his future conduct to ethical standards and, therefore, protect the public, courts and profession. This is consistent with Standard 1.3.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was May 15, 2012.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of April 16, 2012, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are $14,393. 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.
FINANCIAL CONDITIONS, RESTITUTION
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: |
Therese Austin |
Principal Amount: |
$1,610 |
Interest Accrues From: |
3/9/11 |
|
Payee: |
Kenneth Preston |
Principal Amount: |
$5,000 |
Interest Accrues From: |
6/3/11 |
|
Payee: |
John Burkin |
Principal Amount: |
$1,500 |
Interest Accrues From: |
8/9/11 |
|
Payee: |
Leticia and Orlando Bastides |
Principal Amount: |
$5,000 |
Interest Accrues From: |
7/13/11 |
|
Payee: |
Joseph Carlos |
Principal Amount: |
$4,994 |
Interest Accrues From: |
7/10/11 |
|
Payee: |
Dean and Shareece Kowal |
Principal Amount: |
$1,650 |
Interest Accrues From: |
7/25/10 |
|
Payee: |
Steve Merino |
Principal Amount: |
$5,000 |
Interest Accrues From: |
4/1/11 |
|
Payee: |
Dania Kreiger |
Principal Amount: |
$4,300 |
Interest Accrues From: |
8/11/11 |
|
Payee: |
Darlene Mulvanity |
Principal Amount: |
$2,500 |
Interest Accrues From: |
6/3/11 |
|
Payee: |
Maria Pavlova |
Principal Amount: |
$5,000 |
Interest Accrues From: |
8/4/11 |
|
Payee: |
Vennie Forks |
Principal Amount: |
$5,000 |
Interest Accrues From: |
6/15/11 |
Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation thirty (30) days prior to the termination of his three year probationary period.
Respondent waives any objection to payment by the State Bar Client Security fund upon a claim by any of his clients to unearned attorney fees.
STATE BAR ETHICS AND CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT SCHOOLS
Because Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School and State Bar Client Trust Account School as part of this Stipulation, Respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education Credit upon satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School and State Bar Client Trust Account School.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 11-O-15166, et al.
In the Matter of: CHRISTOPHER J. VAN SON, State Bar No.: 133440
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: CHRISTOPHER J. VAN SON
Date: May 11, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel: DAVID A. CLARE
Date: May 15, 2012
Deputy Trial Counsel: SUZAN J. ANDERSON
Date: May 16, 2012
Case Number(s): 11-O-15166, et al.
In the Matter of: CHRISTOPHER J. VAN SON, State Bar No.: 133440
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.
PAGE 1- SECTION A.(1) – DELETE “JUNE” INSERT “MAY”
PAGE 2- SECTION A.(8) – INSERT “2013 AND 2014” AFTER “MEMBERSHIP YEARS”
PAGE 4- SECTION D.(2) – DELETE “(2)“ INSERT “(3)”
PAGE 5- SECTION E.(10) – CHECK THE BOX.
PAGE 9 – SECTION a. –RESTITUTION – DELETE “1/31/10” INSERT “1/31/11”
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: Richard A. Platel
Date: May 31, 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 June 1, 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:
checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
DAVID ALAN CLARE
DAVID A CLARE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
444 W OCEAN BLVD, STE 800
LONG BEACH, CA 90802
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Suzan J. Anderson, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on June 1, 2012.
Signed by:
Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator
State Bar Court