Case Number(s): 11-O-16554
In the Matter of: Frank B. Inglis, Bar # 66282, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Donald R. Steedman
180 Howard St., 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Bar # 104927
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Frank B. Inglis
313 Chickadee Lane
Sequim, WA 98383
Bar # 66282
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.- State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
Filed: FEBRUARY 10 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 15, 1975.
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):
<<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: 2013, 2014, 2015. (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.
Additional aggravating circumstances: .
Additional mitigating circumstances:
or
Attachment language (if any):
DISCLOSURE OF PENDING INVESTIGATIONS
The disclosure mentioned in paragraph A7 of this stipulation was made on February 2, 2012.
AUTHORITY SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
In cases involving failure to communicate or perform services in an individual matter, the Standards Governing Disciplinary Sanctions authorize sanctions ranging from reproval to suspension (Std. 2.4(b)). In this case, the State Bar has agreed to settle this matter for a public reproval because respondent has no prior record of discipline.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
COUNT ONE
Case No. 11-O-16554
Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A)
[Failure to Perform with Competence]
1. Respondent willful violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), by intentionally, recklessly, and repeatedly failing to perform legal services with competence, as follows:
2. Prior to in or about March 2011, (Ms.) Kubrah Howell ("Howell") hired respondent to represent her as plaintiff in a personal injury matter. In or about March 2011, the parties agreed to settle Howell’s matter, with Howell to receive $10,000 in settlement of her claim.
3. On or about March 17, 2011, defense counsel, John McFadden ("McFadden"), sent respondent a release and settlement documents to be executed by Howell before the settlement funds could be distributed to Howell.
4. Subsequently, respondent did not contact Howell to obtain her signature on the release and settlement documents nor did he otherwise act to secure distribution of the settlement proceeds.
5. On or about April 11,2011, April 27, 2011 and May 25,2011, McFadden contacted respondent’s office, each time leaving a message requesting respondent to return the release and settlement documents or to contact him regarding the matter. Respondent ignored these requests.
6. To date, respondent has not acted to obtain Howell’s signature on the release and settlement documents, nor has he contacted McFadden or Howell about the status of the settlement.
7. To date, the release and settlement documents have not been signed and the settlement proceeds remain undistributed.
8. By failing to obtain Howell’s signature on the release and settlement documents and otherwise finalize the settlement of Howell’s personal injury matter thereby securing the distribution of the settlement proceeds, respondent intentionally, recklessly, and repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence.
COUNT TWO
Case No. 11-O-16554
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(j)
[Failure to Update Membership Address]
9. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 60680)by failing to comply with the requirements of section 6002.1, which requires a member of the State Bar to maintain on the official membership records of the State Bar, the member’s current office address and telephone number or, if no office is maintained, the address to be used for State Bar purposes or purposes of the agency charged with attorney discipline, as follows:
10. As of December 12, 2008, and at all relevant times continuing to the present date, respondent’s "current office address" as maintained on the official membership records of the State Bar is: 1746 Grand Canal Blvd., Ste. 11, Stockton, CA 95207.
11. By at least on or about August 30, 2011, respondent had vacated the premises at 1746 Grand Canal Blvd., Ste. 11, Stockton, CA 95207.
12. Thereafter, respondent failed to provide the State Bar with a new address within the 30 day period specified in section 6002.1.
13. By vacating the premises at 1746 Grand Canal Blvd., Ste. 11, Stockton, CA 95207 without providing a new current office address, respondent failed to maintain on the official membership records of the State Bar a current office address and telephone number or, if no office is maintained, the address to be used for State Bar purposes.
COUNT THREE
Case No. 11-O-16554
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m)
[Failure to Inform Client of Significant Development]
14. Respondent willful violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m), by failing to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services, as follows:
15. The allegations of Count One and Count Two are incorporated by this reference.
16. After vacating his office at 1746 Grand Canal Blvd., Ste. 11, Stockton, CA 95207, respondent did not provide Howell with a means of contacting him regarding her personal injury matter.
17. By vacating his office without providing Howell with a means of contacting him, respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services.
Case Number(s): 11-O-16554
In the Matter of: Frank B. Inglis
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: Frank B. Inglis
Date: 02-09-2012
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Donald R. Steedman
Date: 02-09-2012
Case Number(s): 11-O-16554
In the Matter of: Frank B. Inglis
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department are vacated.
“On page 4 of the Stipulation, place an ‘X’ on box D (2)”
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: LUCY ARMENDARIZ
Date: February 10, 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 San Francisco, on February 10, 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 San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
FRANK BENJAMIN INGLIS
313 CHICKADEE LANE
SEQUIM, WA 98383
<<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:
Donald R. Steedman, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on February 10, 2012.
Signed by:
Mazie Yip
Case Administrator
State Bar Court