Case Number(s): 11-O-17188-LMA
In the Matter of: Daniel Thomas Streeter, Jr. , Bar # 183703 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: William Todd, Deputy Trial Counsel, 1149 Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015, 213-765-1491, Bar # 259194
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent, Daniel T. Streeter, Jr., 137 N Larchmont Blvd #500, Los Angeles, CA 90004, 323-896-3269, Bar # 183703
Submitted to: Settlement 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 October 26, 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 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: Three 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.
State Bar Court Prior Case Nos. 06-O-15178, 07-O-10730, 08-O-10076 (consolidated) Date discipline effective: June 20, 2010;
Violations: Business & Professions Code Sections 6068(k) and 6103; Rules of Professional Conduct 3-110(A) and 3-700(A)(2)
Degree of prior discipline: 1 year stayed suspension, 30 days actual suspension, 2 years probation
<<not>> checked. (2) Dishonesty: Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct.
IN THE MATTER OF: 11-O-17188, State Bar No. 183703
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-O-17188
A. WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND
STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY
The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges ("NDC") filed on December 5, 2011 and the facts and/or conclusions of law contained in this stipulation, Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The parties further waive the right to a formal hearing on any charge included in this stipulation.
B. FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified sections of the Business and Professions Code and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
COUNT ONE
Case No. 11-O-17188
FACTS:
1. On November 28, 2009, Respondent entered into a Stipulation re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition ("Stipulation") with the State Bar of California in Case Nos. 06-O-15178, 07-O-10730, and 08-O-10076.
2. On December 17, 2009, the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court filed an Order approving the Stipulation and recommending the disposition set forth in the Stipulation to the California Supreme Court. On December 17, 2009, the Hearing Department’s December 17, 2009 Order approving the Stipulation was properly served by mail upon Respondent. Respondent received the December 17, 2009 Order.
3. On May 21, 2010, the California Supreme Court filed issued Order S 181631 that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, that execution of suspension be stayed, and that Respondent be placed on probation for two (2) years subject to the conditions of probation recommended by the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court in its December 17, 2009 Order regarding the Stipulation, including the condition that Respondent be actually suspended for 30 days.
4. Pursuant to the May 10, 2010 California Supreme Court Order, Respondent was ordered to comply with the following terms and conditions of probation, among others:
a. to submit to the Office of Probation written quarterly reports each January 10, April 10, July 10 and October 10 during the period of probation, stating under penalty of perjury whether he had complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter as well as whether there were any proceedings pending against him in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding;
b. within six (6) months of the effective date of the discipline, to complete the ten
(10) hours of continuing legal education in federal civil procedure and law practice/law practice management as ordered by Judge King, and to provide proof of same in writing to the Office of probation within thirty (30) days thereafter; and
c. within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline, to provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of State Bar Ethics School and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
5. On May 21, 2010, the Clerk of the California Supreme Court properly served upon Respondent a copy of the May 21, 2010 California Supreme Court Order. Respondent received the May 21, 2010 Order.
6. The May 21, 2010 California Supreme Court Order became effective 30 days later, on June 20, 2010.
7. On July 9, 2010, a Probation Deputy of the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reminded Respondent of the terms and conditions of his suspension and probation imposed pursuant to the May 21, 2010 California Supreme Court Order. In the July 9, 2010 letter, the Probation Deputy specifically advised Respondent regarding his obligations to file quarterly probation reports, with the first due on October 10, 2010, to complete 10 hours of continuing legal education courses by December 20, 2010, and to complete State Bar Ethics School by June 20, 2011. Enclosed with the July 9, 2010 letter to Respondent were, among other things, copies of the May 21, 2010 California Supreme Court Order, the relevant portion of the Stipulation setting forth the conditions of Respondent’s probation, a Quarterly Report Instructions sheet, a Quarterly Report form specially tailored for Respondent to use in submitting his quarterly reports, an continuing legal education information sheet, an information sheet regarding State Bar Ethics School, an application enrollment form for State Bar Ethics School, and a schedule for State Bar Ethics School. Respondent received the Probation Deputy’s July 9, 2010 letter and enclosures.
8. Respondent failed to submit to the Office of Probation the quarterly report that was due on October 10, 2010. Therefore, on December 29, 2010, the Probation Deputy wrote another letter to Respondent in which he notified Respondent that his first quarterly report required as a condition of his probation had been due on October 10, 2010, but that the Office of Probation had not received it, and that completion of ten (10) hours of continuing legal education in federal civil procedure and/or law office management had been due on December 20, 2010, but that the Office of Probation had not received proof of same. The Probation Deputy requested Respondent to submit the overdue quarterly report immediately. Further, the Probation Deputy warned Respondent that no further reminders would be sent and that his failure to comply with probation could be referred for further disciplinary action. Enclosed with the December 29, 2010 letter was a copy of the Probation Deputy’s July 9, 2010 letter to Respondent with enclosures. Respondent received the December 29, 2010 letter and enclosures.
9. To date, Respondent has failed to submit to the Office of Probation the required quarterly reports that were due on October 10, 2010, January 10, 2011, April 10, 2011, July 10, 2011, October 10, 2011 and January 10, 2012.
10. To date, Respondent has failed to submit to the Office of Probation proof of completion of the required ten (10) hours of continuing legal education in federal civil procedure and/or law office management, which Respondent was to have completed no later than December 20, 2010.
11. To date, Respondent has failed to submit to the Office of Probation proof of completion of State Bar Ethics School, which Respondent was to have completed no later than June 20, 2011.
CONCLUSION OF LAW:
By failing to complete the required quarterly reports, failing to complete the additional required continuing legal education and failing to complete Ethics School, Respondent violated the conditions of his probation in willful violation of section 6068 (k) of the Business and Professions Code.
C. FACTS SUPPORTING AGGRAVATION
Respondent’s record includes a pair of prior disciplinary matters. The first is State Bar Court case 05-O-00457, discipline effective October 13, 2006, which resulted in six (6) months stayed suspension and one (1) year probation with terms. Respondent’s second prior disciplinary matter addressed State Bar Court cases 06-O-15178, 07-O-10730 and 08-O-10076 (consolidated), effective June 20, 2010. Those cases resulted in a thirty (30) day actual suspension, one (1) year stayed suspension and two (2) years probation with terms. Both instances of prior conduct are considered aggravating here.
D. FACTS SUPPORTING MITIGATION
Respondent has admitted his misconduct and has cooperated with the State Bar in preparing this stipulation.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page 2, paragraph A(7), was March 13, 2012.
F. AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
The analysis of what is the appropriate level of discipline begins with the Standard for Attorney Sanctions as reaffirmed by In Re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal. 44 81. Though they are not binding on the Supreme Court and are not a "fixed formula," the standards do promote consistent and uniform application of discipline as well as the purpose of discipline, enunciated in standard 1.3: the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession as well as the maintenance of high professional standards.
Several of the standards apply in this instance. Respondent has two instances of prior discipline, with the most severe including 1 year stayed suspension, 30 days actual suspension and 2 years probation, and as described in standard 1.7, "the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding" in most cases, of which this case is no obvious exception. Also relevant is standard 2.6, which states that violations of Business and Professions Code 6068 "shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on 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."
Standard 1.2 (b)(ii) is also applicable here in that Respondent’s repeated and nearly complete failure to adhere to his probation terms demonstrates a pattern of misconduct that must now cease. Standard 1.5 allows for "[r]easonable duties or conditions fairly related to the acts of professional misconduct and surrounding circumstances found or acknowledged by the member may be added to a recommendation or suspensions..." As per standard 1.5, "reasonable conditions" include requirements that the "member take and pass an examination in professional responsibility" or "undertake educational or rehabilitative work at his or her own expense regarding one or more fields of substantive law or law office management" and "any other duty or condition consistent with the purposes of imposing a sanction for professional misconduct..."
The parties believe that the stipulated discipline herein is adequate to protect the public, courts and the legal profession.
G. REQUIRED ADDITIONAL CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
Respondent shall complete the ten (10) hours of continuing legal education in federal civil procedure and law practice/law practice management previously ordered within six (6) months of the effective date of this stipulation and provide proof, in writing, to the Office of Probation within thirty (30) days thereafter. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive any MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar).
H. COSTS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of March 20, 2012, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $6,779. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only. 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.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 11-O-17188-LMA
In the Matter of: Daniel Thomas Streeter, Jr.
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: Daniel T. Streeter, Jr.
Date: March 23, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: William Todd
Date: March 23, 2012
Case Number(s): 11-O-17188-LMA
In the Matter of: DANIEL THOMAS STREETER, JR., State Bar No.: 183703
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: Richard A. Platel
Date: April 4, 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 April 5, 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:
DANIEL T. STREETER JR
LAW OFC DANIEL T STREETER JR
137 N LARCHMONT BLVD #500
LOS ANGELES, CA 90004
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
WILLIAMS S. TODD, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on April 5, 2012.
Signed by:
Mazie Yip
Case Administrator
State Bar Court