Case Number(s): 11-O-19553
In the Matter of: Joseph James Rego, Bar # 163183, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Erin McKeown Joyce, Acting Senior Trial Counsel
State Bar of Califomia
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299
Telephone: (213) 765-1356
Facsimile: (213) 765-1319
Bar # 149946,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Joseph James Rego
3433 Camino Del Rio Street
Suite 300
San Diego, California 92108
(619) 564-8725
Bar# 163183
Submitted to: Settlement 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 December 15, 1992.
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 12 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: two (2) billing cycles immediately following the effective date of the Supreme Court Order in this matter. (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.
Case Number(s): 11-O-19553
In the Matter of: Joseph James Rego
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: Riverside County Public Guardian
Principal Amount: $25, 000
Interest Accrues From: February 3, 2011
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than .
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): Riverside County Public Guardian
Minimum Payment Amount $5,500
Payment Frequency: Respondent is required to make each payment before the first day of the quarter beginning with the second quarter of his probation.
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.
<<not>> 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: Joseph James Rego, State Bar No. 163183
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-O-19553
PENDING PROCEEDINGS:
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph A.(7), was July 16, 2012.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statute and Rule of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 11-O-19553
FACTS
1. On March 29, 2007, Respondent filed a conservatorship matter entitled In the Matter of Rosie Middleton, case no. HEP000803 in San Diego Superior Court (the "conservatorship matter").
2. After the sale of the conservatee’s house in San Diego County, the matter was transferred to Riverside County later in 2007.
3. On November 29, 2010, the conservatee died.
4. Respondent failed to timely complete the conservatorship matter, which caused the Public Guardian to be appointed.
5. The Public Guardian was required to expend substantial resources in closing the conservatorship matter since Respondent failed to timely complete the conservatorship matter.
6. The Public Guardian filed a motion for sanctions against Respondent.
7. On February 15, 2011, the court entered an order imposing sanctions against Respondent in the amount of $25,000 payable to the Public Guardian within 30 days of January 4, 2011.
8. Respondent received actual notice of the February 15, 2011 order.
9. The February 15, 2011 order is final.
10. Respondent has not complied with the February 15, 2011 order to date. Rego stipulation attachment 8
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By failing to comply with the February 15, 2011 order, Respondent wilfully disobeyed an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to do or forbear in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.
By failing to timely conclude the conservatorship matter, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, and repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A).
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Additional Mitigating Circumstances
Although Respondent’s misconduct was serious, Respondent has no prior record of discipline. Respondent was admitted in December 1992, almost twenty years before the sanctions order of February 15, 2011. Even where the underlying conduct is deemed serious, Respondent’s lengthy period of discipline free practice should be afforded mitigating weight. In the Matter of Conner (Review Dept. 2008) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 93 (Review Department gave mitigating credit for over 12 years of discipline free practice despite seriousness of misconduct); In the Matter of Davis (Review Dept. 2003) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 576 (mitigation acknowledged for absence of prior record of discipline in twelve years of practice despite willful misappropriation of over $29,000); In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205, citing Kelly v. State Bar, (1991) 53 Cal.3d 509, 520 and Standard 1.2(e)(i) (where Supreme Court gave substantial mitigating weight to over 20 years of discipline free practice).
Respondent met with the State Bar, cooperated in the investigation, and entered this Stipulation fully resolving this matter. Respondent’s stipulation to the facts, his culpability, and discipline is a mitigating circumstance. In the Matter of Spaith (Review Dept. 1996) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 511,521.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
STANDARDS FOR ATTORNEY SANCTIONS
To determine the appropriate level of discipline, the analysis beings with the Standards. In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 89-94; In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205, 220.
Under Standard 2.4(b), the range of discipline for a violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A) is "reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client." Here, though Respondent failed to complete the conservatorship, there was no harm to the client.
Under Standard 2.6 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, culpability for violating Business and Professions Code section 6103 "shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or harm to the client, if any, with due regard to the purposes of attorney discipline."
DISCUSSION
Here, there was no client harm, but the failure to pay $25,000 to the Public Guardian is serious. The stipulated discipline of thirty (30) days actual suspension falls squarely within the Standards.
Under Standard 1.6(a), "[t]he appropriate sanction for an act of professional misconduct shall be that set forth in the.., standards for the particular act of misconduct ..... If two or more acts of professional misconduct are found or acknowledged in a single disciplinary proceeding, and different sanctions are prescribed by the[ ] standards for said acts, the sanction imposed shall be the more or the most severe of the different applicable standards." Here the most severe of the applicable sanctions is Standard 2.6, for violating Business and Professions Code section 6103 - failing to comply with a court order.
Discipline in the range of stayed suspension falls within the standards, and has been imposed for violations of Business and Professions Code section 6103, even where there is other misconduct not present in this matter. In the Matter of Riordan (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 41 (Review Department imposed six month stayed suspension where Respondent was found to have failed to perform legal services with competence, failed to comply with Supreme Court orders, and failed to timely report judicial sanctions imposed by the Supreme Court).
The agreed discipline in this matter falls squarely within the applicable standards. Because of the significant amount of the sanctions imposed ($25,000), a period of actual suspension is warranted, especially where Respondent is also culpable of violating Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A) in the same legal matter.
Respondent has admitted to failing to comply with the February 15, 2011 sanctions order of the court and to failing to perform with competence in the conservatorship matter. However, this is the first discipline Respondent has faced in almost twenty (20) years of practice. An unblemished record over a long period of practice of almost twenty years is a substantial mitigating circumstance. See In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205, citing Kelly v. State Bar, (1991) 53 Cal.3d 509, 520 and Standard 1.2(e)(i).
The agreed discipline of thirty (30) days actual suspension and lengthy probation period, with conditions, including the requirement that Respondent pay the court imposed sanctions, is within the Standards and supported by case law.
FURTHER AGREEMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The factual statements contained in this Stipulation constitute admissions of fact and may not be withdrawn by either party, except with court approval.
COSTS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of July 16, 2012, the estimated costs in this matter are $ 3,692. 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-19553
In the Matter of: Joseph James Rego
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: Joseph J. Rego
Date: July 16, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Erin McKeown Joyce
Date: July 16, 2012
Case Number(s): 11-O-19553
In the Matter of: Joseph James Rego
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. Honn
Date: August 16, 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 August 6, 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:
JOSEPH J. REGO
3443 CAMINO DEL RIO S STE 300
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by ovemight 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:
Erin M. Joyce, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on August 6, 2012.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court