Case Number(s): 12-C-10462-DFM; 12-C-10496
In the Matter of: Lisa Boegler Nevarez, Bar # 206226, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Eli Morgenstern
Kim Kasreliovich
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
The State Bar of California
1 t49 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1378
Bar # 190560 - Morgenstern
261766 - Kasreliovich
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Lisa Boegler Nevarez
Law Offices of Lisa Nevarez
5664 Apia Drive
Cypress, CA 92630
(714) 798-0074
Bar # 206226
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
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 February 14, 2000.
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: three billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court Order. See page 11 for a further discussion of costs. (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.
(10) Substance Abuse Conditions:
Within ten days of the termination of Respondent’s participation in the Orange County DUI Court Program, Respondent will notify the Office of Probation in writing. At that time, Respondent will be subject to these Substances Abuse Conditions for a period of two years or until the end of her probation, whichever is earlier.
Respondent must select a licensed medical laboratory or laboratories acceptable to the Office of Probation and having the capability to provide observed testing of Respondent as specified below. Respondent must provide a copy of this order and of the Office of Probation Lab Test Information Sheet to each and every laboratory utilized by her to perform any portion of the testing required to comply with this condition of probation. In the event that Respondent subsequently is informed or learns that any laboratory, previously approved by the Office of Probation to conduct the testing set forth below, is no longer able or willing to perform any of such testing in the manner set forth below, Respondent is to notify the Office of Probation in writing of that fact immediately after acquiring such information; and she must select a new licensed medical laboratory, acceptable to the Office of Probation and having the capability to provide observed testing of Respondent as specified below, sufficiently promptly that she will be able to continue to comply timely with the testing requirements set forth below and in no event later than seventy-two hours after learning of the need to select a new laboratory.
Respondent must be tested, at her expense, within the first five days of each calendar month during the period of the condition to show that she has abstained from the use of alcohol and drugs. This testing will utilize (1) a 10-panel test of the drugs listed on the Office of Probation’s Lab Test Information Sheet of Respondent’s blood and (2) an Ethyl Glucuronide ("EtG") test of a sample of Respondent’s urine obtained by the laboratory by observed collection, or equivalent tests accepted and approved in advance by the Office of Probation. These tests are to be performed by the laboratory pursuant to the Department of Transportation Guidelines, including observed testing. Respondent must cause the laboratory to provide directly to the Office of Probation, at Respondent’s expense, a screening report on or before the tenth day of each such month which contains an analysis of the above blood and urine tests, which shows that each tested sample was properly obtained within ten days of the date of the report, and demonstrates that the above testing requirements were satisfied. A "screening report" lists all of the items for which Respondent was tested, with the individual results for each item. An overall synopsis, e.g. "negative", with no breakdown, is not sufficient.
IN THE MATTER OF: Lisa Boegler Nevarez, State Bar No. 206226
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-C-10462; 12-C-10496
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that she is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 12-C-10462 (Conviction Proceedings)
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING:
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On October 31, 2007, Respondent was convicted of violating:
Vehicle Code section 23152(a), driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs; and
Vehicle Code section 23152(b), driving with a blood alcohol level of .08% or more.
3. On March 8,2012, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issue:
Whether the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
FACTS:
4. On March 25, 2007 Garden Grove police were dispatched to the scene of a two-car traffic accident. The driver of one of the vehicles involved in the accident was stopped at a stop sign when he was struck from behind by Respondent’s vehicle.
5. The officers made contact with Respondent. The officers could smell "alcohol on Respondent mad saw a 200-milliliter bottle of Smirnoff vodka, half full, in her purse.
6. Respondent admitted to police to taking two (2) Vicodin painkillers and having two (2) shots of vodka around noon.
7. Respondent was unable to pass the field sobriety examination and was arrested for Driving under the Influence of Alcohol/Drugs. Respondent’s BAC was .27%.
8. On October 31, 2007, Respondent entered into a plea agreement and was sentenced for violations of Vehicle Code sections 23152(a), driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drug and 23152(b), driving with a blood alcohol level of .08% or more.
9. Respondent’s first DUI occurred on or about December 21, 2002 when she was convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 23152(b), driving with a blood alcohol level of .08% or more. The 2007 conviction was Respondent’s second DUI.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
The facts and circumstances surrounding the above-described violation(s) did not involve moral turpitude but did involve other misconduct warranting discipline.
Case No. 12-C-10496 (Conviction Proceedings)
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING:
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On January 13, 2012, Respondent was convicted of violating:
Vehicle Code section 23152(a), driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs; and
Vehicle Code section 23152(b), driving with a blood alcohol level of .08% or more.
3. On April 17, 2012, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issue:
Whether the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
FACTS:
4. On October 24, 2011, the California State Highway Patrol was called to the scene of a car accident involving Respondent in unincorporated Orange County.
5. Respondent was driving eastbound on a surface street and failed to make sure oncoming traffic was clear prior to making a left turn.
6. The right front of Respondent’s vehicle struck the left front of another vehicle, driven by Angel Lopez. Mr. Lopez’s car was totaled and he was transported by ambulance to West Anaheim Medical Center.
7. Highway patrol contacted Respondent who spoke with slurred speech and was emitting the odor of alcohol.
8. Respondent was arrested for Driving under the Influence of Alcohol and Causing Injury. Respondent’s BAC was. 14%.
9. On January 13, 2012, Respondent entered into a plea agreement and was sentenced for violations of Vehicle Code sections 23152(a), driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drug and 23152(b), driving with a blood alcohol level of .08% or more. Respondent was sentenced to five (5) years formal probation and enrolled in the Orange County DUI Court program.
10. DUI Court is a 12 month intensive program. Participants are required to attend weekly group therapy sessions as well as individual therapy appointments. Participants are tested for alcohol and drugs a minimum of three times per week, meet regularly with an assigned probation officer and attend monthly progress hearings in court. In addition, participants must attend 3-7 additional self-help meetings per week. Self-help programs include programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous.
11. This conviction was Respondent’s third DUI.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
The facts and circumstances surrounding the above-described violation(s) did not involve moral turpitude but did involve other misconduct warranting discipline.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
1. Candor and Cooperation
Respondent is entitled to some mitigation for entering into this stipulation prior to trial. (Std. 1.2(e)(v).)
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was May 31, 2012.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.3 of the Standards For Attorney Sanctions For Professional Misconduct, Title IV of the Rules of Procedure ("Standards") states that the primary purposes of attorney discipline are, "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high legal professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession."
Standard 3.4 provides that when a member has been convicted of a crime not involving moral turpitude, the sanction shall be according to those prescribed under Part B of the standards appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct.
Under Part B, the appropriate standard is 2.6, the standard applicable to violations of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a), failure to obey the law. Standard 2.6 states that the level of discipline shall be disbarment or suspension.
In In re Kelley (t 990) 52 Cal. 3d 487, Respondent suffered two convictions, with two charges each, for DUI and driving with a blood alcohol level of more than. 10%. Both offenses occurred within Respondent’s first 4 years of practice as an attorney. The court found that since Respondent’s convictions did not cause a specific harm to the courts or the public and there were several mitigating factors, only minimal discipline was warranted. The court imposed a public reproval with three years of probation and the requirement that Respondent abstain from alcohol. The court did not find moral turpitude but did find other misconduct warranting discipline.
In the instant case, the facts suggest a level of discipline slightly higher than that imposed in Kelley. Respondent is before the Hearing Department due to her second and third DUIs, both of which involved car accidents. In the second accident, the driver was taken to the hospital for treatment and his car was totaled. In light of Respondent’s multiple DUIs and the resulting car accidents, the State Bar submits that a period of actual suspension is warranted under Standard 1.3.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of 05-31-2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are $4,574. The costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following three billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Com-t Order. 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.
If Respondent fails to pay any installment within the time provided herein or as may be modified by the State Bar Court pursuant to section 6086.10, subdivision (c), the remaining balance of the costs is due and payable immediately and enforceable both as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment unless relief has been granted under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.134.)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 12-C-10462; 12-C-10496
In the Matter of: Lisa Boegler Nevarez, State Bar No.: 206226
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: Lisa B. Nevarez
Date: August 3, 2012
Respondent’s Counsel: Eli D. Morgenstern
Date: August 14, 2012
Deputy Trial Counsel: Kim G. Kasreliovich
Date: August 14, 2012
Case Number(s): 12-C-10462; 12-C-10496
In the Matter of: Lisa Boegler Nevarez, State Bar No.: 206226
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.
On p. 2, paragraph A (8) [Payment of Disciplinary Costs]: Insert the years "(2014, 2015, and 2016)" after three billing cycles.
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: Donald F. Miles
Date: August 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 August 31, 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:
LISA B. NEVAREZ
LAW OFFICE OF LISA B. NEVAREZ
5664 APIA DRIVE
CYPRESS, CA 92630
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Kimberly G. Kasreliovich, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on August 31, 2012.
Signed by:
Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator
State Bar Court