State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

ACTUAL SUSPENSION

Case Number(s): 12-C-12567-RAH

In the Matter of: Scott Ryan Weber Bar #217702 a Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel for the State Bar: Anthony Garcia No. 171419

Lara Bairamian No. 253056

State Bar of California

Office of the Chief Trial Counsel

1149 S. Hill Street

Los Angeles, CA 90015

(213)765-1000

Counsel for Respondent:  In Pro Per Respondent

Scott Ryan Weber

PO Box 142

Chino Hills, CA 91709

(323) 343-7544

Bar # 217702

Submitted to: Settlement Judge, State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles

Filed: September 19, 2012

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.

A.  Parties' Acknowledgments:

1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 10, 2001.

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 11 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.

<<not>> checked Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: .  (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.

B.  Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.

checked. (1) Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]

checked. (a)              State Bar Court case # of prior case 09-C-10668

checked. (b)              Date prior discipline effective January 5, 2010

checked. (c)              Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: Business and Professions Code    section 6068(a).

checked. (d)              Degree of prior discipline Public Reproval.

<<not>> checked. (e) If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below.

<<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.

<<not>> checked. (3) Trust Violation:  Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property.

<<not>> checked. (4) Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

<<not>> checked. (5) Indifference:  Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his or her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (6) Lack of Cooperation:  Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings. 

<<not>> checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:  Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (8) No aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances: see attachment

C.  Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigating circumstances are required.

not>> checked. (1)         No Prior Discipline:  Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.

not>> checked. (2)         No Harm:  Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the misconduct. 

not>> checked. (3)         Candor/Cooperation:  Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims of his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings.

not>> checked. (4)         Remorse:  Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct.

not>> checked. (5)         Restitution:  Respondent paid $   on   in restitution to   without the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.

not>> checked. (6)         Delay:  These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed.  The delay is not attributable to Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

not>> checked. (7)         Good Faith:  Respondent acted in good faith.

not>> checked. (8)         Emotional/Physical Difficulties:  At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct.  The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.

<<not>> checked. (9)    Severe Financial Stress:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and which were directly responsible for the misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (10) Family Problems:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature.

<<not>> checked. (11) Good Character:  Respondent's good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (12) Rehabilitation:  Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.

<<not>> checked. (13) No mitigating circumstances are involved.
Additional mitigating circumstances:

D. Discipline:

checked. (1)           Stayed Suspension:

checked. (a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.

<<not>> checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii) Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

<<not>> checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.

<<not>> checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following: .

checked. (b) The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

checked. (2) Probation:  Respondent must be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year, which will commence upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter.  (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court.)

checked. (3) Actual Suspension:

checked. (a) Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period of ninety (90) days.

<<not>> checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct

<<not>> checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.

<<not>> checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following: .

E. Additional Conditions of Probation:

<<not>> checked. (1) If Respondent is actually suspended for two years or more, he/she must remain actually suspended until  he/she proves to the State Bar Court his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the general law, pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

checked. (2)                 During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.

checked. (3)                 Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

checked. (4)                 Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with Respondent's assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.

checked. (5)                 Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.

                                       In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.

<<not>> checked. (6) Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance. During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested, in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must cooperate fully with the probation monitor.

checked. (7)                 Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has complied with the probation conditions.

<<not>> checked. (8)          Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the   end of that session.

checked. No Ethics School recommended.  Reason: Respondent attended Ethics School on March 24, 2011, and passed the test given at the end of the session.

<<not>> checked. (9) Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office of Probation.

<<not>> checked. (10)        The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:

<<not>> checked. Substance Abuse Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Law Office Management Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Medical Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Financial Conditions.

F.   Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

<<not>> checked. (1)         Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination:  Respondent must provide proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation during the period of actual suspension or within one year, whichever period is longer.  Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) & (E), Rules of Procedure.
checked. No MPRE recommended.  Reason: Respondent took and passed the MPRE in March of 2011 in compliance with State Bar Case No. 09-C-10668.

<<not>> checked. (2)         Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (3)         Conditional Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90 days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 120 and 130 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (4)         Credit for Interim Suspension [conviction referral cases only]:  Respondent will be credited for the period of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual suspension. Date of commencement of interim suspension:

<<not>> checked. (5)         Other Conditions:

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: Scott Ryan Weber

CASE NUMBER(S): 12-C-12567

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.

Case No. 12-C-12567 (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 May 31,2011, Respondent was convicted by plea, of violating Penal Code Section 69 (obstructing or resisting executive officer) and Penal Code section 148(a)(I) (resisting, delaying, or obstructing public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician). Respondent was sentenced to thirty six (36) months of summary probation with conditions, which include thirty (30) days in jail.

3. On May 11, 2012, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues: Whether the facts and circumstances surrounding the misdemeanor violations involve moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline and if so, the discipline to be imposed.

FACTS:

4. On November 14, 2010, the Pomona Police Department was dispatched to a bar to detain subjects involved in a fight. The responding officers interviewed the suspects outside the bar.

5. Respondent, while intoxicated, exited the bar and approached one of the officers who was questioning the suspects. The officer instructed Respondent to wait until she completed her interview of he suspect.

6. Respondent disobeyed the officer’s request and continued his attempts to speak to the officer.

7. The officer determined it would be unsafe to allow Respondent to remain in public and attempted to place Respondent under arrest.

8. When the responding officers attempted to place Respondent under arrest, Respondent resisted and physically struck one of the officers.

9. Respondent was arrested for battery upon an officer, resisting arrest, obstruction of justice and public intoxication.

10. On May 31, 2011, Respondent was convicted by plea, of violating Penal Code Section 69 and Penal Code section 148(a)(1).

11. As part of his summary probation, Respondent satisfactorily completed 52 Alcoholics Anonymous classes.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

12. The facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s conviction of a misdemeanor did not

involve moral turpitude, but did involve other conduct warranting discipline.

ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

Disrespect for the Legal System. Respondent’s November 14, 2010 arrest occurred during the summary probation period following his February 18, 2009 conviction for California Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence) and the reproval period following discipline by the State Bar of California in case no. 09-C-10668. Respondent’s unwillingness or inability to comply with the conditions of his summary probation demonstrates a lapse of character and a disrespect for the legal system that directly relate to an attorney’s fitness to practice law and serve as an officer of the court. (ln re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal.3d 487, 495.)

ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

Pre-trial Stipulation. Respondent is entitled to mitigation for entering into a full stipulation with the Office of Chief Trial Counsel prior to trial in case no. 12-C-12567, thereby saving the State Bar Court time and resources. (ln the Matter of Downey (Review Dept. 2009) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 151, 156; In the Matter of Van Sickle (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 993-94.)

DISCUSSION.

The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provide a "process of fixing discipline" pursuant to a set of written principles to "better discharge the purposes of attorney discipline as announced by the Supreme Court." (Rules Proc. of State Bar, tit. IV, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, Introduction (all further references to standards are to this source).) The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings and of the sanctions imposed 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." (In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 205; std 1.3.)

Although not binding, the standards are entitled to "great weight" and should be followed "whenever possible" in determining level of discipline. (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 92, quoting In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205,220 and In re Young (1989) 49 Cal.3d 257, 267, fn. 11.) Adherence to the standards in the great majority of cases serves the valuable purpose of eliminating disparity and assuring consistency, that is, the imposition of similar attorney discipline for instances of similar attorney misconduct. (In re Nancy (1990) 51 Cal.3d 186, 190.) Any discipline recommendation different from that set forth in the applicable standards should clearly explain the reasons for the deviation. (Blair v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 762, 776, fn. 5.)

Standard 1.7(a) which states that a member has a prior discipline, the degree of discipline in the current proceeding shall be greater than the discipline imposed in the prior proceeding unless the prior discipline was so remote in time to the current proceeding and the offense for which it was imposed was so minimal in severity that imposing greater discipline in the current proceeding would be manifestly unjust.

Standard 3.4 states that the final conviction of a crime which does not involve moral turpitude inherently or in the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime’s commission, but which does involve other misconduct warranting discipline shall result in a sanction prescribed under part B of these standards appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct found to have been committed by the member.

Under part B, offenses involving a violation for which the level of discipline is not otherwise specified shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard for the purposes of imposing discipline. (Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, Standard 2.10)

In re Anna Lou Kelley (1990) 52 Cal.3d 487 involves an attorney who had twice been convicted of driving with a blood-alcohol level exceeding 0.10 percent. The second conviction occurred while she was still on probation for the first conviction. The Supreme Court held that, although the attorney’s conduct did not involve moral turpitude, the two convictions, including one violating a court order respecting the first, constituted other misconduct warranting discipline. The Supreme Court found that the attorney’s behavior evidenced a lack of respect for the legal system and an alcohol abuse problem. The Supreme Court ordered that the attorney be publicly reproved and placed on disciplinary probation for three years subject to all the conditions set forth by the review department with the exception of the requirement that the attorney abstain from the use of intoxicants.

Like Kelley, Respondent’ s third conviction occurred while he was still on probation for the second conviction. The facts indicate that Respondent’s actions evidence a lack of respect for the legal system and an alcohol abuse problem. Kelley received a public reproval. Unlike Kelley, Respondent had a prior record of discipline that involved actual discipline.

In evaluating Respondent’s misconduct and assessing the level of discipline, the standards require progressive discipline. The aggravating factors call for a period of actual suspension. Respondent’s criminal conviction occurred during both the criminal probation period and the State Bar reproval period. By committing misconduct resulting from intoxication within the probation and reproval period, Respondent demonstrated a lapse of character and disrespect for the legal system. Further, the subject criminal conviction is Respondent’s third alcohol related conviction. Respondent has two prior convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol. The subject criminal conviction involves resisting a police officer and the obstruction of justice, while under the influence of alcohol. Thus, Respondent’s criminal conduct is both repeating and escalating. A level of discipline higher than a reproval is required. Based on the above-described standards, a one (1) year stayed suspension accompanied by a one (1) year probationary period with ninety (90) days actual suspension serves the purpose of State Bar discipline. Additional substance abuse conditions are not necessary to protect the public.

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was August 31,2012.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of August 28, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,343. 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): 12-C-12567

In the Matter of: Scott Ryan Weber

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: Scott Ryan Weber

Date: 9-12-13

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: Anthony J. Garcia

Date: 9-12-13

Deputy Trial Counsel: Lara Bairamian

Date: 9-12-13

ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER

Case Number(s): 12-C-12567

In the Matter of: Scott Ryan Weber

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: 9-19-12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[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 September 19, 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:

                                                            SCOTT R. WEBER

                                                            PO BOX 142

                                                            CHINO HILLS, CA 91709

checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:

                                    ANTHONY GARCIA, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on September 19, 2012.

Signed by:

Rose M. Luthi

Case Administrator

State Bar Court

Signed by:

Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn

Date: 9-19-12