Case Number(s): 12-H-17089
In the Matter of: Frank Benjamin Inglis, Bar # 66282, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Christine Souhrada, Deputy Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 538-2183
Bar # 228256
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Frank Benjamin Inglis
1746 Grand Canal Blvd., Suite 11
Stockton, CA 95207
Bar # 66282
Submitted to: Assigned Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
Filed: December 18, 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 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):
checked. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
<<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.
See attachment.
D. Discipline:
IN THE MATTER OF: Frank Benjamin Inglis
CASE NUMBER(S): 12-H-17089
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-H-17089
FACTS:
1. On February 9, 2012, Respondent entered into a stipulation with the State Bar to settle a disciplinary matter in case number 11-O-16554. Respondent signed a stipulation to a public reproval and agreed to comply with conditions attached to the reproval for a period of one year. The conditions attached to the reproval were specified in the stipulation that Respondent signed.
2. On February 10, 2012, the State Bar Court issued an order imposing a reproval upon respondent in case number 11-O-16554. The State Bar Court order required respondent to comply with the stipulated conditions attached to the reproval.
3. On February 10, 2012, the stipulation and order were filed with the State Bar Court.
4. Soon after February 10, 2012, respondent received notice of the reproval order and reproval conditions. Respondent had actual knowledge of the reproval conditions and reproval order.
5. The reproval conditions and reproval order became effective on March 7, 2012, and have remained in full force at all times thereafter.
6. CONTACTING THE OFFICE OF PROBATION TO SCHEDULE MEETING CONDITION:
One of the reproval conditions provided as follows:
"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."
7. Respondent violated this condition of his reproval by failing to contact the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with his assigned probation deputy within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline.
8. QUARTERLY REPORTING CONDITION:
One of the conditions of the reproval required respondent to submit reports as follows:
"Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the condition period attached to the reproval. 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 the reproval during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state in each report 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 the proceeding. If the first report would over less than thirty (30) days, that report must be submitted on the next following 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 condition period and no later than the last day of the condition period."
9. Respondent violated this condition by failing to submit the quarterly reports due on July 10, 2012 and October 10, 2012.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
10. By failing to contact the Office of Probation to schedule a meeting with his assigned probation deputy within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline and by failing to submit his July 10, 2012 and October 10, 2012 quarterly reports, Respondent failed to comply with all conditions attached to a public reproval administered by the State Bar in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-110.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Prior Record of Discipline:
Respondent has one prior disciplinary matter, specifically, case no. 11-O-16554, a matter which resulted in the public reproval underlying this present matter. In case no. 11-O-16554, Respondent admitted to culpability for failing to perform and failing to inform a client of a significant development in a single client matter, and failing to update his membership records address.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Pre-Filing Stipulation:
Respondent entered into this stipulation to resolve this matter before the filing was disciplinary charges. See In the Matter of Riordan (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 41, 50.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
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 Naney (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.)
The following standards are applicable to this matter: standard 1.7(a) and 2.9.
Standard 1.7(a) states:
"If a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of one prior imposition of discipline as defined by standard 1.2(0, the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding unless the prior discipline imposed 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." (emphasis added)
Standard 2.9 states "Culpability of a member of a wilful violation of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct, shall result in suspension."
Thus, to be consistent with standards 1.7(a) and 2.9, the level of discipline must be at least a stayed suspension. In this matter, Respondent violated three probation conditions. Protection of the public requires that he receive a longer stayed suspension.
Although there is no case law directly on point, In The Matter of Meyer (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 697 provides guidance. In Meyer, the Review Department imposed a 90-day actual suspension on a respondent with two prior instances of discipline who failed to comply with the conditions attached to his private reproval and who failed to cooperate in the disciplinary proceeding. Respondent has only one prior instance of discipline compared to the two prior instances in Meyer, and unlike in Meyer, Respondent is cooperative in that he is executing this stipulation before the filing of disciplinary charges, thus a discipline lower than that imposed in Meyer is appropriate in this case.
Thus a two-year stayed-suspension is consistent with the Standards and case law and would serve the purposes of attorney discipline.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was December 7, 2012.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of December 7, 2012, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,865. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this maker may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
EXCLUSION FROM MCLE CREDIT
Pursuant to rule 3201, Respondent may not receive MCLE credit for completion of State Bar Ethics School. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)
Case Number(s): 12-H-17089
In the Matter of: Frank Benjamin 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: 12-10-12
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Christine Souhrada
Date: 12/11/12
Case Number(s): 12-H-17089
In the Matter of: Frank Benjamin 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:
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.
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: Lucy Armendariz
Date: Dec 17, 2012
[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; 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 December 18, 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 Ln
Sequim, WA 98382
Frank Benjamin Inglis
1746 Grand Canal Blvd.
Suite 11
Stockton, CA 95207
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Christine A. Souhrada, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California on December 18, 2012.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court