Case Number(s): 12-O-10058
In the Matter of: JEFFERY BRUCE YAZEL, Bar # 210057, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Robin Brune, Bar # 149481,
Counsel for Respondent: Jeffery Bruce Yazel, Bar #210057,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.
Filed: December 20, 2013.
<<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 6, 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 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.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: the two billing cycles immediately following the effective date of the Supreme Court’s 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.
Attachment language (if any):.
FINANCIAL CONDITIONS
Case Number(s): 12-O-10058
In the Matter of: JEFFERY BRUCE YAZEL
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: Client Security Fund
Principal Amount: $33,700.00
Interest Accrues From:
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than 30 days prior to conclusion of probation.
b. Installment Restitution Payments
<<not>> 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)
Minimum Payment Amount
Payment Frequency
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.
c. Client Funds Certificate
<<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.
d. Client Trust Accounting School
<<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.
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: JEFFERY BRUCE YAZEL, State Bar No. 210057
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-O-10058
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-O-10058 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. At all relevant times herein, "US Loan Auditors, LLC", "US Loan Auditors, Inc." and "My US Legal Services" (hereinafter "USLS") were companies owned, in part, by non-attorneys. At all relevant times herein, homeowners hired USLS to file predatory lender lawsuits and paid advanced attorney’s fees in monthly installments to USLS. Thereafter, USLS hired outside attorneys ("contract attorneys") to handle the predatory lender lawsuits. USLS paid the contract attorney $250 per month per client as attorney’s fees. The $250 was paid from the monthly installments paid to USLS by the homeowners as advanced attorney’s fees.
2. From June 2010, through October 2010, USLS hired Respondent as a contract attorney to handle predatory lender lawsuits on behalf of the homeowners. From June 2010, through October 2010, USLS paid Respondent a total of $33,700 as fees from a portion of the monthly installments paid to USLS as advanced attorney’s fees by Respondent’s clients. The $33,700 represents an impermissible fee split with a non-attorney. Respondent was not entitled to retain those fees. To date, Respondent has failed to refund any portion of those fees to his clients.
3. In October 2010, USLS effectively ceased operations following the filing of a civil action by the California Attorney General.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
4. By splitting the legal fees with USLS, Respondent shared a legal fee with a person who is not a lawyer in willful violation of rule 1-320(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Multiple Acts of Misconduct (Std. 1.2(b)(ii)): Respondent represented 43 clients through USLS and accepted impermissible fees on behalf each client. This represents multiple acts of misconduct.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Prior Record of Discipline: Although Respondent’s misconduct is serious, he is entitled to mitigation for having practiced law for approximately 10 years before his misconduct began without discipline. (In the Matter of Riordan (Review Dept., 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 41, 49.)
Pre-filing Stipulation: Respondent is entitled to mitigation for entering into a full stipulation with the Office of Chief Trial Counsel prior to the filing of charges, thereby saving 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, 993-994.)
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 sanction applicable to Respondent’s misconduct is found in standard 2.10, which provides that culpability of a member of a willful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified (e.g., Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-320(A)) shall result in reproval or suspension according to 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.
Here, Respondent shared legal fees with an entity (USLS) that was owned, in part, by non-attorneys.. In total, Respondent collected $33,700 from USLS which was paid from a portion of the advanced fees USLS collected from Respondent’s clients. Respondent committed misconduct in 43 separate client matters over a five-month period.
Respondent’s misconduct is serious. It has long been a fundamental premise of the practice of law that "the relationship between an attorney and client is of the highest order of fiduciary relation. [citation.]" (ln the Matter of Feldsott (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 754, 757.) This relationship is compromised when an attorney splits fees with a non-attorney. The ban against a lawyer sharing fees with a non-lawyer was enacted to prevent the non-lawyer from gaining control over a client’s matter where the non-attorney could be motivated by personal profit rather than the client’s best interests. (ln the Matter of Scapa and Brown (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 635; Accord, In the Matter of Jones (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 411.) Respondent’s fee-splitting arrangement exposed his clients to the risk that the non-attorneys would be looking after their personal interests, rather than those of the client.
Respondent’s misconduct is aggravated by multiple acts of misconduct. However, he is entitled to mitigation for a lack of prior discipline and entering into a full stipulation prior to the filing of charges. Due to the seriousness of Respondent’s misconduct, most significantly, the risk of harm to the 43 clients, suspension at the high-end recommended under standard 2.10 is warranted.
On balance, a 90-day actual suspension with probation conditions including restitution of $33,700 is appropriate to protect the public and maintain the high standards applicable to attorneys.
EXCLUSION FROM MCLE CREDIT
Pursuant to rule 3201, Respondent may not receive MCLE credit for completion of Ethics School (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 12-O-10058
In the Matter of: Jeffery Bruce Yazel
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: Jeffery Bruce Yazel
Date: 12/9/13
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Esther J. Rogers
Date:12/11/13
ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 12-O-10058
In the Matter of: JEFFERY BRUCE YAZEL
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: 12/20/13
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 San Francisco, on December 20, 2013, 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:
JEFFERY B. YAZEL
YAZEL LAW FIRM P.C.
9245 LAGUNA SPRINGS DR STE 200
ELK GROVE, CA 95758
<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:
<<not>> checked. by overnight 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:
ROBIN BRUNE, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on December 20, 2013.
Signed by:
Bernadette Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court