Case Number(s): 12-O-11622
In the Matter of: India Sheryl Thompson, Bar # 143787, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Lee Ann Kern, Deputy Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015
(213) 765-1272
Bar # 156623
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
India Sherryl Thompson
14424 Magnolia Boulevard #209
Sherman Oaks, California 91423
(818) 231-2031
Bar # 143787
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 December 11, 1989.
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 13 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. 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.
Case Number(s): 12-O-11622
In the Matter of: India Sherryl Thompson
<<not>> checked. a. Within days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
checked. b. Within days/ 12 months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than 6 hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
<<not>> checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
Other:
IN THE MATTER OF: India Sherryl Thompson
CASE NUMBER(S): 12-O-11622
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-11622 (Complaining Witness Christopher Williams)
FACTS:
1. On November 13, 2009, Christopher Williams ("Williams") hired Respondent to collect $40,000 owed to Williams on an unpaid promissory note. On November 13, 2009, Williams paid Respondent $750 in advanced fees. Respondent and Williams agreed that Williams would pay Respondent an additional $750 once a judgment against the debtor was obtained, as well as 40% of $40,000 that Williams anticipated recovering in the matter.
2. On January 27, 2010, Respondent filed a lawsuit against Williams’s debtor in the matter entitled Christopher E. Williams vs. Henry A. Wilson Jr., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC430571 ("Williams’s lawsuit"). Respondent did not pay a filing fee at the time the lawsuit was filed.
3. On January 28, 2010, Respondent filed a request for Williams’s court fees to be waived. The court scheduled a hearing on the matter for February 23, 2010, and requested that Williams provide information in support of his request for a waiver. On February 1, 2010, Respondent was served with notice of the hearing on Williams’s request to waive court fees. Respondent received the notice of the hearing date and informed Williams of the date. Prior to the February 23, 2010 hearing on the request, Williams informed Respondent that he no longer wished to pursue the fee waiver. As such, neither Respondent nor Williams appeared at the hearing and the court denied the waiver.
4. On March 25, 2010, the court voided the filing of Williams’s lawsuit because no filing fee had been paid. In March 2010, Williams paid Respondent the $355 filing fee and also gave Respondent a $30 check payable to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department ("LASD") to have the summons and complaint served on the defendant. On April 1, 2010, Respondent paid the filing fee to the court and Williams’s lawsuit was reinstated. On April 30, 2010, the court served Respondent with notice that Williams’s lawsuit had been reinstated and the court issued the summons. Respondent received the notice.
5. On May 25, 2010, Respondent paid the LASD $35 (the $30 check from Williams and $5 of her own funds) to effect service of the summons and complaint on the defendant in Williams’s lawsuit.
6. On June 24, 2010, the court served Respondent with notice of an August 10, 2010, Case Management Conference. Respondent received the notice. Respondent failed to appear at the August 10, 2010 Case Management Conference. On August 10, 2010, the court dismissed Williams’s lawsuit. Respondent was served with notice of the court’s ruling. Respondent received the notice.
7. In late August 2010, Respondent checked the status of service of the summons and complaint in Williams’s lawsuit through the LASD’s website and discovered that service had been canceled on June 11, 2010, because Williams’s $30 check had been returned for non-sufficient funds.
8. In August 2010, Williams called Respondent and left messages on Respondent’s voice mail in which he asked her for the status of his case and for her to return his telephone call. In September 2010, Respondent called Williams and informed him his case was dismissed.
9. On September 21, 2010, Respondent filed a motion for relief from the dismissal of Williams’s lawsuit. In her motion, Respondent stated that the dismissal was caused by Respondent’s "lack of diligence in following the Los Angeles Sheriff Department’s [sic] efforts to serve the defendant and [Respondent’s] failure to appear at two court hearings." The motion was not heard on its scheduled hearing date of December 7, 2010.
10. On February 9, 2011, Respondent again filed a motion for relief from the dismissal of Williams’s lawsuit. The hearing on the motion was scheduled for May 2, 2011. On May 2, 2011, Respondent failed to appear at the motion for relief from the dismissal of Williams’s lawsuit and the court took the motion off calendar.
11. On May 10, 2011, Respondent appeared in court on an ex parte application for an order granting the motion for relief from the dismissal of Williams’s lawsuit. The court denied the motion without prejudice to Williams’s filing of a noticed motion. Thereafter, Respondent failed to file a noticed motion for relief from the dismissal of Williams’s lawsuit.
12. After May 10, 2011, Respondent took no further action as to Williams’s lawsuit, nor did she otherwise pursue recovery of the unpaid $40,000 note on Williams’s behalf. Respondent did not provide Williams with any legal services of value and did not earn any portion of the $750 in advance fees paid to her by Williams.
13. Respondent failed to inform Williams that she did not have his case "placed back on calendar" and that she failed to appear at the May 2011 hearing on the motion for relief from the dismissal of Williams’s lawsuit.
14. October 27, 2011, Williams made a complaint to the State Bar about Respondent’s conduct.
15. On January I 1, 2012, a State Bar Complaint Analyst wrote a letter to Respondent at her State Bar membership Records address requesting a response to the allegations raised by Williams in his complaint. Respondent did not respond to the Complaint Analyst’s letter.
16. On March 13, 2012, an investigator for the State Bar had a telephone conversation with Respondent about Respondent’s failure to provide a written response to the Complaint Analyst’s letter. Respondent acknowledged that she owed the State Bar a response to Williams’s allegations and informed the investigator that she world fax her response to the investigator the following day. Respondent did not respond to Williams’s allegations at set forth in the Complaint Analyst’s letter.
17. On March 26, 2012, an investigator for the State Bar mailed a letter to Respondent at her State Bar membership address requesting a response to the allegations raised by Williams in his complaint. The letter was not returned in the mail as undeliverable or for any other reason. Respondent received the investigator’s letter.
18. Respondent did not provide a written response to the State Bar’s letter or otherwise cooperate in the investigation of Williams’s complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
19. By failing to properly file and maintain Williams’s lawsuit or otherwise pursue recovery of the unpaid $40,000 note on Williams’s behalf, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in willful violation of rule 3-110(A), Rules of Professional Conduct.
20. By failing to inform Williams that she failed to appear at the May 2011 hearing on the motion for relief from the dismissal of Williams’s lawsuit, Respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which Respondent had agreed to provide legal services, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
21. By not providing a written response to the allegations raised by Williams in his complaint, Respondent failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 60680).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS:
The disclosure date referred to on page 2, paragraph A (7), was August 23, 2012.
OTHER MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
Respondent stipulated to facts, conclusions of law, and disposition in order to resolve her disciplinary proceedings as efficiently as possible. (See Silva-Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 1071, 1079, where mitigative credit was accorded to the attorney for admitting facts and culpability in order to simplify the disciplinary proceedings against her.)
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
Prior Record of Discipline:
State Bar Court Case Number of Prior Cases: 97-0-18160 and 98-0-02715
Date Prior Discipline Effective: December 19, 2001
Rules of Professional Conduct/State Bar Violations: In 97-0-18160: Rule 3-110(A), Rules of Professional Conduct. In 98-O-02715: Rule 3-I 10(A), Rules of Professional Conduct and Business and Professions Code sections 6125 and 6126
Degree of Prior Discipline: One year stayed suspension and three years probation.
Harm: Respondent’s failure to properly file and maintain Williams’s lawsuit or otherwise pursue recovery of the unpaid $40,000 note on Williams’s behalf caused harm to Williams due to the expiration of the statute of limitations as to his cause of action. (In the Matter of Bach (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 631, where attorney’s loss of client’s cause of action constituted significant harm.)
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE:
The Supreme Court has held that great weight is to be given to the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct ("Standards"), and they should be followed whenever possible. (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 81, 91.) Adherence to the Standards serves the valuable purpose of eliminating disparity and assuring consistency in the imposition of attorney discipline. (In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205, 220.)
Where two or more acts of professional misconduct are acknowledged in a single disciplinary proceeding, and different sanctions are prescribed by the standards, the sanction imposed shall be the most severe of the different applicable sanctions. (Standard 1.6 (a).) Standard 2.6 sets forth the most severe of the different sanctions.
Standard 2.6 provides that culpability of a member of a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(i) shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim. Respondent did not participate in the State Bar investigation of Williams’s complaint. Although her failure to participate in the State Bar investigation hindered the investigation process by delaying the State Bar’s ability to complete its full assessment of the matter, such a delay did not ultimately result in harm. On the other hand, Respondent’s misconduct in failing to properly communicate with Williams and pursue his unpaid $40,000 note within the statute of limitations harmed Williams by depriving him of his cause of action and ability to recover damages. The harm to Respondent’s client increases the magnitude of the misconduct.
Respondent’s misconduct is mitigated by her willingness to stipulate to facts, conclusions of law, and disposition, but aggravated by the harm caused to Williams due to Respondent’s failure to properly file and maintain Williams’s lawsuit or otherwise pursue recovery of the unpaid $40,000 note on Williams’s behalf. In addition, Standard 1.7 (a) mandates that discipline in the instant matter be greater than the one year stayed suspension .Respondent received in her prior discipline because Respondent’s prior discipline was serious and not remote in time.
The stipulated disposition is consistent with case law. In Layton v. State Bar (1991) 50 Cal.3d 889, 30 days actual suspension was imposed where an attorney failed to use reasonable diligence to accomplish the purposes for which he was employed, failed to perform legal services competently, and violated his duties as an attorney. In mitigation, Layton had no prior discipline in over 30 years of practice and his present misconduct did not evidence a pattern of misconduct. There were no factors in aggravation.
In Bach v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1201, 30-days actual suspension was imposed when an attorney, in a single client matter, failed to perform legal services competently, improperly withdrew from representation, failed to refund unearned fees, and failed to cooperate with the State Bar investigation. In mitigation, Bach had no prior record of discipline in over 20 years of practice. In aggravation, the attorney denied any responsibility for the delay, cost, anxiety, and inconvenience imposed on the client, and refused to participate in mandatory fee arbitration proceedings.
A greater sanction than that imposed in Layton and in Bach is warranted in the instant matter due to the aggravating factors present, including Respondent’s prior record of discipline and the harm caused to her client. Application of the Standards to the facts and consideration of relevant decisional law supports that 90-days actual suspension, two years’ stayed suspension, and three-year’s probation is the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct. The recommended discipline is adequate to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS:
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of August 23, 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 matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
Case Number(s): 12-O-11622
In the Matter of: India Sherryl Thompson
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: India Sherryl Thompson
Date: 9/28/12
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Lee Ann Kern
Date: 10/9/12
Case Number(s): 12-O-11622
In the Matter of: India Sherryl Thompson
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: 11/2/12
[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 Los Angeles, on November 2, 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:
INDIA S THOMPSON ATTORNEY AT LAW
14424 MAGNOLIA BLVD APT 209
SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91423
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Lee A. Kern, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California on November 2, 2012.
Signed by:
Julieta E. Gonzales
Case Administrator
State Bar Court