Case Number(s): 12-O-12104
In the Matter of: Dawn Marie Hunter, Bar # 177153, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Michael J. Glass, Bar #102700,
Counsel for Respondent: Dawn Marie Hunter, Bar #177153,
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.
Filed: November 18, 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 June 14, 1995.
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):
<<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 (3) billing cycles following the effective date of discipline. (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-12104
In the Matter of: DAWN MARIE HUNTER
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: Pearl Ryan
Principal Amount: $4,146.00
Interest Accrues From: December 26, 2011
2. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
3. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
4. Payee:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
<<not>> checked. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation not later than .
b. Installment Restitution Payments
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) Pearl Ryan
Minimum Payment Amount $200
Payment Frequency: Monthly on the first day of each month beginning the month following the effective
date of discipline.
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
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: : DAWN MARIE HUNTER, State Bar No. 177153
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-O-12104
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 Rule of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 12-O-12104 (Complainant: Pearl Ryan)
FACTS:
1. On May 24, 2011, Pearl Ryan ("Ryan") employed Respondent and paid $1,000 in advanced legal fees for Respondent’s representation in a lawsuit already pending in Superior Court in which Ryan was the plaintiff.
2. On May 26, 2011, the California Supreme Court served Respondent with an order, effective July 1, 2011, suspending her from the practice of law for failure to pay State Bar membership fees. Respondent received the Supreme Court order. To date, Respondent has not paid her State Bar membership fees and remains suspended from the practice of law.
3. At no time before or after the effective date of the suspension did Respondent inform Ryan that she would be or was suspended from the practice of law as of July 1, 2011.
4. Between August 25, 2011, and December 26, 2011, while suspended from the practice of law, Respondent charged Ryan an additional $4,146 in legal fees for services performed after the date of the suspension, which fees Ryan paid and Respondent collected.
5. Between September 12, 2011, and October 12, 2011, while suspended from the practice of law and purportedly acting as counsel for Ryan, Respondent sent multiple e-mails concerning the lawsuit to a representative of one of the defendants. The representative received the e-mails.
6. Between September 12, 2011, and October 21, 2011, while suspended from the practice of law and purportedly acting as counsel for Ryan, Respondent sent multiple e-mails to Ryan regarding damages and other issues in connection with the lawsuit. Ryan received the e-mails.
7. When Respondent sent the e-mails to Ryan and to the defendant’s representative, Respondent knew, that she had been suspended and was not eligible to practice law. Respondent concealed these facts from Ryan and defendant’s representative, and by her concealment misrepresented that she was an active member of the State Bar and entitled to practice law.
8. On March 21, 2012, Ryan filed a complaint against Respondent with the State Bar of California.
9. On April 26, 2012, and May 15, 2012, a State Bar investigator mailed letters to Respondent requesting that she respond in writing to specified allegations of misconduct under investigation in connection with Ryan’s complaint by May 10, 2012, and May 30, 2012, respectively. Respondent received the letters but did not respond or otherwise cooperate in the investigation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
10. By continuing employment with Ryan after she had been suspended from the practice of law effective July 1, 201 l, accepting fees for legal services when she was not an active member of the State Bar of California, failing to notify Ryan that she would be or had been suspended from the practice of law effective July 1, 2011, and purporting to act as counsel for Ryan after she had been suspended from the practice of law, Respondent held herself out as entitled to practice law and actually practiced law in willful violation of Business and Professions Code sections 6125 and 6126, and thereby failed to comply with the laws of the State of California in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).
11. By representing Ryan when she knew that she was not entitled to practice law, and by concealing the suspension of her State Bar membership status from Ryan and a third party, Respondent committed acts involving dishonesty in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
12. By charging and collecting $4,146 in legal fees from Ryan for legal services performed when Respondent was not an active member of the State Bar, Respondent entered into an agreement for, charged, and collected an illegal fee in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-200(A).
13, By failing to respond to the investigator’s letters, Respondent failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against her in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(i).
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Multiple Acts of Misconduct (Std. 1.2(b)(ii)): Respondent has engaged in multiple acts of misconduct by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, concealing the status of her bar license from her client and a third party, collecting and charging an illegal fee, and failing to cooperate in a State Bar investigation.
Harm (Std. 1.2(b)(iv)): As a result of Respondent’s misconduct, Ryan suffered harm as she has been without the $4,146 that Respondent illegally charged and collected for approximately 18 months.
Indifference (Std. 1.2(b)(v)): Respondent has failed to show any remorse by failing to pay restitution to the client in the amount of $4,146. (See In the Matter of Wells (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal State Bar Ct. Rptr. 896, 913 [failure to refund the fees and costs an attorney wrongfully collected demonstrates indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his or her misconduct].)
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
No Prior Record of Discipline: Although Respondent’s current misconduct is serious, at the time of the misconduct, Respondent had no prior record of discipline over approximately 15 years of practice prior to the misconduct, which is entitled to mitigation. (See In the Matter of Riordan (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 41, 49).
Prefiling Stipulation: Respondent is also receiving mitigation for entering into a full stipulation to resolve this matter prior to the filing of formal disciplinary charges, thereby preserving State Bar Court time and resources. (In 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.) However, the mitigating weight given to Respondent’s cooperation in entering into the stipulation is tempered by Respondent’s failure to participate in the State Bar investigation.
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. (ln 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.)
Respondent admits to committing four distinct ethical violations. Standard 1.6 (a) requires that where a Respondent acknowledges two or more acts of misconduct, and different sanctions are prescribed by the standards that apply to those acts, the sanction imposed shall be the more or most severe prescribed in the applicable standards.
The most severe sanction applicable to Respondent’s misconduct is found in standard 2.3, which applies to Respondent’s violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
Standard 2.3 provides that, "Culpability of a member of an act of moral turpitude, fraud, or intentional dishonesty toward a court, client or another person or of concealment of a material fact to a court, client or another person shall result in actual suspension or disbarment depending upon the extent to which the victim of the misconduct is harmed or misled and depending upon the magnitude of the act of misconduct and the degree to which it relates to the member’s acts within the practice of law.
In the instant case, Respondent committed multiple serious acts of misconduct, which included acts of dishonesty to her client and a third party. To date, Respondent has not refunded the illegal fees that she collected from her client for services that she performed while she knew that she was not entitled to practice law. Additionally, Respondent failed to cooperate in a State Bar investigation. In mitigation, Respondent practiced approximately 15 years before she committed the misconduct described herein, and she agreed to enter into this stipulation. Although these facts are mitigating, they are not sufficiently compelling to warrant a deviation from Standard 2.3 given the seriousness of Respondent’s misconduct.
In consideration of the misconduct, the aggravating and mitigating facts surrounding the misconduct, and the applicable Standard, discipline consisting of two years’ stayed suspension, two years’ probation with conditions, including a 90-day actual suspension is warranted in order to satisfy the purposes of attorney discipline.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of October 11, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,925.00. 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.
EXCLUSION FROM MCLE CREDIT
Pursuant to rule 3201, Respondent may not receive MCLE credit for completion of State Bar Ethics School and any MCLE courses ordered as a condition of suspension. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 12-O-12104
In the Matter of: DAWN MARIE HUNTER
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: Dawn Marie Hunter
Date: 10/24/13
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Michael J. Glass
Date: 10/29/13
ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 12-O-12104
In the Matter of: DAWN MARIE HUNTER
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 page 5 of the Stipulation, the "X" in the box at paragraph E.(8) is deleted as it is not recommended that Respondent attend State Bar Ethics School. Rather, as set forth on page 5 of the parties’ Stipulation, it is recommended that Respondent complete six hours of MCLE courses in general legal ethics and provide proof thereof to the Office of Probation, in lieu of State Bar Ethics School.
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: 11/15/13
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 Los Angeles, on November 18, 2013, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND
ORDER APPROVING ACTUAL SUSPENSION
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:
DAWN M. HUNTER
224 E 2ND ST # E
NEWELL, IA 50568
<<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:
MICHAEL GLASS, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on November 18, 2013.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court