State Bar Court of California
Hearing Department
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER
APPROVING
STAYED
SUSPENSION; NO ACTUAL SUSPENSION
Case Number(s): 12-O-17225; 12-O-17454
In the Matter of: MICHAEL PATRICK CARUSO, Bar # 248821, A
Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Kim Kasreliovich, Bar # 261766
Counsel for Respondent: Michael Patrick Caruso, Bar #
248821
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.
Filed: November 22, 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.
A. Parties' Acknowledgments:
1.
Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted May 18,
2007 .
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 12 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. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following
effective date of discipline.
checked. Costs
are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following
membership years: three billing cycles following the effective date of the
Supreme Court order. (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.
<<not>> checked. (1) Prior
record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)].
<<not>> checked. (a) State Bar Court case # of prior case .
<<not>> checked. (b) Date prior discipline effective
<<not>> checked. (c) Rules of Professional Conduct/ State
Bar Act violations:
<<not>> checked. (d) Degree of prior discipline
<<not>> checked. (e) If Respondent has two or more
incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below or a separate
attachment entitled “Prior Discipline. .
<<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.
checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of
Misconduct: Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of
wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct. For a further discussion of
Multiple Acts, see the stipulation at page 9.
<<not>> checked. (8) No
aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances: .
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.
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. For a
further discussion of Emotional/Physical Difficulties, see the stipulation at
page 9.
<<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 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:
.
<<not>> checked. (b) The above-referenced suspension is
stayed.
checked. (2) Probation: Respondent
must be placed on probation for a period of two years, which will commence upon
the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter. (See rule 9.18,
California Rules of Court.)
E. Additional Conditions of Probation:
checked. (1) During the probation
period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and
Rules of Professional Conduct.
checked. (2) 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. (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) 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.
checked. (7) 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.
<<not>> checked. No Ethics School recommended. Reason: .
<<not>> checked. (8) 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.
checked. (9) The following
conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:
<<not>>
checked. Substance Abuse Conditions.
<<not>>
checked. Law Office Management Conditions.
checked. Medical
Conditions.
<<not>>
checked. Financial Conditions.
F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:
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 within one year. 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.
<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended. Reason: .
<<not>> checked. (2) Other
Conditions: .
Attachment language (if any): .
MEDICAL CONDITIONS
Case Number(s): 12-O-17225; 12-O-17454
In the Matter of: MICHAEL PATRICK CARUSO
<<not>> checked. a. Unless Respondent has been terminated from
the Lawyer Assistance Program (“LAP”) prior to respondent’s successful
completion of the LAP, respondent must comply with all provisions and
conditions of respondent’s Participation Agreement with the LAP and must
provide an appropriate waiver authorizing the LAP to provide the Office of
Probation and this court with information regarding the terms and conditions of
respondent’s participation in the LAP and respondent’s compliance or non-compliance
with LAP requirements. Revocation of the written waiver for release of LAP
information is a violation of this condition. However, if respondent has
successfully completed the LAP, respondent need not comply with this condition.
checked. b. Respondent must obtain psychiatric or psychological
help/treatment from a duly licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical
social worker at respondent’s own expense a minimum of 2 times per month and
must furnish evidence to the Office of Probation that respondent is so
complying with each quarterly report. Help/treatment should commence
immediately, and in any event, no later than thirty (30) days after the
effective date of the discipline in this matter. Treatment must continue for days
or months or years or, the period of probation or until a motion to modify
this condition is granted and that ruling becomes final.
If the treating psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker
determines that there has been a substantial change in respondent’s condition,
respondent or Office of the Chief Trial Counsel may file a motion for
modification of this condition with the Hearing Department of the State Bar
Court, pursuant to rule 5.300 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. The
motion must be supported by a written statement from the psychiatrist,
psychologist, or clinical social worker, by affidavit or under penalty of
perjury, in support of the proposed modification.
checked. c. Upon the request of the Office of Probation, respondent must
provide the Office of Probation with medical waivers and access to all of
respondent’s medical records. Revocation of any medical waiver is a violation
of this condition. Any medical records obtained by the Office of Probation are
confidential and no information concerning them or their contents will be given
to anyone except members of the Office of Probation, Office of the Chief Trial
Counsel, and the State Bar Court, who are directly involved with maintaining,
enforcing or adjudicating this condition.
Other:
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL PATRICK CARUSO, State Bar No. 248821
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-O-17225; 12-O-17454
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. 12-0-17454 (Complainants: Roberto and Monica Vasquez)
FACTS:
1. On February 6, 2012, Roberto and Monica Vasquez ("Vasquezes")
hired Respondent to file a civil complaint against the Vasquezes’ mortgage
lenders.
2. From February 6, 2012 through March 13, 2012, the Vasquezes paid
Respondent $5,490 in advanced attorney fees.
3. On March 19, 2012, Respondent caused to be filed a civil complaint and
request to waive court fees on behalf of the Vasquezes. The request to waive
court fees was not granted.
4. On March 22, 2012, when the Vasquezes came to Respondent’s office to pay
the filing fees, Respondent was not present due to illness. An employee in
Respondent’s office collected the filing fees and had the clients make the
check payable to Respondent’s office rather than to the superior court, as is
Respondent’s usual practice because he does not maintain a client trust
account. Respondent’s staff member deposited the check into Respondent’s
general account.
5. On March 26, 2013, a staff member from Respondent’s office submitted a
check for filing fees drawn on an account that was not the general account.
6. On April 9, 2012, the clerk of the court notified Respondent that the
check used to pay the filing fees for the Vasquez case had been returned for
insufficient funds. Respondent was instructed to remit the filing fee plus a returned
check fee. The Court served Respondent with notice. Respondent did not remit
the fees.
7. On May 21, 2012, the court cancelled the Vasquezes’ filing due to
failure to pay the filing fee. Respondent received notice of the cancellation.
Respondent failed to take any subsequent action to properly re-file the
complaint.
8. On September 5, 2012, the Vasquezes wrote to Respondent and requested a
full refund. Respondent received the request. Due to a medical condition,
Respondent was unavailable and did not become aware of the request until
January 2013.
9. Respondent provided no legal services of value to the Vasquezes.
10. On October 5, 2012, the Vasquezes filed a complaint with the State Bar
of California regarding Respondent.
11. On February 20, 2013, Respondent refunded $5,490 to the Vasquezes after
becoming aware of their request for a refund.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
12. By filing the civil complaint with a check that was returned for
insufficient funds, by failing to remit the necessary filing fee after notification
by the court thereby causing the filing to be cancelled and by failing to take
any subsequent action to properly re-file the complaint, Respondent
intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with
competence in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule
3-110(A).
13. By failing to refund the advanced fee paid by the Vasquezes for
approximately five months, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a
fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of the Rules
of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).
14. By failing to return the filings fees paid by the Vasquezes for
approximately five months, Respondent failed to promptly pay or deliver, as
requested by the client, any funds in the possession of the member which the
client is entitled to receive in willful violation of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(4).
15. By failing to place the Vasquezes’ filing fee in a trust account,
Respondent failed to deposit funds received for the benefit of a client in a
bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds
Account" or words of similar import in willful violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Multiple Acts of Misconduct (Std. 1.2(b)(ii)): The misconduct acknowledged
by Respondent evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing. Here, Respondent admits to
committing four acts of misconduct.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Emotional/Physical Difficulties (Std. 1.2(e)(iv)): From approximately
January 2012 through July 2012, Respondent suffered from a serious medical
condition that profoundly impacted his ability to run his law practice and to
function in daily life. Respondent’s medical deterioration occurred simultaneous
to the events in the Vasquez case. Respondent’s condition led to his
inattention to his office and clients and caused the instant misconduct. Since
August 2012 Respondent has been regularly treated for his medical condition and
his doctors indicate that Respondent has made steady and strong improvements.
In several cases the court has afforded mitigation for mental health and
medical conditions in the absence of complete rehabilitation finding that
steady progress towards rehabilitation has been shown. (Ballard v. State Bar
(1983) 35 Cal.3d 274, 289; In the Matter of Deierling (Review Dept. 1991) 1
Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 552, 560-561.)
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.)
Respondent admits to committing four acts of professional misconduct.
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 2.2(b), which applies to Respondent’s violations of the Rules of
Professional Conduct, rule 4-100.
Standard 2.2(b) provides that culpability of a member of a violation of
rule 4-100 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, none of which offenses result
in the willful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in
at least a three month suspension from the practice of law, irrespective of
mitigation. In the instant matter, Respondent failed to maintain funds in a
trust account and failed to promptly deliver funds belonging to the client
which makes this standard applicable.
The most severe sanction applicable to Respondent’s misconduct is found in
standard 2.2(b), which applies to Respondent’s violations of the Rules of
Professional Conduct, rule 4-100.
Standard 2.2(b) provides that culpability of a member of a violation of
rule 4-100 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, none of which offenses result
in the willful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in
at least a three month suspension from the practice of law, irrespective of
mitigation. In the instant matter, Respondent failed to maintain funds in a
trust account and failed to promptly deliver funds belonging to the client
which makes this standard applicable.
While Standard 2.2(b) calls for a three-month actual suspension
irrespective of mitigation, under the current circumstances there is compelling
justification and reason to deviate from the standard and impose lesser
discipline. (ln re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 92; also see Sternlieb v.
State Bar (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 317 [30 days actual suspension for trust account
violations].) Standard 1.6(b)(ii) states that "a lesser degree of
sanction.., shall be imposed or recommended" if mitigating circumstances
are present and the purposes of imposing attorney discipline will still be
properly fulfilled in light of the balance between aggravating and mitigating
circumstances. The funds at issue in this case are $395, in a single client matter,
which Respondent’s employee deposited into the general account. It is
Respondent’s usual practice to have clients write checks for filing fees
directly to the court because Respondent does not maintain a client trust
account. In his absence, this practice was not followed by staff. As discussed
above, Respondent was battling a serious medical condition at this time and
failed to notice the error. When Respondent regained his health several months
later, he refunded the Vasquezes their attorney fees and filing fees.
Technically, Respondent did fail to place the filing fees in trust as required
by the Rules of Professional Conduct. However, the harm was minimal to the
clients, Respondent’s mitigation is significant and he made full restitution.
Given these factors and the purposes of attorney discipline, a one year stayed
suspension with two years of probation reporting to ensure that Respondent
stays on the path to wellness is sufficient.
Case law supports a deviation under these circumstances. In In the Matter
of Lawrence (Review Dept. 2013) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 239, the Review
Department declined a strict interpretation of the applicable standard despite
Lawrence’s multiple prior disciplines and current violations of the Rules of
Professional Conduct, rule 4-100 (two counts), Business and Professions Code,
section 6106 and probation conditions. Lawrence suffered from a physical
condition that caused extreme facial pain which he had managed to control for
over a year at the time of trial. The court stated that "Although
Lawrence’s extreme physical disabilities do not immunize him from discipline,
they do establish the most compelling mitigating circumstances and justify
deviating from the standard. Based on the limited nature and extent of his
misconduct, a disbarment recommendation would be excessive and punitive."
(Id. at 241.) Like Lawrence, Respondent’s misconduct is limited and given the
compelling mitigation Respondent has presented, a deviation from the standard
still serves the purposes of attorney discipline.
DISMISSALS
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged
violations in the interest of justice:
Case No. Count Alleged Violation
12-O-17225 ONE 1-300(A)
12-O-17225 TWO
3-700(D)(2)
12-0-17225 THREE 4-100(B)(3)
12-O-17225 FOUR 1-320(A)
12-O-17454 SIX 1-300(A)
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has
informed respondent that as of October 21, 2013, the prosecution costs in this
matter are $3,419. 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. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201 .)
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 12-O-17225; 12-O-17454
In the Matter of: MICHAEL PATRICK CARUSO
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: MICHAEL PATRICK CARUSO
Date: 10/30/13
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Kim Kasreliovich
Date: 11/4/13
STAYED SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 12-O-17225; 12-O-17454
In the Matter of: MICHAEL PATRICK CARUSO
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.
1. On page 8, paragraph 5, delete "March
26, 2013," and in its place is inserted "March 26, 2012."
2. On page 8, paragraph 6, add before the
last sentence: "Respondent received this notice."
3. On page 11, under Exclusion From MCLE
Credit, insert "or the MPRE" after "School."
4. On page 9, paragraph 14, delete
"Vasquezez," and in its place is inserted "Vasquezes."
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: 11/21/13
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 22,
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 Los Angeles, California, addressed as
follows:
MICHAEL P. CARUSO
THE CARUSO LAW FIRM
875 ROSECRANS ST.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92106
<<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:
KIM KASRELIOVICH, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los
Angeles, California, on November 22, 2013.
Signed by:
Angela Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court