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-17863
In the Matter of: JAVIER BALCORTA RAMIREZ, Bar # 58075, A
Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Kelsey J. Blevings, Bar # 271271
Counsel for Respondent: Veronica L. Alvarez, Bar #179698
Submitted to: Settlement Judge.
Filed: October 30, 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 December
20, 1973.
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 10 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: two 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.
<<not>> checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern
of Misconduct: Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of
wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.
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.
<<not>> 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.
<<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:
No Prior Discipline: (See attachment, 10.)
Pretrial Stipulation: (See attachment, p.
10.)
Remedial Measures: (See attachment, p. 10.)
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.
<<not>>
checked. Medical Conditions.
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): .
FINANCIAL CONDITIONS
Case Number(s):
In the Matter of:
a. Restitution
<<not>> 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:
Principal Amount:
Interest Accrues From:
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
<<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
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: JAVIER BALCORTA RAMIREZ, State Bar No. 58075
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-O-17863
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 rules.
Case No. 12-O-17863 (State Bar Investigation)
FACTS:
1. At all relevant times, Respondent maintained a client trust account
("CTA") as well as an operating account at Bank of the West.
2. Respondent is a solo practitioner who practices primarily criminal
defense and who, since 2007, has employed his daughter as his law office
assistant. Respondent delegated most banking responsibilities to his daughter,
including communicating with the bank when necessary, paying the bills, making
deposits into and withdrawals from the general account and making deposits into
the CTA. Respondent also delegated responsibility for managing his personal
finances to his daughter. However, Respondent maintained exclusive control of
the CTA checkbook and was the only authorized signatory to the CTA, which he
seldom used or had need to use.
3. In January 2012, Respondent suffered a heart attack and was restricted
from work until mid-February 2012, when he returned to work part-time. In March
2012, Respondent returned to work fulltime, but quickly became embroiled in a
series of homicide trials which were trailing pending his recovery. The
homicide trials were not completed until December 2012.
4. Due his heavy workload, Respondent became increasingly dependent on his
daughter to manage the day-to-day operations of the law firm. He also neglected
his CTA by failing to review the account statements and perform the requisite
monthly reconciliations.
5. In January 2012, around the time Respondent suffered the heart attack,
Respondent’s daughter began withdrawing money from Respondent’s personal
accounts and from the firm’s operating account. She took the money for her own
personal use and without Respondent’s knowledge or consent.
6. By May 2012, Respondent’s daughter had overdrawn the firm’s operating
account and began withdrawing money from the CTA, thus depleting funds that
Respondent was required to maintain on behalf of his clients. Although
Respondent’s daughter was not authorized to transact any business related to
the CTA and was not authorized to sign CTA checks, she was able to withdraw
money from the CTA by means of telephonic transfers and electronic funds
transfers (“EFTs”).
7. By July 9, 2012, Respondent’s daughter had withdrawn at least $10,012
from the CTA for her own personal use and without Respondent’s knowledge or
consent. As a result, two checks that Respondent had previously issued from the
CTA were presented for payment against insufficient funds. Both checks were
paid by the bank and resulted in an overdraft to the CTA.
8. Between August 15, 2012, and October 23, 2012, Respondent’s daughter
withdrew an additional $7,806 from the CTA by means of EFTs for her own
personal use and without Respondent’s knowledge or consent.
9. Respondent did not learn of his daughter’s taking of client funds until
June 2013 when the matter was brought to his attention by the State Bar of
California after the State Bar had been notified of overdrafts on the CTA by
Bank of the West. When the deficiencies in his CTA were brought to his attention,
Respondent immediately reimbursed the account with his personal funds.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
10. By failing to prevent his daughter’s unauthorized withdraws of client
funds from the CTA, Respondent failed to maintain the balance of funds received
for the benefit of a client and deposited in a bank account labeled "Trust
Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import,
in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
11. By administering his CTA in a grossly negligent manner and thereby
failing to detect his daughter’s misappropriation of his clients’ funds for
approximately 13 months, Respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude,
dishonesty or corruption in willful violation of Business and Professions Code
section 6106.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Prior Discipline: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent had 39 years
of practice without a prior record of discipline. Respondent’s 39-year history
of discipline-free practice deserves significant weight in mitigation. (See In
the Matter of Riordan (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 41 [where
mitigative credit was given for long period of discipline-free practice despite
serious misconduct].)
Pretrial Stipulation: Respondent has voluntarily entered into this
stipulation and is entitled to receive mitigative credit for his admission of
culpability and consent to the imposition of discipline. (See Silva-Vidor v.
State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1071, 1079 where mitigative credit was given for entering
into a stipulation as to facts and culpability].)transfers and electronic funds
transfers ("EFTs").
Remedial Measures: When Respondent discovered that his daughter had been
stealing his and his clients’ money, he immediately terminated her employment.
Respondent also coordinated with bank officials to implement a security
procedure wherein any type of transaction involving the withdraw of funds from
the CTA, whether telephonic or electronic, cannot be processed without his
personal authorization. (See In the Matter of Lais (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal.
State Bar Ct. Rptr. 907, 926 [where mitigative credit was given for substantial
efforts made to correct the problems surrounding the misconduct].)
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 applicable standards here are 2.2(a) and 2.3, which provide a range of
discipline from one year of actual suspension to disbarment. Standard 2.2(a)
provides that willful misappropriation of client funds "shall result in
disbarment" unless the amount involved is insignificant or "the most
compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate," in which case
"the discipline shall not be less than a one year actual suspension,
irrespective of mitigating circumstances." Standard 2.3 provides that an
act of moral turpitude toward a client "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 [attorney’s] acts within the practice
of law."
Here, Respondent’s gross neglect towards his duty as an attorney to
faithfully manage his CTA resulted in the misappropriation, by his
daughter/employee, of approximately $17,818. Although harm is implicit where
client funds are misappropriated, all of Respondent’s clients timely received
their distributions as the checks drawn on the CTA were covered by the bank.
Further, when Respondent discovered his daughter’s misappropriation he
reimbursed the CTA with his personal funds. In mitigation, when Respondent
discovered the misappropriation, he undertook remedial measures including
terminating his daughter’s employment and making arrangements with the bank to
prevent further misappropriations. Respondent has also accepted responsibility
for his misconduct by voluntarily entering into this stipulation and consenting
to the imposition of discipline herein. More importantly, he has no record of
discipline in 39 years of practice.
The minimum one-year actual suspension prescribed by standard 2.2(a) is not
necessary to meet the disciplinary objectives stated in standard 1.3 in this
matter. Although the standards are entitled to "great weight" (ln re
Silverton, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 92), we must nevertheless "temper the
letter of the law with considerations peculiar to the offense and the
offender." (Howard v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 215, 221-222.)
Respondent’s misconduct was serious but it did not involve deceit or an
intentional misappropriation by him of client funds. Given the extremely strong
mitigation evidence in this case, standard 1.2(e) is particularly instructive
because it provides that mitigating circumstances are those which demonstrate
"that the public, courts and legal profession would be adequately
protected by a more lenient degree of sanction than set forth in these
standards for the particular act of professional misconduct found or
acknowledged."
The circumstances that contributed to Respondent’s neglecting oversight of
his CTA, his substantial time in practice without prior discipline, and the
remedial steps that he promptly took to remedy the situation once he learned of
his daughter’s theft of client funds, support a conclusion that the misconduct
herein was aberrational. Thus, a stayed suspension will be sufficient to deter
future misconduct and a period of disciplinary probation will serve to protect
the public by ensuring the changes Respondent makes in his office procedures
are adequate. While these mitigating factors do not excuse his misconduct, they
are predominant and compelling and direct us to look beyond the strict
application of standard 2.2(a).
Further, because of the wide range of discipline suggested by the
standards, we look to the decisional law for additional guidance.
Misappropriation "covers a broad range of conduct varying significantly in
the degree of culpability." (Edwards v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 28,
38.) Thus, "[a]n attorney who deliberately takes a client’s funds,
intending to keep them permanently, and answers the client’s inquiries with
lies and evasions, is deserving of more severe discipline than an attorney who
has acted negligently, without intent to deprive and without acts of
deception." (Ibid.) Decisional authority supports the recommended level of
discipline herein. (See Sternlieb v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 317 [30-day
actual suspension for attorney’s gross negligence resulting in a
misappropriation of client funds and failure to render an accounting; In the
Waysman (1986) 41 Cal.3d 452 [six-month stayed suspension for attorney whose
"lax" financial procedures permitted a single instance of theft of
client funds by his secretary].)
In consideration of the foregoing, a one-year suspension (stayed) and two
years of probation, subject to the conditions herein, will serve the purpose of
attorney discipline as set forth in standard 1.3.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has
informed respondent that as of October 15, 2013, the prosecution costs in this
matter are $5,308. 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 or State Bar Client Trust Accounting
School. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 12-O-17863
In the Matter of: JAVIER BALCORTA RAMIREZ
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: JAVIER BALCORTA RAMIREZ
Date: 10/22/13
Respondent’s Counsel: Veronica Alvarez
Date: 10/22/13
Deputy Trial Counsel: Kelsey J. Blevings
Date: 10/22/13
STAYED SUSPENSION ORDER
Case Number(s): 12-O-17863
In the Matter of: JAVIER BALCORTA RAMIREZ
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: George E. Scott
Date: 10/29/13
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 October 30,
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:
VERONICA L. ALVAREZ
LAW OFC. VERONICA L ALVAREZ
111 S GARFIELD AVE #102
MONTEBELLO, CA 90640
<<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:
Kelsey J. Blevings, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los
Angeles, California, on October 30, 2013.
Signed by:
Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator
State Bar Court