There Must Be A Story Behind This Story

The California State Bar Court Hearing Department recommended a short suspension and probation for a misdemeanor conviction

On April 28, 2017, at approximately 3:00 p.m., detectives from the Los Angeles Police Department, Gangs and Narcotics Division, responded to a call regarding a home invasion robbery and shooting incident at Respondent’s residence. Respondent’s home was located in an upscale residential community in Los Angeles. Respondent was shot six times during the robbery and was hospitalized for approximately two months.

The Gangs and Narcotics Division detectives met with detectives from the Los Angeles Police Department, West Los Angeles Detectives Unit at Respondent’s residence. The detectives inspected Respondent’s kitchen, family room, and backyard. Inside the home, officers observed a semi-automatic rifle, a broken sliding glass door, bullet holes in the walls and several rooms with blood-stained walls. They also observed a large quantity of marijuana, and an undetermined amount of U.S. currency. The detectives placed the currency into seizure bags that they subsequently sealed, and two of the detectives transported the bags to the Gang and Narcotics Division where they secured them in a safe. On May 3, 2017, the Gangs and Narcotics Division detectives transported the seizure bags to the bank for a currency count. The bags contained $19,429.

In addition to the currency, detectives seized approximately 350 pounds of marijuana from Respondent’s residence.

This led to a misdemeanor conviction

Here, Respondent was convicted of violating a zoning permit.

But was nonetheless subject to discipline

Respondent argues that he should not be disciplined in this matter because the elements of the statute of conviction do not define conduct warranting discipline. Moreover, Respondent maintains that the conduct for which Respondent may be disciplined “was not shown to be unlawful or otherwise impermissible conduct.” The court rejects Respondent’s arguments because it is well settled that the court must examine the facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s crime, and not merely look to the conviction, to decide if he has committed misconduct that is disciplinable.

…the course of Resp0ndent’s conduct when viewed as a whole, undermines public confidence in the legal profession and constitutes other misconduct warranting discipline. This court agrees and finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent conviction do not involve moral turpitude but constitute other misconduct warranting discipline.

Sanction

based on the facts and circumstances of Respondent’s conviction, the single mitigating circumstance, the applicable standard, and case law, the court recommends that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year, stayed, and he be placed on probation for one year, with conditions that include a 30-day actual suspension. This sanction properly promotes the goals of attorney discipline and will adequately protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession.

(Mike Frisch)