A Battery Of Crimes

An attorney who was convicted of offenses involving importation and sale of counterfeit goods from China has agreed to an actual two-year suspension accepted in the recommendation of the California State Bar Court.

The story is told in the stipulation

Between August 18, 2009 and May 31, 2013, Respondent was the treasurer of OHR, Inc. (“OHR”). OHR would wire money to Chinese corporations who would then produce counterfeit goods.

Specifically, OHR imported counterfeit housings and batteries for various cell phones (Sony, Blackberry, Motorola, etc.) and other electronics. Once obtained, a sister company of OHR owned by Respondent’s son-in-law would then sell the products through retail stores in Mexico.

The day to day management of the company was left to Respondent’s son-in-law. However, Respondent would handle the finances including the payment of invoices for the products imported from China.

Respondent made payments to the Chinese company for cellular products knowing that it would cause those products to be imported into Chula Vista, California.

Many of the products were counterfeit in that they bore an unauthorized trade mark registered with the U.S, Patent and Trademark office.

 Between August 18, 2009 and May 31, 2013, Respondent received nine notices from U.S. Customs advising Respondent that the items imported were counterfeit. Nevertheless, Respondent and OHR continued to acquire counterfeit items from the Chinese supplier.

In one instance, Respondent requested the return of some items that were seized by U.S. Customs. Customs had seized both counterfeit goods and non-counterfeit goods that had been commingled. Respondent’s request was denied.

On August 9, 2011, U.S. Customs seized boxes shipped from China from the same supplier that had previously shipped counterfeit goods to OHR. The boxes contained 206 Blackberry housings, 150 Nokia housings, 420 Motorola batteries, 260 Sony Ericson batteries, 190 Blackberry batteries, and 50 Samsung batteries all of which were counterfeit. The fair market value of the counterfeit goods was between $120,000 and $320,000.

There is mitigation

It is worth noting that the crime did not involve Respondent’s practice of law. Further, although Respondent acted~as the treasurer of OHR, he received only nominal compensation. Therefore, there was no substantial motive for pecuniary gain.

Respondent’s mitigation is substantial. He has thirty-two years of prior discipline-free practice. This lengthy time tends to indicate that the misconduct here is unusual for Respondent. Combined with the evidence of good character, the misconduct appears more aberrational and unlikely to be repeated. In addition, Respondent has mitigation in the form of pro bono work, community service, and emotional difficulties.

Although there is some aggravation in harm to the public, it is greatly outweighed by the mitigation present. In fact, the mitigation compels a deviation from disbarment. Given the compelling mitigation, Respondent should receive a five-year period of stayed suspension and a five-year period of probation with conditions including an actual suspension of two years and until a Standard 1.2(c)(1) showing is made. Doing so is sufficient to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession; maintain the highest professional standards; and ensure public confidence in the profession.

(Mike Frisch)