janis louise turner 79217 california attorney bar discipline binder1

~ ," ,.lilll~te Bar CouM of the State Bar of C~rnia I~

, Hearin1~lll~pa~tment [] Los Angeles 13--"5"~n Francisco~

Counselfor lhe$~ BarTHE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIAOFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSElENFORCEMENTS~ARI SVENINGSON, BAR NO. 1952981149 South Hill Street

!Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299Telephone: (213) 765-1004

Counsel for Respondent

JANIS L. TURNER2515 Camino del Rio S #324San Diego, CA 92108-3737Telephone: (619) 718-4860

IN PROPRIA PERSONA

In the Matter of

JANIS L. TURNER

Bar # 79217

A Member of the State Bar of California[Respondent]

Case number(s]

02-0-10434

kwik~ ~ 0~1 974 719

for Court’s use]

RIGINAL

FILEDDEC 0 5 2003

STATE BAR COURTCLERKS OFFICELOS ANGELES

Submitted to [] assigned judge [] settlement judge

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITIONAND ORDER APPROVING

STAYED SUSPENSION; NO ACTUAL SUSPENSION

[] PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED

A. Parties’ Acknowledgments:

(1) Respondent is a member of the State Bar of Catitomla, admitted January 19. T978(date)

[2] 1he parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law ordisposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Courl.

(3) All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirelyresolved by this stipulation, and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s]/count[s] are listed under"Dismissals." the stipulation and order consist of 10 pages.

(4] A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline isincluded under "Facts."

(5]

[6]

Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusionsof Law,"

No more than 30 days prior to lhe filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in wdting of anypending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.

[7] Payment of Disciplinary Costs--Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & R’of. Code §§6086.10 &6140.7. (Check one option only]:I~ costs added to membership tee for calendar year following effective date of discipline[] costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February I for the following membership years:

(hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure][] costs waived in part as set forth under "Partial Waiver of Costs"[] costs entirely waived

Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, shall be set forth in d,text component of this stipulation under specific headings, i.e. "Fac~s," "Dismlssats;’ "Conclusions of Law."

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Commltee I0/16/00] 1 Stayed Suspensi

B,. Agg[avating Circumstance definition, see Standards for Attome ctionsstandard I .Z(b].] Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.

[1) [] Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(0]

[a) [] State Bar Court case # of prior case

(b] O date prior discipline effective

[c) [] Rules of Professional Conduct/State Bar Act violations:

for Professional Misconduct,

[d] [] degree of prior discipline

[el [] If Respondent has lwo or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below orunder "Prior Discipline".

[2] []

(3] []

[4] []

IS) 0

(6) []

[7) []

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 ProfessionalConduct.

Trust Violation: Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable toaccount Io the client or person who was lhe object of the misconduct for improper conduct towardsaid funds or property.

Harm: Respondent’s misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration ofjustice.

indifference: Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for theconsequences of his or her misconduct,

Lack of Cooperation: Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her

misconduct or to Itle State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings.

Mulfiple/Pattern of Misconduct: Respondent’s current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrong-doing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.

(8) [] No aggravating circumstances are involved,

Addltlonal aggravating circumstances:

~fipulalion form approved by SBC Executive Commltee IO/16/00) Stayed Suspension2

(I]

[2)

[3)

l~itlgating Circumstances 1.2(el.) Facts supporting circumstances are required.

I~ No Pribr D~scipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice~

n No Harm: Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of lhe misconduct.

[] Candor/Cooperation: Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation to the victims ofhis/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings.

[] Remorse: Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneousty demonstrating remorse andrecognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct.

[5] [~ Restitution: Respondent paid $to

on in restitutionwilhout the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceed-

[] Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is not altributable toRespondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

(7) [] Good Faith: Respondent acted in good faith.

[1 0)

[11]

[i 2)

[] Emotional/Physical Difficulties: At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconductRespondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony wouldestablish was directly responsible for the misconduct. The difficulties or disabilities were not the product ofany illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longersuffers from such difficulties or disabilities.

[] Family Problems: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/herpersonal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature.

[] Severe Financial Stress: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stresswhich resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control andwhich were directly responsible for the misconduct.

[] Good Character: Respondent’s good character is attested to by a wide range of references in thelegal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.

[] Rehabilitation: Considerable time has passed since lhe acts of professional misconduct occurredfollowed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.

(I 3) [] No mitigating circumstances are involved.

Additional mitigating circumstances:

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Commltee 10/16/00] Stayed Suspension3

Discipline

I. Stayed Suspension.

A. Respondent shall be suspended from the practice of law for a period of t:hirt:v (307 days

and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation andpresent fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant tostandard 1.4(c][ii], Standards for A~orney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct

and until Respondent pays restitution to[payee[s]] (or the Client Security Fund, if appropriate], in the amount of

, plus 10% per annum accruing fromand provides proof thereof to the Probation Unit, Office of the Chief Tdal Counsel

[] iii. and until Respondent does the following:

B. the above-referenced suspension shall be stayed.

2. Probation.

Respondent shall be placed on probation for a period of one (].) yea~:which shall commence upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein.California Rules of Court.]

[See rule 953,

E. Additional Conditions of Probation:

[1) [] During the probation period, Respondent shall comply with the provisions of the State Bar Actand Rules of Professional Conduct.

(2) ~ Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent shall report to the Membership Records Officeof the State Bar and to the Probation Unit, all changes of information, including .current officeaddress and telephone number, or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed bysection 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

[3] [] Respondent shall submit written quarterly reports to the Probation Unit on each January I0, April10, July 10, and October I0 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, respondentshall state whether respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of ProfessionalConduct, and all conditions of probation dudng the preceding calendar quarter.lf the firstreport would cover less than 30 days, that report shall 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 noearlier than twenty [20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later thanthe last day of probation.

(4] [] Respondent shall be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent shall promptly review the termsand conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule ofcompliance~ During the period of probation, respondent shall furnish to the monitor such reportsas may be requested, in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Proba-tion Unit. Respondent shall cooperate fully with the probation monitor.

(5] Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent shall answer fully, promptly andtruthfully any inquiries of the Probation Unit of the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and anyprobation monitor assigned under these conditions which are directed to Respondentpersonally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has complied with theprobation conditions.

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Commitee 10116/00] Stayed Suspension4

(7)

[9]

Within one the effective dote of the respondent shall provide to theProbation Unit satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of"the test given at the end of that session.

No Ethics School recommended.

Respondent shall comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminalmatter and shall so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report tobe tiled with the Probation Unit.

[] The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:

[] Substance Abuse Conditions [] Law Office Management Conditions

[] Medical Conditions [] Financial Conditions

[] Other conditions negotiated by the parties:

Multistate Professional. Responsibility Examination: Respondent shall provide proof of passage of theMultistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"], administered by the National Conference ofl~ar Examiners, to the Probation Unit of the Office of the Chief T~ial Counsel within one year. Failure to passthe MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule 951 (hi, CatifomiaRules of Court, and rule 321(a](I] & (c], Rules of Procedure.

[] No MPRE recommended.

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Commitee 10/16/00] $1ayed Suspension5

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS~ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: JANIS L. TURNER

CASE NUMBER(S): 02-0-10434

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Respondent admits that the foregoing facts are true and that she is culpable of violations of the specified

statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct:

1. On or about September 19, 2000, Jerry Lee and Hyun Lee ("the Lees") employed Jacques

Sapier ("Sapier") to represent them in breach of contract matter already filed in the Los Angeles

Superior Court entitled, Yun v. Lee, case no. BC235771 ("Y~ v. Lee"). The fee agreement that the

parties entered into provided that Sapier may delegate to other attorneys some of the services to be

provided to the Lees and that any such delegation would not affect the attorneys fees to be paid by the

Lees under the agreement.

2. On or about September 21, 2000, Sapier introduced Janis Turner, Esq. ("Respondent

Turner") to the Lees. On that date, the Lees understood that while Sapier would still be their attorney

on the breach of contract matter, Respondent Turner would be performing some of the legal services

on their behalf.

3. On or about October 25, 2000, Respondent Turner filed both an Answer to the complaint

and a Cross-Complaint on behalf of the Lees in the Los Angeles Superior Court in Yun v. Lee under

her name.

4. On or about January 29, 2001, Respondent Turner signed a Request for Dismissal, with

prejudice, ("Dismissal") of the Lee’s Cross-Complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court in Yun v.

P~e#Attachment Page 1

Le_..~

5. On or about February 14, 2001, Respondent Turner filed, or caused to be filed, the

Dismissal in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

6. At no time did Respondent Turner obtain the Lees’ consent to file the Dismissal.

7. On or about February 20, 2001, the Lees hired a new attorney to represent them in Yun v.

Le~e. On that date, a Substitution of Attorney signed by Respondent Turner was filed in the Los Angeles

Superior Court which named Respondent Turner as the former counsel and Dale J. Park ("Park") as

the new counsel in Y~ v. Lee.

8. On or about April 13, 2001, Park filed a Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal of Cross-

Complaint ("Motion") in the Los Angeles Superior Court in Y~ v. Lee. The Motion was made on the

grounds that Respondent Turner had not obtained authorization to file the Dismissal from the Lees.

9. On or about April 19, 2001, Respondent Turner provided a declaration, which she had

signed, to the opposing counsel in Yun v. Lee. In the declaration, Respondent Turner stated that the

dismissal of the Cross-Complaint was specifically requested by the Lees.

10. On or about May 7, 200 l, the opposing counsel in Yunv. Lee filed an Opposition to

Motion for Order Setting Aside Cross-Complaint ("Opposition") in the Los Angeles Superior Court in

Y~ v. Lee. Attached to the Opposition was the declaration that Respondent Turner had provided to

the opposing counsel.

LEGAL CONCLUSIONS

By failing to obtain the Lees’ authorization to file the Dismissal and by subsequently filing the

Dismissal, Respondent Turner intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with

competence in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).

Page #Attachment Page 2

Although the Lees never authorized Respondent Turner to file the Dismissal, by providing a

declaration to the opposing counselin Yun v. Lee that stated anything about whether or not the Lees

authorized her to file the Dismissal, Respondent Turner failed to maintain inviolate the confidence of her

clients and failed to preserve the secrets of her clients in violation of Business and Professions Code,

section 6068(e).

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(6), was by letter dated October 31, 2003.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as ofOctober 31, 2003, the estirnated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $1,983.Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does not include State BarCourt costs which will be included in any final cost assessment. Respondent further acknowledges thatshould this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matterm~ay increase due to the cost of further proceedings.

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

Van Slotan, 48 Cal. 3d 921:Respondent Van Sloten represented client in a marital dissolution matter. He worked on the matter for5 months, submitted a proposed settlement agreement to the opposing side. Thereafter, he fazled tocorranunicated take action or withdraw for a period of one year. Eventually the client hired newcounsel. The court concluded that a single act of failing to perform without serious harm to the clientaggravated by his failure to appreciate the discipline process (he failed to appear at the ReviewDepartment Hearing proceedings) warranted 6 mo stayed suspension, one year probation, no actual.

Respondent Turner’s misconduct is less egregious in that her failure to perform only occurred over the5 month period that she worked on the Lees’ matter.

PageAttachment Page 3

In the Matter of Chllis, (2002) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct Rptr. 387:

Respondent Chllis was found culpable of entering into an improper business transaction with a client, anact of moral turpitude and failing to maintain confidences of his client in violation of Business andProfessions Code, section 6068(e) when he disclosed his client’s confidential settlement agreement tothe client’s mortgage lender. Chilis received 6 months actual suspension and 3 years probation.

Lees discipline is warranted in this matter because Respondent Turner’s misconduct is less egregious inthat she did not commit an act of moral turpitude or enter into an improper business transaction with theLees.

Page #

Attachment Page 4

JANIS L. TURNERprint name

Date Respondent’s Counsel’s s~gnature pdnt name

Date Deputy Trial Counsel’s sJgnahJreSHARI SVENINGSON

print name

ORDER

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

~ e, and:

stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDEDto the Supreme Court.

The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below,and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.

The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: I ) a motion to withdraw ormodify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) thiscourt modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. [See rule 135(b), Rules ofProcedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the SupremeCourt order herein, riormally 30 days after file date. (See rule 953(a), California Rules ofCourt.]

(Stipulation farm approved by SBC Execullve Committee I0122/97_~i~ Suspen$1onJProbaflon Vlolarion Signature Pagepage #

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]

I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party tothe within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles,on December 5, 2003, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITIONAND ORDER APPROVING, filed December 5, 2003

in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:

by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States PostalService at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

JANIS LOUIS TURNER ESQ2515 CAMINO DEL RIO S #324SAN DIEGO CA 92108-3737

IX] by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of Californiaaddressed as follows:

SHARI SVENINGSON, ESQ., Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, onDecember 5, 2003.

Case AdministratorState Bar Court

Do not write above this line.]

022 604 744 ORIGINAL

State Bar Court of CaliforniaHearing Department [] Los Angeles E3 San Francisco

Counsel for the Stale BarTHE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIAOFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIALCOUNSEL - ENFORCEMENTERIN M. JOYCE1149 S. BILL STREET

,r-ICoun~lf~Responde~I’~lnProPe~Respondent

JANIS LOUISE TURNER2515 CAMINO DEL RIO S.SAN DIEGO, CA 92108

Bar# 79217

#324

In~eMa~er~JANIS LOUISE TURNER

Sot# 79217

A Member of the State Bar of Callfomia(Respondent}

~er Coud’s use)

PLIBLIC, I ATTE

FILED,’

Submitted to [] o~Igned judge [] settlement judge

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ANDDISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING


E3 PREV(OUS STIPULATION REJECTI~D

Note: AJI information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided inthe space provided, must be set fodh in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g.,"Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.


(I) Respondent Is a member of the Slate Bar of California, admitted January 19 ~ 1978(datel

(2) The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations conlained herein even if conclusions of law ordisposition ore rejected or changed by lhe Supreme Coud.

(3] All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirelyresolved by this stipulation, and are deemed consolidated; Dismissed chargels)/counl(s) are listed under"Dismissals." The stipulation and order consist of __i~_ pages.

A statemenl at acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for di~c|pllne isincluded under "Facts."

(5) Conclusions of law, drawn from arid specifically referring to the facts, are also included under "Conclusions ofLaw."

(6] The padies must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading"Supporting Authority."

No more than 30 days prior to lhe filing of lhis stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing o! anypending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.

(Form adopted by ~ne SBC Execulive Commltee (Rev. 5/5/05] Stayed Su%oensionI

(Do not write above this line.)

[8) Payment of Disciplinary Costs--Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086. I 0 &6140.7. ICheck one option only]:[a] E] costs added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date at discipline(b] ~- costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February I for the following membership years:

[hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 282, Rules of Procedure)(c] [] costs waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Pottlal Waiver of Costs"[d] Ig costs entirely waived

B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctionsfor Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2[b]]. Facts supporting aggravatingcircumstances are required.

(lJ ~ Pdor record of discipline [see standard 1

(a] [] State Bar Cou,1 case # of prior case 02-0-i0434

(b} ~ Date prior discipline effective Hay 23 ) 2004

(at ~ RulesofProfessionalConduct/StateBarActviolations: 3-110(At, 6068(e)

Degree of prior discipline 30 days stayed suspension; One(1) year probation

It Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below or oseparate attachment entitled "Prior Discipline".

(2) []

{3} []

(S) []

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.

Trust Violation: Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to accountto the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds orproperty.

Harm: Respondent’s misconduct harmed significantly a client, the pubJic orthe administration of justice.

Indifference: Respondenl demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for theconsequences of his or her misconduct.

[Fo~rn adopted by Ihe SBC Executive Comrnitee [Rev, 5/5/05} Stayed Suspension2

[Do not write above this fine,J

(71 r~

is] []

[] Lack of Cooperation: Respondent displayed a lack at candor and cooperation to victims oi hls/hermisconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings.

Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct: Respondent’s current misconduct ev~er~es multiple acts ofwrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct,

No aggravating circumstances are involved.

Additional aggravating circumstances:

C.Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigatingcircumstances are required.

(]) [] No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupledwlth present misconduct which is not deemed serious.

(2) [] No Harm: Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the obiect of the misconduct.

Candor/Cooperation: Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation wllh the victims ofhis/her misconduct and to the State Bar durlng disciplinan/investigation and proceedings.

[] Remorse: Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse andrecognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/hermisconduct.

(5) [] Restitution: Respondent pald $ onIn restitution tocrlmir~( proceedings,

(7)

(9)

without the threat or force ot disciplinary, civil or

Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is nol atfributab~e toRespondenl and lhe delay prejudiced him/her.

[] Good Faith: Respondent acted in good faith.

[] Emotional/Phystcal Difficulties: At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professtonal misconduct,Respondent suffered extreme emotional dlfflculties or physical disabilities which expert testimony wouldestablish was directly responsible for the misconduct. 11~e difficullies or dlsabilities were not the product ofany illegal conduct by lhe member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longersuffers from such difficulties or disabilities,

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.

(FonTI adopled by the SBC Execullve Commilee (Rev. 5/5/051 $layed Suspension3

[Do not write above this line.1

(I0) [] Severe Financial Stress: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stresswhich resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond hls/her control andwhich were directly responsible for the misconduct.

{I I] [] Good Character: Respondent’s good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legaland general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.

[12] [] RehabllltaJlon: Considerable time has passed since the acls of professional misconduct occurredfollowed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabllitation.

[I 3J [~ No mitigating circumstances are involved.

Additional mitigating circumstances:

D. Discipline

I. ~ Stayed Suspension.

[a] ~ Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of " One ( I "~ .v~ ~-

i. [] and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Coud of rehabilitation andpresent fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard1.4{c][ii], Standards for Afforney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

it. [] and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Flnancial Conditions form attachedto this Stipulation.

iii. [] and until Respondent does the following:

The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

2. ~ Probation.

Respondent is placed on probation for a period of ’~o (2) ye~:s , whichwill commence upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein. (See rule 953, California Rulesof Court.]

IForm adopted by lhe SBC Executive Commitee [Rev. 5/5/05) Stayed Suspension4

[Do not write above this IInelJ

Eo

(1)

Additional Conditions of Probation:

[] During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act andRules of Professional Conduct.

(2) ~

C3)

(4]

(6] ~

[8] r~

Within ten [I O] days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office ofthe State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California {"Office of Probation"], allchanges of information, including current office address and telephone number, or other addressfor State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

Within 30 days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office ofProbation and schedule a meeting with Respondent’s assigned probation deputy to discuss theseterms and conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent mustmeet with the probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation,Respondent must promptly meet with the probalion deputy as directed and upon request.

Respondent must submit written quodeity reports to the Office of Probation on each Janua~, I0,April 10, July 10, and October I 0 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, respondentmust state whether respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of ProfessionalConduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quader. Respondent mustalso state in each reDort whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the StateBar Court and, if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding, ff the first report wouldcover less than 30 days, that repoit must be submitted on the next quader date, and cover theextended period.

In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlierthan twenty [20] days before the last day of the period at probation and no later than the last dayof probation.

Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the termsand conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule ofcompliance. During the period of probation, Respondent must fumlsh to the monitor such reportsas may be requested, in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Officeof Probation. Respondent must cooperate fully with the probation monitor.

Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly andtruthfully 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 whetherRespondent is complying or has complied with the probation conditions,

Within one [1 ] year of the effective dale of the discipline herein, respondent must provide to theOffice of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of State Bar Ethics School, andpassage of the test given at the end of that session.

No Ethics School recommended. Reason:

Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matterand must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly repod to be filedwith the Office of Probation.

[] The followlng conditions are attached hereto and Incorporated:


Medical Conditions [] Financial ConditionsIFofm adop|ed by Jhe ~BC Executive Commitee IRev. 5/5/05) Stayed Susp~nslon

5

[Do not write above this line.]

F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

[] Multlstate Professional Responsibility Examination: Respondent must provide proof ofpassage at the Multistate Professlona~ Responsibility Exarnlnation ("MPRE"], administered by theNatlona~ Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation within one year. Failure to passthe MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule951[b], California Rules of Court, and rule 321(a](I] & [c), Rules of Procedure.

(21

~ No MPRE recommended. Reason:

Other Conditions:

Respondent already successfully passed theMPRE required by last discipline within thelast two years.

adopted by the SBC E×ecu|ive Commilee trey. 5/5/05] Slayed Suspension6

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS~ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: JANIS LOUISE TURNER

CASE NO.: 05-0-03291

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

On April 23, 2004, the California Supreme Court issued an order imposing discipline ("DisciplinaryOrder") on Respondent in case number S122310. In the Disciplinary Order, the court placedRespondent on one (1) year probation subject to conditions of probation recommended by the HearingDepartment of the State Bar Court in its Order Approving Stipulation filed on December 5, 2003 inState Bar Court case number 02-0-10434.

On May 23, 2004, the Disciplinary Order became effective.

On May 25, 2004, Probation Deputy Shuntinee Brinson of the Probation Unit of the State Bar ofCalifornia sent a letter to Respondent enclosing a copy of the Disciplinary Order and the conditions ofher probation. The Probation Deputy’s letter was placed in a sealed envelope correctly addressed toRespondent at his State Bar of California membership records address. The letter was mailed by firstclass mail, postage prepaid, by depositing for collection by the United States Postal Service in theordinary course of business. The United States Postal Service did not return the Probation Deputy’sletter as undeliverable or for any other reason.

Conditions of Respondent’s probation required that she submit written quarterly reports to the ProbationUnit on April 10, 2005, and the final report on May 23, 2005, stating under penalty of perjury, whetherRespondent had complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditionsof probation during the calendar quarter; and to provide satisfactory proof of attendance at a session ofthe State Bar Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session, to the State Bar’sOffice of Probation by May 23, 2005.

Respondent failed to timely file the quarterly report due April 10, 2005, and the final report due May 23,2005. While she belatedly filed the April 10, 2005 quarterly report, She has never filed the final reportdue May 23, 2005. Nor has Respondent provided satisfactory proof of her attendance at a session of theState Bar Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.

By failing to timely file the quarterly report due April 10, 2005, and the final report due May 23, 2005,and failing to provide satisfactory proof of her attendance at a session of the State Bar Ethics School,and passage of the test given at the end of that session, Respondent failed to comply with Business andProfessions Code section 6068(k).

COST OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of

September 30, 2005, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $1,983.00.Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does not include State BarCourt costs which will be included in any final cost assessment. Respondent further acknowledges thatshould this Stipulation be rejected or should relief from the Stipulation be granted, the costs in thismatter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE

STANDARDS FOR ATTORNEY SANCTIONS

Pursuant to Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:

The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar of California andof sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgment of a member’s professional misconductare the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of highprofessional standards by attomeys and the protection of public confidence in the legalprofession.

Pursuant to Standard 2.6 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct:

Culpability of a member of a violation of [section 6068(k) of the Business and Professions Code]shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, ifany, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard1.3.

PENDING PROCEEDINGS

The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was September 29, 2005.

(Do not write above th~s line.]

In the MaMer at

JANI$ LOUISE TURNER ICase number(s[:

0.5-0-0329]-

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreementwith each of the recilations and each of the terms and conditions of fi~is Stipulation Re Facts,Concluslons of Law and Disposition.

JANIS LOUISE TURNER

P~nt name

Dcr~ ~t~~ P~nt~name

DepulY T~ial C~ERIN M. JOYCE

(Form adopted by the $BC Executive Commitee [Rev, 5/5/05] Stayed SuspensionPage ~

[Do not write above this Iine,]In the Matter of

JANIS LOUISE TURNER ICase number(s}:

05-0-03291

ORDER

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 withoutprejudice, and:

/i~The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINERECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court

[] The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as setforth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.

[] All Hearing dates are vacated.

The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw ormodify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) thiscourt modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 135(b], Rules ofProcedure.] The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of theSupreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after file date. [See rule 953(a),Cal,fornia Rules of Court]Date "~9"2~-)’~’-0,~

~,.~~ ~

Judge of the State Bar Court

(Form adopled by lhe SBC Executive Commilee (Ray. 5/5/05} Stayed SuspensionPage ]___~.0

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)[

I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen andnot a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County ofLos Angeles, on October 26, 2005, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITIONAND ORDER APPROVING


[x] by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States PostalService at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

JANIS L. TURNER, A/L2515 CAMINO DEL RIO S #324SAN DIEGO CA 92108-3737


ERIN JOYCE, A/L, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, onOctober 26, 2005.

Case AdministratorState Bar Court


022 606 840

ORIGINAL

State Bar Court of CaliforniaHearing Department

Los Angeles

Counsel For The State Bar

Jean ChaThe State Bar of California1149 South Hill StreetLos Angeles, CA 90015-2299(213) 765-1000

Bar# 228137Counsel For Respondent

Kevin P. Gerry1001 Olive StreetSanta Barbara, CA 93101(805) 899-2990

Bar # 129690In the Matter Of:Janis L. Turner

Bar # 79217

A Member of the State Bar of California(Respondent)

Case Number (s)09-O-05140-RAH

(for Court’s use)

FILEDFEB 2 2 2007

STATE BAR COURTCLFJUC’$ OFFICE

F UBLIC MATTEF

Submitted to: Settlement Judge

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ANDDISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING


[] PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED

Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot beprovided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specificheadings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.


(1) Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted January 19, 1978.

(2) The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law ordisposition 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 bythis stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)lcount(s) are listed under "Dismissals." Thestipulation consists of 15 pages, not including the order.

(4) A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is includedunder "Facts,"

(5) Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions ofLaw".

(6) The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading"Supporting Authority."

(Fonm adopted by SBC Executive Committee, Rev, 515105; 12/13/2006.) Stayed Suspension1


(7)

(8)

No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of anypending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.

Payment of Disciplinary Costs--Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 &6140.7. (Check one option only):

[] costs added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.[] costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years:

(hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure)[] costs waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs"[] costs entirely waived

B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions forProfessional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]o Facts supporting aggravating circumstancesare required.

(1) [] Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]

(a) [] State Bar Court case # of prior case 05-0-03291

(b) [] Date prior discipline effective March 19, 2006

(c) [] Rules of Professional Conduct]" State Bar Act violations: Business and Professions Code 6068(k)

(d) [] Degree of prior discipline one-year stayed suspension; two-years probation

(e) [] If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below or a separateattachment entitled "Prior Discipline. Case Number 02-0-10434 effective May 23, 2004

Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A)Business and Professions Code, Section 6068(e)30-day stayed suspension; one-year probation

(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.

(3) [] Trust Violation: Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to accountto the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds orproperty.

(4) [] Harm: Respondent’s misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

(5) []

(6) []

(7) []

Indifference: Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for theconsequences of his or her misconduct.

Lack of Cooperation: Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/hermisconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings.

Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct: Respondent’s current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoingor demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.

(Form adopted by SBC Executive Committee. Rev, 515/05; 12]1312006,) Stayed Suspension

2

not write above this line.)

(8) [] No aggravating circumstances are involved.

Additional aggravating circumstances

C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigatingcircumstances are required.

(1) [] No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupledwith present misconduct which is not deemed serious.

(2) [] No Harm: Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the misconduct.

(3) [] Candor/Cooperation: Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims ofhis/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings.

(4) [] Remorse: Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse andrecognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/hermisconduct.

(5) [] Restitution: Respondent paid $ ondisciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.

in restitution to without the threat or force of

(6) [] Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is not attributable toRespondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

(7) [] Good Faith: Respondent acted in good faith.

(8) [] Emotional/Physical Difficulties: At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconductRespondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony wouldestablish was directly responsible for the misconduct. The difficulties or disabilities were not the product ofany illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longersuffers from such difficulties or disabilities.

(9) [] Severe Financial Stress: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stresswhich resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control andwhich were directly responsible for the misconduct.

(10) [] Family Problems: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/herpersonal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature.

(11) [] Good Character: Respondent’s good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legaland general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.

(12) [] Rehabilitation: Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurredfollowed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.

(13) [] NO mitigating circumstances are involved.

Additional mitigating circumstances

See page 12.

(Form adopted by SBC Executive Committee. Rev. 515/05; 12/13/2006.) Stayed Suspension3

not write above this line.)

D. Discipline:

(t) [] Stayed Suspension:

(a) [] Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years,

I, [] and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation andpresent fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

ii. [] and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached tothis stipulation.

iii. [] and until Respondent does the following:

The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

(2) [] Probation:

Respondent is placed on probation for a period of three years, which will commence upon the effective date ofthe Supreme Court order in this matter. (See rule 9.18 California Rules of Court)

E. Additional Conditions of Probation:

(2)

[] During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules ofProfessional Conduct.

(3) []

(4)

Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of theState Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes ofinformation, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Barpurposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probationand schedule a meeting with Respondent’s assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms andconditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with theprobation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the pedod of probation, Respondent mustpromptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.

(5) []

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 statewhether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and allconditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether thereare any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number andcurrent status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must besubmitted 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 thantwenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.

Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms andconditions 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 mustcooperate fully with the probation monitor.

(Form adopted by SBC Executive Committee. Rev. 5/5/05; 12/13/2006.) Stayed Suspension

4

(Do not wdte above this line.)

(6) []

(7) []

(8) []

Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully anyinquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which aredirected to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or hascomplied with the probation conditions:

Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office ofProbation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the State Bar Ethics School, and passage of thetest given at the end of that session.

[] No Ethics School recommended, Reason:

Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter andmust so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Officeof Probation.

(9) [] The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:


[] Medical Conditions [] Financial Conditions

F. Other

(1) []

Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination: Respondent must provide proof of passage ofthe Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the NationalConference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation within one year. Failure to pass the MPREresults in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.10(b), CaliforniaRules of Court, and rule 321(a)(1) & (c), Rules of Procedure.

[] No MPRE recommended. Reason: Taken and passed March 12, 2005.

(2) [] Other Conditions:

(Form adopted by SBC Executive Committee. Rev. 5/5/05; 12~13/2006.) Stayed Suspension

5

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: JANIS L. TURNER

CASE NUMBERS: 05-O-05140-RAH

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Respondent admits that the following facts are tree and that she is culpable ofwilfully violatingBusiness and Professions Code sections 6103 and 6068(0)(3).

1. Janis L. Turner ("Respondent") was admitted to the practice of law in the State ofCalifornia on January 19, 1978, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and iscurrently a member of the State Bar of Califoruia.

2. In December 2003, Richard Mark Anderson (’’AndersoN’) employed Respondent toappeal a $636,460.71 judgment entered against Anderson in a matter entitled County of SanDiego v. Richard Anderson, San Diego County Superior Court case number GIC779428,whereby the County of San Diego, by and through County Counsel Thomas Bunton (the"County"), brought an action for trespassing on County property against Anderson (the"trespassing case").

3. At all times mentioned herein, Respondent represented Anderson in the appeal of thetrespassing case in which judgment was entered against Anderson in the amount of $636,460.71.

4. On February 6, 2004, Respondent filed a notice of appeal of the judgment onAnderson’s behalf with the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, case numberD043795 (the "appeal"):

5. On September 23, 2004, Respondent fried an opening brief in the appeal.

6. On December 13, 2004, the appeal was fully briefed.

7. On December 22, 2004, the County filed a motion for sanctions under rule 27(e)(1)1

1Former Rule 27, predecessor to current Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.276 (2006). Thisnew rule became effective January 1, 2007. See especially Rule 8.276(d)(1). See also Cal. CodeCiv. Proc. § 907 (2006).

6

Page #Attachment Page

of the California Rules of Court ("rule 27(e)(1)") against Respondent for filing a frivolousappeal. Under rule 27(e)(1), "a Court of Appeal may impose sanctions, including the award ordenial of costs, on a party or an attorney for: (A) taking a frivolous appeal or appealing solely tocause delay; (B) including in the record any matter not reasonably material to the appeal’sdetermination; or (C) committing any other unreasonable violation of these rules."

8 The County’s motion for sanctions sought sanctions in the amount of $25,601.50 inlegal fees alleging Respondent fried a frivolous appeal and requested that Respondent be orderedto pay $10,000 to the Court of Appeal as punishment for inappropriate conduct.

9. On January 5, 2005, Respondent replied to the motion for sanctions.

10. On January 12, 2005, Anderson filed, in pro per, a Voluntary Petition for ReliefUnder Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the SouthernDistrict of California, Petition Number 05-00202-JH7.

11. On January 18, 2005, the County informed the Court of Appeal that Anderson hadfded for bankruptcy protection and referenced the automatic stay provision pursuant to 11U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

12. On January 20, 2005, the Court of Appeal stayed all further proceedings in the appealpursuant to 11 US.C § 362 in light of Anderson’s bankrutpcy.

13. On February 11, 2005, Anderson employed Banlauptcy Counsel Derek J. Lobo("Lobo") to represent him in the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceedings.

14. In February 2005, the County entered into a stipulation with Anderson and hisbankruptcy attorney, Lobo, for relief from the automatic stay (the "stipulation") as it pertained tothe appeal.

15. On February 22, 2005, the stipulation was served on Respondent. Respondentreceived the stipulation.

16. On February 25, 2005, the United States Bankruptcy Court fried an order lifting theautomatic stay in accordance with the stipulation. The order stated that the automatic stay waslifted regarding the appeal, including all proceedings in the California Court of Appeal, theCalifornia Supreme Court and the San Diego Superior Court for determining appellate costs.

17. On or about February 28, 2005, Respondent was served with notice that thebankruptcy court had lifted the stay as to the appeal. Respondent received the notice.

7


18. On or about March 4, 2005, the Court of Appeal received notice that the bankruptcycourt had lifted the automatic stay with respect to the appeal and vacated the stay of the appeal.On or about March 4, 2005, the clerk of the Court of Appeal served notice on Respondent thatthe stay on the appeal had been vacated. Respondent received the Court of Appeal’s notice.

19. On June 13, 2005, the appeal was argued and submitted on the issues of both thejudgment and sanctions.

20. On June 30, 2005, the Court of Appeal filed its decision in favor of the County andspecifically granted the motion for sanctions in part. On June 30, 2005, the decision was servedon Respondent. Respondent received the decision. The Court of Appeal stated on page one ofits decision that "the County of San Diego’s motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied inpart. Further the court, on page 29, section VI, under the heading County’s Motion forSanctions, stated as follows:

On our review of this record, it is evident that none of Defendant’sarguments is supported by a careful reading of the evidence or theapplicable law. Defendant’s appellate attorney does not show anyclear awareness of the proper scope of appellate review of anexisting, properly designated record. Nevertheless, Defendant’sappeal was not totally devoid of arguable merit insofar as itrequested a review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion andrulings of law, on matters properly raised below, such as throughin/imine proceedings. Despite the difficulty we have had inreviewing this poorly prepared record and appellant’s briefs, weexercise our discretion to decline to impose sanctions as requestedagainst Defendant’s appellate attorney, either in favor of theCounty or in favor of this Court, but with one exception. We shallorder only that Defendant’s appellate attorney be held jointly andseverally liable for the ordinary costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules ofCourt, rule 27(a)(4), (e)(1).) It is time for this matter to beconcluded. (Italics added.)

Finally, the court, in the disposition section of the decision that "The motion for sanctions isdenied, except to the extent that the ordinary costs on appeal shall be paid by appellant and/or hisappellate attorney, jointly and severally."

21. On August 30, 2005, the Court of Appeal’s decision became final.


22. On August 30, 2005, the County served Respondent with a [Proposed] JudgmentAwarding Costs on Appeal. Respondent received the [Proposed] Judgment Awarding Costs on Appeal.

23. On August 30, 2005, the clerk of the Court of Appeal sent the Remittitura to the BanDiego County Superior Court enclosing a certified copy of the original opinion/decision enteredon June 30, 2005; which became final on August 30, 2005. On August 30, 2005, the Remittiturwas served on Respondent. Respondent received the Remittitur.

24. On August 31, 2005, the Remittitur was filed in the San Diego County SuperiorCourt.

25. On August 31, 2005, the County filed a Memorandum of Costs on Appeal refiectingappellate costs for the amount of $4,469.70 with the San Diego County Superior Court. TheMemorandum of Costs on Appeal was served on Respondent. Respondent received theMemorandum of Costs on Appeal.

26. On September 21, 2005, the Superior Court entered judgment against Respondentand Anderson, jointly and severally~, ha the amount of $4,469.70 which represented the County’srecoverable appellate costs. On September 21, 2005, the judgment was served on Respondent.Respondent received the judgment.

27. On September 29, 2005, the County faxed and mailed to Respondent a letter with acopy of the judgment awarding costs to the County and against Respondent. In the letter, theCount), stated that it had decided to collect from Respondent, rather than Anderson. In the letter,the County also requested that Respondent pay $4,469.70 to the County within 10 days.Respondent received the letter but did not pay $4,469.70 to the County.

28. On October 14, 2005, the County faxed and mailed to Respondent a written requestthat Respondent immediately pay the $4,469.70 sanction for failing to adequately cite to therecord on appeal to the County. Respondent received the letter but did not pay $4,469.70 to theCounty.

ZCal. Rules of Court, Rule 8. 1018 (2006). This rule became effective January 1, 2007,former rule 69.

3Det~: Liability that may be apportioned either among two or more parties or to only oneor a few select members of the group, at the adversary’s discretion. Thus, each liable party isindividually responsible for the entire obligation, but a paying party may have a right ofcontribution and indemnity from nonpaying parties. (Bryan A. Garner et al., Black’s LawDictionary 926 (7t~ Ed., 1999).)


29. On November 30, 2005, the State Bar of California ("State Bar") received acomplaint from the County concerning Respondent’s non-payment of the $4,469.70 sanction.

30. On January 10, 2006, a State Bar investigator sent a letter to Respondent regardingthe County’s complaint against her.

31. On January 15, 2006, Respondent sent a letter to the State Bar investigator and acopy of a letter purportedly sent to the County and dated November 20, 2005. In the letters,Respondent took the position that the Superior Court was without jurisdiction to enter anyjudgment in Anderson’s case because of Anderson’s bankruptcy and thus, the County did nothave a collectable judgment. However, the County did not receive Respondent’s November 20,2005 letter. Further, the Respondent’s position was without merit as (1) the Bankruptcy Courtlifted the stay as to the appeal; (2) the sanctions were awarded by the Court of Appeal againstboth Respondent and Anderson, jointly and severally; (3) Respondent never filed for bankruptcyprotection; and (4) Respondent never contested the sanctions imposed against her.

32. On May 3, 2006, without informing the County, Respondent sent a $4,469.70 check,dated May 3, 2006, to Gary Slater, general counsel for Richard Kipperrnan, the trustee inAnderson’s bankruptcy. On May 16, 2006, Kipperman negotiated the check. Respondent wasrequired to pay $4,469.70 to the County, and not to the trustee.

33. On August 15, 2006, Respondent filed a motion for determination of nature of debton behalf of Anderson with the United States Bankruptcy Court.

34. On October 5, 2006, the United States Bankruptcy Court ordered that the $4,469.70of sanctions/appellate costs that Respondent erroneously paid to Kipperman be paid to theCounty.

35. October 30, 2006, Kipperman sent a payment to the Cou~.ty for $4,469.70 pursuantto the October 5, 2006 United States Bankruptcy Court order.

36. By June 30, 2005, Respondent had received notice of the imposition of the court-ordered sanction against her.

37. At no time did Respondent notify the State Bar of the imposition of the sanctionagainst her.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

38 By not paying the June 30, 2005 sanction within a reasonable time and by not paying$4,469.70 to the County for the sanction imposed severally against Respondent, Respondent

10


wilfully disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring her to do an act connected with orin the course of Respondent’s profession which she ought in good faith to have done, in wilfulviolation of Business and Professions Code § 6103.

39. By not informing the State Bar of the sanction, Respondent wilfully failed to report ajudicial sanction to the agency charged with attorney discipline, in writing, within 30 days of thetinae Respondent had knowledge of the imposition of the judicial sanction against Respondent inw’ilful violation of Business and Professions Code § 6068(o)(3).

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was January 31, 2007.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondentthat as of January 31, 2007, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately$3,654.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does notinclude incidental expenses (see Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068.10(c)) or taxable costs (seeC.CP. section 1033.5(a)) which will be included in any final cost assessment. Respondentfurther acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulationbe granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

Respondent has a prior record of discipline. (Std. 1.2(b)(f).) The nature and extent of each ofthese prior records is an aggravating circumstance. (Std. 1.2(b)(i).)

On November 3, 2003, Respondent stipulated, prior to the filing of formal charges, to a 30-daystayed suspension and a one-year probation for dismissing a breach of contract action withouther client’s authorization on February 24, 2001. The discipline was effective on May 23, 2004.

On October 14, 2005, Respondent stipulated, prior to the filing of formal charges, to a one-yearstayed suspension and two-year probation for violating the conditions of her first prior.Specifically, Respondent failed to t’nnely fde a quarterly report due on April 10, 2005 and a finalreport due on May 23, 2005. No mitigating circumstances were present. Respondent’s priordiscipline was an aggravaffmg circumstance. The discipline became effective March 19, 2006.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

See Other Circumstances, below.

11


OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.

Respondent admits that she is unfamiliar with the Bankruptcy Code and should not haveinterpreted the black letter law as she did. Respondent contends that she relied upon her ownerroneous interpretation of statute and that her actions were consistent with the advice of abankruptcy attorney. Respondent claims that she acted in good faith.

Respondent now understands that she was required to report the sanction to the State Bar withinthirty days from the date the sanction became known to her. Respondent also acknowledges thatshe erroneously paid the sanction owed to the County to the Bankruptcy Trustee in May 2006.For purposes of this stipulation her claim of good faith is accepted.

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

The purposes of imposing sanctions for professional misconduct are the protection of the public,the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneysand the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession. (Standard 1.3, Rules Proc.State Bar, title IV, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for Prof Misconduct ("Std.").)

The standards support actual suspension to disbarment for Respondent’s misconduct. Accordingto Std. 2.6(a) violations of § § 6103 and 6068(o)(3) of the Business and Professions Code shallresult in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, tothe victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in Std. 1.3. Stayedsuspension fal/s within that range.

Standard 1.7(b) calls for disbarment where there are two prior impositions of discipline.However, disbarment is not appropriate where there is no evidence of other serious and habitualmisconduct. (Maltaman v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 924, 958.) Deviation from the standardsis appropriate where, on balance, stayed suspension is sufficient to serve the purposes of attorneydiscipline in accordance with Std. 1.3. (Howardv. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 215, 221.)

Obedience to court orders is intrinsic to the respect attorneys and their clients must accord thejudicial system. Attorneys are expected to follow the order or proffer a formal explanation bymotion or appeal as to why the order cannot be obeyed. (In the Matter of Boyne (Review Dept.1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 389, 403.)

As the degree of professional discipline is not derived from a fixed formula, but from taking allfactors on balance, deviation from actual suspension is appropriate because Respondent held asincere belief that she was acting in support of the Bankruptcy Code. (Std. 2.6; CitingRespondent)(, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. at 605; Cf. In re Cooper (1971) 5 Cal.3d 256.) Also,the present matter is distinguishable from actual suspension cases. Where a respondent had a

12


record of two prior disciplinary proceedings, respondent did not belatedly comply with an order,and his prior record was for similar misconduct actual suspension was appropriate. (In theMatter of Meyer (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 697, 702.) In another case,actual suspension was appropriate where a respondent had a record of one prior disciplinaryproceeding, failed to participate in the State Bar Court proceeding, lacked remorse, and failed toacknowledge the wrongfulness of his actions. (Conroy v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 799, 802-803,805-806.) Here, stayed suspension is appropriate because Conroy andMeyer involvedgreater aggravation than in the present proceeding.

Respondent had a duty to report the sanction 30 days from the moment she had notice of theJune 30, 2005 sanction order. ( In theMatter of Respondent Y(Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. StateBar Ct. Rptr. 862.) The general purpose of willingness to commit the act or omission constitutesa wilful violation. (Cf. Durbin v. State Bar (1979) 23 Cal.3d 461,467.)

MULTISTATE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EXAMINATION EXCLUSION.

It is recommended that Respondent not be required to take the Multistate ProfessionalResponsibility Examination because she was ordered to take and pass the examination on May23, 2004 within one year in connection with case number 02-0-10434. Respondent complied onMarch 12, 2005.

///

///

13


~an 3] o7 o2:~2p Ke ~ Gerr~ (8~ 899-29~0 p.15

not write above this line.)In the Matter of I Case number(s):Janis L Turner

r 05-O-05140-RAH

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement witheach of the recitations and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Fact,Conclusions of Law and Disposition.

o~e

Date

Date

Jenis L. TurnerPrint Name

Kevin P. GerryPrint Name

J~an ChaPrint Name

(Stlpulallon form ~pproved by SBC Executive Commitlee 10116/00, Revised 1211612004; 12/13r’2006.) Signature P~ge

14

(Do not write above this line.1In the Matter OfJanis L. Turner

Case Number(s):05-O-05140-RAH

ORDER

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 withoutprejudice, and:

[~The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINERECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.

[] The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forthbelow, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.

[] All Hearing dates are vacated.

The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modifythe stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifiesor further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 135(b), Rules of Procedure.) Theeffective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein,normally 30 days after file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)

Date Juerge df the State Bar CourtIlonorable Richard A. Platel

Form approved by SBC Executive Committee. (Rev. 5/5/05; 1211312006.)

PageStayed Suspension Order

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY REGULAR MAIL

CASE NUMBER: 05-O-05140-RAH

I, the undersigned, over the age of eighteen (18) years, whose business address and placeof employment is the State Bar of California, 1149 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, California90015, declare that I am not a party to the within action; that I am readily familiar with the StateBar of California’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with theUnited States Postal Service; that in the ordinary course of the State Bar of California’s practice,correspondence collected and processed by the State Bar of California would be deposited withthe United States Postal Service that same day; that I am aware that on motion of party served,service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope orpackage is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit; and thatin accordance with the practice of the State Bar of California for collection and processing ofmail, I deposited or placed for collection and mailing in the City and County of Los Angeles, onthe date shown below, a true copy of the within

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION ANDORDER APPROVING STAYED SUSPENSION; NO ACTUAL SUSPENSION

in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing at Los Angeles, on the date shown below,addressed to:

Kevin P. Gerryobo Janis L. Turner1001 Olive StreetSanta Barbara, CA 93101

in an inter-office mail facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed to:

N/A

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that theforegoing is true and correct. Executed at Los Angeles, California, on the date shown below.

DATED: SIGNED:M~~a

Declarant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]

I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen andnot a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County ofLos Angeles, on February 22, 2007, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITIONAND ORDER APPROVING STAYED SUSPENSION; NO ACTUALSUSPENSION


ix] by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States PostalService at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

KEVIN P. GERRY1001 OLIVE STSANTA BARBARA, CA 93101


JEAN CHA, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certi~ that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on

~ammy R. CleCase AdaninistratorState Bar Court

Certificate of Serviee.v~pt

janis louise turner 79217 california attorney bar discipline binder1

Documents