PUBLIC M .

-I-TER
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 -1kwik~g ~ 018 043 456

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL JAMES E. TOWERY, No. 74058 CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL RUSSELL G. WEINER, No. 94504 DEPUTY CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL ALAN GORDON, No. 125642 ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL KRISTIN RITSEMA, NO. 149966 SUPERVISING TRIAL COUNSEL BRANDON K. TADY, No. 83045 DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL 1149 South Hill Street Los Angeles, California 90015-2299 Telephone: (213) 765-1385

FILED
JUN 1 7 2011
STATE BAR COURT CLERKS OFFICE LOS ANGELES

STATE BAR COURT HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES

In the Matter of: PATRICK JAMES MANSHARDT, No. 178085, A Member of the State Bar

CaseNos. 08-0-12927,08-0-13850,08-0-14467, 09-O-12229,09-O-12297,10-N-01771, 10-O-02693,10-O-06416 NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES

NOTICE - FAILURE TO RESPOND! IF YOU FAIL TO FILE A WRITTEN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER SERVICE, OR IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE STATE BAR COURT TRIAL: (1) YOUR DEFAULT WILL BE ENTERED; (2) YOUR STATUS WILL BE CHANGED TO INACTIVE AND YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW; (3) YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE FURTHER IN THESE PROCEEDINGS UNLESS YOU MAKE A TIMELY MOTION AND THE DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE, AND; (4) YOU SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL DISCIPLINE. SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU FAIL TO TIMELY MOVE TO SET ASIDE OR VACATE YOUR DEFAULT, THIS COURT WILL ENTER AN ORDER RECOMMENDING YOUR DISBARMENT WITHOUT FURTHER HEARING OR PROCEEDING. SEE RULE 5.80 ET SEQ., RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA.

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

The State Bar of California alleges: JURISDICTION 1. Patrick James Manshardt ("Respondent") was admitted to the practice of law in th~ of California on December 1, 1995, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges.. is currently a member of the State Bar of California. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 2. From on or about September 18, 2006 to on or about March 14, 2007, Respondent was and not eligible to practice law. 3. From on or about July 1, 2008 to on or about August 1, 2008, Respondent was actually and not eligible to practice law. 4. From on or about August 16, 2008 to on or about September 17, 2008, Respondent actually suspended and not eligible to practice law. 5. From on or about February 28, 2009 to on or about February 4, 2011, Respondent was suspended and not eligible to practice law. COUNT ONE Case No. 08-0-12927 California Business and Professions Code, section 6160. [Moral Turpitude-Misrepresentation/Concealment] 6. Respondent willfully violated California Business and Professions Code, section 6106 committing an act or acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption as follows: 7. Beginning in or around March 2004, Respondent represented twelve San Francisc~ Officers ("Police Officers") as plaintiffs against the City and County of San Francisco and The twelve Police Officers alleged they were the victims of "reverse discrimination" by San Francisco Police Department ("Department") in its process of selecting and promoting for the position of police lieutenant. The Police Officers alleged they were unfairly promotions to the lieutenant position because less qualified candidates, who were Africa~ were promoted ahead of them. The Police Officers included: Donna Leonard Meixnel

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

"Meixner"), Narda Gillespie ("Gillespie"), Mark Osuna ("Osuna"), Frederick Schiff ("Schiff")~ ~urt Bruneman ("Bruneman"), Dennis Quinn ("Quirm") and others. 8. Respondent agreed to represent each Police Officer plaintiff in exchange for zontingency fee. Respondent also asked for and received $2500 in advance costs from each Police Officer plaintiff. Later Respondent asked each Police Officer Plaintiff to pay an extra $1,000 in ldvance costs in addition to the $2500. Only Meixner and Quinn paid Respondent an additional ~ 1000. Meixner and Quinn each paid Respondent $3500 for advance costs. 9. On or about January 16, 2003, Plaintiff Richard Schiff filed a civil complaint in the ~an Francisco County Superior Court captioned Richard Schiff vs. The City and County of San

10 ~rancisco, et. al. bearing case number CGC-03-416466. On or about September 25, 2003, the 11 lttorneys representing defendants City and County of San Francisco removed Schiffs Superior

12 2ourt complaint to the United States District Court where it was assigned United States District 13 2ourt case number C-03-4345 MMC ("SchiffLawsuit"). 14 10. On or about June 8, 2004, Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of ten of the Police

15 Officers, including Meixner, captioned Narda Gillespie, et. al. vs. The City and County of San 16 ~rancisco, et. al., United States District Court case number C-04-2261 MMC ("Gillespie 17 Lawsuit"). 18 11. On or about June 8, 2004, Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of Osuna captioned

19 ~tark Osuna, et. al. vs. The City and County of San Francisco, et. al., United States District Courl 20 zase number C-04-2262 MMC ("Osuna Lawsuit"). The Schiff Lawsuit, the Gillespie Lawsuit, and 21 :he Osuna Lawsuit together contain the twelve Police Officers claims. 22 12. On June 9, 2004 and June 10, 2004, the United States District Court filed orders

23 :elating the Gillespie Lawsuit, the Osuna Lawsuit, and the Schiff Lawsuit. 24 13. On or about November 24, 2004, Respondent filed a Second Amended Complaint ox~

25 ~ehalf of Osuna in case number C-04-2262 MMC ("Second Amended Complaint"). On or aboul 26 ~ovember 24, 2004, Respondent filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Gillespie Lawsuit. 27 28 -3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

14. In 2005-2006, Respondent participated in mediations with the defendants in the Osuna, and SchiffLawsuits. In or around January 2006, Respondent entered into an settlement on behalf of the Police Officers in the amount of $1.6 million. This resolved all of the twelve Police Officers claims against the City and County of San and the other defendants. 15. On or about June 13, 2005, during the second mediation session in the Gillespie.. and SchiffLawsuits, Respondent offered Meixner $60,000 as her share of the settlemenl City and County of San Francisco and the other defendants. Respondent offered Osun~ ;50,000 as his share of the settlement. Osuna told Respondent he felt he should receive the same

10 g60,000 share as Meixner. Respondent told Meixner that Osuna would not agree to accepl 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4~50,000 if Meixner settled her case for $60,000. 16. Respondent told Meixner that he wanted to settle the Police Officers claims for $1.6 to do this he needed Osunas consent to the settlement. 17. Respondent recommended to Meixner that she publicly agree to accept $50,000 as he~ settlement so the record of the settlement would show that she and Osuna settled their for the same amount ($50,000) and so that Osuna would agree to the $1.6 million offer. Respondent told Meixner that if she publicly agreed to accept $50,000 as he~ of the settlement, Respondent would privately pay her an additional $10,000 from hi., ,s fees so that Meixners total settlement, in fact, would be $60,000. Respondent told not to tell Osuna about this additional $10,000 payment. 18. On or about March 7, 2006, Meixner sent an e-mail to Respondent confirming the agreement that she would receive $60,000 as her share of the settlement. Respondenl the e-mail. In response to Meixners e-mail, Respondent called Meixner and told her not send the e-mail to the other Police Officers because one of them could tell Osuna that Meixner receive $60,000. In that same telephone conversation, Respondent told Meixner that, it receive $60,000, Osuna would not agree to the aggregate settlement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

19. Meixner told Respondent she would follow his recommendation and publicly agre~ her share of the settlement was $50,000 on condition that Respondent privately pay her ar $10,000 so that her total settlement would be $60,000. Respondent told Meixner that exchange for her agreement to publicly accept $50,000, he would privately pay her at $10,000. 20. Respondent never told Osuna that Meixner would receive $60,000. 21. Osuna settled his claim for $50,000. 22. In early May, 2008, Meixner received a settlement check in the amount of $50,000 fol claims against the City and County of San Francisco and the other defendants. On or aboul 7, 2008, Meixner called Respondent and left a voice mail message asking him about the $10,000 payment Respondent promised her. Respondent left a voice mail message fo~ stating that he would send her a check for $10,000 from his portion of the settlement. He Meixner that he would send the check "next week." 23. Respondent concealed from Osuna that Meixner, in fact, would receive $60,00 of $50,000. Respondent concealed this information from Osuna so that Osuna woul~ to the aggregate settlement. 24. Respondent intentionally or with gross negligence concealed from Osuna the truth the amount of money Meixner would receive in settlement of her claim. By concealing ;una the amount Meixner would receive in settlement, Respondent committed an act moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption. COUNT TWO

22 23 24 25 tg or holding himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing 26 when he was not an active member of the State Bar in violation of Business and Professions 27 sections 6125 and 6126, as follows: 28 -5Case No. 08-0-12927 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a) [Failure To Support Laws - Unauthorized Practice] 25. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a), b~

1 2 3 4 5

26. The allegations of paragraphs 2-5 and 7-23 are incorporated by reference. 27. From on or about September 18, 2006 to on or about March 14, 2007, Respondent was ictually suspended and not entitled to practice law. 28. After Respondent entered into the aggregate settlement of $1.6 million to resolve the ?olice Officers claims, approximately seven of the Police Officers told Respondent they were

6 anhappy with the terms of the settlement. These Police Officers hired a different attorney to 7 ~epresent them concerning their disagreements with Respondent about the settlement. Respondent 8 zontinued to represent the other Police Officers who were parties to the settlement. 9 29. The dispute between the Police Officers concerning the settlement was submitted to

10 ubitration. On or about November 29, 2006, while he was actually suspended and not eligible to 11 ~ractice law, Respondent filed an "Arbitration Statement" on behalf of Plaintiffs Schiff, Meixner

12 ~runemann, and Osuna in United States District Court case numbers C-03-6345-MMC, C-04. 13 2261-MMC, and C-04-2262-MMC. In the Arbitration Statement, Respondent identified himsel! 14 ~s the attorney for Schiff, Meixner, Bruneman, and Osuna. Respondent also wrote in the 15 Arbitration Statement that Meixners share of the aggregate settlement was $60,000. 16 30. By filing Arbitration Statement on behalf of Plaintiffs Schiff, Meixner, Bruneman, and

17 Osuna, Respondent held himself out to the United States District Court, to opposing counsel, and 18 Lo the arbitrator as entitled to practice law and Respondent actually practiced law when he was nol 19 an active member of the State Bar in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, sectiom, 20 i125 and 6126, and thereby failed to support the laws of the State of California. 21 22 23 24 COUNT THREE Case No. 08-0-12927 Business and Professions Code, section 6106 [Moral Turpitude: Knowing Unauthorized Practice Of Law] 31. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106, b

25 ~ommitting an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows: 26 27 28 -632. The allegations of Paragraphs 2-5, 7-23, and 25-30 are incorporated by reference.

33. Before filing the Arbitration Statement on behalf of Police Officers Schiff, Meixner ]runeman, and Osuna, Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that he war tctually suspended and not entitled to practice law. 34. By filing the Arbitration Statement on behalf of Police Officers Schiff, Meixner. ]runeman, and Osuna when he knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that he wa~ 6 tctually suspended and not entitled to practice law, Respondent committed an act, or acts

7 Involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption. 8 9 10 11 COUNT FOUR Case No. 08-0-12927 Business and Professions Code, section 6106 [Moral Turpitude: Misrepresentation] 35. Respondent willfully violated California Business and Professions Code, section 6106

12 by committing an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows: 13 14 15 36. The allegations of paragraphs 2 through 23 are incorporated by reference. 37. Respondent never paid Meixner the additional $10,000 he promised to pay her. 38. Respondent intentionally or with gross negligence misrepresented to Meixner that ht

16 ntended to pay her $10,000. By misrepresenting to Meixner that he intended to pay her $10,000, 17 ~espondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COUNT FIVE Case No. 08-0-12927 Business and Professions Code, section 6106 [Moral Turpitude: Misappropriation] 39. Respondent willfully violated California Business and Professions Code, section 6106, ,y committing an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows: 40. The allegations of paragraphs 2 through 38 are incorporated by reference. 41. Respondent never paid Meixner the additional $10,000 he promised to pay her. 42. Respondent intentionally or with gross negligence misappropriated $10,000 from

26 deixner. 27 28 -7-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

43. By misappropriating $10,000 from Meixner, Respondent committed an act involving noral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption. COUNT SIX Case No. 08-0-12927 Business and Professions Code, section 6106 [Moral Turpitude: Misappropriation] 44. Respondent willfully violated California Business and Professions Code, section 6106 ~y committing an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows: 45. The allegations of paragraphs 2-22 incorporated by reference. 46. On or about March 1, 2006, Meixner asked Respondent to refund to her the additiona

10 ;1000 she paid in advance costs. Respondent told Meixner that he would refund the additional 11 12 13 ;1,000 in advance costs to her. 47. Respondent never refunded the additional $1,000 to Meixner. 48. Respondent intentionally or with gross negligence misappropriated $1,000 frorr

14 Vleixner. By misappropriating $1,000 from Meixner, Respondent committed an act involvin 15 noral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption. 16 17 18 19 COUNT SEVEN Case No. 08-0-12927 Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-100 (B) (4) [Failure To Promptly Pay Client Funds] 49. Respondent willfully violated California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100 (13

20 14) by failing to promptly pay client funds as follows: 21 22 23 50. The allegations of paragraphs 2-46 are incorporated by reference. 51. Respondent failed to promptly pay the $11,000 to Meixner. 52. By failing to promptly pay the $11,000 to Meixner, Respondent failed to promptly pay

24 ~r deliver, as requested by the client, any funds in Respondents possession that Meixner was 25 mtitled to receive. 26 /// 27 /// 28 -8-

1 2 3 4

COUNT EIGHT Case No. 08-0-12927 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m) [Failure To Respond To Client Inquiries] 53. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m), by

5 Failing to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client, as follows: 6 54. The allegations of paragraphs 2 through 40 and 45 and 46 are incorporated by

7 :eference. 8 55. On or about May 26, 2008, Meixner sent an e-mail to Respondent at his e-mai

9 ~ddress: [email protected] asking Respondent when he was going to pay her the 10 additional $10,000. Meixners e-mail was not returned as undeliverable. Respondent never 11 12 esponded to Meixners May 26, 2008 e-mail. 56. On or about June 2, 2008, Meixner sent an e-mail to Respondent asking if he had

13 eceived her May 26 e-mail. Respondent did not respond to Meixners June 2, 2008 e-mail until 14 Iune 28, 2008 when he sent an e-mail to Meixner stating he had not received her May 26, 2008 e15 nail. On or about June 28, 2008, Meixner re-sent her May 26, 2008 e-mail to Respondent 16 ~.espondent never responded to Meixners June 28, 2008 e-mail which included the May 26, 2008 17 ,~-mail. 18 57. Meixner also attempted to speak with Respondent by telephone. On or about June 9

19 2008, Meixner called Respondent at his law office and was told Respondent was not in the office

20 Meixner left a voicemail message for Respondent telling him she was still waiting for the 21 ~10,000, for a refund of the additional $1,000 advance costs, and she asked Respondent to return

22 ~er telephone message. Respondent never responded to Meixners telephone message left at his 23 ~ffice telephone number. 24 58. On or about June 19, 2008, Meixner called Respondents cell phone number (213~

25 ~.81-2675. Meixner was not able to speak with Respondent or leave a message. Instead, Meixnel 26 leard a recorded message stating that the number she dialed was not in service. 27 28 -9-

59. On or about June 30, 2008, Meixner called Respondents cell phone number again.

2 lhe cell phone number was back in service. Meixner left a message on Respondents cell phon~ 3 equesting he pay her the $10,000, that he refund to her the $1,000, and asking Respondent tc 4 eturn her telephone message. Respondent never responded to this telephone message. 5 60. On or about June 30, 2008, after leaving a message on Respondents cell phone..

6 vleixner called Respondents office and was told he was not in. Meixner left a voice mail 7 nessage on Respondents office telephone requesting that he pay her the $10,000, that he refund 8 ~er the $1,000, and that he respond to her telephone message. Respondent did not retur~

9 vleixners telephone message. 10 61. By, failing to respond to Meixners telephone calls and e-mails, Respondent failed to

11 espond promptly to Meixners reasonable status inquiries. 12 13 14 15 COUNT NINE Case No. 08-0-12927 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i) [Failure To Cooperate In State Bar Investigation] 62. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i), by

16 !ailing to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent, as 17 !ollows: 18 63. The allegations of paragraphs 2 through 5 and 7 through 60 are incorporated by

19 eference. 20 64. On or about August 19, 2008, a State Bar investigator wrote to Respondent regardin~

21 an investigation opened pursuant to a complaint filed by Meixner ("Meixner Complaint"). 22 65. On or about September 17, 2008, a State Bar investigator wrote to Respondent again

23 regarding Meixners Complaint. 24 66. On or about December 22, 2008, a State Bar investigator wrote to Respondent a third

25 time regarding Meixners Complaint. 26 67. The investigators letters dated August 19, 2008, September 17, 2008, and Decembel

27 22, 2008 requested that Respondent respond in writing to specified allegations of misconducl 28 -10-

9eing investigated by the State Bar concerning Meixners Complaint. Respondent did no

2 ~espond to the investigators letters or otherwise communicate with the investigator. 3 68. By not providing any written response to the State Bar investigators three letters oi

4 9therwise cooperating with the State Bar in the investigation of Meixners Complaint, Responden! 5 6 7 8 9 Failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation. COUNT TEN Case No. 08-0-13850 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a) [Failure to Support Laws - Unauthorized Practice] 69. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a), by

10 advertising or holding himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing 11 law when he was not an active member of the State Bar in violation of Business and Profession., 12 Code, sections 6125 and 6126, as follows: 13 14 70. The allegations of paragraphs 2-5 are incorporated by reference. 71. On or about March 14, 2008, the State Bars Membership Records office senl

15 ~espondent a letter titled "Notice of Intent to Suspend Bar Membership for Failure to Pay Cout~ 16 3rdered Child or Family Support". The March 14, 2008 letter was sent to Respondents State Ba~ 17 ~fficial membership records address. The letter informed Respondent that he would be suspendec 18 ~rom the practice of law effective August 16, 2008 unless a release had "been generated by the 19 ~ppropriate local Child Support agency and received from them by the Membership Records 20 3epartment of the State Bar of California by 5 pm on Friday August 15, 2008." Respondent 21 ~eceived the letter. 22 72. On or about May 30, 2008, the State Bars Membership Records office sent

23 ?~espondent a letter titled "Second Notice of Intent to Suspend Bar Membership for Failure to Pay 24 2ourt Ordered Child or Family Support". The May 30, 2008 letter was sent to Respondents 25 afficial State Bar membership records address. The letter informed Respondent that he would be 26 ~uspended from the practice of law effective August 16, 2008 unless a release had "been 27 generated by the appropriate local Child Support agency and received from them by the 28 -11-

1 2 3 4 5

Vlembership Records Department of the State Bar of California by 5 pm on Friday August 15. ~-008." Respondent received the letter. 73. On or about July 18, 2008, the California Supreme Court entered an order in Suprem~ 2ourt case number S165296 suspending Respondent from the practice of law as a result of ?~espondents failure to pay court ordered child support. On or about August 20, 2008, the State

6 Bars membership records office properly served a copy of this Order on Respondent at hisState 7 Bar membership records address. On August 16, 2008, the Supreme Courts Order suspending 8 Respondent from the practice of law became effective. Respondent remained suspended until 9 September 17, 2008 when he was reinstated to active status. 10 74. On or about August 22, 2008, while Respondent was actually suspended and nol

11 eligible to practice law, Respondent filed a Complaint for Damages in the United States Districl 12 Court, Central District of California, entitled Robert Townsend v. Akami Technologie, Inc., 13 Nellymoser, Inc., et al., Case No. CV08-05534 MMM (FFMx) ("Townsend Lawsuit"). In the 14 [ownsend Complaint for Damages, Respondent identified himself as the attorney for Plaintiff 15 ~obert Townsend. 16 75. On or about September 16, 2008, attorney Peter Kelman, counsel for defendanl

17 qellymoser, Inc. sent a letter to the United States District Court with a copy of the letter tc 18 .~espondent informing the Court and Respondent that, at the time Respondent filed the Townsenc 19 2omplaint, Respondent was actually suspended and not eligible to practice law. Responden~ 20 :eceived attorney Kelmans letter. 21 76. On or about September 4, 2008, the United States District Court filed an "Order To

22 3how Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction" 23 ~"OSC"). On or about September 18, 2008, while Respondent was actually suspended and no! 24 ,~ligible to practice law, Respondent filed a document on behalf of Plaintiff Robert Townsend 25 entitled "Plaintiff Robert Townsends Response To The Courts Order To Show Cause Re Subjec! 26 Matter Jurisdiction" ("Response"). In the Response, Respondent identified himself as the attorney 27 for Plaintiff Robert Townsend. 28 -12-

77. By filing the Townsend Complaint for Damages on August 22, 2008 and by filing the Response on September 18, 2008, Respondent held himself out to the United States District Court 3 ~s entitled to practice law and actually practiced law when he was not an active member of the 4 State Bar in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, sections 6125 and 6126, and 5 Ihereby failed to support the laws of the State of California. 6 7 8 9 COUNT ELEVEN Case No. 08-0-13850 Business and Professions Code, section 6106 [Moral Turpitude: Knowing Unauthorized Practice Of Law] 78. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106, by

10 ~ommitting an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows: 11 79. The allegations of Paragraphs 2 through 5 and 70 through 76 are incorporated by

12 eference. 13 80. Before filing the Townsend Complaint for Damages and the Response to the OSC ir

14 .he Townsend Lawsuit, Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that he wa., 15 ~ctually suspended and not eligible to practice law. 16 81. By filing the Townsend Complaint for Damages and the Response to the OSC when

17 le knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that he was actually suspended and not entitled 18 :o practice law, Respondent committed an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or 19 ~orruption. 20 21 22 23 COUNT TWELVE Case No. 08-0-13850 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i) [Failure To Cooperate in State Bar Investigation] 82. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i), b3

24 failing to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent, as 25 follows: 26 27 28 -1383. The allegations of Paragraphs 2-5 and 70 through 80 are incorporated by reference.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

84. On or about September 15, 2008, the State Bar opened an investigation, case no. 08-O3850, pursuant to a complaint filed by Peter Kelman ("the UPL matter"). 85. On or about November 13, 2008, a State Bar investigator wrote to Respondent egarding the UPL matter. 86. On or about December 22, 2008, a State Bar investigator wrote to Respondent again egarding the UPL matter. 87. The State Bar investigators letters requested that Respondent respond in writing to the

8 ~llegations in the letters dated September 15, 2008, November 13, 2008, and December 22, 2008 9 .n the UPL matter. Respondent did not respond to the investigators letters or otherwise

10 ~ommunicate with the investigator. 11 88. By not providing a written response to the allegations in the UPL matter or otherwise

12 rooperating in the investigation of the UPL matter, Respondent failed to cooperate in 13 ~lisciplinary investigation. 14 15 16 17 COUNT THIRTEEN Case No. 08-0-14467 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a) [Failure to Support Laws - Unauthorized Practice] 89. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a), by

18 ~dvertising or holding himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing 19 law when he was not an active member of the State Bar in violation of Business and Professions 20 Code, sections 6125 and 6126, as follows: 21 22 90. The allegations of Paragraphs 2-5 are incorporated by reference. 91. On or about June 12, 2008, the California Supreme Court entered an order in Suprem~

23 Court case number S164208 suspending Respondent from the practice of law as a result ot 24 Respondents failure to pay State Bar membership fees. The Supreme Courts Order became 25 effective on July 1, 2008. Respondent remained suspended until August 1, 2008 when he was 26 einstated to active status following payment of his State Bar membership fees. 27 28 -14-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

92. On or about June 18, 2008, the State Bars membership records office properly servec copy of this order on Respondent at his State Bar official membership records address. 93. On or about August 16, 2008, Respondent was actually suspended and not entitled t~ ,ractice law for non-compliance with Child and Family Support payments. Respondent remained tctually suspended until on or about October 1, 2008. 94. From on or about February 28, 2009 to on or about February 4, 2011, Respondent was tctually suspended and not entitled to practice law. 95. Beginning on or about June 19, 2008, Respondent represented the plaintiffs in a awsuit ritled "California Coalition of Undressed Performers, et al. v. Spearmint Rhino, et al.

10 rose number 08-CV-04038" (the "Spearmint Rhino Case"). 11 96. On or about August 17, 2008, while Respondent was actually suspended and no

12 fligible to practice law, Respondent filed a "Request To Enter Default Against Defendant Score 13 in case number 08-CV-04038 ("Request To Enter Default"). In the Request To Enter Default 14 Respondent identified himself as the attorney for Plaintiffs in the Spearmint Rhino Case. 15 97. On or about September 22, 2008, while Respondent was actually suspended and no

16 ;ligible to practice law, Respondent filed a "Plaintiffs Opposition To Olympic Avenue Venture. 17 nc.s Motion To Dismiss..." ("Opposition"). In the Opposition, Respondent identified himself a: 18 :he attorney for Plaintiffs in the Spearmint Rhino Case. 19 98. On or about March 3, 2009, while Respondent was actually suspended and not eligible

20 :o practice law, Respondent filed a Second Amended Complaint in case number CV-0403~ 21 "Second Amended Complaint"). In the Second Amended Complaint, Respondent identifiec 22 fimself as the attorney for the Plaintiffs in the Spearmint Rhino Case. 23 99. By filing the Request To Enter Default, the Opposition, and the Second Amended

24 Complaint in the Spearmint Rhino Case while he was actually suspended and not eligible to 25 ~racrice law, Respondent held himself out to the court as entitled to practice law and actually 26 ~racticed law when he was not an active member of the State Bar in willful violation of Business 27 28 -15-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

tnd Professions Code, sections 6125 and 6126, and thereby failed to support the laws of the State ~f California. COUNT FOURTEEN Case No. 08-0-14467 Business and Professions Code, section 6106 [Moral Turpitude: Knowing Unauthorized Practice Of Law] 100. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106, by :ommitting an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows: 101. eference. 102. Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that when he filed th~ The allegations of paragraphs 2 through 5 and 90 through 98 are incorporated by

~equest To Enter Default, the Opposition, and the Second Amended Complaint in the Spearmin hhino Case he was actually suspended and not eligible to practice law. 103. By filing the Request To Enter Default, the Opposition, and the Second Amended

14 2omplaint in the Spearmint Rhino Case when he knew or was grossly negligent in not knowin~ 15 hat he was actually suspended and not eligible to practice law, Respondent committed an act, o~

16 tcts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption. 17 18 19 20 21 COUNT FIFTEEN Case No. 08-0-14467 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i) [Failure to Cooperate In State Bar Investigation] 104. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i), by !ailing to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent, as

22 bllows: 23 105. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 5 and 90 through 102 are incorporated by

24 eference. 25 106. On or about December 8, 2008, a State Bar investigator wrote to Respondenl

26 egarding case number 08-0-14467 opened pursuant to a complaint filed by attorney Clyde 27 )ewitt. 28 -16-

107. On or about January 02, 2009, a State Bar investigator wrote to Respondent again

2 egarding case 08-0-14467. 3 108. The investigators letters dated December 8, 2008 and January 2, 2009 asked

4 ~espondent to respond in writing to specified allegations of misconduct being investigated by the 5 ]tate Bar in case 08-0-14467. Respondent did not respond to the State Bar investigators two 6 7 etters or otherwise communicate with the investigator. 109. By not providing a written response to the allegations in case 08-0-14467 matter

8 ~r otherwise cooperating in the investigation of case 08-0-14467, Respondent failed to cooperate 9 10 11 12 13 n a disciplinary investigation. COUNT SIXTEEN Case No. 09-0-12229 Business and Professions Code, section 6103 [Failure to Obey a Court Order] 1 I0. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6103, by

14 ,illfully disobeying or violating an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act 15 ~onnected with or in the course of Respondents profession which he ought in good faith to do or 16 brbear, as follows: 17 111. The allegations of paragraphs 2 through 5 and 90 through 107 are incorporated by

18 eference. 19 112. On or about April 7, 2009, the Court in the Spearmint Rhino case ordered

20 ~espondent to pay $1,480 in attorneys fees no later than April 17, 2009 to Defendant Olympic 21 Avenue Venture Inc ("OAV"), one of the defendants in the Spearmint Rhino Case. 22 113. On or about April 16, 2009, Respondent filed a motion seeking a 60-day

23 ;xtension of the April 17, 2009 deadline. The court granted Respondents motion in part and set a 24 aew deadline of May 7, 2009 for Respondent to pay the sanction. The Court also granted OAVs 25 motion for attorneys fees in the amount of $4,141.42. The Court ordered Respondent to pay the 26 ~anctions and attorneys fees by May 7, 2009. Respondent was required to pay a total ol 27 ;5,621.42 no later than May 7, 2009 to OAV. 28 -17-

114. Respondent failed to pay the court ordered sanctions and attorneys fees by the

2 Vlay 7, 2009 deadline. OAV requested further relief from the Court, including a finding ot 3 4 5 :ontempt. 115. On or about May 14, 2009, the Court ordered Respondent to pay the $5,621.42 tc 3AV immediately and it issued an "Order To Show Cause" ("OSC") requiring Respondent to file

6 ais response no later than May 29, 2009 why he should not be held in contempt. Respondent did 7 aot file a response to the OSC by May 29, 2009. Instead, Respondent filed a response on or aboul 8 Iune 1, 2009. In his response, Respondent claimed that he should not be held in contempl 9 ~ecause it was impossible for him to pay the sanctions and attorneys fees. The court rejected 10 ~espondents claim that it was impossible for him to pay the sanctions and attorneys fees. The 11 2ourt ordered Respondent to pay a minimum of $50 per month to OAV starting September 1 12 ~.009 until the sanctions were paid in full. In addition, the Court ordered Respondent to pay a~ 13 ~dditional $2,032.54 to OAV for costs and attorneys fees. 14 116. Respondent failed to make the first payment on September 1, 2009 as ordered by

15 he Court. On September 21, 2009, the Court found Respondent in contempt of court and ordered 16 ~(espondent deliver by hand the payment to OAV by September 23, 2009, or to self-surrender tc 17 ~he U.S. Marshals office. Respondent made the payment. The Court also ordered Respondent tc 18 aotify the Court by the third day of each month of payments being made. 19 117. On November 3, 2009, the Court issued a bench warrant for Respondents arresl

20 ~ecause Respondent did not notify the Court by the third day of November of the payment being 21 nade. 22 118. By failing to obey orders of the Court to pay sanctions and attomeys fees:

23 ~espondent willfully disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear a~ 24 ~ct connected with or in the course of Respondents profession which he ought in good faith to dc 25 ~r forbear. 26 27 28 -18/// ///

1 2 3 4

COUNT SEVENTEEN Case No. 09-0-12229 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a) [Failure to Support Laws - Unauthorized Practice] 119. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a), by

5 ~dvertising or holding himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing 6 law when he was not an active member of the State Bar in violation of Business and Professions 7 Code, sections 6125 and 6126, as follows: 8 9 10 11 120. The allegations of paragraph 2-5 are incorporated by reference. 121. On or about June 12, 2008, the California Supreme Court entered an ordeJ S 164208), effective on July 1, 2008, suspending Respondent from the practice of law as a resull ~f Respondents failure to pay State Bar membership fees. On or about June 18, 2008, the Stat~

12 Bars membership records office properly served a copy of this order on the Respondent at hi., 13 3tate Bar membership records address. Respondent remained suspended until he paid his fee., 14 md was reinstated to active status on or about August 1, 2008. 15 122. On or about July 19, 2008, while Respondent was actually suspended and no~

16 .~ligible to practice law, Respondent served attorney Peter Garrell with the summons an~ 17 :omplaint in the Spearmint Rhino Case. On or about the same date, Respondent met an~ 18 :onferred with attorney Peter Garrell. In that meet and confer, Respondent identified himself 19 ;he attorney for the Plaintiffs in the Spearmint Rhino Case. 20 123. On or about July 30, 2008, while Respondent was actually suspended and no~

21 .~ligible to practice law, Respondent met and conferred with attorney Peter Garrell. In that meel

22 md confer, Respondent identified himself as the attorney for Plaintiffs in the Spearmint Rhinc 23 Ease. 24 124. On or about August 17, 2008, while Respondent was actually suspended and nol

25 .~ligible to practice law, he met and conferred with attorney Peter Garrell. In that meet and confer. 26 Respondent identified himself as the attorney for the Plaintiffs in the Spearmint Rhino case. 27 28 -19-

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

125. By meeting and conferring on three occasions with attomey Garrell while he wa: from the practice of law, Respondent held himself out as entitled to practice law and practiced law when he was not an active member of the State Bar in willful violation ot and Professions Code, sections 6125 and 6126, and thereby failed to support the laws ol State of California. COUNT EIGHTEEN Case No. 09-0-12229 Business and Professions Code, section 6106 [Moral Turpitude: Knowing Unauthorized Practice Of Law] 126. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106, b an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows: 127. The allegations of paragraphs 2 through 5 and 120-123 are incorporated by

128. Each time Respondent met and conferred with attorney Peter Garrell on July 1Z July 30, 2008, and August 17, 2008, Respondent knew or he was grossly negligent in nol that he was actually suspended and not entitled to practice law. 129. By meeting and conferring with attorney Peter Garrell when he was actuall not eligible to practice law, Respondent committed an act, or acts, involving moral dishonesty or corruption. COUNT NINETEEN Case No. 09-0-12229 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i) [Failure to Cooperate in State Bar Investigation] 130. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i), by to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent, as

131. The allegations in paragraphs 2-5 and 120 through 127 are incorporated b

-20-

132. On or about June 8, 2009, a State Bar investigator wrote to Respondent regarding

2 ~ase number 09-0-12229 opened pursuant to a complaint filed by attorney Peter Garrell. The 3 letter was sent to Respondents State Bar Membership Records address, however the letter was 4 :eturned with "Return to Sender" stamped on it, and the word "moved" handwritten below that. 5 133. On or about November 9, 2009, a State Bar investigator wrote to Respondenl

6 ~gain regarding case 09-0-12229. The letter was sent to Respondents updated State Bat 7 membership Records address. 8 9 134. The investigators letters requested that Respondent respond in writing te ~ecified allegations of misconduct being investigated by the State Bar in case 09-0-12229.

10 Respondent did not respond to the investigators letters dated June 8, 2009 and November 9, 2009 11 3r otherwise communicate with the investigator. 12 135. By not providing a written response to the State Bar investigators letters dated

13 lune 8, 2009 and November 9, 2009, or otherwise cooperating in the investigation of case numbe~ 14 99-0-12229, Respondent failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation. 15 16 17 18 COUNT TWENTY Case No. 09-0-12229 Business and Professions Code, section 60680) [Failure to Update Membership Address] 136. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(j), b)

19 failing to comply with the requirements of section 6002.1, which requires a member of the State 20 Bar to maintain on the official membership records of the State Bar, the members current office 21 address and telephone number or, if no office is maintained, the address to be used for State Bat 22 ~urposes or purposes of the agency charged with attorney discipline, as follows: 23 24 137. The allegations of paragraph 131 are incorporated by reference. 138. On or about September 28, 2009, Respondent notified the membership records

25 ~ffice of the State Bar of the change in his official membership records address. 26 139. By waiting more than thirty days to notify the State Bar of the change in hi.,

27 )fficial membership records address, Respondent failed to maintain on the official membershil: 28 -21-

:ecords of the State Bar a current office address and telephone number or, if no office i.,

2 naintained, the address to be used for State Bar purposes. 3 4 5 6 COUNT TWENTY-ONE Case No. 09-0-12297 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a) [Failure to Support Laws - Unauthorized Practice] 140. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a), b3

7 idvertising or holding himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing 8 ~aw when he was not an active member of the State Bar in violation of Business and Professions 9 2ode, sections 6125 and 6126, as follows: 10 141. On or about March 7, 2009, Respondent was ordered placed on inactive status ant

11 aot eligible to practice law pursuant to Business and Professions Code 6007(e). Respondent was 12 aot returned to active status until on or about February 4, 2011. 13 142. On or about April 29, 2009, while Respondent was on inactive status and not

14 ,~ligible to practice law, Respondent telephoned Patrick Baghdaserians ("Baghdaserians"), the I5 3pposing counsel in Stanley Luckhardt v. Wai Yee Chanson, Case number BD482412 (the

16 Chanson Case"), and le~ a message making a settlement offer. In that telephone message, 17 Respondent identified himself as the attorney Plaintiff in the Chanson Case. 18 143. On or about April 30, 2009, a hearing was held in the Chanson Case on an Order

19 1"o Show Cause ("OSC") for Respondents contempt resulting from, inter alia, Respondent., 20 practicing of law while he was on inactive status. The Court continued the OSC. At the continue~ 21 aearing of the OSC, the Court ordered Respondent sanctioned for practicing law while he was on 22 inactive status and not eligible to practice law. 23 144. By contacting Baghdaserians and making a settlement offer on behalf of Plaintiff in the

24 ,2hanson Case, Respondent held himself out to the court as entitled to practice law and actually 25 ~racticed law when he was not an active member of the State Bar in willful violation of Business 26 tnd Professions Code, sections 6125 and 6126, and thereby failed to support the laws of the State 27 3f California. 28 -22-

1 2 3 4

COUNT TWENTY-TWO Case No. 09-0-12297 Business and Professions Code, section 6106 [Moral Turpitude: Knowing Unauthorized Practice Of Law] 145. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106, by

5 ~ommitting an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows: 6 7 146. The allegations of paragraphs 140-143 are incorporated by reference. 147. Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that he was on inactiw

8 ;tatus and not eligible to practice law when he contacted Baghdaserians and made a settlement 9 10 )ffer on behalf of Plaintiff in the Chanson Case. 148. By contacting Baghdaserians and making a settlement offer on behalf of thd

11 ?laintiff in the Chanson Case when he knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that he wa., 12 )n inactive status and not eligible to practice law, Respondent committed an act, or acts. 13 .nvolving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption. 14 15 16 17 COUNT TWENTY THREE Case No. 10-0-06416 Business and Professions Code, section 6103 [Failure to Obey a Court Order] 149. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6103, b

18 arillfully disobeying or violating an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act 19 :ormected with or in the course of Respondents profession which he ought in good faith to do or 20 Forbear, as follows: 21 150. On or about February 28, 2009, Respondent was actually suspended and not

22 .-ligible to practice law. On or about February 4, 2011, Respondent was returned to active status. 23 151. On or about July 29, 2009, the United State District Court for the Northern

24 District of California ordered Respondent removed from the roll of attorneys authorized to 25 gractice before that court ("Removal Order"). On July 29, 2009, the Court served the Removal 26 3rder on Respondent by United States Mail at his official membership records address. 27 28 -23-

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

152. On or about June 16, 2010, while Respondent was not authorized to practice law the United State District Court for the Northern District of California because of the Removal Respondent filed or caused to be filed a Notice of Association of Counsel in Schiffv. Cit) County of San Francisco, et. al, case number C 08-4627 PJH, and Schiff v. Barrett, et al., number C 10-1051 PJH ("SchiffLawsuits"). The SchiffLawsuits were pending before th~ State District Court for the Northern District of California. On or about June 16, 2010, appeared at a hearing in case no. C 10-1051 PJH on behalf of plaintiff Frederick ~chiff. 153. At the time Respondent filed the Notice of Association of Counsel and appeared

behalf of Frederick Schiff at a hearing in the SchiffLawsuits, Respondent knew or was gross in not knowing that he was not authorized to practice law in the United State Districl the Northern District of California. 154. By filing the Notice of Association of Counsel and by appearing on behalf ol Frederick Schiff in the Schiff Lawsuits, Respondent willfully disobeyed or violated ar of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course ot profession which he ought in good faith to do or forbear. COUNT TWENTY-FOUR Case No. 10-0-06416 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a) [Failure to Support Laws - Unauthorized Practice] 155. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a), b) or holding himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicinl when he was not an active member of the State Bar in violation of Business and Profession sections 6125 and 6126, as follows: 156. The allegations of 2 through 5 and 148-153 are incorporated by reference. 157. By filing the Notice of Association of Counsel and appearing on behalf o! Frederick Schiff in the SchiffLawsuits when he was actually suspended and not eligible practice law both because of his actual suspension and because of the Courts Removal Order. -24-

~espondent held himself out to the court as entitled to practice law and actually practiced law

2 when he was not an active member of the State Bar in willful violation of Business and 3 Professions Code, sections 6125 and 6126, and thereby failed to support the laws of the State ol 4 California. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 158. COUNT TWENTY-FIVE Case No. 10-0-06416 Business and Professions Code, section 6106 [Moral Turpitude: Knowing Unauthorized Practice Of Law] Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106,

:ommitting an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows: 159. ~y reference. 160. Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that he was actually The allegations of paragraphs 2 through 5 and 148 through 157 are incorporated

13 ;uspended and not eligible to practice law both because of his actual suspension and because ot 14 he Courts Removal Order. 15 161. By filing the Notice of Association of Counsel and by appearing on behalf oJ

16 ~laintiff Frederick Schiff in the SchiffLawsuits when Respondent knew or was grossly negligen 17 n not knowing that he was actually suspended and not eligible to practice law, Respondenl 18 :ommitted an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption. 19 20 21 22 COUNT TWENTY-SIX Case No. 10-N-01771 California Rules of Court, rule 9.20 [Failure to Comply with Rule 9.20] 162. Respondent willfully violated subdivision (c) of rule 9.20, California Rules of

23 2ourt, by willfully disobeying an order of the Supreme Court of the State of California as follows: 24 163. On or about November 10, 2009, the Supreme Court of the State of Californie

25 7lled a disciplinary order in case number S176295 (hereinafter, the "Order") based on State Bm 26 :ase number 08-0-10265. 27 28 -25III

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

164. The Order included a requirement that Respondent comply with California Rule., Court, rule 9.20 ("rule 9.20"), by performing the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) ol :rule within 30 and 40 days, respectively, of the effective date of the Order. 165. On or about November 10, 2009, the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of difornia properly served a copy of the Order on Respondent. Respondent received the Order. 166. The Order became effective on December 10, 2009, thirty days after it was filed at all times thereafter remained in full force and effect. Pursuant to the Order, Responden required to comply with subdivision (c) of rule 9.20 no later than January 19, 2010, by filin~ the Clerk of the State Bar Court a declaration of compliance with subdivision (a) of ruk

167. Respondent did not file with the Clerk of the State Bar Court by January 19, 2010 declaration of compliance with rule 9.20. Respondent did not file a declaration of compliance 9.20 until March 15, 2010. 168. By failing to timely file a declaration of compliance with rule 9.20 as required by Order, Respondent willfully violated subdivision (c) of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court. NOTICE - INACTIVE ENROLLMENT! YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF THE STATE BAR COURT FINDS, PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6007(c), THAT YOUR CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIAL THREAT OF HARM TO THE INTERESTS OF YOUR CLIENTS OR TO THE PUBLIC, YOU MAY BE INVOLUNTARILY ENROLLED AS AN INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR. YOUR INACTIVE ENROLLMENT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO ANY DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT.

-26-

NOTICE - COST ASSESSMENT! IN THE EVENT THESE PROCEDURES RESULT IN PUBLIC DISCIPLINE, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTS INCURRED BY THE STATE BAR IN THE INVESTIGATION, HEARING AND REVIEW OF THIS MATTER PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.10. Respectfully submitted, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -27DATED: June 17, 2011 Deputy Trial Counsel THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY CERTIFIED MAIL CASE NUMBERS: 08-0-12927; 08-0-13850; 08-0-14467; 09-0-12229; 09-0-12297; 10-N01771; 10-O-02693; 10-O-06416 I, the undersigned, over the age of eighteen (18) years, whose business address and place of employment is the State Bar of California, 1149 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90015, declare that I am not a party to the within action; that I am readily familiar with the State Bar of Californias practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service; that in the ordinary course of the State Bar of Californias practice, correspondence collected and processed by the State Bar of California would be deposited with the 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 or package is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit; and that in accordance with the practice of the State Bar of California for collection and processing of mail, I deposited or placed for collection and mailing in the City and County of Los Angeles, on the date shown below, a true copy of the within NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing as certified mail, return receipt requested, Article No.: 7196 9008 9111 0444 1197, at Los Angeles, on the date shown below, addressed to: Patrick J. Manshardt 259 Fremont Ave. Monterey Park, CA 91754 in an inter-office mail facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed to:

15 N/A 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1Ilka Larisch Declarant I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Los Angeles, California, on the date ~hown below.