disbarrment charges

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

PUBLIC M .-I-TER

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIAOFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSELJAMES E. TOWERY, No. 74058CHIEF TRIAL COUNSELRUSSELL G. WEINER, No. 94504DEPUTY CHIEF TRIAL COUNSELALAN GORDON, No. 125642ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSELKRISTIN RITSEMA, NO. 149966SUPERVISING TRIAL COUNSELBRANDON K. TADY, No. 83045DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL1149 South Hill StreetLos Angeles, California 90015-2299Telephone: (213) 765-1385

FILEDJUN 1 7 2011

STATE BAR COURTCLERK’S OFFICELOS 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 NOTICEWITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER SERVICE, OR IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR ATTHE 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 MOTIONAND THE DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE, AND;

(4) YOU SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL DISCIPLINE.SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU FAIL TO TIMELY MOVE TO SET ASIDEOR VACATE YOUR DEFAULT, THIS COURT WILL ENTER ANORDER RECOMMENDING YOUR DISBARMENT WITHOUTFURTHER HEARING OR PROCEEDING. SEE RULE 5.80 ET SEQ.,RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA.

-1-

kwik~g ~ 018 043 456

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. 08-0-12927California 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

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

"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

~’rancisco, et. al. bearing case number CGC-03-416466. On or about September 25, 2003, the

lttorneys representing defendants City and County of San Francisco removed Schiff’s Superior

2ourt complaint to the United States District Court where it was assigned United States District

2ourt case number C-03-4345 MMC ("SchiffLawsuit").

10. On or about June 8, 2004, Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of ten of the Police

Officers, including Meixner, captioned Narda Gillespie, et. al. vs. The City and County of San

~’rancisco, et. al., United States District Court case number C-04-2261 MMC ("Gillespie

Lawsuit").

11. On or about June 8, 2004, Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of Osuna captioned

~tark Osuna, et. al. vs. The City and County of San Francisco, et. al., United States District Courl

zase number C-04-2262 MMC ("Osuna Lawsuit"). The Schiff Lawsuit, the Gillespie Lawsuit, and

:he Osuna Lawsuit together contain the twelve Police Officer’s claims.

12. On June 9, 2004 and June 10, 2004, the United States District Court filed orders

:elating the Gillespie Lawsuit, the Osuna Lawsuit, and the Schiff Lawsuit.

13. On or about November 24, 2004, Respondent filed a Second Amended Complaint ox~

~ehalf of Osuna in case number C-04-2262 MMC ("Second Amended Complaint"). On or aboul

~ovember 24, 2004, Respondent filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Gillespie Lawsuit.

-3-

1 14. In 2005-2006, Respondent participated in mediations with the defendants in the

2 Osuna, and SchiffLawsuits. In or around January 2006, Respondent entered into an

3 settlement on behalf of the Police Officers in the amount of $1.6 million. This

4 resolved all of the twelve Police Officers’ claims against the City and County of San

5 and the other defendants.

6 15. On or about June 13, 2005, during the second mediation session in the Gillespie..

7 and SchiffLawsuits, Respondent offered Meixner $60,000 as her share of the settlemenl

8 City and County of San Francisco and the other defendants. Respondent offered Osun~

9 ;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 ~50,000 if Meixner settled her case for $60,000.

12 16. Respondent told Meixner that he wanted to settle the Police Officer’s claims for $1.6

13 to do this he needed Osuna’s consent to the settlement.

14 17. Respondent recommended to Meixner that she publicly agree to accept $50,000 as he~

15 settlement so the record of the settlement would show that she and Osuna settled their

16 for the same amount ($50,000) and so that Osuna would agree to the $1.6 million

17 offer. Respondent told Meixner that if she publicly agreed to accept $50,000 as he~

18 of the settlement, Respondent would privately pay her an additional $10,000 from hi.,

19 ,’s fees so that Meixner’s total settlement, in fact, would be $60,000. Respondent told

20 not to tell Osuna about this additional $10,000 payment.

21 18. On or about March 7, 2006, Meixner sent an e-mail to Respondent confirming the

22 agreement that she would receive $60,000 as her share of the settlement. Respondenl

23 the e-mail. In response to Meixner’s e-mail, Respondent called Meixner and told her not

24 send the e-mail to the other Police Officers because one of them could tell Osuna that Meixner

25 receive $60,000. In that same telephone conversation, Respondent told Meixner that, it

26 receive $60,000, Osuna would not agree to the aggregate settlement.

27

28-4-

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

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

Case No. 08-0-12927Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a)

[Failure To Support Laws - Unauthorized Practice]

25. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a), b~

tg or holding himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing

when he was not an active member of the State Bar in violation of Business and Professions

sections 6125 and 6126, as follows:

-5-

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

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

anhappy with the terms of the settlement. These Police Officers hired a different attorney to

~epresent them concerning their disagreements with Respondent about the settlement. Respondent

zontinued to represent the other Police Officers who were parties to the settlement.

29. The dispute between the Police Officers concerning the settlement was submitted to

u’bitration. On or about November 29, 2006, while he was actually suspended and not eligible to

~ractice law, Respondent filed an "Arbitration Statement" on behalf of Plaintiffs Schiff, Meixner

~runemann, and Osuna in United States District Court case numbers C-03-6345-MMC, C-04.

2261-MMC, and C-04-2262-MMC. In the Arbitration Statement, Respondent identified himsel!

~s the attorney for Schiff, Meixner, Bruneman, and Osuna. Respondent also wrote in the

Arbitration Statement that Meixner’s share of the aggregate settlement was $60,000.

30. By filing Arbitration Statement on behalf of Plaintiffs Schiff, Meixner, Bruneman, and

Osuna, Respondent held himself out to the United States District Court, to opposing counsel, and

Lo the arbitrator as entitled to practice law and Respondent actually practiced law when he was nol

an active member of the State Bar in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, sectiom,

i125 and 6126, and thereby failed to support the laws of the State of California.

COUNT THREE

Case No. 08-0-12927Business and Professions Code, section 6106

[Moral Turpitude: Knowing Unauthorized Practice Of Law]

31. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106, b

~ommitting an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows:

32. The allegations of Paragraphs 2-5, 7-23, and 25-30 are incorporated by reference.

-6-

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

’13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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~

tctually suspended and not entitled to practice law, Respondent committed an act, or acts

Involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.

COUNT FOUR


[Moral Turpitude: Misrepresentation]


by committing an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows:

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

ntended to pay her $10,000. By misrepresenting to Meixner that he intended to pay her $10,000,

~espondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

COUNT FIVE


[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

deixner.

-7-

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

43. By misappropriating $10,000 from Meixner, Respondent committed an act involving

noral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

COUNT SIX


[Moral Turpitude: Misappropriation]


~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

;1000 she paid in advance costs. Respondent told Meixner that he would refund the additional

;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

Vleixner. By misappropriating $1,000 from Meixner, Respondent committed an act involvin

noral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.

COUNT SEVEN

Case No. 08-0-12927Rules 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

14) by failing to promptly pay client funds as follows:

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

~r deliver, as requested by the client, any funds in Respondent’s possession that Meixner was

mtitled to receive.

///

///

-8-

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

COUNT EIGHT

Case No. 08-0-12927Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m)

[Failure To Respond To Client Inquiries]

53. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m), by

Failing to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client, as follows:

54. The allegations of paragraphs 2 through 40 and 45 and 46 are incorporated by

:eference.

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

~ddress: [email protected] asking Respondent when he was going to pay her the

additional $10,000. Meixner’s e-mail was not returned as undeliverable. Respondent never

’esponded to Meixner’s May 26, 2008 e-mail.

56. On or about June 2, 2008, Meixner sent an e-mail to Respondent asking if he had

’eceived her May 26 e-mail. Respondent did not respond to Meixner’s June 2, 2008 e-mail until

Iune 28, 2008 when he sent an e-mail to Meixner stating he had not received her May 26, 2008 e-

nail. On or about June 28, 2008, Meixner re-sent her May 26, 2008 e-mail to Respondent

~.espondent never responded to Meixner’s June 28, 2008 e-mail which included the May 26, 2008

,~-mail.

57. Meixner also attempted to speak with Respondent by telephone. On or about June 9

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

Meixner left a voicemail message for Respondent telling him she was still waiting for the

~10,000, for a refund of the additional $1,000 advance costs, and she asked Respondent to return

~er telephone message. Respondent never responded to Meixner’s telephone message left at his

~ffice telephone number.

58. On or about June 19, 2008, Meixner called Respondent’s cell phone number (213~

~.81-2675. Meixner was not able to speak with Respondent or leave a message. Instead, Meixnel

leard a recorded message stating that the number she dialed was not in service.

-9-

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

59. On or about June 30, 2008, Meixner called Respondent’s cell phone number again.

l’he cell phone number was back in service. Meixner left a message on Respondent’s cell phon~

¯ equesting he pay her the $10,000, that he refund to her the $1,000, and asking Respondent tc

¯ eturn her telephone message. Respondent never responded to this telephone message.

60. On or about June 30, 2008, after leaving a message on Respondent’s cell phone..

vleixner called Respondent’s office and was told he was not in. Meixner left a voice mail

nessage on Respondent’s office telephone requesting that he pay her the $10,000, that he refund

~er the $1,000, and that he respond to her telephone message. Respondent did not retur~

vleixner’s telephone message.

61. By, failing to respond to Meixner’s telephone calls and e-mails, Respondent failed to

’espond promptly to Meixner’s reasonable status inquiries.

COUNT NINE

Case No. 08-0-12927Business 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

!ailing to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent, as

!ollows:

63. The allegations of paragraphs 2 through 5 and 7 through 60 are incorporated by

’eference.

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

an investigation opened pursuant to a complaint filed by Meixner ("Meixner Complaint").

65. On or about September 17, 2008, a State Bar investigator wrote to Respondent again

regarding Meixner’s Complaint.

66. On or about December 22, 2008, a State Bar investigator wrote to Respondent a third

time regarding Meixner’s Complaint.

67. The investigator’s letters dated August 19, 2008, September 17, 2008, and Decembel

22, 2008 requested that Respondent respond in writing to specified allegations of misconducl

-10-

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

9eing investigated by the State Bar concerning Meixner’s Complaint. Respondent did no

~espond to the investigator’s letters or otherwise communicate with the investigator.

68. By not providing any written response to the State Bar investigator’s three letters oi

9therwise cooperating with the State Bar in the investigation of Meixner’s Complaint, Responden!

Failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation.

COUNT TEN


[Failure to Support Laws - Unauthorized Practice]

69. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a), by

advertising or holding himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing

law when he was not an active member of the State Bar in violation of Business and Profession.,

Code, sections 6125 and 6126, as follows:


71. On or about March 14, 2008, the State Bar’s Membership Records office senl

~espondent a letter titled "Notice of Intent to Suspend Bar Membership for Failure to Pay Cout~

3rdered Child or Family Support". The March 14, 2008 letter was sent to Respondent’s State Ba~

~fficial membership records address. The letter informed Respondent that he would be suspendec

~rom the practice of law effective August 16, 2008 unless a release had "been generated by the

~ppropriate local Child Support agency and received from them by the Membership Records

3epartment of the State Bar of California by 5 pm on Friday August 15, 2008." Respondent

~eceived the letter.

72. On or about May 30, 2008, the State Bar’s Membership Records office sent

?~espondent a letter titled "Second Notice of Intent to Suspend Bar Membership for Failure to Pay

2ourt Ordered Child or Family Support". The May 30, 2008 letter was sent to Respondent’s

afficial State Bar membership records address. The letter informed Respondent that he would be

~uspended from the practice of law effective August 16, 2008 unless a release had "been

generated by the appropriate local Child Support agency and received from them by the

-11-

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

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

?~espondent’s failure to pay court ordered child support. On or about August 20, 2008, the State

Bar’s membership records office properly served a copy of this Order on Respondent at hisState

Bar membership records address. On August 16, 2008, the Supreme Court’s Order suspending

Respondent from the practice of law became effective. Respondent remained suspended until

September 17, 2008 when he was reinstated to active status.

74. On or about August 22, 2008, while Respondent was actually suspended and nol

eligible to practice law, Respondent filed a Complaint for Damages in the United States Districl

Court, Central District of California, entitled Robert Townsend v. Akami Technologie, Inc.,

Nellymoser, Inc., et al., Case No. CV08-05534 MMM (FFMx) ("Townsend Lawsuit"). In the

[’ownsend Complaint for Damages, Respondent identified himself as the attorney for Plaintiff

~obert Townsend.

75. On or about September 16, 2008, attorney Peter Kelman, counsel for defendanl

qellymoser, Inc. sent a letter to the United States District Court with a copy of the letter tc

.~espondent informing the Court and Respondent that, at the time Respondent filed the Townsenc

2omplaint, Respondent was actually suspended and not eligible to practice law. Responden~

:eceived attorney Kelman’s letter.

76. On or about September 4, 2008, the United States District Court filed an "Order To

3how Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction"

~"OSC"). On or about September 18, 2008, while Respondent was actually suspended and no!

,~ligible to practice law, Respondent filed a document on behalf of Plaintiff Robert Townsend

entitled "Plaintiff Robert Townsend’s Response To The Court’s Order To Show Cause Re Subjec!

Matter Jurisdiction" ("Response"). In the Response, Respondent identified himself as the attorney

for Plaintiff Robert Townsend.

-12-

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

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

~s entitled to practice law and actually practiced law when he was not an active member of the

State Bar in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, sections 6125 and 6126, and

Ihereby failed to support the laws of the State of California.

COUNT ELEVEN



78. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106, by


79. The allegations of Paragraphs 2 through 5 and 70 through 76 are incorporated by

’eference.

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

.he Townsend Lawsuit, Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that he wa.,

~ctually suspended and not eligible to practice law.

81. By filing the Townsend Complaint for Damages and the Response to the OSC when

le knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that he was actually suspended and not entitled

:o practice law, Respondent committed an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or

~orruption.

COUNT TWELVE

Case No. 08-0-13850Business 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

failing to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent, as

follows:

83. The allegations of Paragraphs 2-5 and 70 through 80 are incorporated by reference.

-13-

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

84. On or about September 15, 2008, the State Bar opened an investigation, case no. 08-O-

3850, 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 investigator’s letters requested that Respondent respond in writing to the

~llegations in the letters dated September 15, 2008, November 13, 2008, and December 22, 2008

.n the UPL matter. Respondent did not respond to the investigator’s letters or otherwise

~ommunicate with the investigator.

88. By not providing a written response to the allegations in the UPL matter or otherwise

rooperating in the investigation of the UPL matter, Respondent failed to cooperate in

~lisciplinary investigation.

COUNT THIRTEEN




~dvertising or holding himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing

law when he was not an active member of the State Bar in violation of Business and Professions


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~

Court case number S164208 suspending Respondent from the practice of law as a result ot

Respondent’s failure to pay State Bar membership fees. The Supreme Court’s Order became

effective on July 1, 2008. Respondent remained suspended until August 1, 2008 when he was

einstated to active status following payment of his State Bar membership fees.

-14-

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

92. On or about June 18, 2008, the State Bar’s 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.

rose number 08-CV-04038" (the "Spearmint Rhino Case").

96. On or about August 17, 2008, while Respondent was actually suspended and no

fligible to practice law, Respondent filed a "Request To Enter Default Against Defendant Score’

in case number 08-CV-04038 ("Request To Enter Default"). In the Request To Enter Default

Respondent identified himself as the attorney for Plaintiffs in the Spearmint Rhino Case.

97. On or about September 22, 2008, while Respondent was actually suspended and no

;ligible to practice law, Respondent filed a "Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Olympic Avenue Venture.

nc.’s Motion To Dismiss..." ("Opposition"). In the Opposition, Respondent identified himself a:

:he attorney for Plaintiffs in the Spearmint Rhino Case.

98. On or about March 3, 2009, while Respondent was actually suspended and not eligible

:o practice law, Respondent filed a Second Amended Complaint in case number CV-0403~

"Second Amended Complaint"). In the Second Amended Complaint, Respondent identifiec

fimself as the attorney for the Plaintiffs in the Spearmint Rhino Case.

99. By filing the Request To Enter Default, the Opposition, and the Second Amended

Complaint in the Spearmint Rhino Case while he was actually suspended and not eligible to

~racrice law, Respondent held himself out to the court as entitled to practice law and actually

~racticed law when he was not an active member of the State Bar in willful violation of Business

-15-

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

tnd Professions Code, sections 6125 and 6126, and thereby failed to support the laws of the State

~f California.

COUNT FOURTEEN




:ommitting an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows:

The allegations of paragraphs 2 through 5 and 90 through 98 are incorporated by101.

’eference.

102. Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that when he filed th~

~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

2omplaint in the Spearmint Rhino Case when he knew or was grossly negligent in not knowin~

hat he was actually suspended and not eligible to practice law, Respondent committed an act, o~

tcts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.

COUNT FIFTEEN

Case No. 08-0-14467Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i)[Failure to Cooperate In State Bar Investigation]


!ailing to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation pending against Respondent, as

bllows:

105.

’eference.

106.

’egarding case number

)ewitt.

The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 5 and 90 through 102 are incorporated by

On or about December 8, 2008, a State Bar investigator wrote to Respondenl

08-0-14467 opened pursuant to a complaint filed by attorney Clyde

-16-

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

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

’egarding case 08-0-14467.

108. The investigator’s letters dated December 8, 2008 and January 2, 2009 asked

~espondent to respond in writing to specified allegations of misconduct being investigated by the

]tate Bar in case 08-0-14467. Respondent did not respond to the State Bar investigator’s two

etters or otherwise communicate with the investigator.

109. By not providing a written response to the allegations in case 08-0-14467 matter

~r otherwise cooperating in the investigation of case 08-0-14467, Respondent failed to cooperate

n a disciplinary investigation.

COUNT SIXTEEN


[Failure to Obey a Court Order]

1 I0. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6103, by

,¢illfully disobeying or violating an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act

~onnected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to do or

brbear, as follows:

The allegations of paragraphs 2 through 5 and 90 through 107 are incorporated by111.

’eference.

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

~espondent to pay $1,480 in attorneys’ fees no later than April 17, 2009 to Defendant Olympic

Avenue Venture Inc ("OAV"), one of the defendants in the Spearmint Rhino Case.

113. On or about April 16, 2009, Respondent filed a motion seeking a 60-day

;xtension of the April 17, 2009 deadline. The court granted Respondent’s motion in part and set a

aew deadline of May 7, 2009 for Respondent to pay the sanction. The Court also granted OAV’s

motion for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $4,141.42. The Court ordered Respondent to pay the

~anctions and attorney’s fees by May 7, 2009. Respondent was required to pay a total ol

;5,621.42 no later than May 7, 2009 to OAV.

-17-

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

114. Respondent failed to pay the court ordered sanctions and attorney’s fees by the

Vlay 7, 2009 deadline. OAV requested further relief from the Court, including a finding ot

: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

ais response no later than May 29, 2009 why he should not be held in contempt. Respondent did

aot file a response to the OSC by May 29, 2009. Instead, Respondent filed a response on or aboul

Iune 1, 2009. In his response, Respondent claimed that he should not be held in contempl

~ecause it was impossible for him to pay the sanctions and attorneys’ fees. The court rejected

~espondent’s claim that it was impossible for him to pay the sanctions and attorneys’ fees. The

2ourt ordered Respondent to pay a minimum of $50 per month to OAV starting September 1

~.009 until the sanctions were paid in full. In addition, the Court ordered Respondent to pay a~

~dditional $2,032.54 to OAV for costs and attorneys’ fees.

116. Respondent failed to make the first payment on September 1, 2009 as ordered by

he Court. On September 21, 2009, the Court found Respondent in contempt of court and ordered

~(espondent deliver by hand the payment to OAV by September 23, 2009, or to self-surrender tc

~he U.S. Marshal’s office. Respondent made the payment. The Court also ordered Respondent tc

aotify the Court by the third day of each month of payments being made.

117. On November 3, 2009, the Court issued a bench warrant for Respondent’s arresl

~ecause Respondent did not notify the Court by the third day of November of the payment being

nade.

118. By failing to obey orders of the Court to pay sanctions and attomeys’ fees:

~espondent willfully disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear a~

~ct connected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to dc

~r forbear.

///

///

-18-

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

COUNT SEVENTEEN




~dvertising or holding himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing

law when he was not an active member of the State Bar in violation of Business and Professions


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 Respondent’s failure to pay State Bar membership fees. On or about June 18, 2008, the Stat~

Bar’s membership records office properly served a copy of this order on the Respondent at hi.,

3tate Bar membership records address. Respondent remained suspended until he paid his fee.,

md was reinstated to active status on or about August 1, 2008.

122. On or about July 19, 2008, while Respondent was actually suspended and no~

.~ligible to practice law, Respondent served attorney Peter Garrell with the summons an~

:omplaint in the Spearmint Rhino Case. On or about the same date, Respondent met an~

:onferred with attorney Peter Garrell. In that meet and confer, Respondent identified himself

;he attorney for the Plaintiffs in the Spearmint Rhino Case.

123. On or about July 30, 2008, while Respondent was actually suspended and no~

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

md confer, Respondent identified himself as the attorney for Plaintiffs in the Spearmint Rhinc

Ease.

124. On or about August 17, 2008, while Respondent was actually suspended and nol

.~ligible to practice law, he met and conferred with attorney Peter Garrell. In that meet and confer.

Respondent identified himself as the attorney for the Plaintiffs in the Spearmint Rhino case.

-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




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. 09-0-12229Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i)[Failure to Cooperate in State Bar Investigation]


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-

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

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

~ase number 09-0-12229 opened pursuant to a complaint filed by attorney Peter Garrell. The

letter was sent to Respondent’s State Bar Membership Records address, however the letter was

:eturned with "Return to Sender" stamped on it, and the word "moved" handwritten below that.

133. On or about November 9, 2009, a State Bar investigator wrote to Respondenl

~gain regarding case 09-0-12229. The letter was sent to Respondent’s updated State Bat

membership Records address.

134. The investigator’s letters requested that Respondent respond in writing te

~ecified allegations of misconduct being investigated by the State Bar in case 09-0-12229.

Respondent did not respond to the investigator’s letters dated June 8, 2009 and November 9, 2009

3r otherwise communicate with the investigator.

135. By not providing a written response to the State Bar investigator’s letters dated

lune 8, 2009 and November 9, 2009, or otherwise cooperating in the investigation of case numbe~

99-0-12229, Respondent failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation.

COUNT TWENTY

Case No. 09-0-12229Business and Professions Code, section 60680)

[Failure to Update Membership Address]

136. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(j), b)

failing to comply with the requirements of section 6002.1, which requires a member of the State

Bar to maintain on the official membership records of the State Bar, the member’s current office

address and telephone number or, if no office is maintained, the address to be used for State Bat

~urposes or purposes of the agency charged with attorney discipline, as follows:

137. The allegations of paragraph 131 are incorporated by reference.

138. On or about September 28, 2009, Respondent notified the membership records

~ffice of the State Bar of the change in his official membership records address.

139. By waiting more than thirty days to notify the State Bar of the change in hi.,

)fficial membership records address, Respondent failed to maintain on the official membershil:

-21-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

I5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

naintained, the address to be used for State Bar purposes.

COUNT TWENTY-ONE



140. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a), b3

idvertising or holding himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing

~aw when he was not an active member of the State Bar in violation of Business and Professions

2ode, sections 6125 and 6126, as follows:

141. On or about March 7, 2009, Respondent was ordered placed on inactive status ant

aot eligible to practice law pursuant to Business and Professions Code 6007(e). Respondent was

aot returned to active status until on or about February 4, 2011.

142. On or about April 29, 2009, while Respondent was on inactive status and not

,~ligible to practice law, Respondent telephoned Patrick Baghdaserians ("Baghdaserians"), the

3pposing counsel in Stanley Luckhardt v. Wai Yee Chanson, Case number BD482412 (the

’Chanson Case"), and le~ a message making a settlement offer. In that telephone message,

Respondent identified himself as the attorney Plaintiff in the Chanson Case.

143. On or about April 30, 2009, a hearing was held in the Chanson Case on an Order

1"o Show Cause ("OSC") for Respondent’s contempt resulting from, inter alia, Respondent’.,

practicing of law while he was on inactive status. The Court continued the OSC. At the continue~

aearing of the OSC, the Court ordered Respondent sanctioned for practicing law while he was on

inactive status and not eligible to practice law.

144. By contacting Baghdaserians and making a settlement offer on behalf of Plaintiff in the

,2hanson Case, Respondent held himself out to the court as entitled to practice law and actually

~racticed law when he was not an active member of the State Bar in willful violation of Business

tnd Professions Code, sections 6125 and 6126, and thereby failed to support the laws of the State

3f California.

-22-

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

COUNT TWENTY-TWO






147. Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that he was on inactiw

;tatus and not eligible to practice law when he contacted Baghdaserians and made a settlement

)ffer on behalf of Plaintiff in the Chanson Case.

148. By contacting Baghdaserians and making a settlement offer on behalf of thd

?laintiff in the Chanson Case when he knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that he wa.,

)n inactive status and not eligible to practice law, Respondent committed an act, or acts.

.nvolving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.

COUNT TWENTY THREE


[Failure to Obey a Court Order]


arillfully disobeying or violating an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act

:ormected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to do or

Forbear, as follows:

150. On or about February 28, 2009, Respondent was actually suspended and not

.-ligible to practice law. On or about February 4, 2011, Respondent was returned to active status.

151. On or about July 29, 2009, the United State District Court for the Northern

District of California ordered Respondent removed from the roll of attorneys authorized to

gractice before that court ("Removal Order"). On July 29, 2009, the Court served the Removal

3rder on Respondent by United States Mail at his official membership records address.

-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 grossly

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



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 Court’s Removal Order.

-24-

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

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

when he was not an active member of the State Bar in willful violation of Business and

Professions Code, sections 6125 and 6126, and thereby failed to support the laws of the State ol

California.

158.

COUNT TWENTY-FIVE



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.

The allegations of paragraphs 2 through 5 and 148 through 157 are incorporated

Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that he was actually

;uspended and not eligible to practice law both because of his actual suspension and because ot

he Court’s Removal Order.

161. By filing the Notice of Association of Counsel and by appearing on behalf oJ

~laintiff Frederick Schiff in the SchiffLawsuits when Respondent knew or was grossly negligenl

n not knowing that he was actually suspended and not eligible to practice law, Respondenl

:ommitted an act, or acts, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.

COUNT TWENTY-SIX

Case No. 10-N-01771California 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

2ourt, by willfully disobeying an order of the Supreme Court of the State of California as follows:

163. On or about November 10, 2009, the Supreme Court of the State of Californie

7lled a disciplinary order in case number S176295 (hereinafter, the "Order") based on State Bm

:ase number 08-0-10265.

III

-25-

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 BARCOURT FINDS, PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODESECTION 6007(c), THAT YOUR CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIALTHREAT OF HARM TO THE INTERESTS OF YOUR CLIENTS OR TOTHE PUBLIC, YOU MAY BE INVOLUNTARILY ENROLLED AS ANINACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR. YOUR INACTIVEENROLLMENT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO ANY DISCIPLINERECOMMENDED BY THE COURT.

-26-

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DATED:

NOTICE - COST ASSESSMENT!

IN THE EVENT THESE PROCEDURES RESULT IN PUBLICDISCIPLINE, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTSINCURRED BY THE STATE BAR IN THE INVESTIGATION, HEARINGAND REVIEW OF THIS MATTER PURSUANT TO BUSINESS ANDPROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.10.

Respectfully submitted,

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIAOFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

June 17, 2011

Deputy Trial Counsel

-27-

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 CERTIFIED MAIL

CASE NUMBERS: 08-0-12927; 08-0-13850; 08-0-14467; 09-0-12229; 09-0-12297; 10-N-01771; 10-O-02693; 10-O-06416

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

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. Manshardt259 Fremont Ave.Monterey Park, CA 91754

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 ~hown below.

Ilka LarischDeclarant

-1-

disbarrment charges

Documents