 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Wells12/5/2005
PUBLIC MATTER -- DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
OPINION ON REVIEW
Respondent, Stephine M. Wells, was admitted to the practice of law in California in 1984. In 1996, respondent moved to South Carolina, and while a resident there, she practiced law without a license. Although respondent's unauthorized practice of law is of serious concern, we are perhaps even more concerned with her overreaching of her clients and her dishonesty with officials in both California and South Carolina, who were responsible for investigating her misconduct.
The hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence that respondent was culpable of two counts of violating California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300, subdivision (B), which prohibits the practice of law in another jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation of that jurisdiction's regulation of the profession. In addition, the hearing judge determined that respondent was culpable of charging an illegal fee, failing to return unearned fees, failing to maintain funds in a trust account, and three acts of misconduct involving moral turpitude. The hearing judge recommended that respondent be placed on probation for two years, with conditions, including six months' actual suspension. Both respondent and the State Bar appeal.
We review the record de novo (In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 207), although we give great weight to the credibility determinations made by the hearing judge, who saw and heard the parties testify. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 305(a); Franklin v. State Bar (1986) 41 Cal.3d 700, 708.) Based upon the record, including the parties' stipulations, the exhibits and the testimony in the hearing below, we adopt most of the hearing judge's findings, with modifications that ultimately do not affect the degree of discipline recommended. Accordingly, we recommend that respondent be suspended for two years, stayed, with two years' probation on the condition she be actually suspended forsix months and until respondent pays restitution equal to the amount of the fees collected, plus interest, for her unauthorized legal representation of Lance Amyotte and Hana Odeh in South Carolina. We believe this discipline is adequate to protect the public, the courts, and the profession.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Respondent has practiced law in California since 1984. The focus of respondent's practice has been employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e et seq.) (Title VII). She has one prior discipline in 1993, a private reproval, formisconduct in a one-client matter involving commingling personal funds in a client trust account, and in a second matter where she represented a client without a retainer agreement, and failed to place a disputed fee in her client trust account.
In August of 1996, respondent moved to Lake Wylie, South Carolina, and bought a home after her marriage to Calvin Moragne. She considered Lake Wylie her "home base," although she spent a significant amount of time commuting to San Francisco, where she continued to represent clients.
After she moved to Lake Wylie, respondent practiced employment law from her home until it became too crowded for her to continue there. In June or July of 1999 she rented space in a building close to her home, which she claims she used only as her "administrative office." However, respondent and two clerical personnel used the office on a regular basis, and the two complaining witnesses testified they were interviewed at length by respondent in this office in connection with their respective employment discrimination cases. In addition to maintaining the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|