Complaint Review: LAW OFFICE OF JORDAN MORGENSTERN - South Lake Tahoe California

CLICK ON THIS LINK TO READ THE FULL DOC:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/10-O-00070.pdf

PLEASE GO TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE BAR WEBSITE AND PUT IN JORDAN MORGENSTERNS NAME, SCROLL DOWN AND READ THE PDF HEARING FILE!

State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

San Francisco

Case Number (s)

10-O-00070 [10-O-00071;

10-O-00077; 10-O-04549]

P J LIC

DEC 1 6 2010

STATEBAR COURT CLERK’S OFFICE

SAN FRANCISCO

In the Matter Of: Jordan Morgenstern

Bar # 134046

Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be

provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific

headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.

A. Parties’ Acknowledgments:

(1) Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted June 14, 1988.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or

disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.

All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by

this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The

stipulation consists of 10 pages, not including the order.

A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included

under "Facts."

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

Law".

The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading

"Supporting Authority."

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Case No. 10-O-00070 (The Mata matter)

Facts

1. On October 23, 2008, respondent was hired by Hector Mata ("Mata") to represent Mata in a criminal

matter. On the same date, Mata paid respondent $35,000.00 as advanced fees.

2. On July 3, 2009, Mata sent a letter to respondent requesting an accounting. Soon thereafter, respondent

received Mata’s July 3, 2009 letter, but failed to provide an accounting.

3. It was not until April 16, 2010, and only after the State Bar became involved in the matter, that

respondent provided an accounting to Mata for the $35,000.00 paid as advanced fees.

Conclusions of Law

By failing to provide an accounting of his fees to Mata for more than nine months after one was requested,

respondent failed to render appropriate accounts to a client regarding all funds coming into respondent’s

possession in willful violation of rule 4-100(B)(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Case No. 10-O-00071 (The Allasia matter)

Facts

1. On August 5, 2009, respondent was hired by John Allasia ("Allasia") to represent Allasia in a civil

matter. On the same date, Allasia paid respondent $2,000.00 as advanced fees in the civil matter.

2. As of August 27, 2009, respondent had not earned any portion of the $2,000.00 paid as advanced fees by

Allasia. On August 27, 2009, Allasia sent a letter to respondent terminating respondent’s services and

requested a refund of unearned fees. Soon thereafter, respondent received Allasia’s August 27, 2009 letter,

but failed to provide a refund of unearned fees.

3. It was not until February 9, 2010, and only after the State Bar became involved in the matter, that

respondent refunded $2,000.00 in unearned fees to Allasia.

Conclusions of Law

By failing to refund $2,000.00 in unearned fees to Allasia for more than five months after Allasia first

requested the refund, respondent failed to promptly refund unearned fees in willful violation of rule

3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

(Form

Case No. 10-0-00077 (The Bott matter)

Facts

1. On April 26, 2004, respondent was hired by Maya Bott ("Bott") to represent Bott in a marital dissolution

matter. On the same date, Bott paid respondent $5,000.00 as advanced fees in the marital dissolution

matter.

2. On April 27, 2004, one day after hiring respondent, Bott decided not to proceed with the marital

dissolution. On the same date, Bott terminated respondent’s services and requested a refund of unearned

fees. As of April 27, 2004, respondent had not earned any portion of the $5,000.00 paid as advanced fees

by Bott. Respondent received notice of Bott’s request for a refund of unearned fees soon after it was made,

but failed to refund any portion of the $5,000.00 to Bott.

3. On September 7, 2007, Bott sent a letter to respondent again requesting a refund of the $5,000.00 in

unearned fees. Soon thereafter, respondent received the September 7, 2007 letter, but failed to refund any

portion of the $5,000.00 to Bott.

4. It was not until March 24, 2008, and only after the State Bar became involved in the matter, that

respondent refunded $5,000.00 in unearned fees to Bott.

Conclusions of Law

By failing to refund $5,000.00 in unearned fees to Bott for approximately four years after Bott first

requested a refund, respondent failed to promptly refund unearned fees in willful violation of rule

3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Case No. 10-0-04549 (The Rogers matter)

Facts

1. On May 29, 2007, respondent was hired by Brenda and James Rogers ("the Rogers") to represent them

with planning/zoning issues against the city of South Lake Tahoe. At the time of hire, respondent knew that

the Rogers had not exhausted their administrative remedies on the planning/zoning issues. Respondent also

knew that the Rogers were not time-barred from pursuing administrative remedies. However, instead of

taking any action to pursue administrative remedies on behalf of the Rogers, respondent filed a civil

complaint in the matter, Rogers v. City of South Lake Tahoe, E1 Dorado Superior Court Case No.

SC20080086 ("civil matter").

2. Thereafter, the defendants in the civil matter filed a demurrer to the complaint based on respondent’s

failure to state a cause of action. Respondent then filed a first amended complaint, second amended

complaint and third amended complaint in the civil matter. The defendants filed demurrers to each

amended complaint based on respondent’s failure to state a cause of action. On April 17, 2009, the court in

the civil matter sustained the defendant’s demurrer to the third amended complaint without leave to amend

based on respondent’s failure to state a cause of action.

(Do not write above this line.)

4. On April 29, 2009, the Rogers sent a letter to respondent terminating his services and requesting return of

their client file. Soon thereafter, respondent received the April 29, 2009 letter and returned a portion of the

client file to Rogers. At that time, respondent failed to return the entire client file to the Rogers.

5. It was not until November 2010, that respondent returned the entire client file to the Rogers.

Conclusions of Law

1. By failing to take any action to pursue administrative remedies on behalf of the Rogers, and by failing to

state a cause of action in the complaint and the first, second and third amended complaints, which resulted

in the loss of his clients’ case, respondent intentionally, recklessly and repeatedly failed to perform legal

services with competence in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

2. By failing to promptly return the entire client file to the Rogers, respondent failed to release promptly,

upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property

in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.