Document for PULL VS MITTS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ononn Oa FF WwW DY =

wo MO NY NY YS YB YP KY KY FS FS |= SF SF SF Fs BF SF S
on oa fF WH |= OG OG DAN DOWD aA KF WOW DHS |= CO

Frederick C. Kumpel, SBN 122073

P. O. Box 2659

Bakersfield, CA 93303

[physical: 6116 Castleton Street
Bakersfield, CA 93313]

Telephone: fen 599-9078

E-mail: fredkumpel@sbcglobal.net

Attorney for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT - STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF KERN - METROPOLITAN DIVISION

Case No. BCV-20-100157 DRL

Theresa Pull,
Plaintiff, STATE BAR OPINION & ORDER
EXHIBITS; AVAILABLE ON STATE
vs. BAR WEBSITE
[Willful Harm Finding]

we

Gregory H. Mitts aka Gregory Henrick
Mitts; DOES 1 to 12,

inclusive, Request to Enter Court Judgment
(Default / Court Judgment)

Defendants.

anew

[State Bar Opinion issued on January 18, 2019]

Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the State Bar Opinion issued on
or about January 18, 2019. Also attached is the “face page” for Gregory Henrick Mitts
which indicates that Mr. Mitts is not eligible to practice law. Also attached is a copy of
the Supreme Court order dated December 2021 suspending Mitts from the practice of
law for two (2) years. All of these exhibits are available to the public on the State Bar
of California website.

Business & Professions Code Secion 6068(m) states:

It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following:

(m) To respond prerpty to reasonable status inquiries of clients and to keep clients
reasonably informed of significant developments in matters with regard to which the attomey
has agreed to provide legal services.

STATE BAR EXHIBITS 1 - DEFAULT JUDGMENT - Pull v. Mitts, et al, © BC\V-20-100157omMOmn Oo FF Ww HY =

=a 32 a ew a a
a &F WwW NY = CO

1
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Oo

At pages 6 and 7 of the State Bar Courts Amended Decision, dated January 18,
2019, the State Bar Court states:

Case unber 16-0-17706 — The Pull Matter
‘ac
Respondent [Mitts] agreed to provide legal services to Edward’ and
Theresa Pull. The Pulls hired Respondent [Mitts] to represent them in a case
entitled Edward and Theresa Pull v. Cruise Air Aviation, Kern County Superior
Court Case No. CV283527. Cruise Air aviation filed a motion for summary
judgement, but Respondent [Mitts] did not file an opposition. The Kern
County superior court granted the motion and dismissed the Pulls’ lawsuit.
Respondent [Mitts] never informed the Pulls that Cruise Air Aviation had filed
a motion for summary judgment, that he failed to oppose the motion, that the
puperior court granted the motion and that the court dismissed the Pulls’
jawsuit.
Conclusions
County Six - (Sec. 6068, subd. (m) [Failure to Inform Client of Significant
Developments, |
CTC [Office of Chief Trial Council] charged Respondent [Mitts] with
willfully violating [Business and Professions Code] section 6068, subdivision
m) by failing to keep his client’s [sic] informed of significant developments.
‘espondent [Mitts] never informed the Pulls about the following: 10 the
opposing party in their lawsuit filed a motion for summraly judgment; 20
Respondent never opposed the motion for summary judgment; 30 the
superior court granted the motion; and 4) the superior court dismissed the
Pulls’ lawsuit. Respondent admitted to and the court finds that
Respondent [Mitts] is culpable of willfully violating section 6068,
subdivision (m). [Bold added.]

The willful violation of is not just negligence — it is a willful and intentional act on the part

of Mitts which cause compensable damage and harm to plaintiff.
DITED : Feanvany Bb 2022

‘Edward Pull passed away on December 18, 2017.

STATE BAR EXHIBITS 1 - DEFAULT JUDGMENT - Pull v. Mitts, et al, © BCV-20-100157

2sof oe

= tale alate dekewiktag ©

| 241 071 022

FT
PUBLIC MATTER JAN to

PB,

STATE BAR COURT

CLERK'S OFFICE
LOS ANGELES

STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES

In the Matter of ) Case Nos. 13-O-10003; 16-O-17706;
) 17-0-00498; 17-0-01636-CV
GREGORY HENRICK MITTS, )
) AMENDED DECISION
A Member of the State Bar, No. 71981. )
)
Intro: ion’

In this contested disciplinary proceeding, respondent Gregory Henrick Mitts
(Respondent) is charged with a total of 12 counts of misconduct involving three separate client
matters and a probation condition. Specifically, Respondent is charged with failing to perform
legal services with competence (rule 3-110(A) [two counts]); failing to respond to client
inquiries (§ 6068, subd. (m) [two counts)]); failing to inform client of significant developments
(§ 6068, subd. (m) [two counts]); failing to render an accounting (rule 4-100(B)(3)); failing to
obey a court order (§ 6103); improper withdrawal from employment (rule 3-700(A)(2)); failing
to refund unearned fees (rule 3-700(D)(2)); failing to release a client file (rule 3-700(D)(1)); and
moral turpitude (§ 6106). After careful consideration, the court finds Respondent committed 11

ethical violations.

Unless otherwise indicated, all references to rules refer to the State Bar Rules of
Professional Conduct. Furthermore, all statutory references are to the Business and Professions
Code unless otherwise indicated.In his Answer filed on February 7, 2018, Respondent admitted to culpability as to the
first eleven of the twelve counts. “lIt is well established that a judicial admission in a pleading is
a “conclusive concession of the truth of a matter and has the effect of removing it from the
issues.” (Walker v. Dorn (1966) 240 Cal. App. 2d 118, 120.) Given the judicial admission, this
court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is culpable of the misconduct in
those eleven counts. Moreover, this court finds Respondent culpable of count twelve.

Based on the facts and circumstances, as well as the applicable aggravating and
mitigating factors, the court recommends, among other things, that Respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for six months.

ificant ural Hi

The Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California (OCTC) initiated this
proceeding by filing a notice of disciplinary charges (NDC) against Respondent on December
20, 2017. Thereafter, Respondent filed a response to the NDC on February 7, 2018.

On May 8, 2018, OCTC filed a motion to modify or withdraw the approved stipulation
regarding facts, conclusions of law and disposition. On May 23, 2018, Respondent filed an
opposition stating that no good cause existed for modifying or withdrawing the motion, to which
OCTC replied on May 29, 2018. On June 1, 2018, the court granted OCTC’s motion to
withdraw the stipulation. On June 1, 2018, Respondent filed a petition for interlocutory review
of the June 1, 2018 order in the Review Department, asserting that the court acted without good
cause and that the court abused its discretion. The Review Department denied the petition on
June 22, 2018.

On August 20, 2018, Respondent made an oral motion to continue the trial in this matter
that was set for August 23, 2018. OCTC did not oppose Respondent’s motion. The court

granted the motion and continued the trial to September 18, 2018.

-2-On August 20, 2018, OCTC filed a request for the court to take judicial notice of the
NDC and Respondent’s Answer, wherein Respondent admitted “the charges alleged” in the
NDC, with the exception of the charges alleged in Count Twelve. On September 13, 2018,
Respondent filed an opposition to the motion, alleging that his answer was filed based on
settlement negotiation discussions. This court granted the request for judicial notice on
September 17, 2018.

A one-day trial was held in this matter on September 18, 2018. The matter was submitted
for decision on that same date. The parties filed closing briefs on October 2, 2018, and OCTC
filed a Motion to Strike Respondent’s Closing Argument Brief on October 4, 2018. Respondent
did not oppose the motion.”

‘indin: Fact ani lusions of Law

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in California on June 2, 1972, and has
been a member of the State Bar of California at all times since that date.
Case Number 13-O-10003 — The Brooks Matter

Facts

On March 25, 2010, Rowan Brooks employed Respondent to prepare and file a petition
for writ of habeas corpus on Brooks’s behalf. Brooks paid Respondent $40,000 in advanced
fees. Brooks reminded Respondent in writing about the deadline to file the petition. Respondent
filed an untimely petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Brooks,° but Respondent never

informed Brooks that the petition was not timely filed.

? Good cause having been shown, OCTC’s motion, filed October 2, 2018, to strike parts
of Respondent’s closing brief is granted. Page 1, line 2 through page 3 line 5, and page 3 line 10
through page 7, line 1 of Respondent's closing brief are stricken. IT IS SO ORDERED.

> The case was entitled Brooks v. James Yates, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, case No. 1:11-cv-01315-LJO-JLT.

33sAn August 15, 2011 court order directed Respondent to show cause why Brooks’s
untimely petition should not be dismissed as untimely. Respondent failed to respond to the
district court order. Respondent never informed Brooks about the order to show cause, and that
he failed to respond to the order.

Between May 2011 and August 2011, Brooks made 11 written status inquiries to
Respondent about the petition for writ of habeas corpus that Respondent was hired to file. The
inquiries were reasonable. In addition, on October 12, 2012, Brooks requested an accounting of
the $40,000 in advanced attorney’s fees. Respondent did not promptly respond to any of
Brooks’s status inquiries and did not provide Brooks with an appropriate accounting.

Conclusions
Count One - (Rule 3-110(A) [Failure to Perform Legal Services with Competence])

OCTC charged Respondent with willfully violating rule 3-110(A) by failing to file a
timely petition for writ of habeas corpus on Brooks’s behalf and failing to respond to an order to
show cause why the untimely petition should not be dismissed as untimely. Rule 3-110(A)
provides that an attorney must not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly fail to perform legal
services with competence. Respondent failed to file a timely habeas corpus petition and failed to
respond to a court’s order to show cause, Respondent admitted to and the court finds that
Respondent is culpable of the charges alleged in Count One.

Count Two - (§ 6068, subd. (m) [Failure to Communicate])

Respondent is charged with willfully violating section 6068, subdivision (m), by failing
to promptly respond to Brooks’s reasonable status inquires. Section 6068, subdivision (m),
provides that an attorney has a duty to promptly respond to reasonable status inquiries of clients
and to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments in matters with regard to

which the attorney has agreed to provide legal services. Brooks made 11 reasonable inquiries

4.about the status of the habeas petition Respondent was hired to file, but Respondent failed to
promptly respond to those inquiries. Respondent admitted to and the court finds that Respondent
is culpable of willfully violating section 6068, subdivision (m).
Count Three - (§ 6068, subd. (m) [Failure to Inform Client of Significant Development})
Respondent is charged with willfully violating section 6068, subdivision (m), by failing
to keep Brooks informed about significant developments concerning the petition for writ of
habeas corpus Respondent agreed to file on Brooks’s behalf. Respondent did not inform Brooks
about the following: 1) he failed to timely file a habeas petition on Brooks’s behalf; 2) the
district court issued an order to show cause why Brooks’s “late-filed” petition should not be
dismissed as untimely; and 3) that Respondent failed to respond to the court’s order to show
cause. Respondent admitted to and the court finds that Respondent is culpable of willfully
violating section 6068, subdivision (m).

Count Four - (Rule 4-100(B)(3) [Maintain Records of Client Property/Render Appropriate
Accounts)

OCTC charged Respondent with willfully violating rule 4-100(B)(3) by failing to render
an appropriate accounting to Brooks. Rule 4-100(B)(3) provides that an attorney must maintain
records of all client funds, securities, and other properties coming into the attorney’s possession
and render appropriate accounts to the client regarding such property. On October 10, 2012,
Brooks requested an accounting of the $40,000 in advanced fees he paid Respondent on March
25,2010. Respondent did not render an appropriate accounting to Brooks. Respondent admitted
to and the court finds that Respondent is culpable of willfully violating rule 4-100(B)(3).

Count Five - (§ 6103 [Failure to Obey a Court Order])

Respondent is charged with willfully violating section 6103 by failing to comply with the
district court’s August 15, 2011 order to show cause why the petition for writ of habeas corpus
filed in Brooks v. James Yates should not be dismissed as untimely. Section 6103 provides, in

5.pertinent part, that a willful disobedience or violation of a court order requiring an attorney to do
or forbear an act connected with or in the course of the attorney’s profession, which an attorney
ought in good faith to do or forbear, constitutes cause for suspension or disbarment. An
attorney’s knowledge of a final, binding order is an essential element of a section 6103 violation.
(in the Matter of Maloney and Virsik (Review Dept.2005) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 774, 787.)
Although Respondent did not file a response to the August 15, 2011 district court order, and
Respondent admitted that he committed the misconduct charged in Count Five, the NDC fails to
allege that Respondent received or had knowledge of the district court’s order. As such, the
court does not find Respondent culpable of willfully violating section 6103. Count Five is
dismissed with prejudice.
Case Number 16-O-17706 — The Pull Matter

Facts

Respondent agreed to provide legal services to Edward and Theresa Pull. The Pulls hired
Respondent to represent them in a case entitled Edward and Theresa Pull v. Cruise Air Aviation,
Kern County Superior Court case No. CV283527. Cruise Air Aviation filed a motion for
summary judgment, but Respondent did not file an opposition. The Kern County superior court
granted the motion and dismissed the Pulls’ lawsuit. Respondent never informed the Pulls that
Cruise Air Aviation had filed a motion for summary judgment, that he failed to oppose the
motion, that the superior court granted the motion, and that the court dismissed the Pulls’
lawsuit.

Conclusions
Count Six - (§ 6068, subd. (m) [Failure to Inform Client of Significant Development])

OCTC charged Respondent with willfully violating section 6068, subdivision (m) by

failing to keep his client’s informed of significant developments. Respondent never informed the

-6-Pulls about the following: 1) the opposing party in their lawsuit filed a motion for summary
judgment; 2) Respondent never opposed the motion for summary judgment; 3) the superior court
granted the motion; and 4) the superior court dismissed the Pulls’ lawsuit. Respondent admitted
to and the court finds that Respondent is culpable of willfully violating section 6068, subdivision
(m).

. Case Number 17-0-00498 — The Rodriguez Matter

Facts

On September 12, 2015, Leticia Rodriguez hired Respondent to draft and file a petition
for writ of habeas corpus on her behalf. On the same date, Rodriguez paid Resporident $1,000 in
advanced fees. Respondent failed to file a habeas petition or take any action on Rodriguez’s
behalf.

Between November 2, 2015, and March 22, 2017, Rodriguez made 27 telephonic and
three written status inquiries to Respondent about the petition for writ of habeas corpus that
Respondent was hired to file. The inquiries were reasonable. In addition, on March 22, 2017,
Rodriguez requested that Respondent return her client file. Respondent did not promptly
respond to any of Brooks’s status inquiries and did not promptly return Brooks’s file.

Conclusions
Count Seven ~ (Rule 3-110(A) [Failure to Perform Legal Services with Competence])

Respondent is charged with willfully violating rule 3-110(A) by failing to perform with
competence. Respondent never filed the writ of petition for habeas corpus that Rodriguez hired
Respondent to file on Rodriguez’s behalf. Respondent admitted to and the court finds that
Respondent is culpable of willfully violating rule 3-110(A).Count Eight - (§ 6068, subd. (m) [Failure to Communicate])

Rodriguez made 30 reasonable inquiries about the status of the habeas petition
Respondent was hired to file, but Respondent failed to promptly respond to those inquiries.
Respondent admitted to and the court finds that Respondent is culpable of willfully violating
section 6068, subdivision (m).

Count Nine - (Rule 3-700(A)(2) [Improper Withdrawal from Employment])

OCTC charged Respondent with willfully violating rule 3-700(A)(2) by improperly
withdrawing from employment. Rule 3-700(A)(2) prohibits an attorney from withdrawing from
employment until the attorney has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable
prejudice to the client’s rights, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for the
employment of other counsel, and complying with rule 3-700(D) and other applicable rules and
laws. After Rodriquez hired Respondent on September 12, 2015, Respondent abandoned
Rodriguez’s legal matter and never filed a habeas petition on her behalf, which was equivalent to
a constructive withdrawal. Respondent admitted to and the court finds that Respondent is
culpable of willfully violating rule 3-700(A)(2).

Count Ten - (Rule 3-700(D)(2) [Failure to Return Unearned Fees])

Respondent is charged with willfully violating rule 3-700(D)(2) by failing to promptly
refund $1,000 in advanced fees to Rodriguez. Rule 3-700(D)(2) requires an attorney, upon
termination of employment, to promptly refund any part of a fee paid in advance that has not
been earned. Respondent failed to file the habeas petition on Rodriguez’s behalf or perform any
legal services on her behalf. Thus, he did not earn any of the $1,000 advanced fee that
Rodriguez paid. Respondent’s employment was terminated by his constructive withdrawal,

which required him to promptly return the entire $1,000 to Rodriguez, but he failed to do so.

-8-Respondent admitted to and the court finds that Respondent is culpable of willfully violating rule
3-700(D)(2).
Count Eleven - (Rule 3-700(D)(1) [Failure to Return Client Papers/Property])

OCTC charged Respondent with willfully violating rule 3-700(D)(1) by failing to return
Rodriguez’s file upon her request once Respondent’s employment was terminated. Rule 3-
700(D)(1) requires an attorney, upon termination of employment, to promptly release to the
client, at the client's request, all client papers and property, subject to any protective order or
non-disclosure agreement. This includes pleadings, correspondence, exhibits, deposition
transcripts, physical evidence, expert's reports and other items reasonably necessary to the
client's representation, whether the client has paid for them or not. After Respondent
constructively withdrew from employment, Rodriguez requested her client file on March 22,
2017. Respondent failed to promptly return the file as requested. Respondent admitted to and
the court finds that Respondent is culpable of willfully violating rule 3-700(D)(1).

Case No. 17-O0-01636 ~ The Probation Matter

Facts

On March 25, 2010, Rowan Brooks hired Respondent to represent him in filing a petition
for review before in the California Supreme Court. Brooks executed a retainer agreement
wherein Brooks agreed to pay Respondent a $10,000 “non-refundable retainer fee, which [was]
earned upon receipt.”

On January 2, 2013, Respondent received from Brooks a letter dated October 10, 2012.
In the letter, Brooks requested an accounting and various documents that Respondent had in his
possession. Respondent sent Brooks a letter dated January 2, 2013, indicating that he intended to
send Brooks his entire client file. Respondent did not address Respondent's accounting tequest

and failed to provide Brooks with an accounting.

-9-Pursuant to a prior discipline in State Bar case No. 11-O-18523, Respondent was required
to submit a written quarterly report to the Office of Probation of the State Bar. Respondent
submitted his quarterly report on April 5, 2013. In his quarterly report, Respondent declared
under penalty of perjury that he was in compliance with all provisions of the State Bar Act and
Rules of Professional Conduct from January 1, 2013, through March 31, 2013. Respondent’s
statement was false because Brooks requested an accounting from Respondent on January 2,
2013, which Respondent failed to provide.

Respondent knew that he had not provided Brooks with an accounting, but believed that
Brooks was not owed an accounting because Brooks had signed a retainer agreement.
Respondent did not understand that his agreement with Brooks was not a “true retainer” —
Brooks had not paid Respondent to secure his availability over a certain period of time.
(Baranowski v. State Bar (1979) 24 Cal.3d 153, 164, fn. 4.) During the trial, OCTC stipulated
that Respondent was ignorant to the law of retainer agreements.

Conclusions
Count Twelve - (§ 6106 [Moral Turpitude])

OCTC charged Respondent with willfully violating section 6106 by engaging in an act of
moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption when he falsely reported under penalty of perjury to
the Office of Probation of the State Bar that he was in compliance with all of his ethical
obligations from January 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013. Section 6106 provides, in part, that
the commission of any act involving dishonesty, moral turpitude, or corruption constitutes cause
for suspension or disbarment, Respondent is culpable of willfully violating section 6106.

At the time Respondent signed and submitted his April 2013 quarterly report, Respondent
knew that he had not provided Brooks with an accounting as Brooks had requested. Respondent

claimed that he did not understand the laws of retainers or that his agreement with Brooks was

-10-not a “true retainer.” Respondent’s agreement with Brooks was not a true retainer; the money
was paid for specific legal services and not to secure Respondent’s availability for a given period
of time. (See 7’ & R Foods, Inc. v. Rose (1996) 47 Cal.App.4" Supp. 1, 7 [distinguishing a true
retainer from advanced fees].) Since Respondent did not have a true retainer agreement with
Brooks, Respondent was required to provide Brooks with an accounting, but he failed to do so.
Thus, he misrepresented that he had fulfilled his ethical responsibilities in his April 2013
quarterly report.

Even if Respondent believed that he had no ethical duty to provide Brooks with an
accounting, Respondent cannot claim ignorance of the law for the misrepresentation he made
under penalty of perjury to the Office of Probation. Respondent had an ethical duty to ensure
that he accurately completed his quarterly report, especially since “[a]t a minimum, quarterly
probation reporting is an important step towards an attorney probationer’s rehabilitation because
it requires the attorney, four times a year, to review and reflect upon his professional
conduct .... In addition, it requires the attorney to review his conduct to ensure that he
complies with all of the conditions of his disciplinary probation.” (Jn the Matter of Weiner
(Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 759, 763.)

The court does not find that Respondent’s misrepresentation in his April 2013 quarterly
report was intentional but finds that the false report was due to Respondent’s gross negligence in
failing to ensure that he understood all of his ethical obligations. As such, Respondent is
culpable of willfully violating section 6106.

Aggravation
The State Bar bears the burden of proving aggravating circumstances by clear and

convincing evidence. (Std. 1.5.)

-ll-Prior Record of Discipline (Std. 1.5(a).)

Respondent has one prior record of discipline. On August 3, 2012, Respondent was
privately reproved for misconduct in a single client matter. Respondent stipulated that he was
hired to represent a client in a post-conviction matter, but over a two-year period, Respondent
failed to take action on his client’s matter. Respondent was culpable of failing to perform legal
services with competence and failing to promptly refund $7,500 in unearned legal fees.
Respondent’s misconduct was mitigated by 35 years of discipline-free practice, candor and
cooperation, physical difficulties, and family problems. There were no aggravating factors.
Respondent’s prior wrongdoing is a significant aggravating factor because it is similar to the
misconduct in the current matter.

Multiple Acts (Std. 1.5(b).)

Respondent’s misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing. Because Respondent’s
multiple acts of misconduct spanned over an extended period of time, they warrant significant
weight in aggravation.

Significant Harm to Client/Public (Std. 1.5(j).)

Respondent’s misconduct caused significant harm to Bobby Scrivner and to the
administration of justice. Scrivner credibly testified that Rowan Brooks was her mother’s third
husband, and that they were married for 18 years ~— until Brooks murdered her. After the death of
Scrivner’s mother, Brooks was able to withdraw $50,000 from his deceased wife’s savings
account, even though Scrivner made efforts to put a freeze on that account.

Thereafter, Scrivner began her efforts to obtain $50,000 in restitution from Brooks.
Scrivner was aware that Brooks had received an inheritance of $75,000 after his mother died. At
the time of Brooks’s sentencing, Scrivner requested $50,000 in restitution from the sentencing

court. Ultimately, Scrivner was able to obtain a restitution order directing Brooks to pay her

-12-almost $50,000. The order did not specifically direct Brooks to pay to Scrivner a portion of the
$75,000 bequest he had received.

Brooks wanted to shield his inheritance funds from Scrivner’s recovery. Brooks
deposited $50,000 in funds with a law firm. Respondent acknowledged that he knew that Brooks
wanted to protect his inheritance funds from Scrivner. Respondent directed the law firm to
transfer the funds to him to thwart Scrivner’s ongoing attempts to enforce the restitution order.
Several hearings were held in an attempt to trace Brooks’s funds, but Scrivner was unable to
secure any funds. The harm to Scrivner and the interest of justice is a significant aggravating
factor.
Mitigation

Respondent bears the burden of proving mitigating circumstances by clear and
convincing evidence. (Std. 1.6.) The court finds a single mitigating circumstance based on this
record.

Pretrial Admissions

Respondent admitted culpability to 11 of the 12 charges. This demonstrates that
Respondent accepted responsibility for his misconduct while preserving court time and
resources. The court affords significant weight to this mitigating circumstance. (Std. 1.6(e); see
In the Matter of Johnson (Review Dept. 2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 179, 190 [more
extensive weight in mitigation accorded those who admit culpability as well as facts].)

Di sio}

OCTC argues that the appropriate level of discipline for Respondent’s misconduct is a six-month
actual suspension. Respondent did not provide an appropriate level of discipline in the event he was
found culpable of the alleged wrongdoing. As discussed below, this court finds that Respondent’s

misconduct warrants an actual suspension of six months.

-13-The purpose of State Bar disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the attorney, but to
protect the public, to preserve public confidence in the profession, and to maintain the highest
possible professional standards for attorneys, (Std. 1.1; Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d
103, 111; Cooper v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1016, 1025.)

In determining the appropriate level of discipline, the court looks first to the standards for
guidance. (Drociak v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1085, 1090; Jn the Matter of Koehler (Review
Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 615, 628). Second, the court looks to decisional law.
(Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302, 1310-1311; Jn the Matter of Taylor (Review Dept.
1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 563, 580.)

While the standards are entitled to great weight (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 92),
they are not applied talismanically (Howard v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 215, 221-222) and “do
not mandate a specific discipline” (Jn the Matter of Van Sickle (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State
Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 994). In short, even though the standards provide appropriate guidelines on
the issue of discipline, a proper discipline recommendation ultimately rests on “a balanced
consideration of all relevant factors, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances.”
(Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 300, 316; accord Jn the Matter of Oheb (Review Dept.
2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 920, 940; see also Howard v. State Bar, supra, 51 Cal.3d at pp.
221-222 [the Supreme Court is “permitted to temper the letter of the law with considerations
peculiar to the offense and the offender”].)

Standard 2.11 is the most applicable standard to this case. Standard 2.11 provides in part
that “[d]isbarment or actual suspension is the presumed sanction for . . . intentional or grossly
negligent misrepresentation. ...” The degree of sanction depends on the magnitude of the
misconduct, the extent of harm to the victim, the impact on the administration of justice, and the

extent to which the misconduct is related to the practice of law. (Std. 2.11.) Although

-14-In light of Respondent’s prior private reproval that was similar to the current misconduct,
other aggravating circumstances, and the sole mitigating circumstance, the court concludes that a
six-month actual suspension is appropriate to protect the public, the courts and the legal
profession; to maintain high professional standards; and to preserve public confidence in the
legal profession. (Std. 1.1.)

RECOMMENDATIONS

Discipline — Actual Suspension

It is recommended that Gregory Henrick Mitts, State Bar Number 71981, be suspended
from the practice of law for two years, that execution of that suspension be stayed, and that
Respondent be placed on probation for two years with the following conditions.
Conditions of Probation

Actual Suspension

Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for the first six months of
Respondent’s probation.
Review Rules of Professional Conduct

Within 30 days after the effective date of the Supreme Court order imposing discipline in
this matter, Respondent must (1) read the California Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules of
Professional Conduct) and Business and Professions Code sections 6067, 6068, and 6103
through 6126 and (2) provide a declaration, under penalty of perjury, attesting to Respondent’s
compliance with this requirement, to the State Bar’s Office of Probation in Los Angeles (Office
of Probation) with Respondent's first quarterly report.
Comply with State Bar Act, Rules of Professional Conduct, and Probation Conditions

Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act, the Rules of

Professional Conduct, and all conditions of Respondent’s probation.

-16-Respondent’s grossly negligent misrepresentation did not harm a client or the administration of
justice, it was directly related to the practice of law since he made the misrepresentation to the
Office of Probation. Moreover, because Respondent has a prior record of discipline, the sanction
in this case must be greater than the previously imposed sanction.” (Std.1.8(a).) Respondent’s
prior involved a single client; but it was similar to the misconduct in this case. Based on the
applicable standards, at a minimum, Respondent’s misconduct warrants a period of actual
suspension.

Although no case is directly analogous to Respondent’s matter, the court considers Jn the
Matter of Peterson (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 73, to arrive at the appropriate
level of discipline. In Peterson, the attorney was actually suspended for one year for failing to
perform with competence and failing to communicate in three client matters. In two of the client
matters, he also violated 6106 by deceiving his clients about the status of their cases. In addition
to the six ethical violations, the attorney failed to cooperate with the State Bar investigation into
the matter. The attorney’s misconduct was aggravated by multiple acts of misconduct, client
harm, indifference and a lack of candor and cooperation. There were no mitigating factors.

Here, Respondent’s misconduct involved three clients, and he was culpable of
committing an act of moral turpitude. But, Respondent’s misrepresentation to the Office of
Probation was based on gross negligence, not intentional dishonesty or deceit. As in Peterson,
supra, 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 73, Respondent’s misconduct involved significant aggravating
circumstances (especially Respondent efforts to thwart Scrivner’s recovery of funds from
Brooks), but Respondent had a significant mitigating factor, whereas the attorney in Peterson
had none. Respondent’s misconduct warrants a lesser period of actual suspension than in
Peterson because Respondent’s violation involving moral turpitude was not “repeated and

protracted.” (Id., supra, 1 Cal.State Bar at p. 80-81.)

-15-Maintain Valid Official Membership Address and Other Required Contact Information

Within 30 days after the effective date of the Supreme Court order imposing discipline in
this matter, Respondent must make certain that the State Bar Attorney Regulation and Consumer
Resources Office’(ARCR) has Respondent’s current office address, email address, and telephone
number. If Respondent does not maintain an office, Respondent must provide the mailing
address, email address, and telephone number to be used for State Bar purposes. Respondent
must report, in writing, any change in the above information to ARCR, within ten (10) days after
such change, in the manner required by that office.
Meet and Cooperate with Office of Probation

Within 15 days after the effective date of the Supreme Court order imposing discipline in
this matter, Respondent must schedule a meeting with Respondent’s assigned probation case
specialist to discuss the terms and conditions of Respondent’s discipline and, within 30 days
after the effective date of the court’s order, must participate in such meeting, Unless otherwise
instructed by the Office of Probation, Respondent may meet with the probation case specialist in
person or by telephone. During the probation period, Respondent must promptly meet with
representatives of the Office of Probation as requested by it and, subject to the assertion of
applicable privileges, must fully, promptly, and truthfully answer any inquiries by it and provide
to it any other information requested by it.
State Bar Court Retains Jurisdiction/Appear Before and Cooperate with State Bar Court

During Respondent’s probation period, the State Bar Court retains jurisdiction over
Respondent to address issues concerning compliance with probation conditions. During this
period, Respondent must appear before the State Bar Court as required by the court or by the
Office of Probation after written notice mailed to Respondent’s official membership address, as

provided above. Subject to the assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must fully,

elypromptly, and truthfully answer any inquiries by the court and must provide any other
information the court requests.
Quarterly and Final Reports

a. Deadlines for Reports. Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the
Office of Probation no later than each January 10 (covering October 1 through December 31 of
the prior year), April 10 (covering January 1 through March 31), July 10 (covering April 1
through June 30), and October 10 (covering July 1 through September 30) within the period of
probation. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be submitted on the
next quarter date and cover the extended deadline. In addition to all quarterly reports,
Respondent must submit a final report no earlier than ten (10) days before the last day of the
probation period and no later than the last day of the probation period.

b. Contents of Reports. Respondent must answer, under penalty of perjury, all
inquiries contained in the quarterly report form provided by the Office of Probation, including
stating whether Respondeiit has'complied with the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional
Conduct during the applicable quarter or period. All reports must be: (1) submitted on the form
provided by the Office of Probation; (2) signed and dated after the completion of the period for
which the report is being submitted (except for the final report); (3) filled out completely and
signed under penalty of perjury; and (4) submitted to the Office of Probation on or before each
report’s due date.

¢. Submission of Reports. All reports must be submitted by: (1) fax or email to the
Office of Probation; (2) personal delivery to the Office of Probation; (3) certified mail, return
receipt requested, to the Office of Probation (postmarked on or before the due date); or (4) other
tracked-service provider, such as Federal Express or United Parcel Service, etc. (physically

delivered to such provider on or before the due date).

-18-d. Proof of Compliance. Respondent is directed to maintain proof of Respondent’s
compliance with the above requirements for each such report for a minimum of one year after
either the period of probation or the period of Respondent’s actual suspension has ended,
whichever is longer. Respondent is required to present such proof upon request by the State Bar,
the Office of Probation, or the State Bar Court.

State Bar Ethics School and Client Trust Accounting School

Within one year after the effective date of the Supreme Court order imposing discipline
in this matter, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of
completion of the State Bar Ethics School and of the State Bar Client Trust Accounting School
and passage of the tests given at the end of those sessions. This requirement is separate from any
Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirement, and Respondent will not receive
MCLE credit for attending these sessions. If Respondent provides satisfactory evidence of
completion of the Ethics School and/or the Client Trust Accounting School after the date of this
decision, but before the effective date of the Supreme Court’s order in this matter, Respondent
will nonetheless receive credit for such evidence toward his duty to comply with this condition.
Proof of Compliance with Rule 9.20 Obligations

For a minimum of one year after the effective date of discipline, Respondent is directed
to maintain proof of Respondent’s compliance with the Supreme Court’s order that Respondent
comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 9.20, subdivisions (a) and (c).
Such proof must include the names and addresses of all individuals and entities to which
notification was sent pursuant to rule 9.20; copies of the notification letter sent to each such
intended recipient; the original receipt and tracking information provided by the postal authority

for each such notification; and the originals of all returned receipts and notifications of non-

-19-delivery. Respondent is required to present such proof upon request by the Office of Chief Trial
Counsel, the Office of Probation, and/or the State Bar Court.
Commencement of Probation

The period of probation will commence on the effective date of the Supreme Court order
imposing discipline in this matter. At the expiration of the probation period, if Respondent has
complied with all conditions of probation, the period of stayed suspension will be satisfied and
that suspension will be terminated.

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EXAMINATION

We further recommend that Gregory Henrick Mitts be ordered to take and pass the
Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination administered by the National Conference of
Bar Examiners within one year of the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter, or
during the period of his suspension, whichever is longer and to provide satisfactory proof of
such passage to the Office of Probation within the same period. Failure to do so may result in an

automatic suspension. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.10(b).)

California Rules of Court, Rule 9.20
It is further recommended that Respondent be ordered to comply with the requirements of
California Rules of Court, rule 9.20 and to perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c)
of that rule within 30 and 40 days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court
order imposing discipline in this matter.’ Failure to do so may result in disbarment or

suspension.

4 For purposes of compliance with rule 9.20(a), the operative date for identification of
“clients being represented in pending matters” and others to be notified is the filing date of the
Supreme Court order, not any later “effective” date of the order. (Athearn v. State Bar (1982) 32
Cal.3d 38, 45.) Further, Respondent is required to file a rule 9.20(c) affidavit even if Respondent
has no clients to notify on the date the Supreme Court filed its order in this proceeding. (Powers

-20-Costs
It is further recommended that costs be awarded to the State Bar in accordance with

Business and Professions Code section 6086.10 and are enforceable both as provided in Business
and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment. Unless the time for payment of

discipline costs is extended pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 6086.10, costs assessed against
a member who is actually suspended or disbarred must be paid as a condition of reinstatement or

return to active status.

V.

Dated: January | 8 , 2019 Cc IA VALENZUELA
Judge of the State Bar Court

v, State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 337, 341.) In addition to being punished as a crime or contempt,
an attorney’s failure to comply with rule 9.20 is, inter alia, cause for disbarment, suspension,
revocation of any pending disciplinary probation, and denial of an application for reinstatement
after disbarment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.20(d).)

-21-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]

Jam a Court Specialist of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and
not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County
of Los Angeles, on January 18, 2019, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

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

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

FREDRIC J. GAGLIARDINI

LAW OFFICE OF FRED GAGLIARDINI
1227 CALIFORNIA AVE
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93304 - 1403

KX] _ by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California
addressed as follows:

TIMOTHY G. BYER, Enforcement, Los Angeles

Thereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on
January 18, 2019.

Paul Barona
Court Specialist
State Bar Court2/21/22, 5:39 AM Gregory Henrick Mitts # 71981 - Attorney Licensee Search

The State Bar of California

Gregory Henrick Mitts #71981
License Status: Not Eligible to Practice Law

Address: GREGORY H MITTS, 1201 24TH ST. B110-111, Bakersfield, CA 93301-5021
Phone: 661-323-0789 | Fax: Not Available
Email: gregmitts@yahoo.com | Website: Not Available

More about This Attorney v

All changes of license status due to nondisciplinary administrative matters and disciplinary actions.

Date License Status Discipline @ Administrative Action @

Not eligi

Df ce law in

Present

CA

4/19/2022 or eligible to practice law in Discipline w/actual suspension 20-N-30676 @

Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court

40/9/2020
ao 20-N-30676 @

9/4/2020 Active
Not eligible to practice law in Discipline w/actual suspension 13-0-10003 @

12/1/2019
1: CA
Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court
12/20/2017
13-0-10003 @
10/9/2001 Active
9/1/2001 Not eligible to practice law in Suspended, failed to pay fees
CA
9/1/2001 Not eligible to practice law in Admin InactivefMOLE
A noncompliance

12/22/1976Admitted to the State Bar of California

State Bar Court Cases

The listing below is partial, as the State Bar Court is transitioning to online dockets. Please refer to the License Status,
Disciplinary and Administrative History section above for a record of discipline cases. Case dockets and documents may
be available using the State Bar Court Search for a Case feature; see instructions below.

Effective Date @ Case Number Description @

12/1/2019 13-0-10003 Order Amending Decision [PDF]

Here is what you need to know to access discipline documents in public cases:
Documents are added to the State Bar Court's online docket as events occur.

To search for a case, please copy the case number displayed above and click Search
for a Case. In the search box, paste the complete case number. If the case number

Search for a begins with “19” or higher, you must add the prefix SBC to the case number, e.g., SBC

https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/7 1981 22/21/22, 5:39 AM Gregory Henrick Mitts # 71981 - Attorney Licensee Search

[CASE NUMBER]. If a case number begins with 18 or lower, there's no need to add
SBC.

Most public case records since 2000 are available through search. Older case records are available on request. The State
Bar Court began posting public discipline documents online in 2005.

NOTE: Only Published Opinions may be cited or relied on as precedent in State Bar Court proceedings.

DISCLAIMER: Any posted Notice of Disciplinary Charges, Conviction Transmittal or other initiating document, contains only
allegations of professional misconduct. The licensee is presumed to be innocent of any misconduct warranting discipline
until the charges have been proven.

Additional Information:
* About the disciplinary system

Copyright © 2022 The State Bar of California

000

https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attomey/Licensee/Detail/7 1981

2/2View Document - Supreme Court Order - Final Discipline

Pages: 1

(State Bar Court No. SBC-20-N-30676) supreme Court of California
Jorge E, Navarrete, Clerk and Executive Officer of the Court Electronically

$271427 FILED on 12/20/2021 by Anita Elmer, Deputy Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
En Bane a a

Inre GREGORY HENRICK MITTS on Discipline

The court orders that Gregory Henrick Mitts (Respondent), State Bar
Number 71981, is suspended from the practice of law in California for two years,
execution of that period of suspension is stayed, and Respondent is placed on
probation for two years subject to the following conditions:

1. Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for the first year of
probation;

2. Respondent must also comply with the other conditions of probation
recommended by the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court in its
Decision filed on August 26, 2021; and

3. At the expiration of the period of probation, if Respondent has complied
with all conditions of probation, the period of stayed suspension will be
satisfied and that suspension will be terminated.

Respondent must also comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.20,
and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and.
40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of this order. Failure to do
so may result in disbarment or suspension. Respondent must also maintain the
records of compliance as required by the conditions of probation.

Respondent must pay monetary sanctions to the State Bar of California
Client Security Fund in the amount of $2,500 in accordance with Business and
Professions Code section 6086.13 and rule 5.137 of the Rules of Procedure of the
State Bar. Monetary sanctions are enforceable as a money judgment and may be
collected by the State Bar through any means permitted by law.

Costs are awarded to the State Bar in accordance with Business and
Professions Code section 6086.10 and are enforceable both as provided in
Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment, and may
be collected by the State Bar through any means permitted by law.

J, Jones Nayurtéte, Clerk of the Supreme Court
ofthe Stale of Galilbrnla, do hereby oerify that the
preceding iy tras copy afi arder of this Court as CANTIL-SAKAUYE

shown by thy reoords of my offices,
Wwituess ‘my hand and the seal of the Coutt this Chief Justice