IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE AUGUSTINE OMOAGEGE ON DISCIPLINE


By: | on | 471 views
Topic: Opinion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

J. G 1 9

It is ordered that Augustine Omoagege be suspended from the practice of law for two years, that execution of suspension be stayed, and that he be placed on probation for three years subject to the conditions of probation, including two years actual suspension, recommended by the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court in its order regarding stipulation filed August 19, 1998. It is also ordered that he take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination within one year after the effective date of this order. (See Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878,   891, fn. 8.) Credit toward the period of actual suspension shall be given for the period of interim suspension which commenced on May 30, 1996 (In re Young (1989) 49 Cal.3d 257, 270). Costs are awarded to the State Bar pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code section 6086.10 and one-third of said costs shall be added to and become part of the membership fees for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001. (Bus. & Prof. Code section 6140.7, as amended effective January 1, 1997.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                               
 

L Robert F. Wandruff, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of California, do hereby certify that the i preceding is a true copy of an order of this Court, as shown by the records of my office.

Witnew my hand and the seal of the Court thk

Hn« 3 D                   

 
   

Chfef Justic

 
 
 
   

.day of

 
     

kwiktag®     237 300 736

 
     

deck

 
     

By

 
 
 
 
   

Deputy Clerk

 
 
     

\

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statotor Court of mo State Bar of California
Hearing Dep nent £3 LosAngele* ? $a, bncisco

Text Box: Case numbers)	(for Courts use)
94-C-14401	FILED
•—	AUG 1 9 1998
SI Hit: OHM UUUHT
CLERKS OFFICE LOS ANGELES
Pjjf-fDE (!fi> I-..'- £!.T7
B ii.sihii £ «*	r wrm
Submitted to Z) assigned judge ^3^ settlement judge
STIPULATION RE FACTS. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
ACTUAL SUSPENSION	
? PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Text Box: In the Matter of
AUGUSTINE OMOAGEGE Bar# 162185
A Member of the State Bar of California (Respondent)	
Counsel for the State Bar

TK.E STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

VICTORIA R. MOLLOY

JANICE G. OEHRLE, No. 67015

1149 S. Hill St.

Los Angeles, CA 90015 (213)765-1247

Counsel for Respondent ARTHUR L. MARGOLIS MARGOLIS AND MARGOLIS 2000 Riverside Drive Los Angeles, CA 90039-3758 (213) 953-8996

A. Parties’ Acknowledgments:

(1)             Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted. Ox.14- /jjgz

(date)

Text Box: (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(3)	 (7)
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.

AH 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 and order consist of /2. pages.

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.'

No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation. Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.

Payment of Disciplinary Costs—Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):

• *•. ^

_ until costs are paid in full. Respondent will remain actually suspended/from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 284. Rules of Procedure.

54*. costs to be Daid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years:

^ mA, zcoo, -zoot                               ------------

(hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure)

Z2 costs waived in part as set forth under ’Partial Waiver of Costs'

1] costs entirely waived

Note: All Information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, shall be set forth in the text component of this stipulation under specific headings, Le. ‘Tacts,” ‘Dismissals,” “Conclusions of Law.”

(Stipulation form approved by S0C Executive Committee 10/22/97)                                          ^                                                                                                                        Actuct Suspension

 

(1) _J Prior record of discipline (see standard 1.2(f))

(a)       _J State Bar Court case # of prior case___________________________________________

(b)       _J date prior discipline effective_________________________________________________

(c)        ? Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: _____________________________________________________

(d)                      degree of prior discipline _________________________________________

(e)                       If Respondent has two or more Incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below or under "Prior Discipline".

(2)          ^ Dishonesty: Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty,

concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct.

(3)          _J Trust Violation: Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to

account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property.

(4)          _I Harm: Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

(5)          _J Indifference: Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the

consequences of his or her misconduct.

(6)          _J Lack of Cooperation: Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her

misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings.

¦ ¦ ¦' «•••* .

(7)                         Multiple/Pattem of Misconduct: Respondent's current misconduct-evidences multiple acts of wrong­doing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.

(8)          J No aggravating circumstances are involved.

Additional aggravating circumstances:                                                         . . .

 

(1)           D No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled

with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.

(2)           _l No Harm: Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the misconduct.

(3)           ^ Candor/Cooperation: Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation to the victims of

his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings.

(4)           _J Remorse: Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and

recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct.

(5)           U Restitution: Respondent paid $_______________________________________ on______________________________ in

restitution to_________________________________________ without the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or

criminal proceedings.

(6)           HI Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is not attributable to

Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

(7)           _J Good Faith: Respondent acted in good faith.

(8)           _| Emotionai/Physical Difficulties: At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct

Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct. The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.

(9)           ¦_! Severe Financial Stress: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial

stress which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and which were directly responsible for the misconduct.

(10)        H) Family Problems: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her

personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature.

(11)        _J Good Character: Respondent's good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the

legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.

(12)        _J Rehabilitation: Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred

followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.

(13)                    No mitigating circumstances are involved.

Additional mitigating circumstances:

 

D. Discipline

Stayed Suspension.

Text Box: tQJctA. Respondent shall be suspended from the practice of law for a period of

Z) i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii). Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct

_J ii. and until Respondent pays restitution to___________________________________________________ (payee(s))

(or the Client Security Fund, if appropriate), in the amount of_______________________________________

plus 10% per annum accruing from__________________ .                       and provides proof thereof

to the Probation Unit. Office of the Chief Trial Counsel

J iii. and until Respondent does the following: ___________________________________________________________

B. The above-referenced suspension shall be stayed.

2.        Probation.

Respondent shall be placed on probation for a period of________________ 3 Uf CL £ S_____________________

which shall commence upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein. (See rule 953, California Rules of Court.)

3.        Actual Suspension.

A. Respondent shall be actually suspended from the practice of law io the Statelet California for a period of c&U-fJlLh('J-rtLS7L£s->CLjnq Ch-f^ HtU. dUSLu

Ufa 5                                               tUASl, /, a. 5/50/

_J i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation ana present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii). Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct

?              ii. and until Respondent pays restitution to________________________________________________ (payee(s))

(or the Client Security Fund, if appropriate), in the amount of______________________________________

plus 10% per annum accruing from______________________________ . and provides proof thereof

to the Probation Unit. Office of the Chief Trial Counsel

?              iii. and until Respondent does the following:_______________________________________________________ .

E. Additional Conditions of Probation:

(1) If Respondent is actually suspended for two years or more, he/she shall remain actually suspended until he/she proves to the State Bar Court his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in general law, pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(iD- Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

Text Box: ¥During the probation period, Respondent shall comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.

Respondent shall promptly report, and in no event In more than 10 days, to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Probation Unit. Office of the Chief Trial Counsel. Los Angeles, all changes of information including current office or other address for State Bar purposes as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

 

Respondent shall submit w. jn quarterly reports to the Probation U. of the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation, except as set forth in the second paragraph of this condition. Under penalty of perjury each report shall state that Respondent has complied with all provisions of the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct during the preceding calendar quarter or period described in the second paragraph of this condition.

if the first report would cover less than 30 days, then the first report shall be submitted on the next quarter date and cover the extended period. The final report is due no earlier than 20 days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.

(5)                       Subject to assertion of applicable privileges. Respondent shall answer fully, promptly and truthfully any inquiries of the Probation Unit of the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or ha$ complied with the probation conditions.

(6)                       Within one year of the effective date of the discipline herein. Respondent shall attend the State Bar Ethics School, and shall pass the test given at the end of such session.

JQ

Z2 No Ethics School recommended.                                       'PCLCj & -----------

(7)          _J The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:

?              Substance Abuse Conditions                           ?          Law Office Management Conditions

?              Medical Conditions                                           ?          Financial Conditions

(8)          _| Respondent shall be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent shall promptly review the terms and

conditions of his/her probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance. During the period of probation, Respondent shall furnish such reports as may be re­quested by the probation monitor to the probation monitor in addition to quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Probation Unit of the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel. Respondent shall cooper­ate fully with the probation monitor to enable him/her to discharge his/her duties.

(9)          _J Other conditions negotiated by the parties:

V^L Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination: Respondent shall provide proof of passage of the

Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Probation Unit of the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel during the period of actual suspension or within one year, whichever period is longer. Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule 951 (b), California Rules of Court, and rule 321(a)(1) & (c), Rules of Procedure.

_J No MPRE recommended.

_J Rule 955, California Rules of Court: Respondent shall comply with the provisions of subdivisions (a) and (c) of rule 955, California Rules of Court, within 30 and 40 days, respectively, from the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein.

_J Conditional Rule 955, California Rules of Court: If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90 days or more, he/she shall comply with the provisions of subdivisions (a) and (c) of rule 955, California Rules of Court, within 120 and 130 days, respectively, from the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein.

Credit for Interim Suspension (conviction referral cases only): Respondent shall be credited for the period of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual suspension.

 

STIPULATION RE FACTS. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF:      AUGUSTINE OMOAGEGE

CASE NUMBER(S):        94-C-14401 MDM

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Pursuant to a Stipulation as to Undisputed Facts filed March 25, 1998, Respondent admitted that the following facts are true. By virtue of said stipulation, Respondent acknowledges and that he/she is culpable of violations of the statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct specified below.

1.        Respondent Augustine Omo-Agege was born on May 2, 1962 in Eku, Nigeria.

2.        Respondent Augustine Omo-Agege was admitted to membership in the State Bar of California on December 14, 1992.

3.        On or about May 9,      1995, Respondent was arrested and

charged with violating Penal Code section 470.

4.        On October 4, 1995, a four count Amended Information was filed against Respondent in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, People v. Aucrustine OmoAqege, Case No. BA111331.

a.        Count 1 of said amended information alleged

that on or about March 7, 1992, in the County of Los Angeles, Respondent committed the crime of Forgery of Check in violation of Penal Code section 470, a felony.                           The allegations

continue that on or about the date referred to above, Respondent signed the name of Elpert Defrietas to a check in the amount of $890.00 and attempted to pass said check as true and genuine knowing that said check was forged with the intent to defraud the Bank of America, Ahined Mahome and Elpert Defrietas.

b.        Count 2 of said amended information alleged that on or about March 7, 1993, in the County of Los Angeles, Respondent committed the crime of Perjury-Application for Driver's License in violation of Penal Code section 118, a felony.

 

The allegations continue that on or about said date, Respondent certified that he had never applied for a California Driver's License or identification card, when in fact he had applied for a license and been issued a license under the name Augustine Omoagege.

c.        Count 3 of said amended information alleged that on or about March 7, 1993, in the County of Los Angeles, Respondent committed the crime of Perjury-Application for Driver's License in violation of Penal Code section 118, a felony. The allegation's continue that on or about said date, Respondent certified that he had never applied for a California Driver's License or identification card, when in fact he had applied for a license and been issued a license under the name Augustine Omoagege and Reginald C. Bedney.

d.        Count 3 of said amended information alleged that on or about March 7, 1993, in the County of Los Angeles, Respondent committed the crime of Perjury-Application for Driver's License in violation of Penal Code section 118, a felony. The allegations continue that on or about said date, Respondent certified that he had never applied for a California Driver's License or identification card, when in fact he had applied for a license and been issued a license under the name Augustine Omoagege, Reginald C. Bedney and Ronald Byrd.

5.        On November 30, 1995, Respondent entered a plea of nolo

contendre to Count 1 of the aforementioned Amended Complaint. The imposition of sentence was suspended and Respondent was placed on probation, without formal supervision, for twelve (12) months. Respondent was ordered to spend the first six (6) days of his probationary period in the county jail; he was credited with four (4) days actual custody and two (2) days good work time. He was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $200.00.  The remaining counts in the

aforementioned Amended Complaint were dismissed per case settlement agreement.

6.        By order of the Review Department of the State Bar Court

filed April 22, 1996, Respondent was placed on interim suspension effective May. 30,                      1996 pending final

disposition of this proceeding.

By order of the Superior Court filed December 3, 1996, Respondent's offense was reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code §17(b)(3).

8•   Additional Facts and Circumstances Surrounding the

Aforementioned Conviction.

a.        On or about. July 31,       1990, Respondent was

issued Identification Card no. A7453982 in his own name by the California Department of Motor Vehicles. On the application for said card, the Respondent represented his date of birth as August 3, 1*963.

b.        On or about January 8,      1991, Respondent was

issued Driver's License no. A7453982 in his own name by the California Department of Motor Vehicles. on the application for said license, the Respondent represented his date of birth as August 3, 1963.

c.        On December 10, 1992, Respondent completed an

application for an identification card with the Winnetka office of the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Under penalty of perjury, he listed his birthdate on that application as January 20, 1964 and listed his name as Ronald Shawn Byrd. On the application he misrepresented that he had been issued driver's license no. C73621976934432167 in the state of New York. He also stated that he had never been issued a license or identification card under a different name in the last seven years. On December 10,                          1992, he was issued

identification card no. B3598638 in the name of Ronald Shawn Byrd.

d.        On December 29, 1992, Respondent completed an

application for an identification card with the Culver City office of the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Under penalty of perjury, he listed his name as Kirk Derwin Johnson and his date of birth as December 16, 1965. On the application he misrepresented that he had been issued driver's license no. C783552168384419 in the state of New York. He also stated that he had never been issued a license or identification card under a different name in the last seven years. On December 29,   1992, he was issued

identification card no. A9479637 in the name

 

 

 

of Kirk D. Johnson. On March 13, 1993, said card was reissued at the same office under the same name.

e.        On January 7,    1993, Respondent completed an

application for an identification card with the Santa Monica office of the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Under penalty of perjury, he listed his birth date as May 10, 1965 and listed his name as Reginald Clark Bedney. On the application, he

misrepresented that he had been issued a driver's license no. C9768216355315621 in the state of New York. He stated that he had never been issued a license or identification card under a different name in the last seven years. On January 7,   1993, he was issued

identification card no. B3863876 in the name of Reginald Clark Bedney.

Legal Conclusions:       By the aforementioned conduct, Respondent

engaged in acts involving moral turpitude as set forth in Business and Professions Code section 6106.

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A. (6) , was July 15, 1998.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of July 15, 1998, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $731.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does not include State Bar Court costs which will be included in any final cost assessment. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING.

1.      This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 951 of the California Rules of Court.

2.      On November 30, 1995, respondent was convicted of violating Penal Code §470 [Forgery of Check] a felony.

 

3.      On April 22, 1998, the Review Department of the state Bar Court issued an order suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of California effective May 30, 1996 pending final disposition of this proceeding and ordering that he comply with rule 955, Rules of Court and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of said rule within 30 and 40 days, respectively.

4.      On September 5, 1997, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues:

for a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed.

FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on December 14,         1992 and has no prior record of

discipline.

OTHER CONDITIONS NEGOTIATED BY THE PARTIES.

State Bar Ethics School

If the state Bar Ethics School is reinstated prior to the date on which Respondent's probationary period is concluded, Respondent shall attend State Bar Ethics School within one year of the date on which said State Bar Ethics School is reinstated or in any event prior to the end of his probationary period if the period between the reinstatement of State Bar Ethics School and the end of Respondent's probationary period is less than one year.

Standard 1.4(cWiil Proceeding:

In view of the circumstances under which the State Bar is operating at the present time and in view of respondent's interim suspension status since May 30, 1996, the parties hereby stipulate that respondent has made the following showing which would have been pertinent to a Standard 1.4(c)(ii) proceeding had one been held:

1.      A wide range of character witnesses with knowledge of the aforementioned misconduct have attested to Respondent's current good moral character, his acceptance of full responsibility for the wrongful acts he committed and his remorse.

2.      Respondent participated in psychotherapy for an extended period of time since the misconduct in (pestion and his psychotherapist has stated that Respondent's misconduct resulted from a momentary lapse in judgment brought on by feelings of

[O

Page #

 

desperation and confusion at finding himself alone and unable to find employment in this country, a culture much diverse from his own. Respondent's therapist further observed that Respondent was highly motivated to overcome the problems that led him to engage in the misconduct herein described, was seriously committed to his therapy, demonstrated remorse, has disassociated himself from the persons who encouraged him to engage in unlawful conduct and has worked to positively structure his life.

3.            Several attorney acquaintances have attested to Respondent's interest in keeping up with the law while he has been on interim suspension and to. his active interest in seeking out materials to study toward that end.

COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OP PROBATION/PAROLE IN UNDERLYING CRIMINAL MATTER.

Respondent shall comply with all conditions ofcErobation Parole imposed in the underlying criminal matter and shall so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report required to be filed with the Probation Unit.

//

Page i

 

 

                                 
 

Date

 
   

iiuGUSTINE

OMOAGEGE

print name

 

ARTHUR L.

MARGOLIS

print name

 

JANICE G.

OEHRLE

print name

 

 
   

Respondent's signa

_ .C^dLju J _

Deputy Triei Counsel's signature

 
 

Date

 
 
 
 

'7/zrs/<^?9

Date

 
 
 
   

ORDER

? This stipulation as to facts and discipline is REJECTED.

 
 
   

Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any, listed on the attachments is GRANTED without prejudice, and:

The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE ^RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.

 
 
   

? The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.

 
 
   

The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 135(b), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after file date. (See rule 953(a), California Joules of Court.)

 
 
   

Judge of th

 
 
 

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 6/18/97)                                             Suspension/Probation Violation Signature Page

page #

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; Code Civ. Proc., S 1013a(4)]

I am a Case Coordinator of the State Bar Court. 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 August 19, 1998/ I deposited a true copy of the following document{s)

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING FILED AUGUST 19, 1998

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

[ X ]      by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully

prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

ARTHUR MARGOLIS ESQ MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS 2000 RIVERSIDE DR LOS ANGELES CA 90039 3707

[  ]       by certified mail, , with a return receipt requested,

through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

[ X ]      by interoffice mail through a facility regularly

maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:

JANICE OEHRLE ESQ

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct



 

MARGOLIS 8c MARGOLIS LLP Susan L. Margolis, No. 104629 Arthur L. Margolis, No. 57703 Attorneys at Law 2000 Riverside Drive Los Angeles, CA 90039-3758 (213) 953-8996

Text Box: Q 1
DEC 09 199T]
Text Box: 5TATE BAR COU... . CLERK'S OFFICE 1Counsel for Respondent

THE STATE BAR COURT
OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES

In the Matter of                )   Case No. 94-C-14401-MDM

)

)

AUGUSTINE OMO-AGEGE,            ) RESPONSE TO AMENDED NOTICE

No. 162185                )   OF HEARING ON CONVICTION

)

A Member of the State Bar )

Respondent, Augustine Omo-Agege, hereby responds to the Amended Notice of Hearing Re Conviction, filed December 1, 1997, as follows:

Given the mitigation, and consistent with case law, the degree of discipline should include no period of actual suspension beyond what has already been served.

All further notices in relation to this proceeding are to be sent to Respondent's counsel:

Arthur L. Margolis, Esq.

MARGOLIS 8c MARGOLIS LLP 2000 Riverside drive Los Angeles, CA 90039-3707 Telephone: (213) 953-8996

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

Text Box: MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS LLP
 
Counsel for Respondent
December 8,    1997

 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA       )

)     SS.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES     )

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of

California. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party

to the within action. My business address is: 2000 Riverside

Drive, Los Angeles, California 90039-3758.

On December 8, 1997, I served the foregoing document described

as: RESPONSE TO AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON CONVICTION (Case No.

94-C-14401-MDM) on the State Bar of California, by placing a true

copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon

fully prepaid in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California,

addressed as follows:

Janice Oehrle

Deputy Trial Counsel

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

1149 South Hill Street

Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 8th day of December, 1997, at Los Angeles, California.


 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

 

 

OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES

Text Box: In the Matter ofText Box: AUGUSTINE OMO-AGEGE No. 162185,Text Box: A Member of the State BarCase No. 94-C-14401-MDM

AMENDED NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT AND NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE (TELEPHONIC)

TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-entitled matter has been assigned to the Honorable Michael D. Marcus, Judge of the State Bar Court, pursuant to Business and Professions Code §6079.1(f).

Upon the direction of Judge Marcus, a status conference concerning the above-entitled matter, will take place on Tuesday, December 9, 1997 at the hour of 1:45 p.m. The status conference will be audio recorded and will be held telephonically. The call will be placed by the Deputy Case Coordinator to the telephone number of record, unless the Deputy Case Coordinator is notified of a different telephone number where the member may be reached at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled date and time of the conference.

PARTICIPATION OF ALL COUNSEL IS REQUIRED FOR THE STATUS CONFERENCE! The date set for a conference is firm and must be regarded by counsel as a definite court appointment.

 

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

/ / /

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that counsel are to meet and confer regarding possibilities for informal discovery and settlement at least (2) days before the conference. Counsel are to be prepared to discuss all issues set forth in Rule 1210 (b).

Your attention is directed to the Rules of Procedure for State Bar Court Proceedings and Rules of Practice of the State Bar Court which govern these proceedings before the State Bar Court. If you do not have copies of these rules, please contact this office.

Judge Marcus's Case Coordinator is Johnnie L. Smith (telephone number 213/765-1421) and his Deputy Case Coordinator is Tamar R. Wilson (telephone number 213/765-1392).

Text Box:  
Deputy Case Coordinator Hearing Unit State Bar Court
Effective immediately, all pleadings directed to the State Bar Court through first-class, certified or interoffice mail must be specifically addressed to either the hearing judge to whom the proceeding is assigned or to the assigned Judge's Case Coordinator.

Dated:   December 1, 1997

 

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

 

       
   

FILED

 
 
 

DEC-1 897

 

 

 

 

 

 

OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES

Text Box: In the Matter of

 
 

CASE NO. 94-C-14401-MDM

 

 

 

 

 

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT RE: DEFAULT AND INACTIVE ENROLLMENT

IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY STATE BAR RULES, INCLUDING EXTENSIONS, OR IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE STATE BAR COURT TRIAL, (1) YOUR DEFAULT SHALL BE ENTERED; (2) YOU SHALL BE ENROLLED AS AN INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR AND WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNLESS THE DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE ON MOTION TIMELY MADE UNDER THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE STATE BAR; (3) YOU SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE FURTHER IN THESE PROCEEDINGS UNLESS YOUR DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE; AND (4) YOU SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL DISCIPLINE.

STATE BAR RULES REQUIRE YOU TO FILE YOUR WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS AFTER SERVICE.

Pursuant to the order of the Review Department filed

September 5, 1997 a true and correct copy of which is attached as an exhibit hereto, your conviction has been referred to the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court.

YOU ARE NOTIFIED to be present in person or by counsel at

the status conference set pursuant to rule 1210, Rules of Practice of the State Bar Court.

 

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

YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED, pursuant to rules 600-607, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, of your obligation to file a response to this Notice and to be present at such time and place as is set for the first day of trial, in person or by counsel to present evidence on your behalf, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and otherwise participate in the proceedings before the State Bar Court.

Your attention is directed to the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar and Rules of Practice of the State Bar Court, which govern these proceedings. If you do not have copies of these rules, please contact this Office.

NOTICE - COST ASSESSMENT

IN THE EVENT THESE PROCEEDINGS RESULT IN PUBLIC DISCIPLINE, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTS INCURRED BY THE STATE BAR IN THE INVESTIGATION, HEARING AND REVIEW OF THIS MATTER PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTIONS 6086.10 AND 6140.7. SEE ALSO RULE 280, ET SEP., RULES OF PROCEDURE OF STATE BAR.

 

 

       
 

DATED:

 
 
   

Hearing Unit State Bar Court

 

 

 

 

 

 

       
   

STATE BAR COURT
CLERK'S OFFICE
LOS ANGELES

 
 

94-C-14401

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN BANK

IN THE MATTER OF AUGUSTINE O. OMO-AGEGE

A MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

Upon finality of the Review Department's order in this case, filed September 5, 1997, denying the motion for summary disbarment, the above entitled matter is referred to the Hearing Department for a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

Presiding Judge

 
 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]

I am a Deputy Case Coordinator of the State Bar Court. 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 December 1, 1997, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s)

AMENDED NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT AND NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE, AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON CONVICTION FILED DECEMBER 1, 1997 AND REVIEW DEPARTMENT ORDER

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

[ X ]     by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully

prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

ARTHUR L. MARGOLIS, ESQ.,

MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS LLP

2000 RIVERSIDE DR

LOS ANGELES CA 90039-3707

[   ]     by certified mail, , with a return receipt requested,

through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

[ X ]      by interoffice mail through a facility regularly

maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:

JANICE OEHRLE, ESQ.,          OFFICE OF TRIALS

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct.

Deputy Case Coordinator State Bar Court


 

 

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

 

 
 

J

 

 

 

 

OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES

In the Matter of         '       ) Case No. 94-C-14401-MDM

)

AUGUSTINE OMO-AGEGE,                 )

No. 162185,                          )   NOTICE   OF     ASSIGNMENT AND NOTICE

)  OF STATUS     CONFERENCE

) (TELEPHONIC)

A Member of   the State Bar       )

___________________________________ )

TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-entitled matter has been assigned to the Honorable Michael D. Marcus, Judge of the State Bar Court, pursuant to Business and Professions Code §6079.1(f).

Upon the direction of Judge Marcus, a status conference concerning the above-entitled matter, will take place on Tuesday, December 9, 1997 at the hour of 1:45 p.m. The status conference will be audio recorded and will be held telephonically. The call will be placed by the Deputy Case Coordinator to the telephone number of record, unless the Deputy Case Coordinator is notified of a different telephone number where the member may be reached at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled date and time of the conference.

PARTICIPATION OF ALL COUNSEL IS REQUIRED FOR THE STATUS CONFERENCE! The date set for a conference is firm and must be regarded by counsel as a definite court appointment.

 

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

/ / /

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that counsel are to meet and confer regarding possibilities for informal discovery and settlement at least (2) days before the conference. Counsel are to be prepared to discuss all issues set forth in Rule 1210 (b) .

Your attention is directed to the Rules of Procedure for State Bar Court Proceedings and Rules of Practice of the State Bar Court which govern these proceedings before the State Bar Court. If you do not have copies of these rules, please contact this office.

Judge Marcus's Case Coordinator is Johnnie L. Smith (telephone number 213/765-1421) and his Deputy Case Coordinator is Tamar R. Wilson (telephone number 213/765-1392).

Text Box:  
Deputy Case Coordinator Hearing Unit State Bar Court
Effective immediately, all pleadings directed to the State Bar Court through first-class, certified or interoffice mail must be specifically addressed to either the hearing judge to whom the proceeding is assigned or to the assigned Judge's Case Coordinator.

Dated:   November 19, 1997

jf1

THE STATE BAR COURT          STATE BAR COURT

CLERK’S OFFICE

OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA LOS HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES

Text Box: In the Matter ofCASE NO. 94-C-14401-MDM

Text Box: NOTICE OF HEARING ON CONVICTION (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6101-6102)AUGUSTINE OMO-AGEGE,                )

Bar No. 162185/                     )

)

A Member of the State Bar.      )

)

________________________ )

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT RE: DEFAULT AND INACTIVE ENROLLMENT

IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY STATE BAR RULES, INCLUDING EXTENSIONS, OR IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE STATE BAR COURT TRIAL, (1) YOUR DEFAULT SHALL BE ENTERED; (2) YOU SHALL BE ENROLLED AS AN INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR AND WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNLESS THE DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE ON MOTION TIMELY MADE UNDER THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE STATE BAR; (3) YOU SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE FURTHER IN THESE PROCEEDINGS UNLESS YOUR DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE; AND (4) YOU SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL DISCIPLINE.

STATE BAR RULES REQUIRE YOU TO FILE YOUR WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS AFTER SERVICE.

Pursuant to the order of the Review Department filed April 22, 1996 a true and correct copy of which is attached as an exhibit hereto, your conviction has been referred to the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court.

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

YOU ARE NOTIFIED to be present in person or by counsel at the status conference set pursuant to rule 1210, Rules of Practice of the State Bar Court.

 

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

of Procedure of the State Bar, of your obligation to file a response to this Notice and to be present at such time and place as is set for the first day of trial, in person or by counsel to present evidence on your behalf, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and otherwise participate in the proceedings before the State Bar Court.

Your attention is directed to the Rules of Procedure of the

State Bar and Rules of Practice of the State Bar Court, which govern these proceedings. If you do not have copies of these rules, please contact this Office.

NOTICE - COST ASSESSMENT

Text Box: DATED: November 19, 1997
IN THE EVENT THESE PROCEEDINGS RESULT IN PUBLIC DISCIPLINE, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTS INCURRED BY THE STATE BAR IN THE INVESTIGATION, HEARING AND REVIEW OF THIS MATTER PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTIONS 6086.10 AND 6140.7. SEE ALSO RULE 280, ET SEP., RULES OF PROCEDURE OF STATE BAR.

Tamar R. Wilson Hearing Unit State Bar Court

 

94-C-14401

REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE BAR COURT

IN BANK

IN THE MATTER OF AUGUSTINE O. OMO-AGEGE

A MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

Since Augustine o. Omo-Agege has been convicted of violating California Penal Code section 470, a felony criminal offense involving moral turpitude, under the authority of subdivision (a) of rule 951, California Rules of Court, it is ordered pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6102 that he be suspended from the practice of law pending final disposition of this proceeding. It is further ordered that he comply with rule 955, California Rules of Court, and that he perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 3 0 and 4 0 days, respectively, after the effective date of this order.* This order is effective May 30, 1996.

 

 
 

* See Business and Professions Code section 6126, subd. (c) .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[Rule 62(b)/ Rules Proc.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]

I am a Deputy Case Coordinator of the State Bar Court. 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 November 19, 1997, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT AND NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE FILED NOVEMBER 19, 1997

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

[ X ]      by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully

prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

[ X ]      by certified mail, P 979 197 711, with a return receipt

requested, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

ARTHUR L. MARGOLIS, ESQ.,

MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS

2000 RIVERSIDE DR

LOS ANGELES CA 90039-3707

[ X ]      by interoffice mail through a facility regularly

maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:

JANICE OEHRLE, ESQ., OFFICE OF TRIALS

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California', on November 19, 1997.

4mm

TAMAR R.

Deputy Case Coordinator State Bar Court

 

 

       
   

STAPLE RETURN RECEIPT HERE

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The document to which this certificate is affixed is a full, true and correct copy of the original on file and of record in the State Bar Court.

ATTEST June 17, 2019

State Bar Court, State Bar of California, Los Anaeles

Clerk

 

 

 

  • Sent by Muhammad Abdul Islam Ibrahim, via Email in the early hours of Monday January 20, 2020.

 

  • Note: Fresh Angle International is not liable to any item on the above content as sent by Muhammad Abdul Islam Ibrahim. We could not also verify the authenticity or otherwise of the afore-said.

 

 






Download the Fresh Angle News Mobile App Now

comments powered by Disqus

Sponsored Ads