(Do not write above this line.

)
ORt6!NAL
State Bar Court of California
Hearing Oepartment~.T.~.igiC
LOS Angeles ATTER

Counsel For The State Bar Case Number (s) (for Court’s use)
05-O-04734-RAH
Jean Cha
Deputy Trial Counsel FILED
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015 HAR,2 6 2009
(213) 765-1000
STATE BAR U_-,OUR~"
CL~RK’~ OFFIC~
L~ ~GE~8
Bar # 228137
In Pro Per Respondent

Alfred O. Anyia
880 W. First Street, Ste 108
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 625-1679
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
Bar# 183571
In the Matter Of: STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
Alfred Oshiomele Anyia DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

Bar # 183571 ACTUAL SUSPENSION

A Member of the State Bar of California [] P.REVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED

(Respondent)
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be
provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific
headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.

A. Parties’ Acknowledgments:
(1) Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted September 17, 1996.

(2) 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.
(3) All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by
this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The
stipulation consists of 17 pages, not including the order.
(4) A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included
under "Facts."
(5) Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of
Law".
(6) The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading
"Supporting Authority."

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004; 12/13/2006.)
Actual Suspension
1 kwiktag ~ 078 540 235
(Do not write above this line.)

(7) 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.
(8) 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.
[] costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: Costs to be
paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following three billing cycles following the
effective date of the Supreme Court order.
(hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure)
[] costs waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs"
[] costs entirely waived

B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for
Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances
are required.

(’~) [] Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]

(a) [] State Bar Court case # of prior case

(b) [] 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.

(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) [] 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) [] Harm: Respondent’s misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

(5) [] Indifference: Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification, of or atonement for the
consequences of his or her misconduct.

(6) [] 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/Pattern of Misconduct: Respondent’s current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing
or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct. Respondent over several years, with gross negligence, did
not maintain a proper client trust account magagement system.

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004; 12/13/2006.)
Actual Suspension
2
(Do not write above this line.)

(8) [] No aggravating circumstances are involved.

Additional aggravating circumstances:

C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigating

circumstances are required.
(1) [] 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) [] 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 with the victims of
his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings. Respondent
offered to represent Ms. Ruiz in an action for indemnification once Respondent learned that the
medical lien had been assigned and that the treating chiropractor wrongfully accepted and refused
to refund the payment for the medical lien. (In the Matter of Johnson (Review Dept. 2000) 4 Cal.
State Bar Ct. Rptr. 179.)

(4) 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. Throughout the misconduct, each time Respondent was notified of any problem related
to his CTA and his representation of Ms. Ruiz, Respondent promptly made efforts to remedy the
situation based on his belief and understanding of what action was appropriate.

(5) [] Restitution: Respondent paid $ on in restitution to without the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or
criminal proceedings.

(6) [] Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is not attributable to
Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

(7) Good Faith: Respondent acted in good faith. Respondent did not have notice that the lien had been
assigned to EDS. Respondent honestly, though unreasonably, believed EDS was a debt collection
agency for ICM. (Call v. State Bar (1955) 45 Cal.2d 104, 111.)

(8) Emotional/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) [] 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. In August 2002, Respondent’s father
passed away. Dealing with Respondent’s father’s death and associated responsiblities related to
his burial overseas impacted his ability to adequately maintain adequate CTA bookkeeping.

(11) [] 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.

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00, Revised 12/16/2004; 12/13/2006.)
Actual Suspension
3
(Do not write above this line.)

(12) [] 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

See Page 12 of the Attachment.

D. Discipline:

(1) [] Stayed Suspension:

(a) [] Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of Two Years.

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.

ii. [] and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to
this stipulation.

iii. [] and until Respondent does the following:

(b) [] The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

(2) [] Probation:

Respondent must be placed on probation for a period of Three Years, which will commence upon the effective
date of the Supreme Court order in this matter. (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court)

(3) [] Actual Suspension:

(a) [] Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period
of Six Months.

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

and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to
this stipulation.

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 must 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)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004; 12/13/2006.)
Actual Suspension
4
(Do not write above this line.)

(2) [] During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of
Professional Conduct.
(3) [] Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the
State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of
information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar
purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

(4) [] Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation
and schedule a meeting with Respondent’s assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and
conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the
probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must
promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.

(5) [] Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10,
July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state
whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all
conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there
are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number and
current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be
submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.

In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than
twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.

(6) [] Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and
conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance.
During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested,
in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must
cooperate fully with the probation monitor.

(7) [] Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any
inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are
directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has
complied with the probation conditions.

(8) [] Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of
Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given
at the end of that session.
[] No Ethics School recommended. Reason:
(9) [] Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and
must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office
of Probation.
(10) [] The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:

[] Substance Abuse Conditions [] Law Office Management Conditions

[] Medical Conditions [] Financial Conditions

F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

(1) [] Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination: Respondent must provide proof of passage of
the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National
(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004; 12/13/2006.)
Actual Suspension
5
(Do not write above this line.)

Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation 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 9,~1-9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 321(a)(1)
& (c), Rules of Procedure.

[] No MPRE recommended. Reason:

(2) [] Rule 9,~5-9.20, California Rules of Court: Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule ~
9.20, California Rules of Court, 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 the Supreme Court’s Order in this
matter.

(3) [] Conditional Rule 9SS-9.20, California Rules of Court: If Respondent remains actually suspended for
90 days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of rule 9.~9.20, California Rules of Court,
and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 120 and 130 calendar days,
respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court’s Order in this matter.

(4) [] Credit for Interim Suspension [conviction referral cases only]: Respondent will be credited for the
period of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual suspension. Date of
commencement of interim suspension:

(5) [] Other Conditions:

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004; 12/13/2006.)
Actual Suspension
6
 (Do not write above this line.)

Attachment language begins here (if any):

FACTS.
l. At all times mentioned herein, Respondent maintained a client trust account at Wells Fargo Bank,
Account Number XXX-XXX9036 ("Respondent’s CTA").
2. In May, 2001, Teresita Ruiz ("Ms. Ruiz") employed Respondent to represent her in a property
damage and personal injury claim related to an auto accident which occurred on May 25, 2001.
3. On May 30, 2001, Respondent and Ms. Ruiz signed and executed a medical lien with Injury Care
Management ("ICM") for Ms. Ruiz’s medical treatment related to injuries which were caused in the May
25~ 2001 auto accident.
4. On May 31,2001, Ms. Ruiz signed a Contingency Fee Agreement, agreeing to pay Respondent 33
1/3% of any settlement received if the case settled before suit was filed, and 40% of any settlement or
judgment received if the case was resolved after suit was filed.
5. Between May through August, 2001, Ms. Ruiz treated with Dr. John Tyler ("Dr. Tyler") of ICM
for her personal injuries. The medical lien for Ms. Ruiz’s treatment was $5,077.71 at the conclusion of her
treatment.
6. On June 1, 2001, Caliber Collision, a local body shop, provided Ms. Ruiz with a detailed estimate
totaling $8,553.53, for repairs to her vehicle which resulted from the May 25, 2001 auto accident.
7. In July 2001, Respondent received a settlement draft from Allstate Insurance Company for the
property damage portion of Ms. Ruiz’s case, with her consent, in the amount of $8,553.53. Respondent also
obtained reimbursements for loss of vehicle use on July 16, 2001 and July 23, 2001 in the amounts of
$215.16 and $160.31, respectively. The total $8,929.00 funds were deposited into Respondent’s CTA that
same month.
8. Pursuant to the Contingency Fee Agreement signed by Ms. Ruiz, Respondent was entitled to 33
1/3 percent of the $8,929.00 settlement amount, $2,976.33, in legal fees from the property damage portion
of Ms. Ruiz’s auto accident case.
9. Respondent voluntarily waived his entire fee of the property damage settlement funds so Ms. Ruiz
would not have to pay out-of-pocket for the cost of repairs to her vehicle.
10. In July or August 2001, Respondent disbursed the full $8,553.53 in settlement funds to Caliber
Collision to cover the costs of repairs to Ms. Ruiz’s vehicle. The reimbursements for loss of vehicle were
also disbursed to Ms. Ruiz at that time.
11. In November 2001, Respondent settled the bodily injury portion of Ms. Ruiz’s case, with her

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004; 12/13/2006.)
Actual Suspension
7
 (Do not write above this line.)

consent for $7,917.00.

12. On November 7,~2001, Respondent received a settlement draft from Allstate Insurance Company
in the amount of $7,917.00 payable to Ms. Ruiz and Respondent. With Ms. Ruiz’s authorization, ¯
Respondent endorsed the settlement draft and deposited it into Respondent’s CTA on November 8, 2001.
13. Pursuant to the Contingency Fee Agreement signed by Ms. Ruiz, Respondent was entitled to 33
1/3 percent of the $7,917.00 settlement amount, $2,639.00, in legal fees related to the personal injury
portion of Ms. Ruiz’s auto accident case.
14. By November 8, 2001, Respondent had incurred $559 in costs related to the representation of Ms.
Ruiz in property damage and personal injury portions of her auto accident case.
15. On November 8, 2001, Respondent’s staff disbursed CTA check # 1726 in the amount of
$1,733.33 in fees related to the property damage portion of Ms. Ruiz’s case by mistake. Respondent’s
employee did not adhere to Respondent’s full reduction of his attorney’s fees as related to p’ayment to
Caliber Collision and only calculated an $1,117.85 reduction.
16. On November 15, 2001, Respondent withdrew a portion of his attorney’s fees from his CTA in the
amount of $2,040.00 of the $2,639.00 in attorney’s fees from the settlement related to the personal injury
portion of Ms. Ruiz’s auto accident case.
17. On November 20, 2001, the balance in Respondent’s CTA fell to $240.84.
18. As of November 20, 2001, Respondent should have held $2,301.67 in his CTA on Ms. Ruiz’s
behalf.
19. Thereafter, Respondent replenished his CTA in the amount of $5,749.66, which was composed of
the $2,976.33 of his waived fee in the property damage settlement in addition to $2,301.67 for the
insufficient balance related to Ms. Ruiz’s personal injury settlement of the auto accident case.
20. On November 30, 2001, Respondent withdrew $1,000.00 from his CTA to pay himself the
remaining $599 in attorney’s fees and $401 in costs related to Ms. Ruiz’s auto accident case.
21. In November or early December 2001, Respondent negotiated the medical lien with ICM from
$5,077.71 to $2,000.00.
22. On December 14, 2001, Respondent drafted CTA check # 1771 in the amount of $2,000.00
payable to ICM. Check # 1771 was never cashed.
23. On December 14, 2001, Respondent disbursed CTA check # 1773 in the amount of $2,719.00 to
Ms. Ruiz as her portion of the personal injury settlement funds.
24. On January 7, 2002, Ms. Ruiz negotiated CTA check # 1773, in the amount of $2,719.00.
(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004.)

8
 (Do not write above this line.)

25. On September 13, 2002, 10-months after the settlement, ICM assigned the unpaid medical lien to
E.D.S. Financial Services, Inc. ("EDS").
26. On March 11, 2005, almost 3 1/2 years after the settlement, Ms. Ruiz received notice from EDS
that her medical lien in the amount of $5,077.71 from ICM had not been paid by Respondent.
27. On March 15, 2005, Ms. Ruiz contacted Respondent’s office regarding the unpaid ICM medical
lien and faxed a copy of EDS’s notice to Respondent. Respondent’s office received the notice from Ms.
Ruiz on that same day.
28. In August 2005, Respondent had discussions with the attorney for AMS/EDS and staff at ICM to
try to resolve the payment of the medical lien.
29. On August 16, 2005, AMS filed a lawsuit in the matter of Account Management Services, Inc. v.
Teresita Ruiz, Case Number RCCI089682, filed on August 16, 2005, in the Superior Court for the County of
San Bernardino (the "lien case") regarding the unpaid medical lien of $5,077.71 and her that interest in the
amount of $2,006.04, for a total of $7,083.75.
30. On August 31, 2005, Respondent informed Ms. Ruiz that he would send payment to Dr. Tyler and
not AMS or EDS because Dr. Tyler had provided the medical care.
31. On September 7, 2005, Respondent sent CTA check # 2711, in the amount of $2,000.00 to Dr.
Tyler/ICM. On September 12, 2005, this check was negotiated by ICM.
32. On October 13, 2005, Ms. Ruiz left a message for Respondent that she had been served with a
summons and complaint in the lien case, and requested a call back from Respondent. Respondent returned
Ms. Ruiz’s call on October 19, 2005, and requested that Ms. Ruiz fax him a copy of the summons and
complaint. Ms. Ruiz faxed a copy of the summons and complaint to Respondent. Respondent received the
summons and complaint. Ms. Ruiz also requested a copy of the check that Respondent claimed had been
sent to Dr. Tyler.
33. On October 19, 2005, Respondent sent a letter to counsel for AMS, Gary Bemis ("Mr. Bemis"),
and informed him that he represented Ms, Ruiz, that the medical lien had been negotiated down to
$2,000.00, and the lien was paid on September 7, 2005 to Dr. Tyler/ICM.
34. On October 25, 2005, Mr. Bemis sent a letter by facsimile to Respondent informing him that the
payment should not have been sent to Dr. Tyler because the lien had been assigned to AMS in September
2002.
35. On October 27, 2005, Ms. Ruiz terminated Respondent’s services.
36. On October 27, 2005, Ms. Ruiz reached a settlement with AMS for $4,000.00 to satisfy the
(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004.)
 (Do not write above this line.)

$5,077.71 unpaid medical lien.

37. On October 31, 2005, Ms. Ruiz paid $2,000.00 to AMS, out of her personal funds. On November
25, 2005, Ms. Ruiz paid the final $2,000.00 to AMS, out of her personal funds. On November 25, 2005,
AMS sent a letter to Ms. Ruiz informing her that her obligation for the unpaid medical lien had been
satisfied and the lien case against her would be dismissed. The case was dismissed on December 21, 2005.
38. On August 14, 2006, almost five years later, Respondent disbursed CTA check # 2835 in the
amount of $158 to cover costs which were incurred in 2001, related to the representation of Ms. Ruiz in her
2001 auto accident case.
39. In December 2003, Respondent issued CTA check # 2374 in the amount of $1,350.00 which was
drawn upon Respondent’s CTA. On December 29, 2003, Wells Fargo paid the check against insufficient
funds lowering the balance in Respondent’s CTA to -$1,018.31.
40. In July 2004, Respondent issued CTA check # 2469 in the amount of $2,000.00 which was drawn
upon Respondent’s CTA. On July 14, 2004, Wells Fargo paid the check against insufficient funds lowering
the balance in Respondent’s CTA to -$471.31.
41. In July 2004, Respondent issued CTA check # 2500 in the amount of $1,500.00 which was drawn
upon Respondent’s CTA. On July 19, 2004, Wells Fargo paid the check against insufficient funds lowering
the balance in Respondent’s CTA to -$413.31.
42. In October 2005, Respondent issued CTA check # 2724 in the amount of $7,400.00 which was
drawn upon Respondent’s CTA. On October 3, 2005, Wells Fargo paid the check against insufficient funds
lowering the balance in Respondent’s CTA to -$180.26.
43. Respondent issued these four checks even though he knew or in the absence of gross negligence
would have known that there were insufficient funds in Respondent’s CTA to pay them. Respondent made
no effort to ensure there were sufficient funds in Respondent’s CTA to cover the checks after Respondent
issued the checks.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
44. By failing to oversee his CTA, failing to maintain his client’s funds, and failing to properly
supervise his employees who were disbursing funds, Respondent acted with gross negligence and
recklessness in connection with his CTA duties, thus committing acts involving moral turpitude, dishonest
and/or corruption in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6106.
45. By not maintaining at least $2,301.67 on behalf of Ms. Ruiz in Respondent’s CTA, Respondent
failed to maintain funds in a client trust account, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rul
(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004.)

lO
 (Do not write above this line.)

4-100(A).
46. By issuing checks drawn upon Respondent’s CTA when he knew or in the absence of gross
negligence would have known that there were insufficient funds in the account to pay them and by failing
ensure that there were sufficient funds in the account to pay the checks, Respondent committed acts
involving moral turpitude, dishonesty and/or corruption, in willful violation of Business and Professions
Code, section 6106.
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND
STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY.

The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on September 17, 2008
and the facts and/or conclusions of law contained in this stipulation. Additionally, the parties waive the
issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The parties further waive the right to the filing of
notice of Disciplinary Charges and to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending Notice o
Disciplinary Charges.

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A (7), was March 11, 2009.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of
March 11, 2009, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $3,654.00. Respondent
acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it might not include State Bar Court costs that wi
be included in any final cost assessment (see Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068.10(c)) or taxable costs (see
C.C.P. section 1033.5(a)), which will be included in any final cost assessment. Respondent further
acknowledges that should this stipulation be rej ected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the
costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings. It is also noted that if Respondent
fails to pay any installment of disciplinary costs within the time provided herein or as may be modified by
the State Bar Court pursuant to section 6086.10, subdivision(c), the remaining balance of the costs is due
and payable immediately unless relief has been.granted under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of
California (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 286). The payment of costs is enforceable both as provided in
Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

Between August and December 2002, Respondent was coping with the death of his father. The loss of
Respondent’s father necessitated trips overseas to Nigeria to tend to his father’s estate. Respondent was out
of the country for long periods of time. Since then, however, Respondent has completely recovered from
these emotional difficulties. (Std. 1.2(e)(iv).)

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004.)

11
 (Do not write above this line.)

Four character references expressed their belief in Respondent’s integrity and honesty even with the
knowledge of the misconduct and believe that the conduct was due to error and will not recur. (Std.
1.2(e)(vi).)

Remorse and objective steps to rectify or remedy his CTA management system. (Std. 1.2(e)(vii).)
Respondent’s records show that a check was drafted on December 14, 2001 payable to ICM. Respondent
concedes that had he maintained proper CTA recordkeeping he would have discovered that the check was
never negotiated.

When Respondent learned of the NSF checks, he immediately consulted with ethics counsel to learn about
his CTA obligations and deficiencies. Respondent voluntarily cured the office management problems
related to his CTA shortly thereafter. Respondent also, employed the services of a CPA and now reconciles
his CTA and client ledgers weekly. Remedial steps support that the misappropriation was due to
Respondent’s laxity rather than intent to defraud. (Waysman v. State Bar (1986) 41 Cal.3d 452, 797-798.)

In 2001, Respondent, while representing Ms. Ruiz, had voluntarily reduced his fees in order that she might
recover the full coverage for the repairs to her vehicle in the property damage portion of her auto accident
case. This reduction was not noticed by Respondent’s office manager which resulted in the disbursement o
Respondent’s earned fees on November 8, 2001, in accordance with the signed retainer agreement. By
November 20, 2001, the CTA balance was $240.84. Once Respondent realized that this error was made, the
funds were restored to the CTA within two weeks; by November 28, 2001. (Guzzetta v. State Bar (1987) 43
Cal.3d 962.) Respondent’s actions demonstrate he is remorseful and contrite.

After Respondent paid Dr. Tyler/ICM and learned that AMS/EDS was still pursuing the claim against Ms.
Ruiz, Respondent offered to represent Ms. Ruiz for no fee in an indemnification action. Ms. Ruiz decided
to reject Respondent’s offer and resolve a settlement with AMS on her own. In so doing, Ms. Ruiz agreed
to pay AMS $4,000.00. Ms. Ruiz’s actions were out of the control and advice of Respondent. Respondent
paid Ms. Ruiz, $4,000.00 on March 16, 2009. The $4,000.00 payment to Ms. Ruiz covers $2,000.00 in
restitution, 10% interest per annum, and an additional amount made at Respondent’s discretion. Responden
initially delayed payment of restitution to Ms. Ruiz because he relied upon advice of ethics counsel. (Cf.
Doyle v. State Bar (1982) 32 Cal.3d 12.24 - restitution made only under the pressure of a forthcoming
disciplinary investigation is entitled to no weight as a mitigating circumstance.)

The CTA management during 2003 and 2004 was not typical of the way Respondent practiced law and does
not reflect his CTA management during the course of his entire practice. However, the six or seven years of
blemish-free practice prior to the misconduct is an insufficient period of trouble-free practice to consider as
substantial mitigation. (See, e.g., Kelly v. State Bar (1988) 45 Cal.3d 649, 658.)

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

Sanctions are imposed to protect the public, the court and the legal profession; maintain high professional
standards by attorneys; and preserve public confidence in the legal profession. (Std. 1.3; Giovanazzi v. State
Bar (1980) 28 Cal.3d 465,474; In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 205, Std. 1.3; Tarver v. State Bar (1984)
37 Cal.3d 122, 133,207 Cal.Rptr. 302, 688 P.2d 911; Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 103, 111.)
The determination of discipline involves an analysis of the standards and a balancing of the nature and
extent of the facts and circumstances surrounding the misconduct and the mitigating and aggravating
(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004.)

12
 (Do not write above this line.)

circumstances (Std. 1.6(b); Segal v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1077, 1089; Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49
Cal.3d 1302, 1310-11) on a case-by-case basis. (Bate v. State Bar (1983) 34 Cal.3d 920, 924.)

Here, the mere fact that the balance of Respondent’s CTA dipped below $2,000.00 supports a conclusion of
misappropriation. (Giovanazzi v. State Bar (1980) 28 Cal.3d 465,474.) Respondent’s management metho
of his CTA rises to the level of gross carelessness and negligence which constitutes a violation of the oath
an attorney to faithfully discharge his duties to the best of his knowledge and ability. This conduct involv
moral turpitude because it breaches the fiduciary relationship owed to clients. (Giovanazzi v. State Bar
(1980) 28 Cal.3d 465,475.) No matter the size, breaches of the fiduciary duty owed by an attorney to his
client undermines public confidence in the profession. Because Respondent neglected his duty to safeguard
shortfalls in his CTA by delegating the management of his CTA, a nondelegable duty, to his office manage
actual suspension is warranted. (Brody v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 347, 351 - one-year actual
suspension.)

Culpability of a member of willful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in

disbarment. Only if the anaount of funds or property misappropriated is insignificantly small or if the mos
compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate, shall disbarment not be imposed. In those latter
cases, the discipline shall not be less than a one-year actual suspension, irrespective of mitigating
circumstances. (Std. 2.2(a).)

Culpability of a member of an act of moral turpitude, fraud, or intentional dishonesty toward a court, client
or another person or of concealment of a material fact to a court, client or another person shall result in
actual suspension or disbarment depending upon the magnitude of the act of misconduct and the degree to
which it related to the member’s acts within the practice of law. (Std. 2.3.)

The misconduct was the product of lax office practices and inadequate employee supervision rather than
deliberate venality. (Edwards v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 28, 37 - misappropriation caused by serious,
inexcusable violation of duty to oversee entrusted funds is deemed willful even in the absence of deliberate
wrongdoing.) Misconduct which is technically willful may be less culpable if it is committed through
negligence rather than if it is committed deliberately. (See, e.g., Edwards v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 28
38 - willful misappropriation covers a broad range of conduct varying significantly in the degree of
culpability.) Though this does not absolve Respondent of the violation, it provides an explanation of the
circumstances surrounding the misconduct.

Here, there are extenuating circumstances which substantiate a deviation from one-year actual suspension.
(Doyle v. State Bar (1982) 32 Cal.3d 12, 23; Cain v. State Bar (1979) 25 Cal.3d 956, 961; Waysman v. State
Bar (1986) 41 Cal.3d 452 - 6 months actual suspension; Palomo v. State Bar (1984) 36 Cal.3d 785 -
deviation from disbarment substantiated.)

The CTA deficiencies were not caused by any deliberate conversion of the funds by Respondent. However,
the lack of an evil intent does not immunize the attorney’s conduct from a finding of moral turpitude.
(Fitzsimmons v. State Bar (1983) 34 Cal.3d 327, 331.)

In Hipolito v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 621,627-628, the attorney misappropriated $2,000.00 from a
client by depositing a settlement check in his general account, after tendering to the client a personal check
for the client’s share of the settlement. The personal check was returned for insufficient funds and as a
(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12116/2004.)

13
 (Do not write above this line.)

result of severe financial difficulties the attorney was unable to make restitution promptly. In a second
matter involving another client, the attorney was found culpable of abandonment and failure to
communicate. In mitigation, the attorney demonstrated remorse, made restitution voluntarily as soon as he
was able, and hired a management firm to prevent his misconduct from recurring. The attorney’s
misconduct stemmed from inexactitude and insolvency, not greed or venality and was disciplined with thre
years’ stayed suspension three years’ probation and one year actual suspension. Here, the facts involve a
client trust account and rather than insolvency, Respondent was not prompt in paying Ms. Ruiz because he
relied on advice from ethics counsel. Respondent has a similar amount of mitigation based on different
facts and similar culpability as the attorney in Hipolito.

In Edwards v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 28, the attorney’s misconduct consisted of willful
misappropriation from client funds coupled with habitual negligence in handling his client trust account.
Mitigating factors included prompt, full restitution, within 3 months of the misappropriation and before th
attorney became aware of the complaint with the State Bar, attorney’s good faith in refraining from acts of
deceit towards the client, an 18-year unblemished history of practice, candor and cooperation, the and
voluntary steps by the attorney to improve his management of funds. The Supreme Court found one-year
actual suspension sufficient to protect the public. Here, Respondent has similar mitigating factors and a
unique set of facts whichestablish Respondent’s matter is less egregious than the attorney in Edwards and
six-month actual suspension is appropriate to protect the public in this case. Respondent’s mitigation
includes restoring the misappropriated funds within a short period of time and Respondent’s aggravation is
less than that in Edwards. Respondent did not learn of the outstanding medical lien until several years later
because of his grossly negligent and inadequate CTA management. Respondent would have caught the
uncashed ICM check had he been performing appropriate reconciliations. Here, a six-month actual
suspension is sufficient to protect the public. (Std. 1.2(e); In the Matter of Bouyer (Review Dept. 1991) 1
Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 404.)

STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.

Because Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, Respondent
may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar
Ethics School.

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10116100. Revised 1211612004,)

 In the Matter of Case number(s):
Alfred Oshiomele Anyia 05-O-04734-RAH
A Member of the State Bar
Financial Conditions

a. Restitution

Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per
annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund ("CSF") has reimbursed
one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below,
Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable
interest and costs.

Payee Principal Amount Interest Accrues From

Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of

payment to the Office of Probation not later than TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF PROBATION.

Installment Restitution Payments

Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth
below. Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation
with each quarterly probation report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation.
No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of probation (or period of
reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete
the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.

Payee/CSF (as applicable) Minimum Payment Amount Payment Frequency

co Client Funds Certificate

If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a
required quarterly report, Respondent must file with each required report a
certificate from Respondent and/or a certified public accountant or other financial
professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:

Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do

business in the State of California, at a branch located within the State of
California, and that such account is designated as a "Trust Account" or
"Clients’ Funds Account";

(Financial Conditions form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/2000. Revised 12/16/2004; 12/13/2006.)
15
Page #
 Respondent has kept and maintained the following:

i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets
forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such
client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made
on behalf of such client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account;
and,
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if
there are any differences between the monthly total balances reflected in
(i), (ii), and (iii), above, the reasons for the differences.

c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties

held for clients that specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.

If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during
the entire period covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of
perjury in the report filed with the Office of Probation for that reporting period. In
this circumstance, Respondent need not file the accountant’s certificate
described above.

The requirements of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100,
Rules of Professional Conduct.

d. Client Trust Accounting School

Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent
must supply to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a
session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School, within the same
period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.

(Financial Conditions form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/2000. Revised 12/16/2004; 12/13/2006.)

Page #
(Do not write above thisline.)
In the Matter of Case number(s):
Alfred Oshiomele Anyia 05-O-04734-RAH

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with
each of the recitations and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Disposition.

March 24, 2009 Alfred O. Anyia

Date Responer/t"s
d~ ~ Print Name

Date Print Name

Re~~
March 24, 2009 ~(...~..-~-t.~ Jean Cha
Date De~,~’y~. Trial Counsel’s Signature Print Name

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004; 12/13/2006.) Signature Page

17
 Case Number(s):
Alfred Oshiomele Anyia 05-O-04734-RAH

ORDER

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, 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 fortll
below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.

All Hearing dates are vacated.

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 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)

Date Judge of the State Bar Court

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004; 12/13/2006.)

Actual Suspension Order

Page ].8
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

I am a Case Administrator 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 March 26, 2009, I deposited a true copy of the following
document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND

ORDER APPROVING

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

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

ALFRED 0 ANYIA ESQ

880 W 1ST ST #108
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

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

Jean H. Cha, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on
March 26, 2009.

~;;~ulieta E. Gonzal/es
Case Administratorj
State Bar Court
 (Do not write above this line.)

State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department L
Los Angeles
ACTUAL SUSPENSION
.Court sel~or_The State_Bar ...................Case_Number(s): .~or~Court-use-only ....
13-O-1109I-RAP
Susan Jackson
Deputy Trial Counsel
Office of the Chief Tdal Counsel FILED
State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street SEP 0 4 201;= ~
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299
STATE BAR COURT
(213)765-1498 CLERK’S OFFICE
LOS ANGELES
Bar# 125042

In Pro Per Respondent

Alfred Oshiomele Anyia PUBLIC l IATrER

5653-1/2 Cahuenga Blvd.
North Hollywood, CA 91601
(213) 625-1679
Submitted to: Settlement Judge

Bar# 183571 STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND

DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
In the Matter of:
ALFRED OSHIOMELE ANYIA
ACTUAL SUSPENSION

[] PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED

Bar# 183571

A Member of the State Bar of California

(Respondent)

Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the
space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts,"
"Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.

A. Parties’ Acknowledgments:

(1) Respondent is a member of the State Bar of Califomia, admitted September 17, 1996.

(2) 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.

(3) All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by
this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under UDismissals." The
stipulation consists of ] 1 pages, not including the order.

~.l~,(F~ffective January 1,2011) Actual Suspension

kwiktag® 152 147 831
B~/i5
(Do not write above this line.)

(4) A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included
under "Facts."

(5) Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of
Law":

(6) The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading
"Supporting Authority."

(7) 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.

(8) 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 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
[] Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years:
Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the two billing cycles following the
effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter. (Hardship, special circumstances or other
good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described
above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable
immediately.
[] Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
[] Costs are entirely waived.

B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for
Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances
are required.

(1) [] Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]

(a) [] State Bar Court case # of prior case 05-0-04734

(b) [] Date prior discipline effective October 29, 2009

(c) [] Rules of Professional Conduct/State Bar Act violations:

Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A) [failure to maintain client funds in trust].

Business and Professions Code, section 6106 [acting with gross neglligence and recklessness
in connection with client trust account, by failing to oversee client trust account, failing to
maintain client funds in trust, and failing to properly supervise employees who were
distributing funds from trust].

Business and Professions Code, section 6106 [failing to ensure that there were sufficient funds
in his client trust account to pay checks issued from that account].

See attachment, page 9.

(Effective Januaw1, 2011)

Actual Suspension
2
 (Do not write above this line.)

(d) [] Degree of prior discipline Six months’ actual suspension, two years’ stayed suspension, and
three years’ probation.

(e) [] If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline~ use space provided below.

(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) [] 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) [] Harm: Respondent’s misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

(5) [] Indifference: Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the
consequences of his or her misconduct.

(6) [] 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/Pattern of Misconduct: Respondent’s current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing
or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct. See QttQchment, poge 9.

(8) [] No aggravating circumstances are involved.

Additional aggravating circumstances:

C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigating

circumstances are required.

(1) [] 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) [] 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 with the victims of
his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings.

(4) [] 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) [] Restitution: Respondent paid $ on in restitution to without the threat or force of

disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.

(Effective January 1,2011)

Actual Suspension
3
(Do not write above this line.)

(6) [] Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is not attributable to
Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

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

(8) [] Emotional/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) [] 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) [] 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) [] 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:

Pretrial Stipulation. See attachment, page 9.

D. Discipline:

(1) [] Stayed Suspension:

(a) [] Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years.

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.

ii. [] and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to
this stipulation.

iii. [] and until Respondent does the following:

(b) [] The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

(2) [] Probation:

Respondent must be placed on probation for a period of two years, which will commence upon the effective
date of the Supreme Court order in this matter. (See rule 9.18, Califomia Rules of Court)

(3) [] Actual Suspension:

(Effective January 1,2011)

Actual Suspension
4
(Do not write above this line.)

(a) [] Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period
of one yeor.

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 Attomey Sanctions for Professional Misconduct

ii. [] and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to
this stipulation.

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 must remain actually suspended until
he/she proves to the State Bar Court his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the
general law, pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

(2) [] During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of
Professional Conduct.

(3) [] Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the
State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of
information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar
purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

(4) Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation
and schedule a meeting with Respondent’s assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and
conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the
probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must
promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.
(5) Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10,
July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state
whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all
conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there
are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number and
current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be
submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.

In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no eadier than
twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.

(6) [] Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and
conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance.
Dudng the period of probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested,
in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must
cooperate fully with the probation monitor.

(7) [] Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any
inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are
directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has
complied with the probation conditions.

(Effective January 1,2011)

Actual Suspension
5
 (Do not write above this line.)
(8) [] Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of
Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given
at the end of that session, r

[] No Ethics School recommended. Reason:

(9) [] Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and
must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office
of Probation.

(10) [] The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:

[] Substance Abuse Conditions [] Law Office Management Conditions

[] Medical Conditions [] Financial Conditions

F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

(1) Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination: Respondent must provide proof of passage of
the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National
Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation 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 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) &
(E), Rules of Procedure.

[] No MPRE recommended. Reason:

(2) Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court: Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20,
California Rules of Court, 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 the Supreme Court’s Order in this matter.

(3) Conditional Rule 9.20, Califomia Rules of Court: If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90
days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and
perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 120 and 130 calendar days,
respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court’s Order in this matter.

(4) [] Credit for Interim Suspension [conviction referral cases only]: Respondent will be credited for the
period of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual suspension. Date of
commencement of interim suspension:

(5) [] Other Conditions:

(Effective January 1,2011)

Actual Suspension
6
 ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

..... ~ THE _MA_ _TTER~O_F; ........ ALFRED OSHIOMELE ANYIA .................

CASE NUMBER: 13-O-11091-RAP

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified
statute.
Case No. 13-O-11091 (State Bar Investigation)

FACTS:

1. By order entered on September 29, 2009, and effective October 29, 2009, based on a
stipulation between Respondent and the State Bar of California, the Supreme Court of California
suspended Respondent from the practice of law for six months, and placed him on a disciplinary
probation with terms and conditions in effect for three years. The Supreme Court served the order on
the date it was entered and Respondent received a copy of the order.

2. On October 21, 2009, a probation deputy in the State Bar’s Office of Probation mailed a
letter to Respondent, reminding him of the terms of his disciplinary probation. Respondent received the
letter.

3. On November 3, 2009, Respondent met with the probation deputy, who again explained to
him the terms of his disciplinary probation.

4. The Supreme Court order required that Respondent comply with terms and conditions of
probation, including the following:

Respondent was required to submit to the State Bar’s Office of Probation a report for
each calendar quarter during the probationary period, not later than ten days
following the end of the calendar quarter, i.e., by each January 10, April 10, July 10,
and October 10 of the probationary period, in part attesting to his compliance with the
State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct.

b) Respondent was required to submit to the Office of Probation a final report

containing the same information as required in a quarterly report no earlier than 20
days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of
probation; and

c) With each quarterly report and with the final report, Respondent was required to
submit to the Office of Probation either a client funds certificate or a statement
written under penalty of perjury that Respondent did not possess any client funds,
property or securities during the period covered by the quarterly report.

Anyia - Actual Suspension-8-16-13-F.docx 7

 5. Respondent did not timely submit to the Office of Probation the six written and properly
completed quarterly reports due on July 10, 2010, October 10, 2010, April 10, 2011, July 10, 2011,
October 10, 2011, and January 10, 2012, respectively. These late quarterly reports were received from
one day to six months late.

6. Respondent did not submit to the Office of Probation a written quarterly report due on April
10, 2012, that met the Office of Probation’s requirements for a quarterly report.

7. Respondent did not submit to the Office of Probation the written quarterly report due on
October 10, 2012.

8. Respondent did not submit a final report to the Office of Probation for the probationary
period ending on October 29, 2012.

9. Respondent did not submit to the Office of Probation a client funds certificate due on July
10, 2012 and October 29, 2012, respecti~,ely, or a statement written under penalty of perjury that
Respondent did not possess any client funds, property or securities during each relevant period.

10. Respondent did not timely submit to the Office of Probation a properly completed client
funds certificate due on January 10, 2010, April 10, 2010, July 10, 2010, October 10, 2010, April 10,
2011, July 10, 2011, October 10, 2011, January 10, 2012, April 10, 2012, October 10, 2012,
respectively, or a statement written under penalty of perjury that Respondent did not possess any client
funds, property or securities during each relevant period. These late client funds certificates were
received from two days to four months late.

11. Respondent did not submit a final client funds certificate to the Office of Probation for the
probationary period ending on October 29, 2012.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

12. By falling to comply with conditions of Probation requiring timely submission of properly
completed quarterly reports, accompanied by properly completed client funds certificates (or a statement
written under penalty of perjury that Respondent did not possess any client funds, property or securities
during each relevant period), Respondent failed to comply with all conditions attached to his
disciplinary probation, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(k).

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

Prior Record of Discipline (Std. 1.2(b)(i)): Respondent has a prior record of discipline in one
client matter. The misconduct occurred from May 2001 through October 2005, and involved
Respondent’s failure to maintain client funds in trust; acting with gross negligence and recklessness in
connection with his client trust account, by falling to oversee his client trust account, falling to maintain
client funds in trust, and failing to properly supervise employees who were distributing funds; and
failure to ensure that there were sufficient funds in his client trust account to pay checks that he issued
from the client trust account. The discipline imposed included six months’ actual suspension, two years’
stayed suspension, and three years’ probation with conditions. Respondent’s three-year probationary
period ended on October 29, 2012.

Anyia - Actual Suspension-8-16-13-F.docx g

 Multiple Acts of Misconduct (Std. 1.2(b)(ii)): Respondent engaged in multiple acts of
misconduct by failing to comply with three distinct conditions of his probation on multiple occasions.
All told, R committed 21 separate violations.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

Pretrial Stipulation: Respondent is entitled to mitigation for entering into this stipulated
settlement without the need of a trial to resolve this matter. (See Silva-Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49
Cal.3d 1071, i079 [where mitigative credit was given for entering into a stipulation as to facts and
culpability].)

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provide a "process of fixing
discipline" pursuant to a set of written principles to "better discharge the purposes of attorney discipline
as announced by the Supreme Court." (Rules Proc. of State Bar, tit. IV, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for
Prof. Misconduct, Introduction (all further references to standards are to this source).) The primary
purposes of disciplinary proceedings and of the sanctions imposed are "the protection of the public, the
courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys and the
preservation of public confidence in the legal profession." (In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 205; std.
1.3.)

Although not binding, the standards are entitled to "great weight" and should be followed "whenever
possible" in determining level of discipline. (ln re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 92, quoting In re
Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205,220 and In re Young (1989) 49 Cal.3d 257, 267, fn. 11.) Adherence to the
standards in the great majority of cases serves the valuable purpose of eliminating disparity and
assuring consistency, that is, the imposition of similar attorney discipline for instances of similar
attorney misconduct. (ln re Naney (1990) 51 Cal.3d 186, 190.) Any discipline recommendation
different from that set forth in the applicable standards should clearly explain the reasons for the
deviation. (Blair v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 762, 776, fn. 5.)

Standard 2.6 provides that culpability of a member of a violation of Business and Professions Code
6068(k) shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or harm, if any,
to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3.

Moreover, Standard 1.7(a) provides that when an attorney has a prior record of discipline, the degree of
discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding
unless the prior discipline was so remote in time to the current proceeding and the offense for which it
was imposed was so minimal that requiring greater discipline in the current proceeding would be
manifestly unjust. Neither of the two exceptions to Standard 1.7(a) applies to Respondent’s prior
discipline, which consisted of a six-month actual suspension. Accordingly, under Standard 1.7(a), the
discipline in this proceeding should exceed six months’ actual suspension.

In analyzing the appropriate level of discipline in cases involving probation violations, more serious
sanctions should be applied to those probation violations closely related to the reasons for imposing the
previous discipline or closely related to rehabilitation. (In the Matter of Gorman (Review Dept. 2003) 4
Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 567, 573.) Here, Respondent’s failure to submit client funds certificates to the
Office of Probation was directly related to his prior misconduct, which included misconduct associated
with the administration of his client trust account. Respondent.was required to timely submit 13

Anyia - Actual Suspension-8-16-13-F.docx 9

properly completed client funds certificates. However, only one was properly completed and timely
submitted. Ten were submitted late, one was never submitted, and one was submitted but was not
acceptable to Probation. The late client funds certificates were received from two days to four months
late.

Further, the requirement that Respondent file quarterly reports is intended to assist Respondent with his
rehabilitation in that the reports require Respondent to report to the Office of Probation his compliance
with the Rules and Statutes. Respondent was required to timely submit 13 properly completed quarterly
reports, of which only four were timely submitted and properly completed, six were submitted late, two
were never submitted, and one was submitted but was not acceptable to Probation.

Although Respondent is entitled to mitigation for entering into this Stipulation, the mitigation is not
sufficiently compelling to warrant a deviation from Standards 1.7(a) and 2.6.

In the present case, given Respondent’s repeated and multiple acts of misconduct (consisting of 21
separate violations), his prior discipline, and his lack of substantial mitigation, one year of actual
suspension, two years of stayed suspension, and two years of probation for the present misconduct is
appropriate to achieve the purposes of attorney discipline. Since Respondent attempted to timely and
properly submit the majority of his reports, additional actual suspension is not required.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of
July 23, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are $3419. 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.

EXCLUSION FROM MCLE CREDIT

Pursuant to rule 3201, Respondent may not receive MCLE credit for completion of State Bar Ethics
School. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)

Anyia - Actual Suspension-8-16-13-F.docx 10

 (Do not write above !his I~ne,)
In .the Matter of: Case number(s):
Alfred Oshiomelc Anyia 13-O,11091-RAP

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

By their signatures below, the parties and their~coul~s applicable, signify their agreement with each of the
recitations and each of the term) ~l;~~)@~ff~~tion Re Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition.

~-~ate
-< !~_... ~,,,,l~ Res~~’t~
2~ (..~-----~l I ~. J:~ Alfrexl Oshiomd¢
Anyia
l/ Pdnt Name

Date. Respondent’s Counsel Signature Print Name

Date Deputy Trial Ct~unsel’s Signature Print Name

(Effective January 1,2011)

Signature Page
Page.__L~
 (Do not write above this line.)

In the Matter of: Case Number(s):

Alfred Oshiomele Anyia 13-O-11091-RAP

ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER

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, 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.

[] All Hearing dates are vacated.

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 5.58(E) & (F), 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 9.18(a), California Rules of
Court.)

DONALD F. MILES
Judge of the State Bar Court

(Eff~’tive January 1,2011)

Actual Suspension Order
Page
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

I am a Case Administrator 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 September 4, 2013, I deposited a true copy of the following
document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND

ORDER APPROVING

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

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

ALFRED O. ANYIA
5653 1/2 CAHUENGA BLVD
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 91601

by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of Califomia
addressed as follows:

SUSAN JACKSON, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, Califomia, on
September 4, 2013.

Angela C~t~penter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court