Page |1

FORMAL COMPLAINT OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL CONSEL/INTAKE, STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA 1149 SOUTH HILL STREET, LOST ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015-2299

Name of Attorney:.

Attorney Roland Achtel

State Bar No.

215031

Other Attorneys

Olga Alvarez Jenny K. Goodman Jennifer W Chang

State Bar No. State Bar. No State Bar No.

222557 177828 259643

Law Firm:.

e-mail: Location of Court:. Dates of Incident:. Name of Case:. Case No.:

Sullivan Hill Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel 550 W "C" St Ste 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 233-4100 Fax Number: (619) 231-4372 achtel@sullivanhill.com Superior Court of California San Diego North County Dept. NC-2 March 1, 2012 And For The Past One And a Half Years In Re David L. Bedolla Living Trust 37-2010-00150345-PR-TR-NC

INTRODUCTION This Complaint is not filed with the intent to ask the Office of The Chief Trial Counsel for legal advice; to correct errors, rulings, decision, or to issue an order in the case. This Complaint if filed because we believed attorneys Roland Achtel, Olga Alvarez, Jenny Goodman, and Jennifer Chang engaged in an egregious pattern of misconduct that infringed the constitutional and statutory rights of our father their former client and our rights as petitioners in the above named action. These said acts by attorney Achtel and the above named attorneys were not
isolated; rather, they reflected a disturbing and persistent pattern of conduct that is completely at odds with the standard of conduct expected of licensed attorneys in the State of California.

The above named attorneys, violated the American Bar Association rules of professional conduct; violations under Business and Professions Code; violations under California Rules of Professional Conduct; California Civil Rules of Procedure; Local Court rules; codes of conduct and ethics that are required guidelines for Members of the American Bar Association.
1|Page

Page |2

The above named attorneys actions were negligent, in bad faith, and violated public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary process. The Board of Governors has the power to discipline members as provided by law for a willful breach of any of these rules. The exhibits attached to this complaint will support our Complaint and the facts stated in this complaint as true and correct as to the event and proceedings. HISTORY AND EVENTS THAT LEAD TO THIS COMPLAINT In the instant, this is a Probate/Civil case about our father who is now diseased. Our father who had been married to our mother for over 58-years before he passed away. Our father and mother had nine biological children. There were no other marriages and no other children. Our father was emotionally and financially abused, neglected, denied medical care, and died an early horrific death. He was dehydrated, had multiple bed sores, and was isolated by our youngest sister Alejandra and our brother who is now dismissed from the complaint. Alejandra and our brother exploited their relationship with our father, and through verbal threats and abuse, manipulation, fraud and undue influence bullied our father to gift my brother and Alejandra the properties he jointly owned with his wife Maria, without Maria's knowledge or consent. Our father was diagnosis on May 14, 2007 with terminal cancer, Alejandra the Respondent did not inform any of the family members of our father's terminal diagnosis including our father and mother. Instead By May 25, 2007 Respondent Alejandra had taken our father to the Law Office of Roland Achtel1 to draft a living trust under the name of David L. Bedolla Living Trust. No one knew that our father was terminal or that Respondent Alejandra Bedolla had taken our father to draft a living trust. On May 25, 2007 Respondent Alejandra wrote a check to the Achtel Law Firm APC; check number 548 from the Bank of America Bank account of David L. Bedolla and Trinidad V. Bedolla for an amount of $ 1,200.00 signed with the name of David L. Bedolla. Alejandra Bedolla send a cashier's check from her San Diego Credit Union Account to pay for the trust. Respondent Alejandra (a). drove David L. Bedolla to the law office of Achetel Law APC, (b). wrote the checks equal to $ 2, 400 from David L. Bedolla and his wife Maria's Bank of America checking account. (c). Alejandra made herself the, "Successor Trustee" of David Bedolla L. Living Trust. Giving herself, (d). "Financial Power," (e). "Power of Attorney" and sole decision making of David L. Bedolla "Power of health and directive (f) Conservator and (g). the, "sole beneficiary of the so-called David L. Bedolla Living Trust." Based on attorney records Achtel Law Firm APC, staff member RHA wrote: under description as a flat fee for preparation of a living trust; certificate of trust, power of attorneys, designation of conservator (s); pour-over will (s); health care directive(s); one quit claim deed; general assignment of personal property and other ancillary living trust documents. The total charges
1

At that time Roland Achtel and Olga Alvarez were the only two attorneys in the firm.
2|Page

Page |3

were $ 2, 400.00 from David L. Bedolla and Maria V. Bedolla Bank of America Account balance of $ 1,200.00. Our father died on February 4, 2010, a few months later our mother was contacted by the San Diego Assessors/Recorders Office about the name change of her home property her main residence in Cardiff CA the home value at that time was $650.000. The home our mother jointly owned with our father and marital community property. This is when we found out that our youngest sister Alejandra had taken our father to the law office of Roland Achtel and caused a living trust to be transcribed. Whereby Alejandra would be the sole beneficiary of our father's marital community property estate. We filed a Petition in Superior Court of California San Diego North County Division [July 15, 2010] in the Probate department to have the David. L. Bedolla Living Trust nullified and have the property returned to the Bedolla estate. Alejandra Bedolla being the Respondent in the Probate Petition. The David L. Bedolla Living Trust was fraud and flawed, in many ways. The trust gifts community property belonging to our mother [her main residence/ the Bedolla estate] to Alejandra Bedolla. Alejandra made herself the "Successor Trustee" of David Bedolla L. Living Trust Giving herself, (d). "Financial Power," (e). "Power of Attorney" and sole decision making of David L. Bedolla "Power of health and directive (f) Conservatorship and (g). the, "sole beneficiary of the so-called David L. Bedolla estate." Though our father presumably paid for a conservatorship, none was established. Our mother did not quit claim deed the property to the trust. The Living Trust is a couple of dozen pages long (on or about 30-plus) written only in English. Our father did not speak read or write English and only had a third grade education. A declaration of attorney Olga Alvarez states that she personally translated the trust to our father. Yet our father never saw the trust until the day he signed it. On the day he signed the trust our father was in the hospital gravely ill from En Vibrio Cholera and under over twenty one strong medications. All trust communication, email, mail, calls, faxes, translations with the Achtel law firm were made by Alejandra Bedolla not our father. All and other means of communication was conducted between these above named attorneys and Alejandra Bedolla and not our father David L. Bedolla.

Respondent Alejandra Bedolla is being represented by attorney Roland Achtel and Olga alvarez from the onset of this present action. Attorney Achtel and attorney Olga Alvarez joined the law firm of Sullivan Hill Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel prior to representing Alejandra Bedolla. Further Attorney Roland Achtel has brought in two additional attorneys into the litigation Attorney Jenny K. Goodman and Jennifer Chang. We the Petitioners in the above named action are representing ourselves.

3|Page

Page |4

We believe that attorneys Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jennifer W. Chang; Jenny K. Goodman, Notary Public/paralegal Audrey Amaral and the entire law firm of Sullivan Hill failed to evaluate possible conflict of interest, e.g., within the guidelines of Cal Rules of Prof Cond 3310 and the American Bar Association amend. Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(a). We believe these above named attorneys [Roland Achtel and Olga Alvarez] personally represented Respondent Alejandra Bedolla in transcribing the living trust that is the center of this dispute. As noted in Petitioners Trial Brief Olga Alvarez, Audrey Amaral and Roland Achtel will be called as "witnesses" in this upcoming trial. We believe these attorneys [Roland Achtel & Olga Alvarez] accepted the funds from our fathers checking account from checks handwritten by Respondent Alejandra Bedolla. We believe that while our father was presumably the client of Olga Alvarez and Roland Achtel all phone, oral, written, faxed, emailed, mailed, and any other means of communication was conducted between these above named attorneys and Alejandra Bedolla and not our father. We believe our father did not have attorney representation because attorney Olga Alvarez and Roland Achtel were representing Respondent Alejandra Bedolla with our fathers funds from our father's checking account. Attorneys Roland Achtel and Olga alvarez did not followed the ACTEL or the CEB Rule Model Guide status. Now both of these attorneys are representing Alejandra Bedolla in this present action.2 Based on the above prongs and elements Attorney Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez, Jenny Goodman and Jennifer Chang have violated multiple rules of the ABA and CA codes of Conduct Ethics and Professional Responsibilities for attorneys. Attorney Achtel represented Alejandra Bedolla, Roberto Bedolla and Graciela Meza in the same action. Attorney Roland Achtel has consistently contradicted the facts and given false testimony before the judges and in the court filings. Attorney Achtel has filed declarations stating that all parties have, "meet and conferred" in all of the CMC hearings when this has never happened. There were no physical, phone, mails or email communications in regards to any meet and confer as required by the statute. Prior to filing a CMC and Motion to Compel a 'meet and confer' was mandatory and a requirement by the local rules and California CCP codes before filing a CMC and a Motion to Compel. The only contact attorney Achtel has made has been sending bully letters and emails to Rule 1-110 Disciplinary Authority of the State Bar A member shall comply with conditions attached to public or private reprovals or other discipline administered by the State Bar pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 6077 and 6078 and rule 9.19, California Rules of Court. (Amended by order of the Supreme Court, operative July 11, 2008.)
2

4|Page

Page |5

Petitioners. Last bully letter dated January 12, 2012 where he is accusing Petitioner Silvia Peters of, "improper conduct and a pattern of illicit activity" and threatened Petitioner with "court admonitions and sanctions". Attorney Roland Achtel has consistently mislead the court claiming he has not been served with documents to which he has been served. Most recently attorney Achtel gave false testimony before the court and submitted documents under penalty of perjury stating he was never served with Petitioners reply to the March 1, 2012 Motion to Compel hearing. When in fact he had been served with all the documents and the proof of services was filed with the court. Attorney Roland Achtel made Alejandra Bedolla, Roberto Bedolla and Graciela Meza sign a contractual agreement in which he informed them he had a conflict of interest but guaranteed that they did not have to worry because the case would never go to trial. Attorney Achtel did not conduct discovery for the trial in a year and a half and gave false testimony to the court many times about not being property served with Petitioners documents. Attorney Roland Acthel is seeking to delay the trial by making motions to extend trial dates, claiming he is never served with document, that Petitioners are delaying the process. Even when attorney Achtel motions were previously denied by judge Powazek . Attorney Achtel continued to make the same motions and same allegations that were overruled by judge Powazek time after time. Attorney Roland Acthel may claim that he has fully disclosed his conflict of interests to his present and former clients. However our father is diseased and could have never agreed to these conflict of interests. We the Petitioners in this action have not agreed to the conflict of interests. Attorneys Achtel and Alvarez conflict of interests are at the root of our father's neglect, denial of medical care, abuse and early death. Regardless he is in violation of multiple laws and so is his entire law firm of Sullivan Hill, based on the above elements and prongs.3 Under California law, an attorney may only use methods as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 6068(d). In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member: (A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only as are consistent with truth; (B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of face or law; C) Shall not intentionally misquote to a tribunal the language of a book, statute, or decision; (D) Shall not, knowing its invalidity, cite as authority a decision that has been repealed or declared unconstitutional. California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5-200 (1992). Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 107, 101 Cal. Rptr. 745, 496 P.2d 817) "Misuse of the courts in this manner contributes to an undermining of confidence in the judiciary by reinforcing the unfortunate image of courts as 'distant' entities, available only to wealthy or large interests," and leads consumers "to conclude that the legal system is merely a 'rubber stamp' for the improper practices utilized by predatory agencies." (Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn., supra, at p. 108.)
3

5|Page

Page |6

Our case was previously assigned to Honorable Judge Harry L. Powazek who reviewed the case for one year and a half. During the time there was a discovery cutoff date of October 28, 2010. Parties were to submit detailed brief and list of witnesses by November 18, 2010. Judge Powazek had previously denied Defendant's attorney Motion for Extension of Time and motions for production of documents. The case rotated to Judge Richard G. Cline, March 1, 2012 was our first hearing with Judge Cline. On March 1, 2012, Defendant's attorney Roland Achtel made a motion to Compel Interrogatories/ discovery documents, an Ex Parte Application and a CMC hearing for the same day and time 2:30 p.m. Attorney Roland Achtel submitted a false declaration under penalty of perjury claiming the Petitioners had not filed a reply to his motion to compel. That was false but Judge Powazek extended and continued the motion for attorney Roland Achtel [this tactic was done to insure that judge Powazek who was familiar case did not hear Attorney's Achtel Motion to Compel. As a result of attorney Achtel false written and oral testimony we were sanctioned $ 1,200 by Judge Cline who was returning from vacation and was not familiar with the case. The Motion to Compel was based primary [also oral arguments] on the allegations that we were late on serving the replies to his interrogatories and because we were late we lost our right to object to the questions. At the hearing even Judge Cline acknowledged that we were not late. 4 In Attorney Roland Achtel second argument in his Motion to Compel he alleged on the pleading papers that our answered interrogatories were not complete and introduced the first set of interrogatories reply as evidence. To begin with, there were two consecutive responses that followed the first set and the later were full and complete. Yet, attorney Achtel wrote and gave false testimony to the court5.

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013 (a) In case of service by mail, the notice or other paper shall be deposited in a post office, mailbox, subpost office, substation, or mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope, with postage paid, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served, at the office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the cause and served on the party making service by mail; otherwise at that party's place of residence. Service is complete at the time of the deposit, but any period of notice and any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended five calendar days....
5

Section 2030.060 Sub. (d) provides: "each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preference or instruction shall be included with a set of interrogatories unless it has been approved by the Judicial Council of California.."All special interrogatories are subject to the requirements of this section and to presumptive numerical limitation of section 2030.030

6|Page

Page |7

CCP codes requires that a motion to compel must be accompanied by an attorney declaration that says that the parties 'meet and conferred.' This was not the case and our written argument showed that even Attorney Achtel's own exhibits showed that he did not 'meet and confer' before filing the motions. [Achtel Exhibit I & H].6 There was also a mutual stipulation by Petitioners and attorney Goodman to meet and confer prior to filing the Motion to Compel. In addition, California Rules of Court Rule 335. Format of discovery motions (a) [Separate statement required] Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request shall be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include: (1) a motion to compel further responses to requests for admission; (2) a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories; (3) a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things. Attorney Achtel did not file a Separate Statement with the moving Motion to Compel Interrogatories and Production of Records as required by the California Rules of the Court. Attorney Achtel lack of filing of a Separate Statement accompanied with his Motion to Compel as required by California Rules of Court 0331-0341; California Rules of Court Rule 335. (b) prejudiced us; denied us; violated our due process rights to justice and have meaningful access to the court. Attorney Achtel failure to file a Separate Statement denied us the opportunity to respond to each and every document he alleged was not provided for him or to respond to the questions he said were not answered. The Separate Statement must be submitted with the motion by the moving party. We were not the moving party.7 [CRC 3.1020(a) CCP 2030.300 (b); 2016.040

The California Rules of Court relating to discovery are set forth in California Rules of Court 0331-0341. California Rules of Court Rule 335. (b) [Separate statement not required] A separate statement is not required when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (c) [Contents of separate statement] A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that sets forth all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement shall be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material shall not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The separate statement shall include-for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested-the following: (1) the text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand; (2) the text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers;
7|Page

Page |8

The rules state that: "A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that sets forth all the information necessary to understand each discovery demand and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full demand and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. [CRC 3.1020(c).] [CRC 3.1020(c).]" Attorney Achtel did not file a Statement on his Motion to Compel Interrogatories and he clumped up demand for Inspection of records into the Motion to Compel Interrogatories. Yet he did not provide the statements as required by CRC 3.1020 (c). He did not state what answers he felt were incomplete or what documents he was seeking. Petitioners filed a response to his two allegations, in which attorney Achtel claimed: (a). He was served late (b). the responses were incomplete. It was impossible to address in detail what it was he was seeking or what responses were not answered. When attorney Achtel did not file the statements are required by CRC 3.1020 (c). As a result of attorney's Achtel's errors and false written and oral testimony we were sanctions $ 1,200. When we walked outside the courtroom, attorney Achtel had a big smirk on his face and said, "oh yeah those records. Just send me a letter that says the records you sent me, are all the records you have." On the second motion for Production of Documents for Maria Bedolla and followed after the Motion to Compel. Attorney Achtel was making this ex parte motion as well as the motion to compel well passed the discovery date of October 28, 2011. Well, after Honorable Judge Harry (3) a statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute; (4) if necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it; (5) if the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth; and (6) if the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them shall summarize each relevant document. (Subd (c) repealed and adopted effective July 1, 2001.) (d) [Identification of interrogatories, demands, or requests] A motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests shall identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number. (Subd (d) relettered effective July 1, 2001; adopted as subd (b) effective January 1, 1984; previously amended effective July 1, 1987; previous subd (d) repealed effective July 1, 2001.) Rule 335 amended effective July 1, 2001; adopted effective January 1, 1984; previously amended effective July 1, 1987, January 1, 1992, and January 1, 1997.
8|Page

Page |9

L. Powazek had denied his motions for continuance and motion for discovery after the cutoff date of October 28, 2011. On the ex parte motion before the court [March 1, 2012] attorney Achtel was seeking the records from San Diego County Adult Protective Services for Maria Bedolla a person not a party to this action. Attorney Achtel: Filed a subpoena on behalf of Roberto Bedolla and Graciela Meza on December 7, 2011, for the records of Maria Bedolla. Attorney Achtel was not representing Roberto and Graciela Meza on December 7, 2011 when he wrote and sent the subpoena.8 Roberto and Graciela were no longer parties to the action when Attorney Achtel filed the Ex Parte Application with Roberto Bedolla and Graciela Meza's name in the subpoena and proof of service. Attorney Achtel filed the Ex Parte Application for release of records for Maria Bedolla and had a release of records form signed by Maria Trinidad Villagomez AKA Maria Villagomez. The names did not match. Attorney Achtel filed the Ex Parte Application after the motion for continuance was denied by Hon. Judge Harry L. Powazek. Attorney Achtel filed the Ex Parte Application after the October 28, 2011 cutoff date. Attorney Achtel did not seek leave of the Court before he filed either the Ex Parte Application or the Motion to Compel .

Attorney Roland Achtel and Olga Alvarez violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct Ruel 3-310 (1) (2) (a) (b) (3) (4) when they were supposed to represent our father's interests. Instead, they represented Alejandra's interests with our father's money. They are now representing Alejandra and were representing our sister Graciela and brother Roberto and their own interests. Attorney Roland Achtel and Olga Alvarez violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-310 (c) (1) (2) (3) when they did not disclose their conflict of interests and did not have full consent of all parties in the litigation . They represented more than one client (1) in a matter in which the interests of the clients potentially conflict and (2) accepted representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the clients actually conflict.

Attorney Robin Montes State Bar No. 171332 can testify to this effect. 4751 Oceanside Blv. Ste. A Oceanside Ca. 92056. Phone 760-945-3148 Fax 760-945-7487
9|Page

P a g e | 10

Attorney Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jeniffer Chang and Jenny Goodman violated Rule 5.200 of Trial Conduct; (A). In which they presented documentation that was not consistent with the truth to the court. (B). They filed documents to mislead the judge, by false statements under penalty of perjury and oral arguments on the court records Attorney Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jeniffer Chang and Jenny Goodman will violate Rule 5210 at the upcoming trial scheduled for on or about June 2012. They are planning to defend Alejandra Bedolla and themselves in the Living Trust. They will have to testify as to the flaws of the Living Trust they transcribed. These said attorneys will question themselves and testify on their own behalf. They will have to question their former clients, and protect the interests of my father who they claimed they represented at trial. Attorney Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jeniffer Chang and Jenny Goodman violated Rule 1.10 in that they all became part of this litigation and represented themselves, (1) more than one client (2) in a matter in which the interests of the clients potentially conflict and (3) accepted representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the the clients actually conflict. Rule 1.10 simply states: Rule 1.10 Imputation Of Conflicts Of Interest: General Rule (a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7 or 1.9, unless the prohibition is based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer and does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm.9 American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility Formal Opinion 92-367 October 16, 1992 under: "The Committee concludes that a lawyer's examining the lawyer's client as an adverse witness, or conducting third party discovery of a client, will ordinarily present a conflict of interest that is disqualifying absent consent of one or both of the clients involved (depending, as will be explained, on the nature and degree of the conflict), and that the individual lawyer's disqualification will, again in the absence of consent, be imputed to all other lawyers in the lawyer's firm as well.10" These said attorneys also violated Rule 1.9 (a) (b) (1) (2) In which they owed a duty to our father who was suppose to be their former client. Yet, represented Alejandra's interests with our father's money. 10 3. Rule 1.10 provides in pertinent part: (a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7, 1.8(c), 1.9 or 2.2.
10 | P a g e
9

P a g e | 11

Attorney Roland Achtel and the above named attorneys has engaged in an egregious pattern of malicious and capricious misconduct and manner that infringed the constitutional rights of our father and our right to have access to justice and has made a mockery of the judiciary system. Attorney Roland Achtel and the above named attorneys disrespected and disregarded court ruling made by Judge Powazek and continues to bring up defenses and motions that have been overruled by the court, over and over. These incidents are not isolated; rather, have been systemic, willful and ongoing for over a year and a half. They reflected a disturbing and persistent pattern of conduct that is completely at odds with the standard of conduct expected of attorney licensed to practice law in the state of California. Attorneys Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jennifer W. Chang; Jenny K. Goodman; Notary Public/ paralegal Audrey Amaral and the entire Sullivan Hill law firm should have never been involved in a case where they had multiple conflicts of interests and divided loyalties. They represented our father in a flawed Living Trust, and represented our sister at the same time. After we filed the Petition he represented our Sisters Alejandra Bedolla, Graciela Meza and our brother Roberto Bedolla and themselves in the same litigation. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility Section of Litigation Standing Committee on Professionalism Report to the House of Delegates RECOMMENDATION RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association amend Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(a) to read as follows: Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest: General Rule While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7 or 1.9 In opening remarks to the House, Ethics Committee Chairman Robert Mundheim stated that Report 109 addresses only the situation in which a lawyer moves from private practice or corporate practice to another private practice or corporate practice. The House approved Report 109 by a vote of 219-183. In addition, the sponsors of this Report with Recommendations propose that the phrase prohibited lawyer appearing in Rule 1.10(a)(1) be changed, for consistency, to read disqualified lawyer, a more grammatically precise term used in section (a)(2)(ii) to describe a lawyer who is prohibited from undertaking a representation. (a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7 or 1.9,

11 | P a g e

P a g e | 12

Attorneys Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jennifer W. Chang; Jenny K. Goodman should have been disqualified and reported to the American Bar Association long time ago.11 We, Silvia Peters, Margarita Frias and Jesus Bedolla declare; We are the sons and daughters of descendant David Bedolla Lemus and Petitioners in this action. Except as to those matters we state on information and belief, and as to those matters we believe them to be true, if called before a Court, we could and would testify competently from our own personal knowledge as to the facts stated herein. We, declare under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct that this declaration was executed on March 9, 2012.

Dated:. March 9, 2012 ________________________

_______________________

______________________

Under Business and Professions Code sections 6075 and 6076, State Bar procedures for providing hearings and determining accusations against members of the State Bar are coordinated with the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court: The rules of professional conduct adopted by the board, when approved by the Supreme Court, are binding upon all members of the State Bar. [] For a wilful breach of any of these rules, the board has power to discipline members of the State Bar by reproval, public or private, or to recommend to the Supreme Court the suspension from practice for a period not exceeding three years of members of the State Bar. (Bus. & Prof.Code, 6077, 6086.7.)

11

12 | P a g e