state bar of california - 2UrbanGirls

-1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL MELANIE J. LAWRENCE, No. 230102 INTERIM CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL ANTHONY J. GARCIA, No. 171419 ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL ELIZABETH G. STINE, No. 256839 SUPERVISING ATTORNEY CHARLES T. CALIX, No. 146853 SENIOR TRIAL COUNSEL 845 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017-2515 Telephone: (213) 765-1255

STATE BAR COURT

HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES

In the Matter of: ZEIN E. OBAGI, JR., State Bar No. 264139, An Attorney of the State Bar

) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES (OCTC Case No. 19-O-15749)

NOTICE - FAILURE TO RESPOND!

IF YOU FAIL TO FILE A WRITTEN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER SERVICE, OR IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE STATE BAR COURT TRIAL: (1) YOUR DEFAULT WILL BE ENTERED; (2) YOUR STATUS WILL BE CHANGED TO INACTIVE AND YOU

WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW; (3) YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE FURTHER IN

THESE PROCEEDINGS UNLESS YOU MAKE A TIMELY MOTION AND THE DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE, AND;

(4) YOU SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL DISCIPLINE. SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU FAIL TO TIMELY MOVE TO SET ASIDE OR VACATE YOUR DEFAULT, THIS COURT WILL ENTER AN ORDER RECOMMENDING YOUR DISBARMENT AND MAY RECOMMEND THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS WITHOUT FURTHER HEARING OR PROCEEDING. (SEE RULES PROC. OF STATE BAR, RULES 5.80 ET SEQ. & 5.137.)

-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The State Bar of California alleges:

JURISDICTION

1. Zein E. Obagi, Jr. (“respondent”) was admitted to the practice of law in the State of

California on July 20, 2009. Respondent was a licensed attorney at all times pertinent to these

charges, and is currently a licensed attorney of the State Bar of California.

COUNT ONE

Case No. 19-O-15749 Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-310(C)(1)

[Potential Conflict - Representing Multiple Clients]

2. On or about October 5, 2016, respondent accepted representation of multiple clients,

Eric Dominguez and Tim Cullen, in joint representation regarding the operation of their joint

business known as Valley Herbal Healing Center. At that time he accepted their representation,

the interests of the clients potentially conflicted in that Eric Dominguez provided the physical

facilitate to operate the business while Tim Cullen directed the business that operated out of the

facilitate. Respondent failed to inform the clients of the relevant circumstances and of the actual

and reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences to the clients and failed to obtain the written

consent of each client,1 in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, former rule 3-

310(C)(1).

COUNT TWO

Case No. 19-O-15749 Rules of Professional Conduct, former rule 3-310(E) [Conflict - Representation Adverse to Former Client]

3. On or about October 5, 2016, respondent accepted representation of multiple clients,

Eric Dominguez and Tim Cullen, in joint representation concerning their business known as

Valley Herbal Healing Center, but continued employment by Tim Cullen adverse to Eric

Dominguez after terminating his employment by Eric Dominguez, including but not limited to:

(A) on or about June 2, 2017, sending an email to Eric Dominguez demanding that he “cease and

1 See Bird, Marella, Boxer & Wolpert v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 419,

430-431 [“An attorney owes the client a fiduciary duty ‘of the very highest character.’ [Citation omitted.] This fiduciary duty requires fee agreements and billings ‘must be fair, reasonable and fully explained to the client.’ [Citation omitted.]”

-3-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

desist” purportedly sharing confidential information concerning Valley Herbal Healing Center

with third parties, which respondent claimed “constituted a breach of fiduciary duties that one

partner in a partnership or joint venture owes to the order,” or respondent’s client Tim Cullen

would “analyze his choices”; (B) filing a complaint and thereafter representing Tim Cullen

against, inter alia, Eric Dominguez in the matter titled Valley Herbal v. Eric Drew Shevin and

Shevin Law Group, LASC Case No. BC667767; (C) filing a “Cross-Complaint for Breach of

Fiduciary Duty” and thereafter representing Tim Cullen against Eric Dominguez in the matter

titled Eric Dominguez v. Tim Cullen, Cullen Management, Inc., LASC Case No. BC673006;

(D) conducting negotiations on behalf of Tim Cullen with Eric Dominguez over the sale of

Valley Herbal Healing Center to a third party, where by reason of respondent’s representation of

his former client Eric Dominguez, respondent had obtained confidential information material to

the employment, specifically that Eric Dominguez’s parents were in ill-health and Eric

Dominguez was dealing with personal issues; and (E) “insisting” that the settlement proceeds

from the settlement of Valley Herbal v. Eric Drew Shevin and Shevin Law Group, LASC Case

No. BC667767 and Eric Dominguez v. Tim Cullen, Cullen Management, Inc., LASC Case No.

BC673006, be deposited into respondent’s client trust account rather than an escrow account as

requested by Eric Dominguez’s attorney, without the informed written consent of his former

client, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, former rule 3-310(E).

COUNT THREE

Case No. 19-O-15749 Rules of Professional Conduct, former rule 4-100(B)(1)

[Failure to Notify of Receipt of Client Funds]

4. On or about September 26, 2018, respondent received on behalf of respondent’s client

Tim Cullen and respondent’s former client Eric Dominguez, a wire transfer in the approximate

sum of $1,828,391.02 into his client trust account. Of this sum, Eric Dominguez was entitled to

receive the sum of $515,000 pursuant to: (A) Tim Cullen’s fiduciary duty to his former business

partner Eric Dominguez; (B) the April 24, 2018 settlement agreement in in Valley Herbal v. Eric

Drew Shevin and Shevin Law Group, LASC Case No. BC667767 and Eric Dominguez v. Tim

Cullen, Cullen Management, Inc., LASC Case No. BC673006; and (C) decisions establishing the

-4-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

duty of attorneys to former clients2 and to third parties on whose behalf the attorney has received

money.3 Respondent failed to notify the former client of respondent’s receipt of funds on the

client’s behalf, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, former rule 4-100(B)(1).

COUNT FOUR

Case No. 19-O-15749 Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3)

[Failure to Render Accounts of Client Funds]



sum of $1,828,391.02 into his client trust account. Of this sum, Eric Dominguez was entitled to

$515,000 pursuant to: (A) Tim Cullen’s fiduciary duty to his former business partner Eric

Dominguez; (B) the April 24, 2018 settlement agreement in in Valley Herbal v. Eric Drew

Shevin and Shevin Law Group, LASC Case No. BC667767 and Eric Dominguez v. Tim Cullen,

Cullen Management, Inc., LASC Case No. BC673006; and (C) decisions establishing the duty of

attorneys to former clients4 and to third parties on whose behalf the attorney has received

money.5 Respondent thereafter failed to render an appropriate accounting to the former client

2 See Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 811,821 [“Among the

fiduciary obligations owed by an attorney is the duty of loyalty which continues after the representation has ended.”]

3 See Codiga v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 788 [an attorney has a “fiduciary relationship

to both [spouses in a dissolution] by virtue of his control over the community assets in the trust fund” and “[a]ny disbursement without [the other spouse’s] consent thus constituted a breach of the fiduciary duty owed her.”]); Crooks v. State Bar (1970) 3 Cal.3d 346, 355 [“‘When an attorney receives money on behalf of a third party who is not his client, he nevertheless is a fiduciary as to such third party ... “When an attorney assumes a fiduciary relationship and violates his duty in a manner that would justify disciplinary action if the relationship had been that of attorney and client, he may properly be disciplined for his misconduct.”’ (Johnstone v. State Bar, 64 Cal.2d 153, 155-156; see also Simmons v. State Bar, 70 Cal.2d 361, 365.)”.]; and Guzzetta v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 962, 967 [“Having assumed the responsibility to hold and disburse the funds as directed by the court or stipulated by both parties, petitioner owed an obligation to Camila as a “client” to maintain complete records, ‘render appropriate accounts,’ and ‘[p]romptly pay or deliver to the client’ on request the funds he held in trust.”]

4 See Oasis West, 51 Cal. 4th, supra at p. 821 [“Among the fiduciary obligations owed by

an attorney is the duty of loyalty which continues after the representation has ended.”] 5 See Codiga, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 788 [an attorney has a “fiduciary relationship to

both [spouses in a dissolution] by virtue of his control over the community assets in the trust fund” and “[a]ny disbursement without [the other spouse’s] consent thus constituted a breach of

-5-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

regarding those funds following the former client’s request for the accounting on or about

September 26, 2018 , in willful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, former rule 4-

100(B)(3).

COUNT FIVE

Case No. 19-O-15749 Rules of Professional Conduct, former rule 4-100(A) [Failure to Maintain Client Funds in Trust Account]



sum of $1,828,391.02 into his client trust account. Of this sum, respondent’s former client Eric

Dominguez, to whom respondent owed a fiduciary duty, was entitled to $515,000, pursuant to:

(A) Tim Cullen’s fiduciary duty to his former business partner Eric Dominguez; (B) the April 24,

2018 settlement agreement in in Valley Herbal v. Eric Drew Shevin and Shevin Law Group,

LASC Case No. BC667767, and Eric Dominguez v. Tim Cullen, Cullen Management, Inc.,

LASC Case No. BC673006; and (C) decisions establishing the duty of attorneys to former

clients6 and to third parties on whose behalf the attorney has received money.7 Respondent

the fiduciary duty owed her.”]); and Crooks, 3 Cal.3d at 355 [“‘When an attorney receives money on behalf of a third party who is not his client, he nevertheless is a fiduciary as to such third party ... “When an attorney assumes a fiduciary relationship and violates his duty in a manner that would justify disciplinary action if the relationship had been that of attorney and client, he may properly be disciplined for his misconduct.”’ (Johnstone v. State Bar, 64 Cal.2d 153, 155-156; see also Simmons v. State Bar, 70 Cal.2d 361, 365.)”]; and Guzzetta v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 962, 967 [“Having assumed the responsibility to hold and disburse the funds as directed by the court or stipulated by both parties, petitioner owed an obligation to Camila as a “client” to maintain complete records, ‘render appropriate accounts,’ and ‘[p]romptly pay or deliver to the client’ on request the funds he held in trust.”].

6 See Oasis West, supra, 51 Cal. 4th at p. 821 [“Among the fiduciary obligations owed by

an attorney is the duty of loyalty which continues after the representation has ended.”] 7 See Codiga, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 788 [an attorney has a “fiduciary relationship to

both [spouses in a dissolution] by virtue of his control over the community assets in the trust fund” and “[a]ny disbursement without [the other spouse’s] consent thus constituted a breach of the fiduciary duty owed her.”]); and Crooks, supra, 3 Cal.3d at 355 [“‘When an attorney receives money on behalf of a third party who is not his client, he nevertheless is a fiduciary as to such third party ... “When an attorney assumes a fiduciary relationship and violates his duty in a manner that would justify disciplinary action if the relationship had been that of attorney and client, he may properly be disciplined for his misconduct.”’ (Johnstone v. State Bar, 64 Cal.2d 153, 155-156; see also Simmons v. State Bar, 70 Cal.2d 361, 365.)”]; and Guzzetta v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 962, 967 [“Having assumed the responsibility to hold and disburse the funds as

-6-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

failed to maintain a balance of $515,000 on behalf of his former client in respondent’s client trust

account, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).

COUNT SIX

Case No. 19-O-15749 Business and Professions Code section 6106

[Moral Turpitude - Misappropriation]



sum of $1,828,391.02 into his client trust account.

8. Of this sum, respondent’s former client Eric Dominguez, to whom respondent owed a

fiduciary duty, was entitled to $515,000 pursuant to: (A) Tim Cullen’s fiduciary duty to his

former business partner Eric Dominguez; (B) the April 24, 2018 settlement agreement in in

Valley Herbal v. Eric Drew Shevin and Shevin Law Group, LASC Case No. BC667767, and Eric

Dominguez v. Tim Cullen, Cullen Management, Inc., LASC Case No. BC673006; and (C)

decisions establishing the duty of attorneys to former clients8 and to third parties on whose

behalf the attorney has received money.9

9. Between on or about September 27, 2018 and on or about October 8, 2018,

respondent willfully and intentionally misappropriated the $515,000 that Eric Dominguez was

directed by the court or stipulated by both parties, petitioner owed an obligation to Camila as a “client” to maintain complete records, ‘render appropriate accounts,’ and ‘[p]romptly pay or deliver to the client’ on request the funds he held in trust.”].

8 See Oasis West, supra, 51 Cal. 4th at p. 821 (2011) [“Among the fiduciary obligations

owed by an attorney is the duty of loyalty which continues after the representation has ended.”] 9 See Codiga, supra, 20 Cal.3d 788 [an attorney has a “fiduciary relationship to both

[spouses in a dissolution] by virtue of his control over the community assets in the trust fund” and “[a]ny disbursement without [the other spouse’s] consent thus constituted a breach of the fiduciary duty owed her.”]); and Crooks, supra, 3 Cal.3d at 355 [“‘When an attorney receives money on behalf of a third party who is not his client, he nevertheless is a fiduciary as to such third party ... “When an attorney assumes a fiduciary relationship and violates his duty in a manner that would justify disciplinary action if the relationship had been that of attorney and client, he may properly be disciplined for his misconduct.”’ (Johnstone v. State Bar, 64 Cal.2d 153, 155-156; see also Simmons v. State Bar, 70 Cal.2d 361, 365.)”]; and Guzzetta v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 962, 967 [“Having assumed the responsibility to hold and disburse the funds as directed by the court or stipulated by both parties, petitioner owed an obligation to Camila as a “client” to maintain complete records, ‘render appropriate accounts,’ and ‘[p]romptly pay or deliver to the client’ on request the funds he held in trust.”].

-7-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

entitled to receive. Respondent thereby committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty

or corruption in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.

10. A violation of section 6106 may result from intentional conduct or grossly negligent

conduct. Respondent is charged with committing an intentional misappropriation. However,

should the evidence at trial demonstrate that respondent misappropriated funds as a result of

grossly negligent conduct, respondent must still be found culpable of violating section 6106

because misappropriation through gross negligence is a lesser included offense of intentional

misappropriation.

COUNT SEVEN

Case No. 19-O-15749 Business & Professions Code section 6068(a)

[Violation of Law – Breach of Fiduciary Duty]



sum of $1,828,391.02 into his client trust account pursuant to the settlement agreement in Valley

Herbal v. Eric Drew Shevin and Shevin Law Group, LASC Case No. BC667767, and Eric

Dominguez v. Tim Cullen, Cullen Management, Inc., LASC Case No. BC673006. Of this sum,

Eric Dominguez was entitled to receive the sum of $515,000 pursuant to: (A) Tim Cullen’s

fiduciary duty to his former business partner Eric Dominguez; (B) the April 24, 2018 settlement

agreement in in Valley Herbal v. Eric Drew Shevin and Shevin Law Group, LASC Case No.

BC667767, and Eric Dominguez v. Tim Cullen, Cullen Management, Inc., LASC Case No.

BC673006; and (C) decisions establishing the duty of attorneys to former clients10 and to third

parties on whose behalf the attorney has received money.11 Between on or about September 27,

10 See Oasis West, supra, 51 Cal. 4th at p. 821 (2011) [“Among the fiduciary obligations

owed by an attorney is the duty of loyalty which continues after the representation has ended.”] 11 See Codiga, supra, 20 Cal.3d 788 [an attorney has a “fiduciary relationship to both

[spouses in a dissolution] by virtue of his control over the community assets in the trust fund” and “[a]ny disbursement without [the other spouse’s] consent thus constituted a breach of the fiduciary duty owed her.”]); and Crooks, supra, 3 Cal.3d at 355 [“‘When an attorney receives money on behalf of a third party who is not his client, he nevertheless is a fiduciary as to such third party ... “When an attorney assumes a fiduciary relationship and violates his duty in a manner that would justify disciplinary action if the relationship had been that of attorney and

-8-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2018 and on or about October 8, 2018, respondent disbursed to Tim Cullen’s new attorney the

approximate sum of $1,828,391.02 less the sum of $118,675.86 that respondent received from

Tim Cullen for respondent’s attorney’s fees thereby: (A) facilitating Tim Cullen’s breach of his

fiduciary duty to Eric Dominguez; and (B) breaching his fiduciary duty, including but not limited

to his duty of loyalty, to his former client Eric Dominguez, and thus failing to support the laws of

this State in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).

NOTICE - INACTIVE ENROLLMENT! YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF THE STATE BAR COURT FINDS, PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6007(c), THAT YOUR CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIAL THREAT OF HARM TO THE INTERESTS OF YOUR CLIENTS OR TO THE PUBLIC, YOU MAY BE INVOLUNTARILY ENROLLED AS AN INACTIVE ATTORNEY OF THE STATE BAR. YOUR INACTIVE ENROLLMENT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO ANY DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT.

NOTICE - COST ASSESSMENT! IN THE EVENT THESE PROCEDURES RESULT IN PUBLIC DISCIPLINE, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTS INCURRED BY THE STATE BAR IN THE INVESTIGATION, HEARING AND REVIEW OF THIS MATTER PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.10.

NOTICE – MONETARY SANCTION!

IN THE EVENT THIS MATTER RESULTS IN ACTUAL SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT, OR RESIGNATION WITH CHARGES PENDING, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF A MONETARY SANCTION NOT TO EXCEED $5,000 FOR EACH VIOLATION, TO A MAXIMUM OF ///

client, he may properly be disciplined for his misconduct.”’ (Johnstone v. State Bar, 64 Cal.2d 153, 155-156; see also Simmons v. State Bar, 70 Cal.2d 361, 365.)”]; and Guzzetta v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 962, 967 [“Having assumed the responsibility to hold and disburse the funds as directed by the court or stipulated by both parties, petitioner owed an obligation to Camila as a “client” to maintain complete records, ‘render appropriate accounts,’ and ‘[p]romptly pay or deliver to the client’ on request the funds he held in trust.”].

-9-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

$50,000 PER DISCIPLINARY ORDER, PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.13. SEE RULE 5.137, RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA.

Respectfully submitted, THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL DATED: July 28, 2021 By: Charles T. Calix Senior Trial Counsel

State Bar of California

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

D E C L A R A T I O N O F S E R V I C E

CASE NUMBER(s): (OCTC Case No. 19-O-15749)

I, the undersigned, am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action, whose business address and place of employment is the State Bar of

California, 845 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California 90017, declare that:

- on the date shown below, I caused to be served a true copy of the within document described as follows:

NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES

By U.S. First-Class Mail: (CCP §§ 1013 and 1013(a)) By U.S. Certified Mail: (CCP §§ 1013 and 1013(a))

- in accordance with the practice of the State Bar of California for collection and processing of mail, I deposited or placed for collection and mailing in the City and County - of Los Angeles.

By Overnight Delivery: (CCP §§ 1013(c) and 1013(d)) - I am readily familiar with the State Bar of California’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for overnight delivery by the United Parcel Service ('UPS').

By Fax Transmission: (CCP §§ 1013(e) and 1013(f)) Based on agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed herein below. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. The original record of the fax transmission is retained on file and available upon request.

By Electronic Service: (CCP § 1010.6 and Rules of Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.26.2)

Based on rule 5.26.2, a court order, or an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the above-named document(s) to be transmitted by electronic means to the person(s) at the electronic address(es) listed below. If there is a signature on the document(s), I am the signer of the document(s), I am the agent of, or I am serving the document(s) at the direction of, the signer of the document(s). I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.

(for U.S. First-Class Mail) in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing at Los Angeles, addressed to: (see below)

(for Certified Mail) in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing as certified mail, return receipt requested,

Article No.: 9414 7266 9904 2171 3797 13 at Los Angeles, addressed to: (see below)

(for Overnight Delivery) together with a copy of this declaration, in an envelope, or package designated by UPS,

Tracking No.: addressed to: (see below)

Person Served Business Address Fax Number Courtesy Copy to:

Erin McKeown Joyce

Erin Joyce Law 117 E Colorado Blvd

Ste 465 Pasadena, CA 91105-3731

Electronic Address

via inter-office mail regularly processed and maintained by the State Bar of California addressed to:

N/A

I am readily familiar with the State Bar of California's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, and overnight delivery by the United Parcel Service ('UPS'). In the ordinary course of the State Bar of California's practice, correspondence collected and processed by the State Bar of California would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day, and for overnight delivery, deposited with delivery fees paid or provided for, with UPS that same day. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope or package is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit.

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

DATED: July 28, 2021 SIGNED: Genelle De Luca-Suarez

Declarant

Genelle DeLuca-Suarez

state bar of california - 2UrbanGirls

Documents