Tweet
Earlier this year one of the attorneys at Geragos & Geragos was handed a periodic suspension by the state bar. The attorney is back on active status now.
But, the underlying charges and Kopp's explanation including the excuse that his conduct was signed off on by Paul Geragos are incredibly sad.
SHEPARD S. KOPP [#174612], 43, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect May 4, 2008.
Kopp stipulated to misconduct in two matters. In the first, a drunk driving case in which his client used another person’s name, he admitted to four counts of misconduct — he represented clients with adverse interests, sought to mislead a judge, advised violating the law, and failed to withdraw from a case knowing that his continued employment violated the law. In the second matter, Kopp stipulated that he failed to refund unearned fees.
In the drunk driving case, Kopp represented a defendant, Christopher Jauregui, who was on probation in a felony robbery case. Jauregui was arrested for driving under the influence, but provided the name and birth date of a passenger, Cesar Casteneda, who was a longtime friend. Casteneda’s license subsequently was suspended. Jauregui was charged, under Casteneda’s name, with three misdemeanor driving under the influence counts.
Neither the court nor Jauregui’s probation officer were aware that the charges were filed under Casteneda’s name.
At a meeting with both men, Kopp advised them that if the case could be delayed a year, until the statute of limitations expired, he would then inform the district attorney that it was filed against the wrong person. At that time, he believed, the case against Casteneda would be dismissed and he thought it likely that the DA would not pursue the charges against Jauregui “assuming it was ever discovered that Jauregui was the actual person arrested,” according to the stipulation.
Kopp represented both men. Ultimately, after several appearances by Kopp and other attorneys in his firm, Geragos and Geragos, the court was informed that Casteneda was charged erroneously. Jauregui was charged with DUI and his case was referred to a new attorney.
At all times, Kopp was the lead attorney in the case and the other attorneys who appeared on his behalf took their instructions from him. However, according to the stipulation, Kopp would have testified that he discussed his strategy with Paul Geragos, the firm’s founding partner, and that Geragos approved.
Although Jauregui eventually pleaded no contest to one count of misdemeanor DUI, he and Casteneda were later charged with felony conspiracy to obstruct justice. Jauregui also was charged with false personation and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime, both felonies, and Casteneda was charged with one felony count of compounding a non-capital felony. Both men pleaded no contest to misdemeanor obstruction of justice.
The Los Angeles district attorney’s Justice System Integrity Division also investigated Kopp’s role in the case, but did not find sufficient evidence to charge him criminally.
In the second matter, two individuals who were facing possible criminal charges in an insurance matter advanced $15,000 to Kopp for representation. Five billing statements sent to the pair indicated no work had been done on the case.
When they ended Kopp’s employment and asked for a refund of the fee, he did not respond for three months. He then said he had done some work and would not refund the entire amount. After the couple complained to the State Bar, Kopp sent them a check for $13,170. He eventually refunded the full amount.
Kopp indicated that his work was not reflected on billing statements because of certain office procedures that have since been changed.
In mitigation, Kopp has no prior discipline record, submitted letters attesting to his good moral character and has substantial volunteer and community activities. He said he believed he was pursuing the best strategy for Juaregui and Casteneda and did not intend to mislead the court.
Shepard Sanford Kopp, State Bar #174612, Los Angeles (April 4, 2008). Kopp, 43, was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for representing more than one client in the same matter in which the interests of the clients were in potential conflict. He also was disciplined for attempting to mislead a judge, continuing a matter in violation of the State Bar Act, failing to promptly return unearned fees, and advising a client to violate a law, rule, or ruling.
In 1998 Kopp worked for a law firm that represented a criminal defendant. In January and April 1999 the district attorney filed complaints against the client, alleging two second-degree robbery counts. Kopp negotiated a plea agreement, and the client was sentenced to 90 days in jail and placed on three years of probation.
In July 2000 the client was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Knowing he was still on probation, the client and another person in the car switched names when the officer questioned them. The client was booked, photographed, and fingerprinted under the false name.
In August 2000 Kopp was assigned to handle the client’s drunk-driving case. During the meeting with the client, Kopp learned about the identity switch that was made at the time of the stop. Kopp went to the courthouse and obtained documents showing the arrest. After learning about the identity switch, Kopp failed to inform the court.
In September 2000, during a meeting with the client and the passenger who switched names with the client, Kopp advised the client and the other person to delay the case until the statute of limitations expired in one year. He advised that if they waited, the charges would most likely be dropped.
That same month the other person, who also was charged, hired Kopp’s firm to represent him in the matter. Kopp had the clients sign conflict-of-interest waivers, but they were inadequate because the waivers did not address the conflict that existed between the two clients.
In July 2001 the law firm disclosed to the court the true identities of the two clients and that the case was filed against the wrong person. In 2002 the matter was resolved, and the clients hired new counsel.
In a second matter, in June 2004 Kopp’s firm was paid $15,000 to represent two clients in a criminal matter involving insurance fraud. In January 2005 the clients sent a letter to Kopp terminating his employment and requesting a refund of advance fees.
During 2005 the clients made repeated demands for a refund, but Kopp failed to return the fees. In May 2005 the clients filed a complaint with the State Bar. Before receiving a letter from the State Bar, Kopp sent a letter and a check for $13,170 to the clients. The clients took issue with Kopp’s claim for fees. In August 2005 Kopp returned the additional $1,830 to the clients.
In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that harmed clients and the administration of justice. In mitigation, Kopp cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
But, the underlying charges and Kopp's explanation including the excuse that his conduct was signed off on by Paul Geragos are incredibly sad.
SHEPARD S. KOPP [#174612], 43, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect May 4, 2008.
Kopp stipulated to misconduct in two matters. In the first, a drunk driving case in which his client used another person’s name, he admitted to four counts of misconduct — he represented clients with adverse interests, sought to mislead a judge, advised violating the law, and failed to withdraw from a case knowing that his continued employment violated the law. In the second matter, Kopp stipulated that he failed to refund unearned fees.
In the drunk driving case, Kopp represented a defendant, Christopher Jauregui, who was on probation in a felony robbery case. Jauregui was arrested for driving under the influence, but provided the name and birth date of a passenger, Cesar Casteneda, who was a longtime friend. Casteneda’s license subsequently was suspended. Jauregui was charged, under Casteneda’s name, with three misdemeanor driving under the influence counts.
Neither the court nor Jauregui’s probation officer were aware that the charges were filed under Casteneda’s name.
At a meeting with both men, Kopp advised them that if the case could be delayed a year, until the statute of limitations expired, he would then inform the district attorney that it was filed against the wrong person. At that time, he believed, the case against Casteneda would be dismissed and he thought it likely that the DA would not pursue the charges against Jauregui “assuming it was ever discovered that Jauregui was the actual person arrested,” according to the stipulation.
Kopp represented both men. Ultimately, after several appearances by Kopp and other attorneys in his firm, Geragos and Geragos, the court was informed that Casteneda was charged erroneously. Jauregui was charged with DUI and his case was referred to a new attorney.
At all times, Kopp was the lead attorney in the case and the other attorneys who appeared on his behalf took their instructions from him. However, according to the stipulation, Kopp would have testified that he discussed his strategy with Paul Geragos, the firm’s founding partner, and that Geragos approved.
Although Jauregui eventually pleaded no contest to one count of misdemeanor DUI, he and Casteneda were later charged with felony conspiracy to obstruct justice. Jauregui also was charged with false personation and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime, both felonies, and Casteneda was charged with one felony count of compounding a non-capital felony. Both men pleaded no contest to misdemeanor obstruction of justice.
The Los Angeles district attorney’s Justice System Integrity Division also investigated Kopp’s role in the case, but did not find sufficient evidence to charge him criminally.
In the second matter, two individuals who were facing possible criminal charges in an insurance matter advanced $15,000 to Kopp for representation. Five billing statements sent to the pair indicated no work had been done on the case.
When they ended Kopp’s employment and asked for a refund of the fee, he did not respond for three months. He then said he had done some work and would not refund the entire amount. After the couple complained to the State Bar, Kopp sent them a check for $13,170. He eventually refunded the full amount.
Kopp indicated that his work was not reflected on billing statements because of certain office procedures that have since been changed.
In mitigation, Kopp has no prior discipline record, submitted letters attesting to his good moral character and has substantial volunteer and community activities. He said he believed he was pursuing the best strategy for Juaregui and Casteneda and did not intend to mislead the court.
Shepard Sanford Kopp, State Bar #174612, Los Angeles (April 4, 2008). Kopp, 43, was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for representing more than one client in the same matter in which the interests of the clients were in potential conflict. He also was disciplined for attempting to mislead a judge, continuing a matter in violation of the State Bar Act, failing to promptly return unearned fees, and advising a client to violate a law, rule, or ruling.
In 1998 Kopp worked for a law firm that represented a criminal defendant. In January and April 1999 the district attorney filed complaints against the client, alleging two second-degree robbery counts. Kopp negotiated a plea agreement, and the client was sentenced to 90 days in jail and placed on three years of probation.
In July 2000 the client was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Knowing he was still on probation, the client and another person in the car switched names when the officer questioned them. The client was booked, photographed, and fingerprinted under the false name.
In August 2000 Kopp was assigned to handle the client’s drunk-driving case. During the meeting with the client, Kopp learned about the identity switch that was made at the time of the stop. Kopp went to the courthouse and obtained documents showing the arrest. After learning about the identity switch, Kopp failed to inform the court.
In September 2000, during a meeting with the client and the passenger who switched names with the client, Kopp advised the client and the other person to delay the case until the statute of limitations expired in one year. He advised that if they waited, the charges would most likely be dropped.
That same month the other person, who also was charged, hired Kopp’s firm to represent him in the matter. Kopp had the clients sign conflict-of-interest waivers, but they were inadequate because the waivers did not address the conflict that existed between the two clients.
In July 2001 the law firm disclosed to the court the true identities of the two clients and that the case was filed against the wrong person. In 2002 the matter was resolved, and the clients hired new counsel.
In a second matter, in June 2004 Kopp’s firm was paid $15,000 to represent two clients in a criminal matter involving insurance fraud. In January 2005 the clients sent a letter to Kopp terminating his employment and requesting a refund of advance fees.
During 2005 the clients made repeated demands for a refund, but Kopp failed to return the fees. In May 2005 the clients filed a complaint with the State Bar. Before receiving a letter from the State Bar, Kopp sent a letter and a check for $13,170 to the clients. The clients took issue with Kopp’s claim for fees. In August 2005 Kopp returned the additional $1,830 to the clients.
In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that harmed clients and the administration of justice. In mitigation, Kopp cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.