Pierce Henry O'donnell 81298 Binder2

ORIGINAL
(Do not write above this line.)
State Bar Court of California
LIBLIC MATFER
Counsel For The State Bar
Ashod Mooradian
Deputy Trim Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 765-1004
Headng Department
Los Angeles
ACTUAL SUSPENSION
Case Number(s):
08-C-12900-RAP
For Court use only
Bar # 194283
Counsel For Respondent
Pansky Markle Ham LLP
1010 Sycamore Ave., Unit 308
South Pasadena, CA 91030
(213) 626-7300
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
Bar # 77688
In the Matter of:
PIERCE H. ODONNELL
Bar # 81298
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND

DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
ACTUAL SUSPENSION
[] PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
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 California, admitted October 12, 1978.
(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 ] 7 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."
/
/~ (Effective January 1,2011)
k~i~tag
152 143 998
Actual Suspension

(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 CostsmRespondent 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 I for the following membership years: Two billing
cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (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 09--12345
(b)
[] Date prior discipline effective February 23, 2011
(c)
[] Rules of Professional Conduct/State Bar Act violations: 6068(d)
(d) [] Degree of prior discipline 2 years suspension, stayed, 2 years probation including sixty(60) days
actual suspension.
(e)
[] If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below.
See Attachment at pages 10-11.
(2)
[]
Dishonesty: Respondents 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: Respondents misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.
(Effective January 1,2011)
Actual Suspension
(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) [--I Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct: Respondents current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing
or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.
(8)
[] No aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances:

None.
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/Cooperstion: 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
disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.
in restitution to
without the threat or force of
(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: Respondents 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.
Actual Suspension

(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 Attachment at page 11-12,
D. Discipline:
(1)
[] Stayed Suspension:
(a) []
i.
[]
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) []
(2)
Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
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.
The above-referenced suspension is stayed.
[] Probation:
Respondent must be placed on probation for a period of two (2) 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 (6) months.
i. []
ii.
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 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.
Actual Suspension
4

(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 Califomia (=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 Respondents 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.
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.
(5) []
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: Respondent attended Ethics School on April 28,
20] ], and passed the test given at the end of the session. (See rule 5.135(A), Rules of
Procedure of the State Bar of California).
(9) []
[]
F. Other
(1) []
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.
The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:
[]
Substance Abuse Conditions
[]
Law Office Management Conditions
[]
Medical Conditions
[]
Financial Conditions
Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

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
(Effective January 1, 2011)
Actual Suspension

one year, whichever period is longer. Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without
further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.t0(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A)&
(E), Rules of Procedure.
[] No MPRE recommended. Reason: In August 2011, Respondent took and passed the exam in
compliance with a prior disciplinary order. (See In the Matter of Trousil (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State
Bar Ct. Rptr. 229, 244).
(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 Courts Order in this matter.
(3) []
Conditional Rule 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 9.20, 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 Courts 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 Januaw1, 2011)
Actual Suspension
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF:
PIERCE H. ODONNELL
CASE NUMBER:
08-C-12900-RAP
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

PIERCE H. ODONNELL ("Respondent") admits that the following facts are true and
that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 08-C-12900-RAP (Conviction Proceedings)
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING:
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and
Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On August 4, 2011, Respondent was convicted of two misdemeanor counts of
violating 2 U.S.C. sections 441f/437g(d) [Illegal Campaign Contribution - Contribution Made in
the Name of Another Person].
3. On May 31, 2012, the State Bar transmitted records of conviction of attorney to the
Review Department of the State Bar Court stating that on March 5, 2012, the District Court
sentenced Respondent and on March 16, 2012 the District Court filed its amended judgment and
commitment order and that neither party had filed a notice of appeal with the statutory time
period after entry of the amended judgment and commitment order on March 16, 2012.
4. On June 22, 2012, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order
referring the matter to the Heating Department for a heating and decision recommending the
discipline to be imposed in the event that the Hearing Department finds that the facts and
circumstances surrounding the offense(s) for which Respondent was convicted, namely two
misdemeanor violations of 2 U.S.C. sections 441f/437g(d), involved moral turpitude or other
misconduct warranting discipline.
FACTS:
5. During the early part of 2003, Respondent was asked by a friend to help raise money
for the presidential campaign of John Edwards.
6. Respondent agreed and committed to raising $50,000 for the Edwards campaign by
March 31, 2003.
Attachment
7. Respondent personally contributed $2,000 to the Edwards campaign, the maximum

amount allowed (at the time) for an individual in a calendar year.
8. Respondent attempted to raise the rest of the $50,000 by seeking contributions by
others and also by having his secretary solicit additional donations for the Edwards campaign
from third parties. However, these efforts failed to raise the promised $50,000.
9. A few days before the March 31, 2003 deadline, since he had not been successful in
keeping his promise to raise $50,000, Respondent asked his secretary to solicit employees of his
law firm to make contributions to the Edwards campaign that he would subsequently reimburse.
10. Respondent expressed concern to his secretary that he could not let down his friend
and break his promise to raise the $50,000 by the March 31, 2003 deadline.
11. As a result of his secretarys efforts on Respondents behalf, in total, between March
27, 2003 and March 31, 2003, thirteen individuals made $2,000 contributions to the Edwards
campaign after Respondent promised he would reimburse their contributions.
12. In April 2003, Respondent wrote out a series of personal checks and caused them to
be delivered to the involved donors as reimbursement of their $2,000 contributions to the
Edwards campaign.
13. On July 24, 2008, the United States Department of Justice ("Government") filed a
three-count felony indictment against Respondent alleging violations of the Federal Election
Campaign Act ("FECA"). The indictment, in relevant part, charged in Count Two that
Respondent had knowingly and willfully contributed in the name of another person in violation
of 2 U.S.C. section 441f in amounts exceeding $10,000.00 within a calendar year in violation of
2 U.S.C. section 437g(d).
14. On March 16, 2009, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss all three counts of the
indictment. The Respondents motion to dismiss, in relevant part, argued that section 441f did
not apply to Respondents conduct as alleged in Count Two of the indictment because section
441f, by its express terms only prohibited a person from making a contribution in a false name,
but it did not proscribe reimbursing a contribution made by another using a true name. In
addition, Respondent argued that an examination of legislative history and the application of the
rule of lenity meant that section 441f was to be narrowly construed. Thus, Respondents motion
concluded, in relevant part, that Count Two failed to allege a crime pursuant to section 441 f.
15. The Government opposed Respondents motion to dismiss arguing, in relevant part,
that section 441 f, as alleged in Count Two, was not limited to contributions in a false name but
included circumstances where other persons became "straw donors" or "conduit contributors" for
the actual source of the contribution, as was the case with Respondents contributions to the
Edwards campaign.
Attachment
16. On June 8, 2009, the District Court judge filed his order granting the dismissal of
Counts One and Two, but denying the dismissal of Count Three.
17. On June 15, 2009, the Government filed its notice of appeal of the District Court
judges dismissal of Counts One and Two.
18. On June 14, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion reversing the District Court
judges dismissal of Counts One and Two on the basis that "...that 441f unambiguously
applies to a defendant who solicits others to donate to a candidate for federal office in their own
names and either advances the money or promises to -- and does -- reimburse them for the
gifts."
19. Following the issuance of the Ninth Circuit opinion, the parties negotiated a
settlement of the matter and Respondent signed a plea agreement on July 27, 2011.
20. On August 2, 2011, the Government filed its First Superseding Information
("Information") charging Respondent with two misdemeanor counts of violating 2 U.S.C.
sections 441f/437g(d) and alleging essentially the same facts as in Count Two of the original
indictment. The Government never refiled Count Three.
21. On August 2, 2011, the Government filed the fully executed Plea Agreement.
Pursuant to the Plea Agreement Respondent would plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of 2
U.S.C. sections 441f/437g(d) as alleged in the Information.
22. On August 4, 2011, the District Court judge arraigned Respondent and after due
inquiry regarding Respondents understanding of all the terms, conditions and waivers of the
plea agreement and admission of the factual basis for each count as true, accepted Respondents
guilty pleas on Counts One and Two of the Information. Then, the District Court judge set the
matter for sentencing in November, 2011.
23. On November 14, 2011, the District Court judge held the sentencing hearing. At this
hearing the District Court judge indicated that he was not prepared to follow the stipulations in
the plea agreement. Specifically, the District Court judge stated that based on his review of all
the pleadings and information provided to the Court that: (1) Respondents conduct did not
warrant any time in jail; (2) based on the reports of the doctors treating Respondent a one-year
supervised release was not sufficient and that Respondent should be placed on a three year
probation that included six months of home detention with electronic monitoring and required
Respondent to continue with his psychiatric and psychological treatments until discharged by
the attending doctor; and (3) that other conditions should be ordered, including a higher fine.
The Governments attorney responded by stating that if the Court was not prepared to impose
the sentence that was agreed to in the plea agreement, that the Government intended to proceed
on the indictment and was seeking a trial date. Ultimately, the case was re-set for trial on
January 31, 2012. However, at no time did Respondent withdraw the guilty pleas he previously
made on August 4, 2011.
Attachment
24. On February 22, 2012, the parties filed a "Stipulation regarding Sentencing." In this
Stipulation, the parties recited that they had reached an agreement pertaining to sentencing on
the two counts to which Respondents guilty pleas remained in place.
25. On March 5, 2012, a sentencing heating was held where the District Court judge
indicated that he had read the parties "Stipulation regarding Sentencing" and since it included a
shorter term of imprisonment for Respondent and addressed some of the other concerns raised
by the District Court Judge, he accepted the modified sentencing recommendation. The District
Court Judge sentenced Respondent to 60 days imprisonment and then, upon release from
imprisonment, to supervised release for a term of one year, including 120 days in a residential
facility. In addition, Respondent was required to complete 200 hours of community service,
was not permitted to engage in political fundraising without written approval of the Probation
Department and was to pay a $50.00 special assessment and a fine of $20,000. During the 16
months after completion of Respondents term of supervised release, Respondent was ordered to
complete an additional 300 hours of monitored community service.
26. On March 16, 2012, the District Court Judge signed and filed the amended Judgment
and Commitment Order in the underlying criminal matter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
27. The facts and circumstances surrounding Respondents conviction for violation of 2
U.S.C. sections 441f/437g(d) [Illegal Campaign Contribution - Contribution Made in the Name
of Another Person], a misdemeanor, did not involve moral turpitude but did involve other
misconduct warranting discipline.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Prior Record of Discipline: Respondent has two prior records of discipline that are not
remote in time. (Standard 1.2(b)(i)).
In the first prior matter, in the year 2000 Respondent pledged to raise $50,000.00 in
campaign contributions for then-Los Angeles Mayor James Hahns re-election campaign.
Respondent was unable to raise the $50,000 by the required deadline. Respondent, through his
assistant, notified his law office staff that if they agreed to make an individual contribution to the
Hahn campaign he would subsequently reimburse those contributions. Ultimately, 26 individuals
contributed to the Hahn campaign with the understanding that Respondent would reimburse each
donor for his or her contribution.
In May 2004, after the conduct that forms the basis of the current proceeding which
occurred before any indication that the conduct violated any law, the Los Angeles City Attorney
filed 26 misdemeanor counts against Respondent for violation of Government Code section
84301 (using a false name in making a campaign contribution). On February 2, 2006,
Respondent pied guilty and was convicted of five misdemeanor counts of section 84301 and the
remaining 21 counts were dismissed.
Attachment
10
Following this conviction Respondent was referred to the State Bar Court Hearing
Department for a hearing in March 2006. On July 18, 2007, Respondent was accepted into the
Alternative Discipline Program (ADP) because he was able to establish through expert witness
and other evidence that a causal connection and nexus existed between his misconduct and his
previously undiagnosed bi-polar disorder.
Due to misconduct that formed the basis of Respondents second record of discipline
(described below), on August 2, 2010 Respondent was terminated from the ADP program and
the high level of discipline was imposed. The parties stipulated that Respondents conviction in
this matter "...involved moral turpitude and other misconduct warranting discipline." However,
the California statute that Respondent was convicted of in this prior disciplinary proceeding
[Government Code section 84301 (using a false name in making a campaign contribution)], is
not identical to the matter federal statute [2 U.S.C. section 441/437g(d) (Illegal Campaign
Contribution - Contribution Made in the Name of Another Person)] that Respondent was
convicted of in the instant matter. Respondent was suspended for two years, stayed, two years
probation with standard conditions including the successful passage of the MPRE and State Bar
Ethics School as well as a 60-day actual suspension. Also, In addition, the parties stipulated to
one aggravating circumstance (multiple acts) and to several mitigating circumstances including
no prior record of discipline in 29 years, no harm, candor and cooperation, remorse, emotional
and physical difficulties that "were directly responsible for the misconduct," good moral
character and significant charitable work and contributions over a long period of time.
In the second prior disciplinary proceedings, Respondent stipulated to misleading a judge
or judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law in willful violation of Business
and Professions Code, section 6068(d) when he stated in an application for association of
counsel that he was not currently subject to any disciplinary proceedings by any organization and
stated during a court hearing that he would not be disciplined as a result of the State Bar Court
proceedings when he knew that he was subject to disciplinary proceedings in California which
would result in discipline.
Respondent stipulated to the imposition of a two year suspension, stayed on certain
conditions including two years probation with standard conditions, compliance with rule 9.20
and a 60-day actual suspension to run consecutively with the 60 day actual imposed in the first
prior (i.e., Respondent was to serve a total of 120 days actual suspension). Also, the State Bar
stipulated to one aggravating circumstance (prior record of discipline) and to several mitigating
circumstances including no harm, candor and cooperation and remorse.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Good Character: In this matter, thirty-six character references were submitted to the
State Bar. The vast majority of these references were from highly reputable attorneys from
across the nation. The remaining references were from a retired United States District Court
judge and several prominent non-attorneys from across the nation. These character references all
stated that they have known Respondent for a significant period of time and attested to
Respondents character for truthfulness and honesty. All the character witnesses also attested to
Respondents absolute diligence in his representation of client, a deep devotion to his family and
Attachment
11
a selfless dedication to his community. Also, the District Court judge in the underlying criminal
case cited Respondents "impeccable character." (See In the Matter of Hertz (Review Dept.
1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 456, 471 - testimony of a wide variety of highly reputable
character witnesses attesting to respondents otherwise high standing in the legal community and
high ethical standards and demonstration of diligence on behalf of clients, as well as substantial
community service and pro bono activities, are entitled to significant weight.)
Charitable and Pro Bono Work: Beginning many years before his indictment in his
matter and continuing up through the present date, Respondent regularly gave his time and
resources to a varied list of community groups that worked on behalf of the poor and
disadvantaged, schools and other youth-focused organizations. Respondent has consistently
contributed thousands of dollars annually (sometimes over $100,000.00) to many groups.
Respondent also participated as a volunteer, fundraiser, officer and supporter of these groups.
(See In the Matter of Respondent K (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 335, 359;
Porter v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 518, 529 - civic service and charitable work can be
mitigation.) In addition, Respondent performed significant pro bono work on behalf of clients.
See also In the Matter of Tindall (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 652, 664 Respondent entitled to mitigating credit for practice on behalf of poor and disadvantaged clients.)
No Harm to Any Clients: Respondents conduct underlying his convictions did not
involve any clients or take place in the context of an attorney-client relationship. (See In the
Matter of Burns (Review Dept. 1995) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 406, 413 - the lack of client
harm is a relevant mitigating circumstance in the context of criminal conviction.)
Psychological Difficulties: According to the report of a psychiatrist that was submitted
to the State Bar, at the time Respondent committed the criminal conduct herein he was suffering
from an undiagnosed Bi-Polar disorder. Further, according to the report, Respondents very high
profile practice subjected him to extreme pressure and stress, but he had consistently been able to
perform excellent work for his clients and had not realized he was suffering from a psychological
condition. Respondent experienced other trauma and stress at the time the events in this matter
occurred, including the death of his mother and a serious physical disease that required sugery.
Also, according to the report, Respondent has since been diagnosed and has participated in
individual and group therapy from the time of the diagnosis up through the present. Finally,
according to the report, Respondent has made considerable progress in his treatments such that
he no longer experiences episodes where he swings from mania to extreme depression. (See In
the Matter of Brazil (Review Dept. 1994) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 679, 688 - where respondent
suffered from an adjustment disorder and not any chronic psychological condition, and where
prior to his crimes respondent had done excellent work despite being under great stress, Review
Department concluded that respondent entitled to mitigation.)
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
Attachment
12
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.4t~ 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. (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4t~ 81, 92,
quoting In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4t~ 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. (In 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.)
The instant matter is Respondents third record of discipline. Consequently, Standard
1.7(b) is applicable. Standard 1.7(b) provides that a member who "...is found culpable of
professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member
has a record of two prior impositions of discipline as defined by Standard 1.2(0, the degree of
discipline in the current proceeding shall be disbarment unless the most compelling mitigating
circumstances clearly predominate."
The facts and circumstances surrounding Respondents conduct in this proceeding are
unique because they occurred during a period in which the applicable law was unsettled and no
case authorities existed that found Respondents conduct to constitute criminal misconduct and
because the Respondents conduct was isolated over a discreet period of a few days. Where, as
in this matter, a lawyer has not yet been charged or put on notice that his or her conduct was a
violation of legal ethics, the prior record of discipline has diminished weight in the level of
discipline analysis.
Standard 1.7 cannot be applied without regard to the other provisions of the standards,
particularly standard 1.3 which describes the primary purposes of the Standards as "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 the Matter of
Miller (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal State Bar Ct. Rptr. 131, 136.) To properly fulfill these
purposes of lawyer discipline, the nature and chronology of Respondents record of discipline
must be examined. (Compare, McCray v. State Bar (1985) 38 Cal.3d 257, 274.) In In the Matter
of Sklar (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 602, the Review Department held that
the fact of whether misconduct in the pending matter occurred before, contemporaneously with
or after the misconduct in a prior record of discipline is significant to the level of discipline
analysis and whether or not a matter is a "true" prior.
Importantly, Respondents conduct in the instant matter occurred prior to the time that
Respondent became aware that his conduct could result in criminal liability. That is, it was not
until 2004 that Respondent was criminally charged for his conduct in arranging conduit
contributions to then-Mayor James Hahns re-election campaign (which ultimately became
Attachment
13
Respondents first record of discipline.) Thus, before 2004, Respondent was not on notice that
his conduct in this instant matter (which occurred in March-April 2003) was potentially criminal
and/or that his conduct could lead to professional discipline by the State Bar.
Where misconduct addressed by a current disciplinary proceeding resembles misconduct
addressed by a prior disciplinary proceeding and occurred after the filing of a notice to show
cause in the prior proceeding, the filing alerted the attorney to the ethically questionable nature
of the misconduct. (In the Matter of Harney (Review Dept. 1995), 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 266,
283.) However, here the misconduct occurred before any criminal charges and long before the
filing of the notice to show cause in the two prior records of discipline. Therefore, pursuant to
caselaw precedent Respondent cannot be said to have been alerted to the ethically questionable
nature of his misconduct in the current matter.
In In the Matter of Bach, under a similar circumstance where the misconduct in the
pending matter occurred before instigation of any State Bar proceedings in the prior record of
discipline, the Review Department stated "[t]hus, respondents misconduct in the present matter,
even though it is similar to the misconduct in the prior matter, does not reflect a failure on the
part of respondent to learn from his prior misconduct. Nevertheless, the prior should be
considered as a factor in aggravation, and the discipline in this matter should be greater than in
the previous matter." In the Matter of Bach (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 631,
646 (citing Stds. 1.2(b)(i), 1.7(a).) (Emphasis added)
Thus, in this matter, the aggravating weight of Respondents first prior record of
discipline is greatly diminished because Respondent had committed the misconduct in both the
prior and instant matters before any involvement by the State Bar. Therefore, the application of
Standard 1.7(b) is not warranted. However, the existence of the prior records of discipline is an
aggravating circumstance that triggers the application of Standard 1.7(a) requiring a progressive
level of discipline to be imposed in the instant matter.
As stated above, Respondents misconduct in the instant matter did not involve moral
turpitude but does involve other misconduct warranting discipline. The reason for this is twofold. First, it has been long established that culpability that is debatable, that is, not established
by rule or by caselaw, will not support discipline. (See In the Matter of Sklar (Review Dept.
1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 602, 615; Aronin v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 276, 289; In the
Matter of Respondent K (Review Dept. 1993) 335, 351 .) Here, prior to the Ninth Circuit opinion
in the underlying criminal matter, there was no reported opinion that squarely addressed whether
or not reimbursing a contribution made by another in the name of another constituted a violation
of section 441 f. Further, as evidenced by the District Court order granting dismissal, reasonable
minds (in this case the mind of a very experienced federal judge) could differ on whether
Respondents conduct was a violation of section 441 f or even that it constituted a crime. (See In
re Fahey (1973) 8 Cal.3d 842, 845-46 -"We must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the
accused respondent in deciding whether a particular crime or act involves moral turpitude.")
Second, Respondents conduit contributions were not undertaken for the purpose of
personal financial gain nor was there any "quid pro quo" arrangement between Respondent and
Senator Edwards or the Edwards campaign. Further, although Respondents conduit
Attachment
14
contributions were wrongful and ultimately deemed to be criminal conduct, there was no
evidence that they were committed with an intent to defraud. In fact, an intent to defraud is not
an element of a section 441 f violation. All that is required is a knowing and willful act. (See In
re Fahey, supra., 8 Cal.3d at p. 846 - "...although respondent knowingly and unlawfully failed
to file the tax returns, his failure to do so was not for the purpose of personal financial gain or
with intent to avoid ultimate payment of his tax obligations and that his offense did not involve
acts of deception or disregard of professional standards in his practice of law .... We conclude
accordingly that respondents offense and the circumstances of its commission did not involve
moral turpitude within the meaning of Business and Professions Code sections 6101-6102...")
Also, Respondents conduct was isolated over a discrete period days.
Therefore, Respondents criminal conduct herein did not involve moral turpitude but
rather involved other misconduct warranting discipline because Respondents criminal violation
of section 441f constituted a breach of the his responsibility to society as an attorney. (See, e.g.,
In re Cart (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1089; In re Rohan (1978) 21 Cal.3d 195, 203 - an "...attorney as an
officer of the court and counselor at law occupies a unique position in society..." and his
"...refusal to obey the law, and the bars failure to discipline him for such refusal, will not only
demean the integrity of the profession but will encourage disrespect for and further violations of
the law.") Consequently, the standard applicable to this case is Standard 3.4.
Standard 3.4 provides that the final "...conviction of a member of a crime which does
not involve moral turpitude inherently or in the facts and circumstances surrounding the crimes
commission but which does involve other misconduct warranting discipline shall result in a
sanction as prescribed under part B of these standards appropriate to the nature and extent of the
misconduct found to have been committed by the member."
Applying Standard 3.4, we must first determine what standard in part B would apply by
comparing the nature and extent of Respondents misconduct to the misconduct at issue in part
B standards. Respondents conduct in this matter is not specified in the Standards and as such
Standard 2.10 would apply.
Standard 2.10 provides that the culpability "...of a member of a violation of any
provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in these standards or of a wilful
violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in
reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim,
with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3. As discussed
above, given the nature of Respondents underlying conduct in an undecided area of law,
coupled with Respondents mitigation, the stipulated discipline herein is warranted.
Further, Standard 1.7(a) requires that the degree of discipline imposed in the current
proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding tmless the prior discipline
imposed was remote in time or was so minimal in severity that imposing greater discipline in
the current proceeding would be manifestly unjust.
The discipline in the two prior proceedings were both effective on February 23, 2011.
Further, the misconduct underlying those two priors occurred in 2000 and 2009, respectively.
Attachment
15
Thus, neither discipline is remote in time. Further, both prior disciplines resulted in consecutive
60 day actual suspensions for a total of 120 days of actual suspension. This actual suspension is
not minimal in its severity and is in fact significant discipline. Therefore, applying Standard
2.10 together with the progressive discipline requirement of Standard 1.7(a), the appropriate
disposition in this matter would be a one year suspension, stayed on certain conditions including
two years probation on standard terms and conditions set forth herein, including a six month
period of actual suspension. This level of discipline best serves the purposes of discipline as
defined in Standard 1.3.
E.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph A.(7) was January 7, 2013.
F.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed
respondent that as of January 7, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are $5,223.50.
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.
Attachment
16
In the Matter of:

PIERCE H. ODONNELL
Case number(s):
08-C- 12900-R~P
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

By their signatures below, the pa~ties
as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the
~d conditions
recitations and each of the terms and
of
conditions~0~,~His
Sti~ulation~e Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition.
Date
~2
,~~~~-:-~o..~,:
R~SignaJur~/J
E/Y~ ~~~ ~ ~,,~.,. ~,,

R:~,ents C~,gn,ture ~
Print Name
"
Signature Page
Page 17

In the Matter of:
PIERCE H. ODONNELL
Case Number(s):
08-C-12900-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.
On page 11, line 7 of the second paragraph, the word "matter" is deleted.
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 Jate of this disposition is the effective date
of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after file datel(See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of
court.) , __
Date /
//
RICHARD A, HONN
Judge of the State Bar Court
(Effective Januaw1, 2011)
Actual Suspension Order

Page 18
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 January 28, 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:
ELLEN ANNE PANSKY
PANSKY MARKLE HAM LLP
1010 SYCAMORE AVE UNIT 300
SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030
by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California
addressed as follows:
Ashod Mooradian, Enforcement, Los Angele/s, ~-I liereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed~ikl,~ ~/
January 28, 2013.
Case Administrator
State Bar Court
FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

HEARING DEPARTMENT LOS ANGELES
In the Matter of
PIERCE HENRY ODONNELL,
Member No. 81298,
A Member of the State Bar.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 04-C-12303-RAP
DECISION AND ORDER SEALING

CERTAIN DOCUMENTS
In February 2006, respondent Pierce Henry ODonnell (respondent) was convicted on

five misdemeanor counts of using a false name in making political contributions. This matter
was referred to this court for a hearing and decision as to whether the facts and circumstances
surrounding these convictions involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting
discipline and, if so found, a recommendation as to the discipline to be imposed.
Respondent sought to participate in the State Bar Courts Alternative Discipline Program
(ADP), and on May 23, 2006, this matter was referred to the ADP.1 On July 10, 2006,
respondent submitted a declaration establishing a nexus between his mental health issue and his
misconduct. The parties subsequently entered into a Stipulation Re Facts and Conclusions of
Law.
On July 18, 2007, the court lodged the Confidential Statement of Alternative Dispositions
and Orders, the Contract and Waiver for Participation in the State Bar Courts ADP (Contract),
1
This program was earlier referred to by other names.
and the parties Stipulation Re Facts and Conclusions of Law. That same day, the court signed
an order formally accepting respondent into the ADP.
Upon motion of the State Bar, the court ordered respondent to appear in person on
August 2, 2010, for a hearing regarding whether respondent should be terminated from the ADP.
At the August 2, 2010 hearing, at which respondent appeared with counsel, the court
found that respondent was not in compliance with the conditions of the courts ADP, and
respondent was terminated from the ADP. The parties Stipulation Re Facts and Conclusions of
Law and addendum thereto was filed, and this matter was submitted for decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Stipulation Re Facts and Conclusions of Law, including the courts order approving
the Stipulation Re Facts and Conclusions of Law, is attached hereto and hereby incorporated by
reference, as if fully set forth herein.
The Stipulation Re Facts and Conclusions of Law sets forth the factual findings, legal
conclusions, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances in this matter. Below is an
abbreviated summary of the stipulated facts and conclusions of law.
In 2000, respondent pledged to raise $50,000 in political contributions for then Los
Angeles Mayor James Hahn. Unable to raise the money, respondent, through his assistant,
advised his staff members that respondent would reimburse them for their political contributions
to Hahns campaign. As a result, respondent and his assistant caused 26 individuals to contribute
to Hahns campaign with the understanding that respondent would reimburse each donor for his
or her contribution.
In May 2004, the Los Angeles City Attorneys Office filed 26 misdemeanor violations of
Government Code section 84301 (using a false name in making political contributions) against
-2-
respondent. On February 2, 2006, as part of a plea agreement, respondent was convicted of five
misdemeanor counts of Government Code section 84301, with the remaining counts dismissed.
The facts and circumstances surrounding respondents convictions involved moral
turpitude and other misconduct warranting discipline pursuant to Business and Professions Code
sections 6101 and 6102.
In aggravation, respondents misconduct evidenced multiple acts of wrongdoing. In
mitigation, respondent had no prior record of discipline in 29 years of practice, he displayed
spontaneous candor and cooperation with the State Bar, he demonstrated remorse and
recognition of his wrongdoing, and he was suffering from extreme emotional difficulties at the
time of the misconduct. In addition, respondents good character was attested to by a wide range
of references, he demonstrated a history of charitable work and contributions, and his
misconduct did not result in harm.2
DISCUSSION
The purpose of State Bar disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the attorney but,
rather, to protect the public, to preserve public confidence in the legal profession, and to maintain
the highest possible professional standards for attorneys. (Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49
Cal.3d 103, 111.)
The parties submitted briefs on the issue of discipline. After considering the parties
briefs, including the case law and standards cited therein, the court advised the parties of the
discipline that would be recommended to the Supreme Court if respondent successfully
completed the ADP and the discipline that would be recommended to the Supreme Court if
respondent was terminated from or failed to successfully complete the ADP.
Due to respondents termination from the ADP, his participation in the ADP does not
warrant consideration as a mitigating circumstance. (See Rules Proc. of State Bar, tit. IV, Stds.
for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, standard 1.2(e)(iv).)
-3-
In determining the appropriate discipline to recommend in this matter if respondent was

terminated from the ADP, the court considered the discipline recommended by the parties, as
well as standards 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, and 3.2. The court also considered and distinguished In re
Kristovich (1976) 18 Cal.3d 468; In the Matter of Moriarty (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar
Ct. Rptr. 245; In re Fahey (1973) 8 Cal.3d 842; In re Morales (1983) 35 Cal.3d 1; In re Chira
(1986) 42 Cal.3d 904; In the Matter of DeMassa (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.
737; and In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205.
After agreeing to the courts proposed high and low levels of discipline, respondent
executed the Contract to participate in the ADP, and respondents period of participation in the
ADP commenced.
Thereafter, respondent was terminated from the ADP as set forth in the courts August 4,
2010 order. Accordingly, the court recommends imposition of the discipline set forth in the
Confidential Statement of Alternative Dispositions and Orders relating to a termination from or
failure to successfully complete the ADP.
RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE
It is recommended that respondent Pierce Henry ODonnell be suspended from the
practice of law for two (2) years, that execution of that period of suspension be stayed, and that
respondent be placed on probation for two (2) years, subject to the following conditions:
1.
Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law for the first sixty
(60) days of probation;

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
-4-
(Office of Probation), all changes of information, including current office address and
telephone number, or other address for Sate Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the
Business and Professions Code;
4.
Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of discipline, respondent must
contact the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with respondents 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 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 thirty (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 the probation period;
6.
Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, respondent must answer fully,
promptly, and truthfully any inquiries of the Office of Probation which are directed to respondent
personally or in writing relating to whether respondent is complying or has complied with the
probation conditions;
-5-
7.
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 State Bar
Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session;
8.
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;
9.
If respondent has not been terminated from the Lawyer Assistance Program
(LAP), respondent must comply with all provisions and conditions of his Participation
Agreement/Plan with the LAP and must provide the Office of Probation with certification of
completion of the LAP. Respondent must immediately report any non-compliance with any
provision(s) or condition(s) of his Participation Agreement/Plan to the Office of Probation.
Respondent must provide an appropriate waiver authorizing the LAP to provide the Office of
Probation and this court with information regarding the terms and conditions of respondents
participation in the LAP and his compliance or non-compliance with LAP requirements.
Revocation of the written waiver for release of LAP information is a violation of this condition.
Respondent will be relieved of this condition upon providing to the Office of Probation
satisfactory certification of completion of the LAP.
If respondent has been terminated from the LAP prior to his successful completion of the
LAP, respondent must obtain an examination of his mental and physical condition with respect
to his mental health issue pursuant to rule 184 of the Rules of Procedure from a qualified
practitioner approved by the Office of Probation and must comply with any treatment/monitoring
plan recommended following such examination. The examination and any further
help/treatment/monitoring recommended by the examining practitioner will be at respondents
own expense. The examination must be conducted no later than thirty (30) days after the
-6-
effective date of the Supreme Courts final disciplinary order in this matter.
Help/treatment/monitoring should commence immediately after said examination and, in any
event, no later than thirty (30) days after said examination. With each quarterly report,
respondent must furnish to the Office of Probation sufficient evidence, as specified by the Office
of Probation, that he is so complying with this condition of probation. Treatment/monitoring
must continue for the period of probation or until a motion to modify this condition is granted
and that ruling becomes final.
If the examining or treating practitioner determines that there has been a substantial
change in respondents condition, respondent or the State Bars Office of Probation or the Office
of the Chief Trial Counsel may file a motion for modification of this condition with the Hearing
Department of the State Bar Court, pursuant to rule 550 of the Rules of Procedure. The motion
must be supported by a written statement from the examining or treating practitioner, by affidavit
or under penalty of perjury, in support of the proposed modification.
Upon the request of the Office of Probation, respondent must provide the Office of
Probation with medical and confidentiality waivers and access to all of respondents medical
records necessary to monitor this probation condition. Revocation of any medical/confidentiality
waiver is a violation of this condition. Any medical records obtained by the Office of Probation
will be confidential and no information concerning them or their contents will be given to
anyone except members of the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, the Office of Probation, and the
State Bar Court, who are directly involved with maintaining, enforcing or adjudicating this
condition;
10.
These probation conditions and the period of probation will commence upon the
effective date of the Supreme Courts final disciplinary order in this proceeding (Cal Rules of
Court, rule 9.18.); and
-7-
11.
At the expiration of the period of this probation, if respondent has complied with
all the terms of probation, the order of the Supreme Court suspending respondent from the
practice of law for two (2) years will be satisfied and that suspension will be terminated.
It is further recommended that respondent take and pass the Multistate Professional
Responsibility Examination (MPRE) administered by the National Conference of Bar
Examiners, MPRE Application Department, P.O. Box 4001, Iowa City, Iowa, 52243 (telephone
319-337-1287), and provide proof of passage to the Office of Probation within one (1) year after
the effective date of the discipline herein.3
COSTS
It is recommended that costs be awarded to the State Bar in accordance with Business
and Professions Code section 6086.10 and are enforceable both as provided in Business and
Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment.
DIRECTION RE DECISION AND ORDER SEALING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS
The court directs a court case administrator to file this Decision and Order Sealing
Certain Documents. Thereafter, pursuant to rule 806(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the State
Bar of California (Rules of Procedure), all other documents not previously filed in this matter
are ordered sealed pursuant to rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure.
It is further ordered that protected and sealed material will only be disclosed to: (1)
parties to the proceeding and counsel; (2) personnel of the Supreme Court, the State Bar Court,
and independent audiotape transcribers; and (3) personnel of the Office of Probation when
necessary for their duties. Protected material will be marked and maintained by all authorized
individuals in a manner calculated to prevent improper disclosure. All persons to whom
Failure to pass the MPRE within the specified time results in actual suspension by the
Review Department, without further hearing, until passage. (But see Cal. Rules of Court, rule
9.10(b), and Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 321(a)(1) and (3).)
-8-
protected material is disclosed will be given a copy of this order sealing the documents by the
person making the disclosure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 30, 2010.
RICHARD A. PLATEL
-9-

Hearing Department
Los Angeles
PROGRAM FOR RESPONDENTS WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE OR MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
Case Number (s)
(for Courts use)
DAVID SAUBER
Deputy Trial Counsel
Bar #176554
JUL~ 2007
JAYNE KIM
Assistant Chief Trial Counsel
Bar #174614
SEP 3 0 2011~
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel

1149 S. Hill Street
213-765-1000
CLERK~ OFFICE
LOS ANGELES
Bar #
JOANNE E. ROBBINS
9200 Sunset Blvd. PH7
310-887-3900
Bar# 82352
JACK J. QUINN
777 S. Figueroa Ave., 44Floor
213-243-4000
Bar #29588
Submitted to:
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
[]
PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Bar #
In the Matter Of:
PIERCE HENRY ODONNELL
Bar # 81298
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.
(1)
Respondent is a member of the State Barof California, admitted October 12, 1978.
(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 9/18/2002. Rev. 12/16/2004.)

kwiktage
Program
035 131 888
(2)
The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law Or
disposition (to be attached separately) are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court. However, if Respondent
is not accepted into the Lawyer Assistance Program, this stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on
the Respondent or the State Bar.
(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, except for Probation Revocation proceedings. Dismissed
charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The stipulation consists of 7 pages, excluding the order.
(4)
under "Facts."
(5)
Law".
(6)
No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing ofany
pending investigation/proceeding .not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
(7)
Payment of Disciplinary Costs--Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code 6086.10 &
6140.7 and will pay timely any disciplinary costs imposed in this proceeding.
B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for
are required.
[]
Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]
(a)
[] State Bar Court case # of prior case
(b)
[] Date pr!or 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:
[]
Dishonesty: Respondents misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty,

(2)
property.
(3) []
(4)
[] Harm: Respondents misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.
(5)
[]


Program
(6) [] Lack of Cooperation: Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her
(7) [] Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct: Respondents current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing
or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct. See Stip Attachment, page 5.
(8)
[] No aggravating circumstances are involved.

(1) ~ [] No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled
(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. See page 4.
(4)
[]
misconduct. See page 4.
(5) [] Restitution: Respondent paid $

on
in restitution to
(6)
[]
Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is not attributable to
(7)
[]
Good Faith: Respondent acted in good faith.
(8)
[]
any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or s, pbstance abuse, and. _P~spondent no longer
suffers from such difficulties or disabilities. See page 4. ~ ~A~,=~,~,f/f ~-
(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
(10) []
Family Problems: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her
(11) []
Good Character: Respondents 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. See page 4.
(13)
[] No mitigating circumstances are involved.

Program
Additional mitigating circumstances:

1. Respondent has no prior record of discipline in approximately 29 years of practice.
2. Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the State Bar and with the
~..c.~,~, ~onors. Prior to the filing of this case, Respondent contacted the State Bar and admitted the
facts of the misconduct. Respondent also kept the State Bar informed of his criminal proceedings.
3. Respondent demonstrated remorse and recognition of his wrongdoing by cooperating with law
enforcement and by paying for the legal fees incurred by the aforementioned donors in relation to
Respondents misconduct.
4~ As established by a medical expert, Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties, at the time of the
stipulated misconduct, which were directly responsible for the misconduct.
5. Respondents good character has been attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general
communities who are aware of the full extent of his misconduct.
6. Respondent has demonstrated a history of charitable work and contributions, spanning more than a
decade.

Program
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS1 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ANC);;13~$~ION/~/~-~
IN THE MATTER OF:
PIERCE H. ODONNELL
CASE NUMBER(S):
04-C-12303

Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of
violations of the specified statues and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts for Case No. 04-C-12303
1.
Respondent has been a member of the State Bar since October 12, 1978.
In 2000, Respondent pledged to raise $50,000 in political contributions to
then Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn.
Respondent made several attempts to raise the money by engaging in a
mass mailing effort to friends/colleagues, making personal appeals to
potential donors, and arranging a luncheon for individuals to meet
personally with Hahn. Despite these efforts, however, Respondent was
unable to raise $50,000.
In May 2000, Respondent told his assistant that he would reimburse staff
members for contributions to the Hahn campaign. Subsequently, from
May 22, 2000, through March 1, 2001, Respondents assistant advised
staff members that Respondent would reimburse them for their political
contributions to Hahns campaign. As a result, Respondent and his
assistant caused 26 individuals to contribute a total of $25,500.00 to
Hahns campaign - with the understanding that Respondent would
reimburse each donor for his/her contribution.
Of the 26 donors, 23 of them were employees or spouses of employees at
Respondents law firm. The remaining three donors were friends or a
spouse of a friend of Respondents.
Attachment Pag
Page #
Respondents misconduct did not involve financial gain or the practice of

law.
On May 20, 2004, the Los Angeles City Attorneys Office filed 26
misdemeanor violations of Government Code section 84301 (using a false
name in making political contributions) against Respondent, in case no.
04CR03404.
On February 2, 2006, as part of a plea agreement, Respondent was
convicted of five misdemeanor counts of Government Code section 84301
with the remaining counts dismissed.
Conclusions of Law for Case No. 04-0-P3488-/~5 //(~..~jzThe facts and circumstances surrounding Respondents convictions
involve moral turpitude and other misconduct warranting discipline
pursuant to Business and Professional Code sections 6101 and 6102.
Attachment Pag
Page #
Case number(s):
In the Matter of,
PIERCE HENRY O DONNI=LL,

Bar # 81298
04-C-12303

By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with
each of the recitations and each of the te~s and conditions of this Stipulation Re Fact,
Conclusions of Law, c,~,,~~~~
Date
~~..~|"~.~
Date
/--,.7/- ~
Date
Ft~spnder~s Signat~e I~ ~
Print Name
~ ~-~.-~ ~,,~.,,L~t~ JoAnneE. Robbins

Respondents Counsel Signature
Print Name
~ e~
Deputy Trial CouPs
David Sauber
Print Name
(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004.)
In the Matter Of
I PIERCE HENRY ODONNELL
Bar # 81298
Case Number(s):
04-C-12303
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 stipulation as to facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED.

The stipulation as to facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set
forth below.
All court dates in the Hearing Department 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; or 3) Respondent is not accepted for participation
in the Program or does not sign the Program Contract. (See rule 135(b) and 802(b), Rules of
Procedure.)
Date
Je"dge of the State Bar Court
(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 9/18/2002 Revised 12/16/2004.)
Page __
Program Order
(:Do not write above this line.)

Hearing Department
Los Angeles
Case Number(s)
09-O-17211
Dane C. Dauphine
Supervising Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill St.
Los Angeles; CA 90015-2299
Tel. (213) 765-1293
Bar# 77688
In the Matter Of:
Pierce Henry ODonnell
Bar# 81298
018 038 510
(for Courts use)
rBLIC MATFER
FILED
Bar# 121606
Ellen A. Pansky
Pansky Markle Ham LLP
1010 Sycamore Ave., #308
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Tel. (213) 626-7300
kwiktag ~
JAN 0 5 2011" ,
STAT~ ~ COUI~I"
Submitted to: Assigned Judge

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
ACTUAL SUSPENSION
[] PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
A Memberofthe State BarofCalifornia

(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.
(1) Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted October | 2, ]978,
(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 ]0 pages; not including the order.
(4)
under "Facts."
(5)
Law.
(Stipulation fomn approved by SBC Executive Committee 10116/00, Revised 12116/2004; 12/13/2006.)
Actual Suspension
(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 CostsmRespondent 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 bbtained per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.
[] costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years:
(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"
{--I costs entirely waived
B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for
are required.
(1)
[] Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]

[] State Bar Court case # of prior case 04-C-12303
(a)
(b) []
Date prior discipline effective Pending with Supreme Court
(c) []
Rules of Professional Conduct/State Bar Act violations: Conviction involving moral turpitude and
other misconduct warranting discipline for misdemeanor violations of Government Code section
30418 (Improper Identification of Donors)
(d) []
Degree of prior discipline 60 days actual suspension (2 years stayed suspension and 2 years
probation)
(e)
(2)
.
[] Dishonesty: Respondents misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty,

(3) []
(4)
[] If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below.
property.
[] Harm: Respondents misconduct harmed significantly aclient, the public or the administration of justice.
Lack of Cooperation: Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her
(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/1612004; 12/13/2006.)
Actual Suspension
(7) [] Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct: Respondents current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing
or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.
(8) [] No aggravating circumstances are involved.

(1) [] No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled
(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
has cooperated in entering into this stipulation to resolve the State Bar proceedings.
(4) []
misconduct.
(5)
Restitution:- Respondent paid $

on
(6)
Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is not attributable to
(7)
Good Faith: Respondent acted in good faith.
(8)
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 orwhich were beyond his/her control and
in restitution to
(10) [] Family Problems: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her
(11) [] Good Character: Respondents good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal
and general communities who are aware of the fullextent of his/her misconduct.
(13) [] No mitigating circumstances are involved.
(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004; 1211312006.)
Actual Suspension
Additional mitigating circumstances

Respondent acknowledges .that he bore the ultimate responsibility to be completely accurate with
the court and states that he deeply regrets that he did not do so. Respondent has expressed
remorse for his conduct. Respondent was admitted pro hac vice after the Nevada court was
advised of the California disciplinary proceeding and completed his representation in the
Watanabe matter. Respondents misstatements to the court did not cause any harm to his client.
D. Discipline:
(1)
[] Stayed Suspension:
Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years.
(a)
[]
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, California Rules of Court)
(3)
[]
(a)
Actual Suspension:
Respondent must be actually, suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a pedod
of sixty (60) days consecutive to the sixty-day (~ctual suspension recommended in case no.
04-C-] 2303 currently pending with the Supreme Court.
i. []
[]
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
(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 Respondents 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 fias
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.
[]
(9)
No Ethics School recommended. Reason: Respondent will be required to complete Ethics

School in case no. 04-C-12303 currently pending with the Supreme Court.
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:

(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004; 12/1312006.)
Actual Suspension
[]
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 321(a)(1) &
(c), Rules of Procedure.
[] No MPRE recommended. Reason: Respondent will be required to complete the MPRE in case
no. 04-C-12303 currently pending with the Supreme Court.
(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 Courts Order in this matter.
(3)
Conditional Rule 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 9.20, California Rules of Court, and
performthe acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 120 and130 calendar days,
respectively., after the effective date of the Supreme Courts Order in this matter..
(A) []
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 12116/2004; 12/13/2006.)
Actual Suspension
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF:
PIERCE HENRY ODONNELL
CASE NUMBER(S):
09-0-17211

Respondent admits that the following facts are tree and that he is culpable of violations of the specified
statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
FACTS:
1. On February 2, 2006, Respondent was convicted of misdemeanor violations of California
Government Code section 30418 (Improper Identification of Donors) in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, case no. 4CR03404. Thereafter, a record of the conviction was transmitted to the
State Bar Court.
2. On March 16, 2006, the State Bar Court referred for hearing the matter of Respondents
conviction for determination if the matter involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting
d{scipline. On April 24, 2006, the State Bar Court augmented the order to include a recommendation
ofdiscipline, if any.
3. In or about January 2007, Respondent entered into a stipulation admitting to facts and
Conclusions of law that the facts and circumstances surrounding his convictions involved moral
turpitude and other misconduct warranting discipline. On July 18, 2007, Respondent signed a contract
and waiver for participation in the State Bar Courts Alternative Discipline Program, and the State Bar
Court filed a confidential statement of alternative dispositions and orders which provided that, if
Respondent completed the courts Alternative Discipline Program, the court would recommend to the
Supreme Court that he be disciplined with an 18-month stayed suspension and a 2-year probation. The
order also provided that, if he did not complete the program, the court would recommend that
Respondent be disciplined with a 2-year stayed suspension, a 2-year probation and a 60-day actual
suspension. Respondent was informed of the courts order.
4. On October 13, 2009, Respondent verified an application to the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada, seeking to be associated as counsel for the defendant in the case entitled State of
Nevada v. Terdnce K. Watanabe, case no. C254057 ("the Watanabe case"). In the application,
Respondent answered a question so as to state that he was not currently subject to any disciplinary
proceedings by any organization. Respondent did not disclose in the verified application the pending
disciplinary proceedings in the State Bar Court. Respondent intended that the application would be
submitted to a court.
5. At the time that Respondent verified the application for association of counsel, Respondent
knew that he was the subject of pending disciplinary proceedings in the State Bar Court. He did not
disclose the proceedings in his application because he considered them to be a diversion program.
Attachment Page 1
6. On October 16, 2009, Daniel J. Albregts, a Nevada attorney, filed a motion in the Clark
County District Court to associate Respondent as co-counsel for the defendant in the Watanabe case
with Respondents verified application attached.
7. The prosecutor in the Watanabe case learned of Respondents disciplinary proceedings and
brought them to the attention of the court. On November 2, 2009, Respondent appeared before the
Clark County District Court for a continued heating on the motion to associate him as counsel. In
responding to questions about the disciplinary proceedings pending in the State Bar Court, Respondent
represented to the Clark County District Court that he had worked out a diversionary resolution in lieu
of discipline and that there would be no suspension, stay of suspension, fine, sanction or other
disability in his ability to practice law and that he would not be disciplined publicly, privately or
otherwise.
8. At the time that Respondent appeared before the Clark County District Court, Respondent
knew that he would be disciplined at the conclusion &the proceedings in the State Bar Court with at
least a stayed suspension. Respondent did not disclose to the Clark County District Court that he
would be disciplined as a result of the pending State Bar Court proceedings because he believed that
no discipline would be imposed during the time that he was Counsel in the Watanabe case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
9. By stating in the application for association of counsel that he was not currently subject to
any disciplinary proceedings by any organization and by stating to the court at the hearing that he
would not be disciplined as a result of the State Bar Court proceedings when he knew that he was
subject to disciplinary proceedings in California which would result in discipline, Respondent sought
to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law in willful
violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(d).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page 2, paragraph A(7), was December 8, 2010.
WAIVERS TO EXPEDITE TO SUPREME COURT
The parties agree to waive any right to seek review following the approval of this stipulation by the State
Bar Court so that the Supreme Court may immediately issue an order imposing discipline in this matter
with the actual suspension to be consecutive to the suspension recommended in case no. 04-C-12303
previously transmitted to the Supreme Court. The parties agree that the court may issue orders in both
this cases to impose consecutive suspensions and avoid the imposition of separate periods of suspension.
This. stipulation also recommends that the Court order compliance with rule 9.20, Cal. Rules of Court,
since the consecutive suspensions will provide for a continuous period of 120 days actual suspension.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct (the "Standards"):
Standard 2.6 states that culpability of violation of section 6068 of the Business and Professions Code
warrants disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offence or the harm, if ~ay~ to the victim,
with due regard to the purposes of discipline.
_~
Attachment Page 2
Case Law
Although prior to the implementation of the Standards for Attomey Sanctions, some cases involving the
misleading of a court imposed a public reproval, the case law applying the Standards has imposed
discipline ranging from stayed suspension to six months actual suspension. See, for instance, Drociak v.
State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1085 (30 days actual suspension for use ofpresigned verifications to
interrogatories without consulting the client as to truth of the responses); Bach v. State Bar (1987) 43
Cal.3d 848 (60 days actual suspension for misrepresenting whether the attorney had been advised or
ordered to produce his client at a mediation hearing); In the Matter of Regan (Review Dept. 2005) 4 Cal.
State Bar Ct. Rptr. 844 (75 day actual suspension for misrepresenting that his clients wanted to pursue
an appeal as well as appearing without authority, failing to communicate and release client file); In the
Matter. of Chesnut (Review Dept. 2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 166 (6 months actual suspension for
false representation that he had personally served an opposing party with a summons and complaint); In
theMatter of Jeffers (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 211 (stayed suspension, no actual,
for concealing the death of his client from the court at a mandatory settlement conference); In the Matter
of Farrell (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 490 (6 months actual suspension for
misrepresenting that a witness was under subpoena and for failure to cooperate in the State Bar
investigation).
Respondents misconduct involved misleading statements and harm to the administration of justice but
not to any client. In mitigation, he has cooperated in the State Bar proceedings in stipulating to a
disposition of this matter. Respondent has been a member since 1978, and there is pending with the
Supreme Court a recommendation for a 60-day actual suspension for his 2006 misdemeanor convictions.
A 60-day suspension in this matter to be ordered consecutive to the suspension in the pending matter
will provide for appropriate discipline within the standards and case law.
Attachment Page 3
In the Matter of
Case number(s):
Pierce Henry ODonnell, #81298
09-0-17211

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~
,
Date . .
~~n~na~~ /.
Print Name
Date " .
, ....
A.
R~ponde~ts Counsel Signature

~:~
.
Date
Deputy Trial Counsels Signatu~
..
/~ Print Name
~ " Print Name
(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10116/00. Revised 12/16/2004; 12/13/2006.)
Signature Page
(Do not write above this line,)
In the Matter Of
Pierce Henry ODonnell, #81298
Case Number(s):
09-0-t7211
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.
r-]
r~
The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVEDAS 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 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.)
Dat
(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004; 12/13/2006,)
Actual Suspension Order
Page. 11
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 January 5,2011, 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:
ELLEN ANNE PANSKY, ESQ.
PANSKY MARKLE HAM LLP
1010 SYCAMORE AVE UNIT 308
SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030
by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California
addressed as follows:
DANE DAUPHINE, ESQ., Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on
January 5, 2011.
~.~1~~, ~~
Rose Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court

Pierce Henry O'donnell 81298 Binder2

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Pierce Henry O'donnell 81298 Binder2

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ORIGINAL

(Do not write above this line.)

State Bar Court of California

For Court use only

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND

A Member of the State Bar of California

152 143 998

(Do not write above this line.)

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

[] State Bar Court case # of prior case 09--12345

[] Date prior discipline effective February 23, 2011

[] Rules of Professional Conduct/State Bar Act violations: 6068(d)

Dishonesty: Respondents misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty,

(Effective January 1,2011)

(Do not write above this line.)

Indifference: Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the

[] No aggravating circumstances are involved.

Additional aggravating circumstances:

(5) [] Restitution: Respondent paid $

without the threat or force of

[] Good Faith: Respondent acted in good faith.

(Do not write above this line.)

[] and until Respondent does the following:

The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

iii. [] and until Respondent does the following:

(Effective January 1,2011)

(Do not write above this line.)

Substance Abuse Conditions

Law Office Management Conditions

Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

(Effective January 1, 2011)

(Do not write above this line.)

(Effective Januaw1, 2011)

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

7. Respondent personally contributed $2,000 to the Edwards campaign, the maximum

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

(Do not write above this line.)

In the Matter of:

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

E/Y~ ~~~ ~ ~,,~.,. ~,,

(Effective January 1,2011)

(Do not write above this line.)

ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER

All Hearing dates are vacated.

(Effective Januaw1, 2011)

Actual Suspension Order

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

FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 04-C-12303-RAP

DECISION AND ORDER SEALING

In February 2006, respondent Pierce Henry ODonnell (respondent) was convicted on

This program was earlier referred to by other names.

In determining the appropriate discipline to recommend in this matter if respondent was

(60) days of probation;

State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct;

Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on

Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, respondent must answer fully,

Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the

Dated: September 30, 2010.

(Do not write above this line.)

State Bar Court of California

Case Number (s)