State Bar Court of California

Counsel For The Stale Bar

Edca L M. DenningsSenior Tdul Counsel~80 Howard Street8an Francisco, CA 94105 PI

~r#1~7~

Counsel For Respondent

Jonathan L AronsLaw Office of Jonathan I. Arons100 Bush Street, Suite 918Sun Francisco, CA 94104(41§) 957-1818

Bar# 111257

In the Matter of:.

SUZANNE FOLEY SPRAGUE

Bar # 213078

A Member of the State Bar of Califomla(Respondent)

Headng DepartmentSan Francisco

ACTUAL SUSPENSION

Case Number(s): .......13-O-t3847-LMA

MATT :R

For Court use only

FILED pJUL 1 20R

STATE BAR COURT CLERK’S OFFICESAN FRANCISCO

Submitted ’to." ’SeUlelflent Judge

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ANDDISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

ACTUAL SUSPENSION

[] PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED

Note: NI Information required by this form and any additional Information whish cannot bo provided In thespace provided, must be set forth in un |ltachment to this stipulation under upecmc hsedlnge, e.g., "Facts,""Oismisl~le,n "Conclusion8 of LaW,n "Supporting Authority,n etC, kwikt;,g ® 048 638 619

(1) Respondent iS a member of the State Bar of California, admlUP..d June 4, 2001,

(2) The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations oonteined herein even If conclusions of law ordisposition are rejected or changed by Ihe Supreme CourL

(3) All investigations or prooeedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation am erdJrely resolved bythis stipulation and are deemed oonsolidated. OIsmlsaed charge(s)/count(s) am liSted under"DiSmiSsals." Thest!pul~ion cormisis of t:2 pages, not including the order.

(4) A statement of acis or omissions aoknowledged by Reepondent us cause or causes for discipline is includedunder "Facts."

" (Effeclt~ January t,2014)

(5) Conclusions of law, drawn from and epec~cally referring to the facts am also included under "Conclusions ofLaw’.

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

(8)

No morn than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writlng of anypending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal Investigations.

Payrnent of Disciplinary Costs--Respondent aclmowledgas the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code ~086.t0 &6140.7. (Check one option only):

[] Until costs am paid in furl, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unlessmiler is obtained per rule 5.130, Rule~ of Prucodum.

[] Costs am to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years:(.Hardship, special circumstan~s or other good (:muse per rule 5.132, Rule~ of Procedure.) IfRespondent falls to pay any installment as described above, or ~smay be modified by the 8late BarCourt, the remaining balance is due and payable Immediately.

[] Costs am waived in part as set forth in =~ separate ~taohment entitled "Partial Waker of Costs’.

B. Aggravating Circumstances [Standards for Attorney Sanctions for ProfessionalMisconduct, standards 1.2(f) & t.5]. Facts eupportlng aggravating circumstances amrequired.

(1) [] Pdormco~dofdlaolpllne(a) I-] Slate Bar Court case # of pdor case

(b) [] Date priordisctpline effective

(c) [] Rules of Professional Conduct/State Bar Act violation�

(d) [] Degree of priordisclpline

(e) [] If Respondent has two or more Incidents of prlor di~dpline, use space provided below.

(2) []

(3) []

Olehone=ty: Respondent’s mlsoonduct was Inlantlonal, eunounded by, or followed by bad faith,dishonesty, concoalrnent~ overreaohing or other violaffons of the State Bar Act or Rules of Profe~sionalConduct.

Tm~t Violation: Trust funds or property ware Involved end Respondent refused or was unable to accountto the client or parson who was the object of the misconduct for Improper conduct toward said funds orpmpady.

(4) [] Harm: Respondents misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the edminlstration of Juslise.

[] Indilference: Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for theconsequences of his or her misoonduct

Lack of Cooperation: Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/hermisconduct or to the State Bar dudng disciplinary Investigation or proceedings.

2Actull Suapenm~on

F) []

(9) []

Multipla/Pattem of Misconduct: Respondents ~urrent misconduct evldencas multiple acts of wrongdclngor demonstrates a pattern of misconduct. See Attachment to S’Jpulatlon, p, 9,

Restitution: Respondent failed to make restitution.

No sggravatMg clmum~tan~e~ am involved.

Additional aggravating circumstances:

C,Mitigal~ng Cimumstancee [see standards t.2(g) & 1.6]. Fact~ supporting mitigatiegcircumstance~ are required.

(1) [] No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of prates coupledw~th pmson~ misconduot which is not deemed serious.

(2) []

[]

[]

D

(s) []

No Harm: Respondent did not harm the client, the public, orthe administration ofjustica.

Candor/Cooperation: Respondent diSl:~yed spontaneous candor and coopera~on with the vk~ms ofhis/her misconduct and to the State Bar during di~lpllnary Invsel~gatlon and proceedings.

Remoras: Respondent promptly took objec#vs steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse andrecognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/hermisconduct.

Restitution: Respondent p~id $ $17~375.~2 on Maml128, 2012 In restittrdon to the trust without ~hethreat or force of disciplinary, civil or criminal procaedings. 8se attachment to Stlpulalfon, p. 9.

Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is not attributable toRespondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

Good Faith: Respondent acted with a good faith belief that ~ honesgy held and reasonable.

EmotlonaLtPhyslcal Difficulties: At the #me of the ~puletad act or ac~ of professional misoonductRespondent suffered exlmma emot~n~ difficuitles or phy~k~l or mental disabil~es which expert tesgmonywould establish was direly responsible for the misconduct. The dlf~ultles or disebllltlas were not theproduct of any Illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and the dif~-uitiesor disabilities no longer pose a risk that Respondent will commit mis~onduct. See attachment toStipulation, p. 9,

Severe Financ]a! 8tnms: A~ the time of the misconduct, Respondent sufferad from severe finenciel mwhich resulted from cimumstances not reasonably ~ble or which were beyond his/her control andwhich were directly respons~le for the misconduct.

(1o) [] Family Problems: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/herpersonal life which were other than emo~onal or physical in nature.

Good Chsmcten Respondent’s mCo’aordinarily good character is sttested to by a wide range of refemncasin the .legal and general communities whoam awes of the full extent of h~her mis(~nduct.

(12) [] Rehabilitation: Considerable #me has passed sh~ce the acts of professiorml misconduct occurredfollowed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilital~on.

(Effects January 1, 20t4)

3

(13) [] No mitigating �Ircumstances are involved,

Additional mitigating �ircumctanee~:

No Prior Discipline, See Attachment to Stipluatlon, p. 9.Preblsl Stipulation. See Atlachment to Stipulation,

D, Discipline:

(t) [] Stayed Sz.,zpen~lon:

(a) [] Respondent must be suspended from the praciJce of law for a period of two (2) yearz.

i. [] and until Respondent shows proof sa~factory to the Stets Bar Court of rebebBtagon andpresent f~ess to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard1,2(c)(1) Standards for Ntomey 8e~ions for Professional Misuendu~

iL [] and until Respondent pm/s restitution as set forth in the Rnanclal Conditions form attachedthis stipulation.

(2)

iii. [] and until Respondent does the following:

(b) [] The 8bore-referenced suspension is stayed.

[] Probation:

Respondent must be:placed on prob~on fore period of two (2) yearc, which will commence upon the effeciivedate of the Supreme Court order in this matter. (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court)

(3) [] Actual Suspension:

(a) [] Respondent mu~t be actually suspended from the practice of law in the 8tats of California for a periodof one (1)year.

i. []

ii,

and until Respondent ~hows proof satlshzotory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation andpresent fitness to practice anti present learning and ability in the law pumuent to standard1.2(¢)(1). Standards for Attorney ,~;ancllons for Professional Misoonduct

[] and until Respondent p~zys reslftt~on as set forth In the Financial Conditions form attached tothis stipulation,

ill [] and unUI Respondent does the following:

E. Additfonal Conditions of Probation:

(1) [] If Respondent Is actually suspended for two yearn or more, he/she must remain actually suspended untilhe/she proves to the State Bar Court his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and Issming and sbility in thegeneral law, pumuent to standard 1.2(c.1(1), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional MlsoonducL

Dudng the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the,State Bar Act and Rules ofProfessional Conduct,

(Effect~e J~u~y I, 2014)

4

(3) []

(4) []

(5) []

(7) []

(8) []

Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of theState Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California (’Office of Pmbetion"), all changes ofinformation, including current office address end telephone number, or other address for Slate Barpurposes, as prescn’bed by section 6002.1 of the Business end Professk)ns Code.

Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probationanti schedule a meeting with Respondent’s assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms andconditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Offioe of Probation, Respondent must mast with theprobation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent mustpromptly 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 t0, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must statewhether Respondent has compitecl with the State Bar A~t, the Rules of Professional Conduot, and allconditions of probation during the preceding calender qusrter. Respondent must also state whether theream any proceedings pending against him or herin.the State Bar Court and if so, the case. number andcurrent status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must besubmitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.

In addition to all quarl~’ly mporis, a final report, containing the same Infom~ation, is due no esdler thantwenty (20) days before the last day of the pedod of probation end no rater than ltte lest day of probation.

Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms endconditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of complisnce.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 submitled to the Office of Probation. Respondent mustcooperate ~ully with the probation monitor.

Subject to assertion of applioable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully anyInquiries of the Office of Probation and any pmba~n moniffir assigned under these condiltons which amdirec~d to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or hascomp~ed with the probal|on conditions.

Within one (1) year of the effentive date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office ofProbation satlsfa¢tory proof of altendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test givenat the end of that session.

[] No Ethics School recommended. Reason: .

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

(10) [] The following conditions are attache.-J hereto and Incorporated:

[] Substance Abuse Condltions [] Law Office Management Condllions

[] Medical Conditions [] Financial Conditions

F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Pa es:

(1) [] Multistate Pmfmmional Rel;poeslblllty Examination: Respondent must provide proof of ~ ofthe Multistato ProfessionalResponsil:),~ Examination (’MPRE’), administered by the NationalConference of B~r Examiners, to the Office of Probation during the period of aduel suspension or withinone year, whichever pedod is longer. Failure to pass the MPRE results In actual eu~penslon without

(Efreotlve J~numy 1, 20t4)

5Actual

further hearing until passage, But see rule 9.a0(b), California Rules of Court, end rule 6.~62(A) &(E), Rules of Procedure.

[] No MPRE recommended. Reason:

(2) Rule 9.20, Catifomla Rules of Court: Respondent must comply with me requirements of rule 9.20,Caflfomia Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions {a) and (c) of that rule within 30a~d 40 calender days, respectively, stter the efTect~s date of the Supreme Court’s Order in this mar*or.

Conditional Rule 9.20, Callfomla Rules of Court: If Respondent remains ectually suspended for 90days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20; California Rules of Coud, andperform the acts SLDec~d in subdivisions (a) end (c) of that rule within 120 end 130 calendar days,respectively, after the effective dale of the Supreme Court’s Order in this matter.

Credit for Interim Suspension [conviction referral cases only]: Respondent will be cmclited for theperiod of his/her Intedm suspension toward the stipulated pedod of actual suspensk)n.Date ofcommencement of Interim suspension:

(5) [] OtherCondltione:

(Efle~live January 1, 2014)

6

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS~ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

1N THE MATTER OF: SUZANNE FOLEY SPRAGUE

CASE NUMBER: 13-O-13847

STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS

Respondent admits that the following fa~ts are true and that she is culpable of violations of thespecified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Condu~t.

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Case No. 13-O-13847...(Complainant: Stephanie Ati_da)

FACTS:

1. On August 26, 1994, the Edward J. Foley Family Trust (the "Trust’,) was created.On October 6, 2008, respondent was named as the successor trustee of the Trust in the event of thecurrent trustee’s death. The beneficiaries of the trust were respondent, her three siblings, andStephanie Atigh ("Atigh").

2. On December 30, 2009, Edward J. Foley, the trustee, died and respondent becametrustee of the Trust. At all times thereafter, respondent was represented by counsel in her capacityas trustee for the Trust.

3. On April 21, 2010, respondent opened a checking and savings necount in the nameof the Trust with Wells Fargo Bank. The last 4 digits of the aoeounts were: 2262 [ebeckingaccount], and 1827 [savings account]. (The complete account numbers are omitted to protect theseettrity of the accounts.) Respondent did not regularly reconcile the two Trust accounts, nor didshe regularly reconcile her personal aecotmt.

4. It is grossly negligent for the trustee of a trust to f~l to regularly reconcile the fundswhich come into the tmstee’s possession.

5. On July 27, 2010, respondent asked the beneficiaries to execute a waiver ofaccounting. Atigh did not sign the waiver, thereby obligating respondent to provide an aecotmtingto Atigh. It was not until on November 19, 2010 that respondent, through her attorney, sent a letterto the beneiieiaries regarding the administration of the Trust. The letter stated a preliminarydistribution of trust proceeds in the amount of $250,000 would be made within 45 days of theletter. Respondent also informed the beneficiaries that she untieipated distributing the reserveTrust monies, $120,545, less any final expenses and costs in early 2011, and that the trustee hadpaid all known obligations ofF_Award Foley and/or the Trust and had liquidated the Trust assets asdirected. It was not until December 30, 2011, that respondent notified all of the beneficiaries that

7

she had signed off onthe accounting,

6. On April 5, 201 I, Respondent telephoned Wells Fargo Bank and requested that herpersonal checking account be linked to her personal savings account. ThereaRer, Wells FargoBank erroneously linked respondent’s personal checking account to the Trust’s savings account.Respondent was unaware that the two accounts were linked until approximately March 2012.

7. From April 6, 2011, to March 26, 2012, respondent misdirected $17,375.52 fromthe Trust savings account to her personal checking account, due to the bank erroneously linkingthe two accounts. Since respondent was not performing a regular accounting of the Trust’s funds,she was unaware of these disbursements until March 2012. In March 2012, after being made awareof the bank error, respondent repaid the $17,352.52 to the trust.

8. On June 10, 2012, an attorney for Atigh sent respondent a Ietter requestinginformation regarding taxes owed from a 2010 IRA distribution and how the remaining trust assetswould be distributed. Respondent received the IcRcr, but did not respond in a timely manner.

9. On March 3, 2014, respondent filed a 1041 tax return for the year ending 2010which included the 2010 IRA distribution as income.

10. On May 8, 2014, respondent sent a letter to the beneficiaries regardingadministration of the tru~ Respondent enclosed an accounting for 2012, 2013, and through April25, 2014, with the letter. In her letter, respondent asked the beneficiaries to sign a waiver ofaccounting. Respondent also stated that upon execution of the waiver by all beneficiaries, shecould make the final distributions and terminate the Trust following a final accounting, circulate adistribution agreement, file a final tax return, and pay all final administrative costs and expenses.As of June 3, 2014, respondent has prepared the final accounting and provided it the beneficiaries.Respondent will make a final distribution of trust assets after a waiver to object to the accountingby all beneficiaries or 180 days after the accounting was provided (May 8, 2014) pursuant toProbate Code §16464.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

11. By not timely closing the administration of the Trust, and by failing to provideaccountings and a final ~ounting,.respondent breached her fiduciary duty owed to thebeneficiaries of the trust in wilful violation of Business and Professiom Code, section 6068(a).

12. By failing to regularly reconcile the Trust accounts and by permitting $17,375.52from the Trust to bc misappropriated to her personal cheoking account, rcspomient through grossnegligence, committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption in wilful violationof Business and Professions Code section 6106.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Multiple Acts of Misconduct (Std. 1.5(b)): Respondent’s breach of fiduciary duty and multipleunauthorized withdrawals from the trust bank account and other trust assets over a period of morethan two years represent multiple acts of misconduct.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Extreme Emotional Difficulties (Standard 1.6(d)): Beginning in 2010 and continuing to thepresent, respondent experienced extreme emotional difficulties and stress stemming from marital,physical, and financial issues: respondent was distraught after her father passed away in December2009. Respondent was diagnosed with infertility after trying for many years to have a child.: Shealso suffered a failed attempt with a surrogate. Respondent also experienced significant maritaldifficulties and she and her husband separated in 2013. These emotional issues interfered withrespondent’s ability to properly monitor the administration of the trust. Respondent has beenseeing a licensed clinical social worker since January 2014 and is committed to regular sessionsuntil her stress symptoms are resolved. (In the Matter of Kaplan (1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.509, 519 [where court gave Kaplan mitigation credit for marital difficulties].)

Restitution (Standard 1.6(j)): Respondent replaced all funds that were misappropriated byMarch 2012 without the threat or force of administrative, disciplinary, civil, or criminalproceedings.

ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

No Prior Discipline: Respondent was admitted to the State Bar of California on June 4, 2001, andhas no prior record of discipline. Although the present misconduct is serious, respondent is entitledto mitigation credit for having no prior record of discipline. (In the Matter of Stamper (1990) 1 Cal.State Bar Ct. Rtpr. 96, 106).

Pretrial Stipulation: Respondent demonstrated cooperation with the State Bar of California byentering into this stipulation. (Silva-Vidor v. State Bar (I 989) 49 Cal.3d 1071, 1079 [wheremitigative credit was given for entering into a stipulation as to facts and culpability].)

AUTI-IOILrrIES SUP_PORTING DISCIPLINE.

The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct "set forth a means fordetermining the appropriate disciplinary sanction in a particular case and to ensure consistencyacross cases dealing with similar misconduct and surrounding circumstances." (Rules Prec. ofState Bar, tit. IV, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, std. 1.1. All further references toStandards arc to this source.) The Standards help fulfill the primary purposes of discipline, whichinclude: protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; maintenance of the highestprofessional standards; and preservation of public confidence inthe legal profession. (See std.1.1; In re Morse (1995) 11 CaL4th 184, 205.)

Although not binding, the standards are entitled to "great weight" and should be followed

9

"whenever possible" in determining level of discipline. (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81,92,quoting In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205, 220 and In re Young (1989) 49 Cal.3d 257, 267, fu.11.) Adherence to the standards in the great majority of cases serves the valuable purpose ofeliminating disparity and assuring consistency, that is, the imposition of similar attorney disciplinefor instances of similar attorney misconduct. (In re Naney (1990) 51 Cal.3d 186, 190.) Irarecommendation is at the high end or low end of a Standard, an explanation must be given as tohow the recommendation was reached. (Std. 1.1.) "Any disciplinary recommendation thatdeviates from the Standards must include clear reasons for the dept." (Std. 1.I; Blair v. StateBar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 762, 776, ill. 5.)

In determining whether to impose a sanction greater or less than that specified in a given Standard,in addition to the factors set forth in the specific Standard, consideration is to be given to theprimary purposes of discipline; the balancing of all aggravating and mitigating circumstances; thetype of misconduct at issue; whether the client, public, legal system or profession was harmed; andthe member’s willingness and ability to conform to ethical responsibilities in the future. (Stds.1.7(o) and (c).)

In this matter, respondant admits to committing two acts of professional misconduct. Standard1.7(a) requires that where a respondent "commits two or more acts of misconduct and theStandards specify different sanctions for each act, the most severe sanction mnst be imposed."Standard 2.1 applies to rcspondent’s misappropriation. It provides: "disbarment or actualsuspension is appropriate for misappropriation involving gross negligence."

In this case, respondent’s failure to perform regular accounting of the trust funds restdted in amisappropriation of $17,375.52 because she was not aware that the bank had erroneously linkedher personal checking account with the trust savings account. In addition, respondent failed toprovide accountings to f’mish her duties as Wastee. In aggravation, respondent committed multipleacts of misconduct by making multiple withdrawals from the trust bank account over a period ofmore than two years. In mitigation, respondent has no prior record of discipline in nine years ofpractice, she suffered extreme stress and emotional difficulties due to the death of her father,coupled with marital and financial problems. Additionally, upon becoming aware her personaland Wast accounts were linked, she contacted the bank to unlink the accounts, replaced the f:ondsthat had been withdrawn from the trust prior to the State Bar complaint being filed, and agreed toenter into this stipul.ation, fully resolving this matter without the need for trial, thereby saving theShare Bar Court resources and time. Furthermore, Respondent timely disbursed funds to thebeneficiaries in November 2010 and another $15,000 in May 2012. Respondent never had anyintent to deprive the beneficiaries of their funds, and, in fact, they have not been deprived of theirfunds. Following Standard 2.1 (b) and considering the totality of the misconduct including theaggravating and mitigating circumstances, a one year actual suspension is appropriate to protectthe public, the courts, and the legal profession under Standard 1.1 and will serve the purposes ofattorney discipline.

Case law is also instructive. In Schneider v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 784, the SupremeCourtimposed a 30 day actual suspension against an attorney who violated forraer Rules of ProfessionalConduct, rule 5-101 for mishandling the trust fimds from 2 different trusts, Business andProfessions Code, section 6106 for misrepresenting what he used the trust funds for, and Business

10

and Professions Code section 606g(a) for breaching his fiduciary duty to manage the trust fundsfor the benefit of trust beneficiaries. In mitigation, Schneider had no prior record of discipline,participated in community service, had financial difficulties, admitted wrongdoing, expressedremorse, and repaid 1 of the loans pursuant to a settlement. In aggravation, Schneider committedmultiple acts of misconduct.

In Murray v State Bar (1985) 40 Cal.3d 575, the Supreme Court imposed a one year actualsuspension against an attorney who commingled and misappropriated funds from an estate,unilaterally withdrew his fees from the estate funds, disbursed estate funds without court approval,and refused to account for the funds to the executors of the estate despite their repeated demands.In aggravation, Murray committed multiple acts of misconduct. The Court gave some mitigationcredit to Murray for stress due to domestic problems.

Respondcnt’s ease is more serious than the respondent in Schneider in that she was grosslynegligent in misappropriating $17,375.52, and more similar to the misconduct of the respondent inMurray because she disclosed the misappropriation and repaid the money prior to the filing of theState Bar complaint.

On balance, a one year actual suspension with a two year probationary period will protect thepublic and is consistent with the goals of attorney discipline.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel Ires informed respondent thatas of~Iune 16, 2014, the prosecution costs in this matter are $7,173.46. Respondent furtheracknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation begranted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings,

EXCLUSION FROM MCLE CREDIT

Pursuant to rule 3201, Respondent may not receive MCLE credit for completion of State BarEthics School. (Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, rule 3201.)

11

{Do n~ wrile above this line.)

In the Matter of:.SUZANNE FOLEY SPRAGUE

Case number(s):13-O-13847

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of therecitations and each of the pulatio,,y R

7/~!2~/f te~d coldFdons of this $1 /~,~ eFa., Oolcilsiol. o, Law, ald D,sposition.,~__Xg//,,~..Z, I,AJ. -~~///1,~’/, ~’~UZA~\rN% FOLEY SPRAGUE

Diputy Tlal Couns~Fs Signature ~/ Pint Name

(Effective January 1, 2014)

Page ].__.~2Signature Page

in the Me’-tler ~SUZANNE FOLEY SPRAGUE

~ Number(s):13-0-13947

ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER

Finding the sUpu~on to ~ fair m ff~e parties and Ihat it adequal~ly protects the public, ff I~1 ORDERED thai therequested dismislml of counts/charges, if any, is GRANTED wtlhout prejudice. ~nd:

,~The stipulated facts and disposilion am APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDEO to theSupreme Court.

[] The stipulated facts and disposition am APPROVED A8 MODIFIED as set forlh below, and theDISCIPUNE IS RECOMMENDED ~o the SupremtCourt.

~’AII Hearing dates am vacalsd.

The parties am bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) s motion to w~dmw or modify lhe ~puls~on, filedwithin 15 dsys after service of this order, is granted; or 2)this court modifies or furor modi~lm the approvedstipulation. (See rule 5.58(E) & (F), Rules of Procedure,) The effeotlve.date of thl~ dl~p~m--Ilkm b the effeett~ dat~~Cou~.~uPmma Cou~torde, har~ln, normally 30 daY, a,fter~le --. ($~rulel,18(a,, ~’~b "u" ~

Date Judge of the 8t~l~ Ear Court

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 eighteenand not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City andCounty of San Francisco, On July 14, 2014, I deposited a true copy of the followingdocument(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDERAPPROVING

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 PostalService at San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:

JONATHAN IRWIN ARONSLAW OFC JONATHAN I ARONS100 BUSH ST STE 918SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104

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

ERICA L. M. DENNINGS, Enforcement, San FranciscoTERRIE GOLDADE, Probation, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, onJuly 14, 2014.

Case AdministratorState Bar Court