|
JUAN MANUEL NUNEZ [#165540], 53, of Salinas
was suspended for three years, stayed, actually suspended for two
years and until he makes restitution, proves his rehabilitation and
the State Bar Court orders the suspension terminated, and he was
ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took
effect Nov. 2, 2001.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court
found that Nunez committed misconduct in three matters, including
failure to perform legal services competently, communicate with
clients, refund unearned fees and cooperate with a bar investigation,
withdrawing from employment without protecting his clients’
interests, committing acts of dishonesty and misleading a judge.
In the first matter, Nunez represented a client
who paid him $1,500 to handle her divorce. He never filed the required
papers. Instead, the client’s husband filed for dissolution, and
Nunez submitted a response and a declaration of income, both bearing
his client’s signature, which contained inaccurate information about
her assets.
When the client hired a new lawyer who discovered
Nunez’ actions, she demanded a refund, but Nunez never returned her
fee.
In another divorce proceeding, the court ordered
Nunez to replace another individual in preparing a support tax
calculation. He never did so. He was later ordered to prepare an order
vacating the appointment of the first person, taking other issues off
calendar and setting the child support issue for a hearing. When he
appeared at the hearing, Nunez told the judge he had filed the order
that morning when he had not.
His client eventually received a copy of the
settlement agreement, which she had signed, but she noticed the
signature on the document was not hers. Nunez said he signed it
because he had lost his copy, but had filed the original with the
court. In fact, he never filed the agreement. He later ignored a court
order that he prepare an order reflecting the terms of the agreement.
In the third case, a client paid $1,700 to handle
a divorce and to assist in reducing child support payments. Although
Nunez advised his client the petition should be filed in Monterey
County, where he resided, the client’s spouse filed first in San
Luis Obispo County. He advised his client he did not need to appear at
hearings and said two court appearances were canceled even though
Nunez had appeared. Twice, opposing counsel appeared on Nunez’
behalf. By the time the action was taken off calendar, Nunez had filed
nothing with the court.
He did not inform the client he had withdrawn as
his counsel and did not return the file or unearned fees, leaving the
client unable to hire another attorney.
EVAN LLEWELLYN SMITH [#101369], 50, of Diamond
Bar was suspended for 30 days, stayed, placed on one year of
probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order
took effect Nov. 2, 2001.
Smith stipulated that he failed to comply with
conditions attached to a 1999 private reproval. He filed five
quarterly reports late, failed to file five reports from a certified
public accountant and failed to attend ethics school or the trust
account record-keeping class.
The private reproval was issued as a result of
Smith’s failure to deposit client funds in a trust account or to
maintain records of client funds.
In mitigation, no clients were harmed and he
cooperated with the bar’s investigation.
GORDON DAVID SOLADOR [#86501], 51, of Los
Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years
of probation with a one-year actual suspension, and was ordered to
prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE within one year and comply
with rule 955. The order took effect Nov. 2, 2001.
Solador stipulated that he failed to deposit
client funds in a trust account and committed an act of moral
turpitude.
He represented two sisters on a contingency fee
basis in a personal injury case. He received and deposited two
settlement checks, totaling $8,033, in his trust account, but did not
inform the clients. He did not distribute any part of the medical
payment funds for almost three years, when the sisters complained to
the State Bar.
He also allowed the balance in his trust account
to fall below the required amount, including a negative balance, on
numerous occasions.
Solador also was suspended in 1994.
In mitigation, he has performed extensive pro
bono work, ranging from 20 to 50 hours per month, through membership
in the reserve unit of the San Fernando Police Department. He also had
a medical condition which affected his ability to supervise his
practice.
ANDREW KENNETH ALGER [#142838], 41, of Fair
Oaks was suspended for three years, stayed, actually suspended for
one year and until he makes restitution and the State Bar Court grants
a motion to terminate the suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE
and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years,
he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Nov. 2, 2001.
In a default proceeding, the bar court found that
Alger failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 1998
public reproval. He did not make restitution to two clients, submit
four quarterly probation reports or attend ethics school.
The reproval was issued when Alger stipulated to
a failure to perform competently in two matters, communicate with
clients in one matter or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.
A second discipline case is pending before the
Supreme Court stemming from Alger’s failure to perform competently,
communicate with clients, comply with a judicial sanction or report
the sanction to the State Bar and for improperly withdrawing from
representation. Alger defaulted in that proceeding as well.
LAURINDA LOCKERBY LEE [#117725], 45, of
Murrieta was suspended for six months, stayed, actually suspended
for 30 days and until she makes restitution and the State Bar Court
orders that the suspension be terminated, and was ordered to take the
MPRE. If the actual suspension exceeds 90 days, she must comply with
rule 955 and if it exceeds two years, she must prove her
rehabilitation. The order took effect Nov. 2, 2001.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court
found that Lee failed to perform legal services competently,
communicate with a client, refund unearned fees or cooperate with the
bar’s investigation.
In 1997, Lee was hired by a couple to prepare a
living trust and transfer their assets to the trust. The couple signed
the trust documents, documents to transfer title of their home to the
trust, and letters of instruction to their account-holders requesting
that funds or assets be placed in the trust.
Lee never sent the letters to transfer assets,
nor did she record a deed transferring title of the clients’ home.
When the clients learned nothing had been done by
mid-1998, Lee said she had sent the letters to various institutions
and that she had requested the county recorder to provide copies of
the deeds. She did not return subsequent phone calls and refused to
accept a certified letter. She never refunded the clients’ $850 fee.
Lee has no record of discipline in 15 years of
practice.
GREGORY PAUL MUTZ [#153481], 50, of El Cajon
was suspended for one year, stayed, and actually suspended for six
months and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the
suspension. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove
his rehabilitation. The order took effect Nov. 2, 2001.
In a default proceeding, the bar court found that
Mutz failed to perform legal services competently, obey a court order
or cooperate with a bar investigation and he improperly withdrew from
employment.
Mutz failed to appear at five hearings on behalf
of his client, a defendant in a criminal proceeding. As a result, he
was sanctioned $300.
He failed to appear at a hearing he had scheduled
by calling the court and the matter was taken off calendar. He
didn’t appear at a subsequent hearing, was removed from the case and
sanctioned another $150. He didn’t appear at three more hearings and
was sanctioned another $375. He did not pay the sanctions.
Mutz was disciplined earlier in 2001 for failing
to perform, return unearned fees or cooperate with a bar
investigation, for improperly withdrawing from representation,
disobeying a court order and committing an act of moral turpitude.
DANNY ROBERT TAYLOR [#91924], 51, of Los
Angeles was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three years
of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take
the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Nov. 2, 2001.
Taylor stipulated to misconduct in four
consolidated matters.
He acted as defense counsel in a criminal trial
at a time when he was suspended for failure to pay bar dues. The
proceeding ended in a mistrial when it was learned Taylor was
suspended. The notice of suspension sent by the State Bar was returned
because Taylor had moved without reporting his new address.
The suspension lasted only 10 days.
He also appeared in court on behalf of another
client while he was suspended, but then failed to appear at two
subsequent hearings and withdrew from employment without seeking the
court’s permission.
In a third criminal proceeding, Taylor was
sanctioned $400 for his failure to appear for trial at the scheduled
time. The matter was continued for trial and Taylor did not pay the
sanction. He also did not appear at the subsequent trial date, but
called the court at 4 p.m. to say he was ill. He missed a court
appearance the following day and was relieved as counsel.
He was found in contempt but did not appear at
two sentencing hearings. He eventually spent five days in the county
jail.
Taylor represented another criminal defendant in
two matters, and again missed a hearing, was dismissed as counsel, was
found guilty of contempt of court and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and
spend five days in jail.
He stipulated that he practiced law while not
entitled, failed to maintain a current address with the State Bar,
improperly withdrew from employment, disobeyed court orders and failed
to maintain respect for the courts.
Taylor received a private reproval in 2000
following a conviction for battery and trespass.
In mitigation, he suffered a period of severe
depression at the time of the misconduct because his marriage broke
up, he was evicted from his residence and he suffered financial
reversals. No harm came to his clients, since he made efforts to
protect their interests after his failures to appear.
GILBERT YOSHIHARU NISHINO [#100036], 52, of
Hemet was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of
probation with a three-month actual suspension, and was ordered to
make restitution, take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule
955. The order took effect Nov. 2, 2001.
Nishino stipulated to misconduct in two matters.
He obtained a $25,000 judgment plus attorney fees
for his clients in a civil matter involving claims to money deposited
in an escrow account relating to the sale of a business. He received a
check for just over $19,000 and deposited it in his trust account.
On appeal, the court reversed the attorney fees
portion of the judgment but upheld the rest.
Nishino contends that his associate negotiated an
agreement with the clients regarding fees, but the clients disputed
his claim and demanded that Nishino pay them about $15,000.
He has not paid the clients any funds or provided
an accounting to them.
Given the fee dispute, Nishino was required to
maintain at least $15,000 in his trust account, but has allowed the
balance to fall below that amount.
He did not cooperate with the bar’s
investigation.
In the second matter, Nishino employed as an
independent contractor an attorney who was suspended from practice.
The attorney worked on client matters while suspended. Nishino did not
notify the State Bar of his employment although he contends his
clients were advised the attorney was suspended.
Nishino stipulated that he failed to maintain
client funds in a trust account, provide an accounting of funds to
clients, cooperate with a bar investigation or notify the bar that he
employed a disciplined attorney.
In 1996, Nishino was privately reproved for
failing to perform legal services competently or communicate with
clients.
RUSSELL MONTFORD RICK [#104118], 46, of
Ontario was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years
of probation with a six-month actual suspension, and was ordered to
prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE within one year and comply
with rule 955. The order took effect Nov. 2, 2001.
The State Bar Court found that Rick committed
acts of misconduct in two matters.
In the first, he filed a complaint for property
damage and personal injury, but the case was dismissed because Rick
failed to serve the complaint on the defendant, although he did
provide a courtesy copy to the insurance company. Without advising the
insurance company’s counsel about the dismissal, he engaged in
discussions about submitting the matter to binding arbitration.
The attorney sent a proposed arbitration
agreement to Rick with a line for his client’s signature. Rick
returned the agreement bearing his client’s forged signature.
The insurance company attorney noticed the
signature did not match that on another document and challenged Rick,
who admitted he signed his client’s name but said he had his power
of attorney. The other attorney called the court and learned the case
had been dismissed six months earlier.
The client fired Rick and obtained new counsel,
who moved to set aside the dismissal. In support of that motion, Rick
filed a declaration which contained false statements. An amended
complaint included a second almost identical declaration by Rick
containing false statements.
The bar court found that Rick sought to mislead
the court and committed an act of moral turpitude.
Rick opened a second law office in Santa Maria in
1997, where he employed Dan Aceves, a.k.a. Felipe Enriquez, as a
paralegal. It was Aceves/Enriquez’ idea to open the office, and Rick
essentially turned over control to him without adequate supervision.
Rick never visited the office and shut it down after two or three
months.
Aceves/Enriquez solicited a minor who had been in
an automobile accident, appearing at the client’s home and falsely
claiming he’d been referred by two different neighbors. When
confronted by the youth’s family, Aceves/Enriquez left and was never
seen again.
The family called Rick’s Los Angeles office to
complain about the paralegal and to inquire about the case. Rick’s
office acknowledged he was the client’s attorney and said Aceves/Enriquez
no longer represented the office. The client later hired a different
lawyer. Rick closed the Santa Maria office and fired Aceves/ Enriquez.
The new lawyer asked for the file and put Rick on
notice that the paralegal had engaged in capping. Rick then asserted a
lien for the value of his services and costs advanced in the personal
injury matter and notified the insurance company of the lien.
Eventually the new lawyer sent Rick a proposed
court order in the case and asked him to relinquish any claim to fees.
He also noted the judge was aware of the capping and made a finding on
the record that he thought Rick’s office had acted unlawfully and
ordered the clerk to make a referral to the State Bar.
Nonetheless, Rick proposed that he receive 35
percent of the attorney fees in settlement of the lien claim and
asserted that the superior court had no jurisdiction over fee
disputes.
The bar court found that he failed to perform
legal services competently and attempted to collect an illegal fee.
In mitigation, Rick has no prior record of
discipline.
THOMAS EDWARD JOHNSTON [#30389], 69, of
Newport Beach was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on
four years of probation with an actual two-year suspension, and was
ordered to prove his rehabilitation, make restitution, take the MPRE
and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Nov. 9, 2001.
Johnston stipulated that he breached his
fiduciary duties in a general partnership by making
misrepresentations, failing to disclose material facts, signing a
partner’s name to a document without his knowledge and
misappropriating partnership funds, acts which amounted to moral
turpitude.
In 1977, Johnston’s wholly owned corporation
became a general partner with a limited partnership created to develop
and sell 1,770 acres in Orange County.
A year later, the partnership acquired two new general partners
and Johnston’s company and another became limited partners.
The partnership included a golf course and in
1988, negotiations began to sell the course at a substantial profit.
However, one of the general partners was not informed about the
negotiations or about subsequent business dealings.
A new entity was created in which Johnston was a
general partner. As a fiduciary, he was required to avoid making false
representations, to disclose material facts about the golf course and
to maintain partnership assets and funds.
He convinced one of the general partners to enter
into a series of agreements without giving him complete information.
When the golf course was sold, Johnston did not tell the general
partner, although he was a shareholder, nor did he distri-bute the
cash proceeds to him, as required by the partnership agreement.
The general partner sued Johnston for fraud and
deceit, intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment.
Johnston then changed the partnership agreement without the general
partner’s knowledge.
The court ordered Johnston and other defendants
to pay the general partner nearly $479,000, plus $284,338 in interest,
for fraud while acting in a fiduciary capacity. In addition, Johnston
was ordered to pay more than $500,000 in attorney fees.
Johnston has not paid the judgment or the fees.
In mitigation, his wife passed away in 1990.
Johnston does not practice law and intends to continue to pursue a
career as a developer.
RODOLFO ENRIQUEZ PETILLA [#109383], 61, of
Fresno was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of
probation with a 60-day actual suspension, and was ordered to make
restitution and take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect
Nov. 9, 2001.
The State Bar Court review department upheld a
hearing judge’s findings that in 1994, over a 37-day period, Petilla
incurred credit card debts of almost $20,000 without intending to pay
them. He wound up in debt by taking cash advances on two credit cards
and gambling away the money. He filed for bankruptcy 16 days after the
last cash advance.
The hearing judge determined that Petilla
borrowed money without intending to repay it, an act that involves
dishonesty and moral turpitude.
The review department rejected Petilla’s
arguments that the evidence was insufficient to warrant discipline,
that the judge’s decision was void because it was not timely and was
not served on him, and that the restitution requirement was illegal.
It reversed a recommendation that Petilla be required to attend
Gamblers Anonymous meetings.
When Petilla filed for bankruptcy, he attempted
to discharge more than $57,000 in debt, most of it the result of
gambling. He said the debt was incurred as part of a “free fall”
at Nevada blackjack tables between late May and early July 1994. The
review department described the free fall as “a losing streak during
which he lost tens of thousands of dollars.”
During the previous 12 months, he repaid at least
$114,611 in gambling debts.
In addition to the $19,327 cash advances in
question, Petilla also took $25,000 in gambling markers from three
Nevada casinos and more than $11,000 in cash advances on two other
credit cards. Those debts were either discharged or not challenged.
The bankruptcy court found that Petilla engaged
in fraud when he incurred the debts on the two credit cards in
question, and an appellate court upheld its ruling.
The bar court found unconvincing Petilla’s
contention that he intended to repay the cash advances with his
gambling winnings.
In mitigation, Petilla practiced law for 16 years
without any record of discipline.
CHARLES J. ROTHBAUM [#54450], 56, of Visalia
was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on five years of
probation with an actual 145-day suspension, and was ordered to prove
his rehabilitation, make restitution, take the MPRE and comply with
rule 955. The order took effect Nov. 9, 2001.
Rothbaum stipulated to seven counts of misconduct
in four consolidated cases.
In the first, he failed to return a client’s
file six years after defending him in a criminal trial. He eventually
returned the file more than a year later.
He failed to appear at two hearings in a juvenile
criminal matter and was relieved as counsel. He refunded the unearned
$1,500 fee after the client complained to the State Bar.
Another client, in custody in Bakers-field, hired
Rothbaum to represent her in a federal matter in Arkansas. The
client’s sister paid him $10,000 as a flat fee, but he took no
action to represent her other than one jail visit.
The client was sent to Arkansas, but Rothbaum did
not contact her there, filed no motions, made no appearances and took
no action to be admitted there.
When he did not refund the advance fee, the
client’s sister sought arbitration and won an award requiring
Rothbaum to return the money. The client complained to the bar and a
payment scheduled was created, but he missed payments and bounced
checks. Meanwhile, he informed the bar he was on schedule in paying
the money. He eventually paid the money and interest.
In a fourth matter, Rothbaum defended a man
accused of criminal child molestation. Without a written fee
agreement, the defendant’s family agreed to a $15,000 fee. When
Rothbaum discovered the case was significantly more complicated than
he originally thought, he told the defendant he could represent him
only if he paid $25,000. The client agreed and at the same time asked
Rothbaum to safeguard a duffel bag for him.
Through the defendant’s sister and Rothbaum’s
investigator, Rothbaum came into possession of two duffel bags and
several guns which he transferred to a commercial storage facility. He
was uncertain if the items were connected to his client’s case and
took steps to get some advice, but never followed through. He never
disclosed to the court or the prosecutor that he was in possession of
his client’s property.
Eventually, Rothbaum’s relationship with his
client broke down and he was relieved as counsel. The client’s
sister went to fee arbitration and was awarded a refund of $22,448,
which Rothbaum never paid.
He stipulated that he failed to perform legal
services competently or to abide by his duty to deliver evidence
related to the criminal case to the court.
In mitigation, he has no record of discipline,
and he had emotional or physical difficulties or family problems at
the time of the misconduct.
JULIAN I. DUCRE [#113923], 51, of Chino Hills
was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation
and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took
effect Nov. 9, 2001.
Ducre stipulated to misconduct in two matters.
In a personal injury claim, he and his client
agreed Ducre would receive a 40 percent contingency fee if the matter
went to trial or arbitration. He received $13,250 in settlement funds
and disbursed everything except a payment for the client’s medical
bills. He did not pay the medical provider for almost two years and
also allowed the balance in the trust account to fall below the
required amount.
In the second matter, also a personal injury
case, he executed medical liens on behalf of two of his client’s
medical providers, but failed to pay the liens for more than three
years after receiving settlement funds. At one point, the client
visited him at home to request that he pay the funds. He also allowed
the balance in his client trust account to fall below the required
amount.
In mitigation, Ducre has no record of discipline
in 16 years of practice, and he had serious family and emotional
problems at the time of the misconduct, including depression, divorce
and problems with a child. Repeated failures of a computer trust
account problem, as well as difficulties with his office staff,
resulted in the failure to maintain funds and delays in making
payments.
CHARLES KERN GOLDEN [#121625], 45, of
Riverside was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended
for 90 days and until he makes restitution and the State Bar Court
orders the suspension be terminated, and he was ordered to take the
MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two
years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Nov. 9,
2001.
In a default proceeding, the bar court found that
Golden committed multiple acts of misconduct in two cases, including
failing to perform legal services competently, communicate with
clients, return client files and unearned fees or cooperate with the
bar, and he made misrepresentations to a client and the client’s
agent regarding the status of his case.
In the first matter, a client paid him $2,850 in
advance fees to file a lawsuit. He never did so, but told the client
six months later that he had served the other party. He failed to
answer numerous phone calls and did not return the client’s fee or
her papers.
In the second matter, a couple paid Golden $1,350
to represent them in removing a contractor’s lien against their home
so they could refinance their mortgage. Golden failed to perform any
legal services for his clients, including failing to file an action
against the contractor.
However, he told an escrow officer working with
the couple that a hearing was scheduled to obtain an order to remove
the invalid deed of trust from the record title.
He did not return the clients’ numerous phone
calls, refund their fee or return their papers.
His misrepresentations in both cases amounted to
moral turpitude.
In mitigation, Golden has no record of discipline
in 13 years of practice
JEFFREY HOWARD GREENWALD [#178377], 49, of San
Jose was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for
90 days and until he makes restitution, proves his rehabilitation and
the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension, and
he was ordered to take the MPRE. If the actual suspension exceeds 90
days he must comply with rule 955, and if it exceeds two years, he
must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Nov. 9, 2001.
In a default proceeding, the bar court found that
Greenwald committed misconduct in three matters, including failing to
perform legal services, communicate with clients, refund unearned
fees, maintain respect for the courts or cooperate with the bar’s
investigations.
One client paid more than $1,600 in fees to clear
up matters related to the DMV and a traffic citation. Greenwald did no
work on the case, did not return numerous phone calls or pages and did
not refund the unearned fees.
In a second matter, a client hired him to pursue
a tort action in connection with an auto accident. After negotiating a
settlement with the insurance carrier and receiving a check for almost
$5,300, Greenwald failed to negotiate the check, which bore the names
of the lienholders, the client and Greenwald. As a result, the client
never received his share of the settlement. Greenwald also did not
return the client’s phone calls.
In a criminal matter, Greenwald appeared for
trial but indicated he was unable to proceed because he had personal
problems, including having spent the previous night in jail. When he
did appear, he did not provide a witness list to the district attorney
and the case was continued to the next day.
At that time, Greenwald had not provided civilian
clothes to his client, so he left for more than an hour, returning
without the clothes. The court reset the hearing for 1:30 p.m.;
Greenwald appeared at 2:15, again without the client’s clothing.
The case was continued until the following
morning, when Greenwald moved to withdraw. He told the court he had
not read the search warrant, had not interviewed the key witness, was
homeless and was being evicted from his law office, and that,
frustrated by lack of a fee payment, he had left an insulting message
on his client’s wife’s answering machine.
The judge excused him from the case and reported
him to the bar. He did not cooperate with its investigation.
RAYMOND A. NOVELL [#67003], 59, of Claremont was
suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with
an actual 40-day suspension and was ordered to make restitution and
take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Nov. 22, 2001.
Novell stipulated that he failed to maintain
client funds in a client trust account in two cases, and he
misappropriated funds from one client.
In the first case, he represented a client in two
personal injury claims arising out of separate automobile accidents.
He and the client entered into a fee agreement providing a 33 1/3
percent contingency fee if the matter were settled before trial and 40
percent if the case were resolved at trial.
After both matters were resolved, Novell was
entitled to fees and costs of $29,273; he was required to retain
$13,471 in the trust account for medical liens. Although he attempted
to negotiate reduced liens over a two-year period, the balance in his
trust account repeatedly fell below the required level.
Although he intended to keep the balance at the
required level, he delegated responsibility over his trust account to
a staffer. He did not take funds for his own use.
In a second matter, he deposited his clients’
advance fee and money he received for costs in his general account
rather than his client trust account. When the case was dismissed
without prejudice, he never refunded or accounted for the money he
received for costs.
In mitigation, Novell has no prior record of
discipline, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and he
devoted time to public service and pro bono legal work.
The probation of BRUCE STEVEN WEINER [#78533],
50, of Cerritos was revoked, the previously ordered stay of
suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for two months.
The order took effect Nov. 22, 2001.
Weiner was ordered in 1998 to pass the MPRE as
part of a discipline order, and when he did not, he was suspended in
1999. He practiced law while suspended, representing a client in a
property dispute by accepting a fee, giving the client legal advice
and preparing documents. Dissatisfied with the quality of his work,
the client fired him and attempted to get a refund of her fee. He
never refunded any money.
Weiner stipulated that he practiced while
suspended, collected an illegal fee, failed to refund a fee and did
not cooperate with the bar’s investigation.
He also violated other terms of his probation,
including failing to provide quarterly probation reports, attending
six hours of MCLE classes and complying with rule 955.
In another matter, he bounced a check written on
his client trust account to pay a filing fee. He knew there were
insufficient funds in his account and expected a client to deposit the
necessary funds. The client did not do so.
The underlying 1999 discipline was the result of
charging an unconscionable fee and failing to return client papers.
The 1999 discipline was issued for failure to comply with probation
conditions or cooperate with a bar investigation and for practicing
while suspended.
The probation of RALPH S. BRANSCOMB
[#53209],58, of San Diego was suspended, the previously ordered
stay of suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for six
months and ordered to comply with rule 955. Credit shall be given for
the period of involuntary inactive enrollment which began Aug. 4,
2001. The order took effect Nov. 22, 2001.
Branscom was suspended in 2000 but did not comply
with probation conditions: he did not submit two quarterly probation
reports or two substance abuse reports.
The underlying discipline was the result of
failing to respond to a client’s status inquiries or perform legal
services competently.
Branscom’s default was entered in the probation
revocation proceeding.
CHRISTOPHER COGLEY [#79263], 54, of Phoenix
was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for 90 days and
until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension,
and he was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the
actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation.
The order took effect Nov. 23, 2001.
Cogley failed to comply with probation conditions
attached to a public reproval: he did not submit four probation
reports.
The reproval was issued as a result of having
been disciplined in Arizona for failing to act with reasonable
diligence in a client matter, not keeping the client informed and
disobeying a court order.
Cogley defaulted in the latest disciplinary
proceeding.
WENDY BETH TABB [#175578], 32, of Aventura,
Fla., was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on one year
of probation with an actual 30-day suspension. The order took effect
Nov. 23, 2001.
Tabb took over a personal injury case from
another attorney who had a lien on any recovery received by the
client. The case went to binding arbitration and the client was
awarded $12,000. Tabb gave the client her share and paid a medical
lienholder but did not give the other attorney his share of the
settlement.
The other attorney threatened to sue. Tabb and
the client had numerous conversations about the possibility of the
lawsuit and Tabb repeatedly told the client she would handle the issue
and that she would file a demurrer if a suit were filed. The client
sent her three certified letters confirming the substance of the
conversations. The last letter was returned as undeliverable because
Tabb moved to Florida without telling the client. She had never
contacted the other attorney about the fee issue.
The other attorney sued the client and was
awarded $1,800 in arbitration. Dissatisfied with the award, he took
the matter to trial and was awarded more than $4,000, which the client
paid.
Tabb stipulated that she failed to promptly pay
client funds or communicate with her client, withdrew from
representation without protecting her client’s interests, and
committed acts of moral turpitude by her reassurances that she would
take care of the fee issue when she did not.
In mitigation, she cooperated with the bar’s
investigation and demonstrated remorse about her actions.
DARICK WAYNE HOLT [#117879], 46, of Los
Angeles was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on probation
for four years with an actual 18-month suspension, and was ordered to
prove his rehabilitation, make restitution, take the MPRE and comply
with rule 955. The order took effect Nov. 23, 2001.
Holt stipulated to misconduct in six consolidated
cases, including failing to perform legal services competently,
communicate with clients, refund unearned fees, return client files,
notify a client of receipt of funds, maintain funds in a client trust
account, update bar membership records, cooperate with bar
investigations, improperly withdrawing from representation and
committing an act of moral turpitude by misappropriating client funds.
Two clients paid Holt $2,500 to handle their
immigration matters and a hearing was scheduled in immigration court.
The pair was unable to schedule an appointment with Holt for three
months because he did not return their phone calls, and he never
appeared at the hearing. He did not refund their fee.
He abandoned another immigration client who paid
$1,500 in advance fees and gave Holt his file, as well as a doctor who
hired him to handle a student loan problem. He received a settlement
check for a personal injury client, but never cashed it or distributed
the funds.
Holt settled another personal injury case for his
minor client without consulting the child or his mother. Someone other
than the mother endorsed the settlement check, which was deposited in
Holt’s trust account, and he wrote a check to the mother. When she
tried to deposit the check, it bounced.
Holt eventually closed the trust account when its
balance fell to $34.60. He still owes the client $2,800.
In 2000, Holt was charged with felony possession
of rock cocaine and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia for
smoking a controlled substance. He pleaded guilty to the felony and
was suspended from practice June 7, 2001. He has remained suspended
since that time.
In mitigation, Holt was addicted to alcohol and
cocaine and currently is in rehab. His wife filed for divorce and his
mother died around the time of the misconduct. He has provided pro
bono legal services to several churches and conducted arbitrations for
the Beverly Hills Bar Association.
H. CRAIG HOLOBOSKI [#59516], 56, of Anaheim
was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for 60 days and
until he makes restitution and the State Bar Court grants a motion to
terminate the suspension, and he was ordered to take the MPRE. If the
actual suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 955; if it
exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took
effect Nov. 23, 2001.
In a default proceeding, the bar court found that
Holoboski failed to perform legal services competently or communicate
with a client, and he withdrew from representation without protecting
his client’s interests.
A client paid a $1,000 advance fee for Holoboski
to represent him in a civil action against his business partners. The
client wrote a letter to the partners and gave it to Holoboski for
review before sending it to them. Holoboski did no other work on the
case. He did not respond to three letters and 50 phone calls, nor did
he refund unearned fees.
In mitigation, he practiced for 24 years without
any discipline.
ROBERT J. BUSCHO [#122556], 43, of Fullerton
was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on probation for 18 months
with an actual 60-day suspension, and was ordered to make restitution
and take the MPRE. If the actual suspension exceeds 90 days, he must
comply with rule 955; if it exceeds two years, he must prove his
rehabilitation. The order took effect Nov. 23, 2001.
Buscho stipulated that he failed to comply with
probation conditions attached to a 1999 disciplinary order: he failed
to make restitution, file quarterly probation reports or prove he
completed six hours of MCLE courses, and he attended ethics school
late.
The discipline was ordered because Buscho failed
to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients,
refund unearned fees, return client files or cooperate with the
bar’s investigation, and he improperly withdrew from employment.
|
