|
KEITH HUBERT GILL [#43381], 72, of Woodland
Hills was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on one year of
probation and was ordered to take the MPRE. The order took effect
Sept. 30, 2001.
Gill stipulated to misconduct in two cases.
In the first, he was hired by a couple to assist
them in estate planning and to represent the husband’s corporation.
Gill took possession of the company’s corporate minute book and
stock book.
The client hired another lawyer to handle a
collection matter, but despite repeated phone calls, Gill did not
provide the file. Because the client was dissatisfied with Gill’s
failure to communicate in the collection matter, he hired a new lawyer
to represent his company in its corporate matters. Gill did not
provide the corporate minute book to the new lawyer until after the
client complained to the State Bar. He also did not cooperate with the
bar’s investigation.
He stipulated that he failed to release client
papers and property upon request.
Gill also did not cooperate with the bar’s
investigation of another complaint by two clients.
Gill was disciplined in 1997 for failing to
perform legal services competently or communicate with a client.
In mitigation, no clients were harmed by his
actions and he demonstrated remorse.
JACK H. KAUFMAN JR. {#57450], 53, of Escondido
was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of
probation with an actual 120-day suspension, and was ordered to prove
his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order
took effect Sept. 30, 2001.
Kaufman stipulated that he practiced law while
not entitled and committed two acts of moral turpitude.
Kaufman and another attorney represented clients
in two separate cases against the same defendant. The two attorneys
reached a “joint collection agreement” concerning judgments they
received on behalf of their clients and negotiated a division of the
defendant’s assets.
Several months later, Kaufman was suspended for
six months.
While suspended, he sent four letters to the
other attorney in which he represented himself as attorney of record
for his clients. Although he signed a substitution of attorney form,
he did not file the form for more than two months.
As part of the disciplinary order, Kaufman was
ordered to file with the Supreme Court an affidavit of compliance with
rule 955. He incorrectly stated in the affidavit that he had no
clients and no pending litigation.
Kaufman has been disciplined twice, in 1996 and
in 1998 .
In mitigation, Kaufman believed he was acting as
an escrow agent for his clients. The clients were elderly, pleaded
with Kaufman for help and his actions were designed to prevent further
harm to the clients, who had been unable to secure legal
representation before hiring Kaufman. His actions did not harm them
and he cooperated with the bar’s investigation.
SUSAN JO MAGAR [#170061], 39, of Chicago
was suspended for three years, stayed, actually suspended for 18
months and until 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, she must prove her
rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 30, 2001.
Because Magar did not participate in the
disciplinary proceedings, the only issue before the State Bar Court
was the degree of discipline.
Magar was disciplined in Illinois for preparing
fraudulent lease documents in order to refinance her property. After
being denied a loan by one bank, she applied to another for an equity
loan on her property, again submitting a fraudulent document under
penalty of perjury. At the time, she was delinquent on her mortgage
payments by $25,000. She received a loan of $135,848.50.
Had Magar’s misconduct occurred in California,
she would have been suspended for committing an act of moral
turpitude, the court said.
ROBERT LOUIS MARKS [#104026], 46, of Santa Ana
was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of
probation with an actual one-year suspension and was ordered to prove
his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order
took effect Sept. 30, 2001.
Marks stipulated that he failed to perform legal
services competently in a civil action he had filed in early 1991. In
the summer of that year, he was suspended and closed his practice.
He notified all his clients except one. He also
failed to update his address with the State Bar, so mail sent to his
old address was not received.
Marks overlooked that one client’s file, did
not contact opposing counsel and made no arrangements to withdraw from
the case. He also did not receive any documents or pleadings in the
matter since he had closed his office. Believing that he had taken
steps to properly withdraw from the matter, he took no further action.
Judgment was entered against his client.
Marks was suffering from substance abuse
problems, which affected his ability to supervise his secretary, led
to a disorganized office and affected his ability to represent the one
client he had.
Marks also was disciplined in 1993, but failed to
comply with his probation conditions by not attending ethics school.
He was disciplined again in 1994 for not
complying with rule 955 and in 1995 for a drunken driving conviction.
In mitigation, Marks reports successful substance
abuse rehabilitation and is now employed in another line of work.
LUCINDA MORENO [#136850], 55, of Rosemead
was suspended for six months, stayed, and was ordered to take the MPRE
within one year. The order took effect Sept. 30, 2001.
Hired to handle both a Social Security disability
matter and a workers’ compensation claim, Moreno stipulated that she
failed to respond to her client’s inquiries about medical
appointments, the return of medical files and the general status of
the cases.
After meeting with her client in June 1997,
Moreno did not communicate with him again until March of the following
year, despite several phone calls and faxes seeking information about
the status of the case. At the March meeting, she admitted she had
done no work on either case, but said she would schedule doctor
appointments for her client. In July, she promised again to schedule
the doctor appointments, which finally were set in September.
An administrative law judge ruled in January 1999
that the client was not entitled to disability insurance benefits. The
client asked Moreno to appeal. Moreno mailed the request for review
before the required deadline, but the hearing department said the
postmark was illegible and since the request was received after the
deadline, it was rejected. Notice of the rejection, however, was not
sent for more than a year.
In the interim, the client contacted his
congressman for help with his case. Moreno did not respond to any
efforts by either the congressman’s office or the client to reach
her for one year. Finally, the client fired her. The client eventually
won review of his case.
Moreno has been disciplined twice: She was
privately reproved in 1994 for failing to perform competently or
communicate with clients in six cases, and she was suspended in 1996
for failing to perform competently or respond to client inquiries in
one matter.
In mitigation, a staffing shortage contributed to
Moreno’s law office management problems and she cooperated with the
bar’s investigation.
JOHN FREDERICK MURPHY [#57868], 56, of Orange
was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation
with a 90-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE
within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Sept.
30, 2001.
Murphy settled a personal injury case for more
than $12,000. Just prior to the settlement, he prevailed upon his
client to lend him $1,000 without disclosing the terms of the loan in
writing or advising the client to seek independent counsel.
Murphy received two settlement checks — one
payable to him and his client for $10,855 and another payable to his
client for $2,000. Both checks were negotiated and deposited in his
trust account. The money was withdrawn but not paid to the client. Two
months later, the client received the money by a check drawn from the
office manager’s general account. The settlement accounted for
repayment of the loan and a reduction in Murphy’s contingency fee.
Murphy stipulated that he improperly entered into
a business transaction with a client, that by not supervising a
non-attorney employee who removed the settlement funds from a trust
account he failed to perform legal services competently, and that he
failed to properly maintain client settlement funds.
In mitigation, Murphy paid the full amount of the
settlement to the client.
He also was given a stayed suspension in 1996 for
failing to report the filing of three or more malpractice lawsuits
filed against him in a 12-month period.
ULYSSES GRANT PLUMMER III [#86628], 59, of Los
Angeles was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with a one-year actual suspension, and was ordered
to make restitution, take the MPRE within one year and comply with
rule 955. The order took effect Sept. 30, 2001.
Plummer stipulated to five counts of misconduct
in two matters.
Plummer prepared a trust for a client’s
grandmother and was given $13,000 to hold in trust. At the client’s
request, he also purchased and made payments for a used van for the
grandmother. The van was repossessed after two years because Plummer
stopped making the payments.
At that time, the clients asked for an accounting
for the $13,000, which Plummer never provided. He stipulated that he
failed to account for client funds and committed an act of moral
turpitude by misappropriating client funds.
The same client also hired Plummer to obtain a
division of real property, half of which was owned by the grandmother
as a tenant in common with two people. Although he filed the complaint
against the other property owners, he did not respond within the
required time to any discovery requests and he did not fulfill a later
agreement with opposing counsel to respond to discovery.
Plummer did not oppose other motions and
ultimately the court granted summary judgment in favor of the
defendants. Plummer did not file an objection to the proposed
judgment, did not appear in court, and did not provide the file to his
client, who fired him. A referee sold the property to the defendants.
Plummer stipulated that he failed to perform
legal services competently. He also did not cooperate with the bar’s
investigation.
In a bankruptcy matter, Plummer admitted he
failed to perform legal services competently, keep proper records of
client funds or cooperate with the bar’s investigation and he
committed an act of moral turpitude.
Although he filed a Chapter 13 petition, he did
not file the required summary and declaration until six days late and
foreclosure proceedings were allowed to begin. He then waited six
months to file a motion to set aside the dismissal.
Plummer also was disciplined in 1996 and 1997.
The previously ordered probation of JEFFREY
ALLAN TEPPER [#96176], 49, of San Jose was extended for two years,
beginning Sept. 30, 2001.
Tepper was suspended and placed on probation in
April 2000, but filed two quarterly probation reports late. He was
disciplined for failing to perform legal services competently or to
cooperate with the bar’s investigation.
In mitigation, he participated in the
investigation and upon learning the probation unit would accept late
reports, he promptly filed two probation reports.
BRENDA ELIZABETH VARGAS [#153230], 36, of
Chino Hills was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with a nine-month actual suspension, and was
ordered to make restitution, take the MPRE within one year and comply
with rule 955. The order took effect Sept. 30, 2001.
Vargas stipulated to misconduct in 10
consolidated cases.
Seven counts resulted from practicing law while
suspended from practice.
Four more counts stemmed from her efforts to
obtain a sentence modification for a criminal
defendant. Vargas did not file any motions before the deadline
or inform her client she was suspended. She later filed a request for
the court to reconsider her client’s sentence without his knowledge,
listing her client as in propria persona.
After the court denied reconsideration of the
case, Vargas sent the client a letter implying she had filed a request
to modify the sentence and stating the judge denied the request
because the client understood the consequence of his guilty plea. In
fact, her request was denied because it was filed late.
She refunded $500 of the $1,500 advance fee, but
her check bounced.
In another criminal matter, Vargas did not appear
at her client’s trial, requesting a continuance that day by phone.
The judge denied the request, because it did not comply with local
court rules, and appointed a public defender.
Vargas began a jury trial for another client but
then advised her client to waive trial by jury. At the conclusion of
the court trial, her client was found guilty and sentenced to six
years in prison.
The client filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus on the grounds that Vargas was ineffective at trial and said
she would appeal his conviction and sentence and then did nothing.
In opposing her client’s petition, Vargas
signed an affidavit stating that the client had pleaded guilty, that
his sentence was the result of a plea bargain and that no trial had
taken place. Making those incorrect statements amounted to an act of
moral turpitude.
Vargas was disciplined in 1998 for failing to
properly maintain client funds, improperly withdrawing from
representation and failing to refund unearned fees.
In mitigation, she cooperated with the bar’s
investigation.
FRANK WALKER WHITE [#98487], 63, of Simi
Valley was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years
of probation with a nine-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 Sept. 30, 2001.
White stipulated to misconduct in two matters.
He settled a personal injury case for $100,000.
Of that, $30,000 went to the client, more than $35,000 was to be held
in his client trust account to pay medical providers and White took
the remainder as his fee.
The client’s medical bills exceeded the amount
held in the trust account, and while White negotiated with doctors and
other claimants, the balance in the trust account fell below the
required amount on numerous occasions over a three-year period.
He stipulated that he misappropriated client
funds, an act of moral turpitude, failed to promptly pay medical
providers and failed to maintain client funds in his client trust
account.
In a second personal injury matter he settled for
about $15,000, White again allowed the balance to fall below the
required amount. He stipulated that he did not pay his client’s
doctors promptly, failed to maintain client funds in his trust account
and misappropriated client funds, an act of moral turpitude.
In mitigation, White has practiced for almost 20
years without discipline and handled hundreds of personal injury
settlements during that time. His conduct was aberrational. He was
under extreme stress during the time of the misconduct due to his
longtime partner’s cancer.
White also has performed extraordinary pro bono
services, has been a judge pro tem in Ventura County for 16 years, and
is very active in charitable and public service organizations.
The probation of JOHNNY E. MOSQUEDA [#162225],
54, of Chino Hills was revoked, the previously ordered stay of
suspension was lifted, and he was actually suspended for 75 days and
placed on probation for two years. The order took effect Oct. 5, 2001.
Mosqueda stipulated to misconduct in 1999 and was
placed on probation with conditions that included filing quarterly
probation reports, submitting written statements showing his
compliance with his criminal probation, and attendance at ethics
school.
He failed to submit one probation report and did
not provide three criminal probation reports or proof of attendance at
ethics school. Although Mosqueda said he could not comply with
probation conditions because of financial difficulties, the bar court
rejected his excuse except in relation to ethics school.
The underlying discipline was the result of
offering to split fees with a referring non-attorney in a sting
operation. He pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts of violating
the insurance code.
EUGENE BUTTON [#43263], 68, of Commerce
was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation
with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE
within one year. The order took effect Oct.10, 2001.
The State Bar Court found that Button practiced
law while not entitled, committed an act of moral turpitude and failed
to cooperate with the bar’s investigation.
Button became embroiled in a membership fee
dispute with the State Bar when he wrote a letter in 1996 asking to be
placed on inactive status. The letter went astray and he was not put
on inactive status, but instead was suspended. He did not receive
notice of the suspension because he had moved but not provided his new
address to the bar. However, he later received a courtesy letter, at
an alternative address, which explained the reinstatement process.
Seven months later he contacted the bar about his
suspension but never took any action.
In 1998, considering returning to work, he
contacted the bar again and said he should have been placed on
inactive status in 1996. The bar sent him a reinstatement form and a
corrected fee statement showing he owed $842 for back fees and
penalties and $1,605 in discipline costs from a 1997 disciplinary
matter. He eventually paid the full amount and was reinstated in April
1999.
The previous year he was employed to represent a
couple in a civil action. When the opposing counsel learned Button was
not entitled to practice, she questioned him and he said he had a fee
dispute with the bar but was entitled to practice. About a month
later, the attorney again consulted the bar’s website and found
Button listed as not entitled to practice.
A letter from her firm put in writing Button’s
assertion that he was an active member of the bar in good standing.
Button did not respond to the letter.
The bar court rejected Button’s arguments that
the bar was to blame for his troubles, pointing out that he closed his
office and left the state without changing his address. It also said
Button knew he had not been reinstated when he was handling the civil
action.
ERIC LEIMSEIDER [#69116], 53, of Oakland was
suspended for two years, stayed, placed on four years of probation
with a 90-day actual suspension and was ordered to make restitution,
take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took
effect Oct. 10, 2001.
Leimseider stipulated to misconduct in four
consolidated matters.
In handling a personal injury case, he lodged a
demand for arbitration, but did not send the demand by certified mail,
as required, did no further work on the case and the statute of
limitations expired. He did not inform his client, who hired a lawyer
to file a malpractice case against Leimseider. He did not provide the
client’s file to the lawyer or ever contact the client again.
In another matter which he settled for $7,000, he
withheld $1,239 for payment of medical expenses, but he did not
disburse the money until after the State Bar intervened.
Another client who hired Leimseider to represent
her in a civil rights case and then discharged him asked for a refund
of unearned fees. Leimseider did not reply to her request or return
the money. In addition, although he no longer represented the client,
he was served with a motion for summary judgment in the case, but did
not respond or properly withdraw from the case.
In the final matter, Leimseider received a $2,000
advance payment to file an appeal in a case involving a taxi permit.
He filed the notice of appeal but did no further work. When the client
sought a refund, Leimseider returned $500 and promised to repay the
remainder in payments of $100. He did not make any further payments.
Leimseider stipulated to one count of failure to
communicate with a client, three counts of failing to refund unearned
fees, one count of failing to distribute client funds and one count of
improperly withdrawing from employment.
In mitigation, Leimseider has no record of
discipline in 25 years of practice, he cooperated with the bar’s
investigation, he was forced to move his office twice because of
financial reversals, and he suffered from depression because of his
reduced financial circumstances. |
