 |
 |
  |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Caution! More than 200,000 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the same names. All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court documents and should be read carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers. Read the Discipline Key for an explanation of the different levels of disciplinary action. Use Attorney Search to check an attorney's official bar membership record. DISBARMENTS SUSPENSION/PROBATION
DISBARMENTSCAROLYN S. JANZEN [#102998], 60, of El Centro was disbarred Feb. 25, 2009, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Janzen failed to deposit and maintain client funds in a trust account and misappropriated client funds, committing an act of moral turpitude. Janzen represented an elderly client, nearly 94 years old, in several matters involving the sale of property. Over a period of about a year, the client paid Janzen six times for her services, including a $2,500 retainer and a check for $8,000. In addition, Janzen received numerous payments on her client’s behalf. During a seven-month period, she received at least $267,842 and paid nearly $189,000 in expenses for the client. When the client died, her estate successfully sued Janzen for misappropriating $78,898.24. Janzen was disciplined twice previously. In 2004, she stipulated that she commingled personal and business funds and in 2008, the bar court found she failed to perform legal services competently, refund unearned fees or provide an accounting to her clients and she made misrepresentations to her client and improperly withdrew from employment. “In view of (Janzen’s) misappropriation of a large amount of her client’s funds, her failure to place client funds in trust, her lack of participation in this case, and her prior discipline,” wrote Judge Richard Honn, “the court determines that disbarment is warranted here to protect the public, to preserve public confidence in the profession, and to maintain the highest possible professional standards for attorneys.” JANET ANN GALENO [#114814], 58, of Foster City was disbarred Feb. 25, 2009, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Galeno failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 2006 disciplinary order: she failed to submit quarterly reports, make timely initial contact with the Office of Probation, and meet with the probation office. She had stipulated that she practiced law while suspended, collected an illegal fee and failed to release client files or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. She also admitted that she disobeyed a court order by failing to comply with conditions of an earlier probation. She had been suspended a year earlier for similar misconduct, including practicing law while not active, collecting an illegal fee and misrepresenting to her client that she was eligible to practice, committing an act of moral turpitude. In recommending disbarment, Judge Lucy Armendariz pointed to Galeno’s prior similar misconduct, writing, “probation and suspension appear to have proven inadequate to deter future misconduct.” GEORGE BUMANGLAG [#56646], 60, of Fresno was disbarred Feb. 25, 2009, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. Bumanglag did not comply with rule 9.20, as required by a 2007 disciplinary order. He did not submit to the State Bar Court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel or other interested parties of his suspension. Failure to comply with 9.20 is grounds for disbarment. Bumanglag has been disciplined four times previously. The underlying discipline was imposed for his failure to perform competently. The parties stipulated that Bumanglag’s prior incidents of discipline were not true “priors” because the misconduct charged in 2007 occurred prior to two of the earlier disciplinary orders. The misconduct went back to 1991 and included improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to act competently, respond to client inquiries, return client files or refund unearned fees, disobeying a court order and violating probation conditions. In recommending Bumanglag’s disbarment, Judge Lucy Armendariz wrote, “That (he) has again failed to comply with rule 9.20 as ordered by the Supreme Court clearly suggests to this court that respondent’s disbarment is necessary to protect the public, the courts and the legal community, to maintain high professional standards and to preserve public confidence in the legal profession.” SUSPENSION/PROBATIONHOWARD L. RIFKIN [#82671], 58, of Apple Valley was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for six months 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 9.20. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Jan. 9, 2009. In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Rifkin committed three acts of misconduct in two workers’ compensation matters. He accepted a $30,000 settlement offer from one defendant, a hospital, but did no further work. He did not respond to numerous letters, e-mails and phone calls from the hospital attorney, who finally complained to the bar. Rifkin told the bar he was waiting for final approval of the settlement and said he would contact the client with an update. He never did so. The petition ultimately was dismissed and the client hired a new lawyer. The bar court found that Rifkin failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with his client or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. Rifkin was suspended in 1991. BARRY STEPHAN TABACHNICK [#91923], 58, of Folsom was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect Jan. 15, 2009. He stipulated that he commingled funds in his client trust account and issued checks from the account to pay personal expenses. In mitigation, Tabachnick has no prior discipline record and suffered severe financial stress, was going through a divorce and had a serious illness. VICTOR JOSEPH WAHL II [#78472], 58, of Boulder Creek was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 90-day suspension and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect Jan. 15, 2009. Wahl failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 2004 disciplinary order. He did not contact the State Bar probation office within the required timeframe, submitted eight quarterly reports late and filed a defective final report late. In the underlying matter, Wahl stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently and improperly sought agreement with a plaintiff to drop a complaint. He also was publicly reproved in 2000 for failing to return client files, communicate with a client or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. FRANK HENRY WILLIAMS JR. [#193991], 42, of Long Beach was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 90-day suspension and he was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect Jan. 15, 2009. Williams stipulated to 13 counts of misconduct in six matters. Five counts were the result of his failure to perform legal services competently. In several matters, he was hired, paid an advance fee but then did no work and did not provide a refund. In a criminal matter for which the defendant’s mother paid a $10,000 fee, Williams missed court hearings and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He never refunded any money. The parent of another criminal defendant hired Williams to prepare a writ of habeas corpus, also paying an advance fee of $10,000. Although Williams’ investigator conducted an investigation, Williams did no work. The client fired him, but never heard from Williams. He did not release another client’s file, did not file an opening brief in a client’s criminal appeal, which was dismissed as a result, and he did not properly supervise a suspended lawyer he hired as his paralegal. The paralegal was assigned to obtain a client’s file, but he offered a legal analysis and inquired about substantive issues in the case. Williams took no corrective action. He was privately reproved in 2003. LISA J. JACKSON [#196208], 52, of Pacific Palisades was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an 18-month actual suspension and she was ordered to prove her rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect Jan. 16, 2009. After Jackson was disciplined in Connecticut in 2005, California bar prosecutors sought her disbarment. Jackson contended a two-month suspension was adequate punishment. The State Bar Court determined that Jackson’s admission that she violated professional conduct rules in Connecticut established that she is culpable of misconduct in California. The comparable rules in this state are preserving client funds and committing acts of moral turpitude. Jackson represented a client with whom she became involved romantically. She also represented his brother and the brother’s company in numerous legal matters without a retainer agreement. Not unexpectedly, wrote bar court Judge Richard Honn, Jackson’s “mixing of her personal life with her professional responsibilities, as an attorney … led to serious difficulties … “An attorney with even a modicum of common sense and of her ethical responsibilities knows that she must not side with one client against another and that her duty of loyalty to (her client’s brother) as his attorney was not diminished merely because he was at odds with (her client) – her boyfriend.” In one of the legal matters, Jackson’s boyfriend collected and endorsed two settlement checks sent to his brother. Jackson also signed one of the checks and deposited it in her client trust account. She did not notify the brother that she had received the two checks, which totaled $17,000. In addition, Jackson’s boyfriend took out a $125,000 mortgage on a California property whose ownership he had transferred to his brother. To obtain the loan, Jackson falsely notarized the brother’s signature on two deeds and an affidavit. In mitigation, Jackson presented good character testimony from five witnesses. JUDITH A. CENTERS [#150247], 56, of La Mirada Probation was revoked, the previous stay of suspension was lifted and she was suspended for one year and until she makes restitution to a client. She was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. If the suspension exceeds two years, she must prove her rehabilitation. Credit will be given for a period of involuntary inactive enrollment that began Sept. 26, 2008. The order took effect Jan. 18, 2009. Centers did not comply with probation conditions attached to a 2008 suspension. She did not contact the State Bar probation office, file her first quarterly report or submit proof of monthly restitution payments. The underlying discipline was the result of seven acts of misconduct in two matters: Centers failed to perform legal services with competence, respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries, keep her client reasonably informed of significant developments or promptly release the client’s file, and she appeared without authority. She was ordered to make restitution totaling $45,133.13 plus 10 percent interest. KYANOUSH CHRISTOPHER GHAHREMAN [#174360], 41, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation and take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Jan. 23, 2009. Ghahreman stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently in a lawsuit he filed on behalf of two clients as a result of their alleged exposure to toxic mold in their apartment. Proof of services was not filed when the suit was filed, and the complaint was not served for seven months. Several case management conferences were postponed while Ghahreman tried to handle the services issues, but the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. After the dismissal, Ghahreman served the defendants, who advised him the service was improper. He filed a motion to vacate the dismissal, which was granted. His clients rejected a settlement offer, despite Ghahreman’s advice; he did not try to withdraw from the case or prepare for trial. He delayed sending discovery requests to his clients, who advised they could not respond by the deadline, despite a time extension and help from Ghahreman’s staff. Ghahreman and his clients ultimately were sanctioned $1,390 and the trial ended with a judgment in favor of the defendants. There was extensive mitigation, including no prior discipline record and a contentious divorce and child custody battle at the time of the misconduct. SYDNEY KEYTH ERICSON [#50457], 67, of Brea was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a 30-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Jan. 23, 2009. Ericson stipulated that he acquired an interest adverse to his client without obtaining her written consent to the terms of the transaction or advising her to seek independent legal advice. An elderly woman hired Ericson and another lawyer in 2004 to seek late spousal support and pension and annuity benefits that were part of a 1978 divorce. She agreed to a 40 percent contingency fee. She paid the other attorney $5,000 and Ericson acknowledged he received $2,000 from the other lawyer. Ericson negotiated a settlement that included an up-front cash payment of $164,000, a $200,000 promissory note and $42,000 interest on the note. She had to wait either three years or until her ex-husband died to receive any money from the promissory note. On the way home from the settlement negotiation, the client agreed verbally to give Ericson the entire $164,000 as his attorney fees. Ericson did not obtain the client’s written consent to his proposal, nor did he advise her to seek independent legal counsel. After depositing the $164,000 in his client trust account, Ericson advised the client that he had spent $4,090 in costs and she owed a balance of $2,494 that he planned to subtract from the promissory note payoff. He gave $26,910 to the other lawyer as his portion of the attorney fee and later wrote a check for $10,000 to the client and the other lawyer to cover fees associated with an order the other lawyer filed for the client. A short time later, the client demanded that Ericson return her 60 percent share of the $164,000. He has not done so. In mitigation, Ericson cooperated with the bar’s investigation. JAMES MICHAEL SIMMONS [#159726], 53, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on three years of probation. The order took effect Jan. 23, 2009. Simmons did not meet the requirements of rule 955 (since renumbered as rule 9.20) of the California Rules of Court, ordered as a probation condition when he was suspended in 2006. He submitted a required affidavit late, and it was rejected as vague and ambiguous and raised questions about compliance. It was not clear if Simmons had any clients, if he notified them of his suspension, if he refunded any unearned fees or if he had stopped practicing during the suspension. He submitted a second affidavit and although it was more detailed, it also raised more questions. It too was rejected. Simmons eventually submitted a third affidavit at the suggestion of a State Bar Court judge, but it was rejected due to another ambiguity. A fourth affidavit finally was accepted. Simmons has been disciplined twice previously — in 2005 for practicing while suspended for non-payment of bar dues and a year later for not complying with terms of his probation. In mitigation, Simmons represented a number of pro bono clients, did extensive community work, submitted letters attesting to his good character and suffered from health problems that contributed to his difficulty in filing a proper affidavit. FRANK RUSSELL WILSON [#185591], 40, of San Diego was suspended for 18 months, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 45-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Jan. 23, 2009. Wilson stipulated that as a juror in a felony trial, he failed to maintain respect due to the courts by not disclosing that he is an attorney and he improperly posted comments about the trial on his blog. Wilson was impaneled on a jury hearing a trial in which the defendant faced five felony burglary charges. He had closed his law practice prior to the beginning of the trial and worked for a wireless communication technology firm. He did not disclose during voir dire that he was an attorney. The judge cautioned jurors not to discuss the case both in writing and orally. Nonetheless, Wilson posted an entry on his blog that identified the crimes, the first name of the defendant and the name of the judge, whom he described as “a stern, attentive woman with thin red hair and long, spidery fingers that as a grandkid you probably wouldn’t want snapped at you.” He also noted, “Nowhere do I recall the jury instructions mandating I can’t post comments in my blog about the trial. (Ha. Sorry, will do.) So, being careful to not prejudice the rights of the defendant — a stout, unhappy man by the first name of Donald …” Wilson’s action resulted in the court of appeal vacating the judgment in the case and remanding it back to the trial court. In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and he had no prior discipline record. LAURENCE P. POSNER [#170536], 42, of Alhambra was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 90-day suspension and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect Jan. 23, 2009. Posner stipulated to two counts of misconduct stemming from a personal injury case in which his client was hit by a car. Posner worked for the Law Offices of Kenneth Jacobson. In a written fee agreement, the firm and the client agreed that the fees would be 25 percent of the total settlement. According to the stipulation, Posner consulted with Jacobson, who said the “common fund doctrine” allowed the firm to retain one-third of the funds paid to the insurer as attorney’s fees. He also said the firm did not have to notify the client that it would keep that money under his mistaken belief that reimbursement to the insurer was independent of the attorney-client retainer agreement. And he told Posner to do his own research about the common fund doctrine. The matter settled for $275,000; the insurer claimed a $63,241 reimbursement that was reduced to $42,051 (two-thirds of the medical benefits paid on the client’s behalf). The firm kept the remaining $21,190 as fees based on the mistaken understanding of the common fund doctrine. When the client, who received more than $128,000, learned about the discrepancy, she demanded an explanation. Jacobson told Posner the firm had the right to keep the $21,190 and he relayed that information to the client. After she complained to the bar, the firm issued a check to her for $21,190, with an apology for misunderstanding the common fund doctrine. Posner stipulated that he collected an unconscionable fee and committed acts of moral turpitude by making misrepresentations to the client about both the amount of the attorney’s fees and the amount of reimbursement to the insurer. In mitigation, no clients were harmed and Posner submitted evidence of his good character. CARY O. LINDSTROM [#129700], 52, of San Jose Probation was revoked, the previous stay of suspension was lifted and he was placed on two years of probation with a 75-day actual suspension. The order took effect Jan. 30, 2009. Lindstrom did not comply with probation conditions attached to a 2007 disciplinary order. He did not contact the State Bar’s probation department within 30 days, provide a copy of his law office management plan to the department within 30 days, file a quarterly report or state in two reports that he complied with his law office management plan. While on probation in 2006, Lindstrom was notified that he was being investigated in another matter. He met with a State Bar prosecutor who offered to settle the case if he provided certain information and a law office management plan. He did so, signed a stipulation and believed the management plan had been approved. Lindstrom did not receive a letter outlining the conditions of his probation but several months later received a fax notifying him he was not in compliance. He provided a quarterly report and the law office management plan he originally submitted. He did not say, however, that he had complied with the report. The probation office rejected his management plan and he never sent a new one. The 2006 discipline was imposed after Lindstrom stipulated to seven counts of misconduct in two matters, including failing to keep a client informed about developments in his case, pay client funds promptly, provide an accounting of client funds or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. In mitigation, Lindstrom cooperated with the bar’s investigation and acted in good faith in his efforts to comply with probation conditions. He also was suffering from extreme emotional difficulties due to the illnesses and deaths of his mother and father. BRETT ALEX PEDERSEN [#146341], 49, of San Francisco was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on one year of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Feb. 5, 2009. The State Bar Court review department upheld a hearing judge’s findings that Pedersen committed moral turpitude by failing to be truthful in a single client matter, but it reduced the recommended discipline. He represented a couple who were unable to pay a $40,000 settlement they owed an individual who sued them for alleged fraud in connection with the sale of a house. Although the couple stipulated to a judgment, they changed their mind and the plaintiff filed a motion to reset the matter for trial. Nevertheless, Pedersen filed the proposed stipulation without modifying any information; it listed only the plaintiffs’ counsel. Pedersen did not notify the plaintiffs that he had filed the documents. At a hearing, Pedersen’s associate argued that the trial should not be reset because there was a settlement agreement and a stipulation for entry of judgment had been filed. The court declined to address the question of whether there was an enforceable settlement agreement that had to be litigated separately and granted plaintiffs’ motion to set the matter for trial. Pedersen resubmitted the proposed judgment and although he indicated he was the attorney of record for the defendants, he did not inform the court that the plaintiffs had withdrawn their consent to a stipulated judgment or that the matter was set for trial. The bar court judge found that Pedersen committed moral turpitude by trying to mislead a judge, and he improperly tried to secure an advantage for his clients. In mitigation, he had no prior discipline record and he stipulated to material facts. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| ||||||||
