 |
 |
  |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
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
DISBARMENTSMICHAEL EDWARD CONSIGLIO [#55550], 67, of Moorpark was disbarred May 4, 2008, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. Consiglio failed to comply with rule 955, since renumbered as rule 9.20, of the California Rules of Court. He did not submit to the State Bar Court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel, courts and other pertinent parties of his suspension. Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment. He did not participate in the proceedings and his default was entered. Consiglio has a record of four prior disciplines; three were imposed for failing to comply with probation conditions. The first was a private reproval imposed in 2001 for practicing law while on inactive status. When he did not comply with conditions attached to the reproval, he was publicly reproved in 2003, with more conditions. Failure to comply again led to a 2005 suspension. Failure to meet conditions attached to that discipline led to another suspension in 2006. GEORGE HENRY JARAMILLO [#169891], 48, of Dove Canyon was summarily disbarred May 9, 2008, and ordered to comply with rule 9.20. He pleaded guilty in 2007 to one count of perjury and one count of misappropriation of public funds. The perjury conviction meets the requirements for summary disbarment — it is a felony involving moral turpitude. Jaramillo has been on interim suspension since May 11, 2007. DAVID JEFFREY EARLE [#98968], 52, of Los Angeles was disbarred May 14, 2008, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. Earle failed to comply with rule 9.20 as required in a 2007 discipline. He did not submit to the State Bar Court an affidavit swearing that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his suspension. Failure to comply with the rule is grounds for disbarment. He did not participate in the disbarment proceedings and his default was entered. In the underlying discipline, also a default proceeding, the bar court found that Earle engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, committed acts of dishonesty and failed to cooperate with the bar’s investigation or maintain an official address with the bar. He was suspended for non-payment of bar dues and non-compliance with MCLE requirements in 2004. G. BRUCE SPENCE [#139100], 55, of Ukiah was disbarred May 14, 2008, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Spence failed to comply with rule 9.20, as ordered in a 2007 discipline. He did not submit to the bar court an affidavit attesting that he notified his clients, opposing counsel, courts and other pertinent parties of his suspension. Failure to comply with 9.20 is grounds for disbarment. In the underlying matter, Spence was found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, committing moral turpitude, and he failed to communicate with a client or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. He also was suspended in 2002 for engaging in unjust litigation and misleading the court. In recommending Spence’s disbarment, Judge Lucy Armendariz said he “demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys although he has been given opportunities to do so.” GEORGE ANTHONY HARRIS III [#178771], 45, of Oakland was disbarred May 15, 2008, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Harris failed to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court, since renumbered as rule 9.20, in a 2006 discipline. He did not submit to the bar court an affidavit attesting that he notified his clients, opposing counsel, courts and other pertinent parties of his suspension. Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment. In the underlying matter, the court found that Harris engaged in unauthorized practice of law and failed to perform services competently, deposit client funds in a client trust account, maintain an official address with the State Bar, report judicial sanctions and cooperate with the State Bar in two client matters. He also improperly withdrew from employment and committed acts of dishonesty. Harris has “demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys although he has been given opportunities to do so,” wrote bar court Judge Pat McElroy, who recommended Harris’ disbarment. HAROLD T. ROSS [#58168], 62, of Thousand Oaks was disbarred May 22, 2008, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. Ross failed to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court, since renumbered as rule 9.20. He did not submit to the State Bar Court an affidavit attesting that he notified his clients, opposing counsel, courts or other interested parties of his 2006 suspension. Failure to comply with 955 is grounds for disbarment. In the underlying matter, the bar court found that Ross failed to perform legal services competently, return a client file, communicate with the client or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. In recommending Ross’ disbarment, Judge Donald Miles wrote that he “demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with his professional obligations and the rules of conduct imposed on lawyers.” Ross did not participate in the disbarment proceedings and his default was entered. RANDY E. BENDEL [#130569], 46, of West Hills was disbarred May 30, 2008, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Bendel failed to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court, since renumbered as rule 9.20. He did not submit to the State Bar Court an affidavit attesting that he notified his clients, opposing counsel, courts or other interested parties of his 2006 suspension. Failure to comply with 955 is grounds for disbarment. Bendel was suspended in 2004 and was ordered to pay court-ordered sanctions, make restitution and prove his rehabilitation. The bar court found that he misled a judge, failed to obey a court order and brought an action without probable cause and for a malicious purpose. In mitigation, he had performed pro bono work, had no prior record of discipline and presented testimony as to his good character. However, when he violated the terms of his probation, he was disciplined in 2006, the underlying matter that led to his disbarment. In recommending Bendel’s disbarment, Judge Donald Miles noted that “timely compliance with rule 955 performs the critical function of ensuring that all concerned parties (including clients, co-counsel, opposing attorneys and the courts) learn about an attorney’s actual suspension from the practice of law.” Miles added that Bendel had shown an unwillingness to meet his professional obligations. SUSPENSION/PROBATIONDEBRA LYNN KOVEN [#149983], 44, of Manhattan Beach was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within a year. The order took effect May 4, 2008. Koven stipulated that she failed to maintain the respect that is due the courts. She filed two petitions with the state court of appeal on behalf of a client, as well as a letter asking that the appellate justices recuse themselves on the ground of bias. The request for recusal was quickly denied as frivolous, and both appeals also were denied. When Koven sought a rehearing, her petition contained numerous intemperate charges against the judges, including charges of bias, misrepresenting evidence and manipulating the outcome. At one point, for instance, Koven wrote, “How convenient for this court to concoct a trumped up review of this issue that fits so snugly into its own predetermined perception of this litigant.” Elsewhere, she wrote, “. . . this court’s finding is a complete red herring. This court purposely concocted a flimsy excuse not to rule on the merits of this issue because it knew that to do so would have required it to reverse.” Although Koven apologized to the court, admitting her statements were “improper” and “inexcusable,” she was found guilty of two counts of criminal contempt and fined $2,000. In mitigation, she has no discipline record in 17 years of practice and she demonstrated remorse. STEVEN RANDALL SMITH [#160549], 47, of Sacramento was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on probation for three years with an actual 30-day suspension, and he was ordered to prove his rehabilitation and take the MPRE within a year. The order took effect May 15, 2008. Smith stipulated to misconduct in a personal injury case, including failing to perform legal services competently or keep a client informed of developments in his matter, and he abandoned the case without obtaining court approval or informing his client. After filing suit on his client’s behalf, Smith did not serve the defendant in a timely fashion, did not file various statements with the court as required by local rules, and did not respond to discovery or appear at a hearing called to deal with several motions by the defense. The court ordered sanctions against Smith’s client, but Smith did not inform the client. The sanctions were not paid nor did Smith provide discovery responses. He later sent unverified responses without his client’s knowledge. He did not tell the client a deposition was scheduled and ultimately did not inform him that the case was dismissed. Monetary sanctions of $1,048 were awarded against the client, who only learned about all the developments in his case when his son went to the courthouse. (Smith paid the sanctions.) The client hired a new lawyer but he was unable to reinstate the case. Smith was publicly reproved in 2004 for failing to perform legal services competently or communicate with a client. In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and had some emotional problems at the time. DANIEL S. WITTENBERG [#158254], 43, of Denver was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect May 15, 2008. Wittenberg stipulated that he was disciplined in Colorado for submitting a false expense reimbursement to his law firm, conduct that constituted moral turpitude. He had traveled to Georgia, where he had a client, to attend a football game with a friend. His travel report indicated his expenses should be billed to the Georgia client. In mitigation, Wittenberg reported his actions to his firm and repaid the money. The client in Georgia was never billed. He furnished evidence of his exemplary record of involvement with the Colorado bar and community service activities that demonstrate his good character. TERRIE CHUN [#162139], 47, of Colma was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for 90 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension, and she was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, she must prove her rehabilitation. The order took effect May 15, 2008. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Chun committed five acts of misconduct in one client matter. She instructed her client to appear at a hearing without her and to tell the judge she had jury duty. The judge continued the hearing with orders that Chun bring proof of her jury service. She did not appear at a second hearing, where her client told the judge Chun was out of town. Chun appeared at an order to show cause hearing and told the judge her client misunderstood her whereabouts and the reasons for her non-appearance at the earlier hearings. Chun, who also was a flight attendant, was not in town on the day of one hearing because she was working her other job. The court found that she misrepresented the facts and sanctioned her $1,000, with a notice that such sanctions must be reported to the State Bar. Although Chun paid the sanction, she did not notify the bar. Chun failed to perform legal services competently, she misled a judge, committing moral turpitude, and she failed to report a sanction to the bar or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. ARTURO A. MARQUEZ [#59704], 62, of Marysville 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 and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect May 15, 2008. Marquez stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently and he violated a court order. He filed an appeal of a Labor Board order that his client pay a former employee more than $7,000 in unpaid overtime wages and interest. However, he did not file a trial brief, exhibit list or witness list, all of which were ordered by the court, and he failed to appear for trial. Marquez also was given a stayed suspension and placed on probation in 1992. In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation. JORGE EDUARDO PORTUGAL LEON [#117055], 64, of San Francisco was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an actual two-year suspension and was ordered to make restitution, prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. He will receive credit for a period of actual suspension that began Sept. 4, 2007. The order was effective May 15, 2008. Leon stipulated to 21 counts of misconduct in 13 matters, including failure to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients or return unearned fees. Although he was accepted into the State Bar’s Alternative Discipline Pro-gram for lawyers with mental health or substance abuse problems, he was terminated for not complying with its requirements as well as allegations of additional misconduct. A complaining witness testified that she hired Leon to represent her in an immigration matter and paid him $4,000, but he failed to do the necessary work. Her complaint was at least the fifth time Leon did not comply with the ADP. Leon had stipulated to misconduct in 2004, but the imposition of discipline was postponed when he enrolled in the alternative program. In one matter, a client whose petition for asylum was denied paid Leon $2,000 to seek a review. However, Leon filed the petition late, it was denied and the client was ordered deported. His phone calls to Leon were ignored. When another immigrant, who had a criminal conviction in his background, sought immigration help, Leon’s office manager accepted the case and payment of a $2,000 fee. However, the office manager did not inform Leon about the criminal conviction. When he filed the petition for the client, it was denied because of the conviction. Leon did not return the client’s phone calls. In a third matter, the office manager again did not tell Leon the client had a criminal conviction. Leon accompanied the client to a meeting with the immigration department, but when he learned about the conviction he told the client he was withdrawing. He never returned her phone calls. In mitigation, Leon paid some restitution and he terminated his entire staff and relocated his office with a single employee. He had no record of prior discipline and had established a connection between his misconduct and depression. However, his participation in the ADP was not considered mitigation because he was terminated from the program. He was ordered to make restitution totaling $18,000 to eight clients. LORRAYNE D. GARNER [#226107], 38, of Sacramento was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an actual two-year suspension and was ordered to prove her rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect May 22, 2008. In 2003, Garner was charged with felony embezzlement, grand theft and forgery for falsifying her time sheets while working for a school district. She claimed to have worked hours that she in fact did not work, improperly earning $6,000. She pleaded no contest to misdemeanor grand theft and stipulated in 2006 that the conviction involved moral turpitude. The State Bar Court’s recommended discipline was postponed when Garner was admitted to the Alternative Discipline Program for attorneys with mental health or substance abuse issues. The court found that she suffered from a bipolar disorder and depression complicated by anxiety attacks and that there was a sufficient connection between her problems and the stipulated misconduct. It also considered as mitigation her claim that she acted on the insistence of her husband, from whom she is now divorced. However, Garner was terminated from the program after testing positive for marijuana three times. DAVID G. FOX [#61158], 60, of Sacramento 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 May 22, 2008. In a default proceeding, the court found that Fox committed two acts of misconduct: he did not keep his address current with the bar and he did not cooperate with a bar investigation. The bar was looking into allegations of misconduct against Fox at the time and although he updated his address, he did not respond to the allegations. He practiced for 26 years without any discipline. MELANIE L. MOEN [#170069], 44, of Valley Village 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 June 6, 2008. Moen stipulated that she was convicted of driving under the influence in 2007. Her blood alcohol level was .36 percent and it was her second DUI conviction. In mitigation, she cooperated with the bar’s investigation and she has no prior discipline record. MARK BARRY SCOTT [#49773], 61, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and he was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect June 6, 2008. Both Scott and the State Bar sought review of a hearing judge’s recommendation. The State Bar Court review department found that Scott committed seven acts of misconduct in two matters; it dismissed a third matter entirely as well as 11 additional counts. The court found that he charged an unconscionable fee, committed acts of moral turpitude due to overreaching and misrepresentations, failed to maintain funds in a trust account or render an accounting, and he obtained an adverse interest in a client’s property and commingled funds. The majority of charges upheld by the review department stemmed from the many modifications of a fee agreement Scott had with a client whose husband suffered catastrophic injuries. The client became embroiled in a dispute with her husband’s insurance company over a medical expense reimbursement policy. Scott amended his fee agreement five times, ultimately seeking $1.4 million in fees, costs and interest, including interest totaling $162,100. Interest was not included in any of the fee agreements. A dispute with his client went to fee arbitration where the arbitrator ruled that Scott owed more than $168,000. The review panel acknowledged that Scott advanced his client’s case in the face of difficult odds and that his “zealous advocacy enabled (the client’s husband) to receive costly medical care for years after (the insurer) had initially stated it intended to terminate his coverage.” Nevertheless, the panel found that Scott’s misconduct “significantly harmed his client.” His “substantial overcharges” were not justified, the court found, and the interest charges were unconscionable. The continued modifications of the fee agreement were meant to “protect his right to collect a fee,” the judges said. In addition, Scott exerted undue influence over his client, to the extent that she felt victimized by him. His conduct involved moral turpitude, the review panel said, because he misused “his superior knowledge and position of trust by repeatedly renegotiating the five fee contracts to the detriment of his unprotected client” and by making misrepresentations in a petition filed with the probate court. In mitigation, Scott practiced for 24 years without any discipline and he cooperated with the bar’s investigation. FRANK GEORGE BRAU [#117511], 52, of Barstow was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on five years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to make restitution, 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 June 6, 2008. Brau successfully completed participation in the State Bar Alternative Discipline Program for lawyers with substance abuse or mental health problems. He had stipulated to extensive misconduct in 2003, but as a result of the successful completion of the ADP, the level of discipline was reduced. The misconduct, which occurred in six consolidated cases, included repeatedly failing to deposit and maintain client funds in his client trust account, pay out client funds, perform legal services competently, properly supervise his staff and the operations of his law office, commingling personal funds with client funds in his client trust account, and repeatedly engaging in acts of moral turpitude (i.e., making misrepresentations to a client, repeatedly misappropriating client funds, and recklessly managing his client trust account). DAVID J. BARAN [#105376], 56, of Beverly Hills was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on five years of probation with an actual two-year suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE, comply with rule 9.20, make restitution and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect June 6, 2008. In 2005, Baran stipulated to six counts of failing to perform legal services competently in six bankruptcy matters and one count of failing to promptly pay out client funds. The discipline was abated when he enrolled in the Alternative Discipline Program for lawyers with mental health or substance abuse issues. He withdrew from the program in 2007. In the first matter, Baran misplaced $4,000 in money orders provided by his client and could not pay the client’s mortgage lender. As a result, the bankruptcy petition was dismissed and he took no action to have it reinstated. He did not return the money to his client for more than a year. In another, he incorrectly stated the amount of his client’s credit card debt on a Chapter 13 petition and it was dismissed. Although Baran refiled the petition, he did not tell his client until the night before a creditors’ hearing that he needed to bring four mortgage payments with him. The client brought only one payment and the petition was dismissed a second time. Baran then filed a Chapter 7 petition, but listed an incorrect Social Security number and did not disclose a previous filing that he knew about. It too was dismissed and his client’s house went into foreclosure. The client is owed $2,900 in unearned fees. Another client’s home also went into foreclosure and was sold when Baran failed to take steps to oppose a motion before the bankruptcy court or take steps to amend the bankruptcy plan in order for it to be approved. When Baran replaced another lawyer in a fourth case, the client fired him after he filed a second petition under a wrong number, filed a deficient third petition, and did not contact the client’s mortgage broker to assist with new financing in order to avoid foreclosure. Another client seeking to avoid foreclosure gave Baran a money order for his mortgage bank, but Baran never forwarded it to the bank. A company that held a second mortgage filed a motion for relief from the stay of foreclosure; when Baran did not oppose the motion or appear at a hearing, it was granted. In the final matter, a client’s home already was in foreclosure when she hired Baran to file a bankruptcy petition for her after receiving an advertisement in the mail from Baran. The petition was incomplete and was eventually dismissed when Baran did not provide some required payments. The client lost her home. In mitigation, Baran cooperated with the bar’s investigation and made some restitution. He was disciplined in 2002 for misappropriating client funds, commingling funds and moral turpitude. MOYLAN F. GARTH [#149639], 59, of San Diego was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for three months or until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. If the suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect June 6, 2008. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Garth failed to maintain client funds in his client trust account and did not cooperate with the bar’s investigation of his misconduct. He allowed the balance in his trust account to fall below the required amount and wrote two checks against insufficient funds in the account. Garth did not respond to five letters of inquiry from a bar paralegal and an investigator. He had no record of discipline in 14 years of practice. DAVID RICHARD ORTEGA [#113890], 50, of Murrieta was suspended for four years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an actual two-year suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation, and he was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect June 12, 2008. Ortega stipulated to misconduct in four consolidated matters. He misused his client trust account over an 18-month period by depositing almost $31,000 of personal funds into the account, writing and cashing 196 personal checks totaling $46,080, making 139 point of sale purchases or payments totaling $25,209, commingling funds and writing checks against insufficient funds. While representing a client in two separate cases, Ortega was suspended for non-payment of child support. He did not notify his client and continued to pursue her matters while he was suspended. When one of the cases became moot, he transferred the balance of her fee to the other case. The client eventually fired Ortega and sought a refund. He refused, claiming the fee agreement provided no refund in case of termination. When she later learned he was suspended while he represented her, the client demanded a refund of all advanced fees. He has not refunded any money to his client. He continued to handle a contingency fee case while suspended, and he committed other acts involving the unauthorized practice of law. Ortega stipulated to three counts of practicing law while suspended, two counts of charging an unconscionable fee, and admitted that he failed to refund unearned fees and committed acts of moral turpitude. He said that at the time he was suffering emotional difficulties as the result of a bitter divorce and financial problems. In mitigation, he has no prior discipline record in 23 years of practice. ZAKEYA LEONA BROOKINS [#212900], 56, of Chicago Probation was extended for three more years and she was ordered to make restitution. The order took effect June 12, 2008. She was suspended and placed on probation in 2004 after stipulating to misconduct in six cases, including failing to perform legal services competently, refund unearned fees or provide a client’s file to a new lawyer. She also was disciplined in January 2008 for failing to perform legal services competently in a personal injury lawsuit she filed for her client. SUE ANN HOWARD [#164265], 60, of Lancaster was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension and until she makes restitution and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, she must prove her rehabilitation. The order took effect June 12, 2008. In 2004, Howard stipulated to misconduct in four consolidated cases, including failing to perform legal services or maintain client funds in her client trust account, making misrepresentations to a client and misappropriating client funds. Because she was admitted to the State Bar’s Alternative Discipline System for lawyers with mental health or addiction issues, the recommended discipline was abated. She successfully completed the ADP last year. Howard represented a client in a sexual harassment case she took on a contingency basis. The case was dismissed for lack of prosecution, but Howard did not inform her client, and in fact assured her that the case was moving along. When Howard stopped answering her client’s questions, the client drove more than 100 miles for a scheduled appointment, but Howard did not show up. She filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition for another client, but it was filed at a time that meant the client’s federal tax obligation was not dischargeable. Although Howard told the client she would pay his taxes due to her error, she did not do so. Howard told the bar she relied on information provided by the client’s accountant and she intended to have the accountant pay the taxes but could not locate him. In addition, she wanted the client to sign a full release. None of that information was conveyed to the client. In another bankruptcy matter, Howard did not list a bank as a creditor and took no action to seek an avoidance of the bank’s lien. She did not respond to her client’s efforts to reach her. Howard was hired to look into possible action on behalf of a woman who had been fired by Wal-Mart. Although Howard did not think the woman had a strong case, she told her at various times that the case was close to arbitration, that it was filed and that Wal-Mart was willing to settle. None of it was true. When the client complained, Howard finally filed suit against Wal-Mart, alleging fraud. However, because she waited three years, the client’s claims were damaged. When Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, Howard advised her client to settle and paid her $25,000 as a purported advance on the settlement. In fact, the money belonged to Howard’s other clients. Howard dismissed the case without her client’s consent. In mitigation, she had no prior discipline record. DEBRA L. KASTELIC [#144682], 46, of Montclair was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for 75 days and until she makes restitution and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension, and she was ordered to take the MPRE. If the actual suspension exceeds 90 days, she must comply with rule 9.20; if it exceeds two years, she must prove her rehabilitation. The order took effect June 12, 2008. In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Kastelic committed four acts of misconduct in preparing an estate plan, including a living trust and powers of attorney, for a couple. After the wife died, the husband and his son asked Kastelic to modify the estate plan. Time was of the essence because the husband was in poor health. Over five months, the son called Kastelic at least 15 times without success. Once she told him she had mailed documents that had been returned as undeliverable, although the son had not moved. The son finally wrote to Kastelic asking that she either do the work or refund his fee so he could hire a new lawyer. The letter was returned as undeliverable. The bar court found that Kastelic failed to perform legal services competently, refund unearned fees or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and she improperly withdrew from representation. CRANE STEPHEN LANDIS [#205057], 43, of Mission Viejo 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 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 June 12, 2008. In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Landis committed misconduct in two client matters while he was on inactive status for a month as a result of not completing his MCLE requirements. He substituted in to the case of an incarcerated individual who was trying to get his medical records in order to receive better care. The inmate also gave Landis some probate documents for copying. For months, Landis did not copy the documents or get the medical records, and the client finally asked the court to remove Landis as his lawyer. The court replaced him and ordered that he give the client’s file to a new lawyer, but Landis did not comply. The court found that he failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with a client, return a client file or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and he violated a court order. In another criminal matter, he represented a client who was charged with three misdemeanors. Although the client told Landis she would be working in England for several months, he did not inform the court; when the client was not present for arraignment, a bench warrant was issued for her arrest. It was recalled, but still Landis did not inform the court of his client’s whereabouts. When she did not appear for a pre-trial conference, another bench warrant was issued. She appeared at another hearing and the warrant was recalled. Landis did not tell the court that at the time of the last hearing, he was suspended. The client fired him and asked that he refund her unearned fee. The court found that he failed to communicate with a client, account for client fees or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and he practiced law while suspended. STEVEN JOHN MOORE [#186179], 37, of Santa Cruz was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE. The order took effect June 12, 2008. Moore moved from the Santa Cruz district attorney’s office to the Santa Clara DA in 2006 but did not change his address. Although the Santa Cruz office periodically forwarded his mail, he eventually decided most of it was junk mail and threw it away. As a result, he did not receive four notices from the bar of his impending suspension due to non-payment of bar dues. He did not know he was suspended until a staff member discovered it. Although he paid his dues immediately, he assumed that if he were to be suspended, the bar would serve him with a court order. Moore appeared in court on about 40 felonies, including one trial, while suspended. He stipulated that he practiced while suspended and did not keep his membership address current. In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and presented evidence of his good character. JOHN MARK EDWARD BOUZANE [#79804], 61, of San Bernardino was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation and take the MPRE. The order took effect June 12, 2008. Bouzane stipulated to misconduct in two matters. In the first, he represented the defendants in a lawsuit, but failed to perform legal services competently. He admitted that he did not respond to discovery motions, failed to respond to court orders concerning discovery and sanctions and did not appear at hearings. A default judgment was entered against his client, although the court later set aside the default and ordered Bouzane to pay the opposing lawyer’s fees, overdue sanctions, and penalties to the court and the Client Security Fund. He did not pay one of the penalties for more than a year and paid the others only after opposing coun- sel tried to reinstate the default judgment. Bouzane also failed to perform competently in an unlawful detainer action. He sent a lawyer to a deposition but it was cancelled at the last minute when Bouzane’s clients decided to settle. That lawyer then went to the opposing counsel’s office but left because she was not familiar enough with the case to help draft a settlement offer. A paralegal from Bouzane’s office who was a resigned attorney also was at the opposing counsel’s office and signed the settlement offer as a witness. The case was ultimately settled on similar terms. In mitigation, Bouzane cooperated with the bar’s investigation and he demonstrated his good character and remorse. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| ||||||||
