|
BARBARA BROWN-SIMMONS [#107565], 53, of Carson
was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on probation for
three years with a 60-day actual suspension and was ordered to make
restitution, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual
suspension exceeds two years, she must prove her rehabilitation. The
order took effect Nov. 25, 2000.
Brown-Simmons stipulated to misconduct in six
matters. She failed to respond to reasonable client inquiries and to
refund unearned advance attorney fees.
In a divorce case, she did not file a petition
for dissolution of marriage on behalf of her client and did not refund
a $750 advance fee.
In a child support matter, she did not file
papers to seek modification of her client’s child support payments
nor was she able to reinstate the client’s license to drive. She had
tried unsuccessfully to negotiate an agreement with the district
attorney regarding a child support payment plan and reinstatement of
the
client’s driver’s license. She did not refund
$1,000 in advanced fees.
In a harassment matter against a client’s
employer, Brown-Simmons failed to file a lawsuit and did not refund
$3,000 in advance fees. She failed to respond to a client’s numerous
phone calls or contact him regarding this matter.
Brown-Simmons did not refund $5,000 of a $10,000
advance fee for reviewing and preparing the appeal of a murder
conviction of a client’s son. Although she performed some research
work in the case, she neither prepared nor filed an appeal. She failed
to respond to the client’s letter that terminated her and sought a
refund of the advanced attorney fees and costs.
In another divorce case, she did not refund $114
in advanced fees requested by the client.
In mitigation, Brown-Simmons cooperated with the
bar’s investigation.
JAMES BAKER MACDONALD [#33534], 64, of
Fullerton was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three
years probation with an actual one-year suspension and was ordered to
take the MPRE, make restitution, file quarterly reports, attend ethics
school and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two
years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Nov.
29, 2000.
Macdonald inappropriately entered into business
transactions with a longtime client, a tile distribution company, by
borrowing $11,000. By not repaying the loan within 10 days as
promised, he committed an act of moral turpitude. Before accepting the
loan, Macdonald also did not inform his client in writing that the
client could seek the advice of an independent lawyer and did not
obtain in writing the client’s consent to the terms of the loan.
Macdonald, when subsequently fired by the client
in November 1994, did not promptly return the client’s company
records despite repeated requests. The records were returned to the
client more than two years after the initial request.
Macdonald also represented two clients whose
interests conflicted in a real estate foreclosure case. He failed to
refund $1,585 in unearned fees to one client, and commingled personal
and client funds by writing checks against a client trust account to
pay for personal and business expenses.
In mitigation, he has no prior record of
discipline and showed remorse.
JOHN OWEN STANSBURY [#43117], 59, of Oakland
was suspended for three years, stayed, actually suspended for one year
and was ordered to make restitution, attend ethics school, take the
MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Nov. 29, 2000.
In a divorce matter, for which he was paid
$1,600, Stansbury failed to complete a petition of dissolution for his
client, failed to notify her that he transferred her file to another
attorney, did not advise her of his new address and telephone number
and did not refund legal fees. He also failed to keep a current
address on file with the State Bar.
In July 1997, Stansbury filed a petition for
dissolution of marriage on his client’s behalf in superior court.
The petition failed to list all necessary information, including a
list of the community assets. In September 1997, Stansbury told his
client over the phone that he had resolved all the matters concerning
the divorce and he would file the proper papers. That month, the
client moved out of the country.
The issue was unresolved through 1998, with the
client calling or writing Stansbury repeatedly regarding the status of
the dissolution. In January 1998, Stansbury assured the client that he
had resolved all matters regarding the divorce and would be filing the
proper papers. The client emphasized repeatedly that her work permit
was contingent on Stansbury finalizing the divorce, but he did not
respond to her requests for a status report.
In November 1998, the client learned that
Stansbury left his law practice to work with a foundation. She
contacted him and was informed that her file had been transferred to
another attorney who took over the law practice. Stansbury assured her
that the divorce would be final at the end of the month and told her
the same thing three months later. She finally fired him in a March
1999 letter, to which he did not respond. The client hired a new
attorney who finalized her divorce.
Stansbury has a prior record of discipline for
failure to return an unearned fee in 1998, for which he was suspended
for 90 days.
JOHN SELLMANN HILBERT [#133268], 42, of Los
Angeles was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on two years
of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE, submit quarterly
reports and attend ethics school and client trust accounting school.
The order took effect Nov. 29, 2000.
Hilbert commingled personal and client funds in
his client trust account, issuing six checks from the account without
sufficient funds to cover them.
In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s
investigation.
MARK G. WEIDMANN [#157670], 36, of Los Angeles
was suspended for nine months, stayed, and placed on two years of
probation with a 30-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the
MPRE, file quarterly reports and attend ethics school. The order took
effect Nov. 29, 2000.
Weidmann stipulated to four counts of misconduct.
In a 1997 civil dispute, Weidmann failed to act
competently by making false statements to a judge regarding the
handling of a summary judgment motion that was served at Weidmann’s
law firm. In the same case, Weidmann accused an opposing attorney of
misconduct and threatened to
report him to the State Bar.
In a 1994 civil case, he failed to promptly pay
back $2,500 that he had deposited at the sheriff’s office on his
client’s behalf. The opposing attorney in the case filed a motion
requesting that the money be used to pay for his attorney fees and
costs. Weidmann filed a motion with the court, asking that the money
be released to him. In a hearing, the court denied Weidmann’s
motion, ruling that the money be paid to help cover opposing attorney
fees and costs.
Without prior authorization from the court,
Weidmann later requested that the sheriff’s office release the money
to him. After he received the $2,500, he did not respond to a request
by the opposing attorney that the money be forwarded to him as the
court ordered.
In another 1997 civil dispute, Weidmann did not
promptly release a client’s file as she requested when he resigned
as her attorney.
ROBERT EDWARD GLASSER [#47291], 56, of Newport
Beach was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on two years of
probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order
took effect on Nov. 29, 2000.
In a probate matter, Glasser charged his client
legal fees without prior authorization from the court. In addition, he
neglected to repay his client by May 15, 1993, as ordered by the
probate court.
Glasser was ordered to make restitution of
$7,377.75 to his client and to take the bar’s trust account
record-keeping course.
In mitigation, Glasser has no record of
discipline since his 1970 admission to the bar, cooperated with the
bar’s investigation and provided references from the legal and
general community.
RONALD E. LAIS [#66511], 58, of Anaheim Hills
was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years of
probation with an actual two-year suspension, and was ordered to prove
his rehabilitation and comply with rule 955. The order took effect
Dec. 1, 2000. Lais subsequently resigned with other charges pending
March 11, 2001.
In three consolidated cases, the State Bar
Court’s review department found that Lais pursued a frivolous case,
filed another case in bad faith and failed to report a $10,000
sanction order, and engaged in moral turpitude. The court rejected bar
prosecutors’ recommendation that Lais be disbarred, and also
rejected Lais’ request that he be exonerated of all charges.
In the first matter, Lais represented the husband
in a marital dispute involving his refusal to provide his wife
court-ordered community property. Lais appealed a court order that the
husband pay his wife more than $500,000. The court of appeal ruled
that the appeal was frivolous and imposed sanctions of $3,662 against
the husband and an equal amount against Lais.
The bar court’s hearing judge found no proof
that Lais violated the State Bar Act by pursuing an unjust action; the
review department reversed that finding.
In the second matter, Lais represented a wife who
was engaged in a custody battle with her husband, who had been awarded
custody of their two children in Minnesota. Just before Christmas
1993, Lais accompanied the wife to Minnesota, where she attempted to
take the children from her ex-husband’s home. Lais waited in a car
just off the husband’s property.
He and his client were arrested; Lais was charged
with burglary and depriving the husband of his parental rights,
charges that were later dropped. Lais provided misleading information
to sheriff’s deputies and gave them an old custody order which he
knew had been changed to give the husband custody.
The review department upheld the hearing
judge’s finding that Lais committed moral turpitude by assisting and
advising his client to violate a court order.
In a third matter, Lais filed a civil complaint
in Riverside on behalf of the wife in a family law case, although the
matter already had been decided in Los Angeles. The Riverside court
found the complaint had no grounds and was filed to harass and ordered
Lais to pay $14,675 in attorney’s fees. The court later reduced the
sanctions to $10,000, but Lais did not pay and discharged his
obligation in bankruptcy.
Although Lais contended he committed no
misconduct in the Riverside case, the review department found that he
failed to report the sanction order.
In mitigation, Lais practiced for many years
without discipline, has a record of charitable activities and tried to
correct the problems surrounding his misconduct.
However, he has a prior record of discipline
involving misconduct in five client matters: he failed to promptly
refund unearned fees, communicate with clients, provide competent
legal services or promptly
pay settlement funds, and he withdrew improperly and violated trust
account rules.
At the time of his resignation in March, Lais
faced two different sets of charges, one involving 16 counts and the
other 27 counts, stemming from eight separate cases. For the most
part, the allegations charge failure to perform legal services
competently or refund unearned fees and numerous instances of moral
turpitude.
MARK NICHOLAS PHILLIPS [#138694], 38, of
Nashua, N.H., was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on five
years of probation with a one-year actual suspension, and was ordered
to prove his rehabilitation, make restitution, take the MPRE and
comply with rule 955. The order took effect Dec. 3, 2000.
In a 1996 discipline, Phillips was ordered to
make restitution amounting to $16,350 to 13 parties, but he failed to
do so.
The discipline was the result of improperly
withdrawing from employment, failing to perform legal services
competently, promptly refund unearned fees or communicate with
clients, and committing acts of moral turpitude.
In mitigation, Phillips cooperated with the
bar’s investigation, and he has suffered severe financial reversals.
The probation of WILLIAM M. AMBRUNN [#132051],
38, of San Francisco was revoked, the previously ordered stay of
suspension was lifted, and he was suspended for one year and ordered
to comply with rule 955. Credit toward the actual suspension will be
given for a period of involuntary inactive enrollment which began Aug.
21, 2000. The order took effect Dec. 8, 2000.
Ambrunn was suspended and placed on probation in
1998 but failed to comply with the conditions of his probation: he did
not file quarterly probation reports or attend ethics school or trust
account school.
He has a prior record of discipline, including a
1997 private reproval for failing to perform legal services
competently, communicate with a client, promptly return a client file
or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.
When he did not comply with the conditions
attached to the reproval, he was disciplined in 1998.
Ambrunn did not participate in the probation
revocation proceeding.
The probation of PAUL JOSEPH KELLY [#61695],
52, of Los Angeles was revoked, the previously ordered stay of
suspension lifted, and he was suspended for two years and ordered to
attend ethics school, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. Credit
toward the suspension will be given for a period of involuntary
inactive enrollment which began Sept. 4, 2000. The order took effect
Dec. 8, 2000.
Kelly did not comply with the conditions attached
to a 1998 discipline revoking a 1996 suspension and probation: he
failed to submit six probation reports and mental health compliance
statements.
The underlying discipline was the result of
misconduct in five client matters and included failure to communicate
with clients, return client files, perform legal services competently,
promptly refund unearned fees and cooperate with the bar’s
investigation, practicing without a license, representing adverse
interests and improperly withdrawing from representation.
ANDREW H. LUND [#130209], 41, of Long Beach
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 Dec.
8, 2000.
Lund stipulated to misconduct in two matters.
The first was a failure to comply with the
conditions of a 1998 private reproval; he submitted four quarterly
probation reports late and failed to submit one at all, and he failed
to complete four hours of class in law practice management or pass the
professional responsibility exam.
In the second matter, Lund was found guilty of
contempt of court and sentenced to five days in jail after a mistrial
was declared because he twice failed to appear at a trial. He
stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, obey
a court order and maintain the respect due to the courts.
In mitigation, Lund suffered emotional or
physical disabilities at the time of the misconduct.
JACK RAYMOND COHEN [#93341], 49, of Poway
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 Dec. 16, 2000.
Cohen stipulated to misconduct in five
consolidated cases, all involving forming a partnership and splitting
fees with a non-lawyer.
In 1995, Cohen entered into an agreement under
which he employed USA Credit Services of Carlsbad to provide credit
restoration services as part of his law practice. Cohen and two non-
lawyers agreed to a division of the proceeds from the credit
restoration services provided to clients: 17.5 percent to Cohen, 10
percent each to the two non-lawyers and 62.5 percent to the company.
Over a nine-month period, Cohen received $19,235
as his share of the proceeds for legal services he provided. He
believed the company was providing lawful credit restoration services.
However, the Federal Trade Commission sued the
company in 1996, alleging that it requested payment of a fee before
services were provided.
Cohen was not indicted, cooperated fully, and
returned all funds he had received to the court-appointed receiver. He
asked the receiver to provide him with all client files so he could
either provide services to the clients or refund their fees in
addition to the $19,235 he had received. However, the request was
denied, the receiver destroyed the files, and, as a result, several
clients complained. Cohen returned an additional $4,590 in fees to
those who asked for a refund.
In mitigation, Cohen has no record of discipline
since his 1980 admission to the bar, he cooperated with the bar’s
investigation and took immediate steps to rectify the situation.
PATRICK JOSEPH DELCHOP [#73697], 52, of Los
Angeles was suspended for one year, 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 Dec. 16, 2000.
Delchop stipulated to mishandling settlement
funds in four personal injury cases.
At the time the first case settled, his client
had medical bills of more than $12,000 and was disputing two bills.
She asked Delchop to negotiate reductions and pay the medical
providers.
Delchop had received a $20,000 settlement, plus
more than $3,600 in four installments from Farmers Insurance Group to
pay medical expenses. He did not tell his client about one of the
installments — in the amount of $2,000 — from Farmers.
Despite numerous requests by the client, Delchop
failed to provide an accounting of funds received and disbursed. The
doctors were not paid for a year, but Delchop blamed the delay on his
negotiations to reduce the charges.
He stipulated that he failed to promptly notify a
client about the receipt of funds or render an appropriate accounting.
Delchop failed to maintain complete records in
another matter or provide an accounting to another client whose
medical bills remain in dispute, and he did not promptly pay Medi-Cal
the money to which it was entitled in a fourth client’s case. He
says letters from Medi-Cal were not brought to his attention.
In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s
investigation.
LANNY PAUL WAGGONER [#67908], 54, of Los
Angeles was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on five years
of probation with a 22-month suspension and was ordered to prove his
rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took
effect Dec. 16, 2000.
Waggoner stipulated to 11 counts of misconduct.
In one matter, he settled an accidental death
claim for $44,000 but did not tell his client he had received the
check. Instead, he told her she could receive a lesser amount in a
lump sum or a larger amount in $400 a month payments over nine years.
He indicated that after attorney’s fees, the second option would
amount to about $30,000.
When the client learned that Waggoner had
received the settlement funds almost a year earlier, she requested and
received the lump sum payment.
Waggoner stipulated that he failed to notify his
client that he received settlement funds, communicate with his client,
pay out settlement funds promptly, or provide an accounting, and he
made misrepresentations. He also allowed the balance in his client
trust account to fall below the required amount and stipulated to
misappropriation of client funds.
In a personal injury case, Waggoner requested a
dismissal with prejudice in his client’s matter, but did not inform
his client. He also told his client settlement of the case would be
difficult because of the number of people involved in the accident.
Because the client needed continuing medical
attention, Waggoner offered to pay the client “advances” from what
he thought might be an eventual settlement of $100,000. In 1991,
Waggoner received a settlement check for $85,000, but did not notify
the client.
Between 1991 and 1997, Waggoner gave the client
advances on the settlement whenever he asked for money. In 1997, the
client received a medical bill for $12,000 which had been unpaid for
five years and discovered that the case had been settled years
earlier. Waggoner admitted he had not paid the medical bill. However,
he did not provide an accounting to the client when asked.
When the client fired him, Waggoner did not
provide the file to the new lawyer. The client sued Waggoner, who
agreed to pay him $17,500 in monthly payments. The client agreed to,
and did, withdraw a complaint to the State Bar upon receipt of the
first two installments.
Waggoner stipulated that he failed to advise a
client of the receipt of settlement funds, provide an accounting or
release a client file, and that he improperly entered into an
agreement under which a client withdraws a complaint to the bar.
Waggoner also was disciplined in 1997 for
committing an act of moral turpitude. He told his clients their claim
was pending when it had not been filed, said a settlement conference
was scheduled and fabricated a summons.
In mitigation, he made restitution prior to civil
suits by his clients, and he was under severe financial stress.
GLENN ALAN BESNYL [#165587], 39, of Rancho
Cucamonga was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension, and was ordered
to pass the MPRE within one year and prove his rehabilitation. The
order took effect Dec. 27, 2000, and he received credit for an interim
suspension which began April 14, 2000.
Besnyl pleaded no contest to indecent exposure
with priors in 1999 and was placed on interim suspension in April
2000. He stipulated that his actions were a violation of the State Bar
Act.
In mitigation, he has no prior record of
discipline and he cooperated with the bar’s investigation.
JACQUELINE A. KUDER [#170645], 40, of Anaheim
Hills was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years
of probation with a 60-day actual suspension and was ordered to take
the MPRE within a year. The order took effect Dec. 27, 2000.
Kuder stipulated to misconduct in three matters.
In the first, she received $550 from a client to
prepare a trust. A month later, the client terminated her services and
asked for a refund of the advance fee. Kuder said she would mail a
check but did not refund the money until the client complained to the
State Bar 18 months later.
Kuder represented the wife in a spousal support
matter in which the husband was ordered to pay attorney fees to Kuder.
The court instructed Kuder to prepare and submit an attorney order,
but she failed to do so.
In a dissolution proceeding, Kuder attended one
hearing, but did no further work, failed to return her client’s
phone calls, and moved without informing the client who was forced to
hire another lawyer.
Kuder stipulated that she failed to refund
unearned fees promptly, perform legal services competently or respond
to client inquiries and withdrew from employment without protecting
her client’s interests.
In mitigation, she has no record of discipline
since her 1994 admission to the bar.
BARRY DAVID BROWN [#75941], 49, of Redwood
City was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three years of
probation and was ordered to pass the MPRE within one year. The order
took effect Jan. 7, 2001.
Brown pleaded no contest in 1999 to two
misdemeanor charges of indecent exposure and lewd conduct in public.
Because Brown had emotional problems, is
remorseful and is undergoing therapy, the judge in the case did not
require sex offender registration and the bar found his conduct did
not constitute moral turpitude.
ROBERT AARON GORMAN [#176092], 36, of Woodland
was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of
probation, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and to
make restitution. The order took effect Jan. 7, 2001.
Gorman failed to maintain a client’s settlement
funds in his trust account and wrote two checks against insufficient
funds. He had opened the account in an effort to honor his financial
obligations because a previous trust account had been frozen in
response to allegations of a forged check written by someone other
than Gorman. Gorman says he had directed his staff to deposit funds
into the account and believed the account contained enough money to
cover the checks he wrote.
He also did not keep his address current with the
State Bar.
LAWRENCE MASON KELLY [#111218], 66, of Etna
was suspended for 30 days, stayed, and placed on one year of
probation. The probation is to run consecutive to a 2000 probation for
a total of three years. The order took effect Jan. 7, 2001.
Kelly was ordered to comply with rule 955 as part
of the 2000 discipline order, but filed the required affidavit eight
days late.
Kelly has a record of five prior disciplines.
In mitigation, the late filing did not result in
harm and he cooperated with the bar’s investigation.
ERNEST F. CHING JR. [#74253], 53, of Tustin
was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation
with a 60-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE
within one year. The order took effect Jan. 11, 2001.
Ching stipulated that he was grossly negligent in
managing his client trust account, failed to correct lax accounting
procedures after he became aware of them, and that his negligence led
to the misappropriation of $40,000.
Ching was the attorney for an executor of an
estate. In 1994, a debtor to the estate sent to Ching’s office a
$40,000 check, which was endorsed with a rubber stamp and deposited in
his client trust account. The estate, which was the payee, did not
endorse the check.
The $40,000 went unreported and uncorrected for
many months, and the entire amount eventually was spent.
When Ching became aware that he owed $40,000 to
the estate, he did not take corrective action for nearly a year. He
paid his debt to the estate before any civil or disciplinary complaint
was filed.
He also did not keep written ledgers for each
client who had funds in his client trust account and he stipulated
that he failed to maintain records of client funds.
In mitigation, Ching has no prior record of
discipline, he made restitution and cooperated with the bar’s
investigation, and he has a record of community and charitable
activities.
DAVID REED DOWELL [#55145], 53, of Lacey’s
Spring, Ala., was suspended for six months and was ordered to
attend ethics school, take the MPRE within one year and comply with
rule 955. The order took effect Jan. 11, 2001.
Dowell stipulated that he engaged in misconduct
in North Carolina which would subject him to discipline in California
had it been committed here.
He failed to file a lawsuit on behalf of a
client, refund unearned fees, return the client’s file or respond to
the North Carolina State Bar investigation and he moved his offices
without notifying the client.
Most of his misconduct resulted from an agreement
to represent a client in an action for damages against the U.S. Marine
Corps. The client paid Dowell $5,200, but after about a year and a
half, the complaint still had not been filed and Dowell had moved from
North Carolina to Alabama. He did not respond to two fee arbitration
notices.
In another matter in which he represented a
client before the Department of Veterans Affairs, Dowell did not
respond to letters from the North Carolina bar after the client
complained.
He notified the bar he could not appear at a
grievance committee hearing because he was recovering from foot
surgery, but he did not communicate further with the bar.
In mitigation, Dowell has no other record of
discipline and he had emotional and/or physical difficulties at the
time of the misconduct.
KENNETH G. EADE [#93774], 43, of Santa Barbara
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 Jan. 11, 2001.
In a bankruptcy matter, Eade deposited $4,300 in
fees into his personal account rather than his client trust account.
When his client said he no longer needed to file for bankruptcy, Eade
agreed to refund $3,425 but did not do so. The client won a small
claims judgment of $4,418, which Eade paid a year later.
In mitigation, Eade had serious financial
problems at the time of the misconduct, he has done extensive pro bono
work for almost 20 years and he presented evidence of his good
character.
ANTHONY CELESTINE FISCHER [#55260], 67, of
Santa Barbara was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two
years of probation and he was ordered to pass the MPRE within one
year. The order took effect Jan. 11, 2001.
From 1988 to 1992, Fischer represented a client
in superior court in a civil action against a municipality which
resulted in a judgment in favor of his client. He took the case on a
contingency fee basis and did not receive any fees for his services.
The municipality appealed and Fischer continued
to handle the case without a new fee agreement. The court of appeal
reversed, Fischer appealed to the California Supreme Court, which
denied the petition, and he then took the case to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the petition
because of failure to comply with rules of procedure and informed
Fischer he could correct the errors. The clerk also told Fischer he
must be admitted to the Supreme Court bar and enclosed an application
form.
Fischer did not submit a corrected petition so
the court returned the filing fee with a letter saying he appeared to
have abandoned the case. Fischer did not inform his client of those
developments, but instead told him he would file the appeal.
Fischer represented the client in other matters
and avoided discussing the Supreme Court case. Four years later, the
client learned the petition had never been filed. Fischer did not
respond to his letter demanding an explanation.
Fischer stipulated that he failed to perform
legal services competently or keep a client informed of developments
in a case.
He was privately reproved in 1992 for failing to
act competently or return client phone calls and for withdrawing from
employment without protecting his client’s interests.
In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s
investigation.
SUZANNE LOUISE HARRIS [#45303], 55, of
Liberty, Mo., was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on five
years of probation with an 18-month suspension and was ordered to make
restitution, prove her rehabilitation and take the MPRE. The order
took effect Jan. 11, 2001.
Harris failed to comply with probation conditions
attached to a 1998 discipline: she failed to file a quarterly
probation report or complete 16 hours of continuing education in
ethics, trust accounting or law office management.
In the underlying discipline, she had stipulated
to failing to perform legal services competently in a wrongful death
case, failing to properly maintain her client trust account and to
violating the terms of two earlier disciplinary probations.
In mitigation, in 1997, a fire destroyed
Harris’ home and office, and as a result, she had no source of
income. She suffered a prolonged period of emotional and financial
stress. She presented testimony about her good character and
cooperated with the bar’s investigation.
THOMAS C. LOFFARELLI [#159724], 47, of Sherman
Oaks was suspended for one year, stayed, and was placed on one
year of probation. The order took effect Jan. 11, 2001.
Loffarelli violated the probation conditions
attached to a 1998 probation by failing to file eight written
statements showing that he had been obtaining psychiatric or
psychological treatment at least twice a month.
The discipline was the result of a 1996
conviction for disobeying a court-ordered restraining order.
MARK RANDAL POVRAZNIK [#153629], 40, of
Sherman Oaks was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with a one-year actual suspension, and was ordered
to make restitution and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension
exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took
effect Jan. 11, 2001.
Povraznik violated the terms of a 1997 probation
by failing to make restitution and by not passing the MPRE on time.
The discipline was imposed in seven cases for
improperly withdrawing from employment and failing to refund unearned
fees, communicate with clients, deposit client funds in a trust
account and pay court-ordered sanctions.
He also was disciplined in 1994 for failing to
pay sanctions.
In mitigation, Povraznik currently resides in a
residential drug/alcohol recovery home and states that his
non-compliance with probation conditions was due in significant part
to his inability to earn a living while recovering from alcoholism. He
cooperated with the bar’s investigation.
CHRISTOPHER MARTIN DOLAN [#76254], 49, of San
Francisco was suspended for two years, stayed, and was actually
suspended for one year and until he develops a law office management
plan and attends ethics school. He also 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 Jan. 19, 2001.
Dolan did not comply with the terms of a 1998
discipline order — he failed to develop a law office management
plan, submit quarterly reports and attend ethics school. That
discipline was imposed because Dolan fabricated a settlement document,
an act of moral turpitude.
JOHN GILLESPIE HARTNETT [#49505], 58, of
Ventura 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 Jan. 19, 2001.
Hartnett pleaded guilty last year to four counts
of disobeying a protective order and one count each of misdemeanor
assault and battery. A diagnosed schizophrenic, Hartnett had
discontinued his medication and began to telephone his ex-wife
repeatedly and contacted his children in a way that violated a 1997
restraining order.
He also approached and inappropriately touched a
deputy district attorney in court, leading to the assault and battery
charges. He has no recollection of these events.
In mitigation, Hartnett cooperated with the
bar’s investigation. He resumed medical care and is now taking his
medication.
CHARLES HARRIS KAVALARIS [#46853], 57, of San
Jose was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on two years
of probation with a 60-day actual suspension. The order took effect
Jan. 19, 2001.
Kavalaris violated the terms of a 2000 discipline
order by failing to deliver client papers, refund unearned fees or
comply with rule 955. He did not notify clients or opposing counsel of
his suspension from practice.
Under penalty of perjury, he filed an affidavit
with the State Bar Court stating that bar prosecutors had notified his
clients and opposing counsel about his suspension. The affidavit makes
clear that Kavalaris himself did not comply with rule 955.
The discipline was the result of fee-splitting
with non-lawyers in a kickback scheme in which he and his law partner
received referrals in return for money. He also wrote checks against
insufficient funds in his client trust account and commingled personal
and client funds.
Kavalaris also was disciplined three other times.
In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s
investigation and no clients were harmed.
ROBERT CLEARY BRADLEY [#41818], 60, of Ventura
was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on five years of probation
with a 60-day actual suspension and was ordered to prove his
rehabilitation and take the MPRE. The order took effect Jan. 26, 2001.
In 1998, Bradley pleaded guilty to two different
charges of driving under the influence. He has violated his probation
several times by using alcohol, including an arrest later that year
for riding a bicycle while under the influence.
He also pleaded no contest to two counts of
disobeying a protective order that he not contact or harass his
estranged wife. The order was issued after Bradley, while under the
influence, broke into his ex-wife’s home and threatened to kill her.
Despite the order, he attempted to contact his wife several times.
In mitigation, Bradley has no record of
discipline in more than 16 years of practice, he cooperated with the
bar’s investigation and he has taken steps to address his alcohol
problems.
WILLIAM ROMAN GARDNER [#95186], 46, of
Pacifica was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on two
years of probation with an actual 45-day suspension. The order took
effect Jan 26, 2001.
Gardner stipulated to four counts of misconduct
in two cases, including three instances of failing
to perform legal services competently and one instance of
failing to respond to client inquiries and keep his client informed
about significant developments in a case.
Gardner was brought into a deportation matter by
another attorney after the time to appeal an immigration judge’s
ruling had expired. He filed a petition in federal court which
resulted in the court accusing Gardner and the other attorney of
incompetence resulting in a violation of his clients’ rights.
Gardner disputes the court’s findings but
acknowledged that it was reasonable for the State Bar Court to accept
them.
In another matter with the same attorney, Gardner
allowed the other lawyer’s staff to use a signature stamp on
documents Gardner had not written and was not aware of. As a result,
he missed a deadline to file a brief and the matter in question was
dismissed. He did not know about the dismissal because the other
lawyer’s staff intercepted the order.
Gardner did not return a personal injury
client’s phone calls and did not tell his client the case was
dismissed because he failed to appear at trial. Gardner had not told
the client that a trial was scheduled.
Gardner also was disciplined last year for
failure to perform competently and practicing while suspended for
non-payment of bar dues.
In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s
investigation and has had difficulty working because of an arthritic
hip. He has restricted his practice to friends and family and his
current source of income is Supplemental Social Security. |
