In February 2011 Aulis pleaded guilty to violating Penal Code § 470(d), forgery. The conviction is now final and the State Bar concluded that it met the criteria for summary disbarment. The order took effect December 28, 2011

In August 2010 Bujkovsky pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, a felony. The conviction is now final and the State Bar concluded that it met the criteria for summary disbarment. The order took effect December 28, 2011

In November 2009 Castaneda was placed on three years of probation related to prior charges. Thereafter, he failed to comply with conditions to his probation.

In aggravation, Castaneda had a record of prior discipline. The order took effect December 2, 2011

In 2001 Chambers was hired by husband-and-wife clients to draft a living trust. When the husband died, the trust became irrevocable and the wife was placed in an assisted living facility.

Chambers was asked to handle the renovation and sale of the remaining client’s home. In September 2006 the home was sold for $1.22 million. Chambers used the proceeds to pay for the client’s care until her death in August 2008. However, she also made numerous withdrawals from the funds for her own use and benefit. In total, Chambers misappropriated $800,000.

In aggravation, Chambers’s misconduct was surrounded by bad faith and dishonesty. Her misconduct caused significant harm to the beneficiaries of her clients’ trust. In mitigation, Chambers had no record of discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1997. She cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings and displayed remorse for her misconduct. The order took effect December 2, 2011

In March 2011 Colon-Vasquez pleaded nolo contendere to four counts of violating Penal Code § 487(a), grand theft. The conviction is now final and the State Bar concluded that it met the criteria for summary disbarment. The order took effect December 17, 2011

In aggravation, Davis had a record of prior discipline. Also, he engaged in multiple acts of misconduct. In mitigation, Davis cooperated with the State Bar by entering into a stipulation. The order took effect December 2, 2011

In aggravation, Hawbaker engaged in multiple acts of wrongdoing that involved the client trust account. His misconduct significantly harmed his client. Further, he failed to demonstrate remorse for his wrongdoing. In mitigation, Hawbaker had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1989. The order took effect December 9, 2011

In April 2010 Karatz was found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1341, mail fraud, and for making false statements in a quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The conviction is now final and the State Bar concluded that it met the criteria for summary disbarment.

In aggravation, Karatz’s offense involves moral turpitude. The order took effect December 30, 2011

From 2005 through 2008, Kucsan deliberately harassed a female employee of the Riverside County Superior Court. He routinely telephoned the victim and would hang up without saying a word. This continued after the victim was transferred to other courthouses. In one incident, Kucsan made racist comments to the victim. A wiretap was installed in the fall of 2008, which revealed that Kucsan had made the calls. He eventually confessed.

In February 2009 Kucsan pleaded guilty to one count of stalking with a hate crime enhancement, and one count of making telephone calls with the intent to annoy or harass. The conviction is now final and the State Bar concluded that it met the criteria for summary disbarment.

In aggravation, Kucsan deliberately lied to investigators, and he displayed indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct. The order took effect December 28, 2011

In January 2011 Lewis-Gonzales pleaded guilty to grand theft, a felony. The conviction is now final and the State Bar concluded that it met the criteria for summary disbarment. The order took effect December 28, 2011. Richard Anthony Mata, State Bar # 162513, Temecula (November 28). Mata, 55, was disbarred for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to promptly respond to reasonable status inquiries, failing to provide an accounting, and failing to promptly refund unearned fees.

In September 2009 a client hired Mata to provide her with loan modification services. Mata charged $1,595 in fees. In the month that followed the client repeatedly phoned Mata, but no one was available to speak with her. In late October 2009 one of Mata’s employees informed the client by email that Mata’s office had closed and his whereabouts were unknown. Mata did not give his client prior notice, submit a loan modification on her behalf, provide an accounting, or refund any portion of the advance fees. Other clients were similarly affected when Mata ceased providing legal services.

In aggravation, Mata’s clients were seriously harmed by his misconduct. Mata failed to respond to State Bar investigators in seven client matters, and he failed to participate in the State Bar’s investigation and proceedings. The order took effect December 28, 2011

In aggravation, Nelson had a record of prior discipline. Also, he demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct. The order took effect December 2, 2011

In 2006 Officer represented a client in marital dissolution proceedings. The parties stipulated that Officer was to deposit proceeds from the sale of the client’s family home into his client trust account, disburse $10,000 to each party, and hold the remaining sum pending disposition by the court.

Thereafter, Officer received three checks totaling $184,255, which he deposited into the client trust account. After disbursing $41,000 to his client, $46,000 to her husband, and $4,800 to himself in fees, Officer was required to maintain $92,128 in the account. By May 2008 all the money had been withdrawn. In March 2009 Officer told the court he had maintained the funds in another account. The court ordered Officer to provide proof, but he failed to do so.

In aggravation, Officer failed to cooperate with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. The order took effect December 2, 2011

In April 2010 an attorney and his office manager hired Proctor to make appearances and help with client management at the attorney’s office. The attorney ceased operating the law firm the following July, and Proctor became the attorney of record.

In one of six consolidated matters, a client met with the office manager in November 2010 and signed retainer agreements to obtain loan modifications on three properties. The firm’s accountant signed the agreements on behalf of the company. When the client expressed discomfort that a nonattorney was signing the retainer agreements, Proctor initialed them and assured her that he was the attorney of record.

In December 2010 and January 2011 the client received foreclosure notices on all three properties. Proctor told her he would file a lawsuit that would stop the foreclosures, but he failed to do so. On the day before one of her properties was to be sold, Proctor told the client he would file a bankruptcy petition on her behalf to prevent the foreclosure sale, but he requested additional fees to do so. Two of the properties were sold shortly thereafter. The client requested the return of unearned fees, but Proctor failed to provide a refund.

In mitigation, Proctor had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 2000. He demonstrated remorse for his misconduct, but he was unable to reimburse clients. Also, Proctor cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. The order took effect December 9, 2011

In aggravation, Rose had a record of prior discipline. His actions caused significant harm to a client and showed a pattern of misconduct. In mitigation, Rose cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. During the period of his misconduct he experienced personal and financial problems. The order took effect December 28, 2011

In April 2010 Shlionsky was suspended for one year and placed on three years of probation. Conditions to the discipline required him to make restitution, and to notify clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and file an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. He failed to comply with the conditions.

In aggravation, Shlionsky had a record of prior discipline, and he demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for his misconduct. Also, he failed to cooperate with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. The order took effect December 9, 2011

In July 2009 Takasugi, while suspended from practice, appeared for a hearing on behalf of clients. Later that month he appeared on behalf of another client, and for trial on behalf of a third client. None of the clients was prejudiced by the court appearances.

In aggravation, Takasugi had a record of prior discipline. In mitigation, he reported his unauthorized practice to the State Bar’s Probation Unit. He acted in good faith, misunderstanding the duration of his suspension. The order took effect December 2, 2011

Around 2006 and 2007 Wattoff provided tax-consulting services in Colorado through a consulting company he formed in July 2004. Wattoff was not licensed to practice law in Colorado, and the company was not a law firm. In 2006 a client retained Wattoff for legal advice and representation concerning federal tax matters. The client’s company was later incorporated pursuant to Wattoff’s advice. In 2007 the new company sold its assets to a buyer, who delivered funds to Wattoff for deposit into an escrow account. Instead, Wattoff deposited the funds into a bank account he maintained in the name of his consulting firm. Wattoff misappropriated $108,120.

In aggravation, the misconduct significantly harmed a client. In mitigation, Wattoff had no record of prior discipline since he was admitted to the bar in 1992. Also, he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. The order took effect December 28, 2011

In aggravation, Lee had a record of prior discipline, and his misconduct resulted in significant harm to his client. Also, he failed to cooperate with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. The order took effect December 9, 2011