Discipline Report

Disbarment

Bloomfield, 62, was disbarred after being found culpable of misconduct in three client matters by engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; failing to competently perform legal services; failing to promptly release a client file; and failing to cooperate with two State Bar investigations.

In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients, the public, and the administration of justice. In mitigation, Bloomfield had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1978.

The order took effect October 29, 2009

Russell, 63, was disbarred after being found culpable of misconduct by engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; misappropriation; breach of fiduciary duty as an attorney and trustee; misrepresentation; and failing to competently perform legal services.

In March 1986 Russell drafted a trust for a terminally ill client, naming himself as trustee. The next month the client died, and Russell became trustee of the estate. A few months later, Russell’s father asked him to invest in an oil lease. By September 1987 Russell had used the cash in the trust to purchase the oil lease, but there was little or no paper trail to show where the money was spent.

That month Russell filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy but failed to timely file a reorganization plan until after the seller of the oil lease and the U.S. Trustee filed a motion to dismiss in February 1989. In June 1989 the court dismissed the Chapter 11 without converting it to a Chapter 7. Russell failed to disburse funds to the decedent’s beneficiaries, failed to inform the beneficiaries and their lawyers about the bankruptcy, failed to produce an accounting to the lawyers, and failed to file income tax returns on behalf of the trust.

In June 2001 an attorney for one of the beneficiaries filed a civil complaint against Russell seeking his removal as trustee, an accounting, and an award of attorney fees and costs. Over the next sev-eral months, the attorney repeatedly asked Russell for an accounting of the trust assets, but Russell failed to provide it.

In September 2002 he provided an accounting of the trust assets to the probate court. That accounting differed from a previous accounting provided by an accountant the decedent’s wife had hired. In September 2003 a trial court found in favor of the beneficiary and awarded the beneficiary $164,404 in principal, interest, attorney fees, and costs.

In January 2006 the probate court entered a judgment in favor of the beneficiary. In May 2006 Russell appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the probate court’s judgment. The California Supreme Court denied Russell’s petition to review the case.

In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to a client. Russell was dishonest with his client and the courts, and he demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct. In mitigation, Russell had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1978. He cooperated with the State Bar by stipulating to the facts but without admitting culpability.

The order took effect October 29, 2009

Wood, 37, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court.

In June 2008 Wood was suspended for one year for failing to keep a client informed about significant developments in the client’s case, failing to inform a client he was on suspension, failing to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to a client, failing to return documents to a client, failing to maintain a current address with the State Bar, failing to maintain client funds in trust, issuing trust account checks against insufficient funds, and commingling funds. Conditions to the discipline required Wood to notify clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and to file an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. He failed to file the affidavit and failed to provide an explanation to the State Bar for his noncompliance.

In aggravation, Wood had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter.

The order took effect October 29, 2009

Abramowitz, 55, received a summary disbarment in a Review Department decision following his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. section 371, conspiracy to commit immigration fraud, and section 1546(a), 2(b), two counts of causing an act of immigration fraud, all felonies involving acts of moral turpitude. In June 2007 he was placed on interim suspension after pleading guilty to the violations. His conviction is now final, and the State Bar Court determined that the crimes met the criteria for summary disbarment.

The order took effect August 21, 2009

This action originally appeared in our December 2009 issue.

Bitkower, 66, was disbarred after being found culpable on twelve counts of misconduct in nine client matters by failing to competently perform legal services; failing to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to clients; failing to keep clients reasonably informed about significant developments in their cases; failing to promptly respond to clients’ reasonable status inquiries; failing to promptly pay out funds on behalf of clients; failing to maintain client funds in trust; misappropriating client funds; engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.

In aggravation, Bitkower had a record of prior discipline. Also, in the current matter, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients. In mitigation, Bitkower cooperated with the State Bar by stipulating to the charges and discipline. In addition, for a number of years he suffered serious medical and emotional problems.

The order took effect July 30, 2009

This action originally appeared in our December 2009 issue.

Braun, 54, received a summary disbarment in a Review Department decision following his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. sections 871(a) and 1038(a)(1)(A), writing a threat to kill the president of the United States, engaging in conduct to convey false and misleading information, and committing felonies involving acts of moral turpitude. In August 2008 he was placed on interim suspension. His conviction is now final, and the State Bar Court determined that the crimes met the criteria for summary disbarment.

The order took effect August 21, 2009

This action originally appeared in our December 2009 issue.

Chun, 48, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court.

In May 2008 Chun was suspended for 90 days and until the State Bar Court granted a motion terminating her suspension. She was disciplined for failing to competently perform legal services; making false and misleading statements to a court; engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; failing to report imposition of judicial sanctions to the State Bar; and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation. Conditions to the discipline required Chun to comply with rule 9.20 by notifying clients and opposing counsel of her suspension within 30 days and filing an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. She failed to file the affidavit by the deadline and failed to provide an explanation to the State Bar for her noncompliance.

In aggravation, Chun had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. She demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of her misconduct. She also failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings prior to entry of her default.

The order took effect August 29, 2009

This action originally appeared in our January 2010 issue.

Fahy, 60, was disbarred after being found culpable of misconduct by failing to obey the laws of California, failing to maintain respect due the courts, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In March 2004 Fahy was selected as a juror in a medical malpractice case. By the following month the jury was deadlocked, but the judge instructed the jurors to continue with their deliberations. Fahy concluded that the deliberations would continue beyond the time he could afford to be away from his law practice. He told the other jurors that if the judge did not declare a mistrial, he would change his vote in favor of the defense to facilitate his release from jury duty. He then did so. The jury foreperson notified the judge about Fahy changing his vote to end the deliberations. The judge questioned each juror individually, but found no wrongdoing. With the assistance of opposing counsel, Fahy signed a declaration stating he changed his vote as a member of the jury. Later, the judge entered a verdict in favor of the defendant.

In June 2004 the plaintiff requested a new trial based in part on Fahy’s declaration that he deliberately changed his vote solely for the purpose of ending jury deliberations. During the State Bar Court trial, Fahy claimed that his signature on the declaration was forged. The State Bar Court did not find Fahy’s testimony credible, finding instead that opposing counsel’s testimony regarding Fahy’s signature was credible.

In aggravation, Fahy had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter, the misconduct caused significant harm to the administration of justice.

The order took effect August 21, 2009

This action originally appeared in our December 2009 issue.

Hartley, 63, was disbarred for engaging in acts of moral turpitude and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.

In February 2006 Hartley was appointed executor of an estate. In January 2007 the court removed her as executor and appointed another person as a special administrator. During the time Hartley was executor, she misappropriated $32,971 in estate funds for her own use and benefit. In February 2007 the court ordered her to repay the misappropriated funds to the special administrator within 30 days. Hartley failed to comply with the court’s order.

In July and August 2007 a State Bar investigator wrote to Hartley requesting a written response to allegations of misconduct filed against her by the special administrator. Hartley failed to respond to the investigator’s letters and failed to provide copies of requested documents to the investigator.

In aggravation, the misconduct caused significant harm to the estate, and Hartley failed to comply with a court order. In mitigation, she had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1979.

The order took effect September 10, 2009

This action originally appeared in our January 2010 issue.

Holbrook, 42, was summarily disbarred in a Review Department decision following his conviction for first-degree sexual abuse.

In March 2002 Holbrook was found guilty of violating Oregon Revised Statute section 163.427(1)(a)(A) by engaging in sexual conduct with a person under 14 years of age, a felony involving moral turpitude. In July 2002 the State Bar placed Holbrook on interim suspension, and he has remained suspended since then. His conviction became final, and it met the criteria for summary disbarment.

The order took effect September 18, 2009

This action originally appeared in our January 2010 issue.

Jacobson, 63, received a summary disbarment in a Review Department decision following his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1341, mail fraud, felonies involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In June 2007 he pleaded guilty to the violations, and in May 2008 he was placed on interim suspension by the State Bar. The conviction met the criteria for summary disbarment.

The order took effect October 9, 2009

This action originally appeared in our February 2010 issue.

Korenberg, 60, received a summary disbarment in a Review Department decision following his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1546(a), and 2(b), conspiracy to commit immigration fraud and two counts of immigration fraud, felonies involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In October 2007 he pleaded guilty to the violations and in January 2008 he was placed on interim suspension by the State Bar. The convictions met the criteria for summary disbarment.

The order took effect October 9, 2009

This action originally appeared in our February 2010 issue.

Mills, 58, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court.

In August 2006 Mills was suspended for 30 days and until he made restitution of $1,500 to one client and until the State Bar Court granted a motion terminating his suspension. He was disciplined for failing to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to a client and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation. Conditions to the discipline required Mills to notify clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and file an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. He failed to file the affidavit and failed to provide an explanation to the State Bar for his noncompliance.

In aggravation, Mills had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. Also, he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings prior to entry of his default.

The order took effect September 10, 2009

This action originally appeared in our January 2010 issue.

Nielsen, 39, received a summary disbarment in a Review Department decision following his conviction for oral copulation with a person under 16 years of age, a felony involving moral turpitude. In January 2008 Nielsen was placed on interim suspension. His conviction is now final, and it met the criteria for summary disbarment.

The order took effect September 10, 2009

This action originally appeared in our January 2010 issue.

Leon, 66, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court and failing to comply with other conditions imposed in a previous discipline.

In May 2008 Leon was suspended for two years and until he demonstrated proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. He also was placed on probation for three years and ordered to make restitution of $20,000 to nine clients. He was given credit toward the period of suspension for his period of inactive enrollment, which began September 4, 2007. Leon stipulated to 21 violations of professional misconduct in 13 client matters that took place between 1997 and 2006. Conditions to the discipline required Leon to notify clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and file an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. He failed to timely file the affidavit and failed to provide an explanation to the State Bar for his noncompliance. In addition, Leon failed to file probation reports for the last two quarters of 2008, and failed to provide evidence of mental health treatment.

In aggravation, Leon had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. Further, he demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct. He also failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings prior to entry of his default.

The order took effect October 17, 2009

This action originally appeared in our February 2010 issue.

Scott, 61, was disbarred after being found culpable of misconduct in three matters by failing to competently perform legal services; failing to keep a client informed about significant developments in the client’s case; failing to respond to client inquiries; engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; appearing for a client without authority; and failing to comply with conditions to a previous probation order.

In aggravation, Scott had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that harmed a client when the court dismissed the case. He also demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of the prior misconduct by failing to comply with conditions to the probation order. In addition, he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings prior to entry of his default.

The order took effect September 18, 2009

This action originally appeared in our January 2010 issue.

Stein, 41, was summarily disbarred in a Review Department decision following his conviction for violating Penal Code section 487(a), grand theft; section 530.5(a), unauthorized use of identifying information of another; section 470(a), forgery; section 459, second-degree commercial burglary; and Health and Safety Code section 11550, being under the influence of a controlled substance, and section 11379(a), transportation of a controlled substance. All are felonies involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

The order took effect September 17, 2009

This action originally appeared in our January 2010 issue.