Discipline Report

Disbarment

In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients and the administration of justice. Diamond demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct. He failed to apologize to his clients, failed to take remedial action on behalf of his clients, and failed to pay funds to clients and their medical providers. Also, Diamond failed to cooperate with the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default.

The order took effect October 10, 2008

In aggravation, Brar had a record of prior discipline. In April 2006 he was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to maintain a just action, pursuing an action for corrupt motives, engaging in acts of moral turpitude, and failing to maintain client funds in trust. Aggravating factors in that matter involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. He failed to maintain just actions by filing an unmeritorious appeal and by commingling funds in the client trust account. He acted in bad faith by filing a frivolous motion and appeal. He also harmed the public and the administration of justice by wasting judicial resources and by interfering with the attorney general’s duty to protect California consumers.

In the current disciplinary matter, the misconduct demonstrated a pattern of misconduct that harmed the public and the administration of justice. Brar also demonstrated a contemptuous attitude toward disciplinary proceedings.

The order took effect July 12, 2008

In February 2003 Cardenas was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case. In March 2003 he referred the client to a medical provider for treatment and signed a medical lien with the provider.

Between that month and August 2003 the client left several telephone messages for Cardenas inquiring about the case, but he did not respond. Between November 2003 and February 2005 the client left numerous additional telephone messages for Cardenas inquiring about the status of the case, but Cardenas never responded to those either.

In February 2005 the client was billed by a hospital for services he received as a result of his personal injury. The client telephoned Cardenas about the bill, but Cardenas failed to respond.

In September 2005 the hospital referred the billing matter to a collection agency. The client faxed a copy of the collection letter to Cardenas, but he failed to respond to the client and took no action on his behalf.

In February and March 2006 the doctor who treated the client billed Cardenas, but he failed to respond to the doctor’s bill and again took no action on behalf of the client. The doctor also sent a bill to the client, who then telephoned Cardenas but did not receive a response. Cardenas failed to file a complaint on behalf of the client and failed to file an insurance claim for the client’s personal injuries.

In June, July, and August 2006 a State Bar investigator wrote to Cardenas requesting a written response to allegations of misconduct filed against him by the client. Cardenas failed to respond to the investigator’s letters.

In aggravation, Cardenas had a record of prior discipline. In July 1993 he was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for misconduct in four client matters. In July 1994 he was placed on two years of probation for misconduct. In October 2001 he was suspended for 30 days and placed on three years of probation for failing to competently perform legal services and failing to communicate.

The order took effect August 27, 2008

In aggravation, Colburn had a record of prior discipline. In May 1995 she was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to competently perform legal services, improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to cooperate with two State Bar investigations, and failing to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of her default.

In October 1997 she was suspended for one year and placed on three years of probation for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by making court appearances during her suspension. She failed to cooperate with State Bar investigations and failed to comply with conditions to the 1995 discipline.

In January 2002 Colburn was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation after her conviction for petty theft, an act involving moral turpitude.

The order took effect September 26, 2008

In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to her clients. In mitigation, Dakopolos suffered emotional problems from growing up in an abusive home and, as an adult, being stalked and terrorized by a neighbor.

The order took effect August 7, 2008

In a Review Department decision in October 2005, Drum was suspended for three years and placed on five years of probation for failing to comply with a court order, failing to promptly return client files and property, failing to promptlypay court-imposed sanctions, failing to report imposition of judicial sanctions to the State Bar, and appearing in court without a client’s authority after termination of his employment.

Conditions to the discipline required Drum 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 aggravation, Drum had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. Also, he failed to comply with conditions to the 2005 discipline, and he demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct.

The order took effect September 26, 2008

In February 2007 Harney was suspended for six months and until the State Bar Court grants a motion terminating the suspension. He was disciplined for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to obey a court order, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation. Conditions to the discipline required Harney to notify clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and file an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. He failed to promptly file the affidavit and failed to provide an explanation to the State Bar for his noncompliance.

In aggravation, Harney had a record of prior discipline. In January 2007 he received a private reproval for failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation. In February 2007 the underlying matter occurred.

The order took effect September 26, 2008

The order took effect July 12, 2008

In June 2007 Horio was suspended for two years, placed on two years of pro-bation, and ordered to make restitution of $5,250.

Conditions to the discipline required Horio 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 promptly file the affidavit and failed to provide an explanation to the State Bar for his noncompliance.

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

The order took effect July 19, 2008

In March 2004 Hove agreed to represent a criminal defendant who was charged with committing two murders. Hove agreed to accept $250,000 if he represented the client in both murders, or $160,000 if the case was severed.

The client’s two sons made multiple cash payments totaling $160,000 to Hove. There was no written fee agreement, and Hove failed to obtain the client’s informed written consent for Hove to accept fees from the client’s sons.

Between March 2004 and April 2005 Hove appeared in court five times on behalf of the client for the purpose of continuing the client’s plea hearing. In March 2005 Hove learned that another of his clients was a suspect in the same murders for which the first client was charged.

In April 2005 Hove filed a motion to be relieved as counsel of record because of the conflict of interest. The court granted the motion, and the client’s plea hearing was continued. That same month one of the sons made repeated requests to Hove for an accounting, but he failed to respond to the son’s requests. In April 2007 Hove produced the accounting during a fee-arbitration hearing.

In a second matter, in January 2006 a woman paid Hove $1,000 to represent her 26-year-old son for a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. There was no written fee agreement, and Hove failed to obtain the client’s informed written consent regarding payment of fees by his mother.

On twelve occasions between February and July 2006 the client and his mother made attempts to contact Hove by letter, by leaving telephone messages, or by attempting to meet with him in person. Their attempts to communicate with Hove were unsuccessful, and Hove failed to make contact with the client.

In July 2006 Hove did not appear for a scheduled court hearing on the client’s case, but employed another attorney to appear on his behalf. The client and his mother were not notified about the other attorney’s appearance, meeting with him only a few minutes before the hearing.
Between July and August 2006 the client and his mother wrote to Hove requesting information about the case, but Hove failed to respond. In August 2006 the client filed a motion to have Hove removed as his attorney. Hove failed to appear for the hearing on the motion, and the court removed him as counsel of record.

In November 2006 the client wrote to Hove requesting his file and a refund of the $1,000 advance fee. Hove failed to respond to the letter and failed to return the file and unearned fees.

In aggravation, Hove had a record of prior discipline. In 1994 he was suspended for 30 days and placed on one year of probation for failing to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court. In 1997 he received a public reproval for failing to comply with conditions to a previous order of discipline. In May 2002 Hove was suspended for 75 days and placed on two years of probation forfailing to competently perform legal services, failing to communicate, failing to promptly return client papers and property, failing to refund unearned fees, and failing to cooperate with two State Bar investigations. In the current matter the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that harmed clients and the administration of justice. Hove also demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct, and he failed to return unearned fees.

The order took effect June 28, 2008

In May 2000 Maya was hired to represent a father and son in a personal injury case. Soon after he filed a complaint in September 2001, the defendant’s insurance carrier settled the son’s claim for $2,500. In January 2002 the court granted Maya’s motion to dismiss the son’s suit.

In July 2003 opposing counsel served discovery requests on Maya in the father’s suit. The following month counsel wrote to Maya reminding him that responses to the requests were past due, but Maya failed to respond to the letter and failed to provide the discovery responses.

In September 2003 counsel filed a motion to compel the responses, and a hearing on the motion was set for the following month. Maya failed to respond to the motion, failed to provide discovery responses, and failed to appear for the hearing. The court granted the motion and ordered Maya to appear within 15 days and pay $286 in fees and costs.

In April 2005 counsel filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and a hearing was set for June 2005. Maya failed to respond to the motion and failed to appear for the hearing. The court granted the motion. Maya failed to inform the client about the motions and the court’s rulings.

In May and September 2006 a State Bar investigator requested Maya to respond in writing to allegations of misconduct filed against him by the client. In October 2006 Maya faxed a response to the investigator asking for an extension of time to respond, but he later failed to provide the investigator with the requested information. In March 2007 the investigator wrote to Maya asking for a response to the client’s complaint. Maya requested and received a two-week extension to respond to the complaint, but then failed to do so.

In aggravation, Maya had a record of prior discipline. In September 1990 he was suspended for six months and placed on two years of probation for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to communicate, improperly withdrawing from representation, engaging in acts of moral turpitude, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.

In 1992 Maya was placed on two years of probation for failing to notify clients and opposing counsel of his 1990 suspension. In the current matter, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that harmed a client. Also, Maya failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default.

The order took effect September 26, 2008

In August 2006 Nesin was suspended for 60 days for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to keep a client informed about developments in the client’s case, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption. Conditions to the discipline required Nesin to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court by notifying clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and filing 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, Nesin had a record of prior discipline in the underlying matter. Nesin demonstrated his indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of the misconduct. Also, he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings prior to entry of his default.

The order took effect June 28, 2008

In November 2001 Ogg was hired to help three members of a family sell their mobile home to a prospective buyer for $97,000. In addition, he agreed to act as the sellers’ escrow agent.

In December 2001 a contractor sued the clients for breach of contract. The family hired another attorney to represent them in that matter.

In early 2002 the buyer of the mobile home gave Ogg $97,000 to hold in trust as the purchase price for the clients’ mobile home. In February 2002 the sale closed, and Ogg agreed to hold $25,000 in trust for the prevailing party in the breach of contract lawsuit. Ogg also paid the clients $57,684 as their share of the sale, and provided them with a closing statement.

In March 2002 the attorney defending the clients in the civil action sought a temporary restraining order to prevent Ogg from disbursing the $25,000 until completion of the civil case. Ogg concurred with the attorney’s efforts and agreed to accept service by fax.

About one week later the court issued the restraining order. In May 2002 the balance in Ogg’s client trust account was overdrawn by $224. In August 2003 the court ruled in favor of the clients in the civil action, and the attorney asked Ogg to release the $25,000. But Ogg told the attorney that he no longer had the money because some of his employees had embezzled it.

In October 2003 the court issued an order for Ogg to pay the clients the $25,000, but Ogg failed to do so. Between October 2003 and March 2004 the other attorney made repeated requests to Ogg for information about the embezzlement, but Ogg failed to respond to the attorney’s inquiries. In April 2004 the attorney filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Ogg. Ogg defaulted, and the court issued a default judgment of $30,192 against him.

In a separate matter, in June 2002 the California Department of Corporations filed a lawsuit against Ogg for operating an escrow business without a license. About two weeks later the court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Ogg from acting as an escrow agent.

In June 2002 Ogg executed a declaration in which he deliberately misrepresented that his office had no open escrow accounts and that all escrows handled by his office were transferred or cancelled. At the time of the declaration, Ogg was handling the escrow for the sale of the clients’ mobile home and holding funds in escrow on behalf of the clients.

In aggravation, the misconduct harmed Ogg’s clients. He misappropriated client funds and failed to pay the default judgment of $30,192. Also, he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default. In mitigation, Ogg had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1955.

The order took effect June 19, 2008

In February 2007 Phillips was suspended for one year for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to maintain a current address with the State Bar, and charging and collecting an illegal or unconscionable fee.

Conditions to the discipline required Phillips 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, Phillips had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. He demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct. He also failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default.

The order took effect July 6, 2008

In September 2006 Raig was disciplined for failing to comply with the California Probate Code. Conditions to the discipline required him 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 promptly file the affidavit and failed to provide an explanation to the State Bar for his noncompliance.

In aggravation, Raig had a record of prior discipline. In 1980 he was placed on three years of probation for failing to perform legal services in four client matters, as well as for making misrepresentations to clients and others regarding the status of their matters. Two of the cases were probate cases.

In the current matter, the misconduct harmed the beneficiaries. Also, Raig failed to cooperate with the State Bar investigation and proceedings before entry of his default.

The order took effect July 19, 2008

In aggravation, the misconduct caused significant harm to a client, and Shang demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct.

The order took effect September 26, 2008

In March 2006 Stirling was suspended for one year and placed on seven years of probation after being found culpable in 32 client matters for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to return unearned fees, and assisting, soliciting, or inducing others in his law firm to violate the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Stirling was also ordered to make restitution of approximately $70,859 to 31 clients. Conditions to the discipline required him to, among other things, file quarterly probation reports, attend and complete State Bar ethics school, submit proof of completing State Bar Client Trust Accounting School, and submit a law office management plan. Stirling failed to comply with any of the imposed conditions.

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

The order took effect October 10, 2008

Between March 2004 and June 2007 Winrow used his client trust account to write checks for personal and business expenses. He also deposited personal funds into the client trust account. Between September 2005 and January 2006 he wrote eleven checks against the client trust account when there were insufficient funds in the account to pay the checks.

In aggravation, Winrow had a record of prior discipline. In September 2001 he was suspended for 75 days and placed on 30 months of probation for failing to promptly return a client’s file, failing to communicate, failing to competently perform legal services, failing to return unearned fees, and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

In July 2006 Winrow was suspended for 120 days and placed on three years of probation after being found culpable in three client matters. He was disciplined for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to communicate with clients, and failing to appear for three status conferences in one case.

In January 2007 he was suspended for three years for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in November 2001.

In the current matter the misconduct was surrounded by bad faith, dishonesty, and concealment. Winrow’s use of the client trust account was a means to hide his assets from creditors. Furthermore, he demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct, and he failed to exhibit an appreciation or understanding of his misconduct. In mitigation, the State Bar Court gave limited weight to Winrow’s pro bono work and his service on the boards of several community organizations.

The order took effect July 12, 2008