Discipline Report

Disbarment

Scimeca, 75, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court.

In December 2009 Scimeca was suspended for 90 days and until the State Bar Court terminated the suspension. She was disciplined for misusing the client trust account, failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption. Conditions to the discipline required Scimeca to notify clients and opposing counsel of her suspension within 30 days and file an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. She failed to file the affidavit and did not explain her noncompliance to the State Bar.

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

The order took effect March 24, 2010

Sneed, 59, was disbarred for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries, failing to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments in the client’s case, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In March 2006 Sneed was paid $1,189 to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on behalf of a client. In May 2006 the U.S. Trustee filed a motion to dismiss because Sneed had failed to file a statement of financial affairs; he later filed the correct documents. In June 2006 the trustee filed objections to the bankruptcy plan because Sneed had filed the documents too late for the trustee to review them properly before a scheduled meeting of creditors. The trustee continued to file objections and motions in response to Sneed’s handling of the bankruptcy, and the court dismissed the case in February 2007.

In March and May 2007 Sneed advised the client that the bankruptcy petition had been dismissed, but he promised to file a second petition and pay the filing fees. He explained to the client that during the time of the first filing he was ill.

In June 2007 the Trustee filed five objections to the second petition. In August 2007 until early the next month, Sneed was suspended for failing to pay his State Bar dues. He failed to advise the client and the court about his suspension. While on suspension, Sneed filed a motion to modify and confirm the bankruptcy plan. The court ordered Sneed to confirm the plan by November 2007. On the day the plan was due Sneed filed a motion to amend the plan, but a few days later the court dismissed the case and sent notice to the client.

Over the next few months the client left numerous telephone messages for Sneed asking about the dismissal, but Sneed failed to respond. In aggravation, Sneed had a record of prior discipline.

The order took effect March 26, 2010

Woo, 38, received a summary disbarment in a Review Department decision after his felony conviction for violating Health and Safety Code section 11352(a), transportation, sale, or giving away a controlled substance.

Woo had been on interim suspension since October 2009 following his conviction, which is now final. The Review Department concluded that the conviction met the criteria for summary disbarment.

The order took effect March 26, 2010

Michael Bruce Price, State Bar # 51363, South San Francisco (February 18). Price, 64, was disbarred in a Review Department opinion for failing to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court.

In December 2005 Price was suspended for 30 days and placed on four years of probation after being found culpable of misconduct in four client matters for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to communicate with clients, improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to promptly return client files, and failing to provide an accounting upon termination of employment. Among other conditions to the discipline, Price was required 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 the State Bar with an explanation for his noncompliance.

In aggravation, Price had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. In the current matter, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. The order took effect March 20, 2010.

The order took effect March 20, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

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

In September 2007 Christof was suspended for 18 months for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries, and failing to return unearned fees in one client matter. 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 file the affidavit and failed to provide the State Bar with an explanation for his noncompliance.

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

The order took effect January 21, 2010

This action originally appeared in our July 2010 issue.

Criscione, 52, was disbarred after failing to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court. In October 2008 Criscione was suspended for two years and until he made restitution of $3,394 to two clients and provided proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. He was disciplined after being found culpable of misconduct in four client matters by improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to respond to reasonable status inquiries, failing to keep clients reasonably informed about significant developments in their cases, failing to maintain a current address with the State Bar, failing to competently perform legal services, and failing to return unearned fees. Conditions to the discipline required him 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 provided no explanation to the State Bar for his noncompliance.

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

The order took effect December 17, 2009

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

Alan Peter Dove, State Bar # 168582, San Diego (February 24). Dove, 57, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court.

In May 2009 Dove was suspended for 60 days and until he paid a judgment of $860 and the State Bar Court terminated the suspension. He was disciplined for threatening another attorney with a State Bar action to gain an advantage in a small claims case, failing to competently perform legal services, failing to respond to a client’s status inquiries, failing to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments in the client’s case, failing to return unearned fees, and failing to cooperate in a State Bar investigation. Among other conditions to the discipline, Dove was required 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 the State Bar with an explanation for his noncompliance.

In aggravation, Dove had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. Also, he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings, which resulted in a default. The order took effect March 26, 2010.

The order took effect March 26, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Mark Forrest Cohn, State Bar # 85118, Scottsdale, Arizona (February 18). Cohn, 55, received a summary disbarment in a Review Department opinion following his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. section 1343, wire fraud, a felony.

In September 2008 the State Bar placed Cohn on interim suspension until final disposition of the matter. His conviction became final, and the Review Department ruled that the misconduct met the criteria for summary disbarment. The order took effect March 20, 2010.

The order took effect March 20, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Gong, 56, was disbarred after being found culpable in two client matters by failing to competently perform legal services, failing to return unearned fees, and failing to cooperate with two State Bar investigations.

In October 2003 Gong was paid $467 to file a motion for reconsideration of a client’s immigration application for legal residency. Four years later the client hired new counsel to represent him in the same matter; the new counsel filed documents with the court on behalf of the client. In July 2008 a State Bar investigator wrote to Gong about allegations of misconduct the client filed against her, but the letter was returned as undeliverable, as was a second letter. In July and August 2008 the investigator placed telephone calls to Gong, but the telephone number was disconnected.

In a second matter, between March and December 2006 Gong was paid $1,500 to represent a client in an immigration matter. In July 2006 she filled out forms on behalf of the client and filed them with the U.S. Immigration Service. The following June, before completing the tasks she was hired to perform, Gong notified the client that she was retiring from practice. The client requested that she refund the unearned fees, but Gong failed to do so. In July 2007 the client hired a new attorney to handle the immigration matter. A year later a State Bar investigator wrote to Gong about a complaint filed by the client, but the letter was returned as undeliverable. In September 2008 the investigator sent a second letter to an address in Texas. The letter was not returned.

In aggravation, Gong had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients.

The order took effect January 1, 2010

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

Henry, 47, was disbarred after he was found culpable of 16 counts of misconduct in four client matters by acquiring a pecuniary interest adverse to a client, failing to respond to client inquiries, failing to return unearned fees, failing to maintain client funds in trust, commingling funds, writing checks against a client trust account to pay for personal expenses, writing trust account checks against insufficient funds, failing to deposit client funds into the client trust account, misappropriating funds, failing to competently perform legal services, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients, including misappropriating $59,612 in client funds and failing to return $14,000 in unearned fees. Also, Henry failed to cooperate with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. In mitigation, Henry had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1988.

The order took effect December 17, 2009

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

Kooyumjian, 42, was disbarred for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries, failing to keep a client informed about his office address, failing to return unearned fees, and failing to comply with conditions to a disciplinary order. In July 2002 a criminal defendant who had been found guilty of manslaughter paid Kooyumjian $45,000 to represent him in appeals to the state and federal courts; to investigate possible juror misconduct during trial; to defend him in a civil suit filed by the family of the victim; and to represent him in a possible bankruptcy action.

Between September 2002 and March 2003 Kooyumjian filed the appeal and a brief with the California Court of Appeal, but he failed to raise any issues relating to possible jury tampering, and he did not respond to the state’s reply brief.

In June 2003 Kooyumjian appeared for the civil trial, but he did not notify the client of the trial dates and he did not talk with the client about any defense issues. He failed to respond to the plaintiff’s requests for admissions, so the admissions were deemed admitted by the court.

In October 2003 the state trial court issued a judgment of $500,690 in favor of the victim’s family. Kooyumjian failed to inform the client about the judgment. That same month the Court of Appeal affirmed the criminal conviction. Kooyumjian failed to inform the client that the appeal was denied, failed to conduct an investigation into possible jury misconduct, and failed to pursue the appeal further. The client later discovered the outcome of his cases and wrote numerous letters to Koo-yumjian asking for status reports. Kooyumjian failed to respond to the client’s letters. In November 2003 Kooyumjian changed his office address without notifying the client.

In February and March 2007 a State Bar investigator wrote to Koo-yumjian regarding allegations of misconduct that the client had filed against him. He failed to respond to the letters.

In a second matter, in October 2007 Kooyumjian was suspended for 18 months and placed on two years of probation after he was found culpable of 14 counts of misconduct in five client matters. The misconduct included failing to competently perform legal services, failing to promptly respond to client inquiries, failing to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments in the client’s case, failing to return unearned fees, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to promptly return client papers and property, failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation, and failing to maintain a current address with the State Bar. Conditions to the discipline required Kooyumjian to provide proof of attending meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous; to file quarterly probation reports, with screening reports from a licensed medical laboratory; and to make restitution of $4,500 to three individuals.

In aggravation, Kooyumjian had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. The misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing, and his failure to return $10,000 in advance fees caused significant harm to a client.

The order took effect January 14, 2010

This action originally appeared in our July 2010 issue.

Messer, 39, was disbarred after being found culpable of misconduct in two probate matters for misappropriating funds, improperly withdrawing from representation, charging and collecting fees in two probate cases without obtaining prior approval from the court, failing to maintain client funds in a client trust account, failing to obey court orders, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In July 2004 Messer was paid $1,000 to probate the estate of a client’s deceased wife, and the following September he filed a petition for probate. During a meeting in December 2004 Messer informed the client that $10,000 was required if the client wanted him to continue his representation; the client wrote a check to Messer for that amount. Messer knew or should have known that he was not entitled to the $10,000 without prior court approval. That same month the client met with Messer to sign the inventory and appraisal of the estate, which according to Messer was worth $398,782. But Messer’s accounting contained errors; the estate should have been valued at $145,768.

In April 2005 the client met with Messer to sign tax forms. In February 2006 Messer finally filed the signed inventory and appraisal. However, without the client’s knowledge or consent, Messer changed the date on that record to December 2005.

In March 2006 Messer filed the first and final accounting, plus other documents, without the client’s signature but with the simulated signature of the client. The next month Messer relocated his office without notifying the client of his new address and telephone number. The hearing on the accounting was continued several times to allow Messer to correct the errors. He failed to appear for the hearing in August 2006, and the client was cited by the court for failing to perform his duties as executor and ordered to appear in September 2006. About a month before the hearing, the client went to Messer’s former office and discovered that it was vacant. The client then hired a new attorney to handle the probate. In December 2006 the new attorney corrected the errors in the accounting, inventory, and appraisal.

In a second matter, in May 2005 Messer was paid $1,500 to represent another client in the probate of his deceased wife’s estate. Messer deposited the check into his general account instead of into the client trust account. The next month, Messer informed the client that the fees for handling the probate would be $35,000 and that preparing the estate’s tax returns would cost $32,000. Messer received checks from the client without prior court approval, and the money was deposited into his general account.

In January 2007 Messer filed a second supplement with the court. The supplement contained gross misrepresentations regarding the money received from the client, the purported selling of Messer’s law practice, his difficulty finding the buyer, and the refunding of advance fees and costs to the client—none of which was true. After several continuances, the matter was heard in May 2007. Messer did not appear, but the client’s new attorney appeared and the court ordered Messer to file an amended accounting. At the hearing, the court issued an order to show cause (OSC) as to why Messer should not be held in contempt for failing to provide a supplemental accounting. After several continuances of the OSC, the court found Messer guilty of making misrepresentations to the court and to the client. He was sentenced to five days in jail, stayed, and ordered to make restitution of $67,000. The State Bar wrote to Messer requesting his written response to allegations of misconduct. His responses contained misrepresentations of fact to the State Bar.

In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused harm to clients and to the administration of justice. Messer demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct and failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings prior to entry of his default.

The order took effect December 17, 2009

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

Fred Harold Middaugh, State Bar # 62133, Sequim, Washington (January 12). Middaugh, 66, was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a previous order of discipline.

In November 2007 Middaugh received a private reproval for failing to competently perform legal services. Among other conditions to the discipline, Middaugh was required to file quarterly probation reports and a final report, and to submit proof of completing six hours of continuing minimum legal education classes. He failed to timely file his probation reports and timely complete his legal education requirement.

In aggravation, Middaugh had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. Also, the current misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. The order took effect February 11, 2010.

The order took effect February 11, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Eugene Paolino, State Bar # 123208, Los Angeles (February 24). Paolino, 55, was disbarred after he was found culpable of ten counts of misconduct in two client matters by communicating with a represented party, threatening criminal action to gain an advantage in a civil action, aiding another to engage in the unauthorized practice of law, engaging in a scheme to defraud clients, failing to appear for court hearings, allowing a nonattorney to set and collect fees, sharing legal fees with a nonattorney, charging and collecting an illegal or unconscionable fee, permitting misuse of his name in cases, failing to competently perform legal services, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In aggravation, Paolino’s wrongdoing demonstrated a pattern of misconduct that harmed clients. He demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct. The order took effect March 26, 2010.

The order took effect March 26, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Patino, 61, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court.

In November 2008 Patino was placed on interim suspension following her conviction for violating Penal Code section 166(a)(4), willful disobedience of a court order, a misdemeanor; section 242, battery, a misdemeanor; and section 646.9(a), stalking, a felony. Conditions to the suspension required Patino to notify clients and opposing counsel of her suspension within 30 days and to file an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. She failed to file the affidavit and failed to provide the State Bar with an explanation for her noncompliance.

In aggravation, Patino had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter, she failed to respond to the State Bar’s notice of disciplinary charges, which resulted in her default being entered.

The order took effect January 14, 2010

This action originally appeared in our July 2010 issue.

Schelly, 67, was disbarred in a Review Department opinion after being found culpable of six counts of misconduct by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, making misrepresentations to a U.S. Immigration Court, failing to return unearned fees, failing to respond to clients’ inquiries, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In aggravation, Schelly had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing.

The order took effect December 24, 2009

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

Silman, 41, was disbarred for misappropriating client funds, failing to maintain client funds in trust, failing to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In June 2004 Silman was hired to represent a client in a real property suit. To help fund the litigation, the client obtained a loan for $375,000. In August 2004 Silman received a transfer of $240,635 from the escrow company, and the money was deposited into his client trust account. He then withdrew $12,942 from the trust account and deposited the money into his general account, which he used for his own purpose and benefit without the client’s knowledge and consent. A week later, he transferred $7,125 from his general account into the client trust account to replace some of the money he misappropriated.

In January and February 2005 he disbursed $19,166 on behalf of the client and transferred $118,000 to the escrow company to fund a settlement of the real property dispute. By May 2005 Silman had misappropriated a total of $89,844 in client funds.

In a second matter, in December 2008 Silman was suspended for 90 days and placed on three years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a private reproval. In June 2006 he stipulated to a private reproval for failing to competently perform legal services and failing to adequately communicate with a client. Conditions to the discipline required Silman 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 the State Bar with an explanation for his noncompliance.

In aggravation, Silman had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. The misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused harm to a client. He demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct, and he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings prior to entry of his default.

The order took effect January 21, 2010

This action originally appeared in our July 2010 issue.

Stein, 38, was disbarred after being found culpable of 21 counts of misconduct in seven client matters by failing to competently perform legal services, failing to keep clients reasonably informed about significant developments in their cases, failing to respond to reasonable status inquiries, improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to provide an accounting, failing to obey a court order by failing to pay a judicial sanction, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, accepting fees from a nonclient, failing to return unearned fees, failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In aggravation, Stein had a record of prior discipline. In October 2009 he was suspended for 90 days and until the State Bar Court granted a motion to terminate the suspension.

The order took effect December 24, 2009

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.