Discipline Report

Suspension

Ahmed, 44, was suspended for 90 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to competently perform legal services, helping others to engage in the unauthorized practice of law, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In November 2007 Ahmed was hired to represent clients in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The clients paid the $2,000 fees to Ahmed’s nonattorney employees, who then completed the bankruptcy forms and other documents for them. Ahmed never met with the clients, never counseled them, and personally performed no services for them.

In addition, the bankruptcy petition was not filed until after the clients lost their home in a foreclosure sale. Furthermore, the filed documents were incomplete, and Ahmed failed to appear in court to confirm the Chapter 13 plan. He allowed nonattorney employees to control the clients’ bankruptcy, and he allowed the nonattorney employees to give them legal advice.

In September 2008 the Disciplinary Panel of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California gave Ahmed a public reproval for failing to adequately supervise nonattorney employees, failing to competently perform bankruptcy services, and helping others to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. The court prohibited Ahmed from practicing before the court until he is reinstated. Also, any debtor Ahmed represents before the court within the following 60 months must be represented without compensation. Additionally, if Ahmed collects any approved fees, he must donate those funds to a charity, and he must disgorge the $2,000 fee he received from the Chapter 13 clients.

In aggravation, the misconduct involved dishonesty by allowing nonattorney employees to obtain client signatures on blank bankruptcy forms. In mitigation, Ahmed had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1995.

The order took effect February 10, 2010

Briggs, 67, was suspended for two years and placed on three years of probation after being found culpable of misconduct in four client matters by failing to competently perform legal services, failing to return unearned fees, failing to keep clients informed about significant developments in their cases, failing to promptly respond to client inquiries, failing to return client papers and property, improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to maintain a current address with the State Bar, and failing to cooperate with three State Bar investigations. Briggs will remain suspended until he makes restitution of $26,940 to four clients and provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law.

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

The order took effect February 7, 2010

Brown, 47, was suspended for 90 days and until the State Bar Court terminates the suspension. He was disciplined after failing to comply with conditions to a public reproval.

In August 2008 Brown received a public reproval for failing to comply with court orders to appear for two case management conferences. The reproval required Brown to comply with specific conditions. He failed to contact his probation monitor within the time ordered and failed to file two quarterly probation reports.

In aggravation, Brown had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. The current misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. Also, he failed to cooperate and participate in the State Bar proceedings prior to entry of his default.

The order took effect February 21, 2010

Burns, 54, was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation in a Review Department decision for failing to maintain client funds in trust and commingling funds.

Between November 2002 and November 2003 Burns deposited ten checks that totaled $83,828 into his client trust account as earned fees, thereby commingling funds. He wrote several checks against the trust account to pay business-related expenses, and he made transfers from the trust account to other accounts.

In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, Burns had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1988. During the State Bar proceedings he submitted evidence of his substantial pro bono activities and community work. He cooperated with the State Bar Court by stipulating to the misconduct and the imposed discipline.

The order took effect February 21, 2010

ampa, 43, was suspended for 18 months and placed on three years of probation after being found culpable of 13 counts of misconduct in three client matters by failing to competently perform legal services, failing to comply with court orders, failing to report imposition of judicial sanctions to the State Bar, failing to keep clients informed about significant developments in their cases, failing to respond to client inquiries, failing to cooperate with three State Bar investigations, and failing to comply with conditions to an April 2007 private reproval. He remains suspended until the State Bar Court terminates the suspension.

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

The order took effect February 13, 2010

Cogliandro, 62, was suspended for two years and placed on three years of probation. He remains suspended until he makes restitution of $10,000 to one client and provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law; and until the State Bar Court terminates the suspension. He was disciplined after being found culpable of 14 counts of misconduct in three client matters by failing to competently perform legal services, failing to respond to client inquiries, failing to keep clients reasonably informed about significant developments in their cases, failing to obey a court order, failing to return unearned fees, failing to return client papers and property, and failing to cooperate in three State Bar investigations.

In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients and to the administration of justice. Cogliandro failed to return an advance fee of $10,000, and he failed to cooperate and participate in State Bar proceedings prior to entry of his default. In mitigation, he had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1977.

The order took effect February 21, 2010

Greenspan, 47, was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to competently perform legal services and failing to maintain client funds in trust.

In July 2003 the law firm where Greenspan was employed assigned him to a criminal appeal: He was to review trial transcripts, propose legal arguments to support a writ of habeas corpus, and assist another attorney at the firm who was working on the case. Greenspan failed to complete the tasks he was requested to perform. As a result, in May 2004 the court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision.

In a second matter, in May 2006 Greenspan was admitted pro hoc vice by the Oregon court to represent a criminal defendant. He associated an Oregon attorney into the case, and Greenspan was paid $5,000 to represent the client. The funds were wire-transferred into an account that was not a client trust account. Greenspan used the advance fee to pay $3,060 to the Oregon attorney without the client’s permission. Also, he failed to provide an accounting of the advance fee.

In aggravation, Greenspan had a record of prior discipline, a 2001 private reproval. In mitigation, no clients were harmed by the misconduct. In 2006 and 2007 Greenspan had personal issues that have now been resolved, and he cooperated with the State Bar by stipulating to the violations and discipline.

The order took effect February 21, 2010

Haddix, 70, was suspended for 30 days and placed on five years of probation for failing to pay judicial sanctions in two matters, failing to notify the State Bar of the sanction orders, and failing to comply with conditions to a public reproval.

In August 2005 Haddix represented a corporate client in bringing a civil lawsuit. That November he appeared for the defendant’s motion for fees and costs. A few weeks later the court ordered Haddix and his client to pay the defendant $3,500 in sanctions. After Haddix filed two unsuccessful appeals, the sanctions order became final, but Haddix failed to pay the sanctions.

In a second matter, in 2006 Haddix represented a creditor in a bankruptcy. That June the court sanctioned Haddix and his client for violating a court order in the debtor’s discharge, assessing $44,989 for costs and attorney fees. Haddix failed to pay the sanctions or report them to the State Bar.

In a third matter, in April 2006 Haddix stipulated to a public reproval for misconduct. Conditions to the reproval included making an appointment with the office of probation within 30 days, filing quarterly probation reports, and attending and passing State Bar ethics school, but Haddix failed to timely comply.

In aggravation, Haddix had a record of prior discipline, the public reproval. In the current matter, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that harmed the administration of justice. He demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct. In mitigation, he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.

The order took effect February 21, 2010

Jordan, 43, was suspended for two years and placed on three years of probation for multiple counts of misconduct in eight client matters by failing to competently perform legal services, failing to make court appearances, failing to perform other services for which he was hired, failing to respond to client inquiries, improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to return unearned fees, and failing to return client papers and property. Jordan remains suspended until he makes restitution of $14,650 to four clients and provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law.

In aggravation, Jordan had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that harmed Jordan’s clients. In mitigation, Jordan suffered severe financial stress when he represented a client in a 13-codefendant criminal case, through a one-year jury trial, for which he received little compensation.

The order took effect February 13, 2010

Moriarty, 55, was suspended for 45 days and placed on one year of probation for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to respond to client inquiries, and failing to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in the client’s case.

In October 2004 Moriarty substituted into a case to represent the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit. The next month, the case was partially resolved with a settlement. In March 2005 Moriarty filed a lawsuit on behalf of the same plaintiff, suing the same defendant. The court set a case management conference (CMC), but Moriarty failed to appear, and the court issued an order to show cause (OSC) regarding dismissal. After Moriarty appeared for the OSC hearing, the court reset the CMC to September 2005, but Moriarty again failed to appear. The court then set a hearing on sanctions for October 2005, but Moriarty failed to appear and the court dismissed the case.

Between September and October 2005 the client left several telephone and an email messages requesting to know the status of the case, but Moriarty did not respond, and he failed to inform the client that her case had been dismissed.

In aggravation, Moriarty had a record of prior discipline: In 2000 he was suspended for 30 days and placed on three years of probation for making misrepresentations of fact to mislead the court, improperly withdrawing from representation, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption. Also, the current matter involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to a client and to the administration of justice.

In mitigation, Moriarty cooperated with the State Bar by stipulating to the misconduct, and he submitted four declarations attesting to his good character.

The order took effect February 21, 2010

Novicoff, 44, was suspended for 30 days and placed on three years of probation following her conviction for violating Arizona Revised Statute section 13-3407, possession of methamphetamine.

In August 2007 Novicoff and a friend were arrested by undercover police officers when the friend agreed to sell crystal methamphetamine to the undercover officer at a predetermined location. When interviewed at the scene by the other police officer, Novicoff admitted to holding a small amount of methamphetamine for her friend.

In aggravation, Novicoff had a record of prior discipline, a 2003 private reproval. In mitigation, following her conviction Novicoff entered a sober living program in October 2007 and completed the program the following May. She enrolled in graduate school and was able to graduate from the program in June 2010.

The order took effect February 13, 2010

James Todd Bennett, State Bar # 113009, El Cerrito (December 22). Bennett, 60, was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to file opening briefs in 45 petitions with the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, failing to dismiss 21 Ninth Circuit cases that were resolved or no longer viable, failing to comply with court orders, failing to comply with probation conditions, and failing to maintain respect due the courts.

In October 2004 Bennett filed a petition on behalf of his clients regarding an order of removal filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals. Shortly thereafter, he filed a petition for review with the Ninth Circuit. In March 2005 the court granted Bennett an extension to file certified administrative records; the court also set the dates for counsel to file briefs. Bennett failed to file an opening brief, and in October 2005 the court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute.

In a second matter, in July 2006 the Ninth Circuit adopted a recommendation that Bennett pay $1,000 as reimbursement costs associated with the court’s placing him on six months of probation for failing to pursue 45 petitions. He sought reinstatement of 21 cases, and the others were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to the court’s July 2006 order, Bennett filed a status report in July 2006 and a supplemental report in March 2007. In a June 2007 order the court found that Bennett had complied partially with its previous order. In January 2008 he filed a second status report with the court, and in March 2008 he filed a supplemental report. A year later the Ninth Circuit Appellate Commissioner placed Bennett on one year of probation.

In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing, which caused significant harm to the public or the administration of justice. In mitigation, Bennett had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1984, and in December 2003 he experienced health and personal problems. The State Bar received letters from attorneys and clients attesting to Bennett’s good character. The order took effect January 21, 2010.

The order took effect January 21, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Brubaker, 43, was suspended for two years and until he provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. He was suspended for failing to comply with conditions to a previous order of discipline and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In January 2006 Brubaker was suspended for 18 months and placed on probation for three years and until he made restitution of $2,500 to a client. He was disciplined for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to respond to client inquiries, failing to return unearned fees, failing to provide an accounting, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption. Conditions to the discipline required him to file quarterly probation reports, attend and pass State Bar ethics school, and maintain a current address and telephone number with the State Bar. He failed to timely comply with conditions to the 2006 discipline.

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

The order took effect January 14, 2009

This action originally appeared in our July 2010 issue.

Patrick Martin Buchanan, State Bar # 218881, Oceanside (December 22). Buchanan, 48, was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to maintain client funds in trust, commingling funds, failing to preserve account records, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In October and November 2005 Buchanan wrote client trust account checks to pay for personal expenses and issued trust account checks against insufficient funds. In July 2007 he requested assistance from the Lawyer Assistance Program (LAP) for his substance abuse and gambling addictions. A few days later the State Bar filed disciplinary charges against him. In April 2008 he entered the State Bar Alternative Discipline Program (ADP). In March 2009 the LAP Evaluation Committee terminated his participation for failure to comply with the program’s terms and conditions. In June 2009 the State Bar Court terminated Buchanan from the ADP due to his termination from LAP. The State Bar Court ordered that certain documents be sealed in this matter.

In mitigation, no clients were harmed by the misconduct. The order took effect January 21, 2010.

The order took effect January 21, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

John Richard Call, State Bar # 166415, Whittier (January 8). Call, 63, was suspended for two years and placed on four years of probation after being found culpable of 35 counts of misconduct in ten client matters by failing to competently perform legal services, failing to return unearned fees, failing to promptly respond to clients’ status inquiries, failing to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments in the client’s case, improperly withdrawing from representation, and failing to cooperate with nine State Bar investigations. Call remains suspended until he makes restitution of $16,350 to six clients and provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law.

In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients. In mitigation, Call had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1993. During the past five years, he suffered depression and continues to receive treatment for his condition. Prior to his misconduct, Call experienced extreme financial and personal problems. The order took effect February 7, 2010.

The order took effect February 7, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Bryant Keith Calloway, State Bar # 140431, Santa Ana (December 15). Calloway, 47, was suspended for two years and until he provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. He was disciplined for failing to comply with conditions to a previous order of discipline.

In February 2006 Calloway was placed on two years of probation for failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation and failing to comply with a court order. Conditions to the probation required Calloway to submit quarterly probation reports and a final report due in February 2008, and to complete four hours of minimum continuing legal education (MCLE) classes. He failed to timely comply with the conditions.

In aggravation, Calloway had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, Calloway submitted evidence of his extensive community and pro bono services, and witness statements attested to his good character. During the period of misconduct, he suffered extreme financial and family hardships. He cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. The order took effect January 14, 2010.

The order took effect January 14, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Cortez, 43, was suspended for six months and placed on three years of probation following his conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 23153(a), driving under the influence of alcohol; section 23153 (b), driving with a blood alcohol level greater than .15 percent; and section 12500(a), driving without a license.

In July 2008 Cortez was involved in a traffic accident in which he collided with another vehicle, causing severe and significant harm to the driver of the other vehicle. Cortez was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The criminal complaint alleged several Vehicle Code violations, with a prior driving-under-the-influence conviction in 2000. Cortez pleaded no contest to driving with a blood alcohol level greater than .15 percent, causing injury, and driving without a license. Cortez did not have liability insurance, and the injured party was forced to file an uninsured motorist claim. Cortez was sentenced to three years of formal probation and ordered to serve 180 days in county jail. In February 2009 Cortez was referred to the State Bar Court’s Alternative Discipline Program (ADP) and participated in the Lawyer Assistance Program. In May 2009 he tested positive for alcohol use. The next month he informed the State Bar that he no longer wanted to participate in the ADP.

In aggravation, the misconduct caused serious harm to another driver, who had three surgeries to correct damage to her neck caused by the collision. Cortez demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct by continuing to consume alcohol. In mitigation, he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. He demonstrated remorse by pleading no contest to the criminal charges and sought treatment for his alcoholism while in custody.

The order took effect January 1, 2010

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

Peter Remington Crane, State Bar # 196967, Sausalito (January 8). Crane, 39, was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to disclose all assets in his personal bankruptcy filing.

In March 2000 Crane repaid a loan to his mother, and the following day he hired an attorney to file a personal bankruptcy. The next day he filed a declaration attached to his debtors’ schedule, a statement of financial affairs, and verification of creditors. In his filings, he failed to disclose all of his assets, including the loan repaid to his mother, a draft complaint for wrongful termination against his previous employer, and rental income. During the meeting of creditors, he falsely stated that he had listed all of his assets in the schedules.

In June 2000 the bankruptcy discharge was granted.

In August 2000 he filed the complaint against his former employer for, among other things, wrongful termination. In April 2001 the U.S. Trustee learned of Crane’s failure to list all of his assets. The following month, the trustee filed an adversary proceeding seeking to revoke the bankruptcy discharge. A year later the U.S. bankruptcy judge revoked the discharge; the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals later upheld the lower court’s decision. In July 2007 Crane’s former employer informed the State Bar of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.

In mitigation, Crane had no record of prior discipline since being admitted the bar in 1998, and the State Bar had received no further client complaints since his initial misconduct. Also, during the period of misconduct, his father passed away and he was unemployed for seven months before his bankruptcy filing. The order took effect February 7, 2010.

The order took effect February 7, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

William Patrick Daley, State Bar # 53372, Oakland (December 22). Daley, 63, was suspended for nine months and placed on three years of probation after being found culpable of 14 counts of misconduct in seven client matters by aiding others to engage in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to competently perform legal services, failing to provide accountings of client funds, failing to maintain client funds in trust, failing to return unearned fees, sharing legal fees with a nonattorney, accepting legal fees from someone other than the client without the client’s informed written consent, and failing to return a client’s file.

In aggravation, Daley had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing, which caused significant harm to a client. In mitigation, he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. The order took effect January 21, 2010.

The order took effect January 21, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Fazzi, 62, was suspended for one year and placed on three years of probation for failing to competently perform legal services, charging and collecting an unconscionable fee, failing to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments in the client’s case, failing to maintain client funds in trust, misappropriating funds, commingling funds, misrepresenting facts to a client, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In 2003 Fazzi was hired to represent a client in a dental malpractice case. In April 2004 he requested $10,000 from the client to hire expert witnesses for the trial, which was scheduled to begin in June. Fazzi deposited the funds into his client trust account. The following day, he withdrew $5,762 from the client trust account by telephone.

The next month, he issued checks to pay court reporter costs for the client’s deposition and wrote other checks against the trust account that were unrelated to the client’s case. In June 2004 the balance in the client trust account was $162. After speaking to several dentists, Fazzi had difficulty hiring a dental expert. One week before trial, the client demanded a refund of $8,379. Three days before trial, opposing counsel filed two motions for nonsuit: One argued that Fazzi’s failure to find an expert witness served as a basis for a finding that the client could not prove that the dental treatment fell below the standard of care; the other argued that the complaint was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations. Fazzi did not respond to the motions, and he was unaware of the statute of limitations issue until the motion was served and filed. He wrote a trust account check to the client for $7,000 as partial payment of the expert witness advance, but it was returned due to insufficient funds. He borrowed money from a family mem-ber, which he deposited into the client trust account, and wrote a replacement check to the client.

On the day of trial, the court dismissed the case after hearing oral arguments. Fazzi informed the client by letter that he had upcoming surgery, explaining he would be unavailable for a time. He also made misrepresentations to the client regarding the money the client had provided for expert witness testimony. He told the client she was responsible for funds being used and that they were not recoverable because he had paid other witnesses for trial. The statement was not true. Fazzi said the client’s only option was to file an appeal on two causes of action not covered by the statute of limitations.

In October 2004 the client paid Fazzi $15,000 to handle the appeal. The next month, the appeal was dismissed because Fazzi had failed to file an opening brief and did not inform the client. In August 2005 the trial court issued a judgment of dismissal of the case and awarded attorneys fees and costs of $11,419. The judgment and interest were paid from proceeds of the sale of the client’s home.

In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, Fazzi had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1978. Also, while representing the client in the dental malpractice case, he was taking medication for injuries suffered in a car accident.

The order took effect December 17, 2009

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

Fukushima, 65, was suspended for 90 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to maintain client funds in trust and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.

Between October 2007 and January 2008 Fukushima misused his client trust account by withdrawing funds from it, causing a negative balance, and issuing checks against insufficient funds. In January and February 2008 the State Bar sent three letters to Fukushima regarding the alleged overdrafts. He failed to respond to the letters. In April and June 2008 a State Bar investigator wrote to Fukushima concerning the allegations, but he did not respond.

In mitigation, Fukushima had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1976.

The order took effect January 1, 2010

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

Jones, 47, was suspended for two years—with credit given for the period of his interim suspension, which began August 27, 2008—and until he provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. He was also placed on four years of probation. Jones was disciplined following his conviction for violating Penal Code section 529, personation, and for engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In 2007, while working as a deputy district attorney, Jones posted a photograph of a crime victim, and posed as the victim, on two Internet sites in which he solicited individuals for sex. He also posted the victim’s work and home telephone numbers on the Internet sites, and identified her employer. Some of this was done from the district attorney’s office. The victim, who worked as a county court employee, received calls at work and her home. In October 2007 Jones was placed on administrative leave, and in February 2008 he resigned from the DA’s office.

In June 2008 Jones pleaded guilty to personation, a felony involving moral turpitude. The next month, he was sentenced to serve 180 days in jail, or complete the adult offender work program, or perform 1,440 hours of community service. He was placed on five years of criminal probation, ordered to continue mental health counseling during his probation, required to submit to DNA testing, and ordered not to have contact with the victim. In August 2008 he was placed on interim suspension following his conviction.

In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing including repeated impersonations of the victim and encouraging persons to arrange for sexual engagements with her. The misconduct also harmed the reputation of the district attorney’s office, and required the services of other county agencies. In mitigation, Jones had no record of prior discipline since his admission to the bar in 1993. He cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.

The order took effect January 1, 2010

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

Kumpel, 50, was suspended for 60 days and placed on one year of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a previous disciplinary order.

In June 2007 Kumpel was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to competently perform legal services and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption. Conditions to the discipline required Kumpel to submit quarterly probation reports, attend and pass State Bar ethics school, comply with MCLE requirements, and schedule an appointment with his State Bar probation monitor. He failed to timely comply with the conditions.

In aggravation, Kumpel had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. Also, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, Kumpel was active in his local bar association, provided many years of pro bono activities, and was engaged in community activities.

The order took effect January 1, 2010

This action originally appeared in our July 2010 issue.

Lenz, 53, was suspended for 75 days and until he returns a client file and the State Bar Court terminates his suspension. He was disciplined for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to respond to client inquiries, failing to keep a client informed about significant developments in the client’s case, failing to return a client’s files, and failing to cooperate with two State Bar investigations.

In August 2007 former clients hired Lenz to update their estate documents, but he failed to do so. In October and November 2007 the clients made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Lenz. Between December 2007 and January 2008 the clients made additional efforts to reach Lenz by telephone and by letter, but he failed to respond to the clients’ inquiries.

In January 2008 the clients filed a complaint with the State Bar. In March through July 2008 State Bar investigators wrote to Lenz about the clients’ complaint and left telephone messages, but he failed to respond. In September and October 2008 the State Bar sent letters to Lenz regarding a complaint filed against him by another attorney, who alleged that Lenz had failed to return documents that belonged to his client. Lenz failed to respond to the State Bar letters and failed to return critical documents to the other attorney.

In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to Lenz’s clients. He demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct. In mitigation, Lenz had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1987.

The order took effect January 14, 2010

This action originally appeared in our July 2010 issue.

Cathye Elaine Leonard, State Bar # 177791, Berkeley (January 8). Leonard, 53, was suspended for 90 days and until she makes restitution of $2,000 to one client and the State Bar Court terminates her suspension. She was disciplined for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to promptly return unearned fees, failing to promptly release client papers and property, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.

In 2005 Leonard was paid $2,000 to represent a client in a family law case, but she failed to perform services for the client. In March 2008 the client terminated her services and requested return of the file and the advance fee. Leonard failed to respond to the letter and failed to return the client’s file and advance fee. In early 2008 a State Bar investigator wrote to Leonard repeatedly about allegations of misconduct filed by the client, but Leonard failed to respond to the investigator’s letters.

In aggravation, Leonard had a record of prior discipline. In 2006 she was placed on two years of probation after being found culpable in four client matters for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to respond to client inquiries, failing to return unearned fees and costs, accepting fees from a person other than the client, improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to promptly return client documents, and failing to promptly pay out funds on behalf of a client. The current misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. Also, she failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings prior to entry of her default. The order took effect February 7, 2010.

The order took effect February 7, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Leslie, 45, was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

In January 2002 Leslie’s voluntary enrollment as an inactive member of the State Bar became effective. Later, a woman contacted him about a lawsuit she was considering filing against another attorney. Over the course of several months, Leslie explained to the woman that he could not provide her with legal advice. He promised that he would reactivate his license if it became necessary to represent her.

In October 2003 Leslie provided the woman with some legal research, reviewed a complaint she had written, and drafted another complaint for her. Later that month the State Bar placed Leslie on active status. After reviewing correspondence between Leslie and the woman and reviewing his billing records, the State Bar Court concluded that Leslie had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

In aggravation, Leslie demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct. In mitigation, he had no prior record of discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1992.

The order took effect January 1, 2010

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

James Allen Macy, State Bar # 57677, San Diego (January 12). Macy, 62, was suspended for 18 months and placed on three years of probation for failing to maintain client funds in trust and failing to provide an accounting. Macy remains suspended until he provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law.

In December 2005 Macy was hired by a client’s wife to represent him in several matters—including a potential criminal matter, a civil case, and other civil disputes—that arose from the husband’s arrest.

Between then and January 2006 the client’s wife paid Macy $7,500. Later, Macy associated in two other attorneys: one to handle the criminal matter, and the other to handle the IRS issues.

In March 2006 the client’s wife gave Macy $31,000 in cash to hold in Macy’s safe. That August the wife gave Macy a check for $98,859 to hold in the client trust account until it was determined whether the federal government would claim the money. Macy was holding a total of $129,859 on behalf of the client. The next month the client reached an agreement with the U.S. Attorney regarding some of the legal issues; consequently, the government no longer had claim to the money in the client trust.

By the end of October 2006 the client had paid Macy $78,500 in legal fees, but he failed to provide the client with an accounting. Nonetheless, Macy unilaterally determined that the client owed him additional fees, and between September 2006 and January 2007 Macy paid himself an additional $65,000 in fees from funds he was holding in trust for the client. He also disbursed funds to the two attorneys he had associated into the client’s cases.

In January 2007 the client and one of the other attorneys wrote to Macy requesting an accounting of the client’s funds. Macy failed to reply to their letters and failed to produce the requested accounting. The next month, Macy sent the client a check for $58,000.

In May 2007 the client filed a complaint with the State Bar concerning Macy’s failure to return fees and to provide an accounting. That August, Macy responded to a letter from the State Bar about the complaint, and he provided the State Bar with an accounting of fees received. The next month, the client wrote to Macy stating that his accounting lacked sufficient detail regarding the dates and billed time associated with each service.

In April 2009 Macy filed an answer to the First Amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges and provided an accounting, which showed that his fees for services to the client totaled $158,461.

In mitigation, Macy had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1973. Also, during the period of misconduct, Macy experienced medical problems. The order took effect February 11, 2010.

The order took effect February 11, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Mangar, 44, was suspended for six months and placed on three years of probation for violating Penal Code section 602(m), occupying property without permission or consent of the owner, a misdemeanor.

In January 2005 Mangar was found on the premises of an elementary school, peering through a window of an empty classroom. When approached by the principal and a teacher, he said he was looking for a prism. He left the school grounds, and the principal called the police. He was sitting in his car when the police arrived. When they asked him why he was on the school grounds, he told them he was looking for a prism. When Mangar was searched, the police found a canister of pepper spray on his person and he was arrested. He told the police that he was an attorney and that his case would be forwarded to Great Britain for prosecution. The police asked if he wanted to call anyone; he said President Bush and Tom Ridge should be notified of his actions. He was released and instructed to appear for a hearing in March 2005. He failed to appear for the hearing, and a bench warrant was issued. Several days later he was arrested, and a deputy sheriff found crystal methamphetamine on his person.

In May 2007 Mangar pleaded nolo contendere to one count of violating Penal Code section 602(m), a misdemeanor. He was sentenced to one year of probation; he served two days in county jail in lieu of paying a fine and was ordered to pay restitution and fees.

In aggravation, Mangar had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter, he 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.

Martinez, 56, was suspended for nine months and placed on two years of probation following his discipline in Minnesota and failure to notify the State Bar of California.

In 2004 Martinez was convicted of sexual conduct in the fifth degree, a gross misdemeanor under Minnesota law, for improperly touching his adult stepdaughter. In April 2005 the conviction was affirmed on appeal. In August 2006 the Minnesota Supreme Court found that Martinez had committed professional misconduct. He failed to notify the State Bar of California about the Minnesota discipline.

In mitigation, Martinez had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1983. He cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. Also, he successfully complied with his probation conditions by completing a sexual offender program.

The order took effect December 24, 2009

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

Neely, 58, was suspended for 18 months and placed on probation for three years and until he provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. He was disciplined for failing to comply with conditions to a previous order of discipline.

In the earlier matter, Neely was suspended in November 2006 following his conviction for violating Penal Code section 273.5(a), inflicting corporal punishment on a cohabitant, a misdemeanor. Conditions to the discipline required Neely to file quarterly probation reports and to attend State Bar ethics school. He failed to file some of his probation reports, and he failed to attend State Bar ethics school.

In a second matter, in June 2007 Neely was involved in an altercation with his girlfriend while driving his car. During the altercation, he punched the girlfriend, giving her a bloody nose. The incident, which involved the same woman as the 2006 incident, violated a restraining order against him.

In January 2008 Neely pleaded guilty to violating Penal Code sections 242, misdemeanor battery, and 166(c)(1), violating a court order. He was sentenced to serve 60 days in county jail and placed on three years of criminal probation.

In aggravation, Neely had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. The misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused harm to the public and the administration of justice. Also, he demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct and failed to cooperate with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. In mitigation, at the time of his misconduct, Neely suffered family problems.

The order took effect January 1, 2010

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

Nguyen, 37, was suspended for 120 days and placed on three years of probation for failing to timely comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court.

In February 2008 Nguyen was suspended for 90 days and placed on two years of probation for improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to keep a client informed about significant developments in the client’s matter, and failing to promptly respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries. Conditions to the discipline required Nguyen to notify clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and file an affidavit of compliance within 40 days; he filed his affidavit seven weeks late.

In aggravation, the misconduct harmed the public and the administration of justice. In mitigation, Nguyen cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.

The order took effect December 17, 2009

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

Rifkin, 58, was suspended for two years and until the State Bar grants a motion terminating the suspension, and until he provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. He was disciplined for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to promptly respond to a client’s inquiries, improperly withdrawing from representation, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.

In February 2006 Rifkin represented a client in a workers’ compensation claim. Between May 2006 and December 2007 the client and opposing counsel made numerous attempts to contact Rifkin by telephone, email messages, and letter. Rifkin’s responses were rare and sporadic. He failed to answer the client’s questions, to respond to opposing counsel’s attempts to make the client available for an agreed medical examiner, to obtain funds for the client as reimbursement for the client’s out-of-pocket expenses related to the injury, and to perform services for the client.

In September and December 2007 a State Bar investigator wrote to Rifkin about allegations of misconduct filed against him by the client. Rifkin failed to respond to the investigator’s letters.

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

The order took effect December 17, 2009

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

Rosin, 40, was suspended for 120 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to maintain client funds in trust and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In April 2002 Rosin was hired by husband-and-wife clients to represent them in claims for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident. In April 2002 the clients’ insurance company sent Rosin two checks totaling $18,330. In October 2002 Rosin filed a lawsuit on behalf of the injured clients. In January 2004 Rosin received settlement amounts totaling $66,000. After deducting her fees and costs, Rosin was required to maintain $44,294 in trust on behalf of the clients. Medical expenses for the husband and wife totaled $206,956. She continued to negotiate the medical costs with the providers before disbursing funds to the clients.

Before Rosin was hired by the clients, she had hired her husband to develop a computer program to track much of her office work, including her bank accounts. Although Rosin checked her monthly bank statements, she was not aware of problems with the client trust account until January 2007, after a complaint was filed against her with the State Bar. In March 2009 she filed an interpleader and deposited $44,295 with the State Bar Court. The court concluded that Rosin negligently managed the client trust account, resulting in the misappropriation of $41,050.

In mitigation, after Rosin realized that the program she was using to track client funds was not working well, she hired an outside firm to set up a new accounting system, instituted new office procedures, and took a class in accounting. She submitted ten letters from people who attested to her good character, high ethical standards, and trustworthiness.

The order took effect January 14, 2010

This action originally appeared in our July 2010 issue.

Rowland, 61, was suspended for six months and placed on three years of probation after being found culpable of 27 counts of misconduct in six client matters by engaging in the practice of law in a jurisdiction where he was not admitted, failing to keep clients informed about significant developments in their cases, failing to inform clients he was not admitted to practice in the jurisdiction where their cases were pending, failing to pay judicial sanctions, failing to inform the State Bar that judicial sanctions were imposed, and failing to comply with conditions to a previous order of discipline.

In August 2007 Rowland was placed on two years of probation for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to promptly return unearned fees, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation. Conditions to the discipline required him to file quarterly probation reports, schedule a meeting with his probation monitor, attend State Bar ethics school, and pass the professional responsibility exam. He failed to comply with the conditions.

In aggravation, Rowland had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. The misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, Rowland suffered personal and family problems. He submitted letters from four people who attested to his good character and honesty.

The order took effect January 14, 2010

This action originally appeared in our July 2010 issue.

Robert Kelly Ruck, State Bar # 215712, Sacramento (January 8). Ruck, 41, was suspended for 30 days and until he makes restitution of $3,962 to two clients. He was disciplined for failing to keep a client informed about significant developments in the client’s case, improperly withdrawing from representation, and failing to provide an accounting of client funds.

In November 2006 Ruck was paid $500 to represent a client in an administrative proceeding with the Department of Social Services. The next month the department served Ruck with an Accusation setting forth its reasons for requesting revocation of his client’s license to operate a child-care facility. Ruck was required to file a Notice of Defense on behalf of the client within 14 days, but he failed to respond. In January 2007 the client made several attempts to contact Ruck without success, and she hired a new attorney. Later that month the department determined that Ruck had defaulted by failing to file the Notice of Defense and decertified the client’s child-care facility.

In February 2007 the new attorney succeeded in having the default set aside. The department attempted to contact Ruck and learned that his telephone line was disconnected. In March 2007 the department again decertified the client’s child care facility.

In a second matter, in September 2008 Ruck was paid $7,000 to defend a client accused of murder. Ruck met with the client in September and October 2008. At their last meeting the client terminated Ruck’s services and requested a refund of the advance fee. Ruck failed to return any of the unearned fees and failed to provide an accounting to the client.

In aggravation, Ruck demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct. In mitigation, he had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 2001. The order took effect February 7, 2010

The order took effect February 7, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Paul Stanley Sienski, State Bar # 143464, Brea (January 12). Sienski, 52, was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries, failing to return unearned fees, and failing to cooperate with two State Bar investigations.

In September 2001 Sienski was hired to represent a client in a real estate case. Three years later a partial settlement of the case was reached and the client was awarded $25,000, but Sienski took no action to finalize the agreement.

Between September 2004 and February 2007 the client made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact Sienski. In June 2007 the client sent Sienski a letter terminating his services.

In September 2008 a State Bar investigator wrote twice to Sienski about allegations of misconduct filed against him by the client, but he failed to respond.

In a second matter, in April 2008 Sienski was paid $4,000 to represent a client in a contract dispute. The following October the client terminated Sienski’s services and requested a refund of the advance fee. Sienski failed to return the fee.

In November and December 2008 a State Bar investigator wrote to Sienski about allegations of misconduct filed against him by the client, but he failed to respond.

In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that harmed clients. In mitigation, Sienski had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1989. Also, during the period of misconduct, Sienski suffered from the deaths of his parents. The order took effect February 11, 2010.

The order took effect February 11, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Jacqueline Staten, State Bar # 175733, Ontario (January 12). Staten, 45, was suspended for one year and placed on three years of probation for misconduct in five client matters by failing to return unearned fees, failing to competently perform legal services, and failing to maintain client funds in trust.

In April 2007 Staten was enrolled in the State Bar Lawyer Assistance Program (LAP), and in September 2007 the State Bar Court accepted her into the Alternative Discipline Program (ADP). In March 2009 Staten was placed on inactive status for violating the terms and conditions of the ADP. In May 2009 she was terminated for noncompliance with the ADP and for her earlier termination from the LAP. The State Bar Court ordered certain documents in this matter sealed.

In mitigation, Staten suffered from bipolar disorder and she demonstrated a connection between her mental illness and the misconduct. The order took effect February 11, 2010.

The order took effect February 11, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Rebecca Amelia Tapia, State Bar # 83053, Santa Monica (January 12). Tapia, 64, was suspended for four months and placed on five years of probation for misconduct in seven client matters by failing to keep a client informed about significant developments in the client’s case, commingling funds, disbursing funds from the client trust account to pay personal expenses, failing to competently perform legal services, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to return unearned fees, failing to comply with conditions to a previous order of discipline, and failing to provide an accounting in a probate matter in which she was ordered to pay the decedent’s estate $240,969.

In April 2004 Tapia joined the State Bar Lawyer Assistance Program to help her with substance abuse and mental health issues. In May 2004 the State Bar Court referred Tapia’s case to the Alternative Discipline Program (ADP). In June 2009 the State Bar Court found that Tapia had successfully completed the ADP. The State Bar Court ordered certain documents in this matter sealed.

In aggravation, Tapia had a record of prior discipline. In mitigation, during the period of misconduct Tapia suffered from emotional and physical problems in addition to financial stress. In the current matter, she cooperated during the State Bar’s investigation and proceedings. The order took effect February 11, 2010.

The order took effect February 11, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Taylor, 59, was suspended for five months and placed on three years of probation for misconduct in five client matters and two nonclient matters by failing to competently perform legal services and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. He was disciplined for failing to maintain client funds in trust, issuing client trust account checks against insufficient funds, misappropriating $3,135 in client settlement funds, failing to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to a client, failing to cooperate in five State Bar investigations, failing to promptly pay out client funds, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption. He was given credit toward the suspension for the period of his involuntary inactive enrollment from August 7, 2005, to January 25, 2006.

In mitigation, Taylor successfully completed the State Bar Lawyer Assistance Program and the Alternative Discipline Program. The State Bar Court concluded that Taylor’s substance abuse directly caused the misconduct, and ordered that certain documents in this matter be sealed.

The order took effect January 1, 2010

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

Charles David Trejo, State Bar # 187529, Los Angeles (January 12). Trejo, 48, was suspended for 45 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments in a client’s case, failing to pay judicial sanctions, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In October 2006 Trejo was paid $3,000 to dissolve a partnership between a client and the client’s brother. That December Trejo filed a lawsuit on behalf of the client. In February 2007 Trejo filed a first amended complaint after the defendant filed a demurrer.

In April 2007 the defendant filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. Between then and December 2007 Trejo ignored the defendant’s discovery requests. He ignored scheduled court appearances, court orders, and the client’s inquiries into the status of the case. He failed to respond to opposing counsel’s meet-and-confer letter regarding outstanding discovery responses, motions to compel discovery responses, and motion for terminating sanctions. In September 2007 the court dismissed the lawsuit.

In February 2008 Trejo told the client there were no scheduled court dates and that he was moving the case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for the Central District. Trejo also told the client that legal fees were due. But the client told Trejo that he never received a bill for services. Thereafter, Trejo did not communicate with the client. The next month, the client learned from opposing counsel that the case had been dismissed.

In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing, which significantly harmed the client and the administration of justice. Trejo demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct by failing to reinstate the client’s case and to inform the client about the status of the case. In mitigation, Trejo cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. Three witnesses attested to his good character. Also, during the period of misconduct, Trejo suffered severe financial and personal problems. The order took effect February 11, 2010.

The order took effect February 11, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Jay Twigg, State Bar # 88201, Ukiah (January 8). Twigg, 68, was suspended for one year and placed on four years of probation after being found culpable in 13 counts of misconduct that involved three clients. He was disciplined for representing more than one client in the same matter without obtaining the express written consent of the parties, failing to respond to client inquiries, failing to keep a client informed about significant developments in the client’s case, failing to return unearned fees, failing to return a client’s file, failing to provide an accounting of client funds, failing to competently perform legal services, failing to obey a court order, failing to pay judicial sanctions, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.

In aggravation, Twigg had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings, and during the period of misconduct, he suffered extreme financial difficulties and family problems. Also, he presented evidence to the State Bar Court of his pro bono activities, community work, and involvement in local bar associations. The order took effect February 7, 2010.

The order took effect February 7, 2010

This action originally appeared in our August 2010 issue.

Whitworth, 57, had her previous order of probation revoked and a new order issued in which she was suspended for one year, with credit toward the suspension for the period of her involuntary inactive enrollment that began August 29, 2009. She was disciplined for failing to comply with conditions to a previous disciplinary order.

In May 2008 Whitworth was suspended for 90 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to promptly pay out client funds and failing obey a court order. Conditions to the discipline required her to file quarterly probation reports, along with a certificate from a certified public accountant regarding the status of her client trust account. She failed to timely file her probation reports, failed to provide a statement from a CPA, and failed to timely report a change of her business address to the State Bar.

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

The order took effect December 24, 2009

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.

Lee, 44, stipulated to misconduct and was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to competently perform legal services, failing to promptly release a client file, failing to keep a client informed about significant developments in the client’s case, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.

In September 2006 Lee agreed to participate in the State Bar Alternative Discipline Program (ADP) and in May 2007 he joined the Lawyer Assistance Program (LAP) for help with mental health problems. In March 2009 the LAP Committee terminated Lee’s participation because he failed to comply with the LAP plan. The next month, the State Bar Court terminated Lee from the ADP and ordered that certain documents in this matter be sealed.

In aggravation, the misconduct caused significant harm to a client. In mitigation, Lee had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1993, and he cooperated during the State Bar proceedings.

The order took effect January 1, 2010

This action originally appeared in our June 2010 issue.