Discipline Report

      DISBARMENT
      John R. Lothrop, State Bar # 158111, San Leandro (January 18). Lothrop, 49, was disbarred for failing to perform legal services competently, engaging in acts of moral turpitude, and failing to maintain a current address with the State Bar.
      In November 2003 Lothrop was hired by two clients to represent them in a business dispute with a third person. Lothrop was to dissolve a partnership and draft a new contract between the two clients. In December 2003 he filed a complaint against the third person for partnership dissolution, accounting, and fraud. In February 2004 the court issued a notice for a case-management conference that was set for hearing in April 2004. The notice also ordered Lothrop to serve the complaint on the defendant and to file proof of service within 60 days after service.
      That same month attorneys representing the defendant wrote to Lothrop complaining that he had not returned their telephone calls and had not provided them with a copy of the complaint. In March 2004 one of Lothrop's clients was served with a complaint in a second case, filed by the third person. The client called Lothrop about being served. Lothrop told the client he would take care of the situation. Between March and May 2004 Lothrop failed to file an answer on behalf of his client. In May 2004 opposing counsel filed a request for entry of default.
      Five days later opposing counsel offered to set aside the default if Lothrop submitted both cases to binding arbitration. Lothrop failed to respond. In mid-May 2004 the court entered a default judgment in the first case, Lothrop's client's complaint. The following day Lothrop told the court that both cases were set for binding arbitration?a statement he knew was not true. In June 2004 Lothrop responded affirmatively to an offer by opposing counsel to pay $2,000 in attorneys fees, to consolidate both cases, and to prepare a stipulation for binding arbitration or to dismiss the first case. Opposing counsel heard nothing further from Lothrop about the proposed stipulation.
      In October 2004 Lothrop failed to appear for a continued case-management conference. The court lifted its previous stay of an order imposing $250 in sanctions and reissued the order for sanctions. Between October and November 2004 the clients telephoned Lothrop 13 times requesting a status report on their cases, but Lothrop failed to respond to the clients' messages. In December 2004 the clients hired a new attorney. The new attorney succeeded in having the default judgment set aside. As of January 2006 Lothrop had failed to notify the clients about opposing counsel's offer, failed to discuss or seek the clients' consent to binding arbitration, and failed to inform the clients he had agreed to binding arbitration without their authorization to do so.
      In February 2005 a State Bar investigator wrote to Lothrop requesting a written response to allegations of misconduct filed against him by the clients. The letter was returned as unable to be forwarded. In March 2005 the State Bar attempted to contact Lothrop by telephone but found his telephone number was disconnected.
      In aggravation, Lothrop had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. He demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct by failing to comply with the terms of opposing counsel's agreement. Also, he failed to cooperate with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect February 17.
     
      Robert E. Noel, State Bar # 68477, Fairfield (January 18). Noel, 65, was disbarred for failing to notify clients and opposing counsel of the suspension of his State Bar license.
      In April 2002 Noel was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for violating Penal Code section 192(b), manslaughter, and section 399, keeping a mischievous animal. Conditions required him to comply with rule 955 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 or provide an explanation to the State Bar for his noncompliance.
      In aggravation, Noel demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct by failing to comply with rule 955, even after being reminded to do so by the State Bar. In mitigation, the State Bar Court took notice that Noel had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1976.
      The order took effect February 17.
     
      Robert D. Pryce, State Bar # 114382, Los Angeles (January 18). Pryce, 56, received a summary disbarment after his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. section 1951, conspiracy to interfere with commerce by extortion; section 371, conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. section 666, bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds; sections 1341 and 1346, mail fraud regarding the right of honest services; and section 1956, money laundering. In December 2003 Pryce was placed on interim suspension after his conviction. The State Bar Court found that the misconduct met the criteria for summary disbarment.
      The order took effect February 17.
     
      Oliver L. Saunders, State Bar # 97300, Fresno (January 18). Saunders, 68, was disbarred for failing to notify clients and opposing counsel of the suspension of his State Bar license.
      In July 2005 Saunders was suspended for 90 days and placed on two years of probation after being found culpable in four client matters and one administrative matter. He was disciplined for failing to promptly file bankruptcy petitions for two clients; requesting a continuance in a bankruptcy hearing and then failing to appear for the new hearing date, which resulted in dismissal of the petitions; failing to correct a notice of deficiency by failing to obtain a client's signature on a statement of financial affairs; failing to appear for a continued pretrial conference in a criminal matter; failing to appear for three scheduled meetings of creditors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 341(a); failing to comply with continuing legal-education requirements; and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
      Conditions to the discipline required Saunders to comply with rule 955 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 in a timely matter.
      In aggravation, Saunders had a record of prior discipline. In 2005 the underlying matter occurred. In mitigation, during the State Bar proceedings, one witness who had known Saunders for 25 years testified to his ability as an attorney. The State Bar Court found that the testimony did not amount to an extraordinary showing of Saunders's good character.
      The order took effect February 17.
     
      Robert S. Shatzen, State Bar # 54542, Portland, Oregon (January 18). Shatzen, 65, was disbarred for failing to notify clients and opposing counsel of the suspension of his State Bar license.
      In December 2005 Shatzen was suspended in California for four months following his discipline in Oregon for attorney misconduct. He was disciplined for engag-ing in false or deceptive advertising and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption. Conditions to the discipline required him to comply with rule 955 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 or provide an explanation to the State Bar for his noncompliance.
      In aggravation, Shatzen had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. Also, he demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct by failing to comply with rule 955, and he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default.
      The order took effect February 17.
     
      RESIGNATION
     
      The following attorneys resigned from the bar with unspecified disciplinary charges pending. Their resignations were accepted without prejudice to further disciplinary proceedings should they seek reinstatement.
     
      Bernard E. Galitz, State Bar # 104445, Desert Hot Springs (December 21). Galitz, 73, resigned from the bar on October 27. The order took effect January 20.
     
      David S. Henderson, State Bar # 179174, Chico (January 18). Henderson, 38, resigned from the bar on December 15. The order took effect February 17.
     
      Donna M. Houck, State Bar # 160422, Ashley, Ohio (December 21). Houck, 63, resigned from the bar on November 15. The order took effect January 20.
     
      Marjorie F. Knoller, State Bar # 158054, Del Ray Beach, Florida. (December 21). Knoller, 51, resigned from the bar on November 21. The order took effect January 20.
     
      Geoffrey C. Mousseau, State Bar # 135769, Glendale (January 18). Mousseau, 43, resigned from the bar on December 7. The order took effect February 17.
     
      Michael R. Suverkrubbe, State Bar # 188262, San Diego (January 18). Suverkrubbe, 44, resigned from the bar on December 4. The order took effect February 17.
     
      Michael Weintraub, State Bar # 103046, San Diego (December 29). Weintraub, 53, resigned from the bar on November 20. The order took effect January 28.
     
      SUSPENSION
     
      James M. Coose, State Bar # 154099, New Caney, Texas (January 18). Coose, 51, was suspended for six months and placed on two years of probation for accepting fees to represent a client from someone other than the client, sharing fees with a nonattorney, failing to return unearned fees, and failing to comply with conditions to a previous order of discipline. Coose was also ordered to pay restitution of $500 to a client.
      In September 2002 husband-and-wife clients agreed to pay a nonattorney firm, Budget Legal Centers, $500 to prepare a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Coose shared an office with the center. Between October and November 2002 the clients paid an additional $900 to the center for Coose to prepare a motion to avoid a lien on the clients' property.
      In December 2002 the clients met with Coose to sign papers for the bankruptcy petition. In January 2003 the center paid Coose $500 for his work on the petition. The clients were not told that Coose would receive his fee from the center, and they had not consented in writing to that arrangement. Coose never filed the clients' bankruptcy and never filed the motion. Later, the bankruptcy was filed by another attorney. In October 2004 the clients sent a letter to Coose demanding the return of unearned fees.
      In aggravation, Coose had a record of prior discipline, a 2005 discipline. In mitigation, he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect February 17.
     
      Deborah A. Duggan, State Bar # 113112, Oakland (January 5). Duggan, 60, had her previous order of probation revoked and was suspended for three years. Duggan was given credit for her period of involuntary inactive enrollment, which began on October 15, 2006. She was disciplined for failing to comply with conditions to a previous order of discipline.
      In February 2005 Duggan was suspended for 13 months, placed on three years of probation, and ordered to make restitution to her clients. Duggan was found culpable in eleven client matters for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to communicate, failing to account for client funds, improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to promptly return client papers and property, failing to promptly return unearned fees, and failing to avoid representing interests adverse to clients.
      She also was found culpable in nine matters for failing to maintain client funds in trust by writing 228 checks against the client trust account to pay for personal and other nonclient-related expenses. She failed to promptly remove earned fees from the client trust account, and she commingled funds. She also wrote 121 checks for cash drawn against the client trust account, with 32 of the checks written against insufficient funds. The client trust account violations occurred between July 1999 and January 2002.
      Duggan failed to comply with conditions to the discipline by failing to file the probation reports for all of 2005 and failing to file another report due in April 2006. She also failed to submit proof that she obtained mental health counseling, failed to submit a law-office management plan, failed to attend ethics school or trust-accounting school, and failed to make restitution payments as ordered by the court.
      In aggravation, Duggan had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. In the current matter the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing.
      The order took effect February 4.
     
      James F. Goodfellow, State Bar # 133082, San Francisco (December 20). Goodfellow, 46, was suspended for one year after his conviction for violating Health and Safety Code section 11377, possession of a controlled substance.
      In July 2004 Goodfellow was caught shoplifting $17 in goods from a grocery store. While detaining Goodfellow, a security guard searched a shopping bag Goodfellow was holding. In the bag, the guard found small bags of a powder that was later determined to be crystal methamphetamine. In September 2004 Goodfellow pleaded nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance. He was placed on three years of criminal probation, given credit for six days served in jail, fined $500, ordered to make restitution of $100, and required to submit to drug counseling and testing.
      In May 2005 Goodfellow failed to appear for a progress report, and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. In October 2006 he appeared in court and admitted to the probation violation. The court extended his probation until October 2008.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing and was surrounded by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, and overreaching. Goodfellow demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct by failing to comply with the conditions to his criminal probation. He also demonstrated a contemptuous attitude by failing to participate in the State Bar proceedings.
      The order took effect January 19.
     
      Brooke P. Halsey Jr., State Bar # 142330, Tiburon (December 13). Halsey, 44, was suspended for three years and placed on five years of probation for failing to disclose information; failing to reveal exculpatory evidence; engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; suppressing evidence in a criminal case; misrepresenting facts to a trial court during discovery and trial; attempting to mislead a trial judge; and failing to disclose a previous personal relationship with a defendant.
      In 1990 Halsey began working as a deputy district attorney handling cases for the California Department of Fish and Game. In late 1999 a 911 operator received a call from a man reporting that his wife had committed suicide by drowning herself in a bucket of water. The sheriff's department determined that the death was a suicide.
      Several days later a forensic pathologist performed an autopsy on the decedent woman. It was later learned that the pathologist was not competent and had made several serious errors during the autopsy. As a result of the errors, the sheriff's department came to suspect the woman was murdered by her husband, a doctor, and the sheriff's department began treating the case as a homicide. In December 2000 Halsey was assigned to the case?his first homicide case?during the grand jury proceeding after the husband was indicted for murder and other related charges. The husband's attorney hired an investigator to look into the background and record of the pathologist. After learning about the pathologist's troubled past, the defense attorney gave the information to a reporter for a local newspaper.
      In May 2001 the reporter contacted one of the detectives working on the case, who then told Halsey about the problem with the pathologist, who was expected to give expert-witness testimony at trial. In June 2001 the newspaper published a story about the pathologist, exploring his background and problems he had while working in other jurisdictions. The article was potentially damaging to Halsey's prosecution of the case because the news story called into question the pathologist's competence and findings and the conclusions of the autopsy. As a result, someone in the sheriff's department hired a speech expert and communications trainer to help the pathologist with his trial testimony.
      Between June and November 2001 the pathologist had 40 sessions with the trainer. Videotapes were made of the sessions, and the trainer made written notes at each session. When Halsey learned about the videotaping, he suggested conducting a mock trial to better prepare the pathologist for trial. He also presented questions for the trainer to ask the pathologist and suggested answers to the questions. In August and September 2001 two mock trials were conducted, and each was videotaped.
      Halsey received an informal request from the defense for all information in his possession or control concerning the investigation of the pathologist. He replied to defense counsel that investigating the pathologist was irrelevant to the case. In separate discovery hearings, Halsey told the court the requested information was irrelevant, that it contained only opinion evidence, and that it contained personnel records requiring release by the sheriff's department. He also said that the information was not in his possession and was not known to him. He further said that he was aware only of the general content and type of information gathered, and that those who conducted the investigation of the pathologist were not detectives.
      In November 2001 the murder trial began. The same day, defense counsel and his investigator received a report about a botched autopsy on an infant, performed by the same pathologist, that listed the cause of death as a homicide when it was not a homicide. Halsey requested and received a continuance of the trial. The next day Halsey and his investigator went to Halsey's other medical expert, who told them that the decedent woman may have died of an asthmatic event and not from suffocation. About ten days later a defense investigator and attorney also visited the same medical expert and received the same opinion Halsey and his investigator had.
      In early December 2001 Halsey told the court that, based on his interview with his medical expert, he was moving forward with the prosecution. One week later the local paper ran a story about the coaching of the pathologist, the mock trials, the rehearsed testimony, and the use of a trainer to improve the pathologist's public-speaking ability during trial. The defense attorney then learned for the first time about Hal-sey's preparation of the pathologist for trial. Defense counsel requested discovery of the mock trial tapes, statements, and evidence that had not been previously released to the defense.
      Halsey admitted to the court the existence of videotapes made of the mock trials. The court ordered release of all evidence, tapes, and written statements regarding the pathologist. After reviewing the tapes and notes, the court held a hearing to determine the impact the new evidence would have on the trial. At the hearing, Halsey denied coaching the pathologist and denied any previous knowledge of the videotapes. The next day, Halsey requested the court to dismiss the case. In December 2001 the court granted the motion to dismiss.
      In aggravation, Halsey's misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that harmed the public and the administration of justice. In mitigation, Halsey had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1989. He submitted testimony from 16 witnesses who attested to his good character and held him in high regard for his integrity and work ethic.
      The order took effect January 12.
     
      Karla D. Henderlong, State Bar # 100899, Walnut Creek (January 18). Henderlong, 51, was suspended for 90 days and placed on two years of probation for commingling funds in her client trust account and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      Henderlong wrote about 50 client trust account checks to pay for personal and nonclient-related expenses. She also deposited nonclient funds into the client trust account, wrote checks against insufficient funds in the account, and failed to withdraw earned funds from the account. Between June 2004 and May 2005 a State Bar investigator wrote several letters to Henderlong regarding the insufficient funds checks and other matters relating to violations of the client trust account. Henderlong failed to respond to the investigator's letters.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, there were no client funds in the trust account during the time of the misconduct. Also, during the period of misconduct, Henderlong suffered from physical and emotional problems, including attention deficit disorder.
      The order took effect February 17.
     
      PROBATION
     
      James B. Canalez, State Bar # 177649, Fresno (December 13). Canalez, 57, was placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to keep clients informed about developments in their matters, improperly withdrawing from representation, and failing to promptly return unearned fees.
      In February 2001 Canalez was paid $1,500 to help a client obtain permanent residency in the United States. After April 2001 Canalez ceased performing work on the client's behalf. Between August 2001 and early 2002 the client made attempts to learn the status of his immigration matter but was told by a nonattorney member of Canalez's office that more time was needed to complete the work. In early 2002 the client learned that Canalez had not filed any documents with the immigration court on his behalf. Later, the client filed a small claims action against Canalez to recover the $1,500 advance fee. In May 2006 Canalez sent the client a check for the $1,500.
      In a second matter, in April 2001 Canalez was paid $1,500 to help another client obtain legal residency in the United States. By May 2001 Canalez had stopped performing work on the client's matter. Later, the client filed a small claims action against Canalez for the $1,500 advance fee. In September 2005 the client agreed to accept $1,200 as full payment of the unearned advance fee.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients. In mitigation, Canalez cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect January 12.
     
      PUBLIC REPROVAL
     
      Gregory J. Bulliung, State Bar # 144474, San Francisco (November 27). Bulliung, 54, received a public reproval after his conviction for drunken driving.
      In March 2006 Bulliung was arrested while driving under the influence of alcohol. A blood test revealed his blood-alcohol level was 0.19 percent. He later pleaded guilty to violating Vehicle Code section 23152(b), driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood-alcohol level greater than 0.08 percent. This was Bulliung's second arrest for driving under the influence. In 1992 he pleaded guilty to driving under the influence with a blood-alcohol level of 0.11 percent.
      In mitigation, Bulliung had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1989. He cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect December 18.
     
      Paul Chan, State Bar # 189288, Sacramento (November 30). Chan, 46, received a public reproval for failing to keep a client informed of developments in the client's case, failing to respond to a client's status inquiries, and failing to return unearned fees promptly.
      In August 2003 Chan was hired to represent a client in a criminal matter who faced a possible third conviction under the state's three-strikes sentencing law. That same month Chan's firm was paid $10,000 to represent the client. Between September 2003 and February 2004 the client and the client's mother left numerous telephone messages for Chan, but he failed to respond. The client also wrote numerous letters to Chan asking about the status of his case, but Chan failed to respond to the letters and telephone messages. In February 2004 the client's mother delivered written requests from her son to Chan, asking that her son be kept informed about developments in the case, requesting Chan to file a motion regarding the client's situation with the three-strikes law, and requesting that the son speak to Chan directly because the motion-cutoff date was approaching. The son's written requests also stated that if Chan could not work on the case, he should refund the advance fee so the son could hire another attorney.
      Chan received the written requests but failed to respond to the client. In March 2004 the client wrote to Chan expressing his displeasure with his firm's legal services. In the same letter, the client made another request for an accounting and refund of the advance fee. Chan failed to respond to the client's requests. In July 2004 the client's mother wrote to Chan again requesting an accounting and a refund of the $10,000 advance fee, but Chan failed to respond to the letter and failed to return any portion of the unearned fees.
      In mitigation, Chan had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1997.
      The order took effect December 21.
     
      John L. Gezelius, State Bar # 144008, Tustin (December 5). Gezelius, 51, received a public reproval for improperly withdrawing from representation and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      In 2004 Gezelius was hired to handle the probate of a client's deceased mother's estate. In March and June 2004 Gezelius initiated the probate and obtained a court order appointing the client as executor of his mother's estate. In January 2005 the client learned about a potential buyer for the real property in the estate and notified Gezelius about the potential sale. Gezelius agreed to prepare the necessary documents. Between January and September 2005 the client sent numerous letters and several email messages to Gezelius requesting information about the documents to sell the estate property. Gezelius failed to respond. In September 2005 the client sent Gezelius another letter along with a substitution-of-attorney form. The client asked Gezelius to sign and return the form, but he failed to respond to the letter and failed to return the substitution-of-attorney form.
      In October and November 2005 a State Bar investigator wrote to Gezelius requesting a written response to allegations filed against him by the client, but Gezelius failed to respond to the investigator's letters. After being contacted by the State Bar in January 2006, Gezelius signed and returned the substitution of attorney to the client.
      In aggravation, Gezelius failed to cooperate with the State Bar during its investigation and caused excessive delay in returning the signed substitution of attorney. In mitigation, during the period of misconduct Gezelius was caring for his elderly mother. In October 2006 his mother died. He became depressed after her death and began receiv-ing psychotherapy.
      The order took effect December 27.
     
      Michael A. Giulianti, State Bar # 237078, Hollywood, Florida (November 27). Giulianti, 36, received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently.
      In September 2005 Giulianti was paid $500 to represent a client charged with a moving traffic violation, driving 107 miles per hour in a 70-mile-per-hour zone. The client, a resident of Georgia, was ordered to appear in court in Barstow. In October 2005 the client and two others met with Giulianti at his office. The trial was scheduled for December 2005, and was to begin at 8:30 a.m. On the day of the trial, Giulianti called the court clerk saying he could not appear at 8:30 a.m. because of a scheduled court appearance in Temecula, but he could appear at 1:30 p.m. The client's case was nevertheless called at 11 a.m. The client explained to the judge that Giulianti could not be there until 1:30 p.m. The judge said he would not wait for Giulianti, and the case went forward. The client was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine. The client waited for Giulianti until 12:30 p.m., but he did not appear. The next day the client telephoned Giulianti requesting return of the unearned $500 fee. Giulianti failed to return the money to the client.
      In aggravation, the misconduct caused significant harm to the client, the public, and the administration of justice. In mitigation, Giulianti cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect December 19.
     
      Kenneth C. Greene, State Bar # 95210, Kentfield (December 8). Greene, 51, received a public reproval after his conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a), driving under the influence of a drug.
      In June 2005 Greene was observed by police officers driving in an unsafe manner. The officers stopped Greene and performed a field sobriety test, which he failed. A blood test revealed he was under the influence of prescription and nonprescription drugs. In December 2005 Greene was convicted for the Vehicle Code violation.
      In mitigation, Greene had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1980. No clients were harmed by the misconduct. Also, during the period of misconduct, Greene suffered difficulties in his personal life.
      The order took effect January 2.
     
      Thomas J. Hastert, State Bar # 143101, Grass Valley (December 11). Hastert, 51, received a public reproval for aiding another in the unauthorized practice of law.
      In 2001 Hastert was hired by the owner of a collection agency to represent the agency in litigation. In 2003 Hastert and the owner entered into an agreement under which the owner initiated collection litigation. Hastert allowed the owner to draft complaints and sign Hastert's name to the complaints, as well as to summonses, requests for entry of default, and default judgments. The owner also signed Hastert's name to dismissals and an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, without Hastert's knowledge or supervision.
      In mitigation, Hastert had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1989. He demonstrated remorse for his misconduct and cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings, and he submitted references from others who attested to his good character.
      The order took effect January 3.
     
      William R. Kiefer, State Bar # 202048, Riverside (November 30). Kiefer, 57, received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently by failing to supervise an employee adequately.
      In November 2004 Kiefer was paid $1,000 to represent a client in an appeal to an order of deportation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Kiefer failed to supervise a nonattorney employee adequately, and he failed to monitor the client's appeal. Later, the client terminated Kiefer's services, and the client's $1,000 advance fee was returned.
      In a second matter, in January 2005 two clients hired Kiefer to represent them in an immigration matter. Kiefer's nonattorney employee identified himself to the clients as an attorney and accepted a $1,500 advance fee. While Kiefer was working in his other office, in Riverside, the nonattorney employee accepted the clients' case without Kiefer's knowledge or approval. In August 2005 the clients appeared unannounced at Kiefer's Riverside office, but he had no knowledge of their case. After searching his records, Kiefer discovered that the clients believed they had retained the nonattorney employee. Kiefer returned the clients' $1,500 fee.
      In mitigation, Kiefer had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1999. In addition, he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect December 21.
     
      Norma M. Molinar, State Bar # 120911, San Francisco (December 26). Molinar, 61, received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently and failing to keep clients informed about significant developments in their cases.
      In 1997 Molinar was hired through a third party to represent two clients seeking asylum in the United States. Applications were submitted to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. In October 1997 the applications were denied, and the clients were ordered to appear for a removal hearing before an immigration judge, who ordered that the clients be deported.
      In February 2003 Molinar agreed to represent the clients in an appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The deadline for filing the appeal was later that month, but the board did not receive the appeal until early March 2003. In June 2003 the appeal was denied because of its late filing. Molinar had 30 days to file a motion for reconsideration; she prepared the motion, but it was filed one day past the deadline in July 2003. Molinar failed to notify the clients that their applications for asylum had been denied. In December 2003 the clients received notice from the Department of Homeland Security that no further relief was available to them, and they were ordered deported the following week.
      In mitigation, Molinar had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the State Bar in 1985.
      The order took effect January 17.
     
      John Murcko, State Bar # 47008, Oakland (January 11). Murcko, 66, received a public reproval for failing to maintain respect due the courts and failing to perform legal services competently.
      From 2000 through 2003 Murcko filed eight challenges against a judge alleging biased rulings in favor of landlords. In October 2001 Murcko filed a declaration in a case stating that he had been told by the plaintiff that the judge was receiving money from the plaintiff to rule in his favor. Murcko's challenges were denied.
      In 2003 Murcko left numerous telephone messages for the judge that included personal tirades against the judge. The district's presiding judge conducted an investigation and found no evidence of bias by the accused judge.
      In a second matter, in April 2004 Murcko filed a lawsuit on behalf of 14 plaintiffs seeking damages against a landlord for breach of warranty of habitability of the building in which the plaintiffs lived. In April 2005 Murcko and defense counsel agreed to submit the case to binding arbitration. Murcko told his clients the case would go to arbitration, but he failed to inform and explain to them that it was binding arbitration. In July 2005 the arbitration found in favor of the defendants.
      Three weeks later Murcko filed a motion to vacate the award, arguing that his clients had not agreed to binding arbitration. In support of his motion, Murcko submitted declarations from his clients swearing under oath that they had not given Murcko authority to stipulate to binding arbitration and had not been informed by Murcko that they had waived their right to a jury trial. In November 2005 the court denied the motion and granted the defendants' motion to confirm the arbitration award.
      In mitigation, Murcko had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1970, and he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect February 1.
     
      Brion L. St. James, State Bar # 181977, Sacramento (November 7). St. James, 47, received a public reproval for filing a frivolous appeal and failing to report judicial sanctions to the State Bar.
      St. James represented a corporate client in bringing a breach of contract action. The jury found in favor of the defendant. St. James filed an appeal based on his belief that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to continue the trial because no court reporter was available on the second day of trial. The court found the appeal to be frivolous and imposed sanctions of $10,549 against St. James and his client. St. James failed to notify the State Bar about the sanctions.
      In mitigation, St. James had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1996. Also, he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect November 28.
     
      Elaine M. Yama, State Bar # 182210, Fresno (November 27). Yama, 44, received a public reproval for seeking to mislead a judge by artifice or false statement of fact or law and intentionally misquoting to a court the language of a book, statute, or decision.
      In 2002 Yama and the law firm for which she worked represented a defendant school district in a civil case before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. While representing the school district, Yama filed a motion for summary judgment. In June 2005 the judge issued an order imposing a public reproval against Yama and imposing sanctions of $5,000, finding that Yama and her law firm violated the rules of federal procedure in their motion by engaging in bad faith, presenting frivolous objections, making misstatements, mischaracterizing facts, submitting misrepresentations of law, and intentionally obstructing the speedy and just resolution of the dispute. The court also found that Yama mischaracterized testimony from the administrative record in her pleadings and failed to recite the law accurately.
      In mitigation, Yama had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1996. She also cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect December 18.
     
      The listings here are summaries of disciplinary action taken by the state Supreme Court or the State Bar Court for the dates noted and are provided by the State Bar Court. The summaries are comprehensive for the time period and do not reflect subsequent miscellaneous orders by the courts that may affect these matters. The date of the court's action is in parentheses. For more complete information on disciplinary proceedings, contact the San Francisco Daily Journal.
     

---