Discipline Report

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.
     
      Don Aimar, State Bar # 73847, Palm Springs (February 14). Aimar, 62, resigned from the bar on January 16. The order took effect March 16.
     
      Elizabeth A. Chaney, State Bar # 100532, Monrovia (February 14). Chaney, 64, resigned from the bar on January 16. The order took effect March 16.
     
      Arnold Chin, State Bar # 95797, San Francisco (February 14). Chin, 59, resigned from the bar on January 24. The order took effect March 16.
     
      Eric H. Gamonal, State Bar # 232229, Sherman Oaks (February 14). Gamonal, 28, resigned from the bar on January 19. The order took effect March 16.
     
      Jerold V. Goldstein, State Bar # 38337, Encino (February 14). Goldstein, 66, resigned from the bar on January 16. The order took effect March 16.
     
      Jon B. Hultman, State Bar # 218458, Beverly Hills (January 24). Hultman, 36, resigned from the bar on November 29. The order took effect February 23.
     
      Joseph O. Johnson, State Bar # 164844, San Jose (February 14). Johnson, 41, resigned from the bar on January 9. The order took effect March 16.
     
      Richard A. Kernodle, State Bar # 112513, Martinez (February 14). Kernodle, 57, resigned from the bar on January 3. The order took effect March 16.
     
      Barry A. Sisselman, State Bar # 72685, Newbury Park (February 14). Sisselman, 56, resigned from the bar on January 18. The order took effect March 16.
     
      Carolyn J. Wallace, State Bar # 63119, Topanga (February 14). Wallace, 61, resigned from the bar on January 4. The order took effect March 16.
     
SUSPENSION
      Dmitry D. Krayevsky, State Bar # 192548, Canoga Park (January 25). Krayevsky, 36, was suspended for one year and placed on four years of probation. He was disciplined for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to communicate, failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation, and failing to comply with conditions to a previous order of discipline.
      In May 2000 Krayevsky was hired to represent a client in a slip-and-fall claim. In June 2001 Krayevsky filed a complaint on behalf of the client. Between June 2001 and July 2003 he failed to keep the client informed about scheduled court dates, failed to notify opposing counsel about scheduled status and pretrial conferences, and failed to comply with court orders to give notice of court orders and appearance dates to all parties. He conducted no discovery, did not retain expert witnesses, and requested the court to dismiss the case without the client's knowledge and consent to do so. He failed to perform the services for which he was hired.
      Between August 2004 and February 2005 a State Bar investigator sent four letters by mail and fax to Krayevsky requesting his written response to allegations of misconduct that the client had filed against him. He failed to respond to the letters.
      In December 2004 Krayevsky was placed on two years of probation for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law after being administratively suspended by the State Bar for failing to comply with continuing legal education requirements. He failed to comply with conditions to the probation by failing to promptly file his quarterly probation reports for 2005 and failing to promptly attend and complete State Bar ethics school.
      In aggravation, Krayevsky had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. Also, the current misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, he cooperated with the State Bar during its disciplinary proceedings. Also, during his period of misconduct, Krayevsky suffered from substance abuse, and he is now receiv-ing psychotherapy.
      The order took effect February 24.
     
      Jon R. Kurtin, State Bar # 95454, San Diego (January 18). Kurtin, 52, was suspended for 30 days and placed on three years of probation for engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; and for engaging in an agreement to sign a document in exchange for withdrawal of a State Bar complaint.
      In 1998 Kurtin became a member of an investment group that sought to purchase a raceway and its real property. Kurtin joined the group, in part, because he held a real estate broker's license. In March 1998 Kurtin was asked by the other investors to sign an affidavit concerning the purchase of the property. After reading the document, Kurtin told one of the principal investors that he could not sign the affidavit as written because the testimony the investors wanted him to sign was false. He said he was not involved in negotiations for purchase of the property, did not arrange for the loan, was not involved in the transaction from the beginning, and had not spent time reviewing loan documents. Kurtin was told that if he did not sign the documents, the loan would not fund. The same day he signed the affidavit.
      In July 2002 the new owners of the property filed suit in U.S. district court regarding claims related to the loan. In October 2003 the defendants in the federal suit filed an action in superior court against the new owners, including Kurtin. In November 2003 counsel for the plaintiffs in the state action filed a State Bar complaint against Kurtin for executing a false affidavit. In April 2006 the parties agreed to settle their claims and differences. Kurtin signed the agreement, and the plaintiffs withdrew their State Bar complaint.
      In mitigation, Kurtin had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1980.
      The order took effect February 17.
     
      Joe A. Leyva, State Bar # 175131, Azusa (January 18). Leyva, 38, was suspended for one year for failing to perform legal services competently; making misrepresentations of fact to the court and to his clients; engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; failing to obey court orders; and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      While working for a law firm in 2001 Leyva was assigned to represent husband-and-wife clients in a foreclosure matter. In 2002, after negotiating a settlement for the clients to receive the excess funds from the foreclosure, Leyva told the clients he had filed a complaint on their behalf against the defendants. In fact, he had not filed the complaint. He provided the clients with a copy of the nonconformed complaint.
      In February 2004 Leyva filed a breach-of-contract complaint against the mortgage company and the bank that were involved in the foreclosure, but he failed to serve the complaint and summons on the defendants. About two weeks later the client wrote to the law firm and Leyva inquiring about the delay in the litigation. One month later Leyva responded by stating that the defendants were served with the complaint and that he was attempting to schedule a mediation, voluntary settlement conference, or arbitration.
      In April 2004 the court issued an order to show cause why the complaint was not served and the proofs of service not filed with the court. The court also ordered Leyva to give notice of the hearing on the order to show cause to all parties, but he failed to do so. In May 2004 Leyva was the only party who appeared for the show-cause hearing, and he misrepresented to the court that he had given notice to all parties. Based on his misrepresentations, the court discharged the order and set a hearing for a case-management conference in July 2004. Leyva was the only party who appeared for the conference, and he misrepresented to the court that the case would proceed to binding arbitration. The court continued the hearing to August 2004.
      On the day of the continued hearing, Leyva failed to appear. The court issued an order to show cause and set a hearing for September 2004. On the day of the hearing, Leyva telephoned, telling the court he filed a dismissal of the case. Leyva knew his statement to the court was false. In January 2005 he filed the dismissal, but he did so without the clients' knowledge and consent. In February 2005 he informed the clients that the matter was submitted to binding arbitration, a statement he knew was false. In March 2005 he gave the clients a copy of a document entitled "a request for hearing," purportedly signed by one of the defendants. That same month, without notice to the clients, Leyva sent them their case file and a substitution-of-attorney form with his signature.
      In June and July 2005 a State Bar investigator wrote to Leyva requesting a written response to allegations of misconduct filed against him by the clients. He failed to respond to the investigator's letters.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused harm to clients and the administration of justice. Leyva demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct. Also, he failed to participate in the State Bar investigation and proceedings. In mitigation, Leyva had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1994.
      The order took effect February 17.
     
      Mark R. Moore, State Bar # 74804, Peacham, Vermont (January 24). Moore, 55, was suspended for two years and given credit toward the suspension for his involuntary inactive enrollment, which began on May 14, 2005. Moore was disciplined for failing to comply with conditions to a 2003 discipline.
      In 2003 Moore was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a 2001 order of discipline. In August 2001 Moore was suspended for 30 days and placed on 18 months of probation for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to communicate, failing to promptly return client papers and property, and failing to refund unearned fees. Also, he was ordered to make restitution during his period of probation. Conditions to the discipline required Moore to submit quarterly probation reports and to make restitution of $3,541 to one client. He failed to promptly file his probation reports, and he failed to make restitution to the client.
      In aggravation, Moore had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matters. In the current matter the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to the administration of justice. He also demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for his misconduct by failing to comply with the disciplinary conditions.
      The order took effect February 23.
     
      Clayton C. Patrick, State Bar # 45735, Clatskanie, Oregon (January 18). Patrick, 62, was suspended for 30 days and placed on one year of probation for representing interests adverse to clients without the parties' written consent.
      In 1997 a friend of Patrick's operated a trust that derived its income from lending money. Patrick recommended two clients, a husband and wife, to the trust for a loan. Patrick advised on the loan, but he failed to inform the clients that he also performed legal services for the trust. He signed the promissory note as a guarantor for the husband-and-wife clients. He also failed to advise the clients of their right to seek the advice of independent counsel.
      In June 1997 Patrick referred another client to the trust and represented the client in negotiating a loan with the trust. He failed to obtain the consent of the trust and that of his client before negotiating the loan.
      In mitigation, Patrick had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1970. Also, he cooperated with the State Bar during its proceedings, and he demonstrated remorse for his wrongdoing.
      The order took effect February 17.
     
      Richard A. Phillips, State Bar # 157669, West Hollywood (January 18). Phillips, 43, was suspended for one year and until he makes restitution of $14,600 to a client. He was suspended for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to maintain a current address with the State Bar, and charging and collecting an illegal or unconscionable fee.
      In September 2003 Phillips was suspended for failing to pay his State Bar membership fees. In September 2005 he was suspended again, this time for failing to comply with continuing legal education requirements, and he has remained suspended since then. In December 2003 Phillips was hired to represent a client in a probate matter. He continued to represent the client throughout 2004 by appearing in court and filing a motion to dismiss the matter. Between December 2003 and February 2005 Phillips held himself out as entitled to practice law. He billed the client $14,600 in legal fees.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. Also, Phillips failed to participate in the State Bar investigation and proceedings. In mitigation, Phillips had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1992.
      The order took effect February 17.
     
      Robert H. Sack, State Bar # 165033, Los Osos (January 18). Sack, 47, was suspended in a Review Department opinion for two years, placed on three years of probation, and ordered to make restitution of $45,000 to five clients.
      Sack was found culpable of 30 counts of misconduct in five client matters by failing to perform legal services competently, failing to notify clients he was in receipt of client funds, failing to maintain client funds in trust, failing to return unearned fees, failing to communicate by failure to respond to clients' reasonable status inquiries, failing to keep clients reasonably informed about significant developments in their cases, seeking an agreement to withdraw a State Bar complaint, accepting an offer to represent clients in a matter where the interests of the clients were in potential conflict, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients. Sack failed to adequately supervise his office staff and left operation of his office to nonattorney employees. After closing his office, he filed a lawsuit against his former employees alleging they had misappropriated $100,000 in client funds that were held in trust. In mitigation, during the period of misconduct?1998 through 1999?Sack's wife experienced medical difficulties during pregnancy that required Sack to be at home. Also, three witnesses testified to Sack's good character, but their testimony was given limited weight.
      The order took effect February 17.
     
      David M. Van Sickle, State Bar # 167401, Roseville, Minnesota (January 24). Van Sickle, 53, was suspended in a Review Department opinion for three months and placed on two years of probation for charging and collecting an unconscionable fee, as well as failing to avoid interests adverse to a client.
      In October 1995 Van Sickle was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case, in a workers compensation claim, and in a fee dispute with the client's previous attorney. In December 1995 the client agreed to accept $50,000 as settlement of the personal injury claim. In January 1996 Van Sickle disbursed funds to himself and to the client, and he deposited $12,500 into his client trust account to hold as fees owed to the previous attorney pending resolution of the fee dispute.
      A fee arbitration was set for July 1996. The client agreed to pay Van Sickle $500 to represent her at the arbitration. He had the client sign a lien on her home as security for the $500 payment. The client had agreed to pay Van Sickle 35 percent of funds received in the personal injury case, but Van Sickle failed to discuss and inform the client that she would also pay her previous attorney's fee of $12,500. The fees paid to both attorneys totaled 53 percent of the client's recovery in the personal injury case.
      The Review Department found Van Sickle's retainer agreement void because it contained two provisions against public policy. The department also said the agreement intended to prohibit the client from settling or dismissing the lawsuit unless Van Sickle agreed to do so, and it prohibited the client from substituting another attorney in place of Van Sickle without cause unless he agreed to be substituted out. Also, Van Sickle was not entitled to receive any fees from the client's workers compensation case because he did not obtain any benefits for the client. There was no separate contingency fee agreement, and he took the workers compensation fees from the personal injury case.
      The department concluded that Van Sickle should make restitution of $8,125 to the client as excess fees and $2,214 to the U.S. Department of Labor for the client's workers compensation case.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused harm to the client. In mitigation, Van Sickle entered into a pretrial stipulation with the State Bar and admitted his culpability in entering into an improper business transaction with the client. Also, limited weight was given to his pro bono work in California and Minnesota.
      The order took effect February 23.
     
      Wayne Winrow, State Bar # 153632, Emeryville (January 18). Winrow, 55, was suspended for two years for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
      In September 2001 Winrow was suspended for 75 days and placed on 30 months of probation for failing to return a client's file promptly, failing to communicate, failing to perform legal services competently, failing to return unearned fees, and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
      By agreement with the State Bar, Winrow's imposition of suspension was stayed until November 2001. He stated that he sought the stay because of a complex wrongful death case, which he was scheduled to try in October 2001. A week after the suspension began in November 2001, Winrow appeared in court on a criminal matter. He failed to inform the State Bar about the criminal matter when he sought the extension. In February 2002 the judge in the criminal case notified the State Bar that Winrow had appeared in court on behalf of a client while on suspension.
      In aggravation, Winrow had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. Also, in July 2006 he was suspended for 120 days and placed on three years of probation after being found culpable in three client matters for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to communicate with clients, and failing to appear for three status conferences in one case. The current misconduct caused harm to the administration of justice because the criminal client succeeded in having a plea agreement set aside due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Winrow's misconduct resulted in a lesser sentence for the client, and it wasted court time and resources. Also, Winrow failed to participate during the State Bar's proceedings.
      The order took effect February 17.
     
INTERIM SUSPENSION
     
      Bret D. Bechtold, State Bar # 184692, Concord (January 9). Bechtold, 40, was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for violating Health and Safety Code section 11352(a), possession of a controlled substance. The order took effect February 9.
     
      Frank T. Davies, State Bar # 105549, San Diego (February 1). Davies, 57, was placed on interim suspension after he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. The order took effect February 26.
     
      Matthew J. Farrer, State Bar # 203544, Oakland (February 1). Farrer, 31, was placed on interim suspension after he was convicted of possessing marijuana. The order took effect February 26.
     
      Russell R. Ruiz, State Bar # 123414, Santa Barbara (January 9). Ruiz, 53, was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for violating Penal Code 273.5(a), willfully inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition. The order took effect February 5.
     
      Philip M. Van Aelstyn, State Bar # 220844, Auburn (January 20). Van Aelstyn, 42, was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for violating Vermont Statutes Annotated section 1701, possession of a motor vehicle with serial or motor numbers defaced. The order took effect February 21.
     
PROBATION
     
      John Y. Tu, State Bar # 146945, Monterey Park (January 18). Tu, 57, was placed on two years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a private reproval.
      In May 2004 Tu received a private reproval for failing to perform legal services competently and failing to communicate an offer of settlement to a client. Conditions to the reproval required him to take and pass the professional responsibility exam. Tu took the exam in November 2005, six months after his reproval, but he failed to pass the exam.
      In aggravation, Tu had a record of prior discipline, the underlying reproval.
      The order took effect February 17.
     
PUBLIC REPROVAL
     
      James J. Mazzeo, State Bar # 108077, San Diego (February 15). Mazzeo, 51, received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to keep a client informed about significant developments in the client's case, failing to respond to client inquiries, improperly withdrawing from representation, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      In December 2003 Mazzeo was hired to represent a defendant in a civil case. In January 2004 Mazzeo appeared for a case-management conference. The court set another conference for March 2004, but Mazzeo failed to appear. The court continued the hearing to July 2004. When Mazzeo again failed to appear, the court continued the hearing for two more weeks. At the continued hearing, another attorney appeared on behalf of Mazzeo. The court ordered a trial-setting conference for August 2004, but Mazzeo failed to appear.
      In September 2005 Mazzeo failed to appear for a mandatory settlement conference and failed to appear for trial a few days later. The case advanced as a default proceeding, and a judgment of $620,000 was entered against Mazzeo's client. In November 2005 the client received notice of the judgment and telephoned Mazzeo. The client discovered that Mazzeo's number had been disconnected and that he had moved out of his office. The client obtained Mazzeo's cell-phone number and left 20 messages, but Mazzeo failed to respond to the client's calls.
      That same month, the client filed a complaint about Mazzeo with the State Bar. In February 2006 the client's new attorney had the default judgment set aside. In July and August 2006 a State Bar investigator wrote to Mazzeo requesting his written response to allegations filed against him by the client. Mazzeo failed to respond to the investigator's letters.
      In aggravation, the misconduct caused significant harm to the client and to the administration of justice. In mitigation, Mazzeo had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1983.
      The order took effect March 8.
     
      Jesse S. Ortiz III, State Bar # 176450, Sacramento (January 18). Ortiz, 37, received a public reproval for failing to respond to reasonable status inquiries, failing to keep a client informed about significant developments in the client's case, and failing to return unearned fees.
      In 2003 Ortiz was hired to represent a client in a three-strikes case. In August 2003 Ortiz and his firm received $10,000 to represent the client. From September 2003 through February 2004 the client and the client's mother left numerous telephone messages for Ortiz, but he failed to respond. The client also wrote numerous letters to Ortiz and his law partner inquiring about the status of the case, but they failed to respond.
      In February 2004 the client's mother delivered written requests from her son to Ortiz and his partner for an accounting. The client asked that he be kept informed about developments in the case, that Ortiz file a motion regarding the client's situation with the three-strikes law, that he meet with Ortiz or his partner before they file the motion, and that Ortiz return his advance fee so the client could hire another attorney if Ortiz and his partner could not work on the case. Ortiz and his partner received the written requests but failed to respond to the client.
      In March 2004 the client wrote to Ortiz expressing his displeasure with the firm's legal services. In the same letter, the client made another request for an accounting and a refund of the advance fee. Ortiz and his partner failed to respond to the client's requests. In July 2004 the client's mother wrote to Ortiz again, requesting an accounting and a refund, but Ortiz and his partner failed to provide an accounting or to return any portion of the unearned fees.
      In mitigation, Ortiz had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the State Bar in 1995. Also, he cooperated with the bar during its investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect February 8.
     
MISCELLANEOUS ORDER
     
      Donald E. Arnold, State Bar # 202148, Encino (February 2). Arnold, 41, had his interim suspension imposed in 2005 terminated for good cause.
     
      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.
     

---