Discipline Report

      DISBARMENT
     
      Ione Y. Gray, State Bar # 74491, Los Angeles (August 8). Gray, 60, was disbarred in a Review Department opinion for making material misrepresentations on her application to the California Department of Real Estate and for engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
      In April 1997 Gray was placed on interim suspension after the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her sentence stemming from charges of making false statements on loan and credit applications, and of falsely representing a Social Security number.
      The underlying facts of the interim suspension began in 1992 when Gray applied for a loan at a savings and loan company. She used a false name and a false Social Security number on the loan application, and she falsely stated the amount of her monthly income. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for resentencing. In July 1999 the district court ordered Gray to serve 15 months in prison.
      In June 2003 an administrative law judge revoked Gray's broker's license, and the real estate commissioner adopted the court's decision. In September 2003 the license revocation became final.
      In aggravation, Gray had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. In September 2001 she was suspended for four years and six months and placed on four years of probation. Gray was disciplined for failing to comply with the laws of the United States and California, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, practicing law while suspended, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude. In mitigation, Gray admitted to having exercised bad judgment by allowing a nonattorney assistant to complete the Department of Real Estate application form.
      The order took effect September 7.
     
      Steven L. Wilson, State Bar # 102944, Manhattan Beach (August 3). Wilson, 53, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court.
      In March 2006 Wilson was suspended for 60 days for failing to comply with conditions to a private reproval. Conditions to the 2006 discipline required him to notify clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and file an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. He failed to file the affidavit and failed to provide an explanation to the State Bar for his noncompliance.
      In aggravation, Wilson had a record of prior discipline. In September 2004 he received a private reproval for attorney misconduct. In March 2006 the underlying matter occurred. In the current matter Wilson demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for his misconduct. Also, he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings prior to entry of his default.
      The order took effect September 2.
     
      SUSPENSION
     
      John H. Bramlett, State Bar # 171763, Blue Jay (August 10). Bramlett, 45, was suspended for six months for failing to obey a court order and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      In August 2004, after filing a complaint in U.S. district court on behalf of his client, Bramlett was ordered by the court to file a joint status report and a discovery plan. He failed to comply with the order. In November 2004 the court issued an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to comply with the order. In a December 2004 hearing, the court ordered Bramlett to pay $500 in sanctions within ten days. Bramlett failed to pay the sanctions. In February 2005, and in April and June 2006, a State Bar investigator wrote to Bramlett requesting a written response to allegations of misconduct. He failed to respond to the investigator's letters.
      In aggravation, Bramlett had a record of prior discipline. In April 2007 he was suspended for 45 days for failing to perform legal services competently and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      The order took effect September 9.
     
      Thomas R. Mitchell, State Bar # 199953, Salt Lake City, Utah (August 3). Mitchell, 46, was suspended for 90 days and placed on two years of probation for aiding another in the unauthorized practice of law and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
      In September 2003 Mitchell was hired to work in an attorney's office during the attorney's two-year period of suspension. In 2002 and 2003 six clients contacted the suspended attorney's office regarding their cases. Mitchell talked to the clients initially and then turned the cases over to the suspended attorney.
      The law firm did not change its stationery letterhead or otherwise indicate that the attorney was not entitled to practice law. The attorney continued to sign documents, and in several cases the attorney took settlement funds without notifying the clients that their cases had settled. Mitchell failed to inform the clients that the attorney they hired was suspended and could not practice law.
      Mitchell assisted the attorney in practicing law while the attorney was suspended, a violation of state law and State Bar rules. In June 2006 the suspended attorney resigned from the State Bar with disciplinary charges pending.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients, the public, and the administration of justice. In mitigation, Mitchell cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect September 2.
       
      Merrick S. Rayle, State Bar # 139478, Pacific Grove (August 3). Rayle, 64, was suspended for one year and placed on three years of probation after he was found guilty of attorney misconduct in Illinois.
      In December 2006 Rayle was suspended from law practice by the Illinois Supreme Court. If the misconduct had occurred in California, he would have been suspended for making a misleading or untrue statement, communication, or solicitation; engaging in discriminatory conduct in law practice; advising the violation of the law; failing to counsel or maintain actions that are fair and just; failing to maintain causes confided to him or attempting to mislead a judge or judicial officer; and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved dishonesty when Rayle fraudulently transferred assets from an account to avoid paying creditors, and then made intentional misrepresentations to the circuit court about the transfers. In mitigation, Rayle cooperated with the victims of his misconduct and with the California State Bar.
      The order took effect September 2.
     
      Matthew S. Unger, State Bar # 137742, Sacramento (August 10). Unger, 47, was suspended for six months for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to respond to a client's status inquiries, failing to return unearned fees, failing to pay judicial sanctions, failing to comply with conditions to an agreement in lieu of discipline, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      In December 2003 Unger was paid $10,000 to represent a criminal defendant. In January 2004 Unger was placed on inactive status by the State Bar because he failed to respond to a notice of disciplinary charges. During the time he was not entitled to practice law, he appeared in court on behalf of the criminal defendant.
      The prosecutor in the case notified the court that Unger was on inactive status. The judge removed Unger as the defendant's attorney and held an order-to-show-cause hearing on the matter. Unger told the court that he was entitled to practice law and would provide documents to support his claim. The court continued the hearing for about two weeks.
      On the date of the scheduled hearing, Unger sought and received a continuance. He later received another continuance. In late March 2004 Unger submitted the documents to the court.
      At a second order-to-show-cause hearing, the court sanctioned Unger $500 for failing to appear in the criminal case, which was rescheduled for July 2004. Later, the ordered sanctions were stayed. The court issued a third order to show cause regarding contempt for Unger's failing to appear. The hearing was set for August 2004, but it was reset for a later date that month.
      At the hearing, the court found Unger in contempt. He was ordered to pay the sanctions by September, but he failed to do so. The client's trial was set for January 2005, but Unger failed to prepare for the case. He failed to demand discovery, failed to interview witnesses, failed to conduct any investigation, did not file any motions, did not prepare a witness list, and failed to submit jury instructions.
      In January 2005, on advice from Unger, the client entered a guilty plea. In February 2005 the client filed a complaint with the State Bar, alleging that Unger failed to properly represent him. In March 2005, at the client's sentencing hearing, the court removed Unger as the client's attorney. In March 2005 a motion to withdraw the client's guilty plea was denied, but the court struck two of the criminal counts and found that Unger had provided ineffective assistance as counsel to the client.
      In February and May 2006 a State Bar investigator wrote to Unger requesting a written response to the client's allegations of misconduct. He failed to respond to the investigator's letters.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to his client by failing to return the $10,000 advance fee. Unger demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct by failing to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default. In mitigation, the court took notice that Unger had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1999.
      The order took effect September 9.
     
      Julie L. Wolff, State Bar # 142531, Sacramento (August 10). Wolff, 52, was suspended for six months and placed on two years of probation for failing to promptly return a client's file and failing to respond to the client's telephone messages and letters.
      In July 2004 Wolff was paid $4,000 to represent a client in a marital dissolution. Before hiring Wolff, the client and his wife had already worked with a mediation service. Wolff sent a letter of representation to the attorney at the mediation service, informing the attorney of her intent to file a response to the dissolution petition, but she failed to do so. Between August and October 2004, the mediation attorney wrote several letters to Wolff regarding the client's dissolution, but she failed to respond to the attorney.
      In October 2004 the client left several telephone messages and wrote to Wolff requesting to know the status of the dissolution. In November 2004 Wolff sent the client the requested documents, but Wolff's response to the client was late and the client terminated Wolff's services. In his termination letter, the client requested a full refund of the advance fee. In December 2004 Wolff returned the $4,000 advance fee.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, the State Bar Court gave some weight to Wolff's pro bono work and community activities.
      The order took effect September 9.
     
      PROBATION
     
      Albert L. Boasberg, State Bar # 31205, San Francisco (June 29). Boasberg, 71, was placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to respond to clients' status inquiries, failing to keep clients informed about developments in their cases, and failing to promptly return unearned fees.
      In December 2004 Boasberg was paid $3,500 to represent a client in resolving a stipulated marital dissolution, determining property rights, and dissolving a corporation that was set up by the client's estranged spouse.
      In late December 2004 the client informed Boasberg that his wife had hired an outside business-management company to handle the client's chiropractic business and that the wife had incurred a large debt on a credit card. In January 2005 Boasberg filed an order to show cause seeking an injunction. Sometime between January and March 2005 the client asked Boasberg to take the order off the court's calendar and to place the client in pro per.
      In March 2005 Boasberg filed a substitution of attorney. That same month, the wife attempted to create another business entity without the client's knowledge. The client wrote to Boasberg requesting him to research the issues involved in the new entity.
      Boasberg did not respond to the client's letter and did not provide any materials relating to his legal research. In April 2005 the client terminated Boasberg's services, and in March 2006 the client requested a refund of the $3,500 advance fee. In February 2007 Boasberg paid the client $4,258 in unearned fees.
      In mitigation, Boasberg had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1961. Also, during the period of misconduct, Boasberg's wife of nine years passed away.
      The order took effect July 29.
     
      Louis G. Bruno, State Bar # 137898, Escondido (August 10). Bruno, 55, was placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments in the client's case, and fail-ing to respond to the client's reasonable status inquiries.
      In February 2004 Bruno was hired to represent a client in an action against his insurance company for underpaid property damage sustained to his vehicle in an accident involving another vehicle covered by the same insurance carrier. In January 2004 Bruno filed a complaint on behalf of the client.
      In July 2004 Bruno and the attorney representing the insurer appeared for a case-management conference. At the hearing, defense counsel informed the court of its intent to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings, claiming that Bruno's client was not insured with the company. A hearing on the motion was scheduled for October 2004. Bruno informed the client that a trial date was set for January 2005, but he failed to inform the client about the defense motion for judgment on the pleadings and its argument that the client was not insured with the company.
      Later, on a motion by the defendant, the trial date was rescheduled for March 2005. Bruno failed to notify the client about the change. In September 2004 the defendant served Bruno with its motion for judgment on the pleadings. Bruno failed to notify the client about the motion and failed to file an opposition or response to the defendant's motion. In October 2004 the court granted the unopposed motion.
      That same month, the defendant served Bruno with the court-ordered judgment and a bill of $335 for costs. In November 2004 Bruno was served with a notice of entry of judgment. Bruno failed to notify the client about the judgment, entry of judgment, and cost bill. After November 2004 Bruno failed to perform any further services for the client, and he failed to take any action to set aside the judgment.
      In December 2004 the client left telephone messages for Bruno regarding the January 2005 trial date. Bruno failed to respond to the client's messages. The client learned through another attorney that a lawsuit had been filed. The attorney recommended that the client contact the State Bar about Bruno. In March 2005 Bruno admitted to the client that a judgment had been entered against him.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, Bruno had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1988. He cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings, acknowledged his responsibility in the matter, and expressed remorse for his wrongdoing.
      The order took effect September 9.
     
      David L. Gernsbacher, State Bar # 89596, Los Angeles (July 13). Gernsbacher, 54, had his previous order of probation extended for 18 months for failing to comply with conditions to a previous disciplinary order.
      In November 2005 Gernsbacher was placed on three years of probation after his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident, and assault. Conditions to the probation required him to file quarterly probation reports and attend State Bar ethics school.
      Between November 2005 and January 2007 the Office of Probation reminded Gernsbacher about his quarterly probation reports and other conditions. He failed to promptly file the probation reports for January 2006 through January 2007. Also, he failed to promptly file his compliance declaration, and he failed to promptly attend State Bar ethics school.
      In aggravation, Gernsbacher had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. Also, the current misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing.
      The order took effect August 12.
     
      Richard R. Hurley, State Bar # 183440, Riverside (August 10). Hurley, 49, was placed on five years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to keep a client informed about developments in a case, and failing to return unearned fees.
      In October 2000 Hurley was paid $900 to represent a criminal defendant. In November 2000 Hurley informed the client not to attend a scheduled arraignment because he would appear on the client's behalf. On the day of the arraignment Hurley failed to appear, and the court issued a bench warrant for the client's arrest. In May 2001 the client returned to her home state of Missouri.
      Between May and June 2001 Hurley appeared for several pretrial hearings but failed to appear for a July 2001 hearing. He failed to inform the client that a bench warrant for her arrest had been issued by the court. In a conversation with the client, Hurley stated that he would take care of her case, even though he had not researched the case or referred to the client's file. In December 2004 Hurley relocated to Florida but without informing the client about his relocation.
      In September 2005 the client learned about the outstanding warrant when she was denied an opportunity to sit for the Missouri Nursing Board examination. The client attempted to reach Hurley, but without success. Later, the client found Hurley, and he promised to resolve the outstanding issues in her case and have the bench warrant recalled. Hurley arranged for another attorney to represent the client in court.
      In February 2006 the criminal matter was resolved. In September 2005 the client had requested a refund of unearned fees, and did so again in February 2006. But Hurley failed to return any portion of the unearned fee.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused harm to the client.
      The order took effect September 9.
     
      John C. Notti, State Bar # 109728, Los Angeles (August 3). Notti, 57, was placed on three years of probation after his plea agreement for violating Penal Code sections 245, assault with a deadly weapon, making criminal threats, and resisting arrest, all felonies.
      In October 2003 Notti became involved in an altercation with another driver while driving on a freeway. Notti followed the other driver and threw a glass bottle at the driver's car, striking the driver's side of the vehicle. Notti then attempted to ram the other car with his car.
      The other driver exited the freeway, where both drivers stopped. After exchanging words, the other driver drove onto the freeway, with Notti in pursuit. Notti attempted to ram the other vehicle again, but then pulled ahead of the other car and slowed down. Both cars stopped on the freeway, causing other drivers to swerve to avoid a collision.
      Later, the police arrived at Notti's home and questioned him about the incident. The officers noticed the strong odor of alcohol on Notti's breath. Notti pushed one officer and resisted arrest. The officers then handcuffed Notti's hands and legs. Later, he was charged with seven felony violations, but he agreed to a plea bargain and the charges were reduced to three violations.
      In aggravation, the parties stipulated that the misconduct caused significant harm to the public and the administration of justice. In mitigation, Notti had no record or prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1983. At the time of the misconduct, Notti suffered from substance-abuse problems that were directly responsible for the misconduct. In April 2004 Notti entered the State Bar's Lawyers' Alternative Program and has undergone random drug testing since 2004. In November 2006 the court received a letter stating that Notti successfully completed the program and complied with all terms and conditions.
      The order took effect September 2.
     
      Joseph E. Rowland, State Bar # 147636, Tustin (July 17). Rowland, 59, was placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to promptly return unearned fees, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      In October 2002 Rowland was paid $5,000 to represent a client in a federal forfeiture action. In January 2003 he filed an answer to the complaint on behalf of the client. Rowland performed no further services for the client, failing to respond to a U.S. Attorney's discovery requests, failing to appear for a settlement conference, and failing to negotiate a settlement.
      Between late 2002 and October 2003 the client requested an accounting and asked Rowland to communicate the status of the case. Rowland failed to respond to the client's requests. In November 2003 the client terminated Rowland's services and hired a new attorney. A few weeks later, the new attorney settled the client's case.
      At about the same time, the client wrote to Rowland requesting a refund of the $5,000 advance fee. Between November 2003 and September 2004 the client left several telephone messages for Rowland asking about the refund of the advance fee. Rowland failed to respond to the client's messages and failed to return the unearned fees. In October 2004 the client was awarded $5,052 in a small claims action against Rowland. In February 2007 Rowland paid the judgment.
      In June and July 2005 a State Bar investigator wrote to Rowland requesting his response to allegations of misconduct filed against him by the client. Rowland failed to respond to the investigator's letters.
      In aggravation, the misconduct caused harm to the client by delaying return of unearned fees. In mitigation, Rowland had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1990.
      The order took effect August 16.
     
      Sassoon Sales, State Bar # 59958, Encino (July 3). Sales, 62, was placed on one year of probation for failing to promptly comply with conditions to a private reproval.
      In April 2005 Sales received a private reproval and was ordered to comply with specific conditions during the reproval period. He complied promptly with some of the conditions but filed his final report in September 2006, five months after it was due. He belatedly completed ethics school in July 2006 and passed the professional responsibility exam in November 2006.
      In aggravation, Sales had a record of prior discipline, the underlying private reproval. In mitigation, he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. He submitted statements from others attesting to his good character. He also demonstrated remorse for the misconduct and understands that he has an ethical responsibility to promptly comply with disciplinary orders.
      The order took effect August 2.
     
      PUBLIC REPROVAL
     
      Mark C. Lee, State Bar # 157247, Fresno (June 1). Lee, 57, received a public reproval after his conviction for drunken driving.
      In August 2001 Lee was arrested after being involved in a traffic collision. Police officers at the scene determined that Lee was driving under the influence of alcohol. Lee voluntarily submitted to a blood test, which revealed his blood-alcohol level to be .14 percent. Later, other charges were dropped, and Lee was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood-alcohol level greater than .08 percent, a misdemeanor. The court placed him on three years of informal probation.
      In aggravation, the misconduct caused physical injury to the driver of the other vehicle as well as damage to the driver's vehicle. In mitigation, Lee reported the criminal charges through counsel and cooperated with the State Bar in resolving the matter. He submitted to a chemical test to determine his blood-alcohol level and paid full restitution to the other driver for the damage to his vehicle. Before State Bar involvement, he enrolled in and completed a 22-month chemical-dependency program.
      During his period of misconduct Lee also suffered family problems. His brother died, and Lee assumed custody of his brother's two teenage boys. Also, Lee's daughter was placed in a care facility for Downs syndrome. In 2003 Lee was in an auto accident and suffered neck, back, and head injuries.
      The order took effect June 22.
     
      John E. Mortimer, State Bar # 130526, Anza (June 15). Mortimer, 48, received a public reproval for failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      In June 1997 Mortimer was hired to represent a client in a workers compensation claim. Between 1997 and July 2006 the client repeatedly asked Mortimer to refer her to another doctor because the drive to the current doctor was too difficult for her. In 2006 the client and her mother asked Mortimer about a referral to another doctor, but he failed to respond to the client's request. In July 2006 the client terminated Mortimer's services and hired a new attorney, who referred the client to another doctor.
      Between May and October 2006 a State Bar investigator wrote to Mortimer on five occasions requesting his written response to allegations of misconduct filed against him by the client. He responded to three of the letters but failed to respond to the investigator's letters of September and October 2006.
      In aggravation, Mortimer failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default. In mitigation, he had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1987.
      The order took effect July 21.
     
      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.
     

---