Discipline Report

      DISBARMENT
     
      Francis J. Bloomingdale, State Bar # 52935, La Mesa (June 20). Bloomingdale, 70, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court.
      In June 2006 Bloomingdale was placed on interim suspension after a burglary conviction. Conditions of rule 9.20 required Bloomingdale 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, Bloomingdale had a record of prior discipline. In 1988 he received a private reproval for entering into a business transaction with a client and failing to take steps to avoid adverse interests to the client. In August 1994 he was suspended for three years and placed on five years of probation for entering into a business transaction with a client, failing to take steps to avoid adverse interests, misappropriating funds, and engaging in multiple acts of wrongdoing. In August 1996 Bloomingdale was suspended again, this time for five years when he failed to comply with conditions to the 1994 discipline. In October 1999 he stipulated to a two-year suspension for failing to comply with probation conditions and was ordered to make restitution of $89,250 to one client. Also, in the current matter Bloomingdale demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct, and he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings.
      The order took effect July 20.
     
      Richard L. Davenport Jr., State Bar # 51916, Reno, Nevada (July 13). Davenport, 61, received a summary disbarment after his conviction for embezzlement.
      In August 2006 Davenport was convicted of two counts of embezzlement under the Nevada Revised Statutes 205.300, a felony involving moral turpitude, by converting money or property to his own use. His conviction met the criteria for summary disbarment.
      The order took effect August 16.
     
      Robert S. Gordon, State Bar # 116467, Palo Alto (July 17). Gordon, 49, received a summary disbarment after his felony conviction for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. His conviction met the criteria for summary disbarment.
      The order took effect August 16.
     
      Joe A. Leyva, State Bar # 175131, Azusa (June 13). Leyva, 38, was disbarred for failing to keep a client informed, failing to return unearned fees, failing to provide an accounting, failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
      In June 2005 Leyva was paid $1,500 to represent a client in obtaining a reconveyance of a trust deed to the client's property and to obtain damages created when the financial company failed to file a reconveyance. That same month Leyva wrote to the company about reconveyance. In July 2005 the company replied to Leyva's letter saying that the client's loan was rescinded and title was reconveyed.
      Leyva wrote to the financial company and the client saying that he would file an ex parte application and a complaint on behalf of the client. Counsel for the company wrote to Leyva and enclosed another copy of the reconveyance. Leyva failed to inform the client that the reconveyance had been filed. In July 2005 Leyva told the client a complaint was filed against the company, a statement he knew was not true. In August 2005 he told the client the company had offered to settle the case for $100,000, a statement he also knew was not true.
      A month or two later Leyva told the client the reconveyance was filed. In January 2006 he had the client sign a declaration in preparation for a mediation, but he knew there was no need for mediation. When Leyva became unresponsive to inquiries, the client hired new counsel. In the same month, the new attorney made three requests for Leyva to transfer the client's complete file. Leyva failed to respond to the attorney's letters, and in February 2006 Leyva left the client's file on the sidewalk in front of the attorney's office.
      The new attorney then requested Leyva to refund the client's $1,500 advance fee because the client received no services from him. Leyva failed to return the fee and failed to respond to the attorney's letter.
      In March and April 2006 a State Bar investigator wrote to Leyva requesting his written response to allegations of misconduct filed against him by the client. Leyva failed to respond to the investigator's letters or otherwise communicate with the State Bar.
      In aggravation, Leyva had a record of prior discipline. In February 2007 he was suspended for one year and until the State Bar Court grants a motion terminating the suspension. He was suspended for failing to perform legal services competently, making misrepresentations of fact to a court and his clients, failing to obey court orders, failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption. Also, the current matter involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to his client, and Leyva failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default.
      The order took effect July 13.
     
      Randall D. Mason, State Bar # 212858, Citrus Heights (July 3). Mason, 36, was disbarred after being found culpable in six client matters.
      Accusations of misconduct included failing to perform legal services competently, failing to promptly return unearned fees, improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to respond to client inquiries, failing to keep clients informed about developments in their cases, failing to cooperate with three State Bar investigations, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
      In aggravation, Mason's misconduct caused significant harm to his clients. Also, he demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for his actions by failing to return $6,200 in unearned fees to five clients. In addition, he failed to cooperate with the State Bar during its investigations and proceedings.
      The order took effect August 2.
     
      Patrick J. McDonough, State Bar # 66780, Walnut Creek (June 28). McDonough, 56, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court.
      In May 2006 McDonough was suspended for 90 days. He was disciplined 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, McDonough had a record of prior discipline. In 1993 he received a public reproval for attorney misconduct. In 2004 the State Bar and McDonough entered into a stipulation in which he received a private reproval for attorney misconduct. Conditions to the reproval required McDonough to attend State Bar ethics school within one year of the effective date of the reproval. He failed to attend ethics school within the required time. In May 2006 the underlying matter occurred. Also, in the current matter McDonough demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct, and he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings. The State Bar Court found that McDonough demonstrated a contemptuous attitude toward disciplinary proceedings and that he failed to comprehend his duty as an officer of the court.
      The order took effect July 28.
     
      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.
     
      Cameron G. Campbell, State Bar # 123552, Carlsbad (June 21). Campbell, 48, resigned from the bar on April 25. The order took effect July 21.
     
      Donald R. Ferguson, State Bar # 165858, Riverside (June 21). Ferguson, 51, resigned from the bar on April 30. The order took effect July 21.
     
      Christopher Gruys, State Bar # 50671, Healdsburg (June 21). Gruys, 61, resigned from the bar on April 27 with disciplinary charges pending. The order took effect July 21.
     
      Rudy D. Guzzetta, State Bar # 59450, San Jose (June 21). Guzzetta, 60, resigned from the bar on April 27. The order took effect July 21.
     
      Eric R. Maire, State Bar # 175907, Redding (June 21). Maire, 41, resigned from the bar on April 30. The order took effect July 21.
     
      William J. Middleton, State Bar # 89728, Altadena (June 21). Middleton, 66, resigned from the bar on April 27. The order took effect July 21.
     
      David P. Weaver Jr., State Bar # 34113, San Francisco (June 21). Weaver, 70, resigned from the bar on May 2. The order took effect July 21.
     
      SUSPENSION
     
      George Bumanglag, State Bar # 56646, Fresno (June 28). Bumanglag, 58, was suspended for six months and placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently.
      In July and August 1982 Bumanglag represented a criminal defendant in a murder trial. The client was found guilty of a triple murder and conspiracy to commit the murders of seven other people.
      During the penalty phase of the trial, Bumanglag failed to ask the court for a continuance to give him time to further investigate the issues. The client provided Bumanglag with a list of 26 potential witnesses, but only 1 witness was called to testify on behalf of the client, even though family members and friends offered to testify as mitigation witnesses.
      The trial court imposed a sentence of death on the client. In May 2004 the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the client's writ for habeas corpus. In January 2005 the court amended its opinion by finding that Bumanglag failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of the trial, but it also found that would not have altered the jury's verdict of the death sentence. In January 2006, at age 76, the client was executed.
      In aggravation, Bumanglag had a record of discipline. But the State Bar Court found the earlier disciplinary matters were not prior because they occurred after the current misconduct took place. Bumanglag was suspended in 1991 and 1993. In 1995 he was placed on probation for misconduct. In mitigation, Bumanglag cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. He demonstrated remorse, and he acted in good faith. Also, no clients were harmed by the misconduct. Delay in the proceedings was not due to any action by Bumanglag. He also submitted testimony from a wide range of references attesting to his good character.
      The order took effect July 28.
     
      Leonie E. Davis, State Bar # 224575, El Dorado Hills (June 28). Davis, 44, was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation for improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to provide an accounting, failing to return unearned fees, failing to respond to client inquiries, failing to keep a client informed about case developments, and failing to employ means consistent with the truth.
      In July 2004 Davis was paid $3,500 to represent a client in a marital dissolution. In March 2005 the client signed a marital settlement agreement. Davis provided no further services to the client. Between March and August 2005 Davis failed to respond to client messages and failed to inform the client about the status of her case. When the client attempted to file the settlement agreement on her own, the court rejected the filing because Davis had not filed the required financial disclosure statements.
      In a second matter, in November 2004 Davis was paid $4,000 to represent a client in a child-custody matter. In June 2005 the client hand-delivered a letter to Davis's office asking that she contact opposing counsel to discuss issues. Davis failed to respond to the letter. A week later the client delivered a second letter to Davis, but Davis failed to respond to the client's inquires.
      In August 2005 the client delivered two additional letters. In September 2005 the client learned that Davis no longer maintained an office in the building where she had been located. That same month the client received a letter from Davis saying that she had to withdraw from most of her cases. Davis had failed to inform the client about her change of address previously.
      In aggravation, the misconduct caused harm to her clients. In mitigation, at the time of her misconduct Davis suffered emotional and physical difficulties.
      The order took effect July 28.
     
      Francis T. Fahy, State Bar # 147721, San Francisco (June 20). Fahy, 58, was suspended for 24 months in a Review Department opinion and placed on four years of probation for failing to notify a client he was in receipt of client funds, failing to maintain client funds in trust, failing to pay out client funds, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
      In June 1999 Fahy was hired to represent a client in a personal injury claim. After Fahy negotiated with the defendant's insurer in September and October that year, the carrier sent Fahy a check for $5,000, which Fahy deposited into his client trust account by signing the client's name on the draft. He failed to inform the client about receiving the draft.
      About one week later Fahy filed a complaint for damages on behalf of the client. In November 1999 he wrote to the client stating that he could no longer represent the client and was withdrawing from representation. Between March and May 2000 the balance in the client trust account fell below the amount Fahy needed to maintain on behalf of the client.
      In June 2000 the client hired new counsel. The new attorney learned about the $5,000 payment during the client's deposition. The attorney wrote to Fahy requesting him to return the funds. In November 2000 Fahy sent the new attorney a check for $5,000.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. Fahy demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct. In mitigation, Fahy sent the $5,000 to the new attorney before the State Bar complaint was filed. He also cooperated with the State Bar by stipulating to the disciplinary charges.
      The order took effect July 20.
     
      Craig D. Foster, State Bar # 179488, Dunsmuir (June 8). Foster, 56, was suspended for 90 days and placed on two years of probation for improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to maintain client funds in trust, failing to remove earned fees from the client trust account, depositing personal funds into the client trust account, commingling, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
      In May 2001 Foster filed a personal injury complaint on behalf of his client. About a month later the defendant advised Foster that he had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and that the personal injury action was automatically stayed pending further order by the bankruptcy court. Foster advised the client by letter that no action could be taken on the case, that it needed to be removed from the civil active list, and that he needed to file a dismissal.
      In July 2001 Foster had the client sign
      a substitution-of-attorney form placing her in pro per. In early August 2001 the court issued an order for the parties to file supplemental diligence statements by late September 2001. Foster failed to file the diligence statement, and he failed to notify the client about the court's order.
      In mid-August 2001 Foster received the signed substitution of attorney from the client, which was filed a week later. In October 2001 the court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed over the failure to file the diligence statement. The order was served on Foster, but he failed to notify the client about the hearing date. The hearing on the order was scheduled for November 2001, but neither Foster nor the client appeared. As a result, the court dismissed the client's case.
      In a second matter, between August 2004 and April 2005 Foster issued 15 checks against the client trust account to pay personal expenses. In October 2004 a trust account check for $845 was paid against insufficient funds. Between Aug-ust and October 2004 Foster deposited $4,200 of nonclient funds into the client trust account.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, Foster had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1995. He also cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect July 8.
     
      Michael J. Melton, State Bar # 48323, Rolling Hills Estates (June 20). Melton, 61, was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently, improperly withdrawing from representation, and fail-ing to return unearned fees.
      In September 2002 Melton was paid $4,000 to represent a plaintiff in a pending civil action. About the same time, the client returned a signed substitution-of-attorney form to Melton, who was substituting in place of the client's previous attorney. In July 2002 the defendant served discovery requests on the previous attorney, who informed the defendant that the client was in pro per. The client failed to respond to the defendant's discovery requests.
      In November 2002 the defendant filed a motion to compel discovery responses. In January 2003 the court granted the motion and imposed sanctions of $350 against Melton. In March 2003 he filed the substitution of attorney. In April 2003 the court imposed judgment and dismissed the client's complaint with prejudice. In June and July 2003 the client requested a refund of the $4,000 advance fee, but Melton failed to refund the money until October 2005, after the State Bar initiated its investigation of the client's complaint.
      In aggravation, Melton had a record of prior discipline. In July 2005 he was placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to keep a client informed about developments in the client's case, failing to respond to the client's reasonable status inquiries, improperly withdrawing from representation, and failing to return unearned fees.
      The order took effect July 20.
     
      Ronald S. Parker, State Bar # 62357, Encino (May 29). Parker, 60, was suspended for one year in a Review Department opinion, ordered to make restitution of $6,210 to two clients, and placed on three years of probation. He was found culpable of failing to perform legal services competently and failing to promptly pay funds to a client.
      In 1999 Parker moved into an office that was previously occupied by another attorney. He agreed to take over some of the cases from that attorney, and he kept a few of the attorney's employees. In October 1999 he instructed one of the employees to have the other attorney's clients sign substitution-of-attorney forms and also to have them signed by the attorney. A few days later Parker signed one of the forms that purportedly had been signed by a client. He instructed another employee to prepare discovery for service on defendants and to prepare and file a trial-setting memorandum.
      In November 1999 Parker signed a statutory offer to reach a compromise on the matter for $11,000. The defendant offered $9,000 to settle, and Parker accepted the offer without the client's knowledge and consent. In January 2000 Parker received a draft for the $9,000 and deposited the funds into his client trust account without obtaining the client's signature on the draft. Later, Parker paid the client's $3,000 medical lien. One of Parker's employees notified the client about the settlement.
      In February 2000 the client and his mother met with Parker for the first time. The client did not know that Parker was his new attorney. The client asked to see the signed substitution-of-attorney form, but Parker's staff could not locate the document. During the meeting, Parker attempted to pay the client his share of the settlement, but the client refused to accept the funds, stating that he wanted the entire $9,000 because Parker was not his attorney. In response to a letter from the client, Parker told the client that he was not entitled to any settlement amount other than that specified in the retainer agreement.
      In May and June 2000 Parker suggested the matter be submitted to arbitration, but the client refused to do so. In September 2000, after further communicating with Parker about the settlement funds, the client and his mother filed a complaint with the State Bar.
      In 2005 Parker decided to close his law office, and he transferred $3,210 from his trust account to the attorney representing him in the State Bar matter. The attorney sent the money to the client and his mother.
      In aggravation, Parker had a record of prior discipline. In 1984 he was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for receiving stolen property. Later, he was placed on three years of probation for his misconduct. In mitigation, he was cooperative during the State Bar proceedings, and he submitted statements from witnesses who attested to his good character. He also testified to his pro bono and community-service activities.
      The order took effect June 28.
     
      John R. Schiro, State Bar # 86394, Studio City (July 13). Schiro, 58, was suspended for 30 days and placed on one year of probation for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to respond to a client's status inquiries, and failing to return unearned fees.
      In August 2002 Schiro was paid $1,500 to prepare a civil complaint against two individuals and an escrow company, but he failed to file the lawsuit and failed to provide any legal services to the client.
      Between October 2002 and April 2003 the client left numerous telephone messages for Schiro, but Schiro failed to respond. In February 2005 the client terminated Schiro's services and hired another attorney.
      The new attorney wrote to Schiro requesting the client's file and asking him to sign the enclosed substitution-of-attorney form. Schiro failed to respond to the letter, failed to send the client's file, and failed to sign and return the substitution-of-attorney form.
      Schiro did not perform any legal services for the client, and he failed to promptly return the advance fee. In December 2006 Schiro returned the $1,500 advance fee plus $644 in interest.
      In aggravation, the misconduct caused significant harm to the client. In mitigation, Schiro had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1979.
      The order took effect August 12.
     
      Wilma R. Shanks, State Bar # 144004, Santa Ana (June 13). Shanks, 49, was suspended for 60 days and placed on one year of probation for failing to notify a client she was in receipt of settlement funds.
      In January 1999 Shanks was paid $1,500 to represent a client in a dispute with a finance company, AFC. In May 1999 AFC initiated an action in Indiana against the client. In July 1999 Shanks and the client initiated an action in Los Angeles against AFC and an individual. In December 1999 the Indiana case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In May 2000 AFC initiated a cross-complaint against the client.
      That same month Shanks attempted to have the client sign a new fee agreement, but he refused to do so, which resulted in a fee dispute. In October 2000 the case settled for $12,000, but the fee dispute continued. Shanks provided the client with a billing statement showing a balance of $21,306. In November 2000 the client, his wife, and his business filed for bankruptcy protection. In December 2000 Shanks sent a demand letter to AFC for payment of the settlement funds. A copy of the letter was sent to the client's bankruptcy attorney.
      AFC filed for a mandatory settlement conference. At the hearing, the court confirmed the settlement, and AFC provided a check for the funds to Shanks, which she deposited into her client trust account. The next day, she withdrew the $12,000 from the account. Shanks failed to inform the client she received the settlement check, and she failed to tell the client she had withdrawn all the funds to pay her fee.
      In mitigation, Shanks had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1989.
      The order took effect July 13.
     
      Richard G. Tarlow, State Bar # 72889, Calabasas (May 29). Tarlow, 63, was suspended for six months, placed on four years of probation, and ordered to make restitution of $14,000 to two clients. He was disciplined for failing to promptly pay out funds on behalf of a client, failing to maintain client funds in trust, failing to provide an accounting, failing to respond promptly to a client's status inquiries, and failing to cooperate with two State Bar investigations.
      In April 2001 Tarlow was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case. In July 2002 the case settled for $17,500. Tarlow failed to promptly disburse funds to the client and to the lienholders, waiting until October 2003 to pay the client and March 2004 to pay the two lienholders. He provided the client with a disbursement sheet. The client agreed with the disbursements but requested an accounting from Tarlow, which he failed to provide. Tarlow negotiated reductions in funds owed to the client's medical providers, but he failed to inform the client about the reductions and failed to pay the remaining funds to the client.
      In a second matter, in May 2002 Tarlow was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case. In February 2003 the case settled for $25,000. In March 2003 he paid himself $10,000 in fees. Between March 2003 and January 2004 the client made several written requests to Tarlow for payment of the settlement funds, but he failed to respond to the client's inquiries and failed to send the settlement funds.
      After paying his fees and costs, Tarlow was required to maintain $13,865 in trust for the client. In October 2004 the balance in the trust account fell below the amount owed to the client. By January 2005 the balance in the account fell to $5,085. In August 2005
      the client wrote to Tarlow requesting an accounting and informing him that her medical bills had not been paid. Tarlow failed to respond to the letter and failed to provide the requested accounting.
      In June and July 2005 a State Bar investigator wrote to Tarlow requesting his written response to allegations of misconduct filed against him by the client. He failed to respond to the investigator's letters.
      In a third matter, in October 2002 Tarlow was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case. In May 2003 the case settled for $25,000, and Tarlow paid $10,000 to the client as partial payment of the settlement. In August 2003 he settled the client's underinsured-motorist claim for $52,500. In September 2003 he sent the client a partial payment of $6,500. In December 2003 he paid the client an additional $7,500 in settlement funds.
      By December 2003 Tarlow was required to maintain $41,000 in trust for the client. Between December 2003 and May 2005 the balance in the trust account fell below the amount that belonged to the client. Tarlow misappropriated $36,790 of the client's funds.
      In February and March 2005 a State Bar investigator wrote to Tarlow requesting his written response to allegations filed against him by the client. Tarlow failed to respond to the investigator's letters.
      In aggravation, Tarlow had a record of prior discipline. In May 2006 he was suspended for 30 days. He was disciplined for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to keep a client informed, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation. In the present matter, Tarlow's misconduct caused harm to his clients.
      In mitigation, he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. In February 2001 Tarlow lost his home to fire, which required him to relocate his family to a rental house for two years. During the fire, he suffered smoke injury and had to reduce his caseload. As a result, he could no longer afford the rent on his office and relocated the office to his home. One client filed a civil action against him, which he settled with the client for $125,000.
      The order took effect June 28.
     
      Dennis R. Watt, State Bar # 38883, Albany (July 17). Watt, 71, was suspended for six months for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to maintain client funds in trust, and failing to provide an accounting as requested by a client.
      Sometime in 2000 Watt represented the administrator of a decedent's estate, and he, not the administrator, maintained custody and control of the estate's assets to pay debts and disburse estate assets.
      In October 2000 Watt received $35,145 from the sale of estate property and deposited the funds into a bank account. In October and December 2000 he deposited $150,000 into another bank account, and in March 2001 he deposited an additional $3,579 into the same account. The funds were from the sale of estate property. Both bank accounts were not client trust accounts, but he used the bank accounts to pay estate debts and expenses.
      On six occasions between February 2002 and December 2004 the client requested to know the status of the estate debts, taxes, and expenses, but Watt failed to respond to the client's inquiries. In 2005 Watt promised to send the client copies of bank statements, but he failed to do so.
      In 2003 and 2004 the Internal Revenue Service and the Franchise Tax Board sent notices to the client about unpaid tax bills. In June 2004 the estate still owed $17,837 in back taxes. Watt promised the client he would take care of the tax bill, but he failed to do so-even though he still held $37,699 in estate funds. Also, he failed to disburse funds, and two beneficiaries died without receiving their disbursements.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to the client and the beneficiaries. Watt demonstrated indifference to the rights of the client and other beneficiaries. Also, he failed to participate during the State Bar proceedings prior to entry of his default. In mitigation, Watt had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1966.
      The order took effect August 16.
     
      PROBATION
     
      Janis L. Turner, State Bar # 79217, San Diego (June 20). Turner, 57, was placed on two years of probation for failing to obey a court order and failing to report sanctions to the State Bar.
      In December 2003 Turner was hired to represent a client in an appeal of a $636,460 judgment. In December 2004 the defendant filed a motion for sanctions of $25,000, arguing that Turner's appeal was frivolous. In January 2005 the client filed an in pro per Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and the appeal was stayed. In February 2005 the client hired a bankruptcy attorney, who entered into a stipulation with the defendant for relief from the automatic stay.
      The bankruptcy court lifted the stay, and Turner was served with notice of the court's order. In June 2005 the appellate court issued its opinion finding in favor of the defendant and reduced the amount of sanctions to $4,469. In September 2005 the defendant faxed and mailed Turner a copy of the court's judgment along with a request to pay the sanctions.
      In November 2005 the State Bar received a complaint from the defendant that Turner failed to pay the sanctions. In May 2006 Turner paid the sanctions by check, but she mailed it in error to the U.S. Trustee for the client's bankruptcy matter. The U.S. Trustee later sent the check to the defendant.
      In aggravation, Turner had a record of prior discipline. In May 2004 Turner was placed on one year of probation for failing to perform legal services competently and failing to preserve the secrets of her clients. In March 2006 she was placed on two years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a 2004 order of discipline. In mitigation, Turner acted in good faith.
      The order took effect July 20.
     
      PUBLIC REPROVAL
     
      Eugene V. Belitsky, State Bar # 191162, Washington, D.C. (May 25). Belitsky, 36, received a public reproval for failing to return client papers and property and failing to maintain a current address with the State Bar.
      In November 2004 Belitsky was paid $2,000 to represent a client in a marital dissolution. He prepared several documents for the client and negotiated the terms of an agreement between the husband and wife.
      In August 2005 the client terminated Belitsky's services and requested the return of her file, but Belitsky failed to respond to the client's request. In October 2005 the client wrote to Belitsky with a second request to return the file, but the letter was returned to the client.
      In mitigation, Belitsky had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1997. He cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation, and he returned the client's file in January 2007.
      The order took effect June 20.
     
      Lawrence Y. D. Ho, State Bar # 134536, Singapore (June 6). Ho, 50, received a public reproval for maintaining an untrue statement on his law firm website.
      In 1992 Ho applied for registration to practice law before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. His application was denied because he did not satisfy the requirements for registration pursuant to 37 Code of Federal Regulations, section 10.7.
      In December 2005 Ho's law firm website stated that he was a U.S. patent attorney registered with the patent office. In February 2006 Ho removed the designation after being notified by the patent office that he was not entitled to display the claim.
      In mitigation, no clients were harmed by the misconduct, and Ho cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation.
      The order took effect June 21.
     
      Jim G. Price, State Bar # 119324, Brentwood (May 29). Price, 49, received a public reproval for accepting a legal fee from someone other than a client and without the client's permission.
      In April 2004 Price was hired to represent the seller of a parcel of real property in a quiet title action. The buyer of the real property hired Price and paid the attorneys fees. Price was hired without the informed written consent of the seller.
      In mitigation, Price cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation.
      The order took effect June 19.
     
      REINSTATEMENT
     
      Edward A. Judge, State Bar # 147156, San Francisco (June 13). Judge, 46, was reinstated as a member of the State Bar by the state Supreme Court. The reinstatement will take effect upon payment of fees and Judge taking the oath.
     
      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.
     

---