Discipline Report

      DISBARMENT
     
      Elizabeth A. Guittard, a.k.a. Elizabeth A. Barranco, State Bar # 115421, San Diego (May 4). Guittard, 47, was disbarred for failing to perform legal services competently, representing adverse interests, and failing to promptly return client papers and property.
      In 1994 Guittard represented husband-and-wife clients in legal matters related to the couple's construction business. From July 2002 to 2004 Guittard represented the husband in a criminal matter in which the business had failed to make payments to an insurance fund and the state Employment Development Department (EDD). She also agreed to represent the wife without the informed, written consent of each client. The wife was named as a defendant in the criminal matter because she was part owner of the business.
      In 2005, while representing the husband, Guittard represented the wife in a separate family law matter involving the wife's community property and restitution payments to the EDD and the insurance fund. Guittard possessed confidential information about the family law matter while representing the husband.
      In a second matter, in 1999 Guittard was hired by the mother of a criminal defendant to explore filing a habeas corpus petition. In April 2002 Guittard told the mother that she was working on a state petition. After that date, Guittard stopped working on the petition. From May 2002 to May 2006 Guittard failed to return the criminal defendant's files and failed to return documents to the client as requested by the State Bar. As of July 2006 the client files had not been returned.
      In aggravation, Guittard had a record of prior discipline. In July 2006 she was suspended for one year and placed on four years of probation after being found culpable in ten client matters for failing to comply with conditions to a 2001 private reproval, failing to maintain client funds in trust, failing to perform legal services competently, relocating her office without notice to clients, improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to keep a client informed about developments in the client's case, failing to promptly return unearned fees, failing to promptly release client files, engaging in acts of moral turpitude, and failing to cooperate with three State Bar investigations. In addition, she was ordered to make restitution of $26,500 to three former clients. Also, in the current matter, Guittard failed to cooperate with State Bar proceedings before entry of her default.
      The order took effect June 3.
     
      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.
     
      Michael A. Cardenas, State Bar # 177798, Winnetka (May 14). Cardenas, 47, resigned from the bar on April 3. The order took effect June 13.
     
      Frank T. Davies, State Bar # 105549, San Diego (May 30). Davies, 57, resigned from the bar on March 1. The order took effect June 29.
     
      J. Jeffrey Long, State Bar # 119125, Santa Clarita (May 14). Long, 59, resigned from the bar on March 29. The order took effect June 13.
      SUSPENSION
     
      Kathryn R. Buffington, State Bar # 82565, Long Beach (May 4). Buffington, 55, was suspended for one year and placed on four years of probation for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
      In May 2005 the State Bar notified Buffington that she had not paid her membership dues. In August 2005 the bar notified her that the California Supreme Court had issued an order suspending her from practice until the dues were paid. In October 2005 Buffington changed her membership address with the bar and was sent a letter at the new address informing her about the court's order. From January to March 2006 she continued to hold herself out as entitled to practice law, and engaged in the practice of law while on suspension.
      In aggravation, Buffington had a record of prior discipline. In December 1999 she was placed on one year of probation for driving under the influence of alcohol and related charges. In April 2004 she was stopped by police when her car was making a loud noise. Police observed signs that Buffington was intoxicated, and she was taken into custody. A test revealed her blood-alcohol level to be 0.16 percent, twice the state's legal limit. In February 2005 Buffington pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence. She was sentenced to 45 days in jail and ordered to be evaluated for substance abuse by a doctor. In March 2006 she was suspended from practice for 30 days and placed on four years of probation after the DUI conviction.
      The order took effect June 3.
     
      Thomas W. Gillen, State Bar # 152569, Yorba Linda (May 29). Gillen, 78, was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for helping a resigned attorney engage in the unauthorized practice of law, allowing a nonattorney to practice law, allowing a resigned attorney to negotiate or transact a matter for a client with a third party, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
      In aggravation, Gillen had a record of prior discipline. In February 2004 he was placed on two years of probation for failing to maintain client funds in trust, failing to notify a client he was in receipt of settlement funds, and failing to perform legal ser-vices competently. In the current matter the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that demonstrated a pattern of misconduct. In mitigation, no clients were harmed by the misconduct.
      The order took effect June 28.
     
      Bernabe Hernandez, State Bar # 110671, Santa Rosa (May 29). Hernandez, 52, was suspended for two years, placed on five years of probation, and ordered to make restitution payments to several clients.
      Hernandez was disciplined after being found culpable of misconduct in seven client matters, including failing to perform legal services competently, failing to return unearned fees, failing to promptly return client papers and property, failing to respond to client inquiries, failing to keep clients informed about significant developments in their cases, and failing to take steps to avoid prejudice to a client upon termination of employment.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to one client. Hernandez also failed to provide written fee agreements to his clients, and he failed to cooperate with the State Bar during its investigation. In mitigation, Hernandez had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1983. He also made some restitution payments and agreed to refund his fees to other clients.
      The order took effect June 28.
       
      Ken S. Horio, State Bar # 182409, Huntington Beach (May 30). Horio, 42, was suspended for two years, placed on four years of probation, and ordered to make restitution of $5,250. He was disciplined for misconduct in four client matters, including failing to respond to client inquiries, failing to keep clients informed about developments in their cases, failing to inform clients of settlement offers, failing to release client papers and property upon termination of employment, failing to maintain client funds in trust, and failing to cooperate in four State Bar investigations.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to a client. In mitigation, Horio had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1996.
      The order took effect June 29.
       
      Keith G. Jordan, State Bar # 171267, San Jose (May 29). Jordan, 40, was suspended for nine months and placed on three years of probation after being found culpable of misconduct in eight client matters. He was disciplined for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to promptly reply to client status inquiries, failing to keep clients informed about developments in their cases, and failing to promptly return unearned fees.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients. In mitigation, Jordan cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and agreed to the State Bar's stipulation. He also demonstrated remorse for his wrongdoing and made restitution to three clients before bar involvement.
      The order took effect June 28.
       
      Susan Jordan, State Bar # 186676, Hollywood (May 29). Jordan, 57, was suspended for one year and placed on five years of probation after being found culpable of misconduct in seven client matters. She was disciplined for helping a nonattorney engage in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to report a judgment of $24,000 for malpractice and $250,000 in damages for fraud to the State Bar, failing to perform legal services competently, failing to respond promptly to client inquires, failing to keep clients informed about developments in their cases, failing to pay out funds promptly on behalf of a client, improperly withdrawing from representation, violating a court order, and failing to maintain client funds in trust. In December 2003 the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California revoked Jordan's right to practice before the court.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients and the public. In mitigation, Jordan cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation.
      The order took effect June 28.
     
      Marie I. Klopchic, State Bar # 201106, Martinez (May 30). Klopchic, 49, was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for misrepresenting facts to a court, failing to comply with court orders, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
      In June 2005 Klopchic represented a respondent in a marital dissolution. In July 2005, at a hearing on Klopchic's motion for child support, visitation, and spousal support, the court ordered her to prepare the findings. Klopchic failed to do so. In September 2005, at a mandatory settlement conference, the parties reached an agreement on the issues. The court ordered Klopchic to prepare a notice of judgment and settlement, but she failed to do so.
      In a second matter, in August 2005 Klopchic represented a client in a marital dissolution. About the same time, another attorney was hired to represent the respondent in the dissolution action. Opposing counsel telephoned Klopchic regarding the date for a hearing on Klopchic's motion for a temporary restraining order. The attorney explained to Klopchic that he would be in trial on another matter and requested that Klopchic appear, explain the situation to the judge, and submit their stipulation to continue the hearing date.
      On the day of the hearing, Klopchic told the court that opposing counsel would not appear but his client would appear, a statement Klopchic knew was not true. As a result of her statements, the court issued a permanent restraining order against the respondent. Klopchic failed to inform the court that she and the other attorney had discussed a continuance. Later, the couple reconciled and the matter was dismissed.
      In aggravation, the misconduct caused significant harm to a client, causing the client unnecessary expense. In mitigation, Klopchic had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1999.
      The order took effect June 29.
     
      Frederick C. Kumpel, State Bar # 122073, Bakersfield (May 14). Kumpel, 58, was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
      In June 2002 a husband and wife hired Kumpel to represent them in a civil case, asking him to file an answer, a cross-complaint, and a motion for change of venue. In October 2002 Kumpel failed to appear for a case-management conference and failed to file an answer, a cross-complaint, and a motion for a change of venue. In January 2003 the plaintiffs filed a request for entry of default. In May 2003 the court entered the default and a judgment of $63,295 against Kumpel's clients.
      In mitigation, Kumpel had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1985.
      The order took effect June 13.
     
      Charles L. Lazaro, State Bar # 48175, Visalia (May 14). Lazaro, 66, was suspended for 90 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to promptly pay funds to a client and collecting an illegal fee.
      In 2004 Lazaro was hired by a brother and sister to probate the estate of their father and to represent them if they were appointed as administrators. In December 2004 they were appointed as co-administrators. In March 2005 Lazaro deposited $12,066 of estate funds into his client trust account.
      In June 2005 the clients became unhappy with Lazaro's handling of the estate, and they hired a new attorney to substitute into the case. In August 2005 Lazaro signed the substitution and returned it to the new attorney. A few days later he sent the attorney a check for $3,126, which represented the remaining estate funds. Lazaro kept $1,000 as his fee, but he failed to obtain prior court approval or consent by the clients.
      In aggravation, the misconduct harmed the clients, the public, and the administration of justice. In mitigation, Lazaro had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1971. He also demonstrated remorse for his misconduct by refunding $1,000 to the estate.
      The order took effect June 13.
     
      Margaret E. Monos, State Bar # 146871, Los Angeles (May 15). Monos, 42, was suspended for two years and until she makes restitution of $6,000 to three clients. She was found culpable of misconduct for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to keep clients informed about their cases, failing to respond to client status inquires, failing to return unearned fees, failing to promptly return client papers and property, failing to provide an accounting, and failing to cooperate with three State Bar investigations.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that harmed the clients. Monos also failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of her default.
      The order took effect June 14.
     
      John W. Rhee, State Bar # 114109, Los Angeles (May 4). Rhee, 49, was suspended for six months and placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to maintain client funds in trust, commingling funds, issuing trust account checks against insufficient funds, using his client trust account to pay personal expenses, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      In July 2003 Rhee was hired to represent a criminal defendant. Before trial, a U.S. Attorney offered a plea bargain, but Rhee failed to convey the offer to the client. While representing the defendant, Rhee failed to advise the client about the court's sentencing guidelines and failed to file motions to suppress evidence or statements.
      In addition, the client was Korean and did not speak or understand English well. In September 2003 the defendant was convicted on all counts. In June 2004 a new attorney was appointed and a motion for a new trial was filed. The court granted the motion based on Rhee's lack of competent representation.
      In a second matter, from December 2004 to November 2005 Rhee wrote client trust account checks against insufficient funds, wrote trust account checks to pay personal expenses, and commingled personal funds with trust account funds.
      In aggravation, Rhee had a record of prior discipline. In 1995 he was suspended for three days and placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to promptly release client papers and property, and failing to maintain client funds in trust. Also, in the current matter the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to a client.
      The order took effect June 3.
     
      Jacques S. Whitfield, State Bar # 147362, Sacramento (May 30). Whitfield, 43, was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to an order of probation.
      In August 2002 Whitfield was placed on five years of probation after being found culpable for misconduct in five client matters, including failing to perform legal services competently, failing to refund unearned fees, failing to promptly disburse funds to a client, and failing to communicate. Also, he was ordered to make restitution of $8,600 to four clients.
      Conditions to the probation required Whitfield to file quarterly probation reports and make yearly restitution payments to four clients. He failed to timely file probation reports for October 2002, January 2004, and April 2005. He also failed to make restitution payments in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. He made restitution payments to the clients between September and November 2006, after the August due dates.
      In aggravation, Whitfield had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter.
      The order took effect June 29.
     
      Julie L. Wolff, State Bar # 142531, Sacramento (May 15). Wolff, 51, was suspended for 18 months in a Review Department opinion and placed on three years of probation. She was disciplined for failing to keep clients informed about their cases, failing to perform legal services competently, failing to comply with a court order, withdrawing from representation without court approval, improperly withdrawing from representation, and failing to report imposition of judicial sanctions to the State Bar.
      From 1991 through 1999 Wolff was a member of the Sacramento Indigent Defense Program. In 1998 the presiding judge of the Sacramento Superior Court, juvenile division, instituted new procedures for hiring attorneys for the program's clients by having all of the indigent cases handled by one law firm rather than by individual attorneys.
      In April 1999 the judge held a public meeting to discuss the new plan. At that time Wolff submitted a bid to the committee, but it was rejected in July 1999. In August 1999 Wolff submitted a document to the court that purported to be a motion to withdraw from 319 indigent cases in which she was the attorney of record. Wolff filed the motion without notice to the clients that she was seeking to be relieved as their attorney. The court rejected the motion because it did not meet the requirements for a motion to withdraw.
      In September 1999 Wolff stopped making court appearances for clients assigned to her by the indigent defense program. In September and October 1999 she failed to make 39 scheduled court appearances. In September 1999 the judge issued an order to show cause as to why Wolff should not be held in contempt. Wolff appeared for a hearing on the order and was represented by counsel. The judge told Wolff that he considered her to be the attorney of record on the indigent program cases and ordered her to appear for future scheduled hearings.
      At the hearing and through counsel, Wolff stated to the court her intention not to make any further appearances because she had returned the files to the indigent program's staff. In February 2000 Wolff stipulated to an order imposing sanctions of $1,500 for failing to appear on behalf of her indigent clients.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients, the public, and the administration of justice. In mitigation, Wolff had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1989. The Review Department also noted the delay by the State Bar in filing its notice of disciplinary charges.
      The order took effect June 14.
     
      Gabrielle C. Woods, State Bar # 133481, Altadena (May 15). Woods, 51, was suspended for 60 days and placed on three years of probation for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to maintain a current address and telephone number with the State Bar, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
      Between July and September 2005 the State Bar notified or attempted to notify Woods that she was not in compliance with her continuing legal education requirements. In September 2005 Woods was placed on not-entitled-to-practice status. In August 2005 she was hired to represent a client in an unlawful detainer action and remained active in that matter until October 2005, when the court became aware of her State Bar status.
      In mitigation, Woods had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1988.
      The order took effect June 14.
     
      PROBATION
     
      Jose J. Alvarez, State Bar # 65039, Oakland (May 4). Alvarez, 60, was placed on three years of probation after being found culpable in two client matters of entering into a fee agreement and having clients sign promissory notes with their homes used as security.
      Alvarez acquired an interest in his clients' real property through retainer agreements that were adverse to the clients' interests. He also failed to perform legal services competently, failed to return unearned fees, improperly withdrew from representation, failed to respond to the clients' inquiries, and failed to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, Alvarez had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1975.
      The order took effect June 3.
     
      Gordon G. Bones, State Bar # 147679, Fair Oaks (May 4). Bones, 52, was placed on two years of probation for breaching his fiduciary duty to a client and representing two clients in a matter in which their interests were in potential conflict.
      In December 2001 Bones was hired to represent a client who was the attorney for an estate's beneficiary. A parcel of real property belonging to the estate was sold and the proceeds deposited into a credit union account. The client asked Bones to estimate the value of services the client had provided to the beneficiary and his sister.
      Bones estimated the value of the client's services as $41,827. In January 2002 Bones allowed the client to pay herself that amount from estate funds without the beneficiary's written permission. In doing so, Bones violated his fiduciary duty to the estate and the beneficiary.
      In July 2002 the beneficiary terminated the client's power of attorney and gave that power to his daughter, who hired her own attorney. In October 2002 that attorney notified Bones of his representation. Bones sent the attorney a check for $35,000, most of the funds in the estate's bank account. Bones retained $6,196 until all issues were resolved.
      In November 2002 the attorney filed an action against Bones's client to recover $48,000 in estate funds. In July 2004 the matter settled, with the client agreeing to pay the disputed amount. Bones paid $5,000 from his own funds as part of the settlement and declared that the $6,196 he was holding would be used to pay his legal fees. He withheld that amount without the knowledge or permission of the new power of attorney.
      In mitigation, Bones had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1970. He also agreed to the stipulation without a hearing.
      The order took effect June 3.
     
      Thomas R. Lee, State Bar # 61858, Los Angeles (May 14). Lee, 60, was placed on three years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a private reproval.
      In November 2003 Lee received a private reproval for failing to avoid interests adverse to a client. He also was ordered to make restitution of $60,000 to one client. Conditions to the reproval required Lee to file quarterly probation reports, make monthly restitution payments, and take and pass the professional responsibility exam. The probation reports for 2004 and 2005 were filed late. Also, Lee failed to file proof of passing the exam by the required date, and he failed to make the restitution payments for five months in 2006. In March 2006 he made a $1,000 payment to the client security fund.
      In aggravation, Lee had a record of prior discipline, the underlying reproval. In mitigation, he paid the client $4,000 before entering into the current stipulation with the State Bar.
      The order took effect June 13.
     
      PUBLIC REPROVAL
     
      Arthur G. Dudley, State Bar # 56921, Santa Cruz (February 23). Dudley, 59, received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to respond to status inquiries, and failing to keep a client informed about developments in the client's case.
      In June 2000 Dudley was appointed by the Sixth District Appellate Program to represent a criminal defendant in his appeal. In May 2001 Dudley filed an opening brief. In September 2002 the court affirmed the client's conviction. In November 2002 Dudley filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. In December 2002 the Supreme Court denied the petition, but Dudley did not notify the client about the order until February 2003. Following the notification, the client heard nothing more from Dudley. In March 2004 the client wrote to Dudley, asking about the status of the review petition, but Dudley failed to respond. In June 2004 the client wrote to the clerk of the Sixth District Court of Appeal regarding the status of his review petition. In June 2004 the client received from the clerk a copy of the court's 2002 order denying his petition. That same month the client wrote two letters to Dudley, but Dudley failed to respond. In August 2004 the client filed a complaint with the State Bar about Dudley's failure to communicate. In September 2004 the client's deadline for filing a habeas corpus petition passed.
      In response to a letter from the State Bar about the client's complaint, Dudley agreed to help the client file a late habeas corpus petition. Based on Dudley's promise to help the client, the State Bar closed the client's complaint. In November 2004 Dudley wrote to the client, saying he would help prepare paperwork for the petition within two weeks of the letter. Dudley prepared and mailed the paperwork, but the client did not receive the documents. From November 2004 to January 2007 Dudley failed to communicate with the client about the petition.
      After receiving a letter from the State Bar about the client's second complaint, Dudley wrote to the State Bar, saying he would help the client. In January 2007 Dudley sent another copy of the petition to the client.
      In aggravation, Dudley's misconduct caused harm to the client and the administration of justice. In mitigation, Dudley had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1973. Also, he was candid and cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect March 16.
     
      Charles B. Graff, State Bar # 207634, Temecula (May 4). Graff, 40, received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to communicate with a client, and failing to promptly return unearned fees.
      In October 2004 Graff was paid $1,000 to negotiate a settlement of the client's unpaid student loans. In the following weeks, the client left several telephone messages for Graff, but the attorney failed to respond to the calls. In November 2004 the client met with Graff to discuss the progress of the negotiations. Graff told the client that he would have the matter resolved by February or March 2005, but that he required an additional $1,447. The client did not pay the additional fees.
      In December 2004 Graff met with the client and told her that he would file a motion to reopen the client's Chapter 7 bankruptcy but that he needed the additional fee of $1,447 to help cover his fees, filing fees, and costs. The client paid Graff the additional money. Later, the client left telephone messages for Graff, but he failed to respond.
      In April 2005 the client requested an accounting of the $2,447 in legal fees. In April and May 2005 the client left telephone messages for Graff requesting a refund of the paid fees, but Graff failed to respond and failed to refund the fees. In July 2005 the client filed a complaint with the State Bar. In December 2005 Graff returned the unearned fees.
      In mitigation, at the time of the misconduct Graff had 400 active cases with only a small staff of nonattorneys to assist in the work. Later, he was hired as house counsel for a company, and he reduced his caseload to a manageable level.
      The order took effect May 25.
     
      Stanley B. Granville, State Bar # 87127, Beverly Hills (May 4). Granville, 53, received a public reproval after failing to comply with conditions to an agreement in lieu of discipline.
      In May 2005 Granville entered into an agreement with the State Bar that required him to attend State Bar ethics school and pass the final exam. He failed to attend ethics school within the time provided in the agreement.
      In aggravation, Granville had a record of prior discipline. In 1998 he received a private reproval after his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. In mitigation, Granville demonstrated remorse for his misconduct. He was given an extension to June 2006 to attend ethics school, but he was unable to do so because of illness. In October 2006 he successfully completed ethics school and provided the State Bar with a certificate of completion.
      The order took effect May 19.
     
      Kyle S. Hackett, State Bar # 194658, Santa Monica (March 29). Hackett, 45, received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to respond promptly to client inquiries, improperly withdrawing from representation, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      In mitigation, Hackett had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1998.
      The order took effect April 19.
     
      Thomas P. Hogan, State Bar # 95055, Modesto (April 25). Hogan, 58, received a public reproval after being found culpable of failing to dismiss a case when asked to do so by clients, failing to keep clients informed about developments in their cases, and entering into a business relationship with a client without giving the client an opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, Hogan had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1980. Also, he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect May 16.
     
      Anders L. Johnson, State Bar # 139654, San Francisco (March 21). Johnson, 46, received a public reproval after being found culpable of misconduct in Iowa. Under California statutes, he failed to perform legal services competently and engaged in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
      In October 2005 the Iowa Supreme Court issued an order of public reprimand to Johnson for his misconduct in representing a criminal defendant in that state.
      In mitigation, Johnson had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the California Bar in 1989.
      The order took effect April 12.
     
      Daniel J. Mulligan, State Bar # 103129, San Francisco (May 10). Mulligan, 54, received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently, improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to respond to client inquiries, and failing to keep a client informed about case developments.
      In March 2004 Mulligan was hired to represent a client in a possible class action against a corporation. Between April 2004 and January 2006 Mulligan told the client that he would prepare and file a complaint against the corporation. During the same period, the client made numerous attempts to contact Mulligan by email and telephone, but without success. In January 2006 the client terminated Mulligan's services.
      In April 2006 Mulligan informed the State Bar that he explained to the client his belief that the case had no merit and was not worth pursuing. Mulligan performed no services for the client.
      In aggravation, the misconduct allowed at least one claim to be barred by the statute of limitations. In mitigation, Mulligan had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1982. He also submitted testimonial evidence of his good character.
      The order took effect May 31.
     
      Thomas W. Nawalany, State Bar # 156420, Portland, Oregon (May 7). Nawalany, 49, received a public reproval after being disciplined in Oregon for failing to perform legal services competently.
      In September 2001 Nawalany was asked by a woman to draft a will for a 93-year-old woman who was living in the younger woman's home. Nawalany met with the elderly woman, but the woman who called Nawalany did not inform him that she was operating a foster care facility and that the elderly woman was placed there by an Oregon senior services department. Nawalany prepared a will in which the elderly woman left all of her assets and possessions to the foster home family.
      Before preparing the will, Nawalany failed to determine the elderly woman's mental state, her relationship with the foster family, and her living arrangements. In Oregon, foster care providers are prohibited from accepting gifts from people in their care. The Oregon State Bar found that Nawalany failed to provide coherent representation.
      In mitigation, Nawalany had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the California Bar in 1991.
      The order took effect June 2.
     
      Victoria M. Walter, State Bar # 187805, Novato (April 27). Walter, 42, received a public reproval after being convicted of possession, use, and being under the influence of a controlled substance, all misdemeanors.
      In April 2002 Walter was charged with the three drug counts. In June 2002 she pleaded guilty to them and was placed in a diversion program. In April 2004 she was again arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance, and her participation in the diversion program was revoked.
      In September 2004 Walter admitted to the charges and was sentenced to 90 days in jail and placed on three years of formal probation.
      In mitigation, Walter had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1997. The misconduct did not result in harm to clients. Also, she cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings and demonstrated remorse for her misconduct.
      The order took effect May 18.
     
      David M. Ward, State Bar # 89734, Rancho Santa Margarita (March 29). Ward, 51, received a public reproval for making false and misleading advertising.
      In December 2001 Ward placed himself on inactive status with the State Bar. From June 2001 to June 2005 he operated an attorney-marketing business and ran advertisements in legal journals and on the Internet. He advertised himself as an attorney at law while on inactive status.
      In mitigation, Ward had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1979, and no clients were harmed by the misconduct. He demonstrated remorse, acted in good faith, and cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect April 19.
     
      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.
     

---