Discipline Report

     
      RESIGNATION
      The following attorneys resigned from the bar with unspecified disciplinary charges pending. Their resignations were accepted without prejudice to further disciplinary proceedings should they seek reinstatement.
     
      Troy A. Hall, State Bar # 165939, Murrieta (March 1). Hall, 40, resigned from the bar on January 27.
     
      The order took effect March 31.
     
      Richard W. Hamlin, State Bar # 122725, Sacramento (March 21). Hamlin, 46, resigned from the bar on March 9.
     
      The order took effect April 20.
     
      George Hernandez, State Bar # 134148, Los Angeles (March 21). Hernandez, 48, resigned from the bar on March 1.
     
      The order took effect April 20.
     
      James L. Hillman, State Bar # 37162, Gardnerville, Nevada (March 21). Hillman, 66, resigned from the bar on March 1.
     
      The order took effect April 20.
     
      Donald B. Kronenberg, State Bar # 98590, Seattle, Washington. (March 10). Kronenberg, 54, resigned from the bar on February 1.
     
      The order took effect April 9.
     
      Gregory S. Lyons, State Bar # 114037, Oakland (March 1). Lyons, 51, resigned from the bar on February 3.
     
      The order took effect March 31.
     
      Eli A. Rich, State Bar # 173758, Beverly Hills (March 10). Rich, 42, resigned from the bar on February 17.
     
      The order took effect April 9.
     
      Lawrence D. Samelson, State Bar # 62621, Sacramento (March 10). Samelson, 60, resigned from the bar on February 2.
     
      The order took effect April 9.
     
      James F. Thompson, State Bar # 84309, Marysville (March 10). Thompson, 58, resigned from the bar on February 7.
     
      The order took effect April 9.
     
      SUSPENSION
      Harpreet S. Brar, State Bar # 206460, Brea (March 17). Brar, 34, was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for failure to maintain a just action, pursuing an action with corrupt motive, engaging in acts of moral turpitude, and failure to maintain client funds in trust.
     
      In December 2001 to December 2002, the attorneys fees Brar received from litigation in the state attorney general's private litigation cases were deposited into his client trust account, with none of the funds belonging to a client. In November 2002 a superior court ordered Brar to pay $500 in sanctions to opposing counsel after failing to make a scheduled court appearance. From May 2002 to December 2002 Brar used his client trust account as a personal checking account. In June 2002 the balance in the client trust account was $44. Several days later Brar deposited $3,738 into the trust account.
     
      In a second matter, in July 2003 the state attorney general brought a civil action against Brar to stop him from prosecuting and collecting fees in lawsuits filed under the state's unfair competition statute. In September 2003 Brar filed a motion to strike the attorney general's complaint against him under California's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statutes, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16. Brar argued that the attorney general's complaint against him should be dismissed because it fell within the definition of a SLAPP suit "to chill the exercise of a person's constitutional right to freedom of speech and to petition for the redress of grievances."
     
      Under the statute, the attorney general is exempt from anti-SLAPP motions, but Brar argued that the exemption was unconstitutional. In October 2003 the superior court denied Brar's motion to strike. In November 2003 he filed an appeal of the lower court's order denying the motion. In February 2004 the court of appeal dismissed Brar's appeal. The case was returned to the lower court, and Brar's default was taken.
     
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing, including failure to maintain just actions by filing an unmeritorious appeal and commingling funds in the client trust account. Also, Brar acted in bad faith by filing a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion and appeal. He harmed the administration of justice and the public by wasting judicial resources and by interfering with the attorney general's duty to protect California consumers. In mitigation, Brar demonstrated candor and cooperation during the State Bar's proceedings.
     
      The order took effect April 16.
     
      Kathryn R. Buffington, State Bar # 82565, Long Beach (February 23). Buffington, 54, was suspended for 30 days and placed on four years of probation following her conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol.
     
      In April 2004 Buffington was stopped by police because her car was making a loud noise. The police noticed that Buffington displayed signs of intoxication. She was taken into custody, where a blood test revealed her blood alcohol level to be .16 percent, twice the legal limit. In February 2005 Buffington pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence. She was sentenced to serve 45 days in jail and required to be evaluated by a doctor for substance abuse.
     
      In aggravation, Buffington had a record of prior discipline. In mitigation, she cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. Also, no clients were harmed by the misconduct.
     
      The order took effect March 25.
     
      Michael Chapnik, State Bar # 202659, Mill Valley (February 23). Chapnik, 34, was suspended for 30 days and until he provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. Chapnik was also required to demonstrate that he has undergone rehabilitation from his chemical dependency and provide proof he has complied with other conditions. He was disciplined for failure to perform legal services competently, failure to communicate, failure to return unearned fees, and failure to return client papers.
     
      In October 2002 Chapnik was paid $750 to represent a client in an immigration matter. Chapnik failed to perform any services for the client. On one occasion, he spoke to the client by telephone but otherwise failed to respond to telephone calls and letters from the client. He also failed to respond to the client's demands for return of the advance fee until May 2005, after the State Bar intervened.
     
      In a second matter, in June 2003 Chapnik was hired to represent a client in an appeal of a marital dissolution. The client and Chapnik agreed the client would provide the legal research and Chapnik would draft and file the appeal. Chapnik failed to file the appeal, although the clerk of the court sent two notices to him in November and December 2003. Between December 2003 and February 2004 the client left numerous telephone messages for Chapnik, but he failed to respond. Chapnik also failed to respond to the client's numerous requests for return of her file until the State Bar intervened in March 2004.
     
      In a third matter, in October 2003 Chapnik was paid $3,500 to represent a client in a probate matter. He made three court appearances on behalf of the client, and in January 2004 the probate court ordered Chapnik to file an accounting by February 2004 and to appear for a hearing in March 2004.
     
      After January 2004, Chapnik failed to provide further legal services to the client. He failed to respond to numerous telephone messages and letters from the client requesting a status report on the probate matter, failed to return the client's file, and failed to return the unearned advance fee until May 2005, after the State Bar became involved.
     
      In aggravation, Chapnik's misconduct was surrounded by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching, or other violations. His misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that harmed clients. Also, he failed to cooperate with the State Bar investigator. In mitigation, Chapnik had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1999. He made restitution to his clients of the advance fees. Also, Chapnik began to address his alcohol dependency by voluntarily consulting the bar's Lawyer Assistance Program in February 2004. He received residential treatment for his dependency and signed a long-term participation plan with the program. Later, he relocated to Israel.
     
      The order took effect March 25.
     
      Scott J. Flores, State Bar # 159494, San Diego (March 10). Flores, 46, had the court's previous order of probation stayed, its previously ordered stay of execution of suspension lifted, and a new order issued by the Supreme Court in which he was suspended for one year and placed on two years of probation for failure to comply with conditions to a previous order of discipline. Flores was given credit toward his suspension for the period of involuntary inactive enrollment, which began on December 23, 2004.
     
      In December 2004 Flores was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failure to communicate, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude. Conditions to the discipline required Flores to file quarterly probation reports. He failed to file reports due in April, July, and October 2005.
     
      In aggravation, Flores had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. The misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing, and he demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct.
     
      The order took effect April 9.
     
      Ann T. Garrett, State Bar # 70923, Sacramento (February 17). Garrett, 61, had her previous probation revoked, the previously ordered stay of execution of suspension lifted, and a new order issued in which she was suspended for six months and placed on two years of probation and until she makes restitution of $500 to one client. Garrett was found culpable of failure to comply with conditions to a previous discipline. She was given credit toward the period of suspension, which began November 19, 2005.
     
      In June 2005 Garrett was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for failure to maintain disputed funds in trust, failure to promptly return a client's file and papers, failure to promptly return unearned fees, failure to provide an accounting, and failure to cooperate with two State Bar investigations. She also was ordered to make restitution of $500 to one client and $12,720 to a second client. Conditions to the discipline required her to make a written offer to participate in binding fee arbitration with a client within 60 days of the State Bar order, provide proof to the Office of Probation that she returned $11,320 in disputed fees to her client trust account, and respond to the probation monitor's telephone call and letter of June 2005. She failed to comply with the imposed conditions.
     
      In aggravation, Garrett had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. In the current discipline, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. She demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of her misconduct by failing to comply with the imposed conditions. Also, she failed to participate in a bar status conference and failed to respond to a bar motion.
     
      The order took effect March 19.
     
      Thomas C. Loffarelli, State Bar # 159724, Studio City (January 13). Loffarelli, 52, was suspended for three years and placed on five years of probation and until he provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. The period of probation will run from the end of his 2004 discipline. He was disciplined for failure to maintain client funds in trust, failure to provide an accounting, failure to communicate, failure to cooperate with a State Bar investigation, failure to comply with the laws of the United States, and attempting to mislead a bankruptcy judge.
     
      In January 2001 Loffarelli was hired by a brother and sister to represent them as trustees in their deceased sibling's estate. Between January 2001 and March 2002 the clients paid Loffarelli $14,144 in advance fees and costs. In March 2001 he filed an action on behalf of the clients. In October 2001 the court ordered the clients to interplead funds of $16,778. In February 2002 the matter went to trial. The following day, the court issued its decision, finding for the defendants and against Loffarelli's clients.
     
      In March 2002 Loffarelli filed an ex parte application seeking release of funds to the clients. The court granted the application, ordering that $16,778 be released to the clients. In its order, the court also found that Loffarelli's proposed order was insufficient and ordered him to submit a proposed order that included specific court-required information. In April 2002 the county sent Loffarelli a check for $16,778 made payable to the clients and Loffarelli. Three days later Loffarelli deposited the check into his client trust account. One week later the balance in the trust account was $8,756.
     
      In May 2002 Loffarelli sent a letter to the clients advising them he was in receipt of the check from the county and that he was holding the funds until a judicial determination was made regarding others who might have a claim on the funds. Between May 2002 and December 2003 the clients made attempts to elicit information from Loffarelli regarding the funds, but he failed to promptly respond to their inquiries. In December 2003 the clients sent a letter to Loffarelli requesting return of the $16,778 and an accounting of the $14,144 advance fee. He failed to respond promptly to the clients' inquiry. In May 2004 Loffarelli wrote to the clients telling them a bill for March 2003 had been prepared and that he was preparing a final bill. Loffarelli failed to pay any of the county funds to the clients, and he misappropriated the clients' funds, believing he was entitled to keep the funds as his fees.
     
      In August 2003 a bar investigator wrote to Loffarelli requesting a written response to allegations of misconduct made against him by the clients. Loffarelli failed to promptly respond to the investigator's letter. In September 2003 he sent a fax to the bar stating that he was preparing a response and that he needed an eight-day extension to respond. In October 2003 he sent another fax to the bar promising to submit a detailed response to the clients' complaint, but he failed to do so.
     
      In a second matter, in September 2001 Loffarelli filed a lawsuit on behalf of his corporation, which owned a 50 percent interest in a parcel of real property. The lawsuit alleged quiet title and breach of contract against an individual defendant who owned an interest in the same real property. In May 2002 the court dismissed Loffarelli's lawsuit because he failed to appear. Several days later Loffarelli filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy on behalf of the debtor-the same person who owned interest in the real property-to protect the real property from foreclosure, and he named his corporation as one of the debtor's creditors. Loffarelli failed to disclose to the bankruptcy court that he was a 50 percent owner of the plaintiff corporation.
     
      In June 2002 Loffarelli filed a motion to convert the Chapter 7 to a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The court granted the conversion. At about the same time, a meeting of creditors was held. The debtor, the other owner of the real property, failed to appear, and none of the delinquent mortgage payments was offered on behalf of the debtor. In September 2002 the bankruptcy petition was dismissed. About two weeks later Loffarelli appeared in bankruptcy court as counsel for the debtor for an ex parte application to vacate the dismissal or the 180-day statutory bar to refiling a bankruptcy petition. The purpose of the ex parte application was to delay foreclosure proceedings that were scheduled to occur the next day.
     
      The court denied the ex parte application because Loffarelli did not have the back mortgage payments. In support of the application, Loffarelli filed a declaration that stated that he failed to attend the creditors meeting because of family illness. The next day, Loffarelli filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the Woodland Hills branch of the bankruptcy court on behalf of his corporation. Loffarelli paid the filing fee with a check drawn on his client trust account. The court rejected the filing. In November 2002 Loffarelli filed a response to the bankruptcy court's order to show cause regarding his attempt to file another Chapter 7 bankruptcy within the 180-day stay issued by another branch of the bankruptcy court.
     
      In support, Loffarelli filed the declaration of the debtor and his own declaration, in which he stated that the debtor had rented the property to a third party, and he did not know the debtor's current address and was unable to locate the debtor. In his declaration, the debtor stated he was going to Mexico to visit his family. In February 2004 an escrow account was established with an escrow company to purchase the subject real property. In March 2004 Loffarelli received $16,750 as a commission from the escrow company for acting as a broker for the sale of the subject property. Loffarelli also received from the escrow company a check for $69,745 made payable to Loffarelli's company, the 50 percent owner of the property.
     
      As owner of the corporation, a creditor of the debtor, Loffarelli held an interest adverse to the debtor's estate. Loffarelli acted as the real estate broker for the sale of the subject property, and he thereby held a substantial interest in the debtor's property. As of the date of filing of the disciplinary charges, Loffarelli failed to disclose to the bankruptcy court and to the U.S. trustee that he owned a 50 percent interest in property belonging to the debtor.
     
      In aggravation, Loffarelli had a record of prior discipline. Also, in the current matter, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing and trust account violations that harmed clients and the administration of justice. In mitigation, Loffarelli cooperated with the bar during its investigation and proceedings.
     
      The order took effect February 22.
     
      Dennis V. Milner, State Bar # 113464, Dublin (February 28). Milner, 47, had his previous order of probation revoked, the previously ordered stay of execution of suspension lifted, and a new order issued in which he was suspended for one year and placed on three years of probation for failure to comply with conditions to a previous discipline. He was given credit toward the period of suspension, which began on December 9, 2005.
     
      In September 2003 Milner was placed on three years of probation for failure to comply with an agreement in lieu of discipline and failure to respond to inquires by the State Bar. Conditions to the probation required him to make restitution of $2,000 to one client. He failed to comply with the probation requirements, failed to make the agreed-upon monthly restitution payments to the client, and failed to submit timely quarterly probation reports.
     
      In aggravation, Milner had a record of prior discipline. In September 2003 the underlying matter occurred. In October 2004 Milner was suspended for 30 days and placed on three years of probation for failure to comply with conditions to the 2003 discipline, when he failed to make monthly restitution payments. In 2005 he was suspended for 90 days and placed on two years of probation for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law while on suspension, failing to take and pass the professional responsibility exam, and failing to pay his bar membership fee. By failing to comply with conditions to a disciplinary order, Milner demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct.
     
      The order took effect March 19.
     
      Patricia Mireles, State Bar # 171342, Claremont (February 28). Mireles, 47, was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation after being found culpable of misconduct in eight client matters by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failure to perform legal services competently, failure to provide an accounting, failure to return unearned fees, and failure to obey a court order.
     
      In aggravation, Mireles had a record of prior discipline. In mitigation, she acted in good faith and cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
     
      The order took effect March 25.
     
      Charles D. Sneathern, State Bar # 54964, Playa Del Ray (March 1). Sneathern, 59, was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation for failure to maintain client funds in trust.
     
      In January 2001 Sneathern was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case and to pursue the client's Social Security disability claim. In 2002 Sneathern received $28,711 in a client's award for Social Security back payments stemming from a personal injury. Sneathern was entitled to receive $7,177 in fees. In June 2002 the personal injury case settled for $800,000, and Sneathern was entitled to receive $200,000 in fees from the jury case. He was to hold $77,073 in the trust account to pay the client's medical liens.
     
      In November 2004 the balance in his client trust account fell below the amount needed to pay the medical liens. Between July 2002 and December 2003 the client attempted to have her medical insurance carrier waive its right to reimbursement for medical expenses, but the carrier refused to do so. The client's discussions with her insurance carrier contributed to the delay in Sneathern negotiating the medical liens. In July 2004 the client wrote to Sneathern requesting him to pay the medical liens by August 2004. Sneathern failed to respond to the letter. Between July and November 2004 Sneathern negotiated and paid the remaining medical liens, and he provided the client with an accounting.
     
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved violations of the client trust account. In mitigation, Sneathern had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1972. Also, at the time of the misconduct, he suffered a heart attack, underwent coronary bypass surgery in October 2003, and was unable to return to his practice for several months.
     
      The order took effect March 31.
     
      Scot D. Stirling, State Bar #188063, Riverside (March 1). Stirling, 40, was suspended for one year and placed on seven years of probation after being found culpable in 32 client matters of failure to perform legal services competently; failure to return unearned fees; and assisting, soliciting, or inducing others in his law firm to violate the rules of professional conduct. He also was ordered to make restitution of $70,859 to 31 clients.
     
      In aggravation, the misconduct harmed Stirling's clients. In mitigation, Stirling cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
     
      The order took effect March 31.
     
      Roger A. Strong, State Bar # 106390, San Diego (March 1). Strong, 52, was suspended for two years and until the State Bar Court grants a motion terminating the suspension and until he proves proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. He was disciplined for failure to maintain client funds in trust and engaging in acts of moral turpitude.
     
      In May 2002 Strong was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case. In December 2002 he settled the case for $2,400. About ten days later he disbursed funds by paying himself and the client.
     
      He also sent $800 to the doctor who treated the client. In late December 2002 Strong wrote to the client's insurance carrier stating that the client had paid the treating doctor's bill of $1,694. Strong failed to inform the client about the letter to the insurance carrier. In February 2003 Strong received $1,694 as medical expenses from the client's insurance company. He deposited the check into the client trust account and then wrote a check to himself for $750.
     
      As of February 2003 the client did not owe Strong any fees or costs. Strong was required to maintain the $1,694 in the client trust account. As of April 2003 Strong had not disbursed any of the $1,694. The balance in the trust account fell to $192, and by July 2003 the balance had dropped to a negative $2,694. Strong used the $1,694 for his personal benefit.
     
      The client learned that his insurance company had sent a check for $1,694 to Strong, and in May 2004 the client filed a complaint with the State Bar. The bar informed Strong about the client's complaint in June 2004. In August 2004 Strong paid the client $1,930 by cashier's check.
     
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing.
     
      The order took effect March 31.
     
      INTERIM SUSPENSION
      Steve I. Kaplan, State Bar # 71418, Manhattan Beach (March 7). Kaplan, 56, was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for violating Penal Code section 487(a), grand theft. The interim suspension will remain in effect until further order by the State Bar Court.
     
      The order took effect April 10.
     
      Paul H. Richards II, State Bar # 118646, Lynwood (February 28). Richards, 50, was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. section 1001, making fraudulent or false statements; section 1341, mail fraud; section 1951, extortion; and section 1956, laundering monetary instruments. The interim suspension will remain in effect until further order by the State Bar Court.
     
      The order took effect April 3.
     
      David E. Roberts, State Bar # 51430, Fresno (March 10). Roberts, 66, was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for violating Health and Safety Code section 11377, possession of a controlled substance, and Vehicle Code section 14601.1(a), driving with a suspended or revoked driver's license. The interim suspension will remain in effect until further order by the State Bar Court.
     
      The order took effect April 3.
     
      Robert W. Roland, State Bar # 203087, San Francisco (March 6). Roland, 35, was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for violating 21 U.S.C. section 841(a)(1), possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense; and section 843(b), using a communication facility to knowingly or intentionally facilitate the commission of a felony. The interim suspension will remain in effect until further order by the State Bar Court.
     
      The order took effect April 10.
     
      PROBATION
      Douglas W. Davis, State Bar # 132620, Malibu (February 10). Davis, 46, was placed on three years of probation for failure to comply with court orders, failure to inform a client about significant developments in a case, and failure to report imposition of judicial sanctions to the State Bar.
     
      In January 1999 Davis was hired by a medical doctor in a breach of contract and discrimination case against the doctor's former employer. In May 1999 Davis filed a petition for arbitration as required by the client's employment agreement. In June 1999 Davis filed an amended petition.
     
      In August 1999 the defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. The court granted the motion and ordered the arbitration to be completed by January 2000. Later, Davis filed a motion to remove the stay and to reverse the court's prior arbitration order. The court denied the motion and ordered the arbitration to be completed by March 2000.
     
      In February 2000 Davis advised opposing counsel that the client would not submit the matter to arbitration as required by the employer's contract. In response, the defendants moved to dismiss the case. Davis replied by filing an ex parte application for an order shortening time, along with a petition to appoint a neutral arbitrator and for relief from the court's order to arbitrate pursuant to the employment contract.
     
      In March 2000 the court denied Davis's ex parte application and the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court ordered the parties to arbitrate the case. Davis filed a petition to stay and reverse the order. In September 2000 the court denied the motion and ordered the parties to arbitrate under the terms of
      the employment contract and to complete the arbitration by January 2001. In December 2000 the defendants filed a motion to dismiss Davis's first amended complaint and requested judicial sanctions because of the plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders to arbitrate.
     
      In January 2001 the court granted the defendants' motion and imposed sanctions of $70,650 against Davis and the client. The sanctions were ordered to be paid within 30 days of the court's order. Davis did not attend the hearing on the motion, but he was served with a notice of the court's order and failed to report the sanctions to the State Bar. He also failed to inform the client about the sanctions.
     
      In July 2001 Davis filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In November 2002 the defendants filed a writ of execution. Seven days later, the client received a notice of levy and learned about the sanctions order for the first time. The client and Davis met to discuss the sanctions. The client also told Davis he wanted to contest the court's order. In late November 2002 opposing counsel filed an abstract of judgment with the county recorder. That same month Davis left a telephone message for the client saying he would be faxing to the client that day three pages of exemptions to levies. Davis failed to fax the pages to the client.
     
      The next day, the client wrote to Davis requesting a copy of the court's order of sanctions. Davis failed to respond to the letter. The same day, the client left a voice-mail message for Davis, who did not respond. Starting in February 2003 the client's bank account was debited $2,906 per month until the full amount of the sanctions was paid and the abstract of judgment released.
     
      In aggravation, Davis had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter, the misconduct harmed the client. Also, Davis demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct by failing to inform the client of the sanctions order, and the client was forced to pay the sanctions.
     
      The order took effect March 12.
     
      PUBLIC REPROVAL
      Jaynelle K. Bell, State Bar # 154264, Rodeo (January 26). Bell, 52, received a public reproval for failure to maintain client funds in trust.
     
      In April 2004, while representing clients in two civil matters, Bell received two settlement checks on behalf of the clients that totaled $123,500. She deposited the checks into her business account and not a client trust account.
     
      In mitigation, Bell had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1991. She acted in good faith, funds were promptly paid out to the clients, and the clients were not harmed.
     
      The order took effect February 16.
     
      David J. Etezadi, State Bar # 125552, Los Angeles (February 15). Etezadi, 46, received a public reproval for failure to maintain client funds in trust by failing to promptly withdraw earned fees from the client trust account, and for writing checks against the client trust account when there were insufficient funds in the account.
     
      In May and June 2004 Etezadi deposited earned fees into his client trust account. He failed to promptly remove his earned fees from the trust account and wrote checks against the account when there were insufficient funds in the account to pay the issued checks. In November and December 2004 Etezadi deposited earned fees into the client trust account and issued two checks against the account when there were insufficient funds in the account to cover the checks.
     
      In mitigation, Etezadi had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1986. He cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings, no clients were harmed, and he demonstrated remorse for his misconduct.
     
      The order took effect March 8.
     
      Thomas K. Garcia, State Bar # 68919, Fullerton (March 8). Garcia, 55, received a public reproval for improper withdrawal from representation of a client.
     
      In September 2000 Garcia was hired to represent a client in the estate of her deceased husband. The client needed Garcia's help in donating two parcels of real property to a church. By December 2000 two church groups had declined the offer of the real property. In April 2001 a church group in Fresno accepted donation of the property. Garcia failed to provide the church with a copy of an affidavit of real property of small value, a document that was filed in December 2000.
     
      In April 2001 the Kern County assessor-recorder informed the Fresno church group that title could not be transferred to the church until proof was presented that title had been transferred from the decedent to Garcia's client. Garcia failed to advise the client that she needed to provide the required affidavit to the church to complete the transaction. Garcia stopped performing work for the client.
     
      In aggravation, Garcia had a record of prior discipline. In mitigation, he cooperated with the State Bar during discovery.
     
      The order took effect March 29.
     
      Patricia G. Gittelson, State Bar # 225843, Van Nuys (February 1). Gittelson, 49, received a public reproval for failure to return unearned fees, failure to maintain client funds in trust, and failure to provide an accounting of client funds.
     
      In May 2004 Gittelson was hired to represent a client in securing his naturalization as a U.S. citizen. Gittelson also represented the client's girlfriend, whose visitor's visa had expired. The clients were engaged to be married. About the same time, the client was scheduled to undergo heart surgery. The couple was married, and about two weeks later the husband underwent heart surgery. Soon after the surgery, the client died.
     
      The client's $250 check, which had been given to Gittelson as an advance fee, was returned by the client's bank because of insufficient funds. In June 2004 Gittelson informed the widow that her husband's petition could not be filed because of his death but that she could file a special widow petition. The widow hired Gittelson to proceed with the widow's petition. Gittelson charged the client $2,500, which the client agreed to pay in monthly installments. Gittelson performed legal services for the client and filed the petition. In November 2004 the client received notice from the Immigration and Naturalization Service that her petition was denied because she and the decedent had not been married for two or more years. Between June and September 2004 the client had paid Gittelson $2,000, but Gittelson failed to deposit the payments into her client trust account.
     
      On four dates in November 2004 the client telephoned Gittelson's office and left messages requesting a refund of fees. Gittelson failed to return the client's calls and failed to return the fees. In January 2005 the State Bar received a complaint from the client about Gittelson's failure to return the fees. In June 2005 the bar sent Gittelson a letter requesting her response to the allegations filed against her. Gittelson replied to the letter and asked for advice on how to return the fees. In August 2005 the bar responded by letter advising her about the procedures she should follow to return the fees. In late August 2005 Gittelson sent the client a check for $1,600 along with an accounting to the client and the bar.
     
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, Gittelson cooperated with the bar during its investigation and proceedings. She demonstrated remorse for her misconduct, and she acted in good faith. The bar took notice that Gittelson was admitted to the bar in 2003 and had been in practice for only one year before her misconduct occurred. She relied on a form retainer agreement that did not comply with California law, and she did not understand the difference between a nonrefundable advance fee and a true retainer fee.
     
      The order took effect February 22.
     
      Ronald L. Holmes, State Bar # 91240, Manteca (January 20). Holmes, 63, received a public reproval after his conviction for violating Penal Code section 242, battery, a misdemeanor.
     
      In March 2004 Holmes and opposing counsel became involved in a confrontation outside a county courthouse when opposing counsel accused Holmes of presenting fraudulent evidence to the court. Holmes denied the allegation and punched opposing counsel. Holmes apologized to the judge, and he withdrew from the case. Holmes paid opposing counsel's medical expenses.
     
      In June 2004 Holmes pleaded nolo contendere to violating Penal Code section 242. He paid a $100 fine and was placed on three years of informal probation.
     
      In mitigation, Holmes had no record of prior discipline since his admission to the bar in 1979. He cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings, and he demonstrated remorse for his misconduct.
     
      The order took effect February 10.
     
      Thomas C. Westley, State Bar # 48859, Sacramento (February 2). Westley, 62, received a public reproval for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
     
      In May 2005, while not entitled to practice law, Westley represented himself in a lawsuit, filing documents and notices with the court in which he represented himself on the documents as an attorney at law.
     
      In mitigation, Westley had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1971. He cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings, and he acted in good faith.
     
      The order took effect February 23.
     

---