Discipline Report

      DISBARMENT
     
      Jack R. Cooney Jr., State Bar # 63980, Livermore (March 14). Cooney, 63, was disbarred in a Review Department opinion for failing to comply with rule 955 (now rule 9.20); failing to comply with conditions to a previous disciplinary order; failing to return unearned fees; engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; violating a court order; and failing to promptly file his probation reports.
      In September 2001 Cooney was suspended for two years and placed on four years of probation for misappropriating client funds, engaging in acts of moral turpitude, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation. Conditions to the discipline required Cooney 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, Cooney had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter.
      The order took effect April 13.
     
      Robert M. Nusbaum, State Bar # 149672, Lancaster (March 29). Nusbaum, 44, was disbarred after failing to comply with rule 955 (now rule 9.20).
      In January 2006 Nusbaum was suspended for two years and placed on five years of probation. He was found culpable of misconduct in four client matters for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to return unearned fees, failing to promptly return client funds, and failing to communicate with clients.
      Conditions to the 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 December 2002 he was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to communicate, failing to return unearned fees, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation. He was ordered to make restitution of $4,343 to two clients. Also, he was found culpable in four investigative matters of failing to perform legal services competently, failing to communicate with clients, and failing to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments in the client's case.
      In August 2004 Nusbaum was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation after being found culpable in three client matters of failing to maintain client funds in trust, failing to perform legal services competently, failing to promptly provide an accounting, and failing to promptly pay a refund.
      In January 2006 he was suspended for two years and placed on five years of probation. He was found culpable of misconduct in four client matters of failing to perform legal services competently, failing to return unearned fees, failing to promptly return client funds, and failing to communicate with clients.
      In July 2006 Nusbaum was suspended for two years. He was given credit toward the suspension for his period of involuntary inactive enrollment, which began on April 7, 2006. He was disciplined for failing to comply with conditions to a previous disciplinary order.
      In aggravation, Nusbaum had a record of prior discipline. In December 2001 he was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation and ordered to make restitution. He was found culpable in six client matters for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to communicate with clients, failing to return unearned fees, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      The order took effect April 28.
     
      Robert W. Roland, State Bar # 203087, San Francisco (March 28). Roland, 36, received a summary disbarment in a Review Department opinion after his conviction for distribution of a controlled substance.
      In April 2006 Roland was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for violating 21 U.S.C. section 841(a)(1), possession of controlled substances with intent to manufacture, disburse, or distribute; and section 843(b), using a communications facility to knowingly or intentionally commit or facilitate the commission of any act constituting a felony. Both violations are felonies and involved acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
      The order took effect April 27.
     
      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.
     
      William D. McCann, State Bar # 51902, Genoa, Nevada (March 29). McCann, 60, resigned from the bar on February 6. The order took effect April 28.
     
      Conrad G. Walker, State Bar # 34855, San Diego (March 29). Walker, 69, resigned from the bar on February 6. The order took effect April 28.
     
      SUSPENSION
     
      John H. Bramlett, State Bar # 171763, Blue Jay (March 29). Bramlett, 44, was suspended for 45 days for failing to perform legal services competently and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      In 2005 Bramlett occasionally worked for another attorney. The attorney was scheduled to have surgery in June 2005 and asked Bramlett to handle a state civil case and a federal case. Before surgery, the attorney and Bramlett met to review the cases and to discuss how he would proceed on both matters.
      In July 2005 the client in the federal case left several telephone messages for Bramlett asking about the status of the case and reminding him about the deadline for filing an amended complaint. Bramlett failed to respond to the client's messages. After returning home from the hospital in July 2005, the attorney sent Bramlett an email asking about the status of the cases, but Bramlett failed to respond. After June 2005 Bramlett failed to have any further contact with the client or with the attorney.
      In November 2005 and January 2006 a State Bar investigator wrote to Bramlett requesting a written response to allegations of misconduct filed against him by the attorney. He failed to respond to the investigator's letters.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to a client, and Bramlett demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct.
      The order took effect April 28.
     
      Michael A. Cartelli, State Bar # 88932, La Canada (February 21). Cartelli, 52, was suspended for 90 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to promptly pay funds to a client.
      In 2000 Cartelli was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case. In September 2002 Cartelli settled the case. After receiving the funds, Cartelli paid himself and sent the correct share of the settlement to the client. He withheld $8,500 to pay the client's medical bill, but he failed to disburse the funds to the medical provider.
      In 2005 the client learned that the medical bill was never paid. The client left several telephone messages for Cartelli concerning the unpaid medical bill, but Cartelli failed to respond to the messages. In October 2005 the State Bar began an investigation of the unpaid medical bill. In January 2006 Cartelli paid the client's medical bill.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved client trust account violations that caused harm to the client. In mitigation, at the time of his misconduct, Cartelli suffered extreme difficulties in his personal life.
      The order took effect March 23.
     
      Todd C. Davis, State Bar # 186531, Riverside (March 29). Davis, 41, was suspended for 30 days and until he makes restitution of $2,500 to one client. He was disciplined for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to keep a client informed about the client's case, failing to respond to a client's status inquiries, failing to return unearned fees, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      In April 2005 a client paid Davis $2,500 for representation in a marital dissolution. Between April and June 2005 the client left numerous telephone messages for Davis, but none of the calls was returned. In August 2005 the client went to Davis's office and discovered that it was vacant.
      In August and September 2005 a State Bar investigator sent three letters to Davis requesting a written response to allegations of misconduct filed against him by the client. Davis responded to one letter, but his response was defective and otherwise not responsive to the investigator's inquiry.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to the client. Also, Davis demonstrated indifference and disregard for the rights of his client.
      The order took effect April 28.
     
      Stephen W. Johnson, State Bar # 97281, Huntington Beach (February 21). Johnson, 58, was suspended for 90 days and placed on three years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a previous order of discipline.
      In February 2005 Johnson received a public reproval for failing to maintain client funds in trust and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation. Johnson failed to comply with conditions to the reproval by failing to promptly file his quarterly probation reports for 2005 and 2006. Also, his final report was filed two weeks late. In addition, he failed to promptly attend State Bar ethics school and client trust accounting school.
      In aggravation, Johnson had a record of prior discipline, the underlying reproval. In June 2006 he was suspended for 30 days and placed on one year of probation for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
      The order took effect March 23.
     
      Francis J. McGrew, State Bar # 122523, Oakland (March 6). McGrew, 50, was suspended for 18 months and placed on three years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a previous disciplinary order and making misrepresentations to a court.
      In June 2005 McGrew was suspended for 30 days and placed on three years of probation for failing to promptly return unearned fees and failing to comply with conditions to a private reproval. He also was ordered to make restitution of $2,500 to a client.
      McGrew failed to comply with conditions to the 2005 discipline by failing to submit quarterly probation reports; failing to promptly submit reports; failing to submit to random blood or urine tests for substance abuse; submitting a false and fictitious drug test to the Probation Unit of the State Bar; engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; failing to make restitution to a client; failing to provide proof that he had taken and passed the professional responsibility exam; and making misrepresentations to a judge by informing the court he was not available to appear for a hearing in a criminal case because of reasons other than that his 2005 discipline was scheduled to take effect before the date of the hearing.
      In aggravation, McGrew had a record of prior discipline. In 2002 he received a private reproval, and in 2005 the underlying matter occurred. In mitigation, he cooperated with the State Bar by agreeing to the stipulated discipline.
      The order took effect April 5.
     
      Robert J. Skousen, State Bar # 135104, San Bernardino (March 29). Skousen, 50, was suspended for 120 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently; representing clients with adverse interests; representing adverse clients without their informed written consent; purchasing property from an estate in which he was the attorney of record; and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
      In 1999 Skousen was hired by two of four adult children to probate the family's estate. Their mother died in 1999, and their father had died several years earlier. The mother issued two wills; one in 1991, and a second in 1996. The two clients asked Skousen to probate the 1991 will.
      The youngest of the children was disabled, and his mother had left him a separate trust. The daughter was named as executor of the 1991 will. In November 1999 Skousen filed a declaration signed by the disabled son disclaiming any interest in the family trust. Skousen failed to make clear to the son that he did not represent him in the probate of the estate.
      In November 1999 the executor held an estate sale and sold off some of the assets. In December 1999 Skousen bought furniture from the estate. In June 2000 one of the other brothers was unhappy about the executor's handling of the estate and instructed Skousen to probate the 1996 will. Skousen then substituted out as the attorney of record for the 1991 will. He also filed an ex parte petition to suspend the executor's powers in the family estate. A petition also was filed to appoint the dissatisfied son as the executor of the 1996 will.
      Skousen filed a probate of the 1996 will and attached a copy of the declaration in which the youngest son disclaimed any interest in the family trust. Skousen failed to advise the disabled son to seek the advice of independent counsel. Later, the court removed the daughter as executor and one of her brothers as administrator of the estate. The court also ordered them to deliver all assets to the court-appointed representative.
      In March 2005 the State Bar wrote to Skousen requesting a written response to allegations of misconduct about his purchase of estate property. He denied having participated in the estate sale and denied that he had purchased property from the estate. The bar found his statement to be false.
      In mitigation, Skousen had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1988, and he submitted evidence of his community-service work for several charitable organizations.
      The order took effect April 28.
     
      Russell H. Takasugi, State Bar # 118792, Simi Valley (March 29). Takasugi, 52, was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      In June and August 2005 a State Bar investigator wrote to Takasugi requesting his written response to allegations of misconduct under investigation by the State Bar, but he failed to respond to the investigator's letters. In October 2005 a second investigator spoke with Takasugi by telephone about the letters. Takasugi admitted receiving the letters and stated that he could not find the requested documents. Takasugi told the second investigator he would respond to the letters, and he sent additional information to the second investigator after he reviewed the files.
      In December 2005 the second investigator wrote to Takasugi requesting a written response to allegations of misconduct, but Takasugi failed to respond to the letter. After disciplinary charges were filed against him, Takasugi provided the bar with the requested documents.
      In aggravation, Takasugi had a record of prior discipline. In February 1996 he received a private reproval for failing to perform legal services competently, improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to return unearned fees, and failing to communicate with a client.
      The order took effect April 28.
     
      Cynthia A. Thomas, State Bar # 96180, Elk Grove (February 21). Thomas, 51, was suspended for 30 days and placed on one year of probation for failing to communicate with a client.
      In June 2004 Thomas was appointed to represent a client in a criminal appeal. The previous month a superior court judge sentenced the client to serve 25 years to life in prison. The client requested Thomas to raise certain issues in the appeal and to file a motion to strike his prior convictions. In October 2004 Thomas sent the client a copy of her opening brief and explained that her research revealed that filing a motion for a new trial was not allowed on remand.
      After October 2004 Thomas stopped providing services to the client. She failed to file a supplemental brief or a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and she failed to provide the client with a copy of the state attorney general's responsive brief after Proposition 66 was defeated by the voters. Thomas also failed to respond to the client's numerous attempts to contact her. In February 2005 the court of appeal rejected the client's appeal, and Thomas failed to inform the client about the ruling.
      In aggravation, the misconduct caused significant harm to the client and the administration of justice. In mitigation, Thomas had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1980. At the time of the misconduct, she suffered extreme difficulties in her personal life. Also, she demonstrated remorse for her misconduct.
      The order took effect March 23.
     
      Thomas L. Upholt, State Bar # 67868, Sacramento (March 29). Upholt, 63, was suspended for one year for failing to comply with conditions to a previous disciplinary order.
      In February 2006 he was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently, improperly withdrawing from representation, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to maintain a current address with the State Bar, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation. He failed to comply with conditions to the discipline by failing to contact the Probation Office within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline and failing to submit quarterly probation reports for April and July 2006.
      In aggravation, Upholt had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. The misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing, and Upholt failed to participate in the bar proceedings before entry of his default.
      The order took effect April 28.
     
      Matthew B. Weber, State Bar # 202719, Santa Monica (March 6). Weber, 34, was suspended for two years and until he makes restitution of $8,595 to a client.
      Weber was disciplined after being found culpable of misconduct in seven matters by engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; failing to maintain client funds in trust; using the trust account to pay personal expenses; failing to maintain complete trust account records; improperly withdrawing from representation; splitting fees with another attorney without notice to a client; failing to obey a court order by failure to pay judicial sanctions as ordered; failing to report the imposition of judicial sanctions to the State Bar; and failing to cooperate with five State Bar investigations.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients. The State Bar Court found that Weber demonstrated a contemptuous attitude toward disciplinary proceedings, and he failed to comprehend his duty as an officer of the court. Also, he failed to cooperate with the bar investigation and proceedings.
      The order took effect April 5.
     
      INTERIM SUSPENSION
     
      Christopher Gruys, State Bar # 50671, Healdsburg (March 15). Gruys, 60, was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for possession of an assault weapon. The interim suspension will remain in effect until further order by the State Bar Court.
      The order took effect April 15.
     
      Richard J. Ruszat II, State Bar # 220432, Newport Beach (February 14). Ruszat, 37, was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for two felonies: assault with a deadly weapon and threatening to commit a crime that would result in death or great bodily harm.
      The order took effect March 15.
     
      PROBATION
     
      Maria F. Alvarez, State Bar # 128136, Long Beach (March 29). Alvarez, 57, was placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently.
      Between 1983 and 1990 both of Alvarez's parents died. The parents owned a business, but Alvarez failed to probate the estate after their deaths. Instead, she attempted to sell the business, and entered an escrow, when she had no standing to do so.
      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 1987, and she cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. She also submitted statements by others attesting to her good character. During the period of misconduct, Alvarez suffered from personal difficulties.
      The order took effect April 28.
     
      Robert M. Ball, State Bar # 138482, Beverly Hills (March 6). Ball, 48, was 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 cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
      In 2000 Ball was paid $2,000 to represent a client in an appeal before the Civil Service Commission. An associate attorney in Ball's office handled the case until about May 2001, when Ball was to assume control of the client's matter. Ball told the client he would discuss the case with a specialist, whom he called with information in order to proceed with the appeal. Between November 2002 and March 2003, the client spoke with Ball about his contact with the specialist. Ball promised to talk with the specialist and to call the client, but he failed to contact the client. In November and December 2003 a State Bar investigator wrote to Ball requesting his written response to allegations filed against him by the client. Ball failed to respond to the letters.
      In a second matter, in 2001 Ball was paid $3,000 in advance fees to represent a client in two legal matters. In May 2002 the court set a status conference date for July 2002. Ball failed to appear due to a calendaring error. The court continued the conference until September 2002, but Ball failed to appear. The court issued an order to show cause regarding dismissal of the client's case. A hearing on the order was set for November 2002. Two days before the hearing, Ball signed a substitution-of-attorney form and provided the form to the client's new attorney.
      In mitigation, Ball had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1988.
      The order took effect April 5.
     
      Michael J. Guglielmino, State Bar # 104484, San Francisco (March 29). Guglielmino, 53, was placed on four years of probation for culpability in four client matters. He was disciplined for failing to provide an accounting of paid fees, failing to perform legal services competently, failing to obey a court order, failing to pay judicial sanctions, failing to keep a client informed about developments in the client's case, failing to promptly release client files, failing to return unearned fees, and failing to maintain complete records of client funds. He also was ordered to make restitution of $2,000 to a client.
      In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, Guglielmino had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1982.
      The order took effect April 28.
     
      Wolfgang F. Hahn, State Bar # 61385, La Jolla (March 29). Hahn, 58, was placed on three years of probation after his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and fleeing a police officer, both misdemeanors.
      In August 2003 Hahn was stopped by a police officer for driving erratically. Later that evening, a blood test revealed that his blood alcohol level was 0.22 percent, above the state's legal intoxication limit. In December 2003 Hahn pleaded no contest to driving under the influence and fleeing a police officer.
      In aggravation, Hahn had a record of prior discipline. In September 1992 he received a private reproval after his conviction for driving under the influence. In 1994 he was placed on two years of probation for alcohol-related reckless driving. In mitigation, Hahn cooperated with the State Bar and completed the Lawyer Assistance Program.
      The order took effect April 28.
     
      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.
     

---