News
Features
Dec. 1, 2006
Discipline Report
DISBARMENT
Hendley C. Hutchinson, State Bar # 191891, Calexico (July 31). Hutchinson, 51, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 955 of the Rules of Court.
In March 2005 Hutchinson was suspended for 60 days and until he made restitution of $500 to one client and until the State Bar Court grants a motion terminating the suspension. Hutchinson was disciplined for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law; engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; failing to return unearned fees; failing to maintain a current address with the bar; and failing to cooperate with a bar investigation.
Conditions to the discipline required him to comply with rule 955 by notifying clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and filing an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. He failed to file the affidavit and failed to provide an explanation to the bar for his noncompliance.
In aggravation, Hutchinson had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. He demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct by failing to comply with rule 955 even after being notified by the State Bar to do so. Also, he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default.
The order took effect August 30.
Peter S. Johnson, State Bar # 189710, San Diego (August 15). Johnson, 42, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 955 of the Rules of Court.
In July 2005 Johnson was suspended for 60 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion terminating the suspension. He was disciplined for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to communicate by failure to respond to client inquiries, failing to maintain a current address with the State Bar, improper withdrawal by failing to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to a client, failing to return unearned fees, and failing to return a client file. Conditions to the suspension required Johnson to, among other things, comply with rule 955 by notifying clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and filing 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, Johnson had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. Also, he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default.
The order took effect September 14.
Michael K. Moberly, State Bar # 196374, Stanton (July 31). Moberly, 49, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 955 of the Rules of Court.
In July 2005 Moberly was suspended for six months and until the State Bar Court grants a motion terminating the suspension. He was disciplined for failing to maintain disputed funds in trust; failing to maintain client funds in trust; engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; and failing to cooperate in two State Bar investigations. Conditions to the discipline required him to comply with rule 955 by notifying clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and filing 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, Moberly had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. Also, he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default.
The order took effect August 30.
B. Joe Thomson, State Bar # 145816, Houston, Texas (July 31). Thomson, 61, was disbarred for making threats of criminal charges or civil wrongdoing to gain an advantage in a civil suit; engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
In the 1980s and 1990s Thomson was paid $9,700 by a medical doctor to represent him in a personal bankruptcy and in an appeal of the bankruptcy matter. Later, a dispute arose when Thomson demanded additional fees of $40,000 to $120,000 for handling the client's appeal. In December 1999 Thomson filed a lawsuit against the client, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, wire fraud, and mail fraud. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In May 2000 the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
In June 2000 Thomson wrote to the client threatening to disclose confidential and privileged information about the client. The client did not pay any additional fees to Thomson. In October 2000 Thomson sent a second letter to the client threatening to disclose confidential and privileged information to the FBI and to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Thomson also threatened to tell the FBI and other agencies that the client had committed criminal acts. The client refused to pay Thomson any additional fees. In December 2000 the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed Thomson's appeal.
In a separate matter, in June 1997 Thomson was suspended in California because he failed to pay his State Bar membership fees, and he remained suspended in California for nonpayment of membership fees. In July, October, and November 2000, while he was suspended in California, Thomson mailed out several letters on his letterhead indicating he was licensed to practice in Arkansas, Texas, and California. On two dates in December 2000 he also used the same letterhead to communicate with the bar's chief trial counsel.
In aggravation, Thomson had a record of prior discipline in Texas. In the current matter the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing, and he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default. He also demonstrated a contemptuous attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.
The order took effect August 30.
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.
Ray I. Batarse, State Bar # 196693, Stanton (August 9). Batarse, 37, resigned from the bar on June 29.
The order took effect September 8.
Mark I. Blankenship, State Bar # 130506, Riverside (August 15). Blankenship, 46, resigned from the bar on July 10.
The order took effect September 14.
Paul D. Deavenport, State Bar # 188971, Ventura (August 15). Deavenport, 57, resigned from the bar on August 8.
The order took effect September 14.
Anna M. Gonzalez, State Bar # 199860, South San Francisco (July 31). Gonzalez, 39, resigned from the bar on July 10.
The order took effect August 30.
Keith E. Hall, State Bar # 86025, Los Angeles (July 31). Hall, 61, resigned from the bar on July 29.
The order took effect August 30.
Lonnie R. Markum, State Bar # 188338, San Diego (August 9). Markum, 57, resigned from the bar on July 10.
The order took effect September 8.
Thomas H. McGrath, State Bar # 121996, Irvine (July 31). McGrath, 73, resigned from the bar on July 3.
The order took effect August 30.
SUSPENSION
Frederick J. Amorose, State Bar # 73597, Sacramento (July 31). Amorose, 55, was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and engaging in acts of moral turpitude.
Between September 2004 and May 2005 Amorose was suspended for failing to pay his State Bar membership dues. From September 2004 through June 2005 he was suspended because he failed to comply with continuing legal education requirements. Between September 2004 and March 2005 he continued to practice law by filing court pleadings. He also filed a case-management statement, appeared by telephone for a case-management conference, and spoke to his corporate client by telephone about the case. He provided legal advice, drafted correspondence, represented the client, and billed and received payment for his legal services.
In mitigation, Amorose had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1977. He also cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
The order took effect August 30.
David J. Bornstein, State Bar # 65256, Cerritos (July 31). Bornstein, 56, was suspended for three years and placed on probation for five years and until he provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. He was disciplined following his 2005 conviction for violating Penal Code section 311.11 (a), possession or control of child pornography, a misdemeanor.
In March 2003 Bornstein bought access to a website that contained child pornography. In March 2004 police officers went to his home with a search warrant and seized two computers. The law enforcement investigation found movies and still photographs of child pornography on the computers. At the time, Bornstein was working as a deputy attorney general for the state of California. In March 2005 he was convicted of violating Penal Code section 311.11(a).
In aggravation, the misconduct harmed a client, the public, or the administration of justice. In mitigation, Bornstein had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1975.
The order took effect August 30.
Michael E. Consiglio, State Bar # 55550, Moorpark (August 11). Consiglio, 65, had his previously ordered stay of suspension lifted, the previous order of probation revoked, and a new order issued in which he was suspended for one year and until he provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. Consiglio was placed on three years of probation and given credit toward the suspension for the period of involuntary inactive enrollment, which began on May 22, 2006. He was disciplined for failure to comply with conditions to a 2005 disciplinary order.
In February 2005 Consiglio was placed on two years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a public reproval. In April 2003 he received a public reproval for failing to comply with conditions to a June 2001 private reproval. Conditions to the 2003 public reproval required Consiglio to file quarterly probation reports, file a final report, and submit proof of his passing the professional responsibility exam. He failed to submit the quarterly report for April 2004, failed to file a final report, and failed to submit proof of having passed the professional responsibility exam. Conditions imposed for the 2005 probation required Consiglio to file quarterly probation reports. He failed to timely file reports for April and July 2005, and he failed to file reports due in October 2005 and January 2006.
In aggravation, Consiglio had a record of prior discipline. The current 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 September 10.
Sidney C. Flores, State Bar # 64082, San Jose (August 15). Flores, 59, was suspended for 60 days and placed on four years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently and failing to maintain client funds in trust.
In April 1999 Flores was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case. In 2000 the case settled for $7,992, which was deposited into the client trust account. Between June and December 2004 Flores's wife, who worked as his office manager, wrote checks against the client trust account without his consent and knowledge by forging his signature on the checks. Flores failed to review the client trust account. He was required to hold $3,870 in trust on behalf of the client. By November 2004 the balance in the account fell to $321.
In aggravation, Flores had a record of prior discipline. In mitigation, Flores cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. Also, after learning of his wife's misappropriation, Flores changed his office procedures and made full restitution to the client trust account.
The order took effect August 30.
Monica M. Jimenez, State Bar # 92740, Santa Ana (August16). Jimenez, 52, was suspended for one year and placed on five years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a public reproval and for violating Penal Code section 647(f), public intoxication, a misdemeanor.
In June 2000 Jimenez collapsed while outside a store with her children and former husband. Paramedics arrived and determined that she was under the influence of alcohol. At the hospital, a test revealed a blood alcohol level of 0.327 percent. In October 2000 she was convicted of violating Penal Code Section 647 (f). In January 2001 she was sentenced to 90 days in jail, which was stayed, and she was placed on three years of probation. She also was ordered to engage in a drug-treatment plan or psychological therapy.
In February 2001 Jimenez was terminated from an 18-month treatment program for excessive absenteeism. Between May and June 2001 she received treatment at the Betty Ford Center but failed to complete the program and was discharged at the request of the Ford staff. Jimenez was ordered by the court to attend a six-month treatment program, but she refused to accept the terms set forth by the program.
In August 2001 Jimenez's criminal probation was reinstated, and she was ordered to comply with additional conditions, with intensive supervision by the probation department. She failed to comply with the conditions to the criminal conviction and the State Bar probation conditions.
In aggravation, Jimenez had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter the misconduct caused significant harm to the public and the administration of justice. Also, it involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of her misconduct. She also displayed a lack of cooperation with the State Bar during its disciplinary proceedings.
The order took effect September 14
Cary O. Lindstrom, State Bar # 129700, San Jose (August 15). Lindstrom, 48, was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to communicate, failing to pay out funds to a client, failing to provide an accounting, failing to promptly return unearned fees, and failing to cooperate with two State Bar investigations. He also was ordered to make restitution of $2,698 to one client.
In 1993 Lindstrom was hired to represent a plaintiff in a lawsuit against three defendants for breach of contract and breach of promissory note. In October 1993 Lindstrom filed a complaint on behalf of the client. In December 1993 the court entered a default judgment of $9,619 against the defendants. The judgment was satisfied between April 1994 and September 1994. The county controller- treasurer sent the funds to Lindstrom.
In September 1994 Lindstrom received two checks that totaled $2,176. In December 1994 the client received notice of six additional payments that had been received by Lindstrom. In 2002 the client examined the court's file on the case and discovered that $9,016 was collected from the defendants, minus court costs, and that $8,826 was delivered to Lindstrom. The client made contact with Lindstrom's office but never received a response to his inquiries. The client received a partial disbursement, but Lindstrom failed to pay the client the remaining $2,698.
In October, November, and December 2002 and in January and February 2003, a State Bar investigator wrote to Lindstrom asking for a written response to allegations of misconduct filed against him by the client, but Lindstrom failed to promptly respond. In November and December 2002 and January and March 2003, Lindstrom provided responses to the bar letters, but he failed to address the unpaid settlement money he owed to the client. In December 2003 and January 2004, deputy trial counsel wrote to Lindstrom requesting additional information on the unpaid settlement money. Lindstrom failed to respond to the letters.
In a second matter, in October 2003 Lindstrom was paid $1,000 to represent a client in a legal matter. The client called Lindstrom's office several times requesting to know the status of the case but never received a call back from Lindstrom. In November 2004 the client wrote to Lindstrom listing the many messages he left with the office and requesting return of the advance fee if Lindstrom was not going to take any action in the case. Lindstrom failed to respond to the client's letter and failed to further communicate with the client.
In November 2006, after the notice of disciplinary charges was filed, Lindstrom returned the client's $1,000 advance fee. In February 2005 a bar investigator wrote to Lindstrom requesting a written response to allegations filed against him by the client, but Lindstrom failed to respond to the investigator's letter.
In aggravation, Lindstrom's misconduct involved client trust account violations. Also, he demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct, and he failed to cooperate with the bar during its investigation and proceedings. In mitigation, Lindstrom had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1987.
The order took effect September 14.
Rick W. Manthei, State Bar # 77292, Agoura Hills (August 9). Manthei, 54, was suspended for 60 days and placed on three years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to communicate by failure to respond to reasonable status inquiries, failing to keep a client informed about significant developments in the client's case, and failing to obey a court order.
In November 1998 Manthei was hired by the mother of a minor who was involved in a personal injury matter. In June 1999 the attorney who referred the client to Manthei wrote to him saying the client complained that she had left several telephone messages for Manthei inquiring about the status of the case and requesting that he contact the client. Manthei failed to respond to the attorney's letter and failed to contact the client.
In December 1999 the defendant filed a motion to compel response to interrogatories served on Manthei in May 1999. The motion also sought $835 in sanctions. Manthei failed to file a response to the motion. In February 2000 the court granted the defendant's motion and ordered the client to provide responses within 20 days of the order and to pay $623 in sanctions to the defendant. The court also ordered all parties to participate in mediation by April 2000. In March 2000 the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case because of Manthei's willful failure to comply with the court's orders. Manthei failed to file a response to the motion. In April 2000 he failed to appear for a postmediation status conference. The following day Manthei was served with an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed and why sanctions should not be imposed against him. A hearing on the order was scheduled for early May 2000, but Manthei failed to appear and the court dismissed the case with prejudice.
In September 2000 the client wrote to Manthei, stating that she had left ten telephone messages for him and that she never received a response. He also failed to respond to the client's letter. The referral attorney wrote to Manthei asking him to contact the client, but Manthei failed to do so. Manthei failed to keep the client informed about discovery requests, the defendant's motions, the court's orders, and the dismissal of the case.
In aggravation, Manthei had a record of prior discipline.
The order took effect September 8.
Don A. Raig, State Bar # 45791, San Diego (August 9). Raig, 65, was suspended for 30 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion terminating the suspension.
In May 2004 a beneficiary of a family trust wrote to Raig, a trustee for the trust, requesting an accounting. In June 2004 Raig responded by telling the beneficiary he would be in touch soon. Between June and August 2004 the beneficiary asked Raig for an accounting, but Raig continued to be evasive. In August 2004 Raig provided the beneficiary with a preliminary summary of the trust assets, but the summary did not contain a dollar value for the various investments of the family trust. In October 2004 Raig transferred $200,000 from the family's charitable trust into Raig's client trust account. About a week later Raig paid out $100,000 to each of the two beneficiaries. Raig failed to keep the beneficiaries informed of the status and administration of the trust, and he failed to keep them informed of the assets, liabilities, receipts, and distribution of the trust.
On two dates in August 2004 a State Bar investigator wrote to Raig requesting his written response to allegations of misconduct filed by one of the beneficiaries. In January 2005 the investigator wrote to Raig asking specific questions about two of the trust investments. Raig failed to respond to the letter. In April 2005 State Bar deputy trial counsel sent an email to Raig requesting him to respond to the investigator's letters. Raig failed to respond to the email or communicate with the State Bar.
In aggravation, Raig had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter the misconduct caused significant harm to the beneficiaries. Also, Raig failed to cooperate with the State Bar before entry of his default.
The order took effect September 8.
Lewis R. Titus Jr., State Bar # 58486, Pasadena (August 9). Titus, 64, was suspended for 30 days and placed on one year of probation.
In February 2005 Titus opened a personal checking account. Between March and April 2005 he issued six checks against insufficient funds in the account. Titus closed the account in April 2005.
In aggravation, Titus had a record of prior discipline. In mitigation, he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
The order took effect September 8.
Hao-Nhien Q. Vu, State Bar # 177529, Westminster (August 11). Vu, 41, had his previously ordered stay of suspension lifted, the previous order of probation revoked, and a new order issued in which he was suspended for two years and until he provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. Vu was given credit toward the suspension for the period of involuntary inactive enrollment. He was disciplined for failure to comply with conditions to a previous disciplinary order.
In October 2004 Vu was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Conditions to the discipline required Vu to, among other things, file quarterly probation reports, attend State Bar ethics school, and complete the required hours of continuing legal education. He failed to submit reports for April, July, and October 2005; failed to attend ethics school; and failed to complete six hours of continuing legal education.
In aggravation, Vu had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. He also failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings.
The order took effect September 10.
INTERIM SUSPENSION
Geoffrey C. Mousseau, State Bar # 135769, Glendale (August 16). Mousseau, 46, was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. section 371, conspiracy; section 152(1), concealment of assets, making false oaths and claims, and bribery in a bankruptcy proceeding; section 152(3), making a false declaration; section 152(7), transferring or concealing property; and section 152(9), withholding information, all felonies. The interim suspension will remain in effect until further order by the State Bar Court.
The order took effect September 15.
Jeffrey S. Schoefer, State Bar # 218676, San Leandro (August 10). Schoefer, 40, was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for violating Penal Code sections 459 and 460, burglary. The interim suspension will remain in effect until further order by the State Bar Court.
The order took effect September 12.
Dale D. Zepp, State Bar # 134507, Ferguson, Missouri (August 8). Zepp, 56, was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. sections 2 and 1341, mail fraud. The interim suspension will remain in effect until further order by the State Bar Court.
The order took effect October 7.
PROBATION
Nelson R. Boylan, State Bar # 75899, Chilcoot (July 31). Boylan, 54, was placed on four years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently and violating Business and Professions Code sections 17203 and 17535, unfair practices.
In August 2000 Boylan worked for a credit-counseling law firm and was hired to represent a client in resolving the client's credit card debits. The client paid Boylan $3,123. In December 2001 Boylan left the law firm but failed to take the client's case with him to his new firm. Boylan failed to perform any legal services for the client. Boylan returned the client's advance fee and client file.
In a second matter, in February 2003 the state attorney general (AG) filed a complaint against Boylan's former firm alleging that it had engaged in unfair business practices, and Boylan was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged that the law firm and Boylan violated Business and Professions Code sections 17202 and 17535. Most of the alleged misconduct occurred after Boylan left the firm 14 months earlier. In February 2004 the AG filed an amended complaint alleging that Boylan had engaged in unfair business practices while working for the defendant firm. In August 2004 Boylan entered into a stipulated judgment in which he acknowledged the violations. As a result, he was enjoined from operating a debt-management, debt-negotiation, or credit-repair service. No other penalties or sanctions were imposed on Boylan.
In aggravation, Boylan had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In February 2005 he was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently and failing to promptly return unearned fees. The misconduct in the current matter involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, Boylan cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. He also demonstrated remorse for the consequences of his misconduct.
The order took effect August 30.
Nana S. Gyamfi, State Bar # 171480, Los Angeles (July 31). Gyamfi, 38, was placed on two years of probation after being found culpable of misconduct in four client matters by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to return unearned fees, failing to maintain a current address with the State Bar, failing to perform legal services competently, and failing to communicate by failure to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments in the client's case.
In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients. In mitigation, Gyamfi had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1994. Also, she cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
The order took effect August 30.
Gregory J. Khougaz, State Bar # 107530, Santa Monica (August 9). Khougaz, 49, was placed on two years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a public reproval.
In December 2004 Khougaz received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently and failing to communicate with a client. Conditions to the discipline required him to file quarterly probation reports. Although he was reminded to file the probation reports, he failed to file reports for April, July, and October 2005. He also failed to file a final report, and he failed to attend State Bar ethics school as required.
In aggravation, Khougaz had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter.
The order took effect September 8.
Mark P. McCredie, State Bar # 189962, Ventura (June 13). McCredie, 55, was placed on probation for four years and until he makes restitution to clients. He was disciplined after his violation of Penal Code section 368(c), placing an elderly or dependent person in circumstances likely to produce bodily harm or physical or mental suffering; and for failing to promptly return unearned fees in violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In mitigation, McCredie had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the State Bar in 1997. He cooperated with the bar during its investigation and proceedings. Also, at the time of the misconduct he suffered extreme emotional difficulties and financial stress, which were directly responsible for the misconduct.
The order took effect July 13.
John R. Racine, State Bar # 74930, Riverside (July 25). Racine, 57, was placed on one year of probation for failing to perform legal services competently and failing to respond to a client's reasonable status inquiries.
In aggravation, Racine had a record of prior discipline. In mitigation, Racine was diagnosed in 2003 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. As a result he was unable to handle his law practice effectively. During the summer of 2005 he was hospitalized for one month due to his medical condition.
The order took effect August 24.
Jeffrey C. Swartzlander, State Bar # 122210, San Diego (August 9). Swartzlander, 52, was placed on two years of probation for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to perform legal services competently, failing to promptly release client papers and property, failing to promptly return unearned fees, and failing to respond to status inquiries.
In August 2004 Swartzlander was suspended for failing to pay his State Bar membership fees, and he remained suspended until October 2004. After the effective date of his suspension, Swartzlander was hired to update a client's revocable trust, which he had prepared for the client in 1994. In September 2004 the client paid Swartzlander $375 to update the trust. But Swartzlander failed to inform the client he was not entitled to practice law. In October 2004 Swartzlander sent the State Bar a check for his membership fees and was reinstated to active status. He performed legal services and received compensation for his services while suspended.
After Swartzlander was reactivated, he failed to perform any further service for the client. Between September and October 2004 the client left numerous telephone messages for Swartzlander, but he failed to respond. In an October 2004 letter to Swartzlander, the client requested return of the advance fee and the client's documents. The client also informed Swartzlander that she had hired a new attorney. Swartzlander failed to respond to the client's letter.
In March 2005 the client sent Swartzlander an email requesting the same information referred to in the October 2004 letter. Swartzlander failed to respond to the client. In July 2005 the client sent another letter to Swartzlander, but he failed to respond. In August 2005 he paid the client $412 as a refund of the advance fee. In November 2005, after disciplinary charges were filed against him, Swartzlander returned the client's file and documents.
In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing.
The order took effect September 8.
Leslie W. VanAntwerp III, State Bar # 112696, Los Angeles (July 25). VanAntwerp, 47, was placed on two years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a public reproval.
In April 2003 VanAntwerp received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to communicate, and failing to report a civil judgment entered against him. Conditions to the reproval required VanAntwerp to perform specific tasks within a specified time. He failed to promptly file quarterly probation reports, failed to file a final report, failed to submit timely proof of payment of ordered restitution, failed to complete ethics school, and failed to promptly take and pass the professional responsibility exam.
In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, VanAntwerp cooperated with the State Bar during its proceeding, and he expressed remorse for failing to promptly comply with the reproval conditions.
The order took effect August 24.
PUBLIC REPROVAL
Miguel A. Chacon, State Bar # 99469, San Jose (July 25). Chacon, 53, received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to return unearned fees, failing to return client papers and property, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
In aggravation, the misconduct caused harm to a client. InIn mitigation, Chacon had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1981.
The reproval took effect August 15.
Matthew P. Fletcher, State Bar # 189923, Long Beach (July 19). Fletcher, 41, received a public reproval for failing to maintain respect due the courts in two matters.
In May and June 2002 Fletcher represented a criminal defendant in a jury trial. During the course of the trial, Fletcher argued with the judge over certain rulings made from the bench. At one point Fletcher laughed out loud, and the court admonished Fletcher for doing so. He also made remarks to the judge in the presence of the jury. At the end of trial, Fletcher's client was acquitted.
Later, a contempt hearing was held alleging that Fletcher engaged in nine counts of contempt during the trial. The judge found Fletcher culpable of the nine counts and sentenced him to serve two days in jail. He also was fined $400 and placed on three years of probation. In January 2003 Fletcher filed a petition for review with the court of appeal. The petition was denied in June 2003.
In a second matter, in March 2005 Fletcher represented a criminal defendant at trial. At the time the trial was to begin, Fletcher arrived 45 minutes late. He explained to the court he had instructed his secretary and paralegal to telephone the court about his late appearance. The court asked Fletcher his reason for his late appearance. He responded by claiming that the judge was pointing his finger and raising his voice. He accused the judge of racial prejudice. Fletcher made a motion to recuse the judge from hearing the case, but the judge denied the motion. Fletcher then demanded to be represented by counsel. His request was denied. The judge imposed sanctions of $1,000 against Fletcher.
In mitigation, Fletcher had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1997. He cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. Fletcher also submitted testimony by practicing attorneys who attested to his good character.
The reproval took effect August 9.
Christopher E. Grell, State Bar # 88498, Oakland (June 19). Grell, 53, received a public reproval after his conviction for violating Penal Code section 148(a)(1), obstructing a peace officer, a misdemeanor.
In mitigation, Grell had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1979.
The reproval took effect July 11.
Mark D. Johnson, State Bar # 90544, Sanger (June 13). Johnson, 53, received a public reproval for failing to maintain client funds in trust and failing to promptly pay out funds on behalf of a client.
In November 2002 Johnson was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case. In November 2003 the case settled for $14,380. Johnson paid himself the agreed-upon fee and paid the client his share of the settlement. Johnson was required to maintain $3,336 in the client trust account to pay the client's medical liens. Between December 2003 and November 2004 the balance in the trust account fell below the amount needed to pay the liens. By the end of November 2004 the balance in the trust account was about $300.
Between January and October 2004 Johnson received four letters from a collection company requesting payment of a medical lien. Johnson failed to respond to the letters and failed to pay the lien. In March 2005 the collection company filed a complaint against Johnson with the State Bar. In May 2005 a bar investigator wrote to Johnson about the complaint. In July 2005 Johnson paid one of two medical liens. In May and September 2005 the investigator wrote to Johnson asking him to provide a written response to the allegations in the complaint. Johnson failed to respond to the letter.
In aggravation, the misconduct caused harm to the client. In mitigation, Johnson had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1979. In addition, Johnson suffered severe medical and family problems during the period of misconduct.
The reproval took effect July 4.
Jennifer Y. Liu, State Bar # 164618, Foster City (June 20). Liu, 40, received a public reproval for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
In mitigation, Liu had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1993. No clients were harmed by the misconduct. At the time of the misconduct Liu suffered extreme difficulties in her personal life. Also, she cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
The reproval took effect July 11.
Alex J. Ranciglio, State Bar # 162222, San Bernardino (July 31). Ranciglio, 61, received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently, improperly withdrawing from representation, and failing to communicate.
In August 2002 Ranciglio was paid $1,000 to represent husband-and-wife clients in a claim for damages to their real property arising from a fire that began on an adjacent property. In August through November 2002 Ranciglio worked on the clients' claim and communicated to opposing counsel about the damage claim. In March 2003 Ranciglio closed his office and went to work for a workers compensation law firm, but he continued to communicate with the clients and opposing counsel.
The owners of the adjacent property offered to buy the client's property, but the parties could not agree on a price. In March 2004 Ranciglio began working for the State Compensation Insurance Fund, and he stopped communicating with the clients. In September 2004 a State Bar investigator wrote to Ranciglio about the clients' complaint, in which they alleged he abandoned them. Ranciglio relocated without notice and without providing a new telephone number. He failed to respond to requests for status updates.
Ranciglio responded to the bar inquiry by saying that he continued to work on the clients' case. In November 2004 a bar investigator wrote to Ranciglio about the clients' complaint. In his response, Ranciglio said that the attorney-client relationship had broken down and that he felt it would be better if the clients sought other counsel. In March 2005 the statute of limitations expired. Ranciglio failed to file a complaint against the owners of the adjacent property within the statutory time period. As a result, the clients could not recover damages to their property.
The reproval took effect August 21.
Bradley H. Spear, State Bar # 133371, Van Nuys (June 19). Spear, 47, received a public reproval for violating Vehicle Code section 23152(b), driving under the influence with a blood alcohol level greater than .08 percent; and section 14601.2, driving a motor vehicle knowing his driving privileges were suspended or revoked, both misdemeanors.
In aggravation, Spear had previous driving offense convictions. In mitigation, he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. He also completed a substance-abuse treatment program and other programs to help him overcome his substance abuse.
The reproval took effect July 25.
Gloria S. Weil-Herrera, State Bar # 103988, Los Angeles (June 30). Weil-Herrera, 59, received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently.
In aggravation, Weil-Herrera had a record of prior discipline. In mitigation, Weil-Herrera implemented new office procedures and policies before the State Bar's involvement with her case.
The reproval took effect July 21.
MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS
John R. DeLoreto, State Bar # 118885, Santa Barbara (June 22). DeLoreto, 47, had his interim suspension immediately terminated for good cause by the State Bar's Review Department.
Dmitry D. Krayevsky, State Bar # 192548, Canoga Park (July 31). Krayevsky, 36, having passed the professional responsibility exam, had his suspension immediately terminated.
Colleen M. Quinn, State Bar # 87608, El Dorado Hills (May 26). Quinn, 52, by order of the State Bar's Review Department, had her interim suspension immediately terminated.
Anthony J. Turner, State Bar # 139355, Los Angeles (July 27). Turner, 50, had his suspension immediately terminated.
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.
Hendley C. Hutchinson, State Bar # 191891, Calexico (July 31). Hutchinson, 51, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 955 of the Rules of Court.
In March 2005 Hutchinson was suspended for 60 days and until he made restitution of $500 to one client and until the State Bar Court grants a motion terminating the suspension. Hutchinson was disciplined for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law; engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; failing to return unearned fees; failing to maintain a current address with the bar; and failing to cooperate with a bar investigation.
Conditions to the discipline required him to comply with rule 955 by notifying clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and filing an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. He failed to file the affidavit and failed to provide an explanation to the bar for his noncompliance.
In aggravation, Hutchinson had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. He demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct by failing to comply with rule 955 even after being notified by the State Bar to do so. Also, he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default.
The order took effect August 30.
Peter S. Johnson, State Bar # 189710, San Diego (August 15). Johnson, 42, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 955 of the Rules of Court.
In July 2005 Johnson was suspended for 60 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion terminating the suspension. He was disciplined for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to communicate by failure to respond to client inquiries, failing to maintain a current address with the State Bar, improper withdrawal by failing to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to a client, failing to return unearned fees, and failing to return a client file. Conditions to the suspension required Johnson to, among other things, comply with rule 955 by notifying clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and filing 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, Johnson had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. Also, he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default.
The order took effect September 14.
Michael K. Moberly, State Bar # 196374, Stanton (July 31). Moberly, 49, was disbarred for failing to comply with rule 955 of the Rules of Court.
In July 2005 Moberly was suspended for six months and until the State Bar Court grants a motion terminating the suspension. He was disciplined for failing to maintain disputed funds in trust; failing to maintain client funds in trust; engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; and failing to cooperate in two State Bar investigations. Conditions to the discipline required him to comply with rule 955 by notifying clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and filing 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, Moberly had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. Also, he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default.
The order took effect August 30.
B. Joe Thomson, State Bar # 145816, Houston, Texas (July 31). Thomson, 61, was disbarred for making threats of criminal charges or civil wrongdoing to gain an advantage in a civil suit; engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
In the 1980s and 1990s Thomson was paid $9,700 by a medical doctor to represent him in a personal bankruptcy and in an appeal of the bankruptcy matter. Later, a dispute arose when Thomson demanded additional fees of $40,000 to $120,000 for handling the client's appeal. In December 1999 Thomson filed a lawsuit against the client, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, wire fraud, and mail fraud. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In May 2000 the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
In June 2000 Thomson wrote to the client threatening to disclose confidential and privileged information about the client. The client did not pay any additional fees to Thomson. In October 2000 Thomson sent a second letter to the client threatening to disclose confidential and privileged information to the FBI and to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Thomson also threatened to tell the FBI and other agencies that the client had committed criminal acts. The client refused to pay Thomson any additional fees. In December 2000 the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed Thomson's appeal.
In a separate matter, in June 1997 Thomson was suspended in California because he failed to pay his State Bar membership fees, and he remained suspended in California for nonpayment of membership fees. In July, October, and November 2000, while he was suspended in California, Thomson mailed out several letters on his letterhead indicating he was licensed to practice in Arkansas, Texas, and California. On two dates in December 2000 he also used the same letterhead to communicate with the bar's chief trial counsel.
In aggravation, Thomson had a record of prior discipline in Texas. In the current matter the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing, and he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default. He also demonstrated a contemptuous attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.
The order took effect August 30.
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.
Ray I. Batarse, State Bar # 196693, Stanton (August 9). Batarse, 37, resigned from the bar on June 29.
The order took effect September 8.
Mark I. Blankenship, State Bar # 130506, Riverside (August 15). Blankenship, 46, resigned from the bar on July 10.
The order took effect September 14.
Paul D. Deavenport, State Bar # 188971, Ventura (August 15). Deavenport, 57, resigned from the bar on August 8.
The order took effect September 14.
Anna M. Gonzalez, State Bar # 199860, South San Francisco (July 31). Gonzalez, 39, resigned from the bar on July 10.
The order took effect August 30.
Keith E. Hall, State Bar # 86025, Los Angeles (July 31). Hall, 61, resigned from the bar on July 29.
The order took effect August 30.
Lonnie R. Markum, State Bar # 188338, San Diego (August 9). Markum, 57, resigned from the bar on July 10.
The order took effect September 8.
Thomas H. McGrath, State Bar # 121996, Irvine (July 31). McGrath, 73, resigned from the bar on July 3.
The order took effect August 30.
SUSPENSION
Frederick J. Amorose, State Bar # 73597, Sacramento (July 31). Amorose, 55, was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and engaging in acts of moral turpitude.
Between September 2004 and May 2005 Amorose was suspended for failing to pay his State Bar membership dues. From September 2004 through June 2005 he was suspended because he failed to comply with continuing legal education requirements. Between September 2004 and March 2005 he continued to practice law by filing court pleadings. He also filed a case-management statement, appeared by telephone for a case-management conference, and spoke to his corporate client by telephone about the case. He provided legal advice, drafted correspondence, represented the client, and billed and received payment for his legal services.
In mitigation, Amorose had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1977. He also cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
The order took effect August 30.
David J. Bornstein, State Bar # 65256, Cerritos (July 31). Bornstein, 56, was suspended for three years and placed on probation for five years and until he provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. He was disciplined following his 2005 conviction for violating Penal Code section 311.11 (a), possession or control of child pornography, a misdemeanor.
In March 2003 Bornstein bought access to a website that contained child pornography. In March 2004 police officers went to his home with a search warrant and seized two computers. The law enforcement investigation found movies and still photographs of child pornography on the computers. At the time, Bornstein was working as a deputy attorney general for the state of California. In March 2005 he was convicted of violating Penal Code section 311.11(a).
In aggravation, the misconduct harmed a client, the public, or the administration of justice. In mitigation, Bornstein had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1975.
The order took effect August 30.
Michael E. Consiglio, State Bar # 55550, Moorpark (August 11). Consiglio, 65, had his previously ordered stay of suspension lifted, the previous order of probation revoked, and a new order issued in which he was suspended for one year and until he provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. Consiglio was placed on three years of probation and given credit toward the suspension for the period of involuntary inactive enrollment, which began on May 22, 2006. He was disciplined for failure to comply with conditions to a 2005 disciplinary order.
In February 2005 Consiglio was placed on two years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a public reproval. In April 2003 he received a public reproval for failing to comply with conditions to a June 2001 private reproval. Conditions to the 2003 public reproval required Consiglio to file quarterly probation reports, file a final report, and submit proof of his passing the professional responsibility exam. He failed to submit the quarterly report for April 2004, failed to file a final report, and failed to submit proof of having passed the professional responsibility exam. Conditions imposed for the 2005 probation required Consiglio to file quarterly probation reports. He failed to timely file reports for April and July 2005, and he failed to file reports due in October 2005 and January 2006.
In aggravation, Consiglio had a record of prior discipline. The current 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 September 10.
Sidney C. Flores, State Bar # 64082, San Jose (August 15). Flores, 59, was suspended for 60 days and placed on four years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently and failing to maintain client funds in trust.
In April 1999 Flores was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case. In 2000 the case settled for $7,992, which was deposited into the client trust account. Between June and December 2004 Flores's wife, who worked as his office manager, wrote checks against the client trust account without his consent and knowledge by forging his signature on the checks. Flores failed to review the client trust account. He was required to hold $3,870 in trust on behalf of the client. By November 2004 the balance in the account fell to $321.
In aggravation, Flores had a record of prior discipline. In mitigation, Flores cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. Also, after learning of his wife's misappropriation, Flores changed his office procedures and made full restitution to the client trust account.
The order took effect August 30.
Monica M. Jimenez, State Bar # 92740, Santa Ana (August16). Jimenez, 52, was suspended for one year and placed on five years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a public reproval and for violating Penal Code section 647(f), public intoxication, a misdemeanor.
In June 2000 Jimenez collapsed while outside a store with her children and former husband. Paramedics arrived and determined that she was under the influence of alcohol. At the hospital, a test revealed a blood alcohol level of 0.327 percent. In October 2000 she was convicted of violating Penal Code Section 647 (f). In January 2001 she was sentenced to 90 days in jail, which was stayed, and she was placed on three years of probation. She also was ordered to engage in a drug-treatment plan or psychological therapy.
In February 2001 Jimenez was terminated from an 18-month treatment program for excessive absenteeism. Between May and June 2001 she received treatment at the Betty Ford Center but failed to complete the program and was discharged at the request of the Ford staff. Jimenez was ordered by the court to attend a six-month treatment program, but she refused to accept the terms set forth by the program.
In August 2001 Jimenez's criminal probation was reinstated, and she was ordered to comply with additional conditions, with intensive supervision by the probation department. She failed to comply with the conditions to the criminal conviction and the State Bar probation conditions.
In aggravation, Jimenez had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter the misconduct caused significant harm to the public and the administration of justice. Also, it involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of her misconduct. She also displayed a lack of cooperation with the State Bar during its disciplinary proceedings.
The order took effect September 14
Cary O. Lindstrom, State Bar # 129700, San Jose (August 15). Lindstrom, 48, was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to communicate, failing to pay out funds to a client, failing to provide an accounting, failing to promptly return unearned fees, and failing to cooperate with two State Bar investigations. He also was ordered to make restitution of $2,698 to one client.
In 1993 Lindstrom was hired to represent a plaintiff in a lawsuit against three defendants for breach of contract and breach of promissory note. In October 1993 Lindstrom filed a complaint on behalf of the client. In December 1993 the court entered a default judgment of $9,619 against the defendants. The judgment was satisfied between April 1994 and September 1994. The county controller- treasurer sent the funds to Lindstrom.
In September 1994 Lindstrom received two checks that totaled $2,176. In December 1994 the client received notice of six additional payments that had been received by Lindstrom. In 2002 the client examined the court's file on the case and discovered that $9,016 was collected from the defendants, minus court costs, and that $8,826 was delivered to Lindstrom. The client made contact with Lindstrom's office but never received a response to his inquiries. The client received a partial disbursement, but Lindstrom failed to pay the client the remaining $2,698.
In October, November, and December 2002 and in January and February 2003, a State Bar investigator wrote to Lindstrom asking for a written response to allegations of misconduct filed against him by the client, but Lindstrom failed to promptly respond. In November and December 2002 and January and March 2003, Lindstrom provided responses to the bar letters, but he failed to address the unpaid settlement money he owed to the client. In December 2003 and January 2004, deputy trial counsel wrote to Lindstrom requesting additional information on the unpaid settlement money. Lindstrom failed to respond to the letters.
In a second matter, in October 2003 Lindstrom was paid $1,000 to represent a client in a legal matter. The client called Lindstrom's office several times requesting to know the status of the case but never received a call back from Lindstrom. In November 2004 the client wrote to Lindstrom listing the many messages he left with the office and requesting return of the advance fee if Lindstrom was not going to take any action in the case. Lindstrom failed to respond to the client's letter and failed to further communicate with the client.
In November 2006, after the notice of disciplinary charges was filed, Lindstrom returned the client's $1,000 advance fee. In February 2005 a bar investigator wrote to Lindstrom requesting a written response to allegations filed against him by the client, but Lindstrom failed to respond to the investigator's letter.
In aggravation, Lindstrom's misconduct involved client trust account violations. Also, he demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct, and he failed to cooperate with the bar during its investigation and proceedings. In mitigation, Lindstrom had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1987.
The order took effect September 14.
Rick W. Manthei, State Bar # 77292, Agoura Hills (August 9). Manthei, 54, was suspended for 60 days and placed on three years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to communicate by failure to respond to reasonable status inquiries, failing to keep a client informed about significant developments in the client's case, and failing to obey a court order.
In November 1998 Manthei was hired by the mother of a minor who was involved in a personal injury matter. In June 1999 the attorney who referred the client to Manthei wrote to him saying the client complained that she had left several telephone messages for Manthei inquiring about the status of the case and requesting that he contact the client. Manthei failed to respond to the attorney's letter and failed to contact the client.
In December 1999 the defendant filed a motion to compel response to interrogatories served on Manthei in May 1999. The motion also sought $835 in sanctions. Manthei failed to file a response to the motion. In February 2000 the court granted the defendant's motion and ordered the client to provide responses within 20 days of the order and to pay $623 in sanctions to the defendant. The court also ordered all parties to participate in mediation by April 2000. In March 2000 the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case because of Manthei's willful failure to comply with the court's orders. Manthei failed to file a response to the motion. In April 2000 he failed to appear for a postmediation status conference. The following day Manthei was served with an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed and why sanctions should not be imposed against him. A hearing on the order was scheduled for early May 2000, but Manthei failed to appear and the court dismissed the case with prejudice.
In September 2000 the client wrote to Manthei, stating that she had left ten telephone messages for him and that she never received a response. He also failed to respond to the client's letter. The referral attorney wrote to Manthei asking him to contact the client, but Manthei failed to do so. Manthei failed to keep the client informed about discovery requests, the defendant's motions, the court's orders, and the dismissal of the case.
In aggravation, Manthei had a record of prior discipline.
The order took effect September 8.
Don A. Raig, State Bar # 45791, San Diego (August 9). Raig, 65, was suspended for 30 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion terminating the suspension.
In May 2004 a beneficiary of a family trust wrote to Raig, a trustee for the trust, requesting an accounting. In June 2004 Raig responded by telling the beneficiary he would be in touch soon. Between June and August 2004 the beneficiary asked Raig for an accounting, but Raig continued to be evasive. In August 2004 Raig provided the beneficiary with a preliminary summary of the trust assets, but the summary did not contain a dollar value for the various investments of the family trust. In October 2004 Raig transferred $200,000 from the family's charitable trust into Raig's client trust account. About a week later Raig paid out $100,000 to each of the two beneficiaries. Raig failed to keep the beneficiaries informed of the status and administration of the trust, and he failed to keep them informed of the assets, liabilities, receipts, and distribution of the trust.
On two dates in August 2004 a State Bar investigator wrote to Raig requesting his written response to allegations of misconduct filed by one of the beneficiaries. In January 2005 the investigator wrote to Raig asking specific questions about two of the trust investments. Raig failed to respond to the letter. In April 2005 State Bar deputy trial counsel sent an email to Raig requesting him to respond to the investigator's letters. Raig failed to respond to the email or communicate with the State Bar.
In aggravation, Raig had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter the misconduct caused significant harm to the beneficiaries. Also, Raig failed to cooperate with the State Bar before entry of his default.
The order took effect September 8.
Lewis R. Titus Jr., State Bar # 58486, Pasadena (August 9). Titus, 64, was suspended for 30 days and placed on one year of probation.
In February 2005 Titus opened a personal checking account. Between March and April 2005 he issued six checks against insufficient funds in the account. Titus closed the account in April 2005.
In aggravation, Titus had a record of prior discipline. In mitigation, he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
The order took effect September 8.
Hao-Nhien Q. Vu, State Bar # 177529, Westminster (August 11). Vu, 41, had his previously ordered stay of suspension lifted, the previous order of probation revoked, and a new order issued in which he was suspended for two years and until he provides proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the law. Vu was given credit toward the suspension for the period of involuntary inactive enrollment. He was disciplined for failure to comply with conditions to a previous disciplinary order.
In October 2004 Vu was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Conditions to the discipline required Vu to, among other things, file quarterly probation reports, attend State Bar ethics school, and complete the required hours of continuing legal education. He failed to submit reports for April, July, and October 2005; failed to attend ethics school; and failed to complete six hours of continuing legal education.
In aggravation, Vu had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. He also failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings.
The order took effect September 10.
INTERIM SUSPENSION
Geoffrey C. Mousseau, State Bar # 135769, Glendale (August 16). Mousseau, 46, was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. section 371, conspiracy; section 152(1), concealment of assets, making false oaths and claims, and bribery in a bankruptcy proceeding; section 152(3), making a false declaration; section 152(7), transferring or concealing property; and section 152(9), withholding information, all felonies. The interim suspension will remain in effect until further order by the State Bar Court.
The order took effect September 15.
Jeffrey S. Schoefer, State Bar # 218676, San Leandro (August 10). Schoefer, 40, was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for violating Penal Code sections 459 and 460, burglary. The interim suspension will remain in effect until further order by the State Bar Court.
The order took effect September 12.
Dale D. Zepp, State Bar # 134507, Ferguson, Missouri (August 8). Zepp, 56, was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. sections 2 and 1341, mail fraud. The interim suspension will remain in effect until further order by the State Bar Court.
The order took effect October 7.
PROBATION
Nelson R. Boylan, State Bar # 75899, Chilcoot (July 31). Boylan, 54, was placed on four years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently and violating Business and Professions Code sections 17203 and 17535, unfair practices.
In August 2000 Boylan worked for a credit-counseling law firm and was hired to represent a client in resolving the client's credit card debits. The client paid Boylan $3,123. In December 2001 Boylan left the law firm but failed to take the client's case with him to his new firm. Boylan failed to perform any legal services for the client. Boylan returned the client's advance fee and client file.
In a second matter, in February 2003 the state attorney general (AG) filed a complaint against Boylan's former firm alleging that it had engaged in unfair business practices, and Boylan was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged that the law firm and Boylan violated Business and Professions Code sections 17202 and 17535. Most of the alleged misconduct occurred after Boylan left the firm 14 months earlier. In February 2004 the AG filed an amended complaint alleging that Boylan had engaged in unfair business practices while working for the defendant firm. In August 2004 Boylan entered into a stipulated judgment in which he acknowledged the violations. As a result, he was enjoined from operating a debt-management, debt-negotiation, or credit-repair service. No other penalties or sanctions were imposed on Boylan.
In aggravation, Boylan had a record of prior discipline. In the current matter the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In February 2005 he was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to perform legal services competently and failing to promptly return unearned fees. The misconduct in the current matter involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, Boylan cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. He also demonstrated remorse for the consequences of his misconduct.
The order took effect August 30.
Nana S. Gyamfi, State Bar # 171480, Los Angeles (July 31). Gyamfi, 38, was placed on two years of probation after being found culpable of misconduct in four client matters by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to return unearned fees, failing to maintain a current address with the State Bar, failing to perform legal services competently, and failing to communicate by failure to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments in the client's case.
In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients. In mitigation, Gyamfi had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1994. Also, she cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
The order took effect August 30.
Gregory J. Khougaz, State Bar # 107530, Santa Monica (August 9). Khougaz, 49, was placed on two years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a public reproval.
In December 2004 Khougaz received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently and failing to communicate with a client. Conditions to the discipline required him to file quarterly probation reports. Although he was reminded to file the probation reports, he failed to file reports for April, July, and October 2005. He also failed to file a final report, and he failed to attend State Bar ethics school as required.
In aggravation, Khougaz had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter.
The order took effect September 8.
Mark P. McCredie, State Bar # 189962, Ventura (June 13). McCredie, 55, was placed on probation for four years and until he makes restitution to clients. He was disciplined after his violation of Penal Code section 368(c), placing an elderly or dependent person in circumstances likely to produce bodily harm or physical or mental suffering; and for failing to promptly return unearned fees in violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In mitigation, McCredie had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the State Bar in 1997. He cooperated with the bar during its investigation and proceedings. Also, at the time of the misconduct he suffered extreme emotional difficulties and financial stress, which were directly responsible for the misconduct.
The order took effect July 13.
John R. Racine, State Bar # 74930, Riverside (July 25). Racine, 57, was placed on one year of probation for failing to perform legal services competently and failing to respond to a client's reasonable status inquiries.
In aggravation, Racine had a record of prior discipline. In mitigation, Racine was diagnosed in 2003 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. As a result he was unable to handle his law practice effectively. During the summer of 2005 he was hospitalized for one month due to his medical condition.
The order took effect August 24.
Jeffrey C. Swartzlander, State Bar # 122210, San Diego (August 9). Swartzlander, 52, was placed on two years of probation for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to perform legal services competently, failing to promptly release client papers and property, failing to promptly return unearned fees, and failing to respond to status inquiries.
In August 2004 Swartzlander was suspended for failing to pay his State Bar membership fees, and he remained suspended until October 2004. After the effective date of his suspension, Swartzlander was hired to update a client's revocable trust, which he had prepared for the client in 1994. In September 2004 the client paid Swartzlander $375 to update the trust. But Swartzlander failed to inform the client he was not entitled to practice law. In October 2004 Swartzlander sent the State Bar a check for his membership fees and was reinstated to active status. He performed legal services and received compensation for his services while suspended.
After Swartzlander was reactivated, he failed to perform any further service for the client. Between September and October 2004 the client left numerous telephone messages for Swartzlander, but he failed to respond. In an October 2004 letter to Swartzlander, the client requested return of the advance fee and the client's documents. The client also informed Swartzlander that she had hired a new attorney. Swartzlander failed to respond to the client's letter.
In March 2005 the client sent Swartzlander an email requesting the same information referred to in the October 2004 letter. Swartzlander failed to respond to the client. In July 2005 the client sent another letter to Swartzlander, but he failed to respond. In August 2005 he paid the client $412 as a refund of the advance fee. In November 2005, after disciplinary charges were filed against him, Swartzlander returned the client's file and documents.
In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing.
The order took effect September 8.
Leslie W. VanAntwerp III, State Bar # 112696, Los Angeles (July 25). VanAntwerp, 47, was placed on two years of probation for failing to comply with conditions to a public reproval.
In April 2003 VanAntwerp received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to communicate, and failing to report a civil judgment entered against him. Conditions to the reproval required VanAntwerp to perform specific tasks within a specified time. He failed to promptly file quarterly probation reports, failed to file a final report, failed to submit timely proof of payment of ordered restitution, failed to complete ethics school, and failed to promptly take and pass the professional responsibility exam.
In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In mitigation, VanAntwerp cooperated with the State Bar during its proceeding, and he expressed remorse for failing to promptly comply with the reproval conditions.
The order took effect August 24.
PUBLIC REPROVAL
Miguel A. Chacon, State Bar # 99469, San Jose (July 25). Chacon, 53, received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to return unearned fees, failing to return client papers and property, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
In aggravation, the misconduct caused harm to a client. InIn mitigation, Chacon had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1981.
The reproval took effect August 15.
Matthew P. Fletcher, State Bar # 189923, Long Beach (July 19). Fletcher, 41, received a public reproval for failing to maintain respect due the courts in two matters.
In May and June 2002 Fletcher represented a criminal defendant in a jury trial. During the course of the trial, Fletcher argued with the judge over certain rulings made from the bench. At one point Fletcher laughed out loud, and the court admonished Fletcher for doing so. He also made remarks to the judge in the presence of the jury. At the end of trial, Fletcher's client was acquitted.
Later, a contempt hearing was held alleging that Fletcher engaged in nine counts of contempt during the trial. The judge found Fletcher culpable of the nine counts and sentenced him to serve two days in jail. He also was fined $400 and placed on three years of probation. In January 2003 Fletcher filed a petition for review with the court of appeal. The petition was denied in June 2003.
In a second matter, in March 2005 Fletcher represented a criminal defendant at trial. At the time the trial was to begin, Fletcher arrived 45 minutes late. He explained to the court he had instructed his secretary and paralegal to telephone the court about his late appearance. The court asked Fletcher his reason for his late appearance. He responded by claiming that the judge was pointing his finger and raising his voice. He accused the judge of racial prejudice. Fletcher made a motion to recuse the judge from hearing the case, but the judge denied the motion. Fletcher then demanded to be represented by counsel. His request was denied. The judge imposed sanctions of $1,000 against Fletcher.
In mitigation, Fletcher had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1997. He cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. Fletcher also submitted testimony by practicing attorneys who attested to his good character.
The reproval took effect August 9.
Christopher E. Grell, State Bar # 88498, Oakland (June 19). Grell, 53, received a public reproval after his conviction for violating Penal Code section 148(a)(1), obstructing a peace officer, a misdemeanor.
In mitigation, Grell had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1979.
The reproval took effect July 11.
Mark D. Johnson, State Bar # 90544, Sanger (June 13). Johnson, 53, received a public reproval for failing to maintain client funds in trust and failing to promptly pay out funds on behalf of a client.
In November 2002 Johnson was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case. In November 2003 the case settled for $14,380. Johnson paid himself the agreed-upon fee and paid the client his share of the settlement. Johnson was required to maintain $3,336 in the client trust account to pay the client's medical liens. Between December 2003 and November 2004 the balance in the trust account fell below the amount needed to pay the liens. By the end of November 2004 the balance in the trust account was about $300.
Between January and October 2004 Johnson received four letters from a collection company requesting payment of a medical lien. Johnson failed to respond to the letters and failed to pay the lien. In March 2005 the collection company filed a complaint against Johnson with the State Bar. In May 2005 a bar investigator wrote to Johnson about the complaint. In July 2005 Johnson paid one of two medical liens. In May and September 2005 the investigator wrote to Johnson asking him to provide a written response to the allegations in the complaint. Johnson failed to respond to the letter.
In aggravation, the misconduct caused harm to the client. In mitigation, Johnson had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1979. In addition, Johnson suffered severe medical and family problems during the period of misconduct.
The reproval took effect July 4.
Jennifer Y. Liu, State Bar # 164618, Foster City (June 20). Liu, 40, received a public reproval for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
In mitigation, Liu had no record of prior discipline since being admitted to the bar in 1993. No clients were harmed by the misconduct. At the time of the misconduct Liu suffered extreme difficulties in her personal life. Also, she cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings.
The reproval took effect July 11.
Alex J. Ranciglio, State Bar # 162222, San Bernardino (July 31). Ranciglio, 61, received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently, improperly withdrawing from representation, and failing to communicate.
In August 2002 Ranciglio was paid $1,000 to represent husband-and-wife clients in a claim for damages to their real property arising from a fire that began on an adjacent property. In August through November 2002 Ranciglio worked on the clients' claim and communicated to opposing counsel about the damage claim. In March 2003 Ranciglio closed his office and went to work for a workers compensation law firm, but he continued to communicate with the clients and opposing counsel.
The owners of the adjacent property offered to buy the client's property, but the parties could not agree on a price. In March 2004 Ranciglio began working for the State Compensation Insurance Fund, and he stopped communicating with the clients. In September 2004 a State Bar investigator wrote to Ranciglio about the clients' complaint, in which they alleged he abandoned them. Ranciglio relocated without notice and without providing a new telephone number. He failed to respond to requests for status updates.
Ranciglio responded to the bar inquiry by saying that he continued to work on the clients' case. In November 2004 a bar investigator wrote to Ranciglio about the clients' complaint. In his response, Ranciglio said that the attorney-client relationship had broken down and that he felt it would be better if the clients sought other counsel. In March 2005 the statute of limitations expired. Ranciglio failed to file a complaint against the owners of the adjacent property within the statutory time period. As a result, the clients could not recover damages to their property.
The reproval took effect August 21.
Bradley H. Spear, State Bar # 133371, Van Nuys (June 19). Spear, 47, received a public reproval for violating Vehicle Code section 23152(b), driving under the influence with a blood alcohol level greater than .08 percent; and section 14601.2, driving a motor vehicle knowing his driving privileges were suspended or revoked, both misdemeanors.
In aggravation, Spear had previous driving offense convictions. In mitigation, he cooperated with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings. He also completed a substance-abuse treatment program and other programs to help him overcome his substance abuse.
The reproval took effect July 25.
Gloria S. Weil-Herrera, State Bar # 103988, Los Angeles (June 30). Weil-Herrera, 59, received a public reproval for failing to perform legal services competently.
In aggravation, Weil-Herrera had a record of prior discipline. In mitigation, Weil-Herrera implemented new office procedures and policies before the State Bar's involvement with her case.
The reproval took effect July 21.
MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS
John R. DeLoreto, State Bar # 118885, Santa Barbara (June 22). DeLoreto, 47, had his interim suspension immediately terminated for good cause by the State Bar's Review Department.
Dmitry D. Krayevsky, State Bar # 192548, Canoga Park (July 31). Krayevsky, 36, having passed the professional responsibility exam, had his suspension immediately terminated.
Colleen M. Quinn, State Bar # 87608, El Dorado Hills (May 26). Quinn, 52, by order of the State Bar's Review Department, had her interim suspension immediately terminated.
Anthony J. Turner, State Bar # 139355, Los Angeles (July 27). Turner, 50, had his suspension immediately terminated.
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.
#342142
Megan Kinneyn
Daily Journal Staff Writer
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com