March 2024

DISBARMENT

Andrew Peter Altholz

State Bar #152713, Santa Monica (February 4, 2024)

Altholz was disbarred after he was found culpable of 20 of the 26 counts charged in a consolidated disciplinary proceeding. All charges related to his representation of three separate clients.

His wrongdoing included: failing to report judicial sanctions imposed to the State Bar and engaging in an improper business relationship with a client; two counts each of failing to maintain entrusted funds, and commingling personal and client funds in a trust account; three counts of failing to obey superior court orders; and four counts of failing to promptly distribute entrusted funds. An additional seven counts involved moral turpitude: two counts each of misappropriating entrusted funds and committing dishonest acts, as well as three counts of making material misrepresentations to State Bar investigators.

In one of the client matters, Altholz was hired to review a trust document and determine whether the client had any actionable claims related to it. The client was informed she would be receiving an unspecified distribution from the estate in question, but due to her acrimonious relationship with other family members, directed that her distribution should be sent to her attorney, Altholz. He subsequently received a cashier's check for $102,796.69--payable to the client--but did not inform her he had received it. More than two years later, he endorsed the check with "an illegible signature" and deposited it into his client trust account. He then made a series of withdrawals, depleting the account. A year later, the account balance was minimal, with the client's funds nonexistent.

Four years after the client's distribution had been sent to Altholz, the client became frustrated with his lack of communication--and angered when she learned he had received her estate share so long ago. She also discovered the forgery on the endorsement after contacting the trustee's attorney. During the State Bar's investigation of the matter, Altholz asserted he was unable to locate relevant documentation in the matter, offered two fabricated letters that he falsely claimed he had sent to the client.

In the second matter, a client--through communications with Altholz's Spanish-speaking assistant--hired Altholz for help with a divorce proceeding. He negotiated to have the title company disburse $220,099.98 from the sale of the divorcing couple's residence into his client trust account. Altholz depleted the account balance, and transferred a portion to other accounts he held. Eventually, a superior court ordered Altholz to pay out the client funds he allegedly held in trust. In the ensuing State Bar investigation of the matter, Altholz produced another fabricated letter stating that the client agreed with the accounting that accompanied it; the signature was forged.

In the third matter, Altholz rented an apartment--paying for some rent and expenses by performing some legal work for the owners. There was no written fee agreement, and the parties had disagreements over the controlling hourly rate. Altholz eventually stopped paying rent, prompting an unlawful detained action against him. In subsequent negotiations over money owed for rent and for legal fees, Altholz produced an agreement setting out various contingencies and specifying fee arrangements; the owner claimed he had not seen the agreement previously--and that his signature on it was forged. When State Bar investors requested documentation in the matter, Altholz presented both the forged agreement and another fabricated one that purported to set out specifics of legal fees to be charged.

In aggravation, Altholz committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to others, demonstrated indifference and a lack of insight about his wrongdoing, showed a lack of candor by producing sham documents during the State Bar investigations, and failed to make restitution owed to the clients he wronged.

In mitigation, he was allotted limited weight for having practiced law discipline-free for 25 years as the serious and repeated misconduct at issue was deemed "not aberrational," and for experiencing emotional difficulties unsupported by expert evidence. He was also given minimal weight for stipulating to admitting some documents in the case--the veracity of which he questioned at trial, and for performing pro bono work, which lacked specificity in type and time.

The State Bar Court prefaced its lengthy opinion in the case by underscoring that much of Altholz's testimony in the matter, "lacked credibility" and was "entirely self-serving and uncorroborated," and his demeanor at trial was "evasive."

Steven John Brookes

State Bar #104247, Lakeport (February 4, 2024)

Brookes was disbarred by default after he failed to participate in the disciplinary proceeding in which he was charged with 22 counts of misconduct related to six client matters. The State Bar Court determined that all procedural requirements--including adequate notice--had been met in the case and that there was an adequate factual basis demonstrating misconduct warranting discipline.

He was found culpable of all counts charged. His wrongdoing included: failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to inform clients of significant case developments, failing to maintain client funds in a trust account, commingling personal and client funds in his trust account, improperly withdrawing from employment, failing to maintain adequate records of client funds, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged. He was also culpable of two counts each of failing to render accountings of client funds and failing to represent clients diligently, as well as four counts of failing to comply with relevant laws.

Additional misconduct involved moral turpitude: one count of making material misrepresentations and five counts of misappropriating client funds.

Brookes had one prior record of discipline when he was disbarred in the present case.

Jordan Wiles Carlson

State Bar #294220, Los Angeles (February 4, 2024)

Carlson was summarily disbarred after the State Bar Court received evidence of the finality of his conviction of possessing a controlled substance for sale (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11378). The offense is a felony classified as involving moral turpitude.

In addition, Carlson was convicted of two felony counts of possessing a controlled substance while armed with a firearm (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11370.1).

Roberto Gil

State Bar #74014, Modesto (February 4, 2024)

Gil was disbarred by default after he failed to participate, beyond appearing in an initial trial setting conference, in the consolidated disciplinary proceeding in which he was charged with 18 counts of misconduct related to four client matters.

The State Bar Court determined that Gil had received adequate notice and opportunity to appear at trial, and that he did not move to have the default ultimately entered against him set aside or vacated.

He was found culpable of 13 of the counts charged: failing to promptly release client files after being requested to do so and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's disciplinary investigation; two counts each of failing to maintain client funds in a trust account and failing to render an accounting of client funds; three counts of failing to refund unearned advanced fees; and four counts of failing to perform legal services with competence.

There were other State Bar investigations pending against Gil at the time he was disbarred.

Gregory Harper

State Bar #146119, El Cerrito (February 9, 2024)

Harper was disbarred after a proceeding on remand from the California Supreme Court for the limited purpose of determining the merits of his claim of racial discrimination.

Harper sought review before the State Bar Court's Review Department, raising the claim of racial discrimination for the first time in a footnote. The Review Department affirmed the finding of culpability and recommended discipline. The California Supreme Court then remanded the case back to the Review Department "for consideration of Harper's unaddressed claim that his discipline is based on a theory of disparate impact."

This case of first impression specified that the State Bar must "determine whether Harper was disciplined more harshly than any other white male attorney" in consideration of the Farkas study--a study of racial and gender disparities in the discipline system released in 2019, and Robertson report--a report commissioned to evaluate the Farkas study and make recommendations for reforms based on it.

In the underlying matter, Harper was charged with issuing eight checks from his client trust account--all of which were returned due to insufficient funds. The bank reported the transactions to the State Bar, prompting the Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) to seek an explanation from Harper. Additional activity involving insufficient funds in the account occurred over the next month. A separate complaint was filed against Harper by a medical lienholder claiming delayed payment of a disputed bill; he ultimately paid the lienholder with a check drawn on his general account. The maters were consolidated, with Harper ultimately placed on probation for 18 months.

Harper's second discipline case consolidated three matters--one alleging a payment check issued with insufficient funds, another alleging a forged signature on a settlement check, and the third alleging a failure to pay funds to which a client was entitled. Harper was suspended from practicing law for six month and placed on probation for two years as discipline in that case.

Over a period of 11 years, the OCTC received eight reports of checks issued was insufficient funds from Harper's client trust account; he was not disciplined for this conduct.

A third disciplinary matter alleged a failure to maintain client funds in trust, as well as two counts involving moral turpitude: misrepresentation and misappropriation. The State Bar Court then recommended disbarment.

In its current opinion, the State Bar Court analyzed the relevant intake policies and procedures in its disciplinary system--focusing on actions involving client trust accounts. It noted the OCTC policy indicating that "if any indications of wrongdoing are apparent" on the face of a complaint that might support a disciplinable violation, then the matter is forwarded for investigation--"even if the complaint arose primarily from a fee dispute that has since resolved." That describes Harper's third discipline case.

Among his countering evidence, Harper had offered his own analysis of the Farkas study data, in addition to a letter and news articles disclosing information about 205 disciplinary matters that had been opened and closed against a white male lawyer, Thomas Girardi, over a 40-year period. Girardi was disbarred in 2022.

The court's current opinion includes opinions and conclusions drawn by a designated statistical expert who reviewed the Farkas study, Robertson report, and Harper's entire discipline file. The statistician's judgment was that "regardless of race, an attorney presenting with the same characteristics as Harper is highly likely to be disbarred."

The State Bar Court's opinion concluded: "In sum, Harper failed to meet his burden that any aspect of the Intake process was the cause of disparate disciplinary outcomes for Black male attorneys and, specifically, was a substantial factor causing Harper to face disbarment in this proceeding." It also found that reasoning applied "to the extent that Harper is arguing that discretionary decisions in the investigative process are the cause of disparate disciplinary outcomes."

Scott Norris Johnson

State Bar #166952, Carmichael (February 4, 2024)

Johnson was summarily disbarred after he earlier pled guilty to one count of making and subscribing a false tax return (26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)). The offense is a felony involving moral turpitude.

Before recommending disbarment, the State Bar Court determined that Johnson had not filed an appeal, and the conviction was final.

Carol Susan Keen

State Bar #194587, Santa Monica (February 4, 2024)

Keen was disbarred by default after she failed to participate meaningfully in her disciplinary proceeding, or to file a response to the charges against her, despite repeated opportunities to do so. While she sought and obtained extensions of time from the State Bar to file a response to the notice of disciplinary charges filed, she did not file one, and a default order was ultimately entered against her. She did not move to have it set aside or vacated.

She was then found culpable of eight counts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter. They included: failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to act with diligence in representing her client, failing to deposit client funds in trust, failing to provide an accounting of client funds, failing to return unearned advanced fees and the client file upon request, failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation, and misappropriating $14,000 in client funds--misconduct involving moral turpitude.

Kevin T. Kellar

State Bar #270974, Escondido (February 4, 2024)

Kellar was disbarred by default after he failed to participate, either in person or through counsel, in the disciplinary proceeding in which he was charged with committing four counts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter.

The State Bar Court found that all procedural requirements had been satisfied in the case, and that there was an adequate factual basis for a disciplinary order.

Kellar was found culpable of failing to promptly release a client's papers and property after terminating employment, as well as three counts of failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the misconduct alleged.

Troy Xavier Kelley

State Bar #146504, Tacoma, Washington (February 23, 2024)

Kelley was summarily disbarred after guilty verdicts were entered on several counts: possessing and concealing stolen property (18 U.S.C. § 2315); two counts of making false declarations (18 U.S.C. 1623(a), and five counts of filing false income tax returns (26 U.S.C. §7206(1)).

All the offenses are felonies involving moral turpitude.

S. David Kozich

State Bar #102765, Redlands (February 4, 2024)

Kozich was disbarred by default after he failed to participate in his disciplinary proceeding. Through counsel, he initially filed a response to the notice of disciplinary charges against him, then moved to withdraw it--indicating he understood the legal consequences of his decision to withdraw his response and to allow his default to be entered. He did not subsequently seek to have that default set aside or vacated.

He was found culpable of most of the 37 counts of professional misconduct charged, including: pressuring clients to withdraw a disciplinary complaint against him; two counts of commingling personal and client funds; four counts each of failing to inform clients of significant case developments, failing to notify clients of receiving funds to which they were entitled, failing to render an accounting of client funds, and soliciting prospective clients; and five counts of failing to deposit client funds in a trust account.

An additional 10 counts involved moral turpitude: three counts of misappropriating client funds and seven of making material misrepresentations to State Bar investigators looking into the misconduct alleged.

At the time Kozich was disbarred, there were 21 additional investigation matters pending against him.

Timothy George McFarlin

State Bar #223378, Irvine (February 4, 2024)

McFarlin was disbarred by default after he failed to participate, either in person or through counsel, in his disciplinary proceeding.

As part of the investigative process, representatives from the Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) located McFarlin at his parents' house, where he was staying, and mailed a copy of the notice of disciplinary charges to that address. Shortly after that, McFarlin telephoned the OCTC, informing that he wished to proceed by default--and he also sent a follow-up confirmation of that intent. He did not move to have the default entered against him set aside or vacated.

He was found culpable of all 19 counts of professional misconduct with which he was charged. His wrongdoing included: failing to update his licensing record with the State Bar, as well as three counts each of improperly withdrawing from employment, failing to return unearned advanced fees, failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to deposit client funds in a trust account, failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the alleged misconduct, and misappropriating client funds--misconduct involving moral turpitude.

Jack Huu-Chinh Nguyen

State Bar #249657, Huntington Beach (February 4, 2024)

Nguyen was summarily disbarred after earlier pleading guilty to engaging in a conspiracy to launder money (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)).

The offense is a felony involving moral turpitude, and the State Bar Court received evidence that the conviction became final.

Thomas Harry Peters

State Bar #163388 , Pacific Palisades (February 9, 2024)

Peters was summarily disbarred after he entered a guilty plea to a charge of aiding and abetting in the interference with commerce by extortion (18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 2(a))--a felony that involved moral turpitude per se.

Before recommending disbarment, the State Bar Court determined that the conviction was final for purposes of discipline.

Bonnie Tara Roadarmel

State Bar #205275, New Braunfels, Texas (February 9, 2024)

Roadarmel was summarily disbarred. She had earlier entered a plea of nolo contendere to two counts of grand theft of an elder or dependent adult (Cal. Penal Code § 368(d)).

The conviction, which became final after Roadarmel did not file an appeal, is a felony involving moral turpitude.

Rooh Singh

State Bar #298374, Redondo Beach (February 4, 2024)

Singh was disbarred by default after he failed to participate in the final adjudication of his disciplinary charges and a default was entered against him. He did not move to have that order set aside or vacated.

Singh had adequate notice of the proceeding. He had appeared at an earlier status conference in the matter, at which the trial date was set, but failed to appear for trial.

He was found culpable of committing 13 counts of professional misconduct. They included: failing to obey a court order, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, seeking to mislead the court, as well as two counts of falsifying legal documents.

An additional eight counts of misconduct involved moral turpitude--including knowingly engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, concealing the truth from a client about his impending suspension, forging and filing falsified substitution of attorney forms, making material misrepresentations to State Bar investigators and falsely declaring he had satisfied notification requirements related to his suspended status (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 9.20).

Singh had one prior record of discipline at the time he was disbarred in the present case.

Chelsea Faith Storey

State Bar #241756, San Clemente (February 4, 2024)

Storey was disbarred by default after she failed to participate, either in person or through counsel, in the disciplinary proceeding in which she was charged with 14 ethical violations.

The State Bar Court found that all procedural requirements had been met in the case, and that there was an adequate factual basis to find the misconduct as charged. Storey did not move to have the default entered against her set aside or vacated.

She was found culpable of all 14 counts, which related to two separate client matters. Her misconduct included: one count each of failing to perform legal services with diligence, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, disobeying court orders, failing to promptly distribute client funds, failing to render an accounting of client funds, failing to promptly release a client's papers and property after being requested to do so, and failing to return unearned advanced fees, as well as three counts of failing to maintain client funds in trust.

Additional counts included moral turpitude: making a material misrepresentation to a client, and issuing checks from her account while knowing there were insufficient funds to cover them; and two counts of misappropriating client funds.

At the time Storey was disbarred, there was one additional disciplinary matter pending against her.

Glen Eric VonTersch

State Bar #197058, Belmont (February 4, 2024)

VonTersch was disbarred after he failed to respond to the notice of disciplinary charges against him and he did not move to have the default ultimately entered against him in the case set aside or vacated. Evidence was submitted that reasonable diligence was used to notify VonTersch of the proceeding--including mail to numerous addresses, notification through his State Bar online profile, and telephone calls to a number of numbers.

VonTersch was found culpable of all 18 counts charged, which related to a single client matter. His wrongdoing included: failing to comply with conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order; two counts each of failing to act with reasonable diligence n representing a client and failing to return unearned advanced fees; three counts each of failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, failing to perform legal services with competence, and failing to release the client's papers and property after being requested to do so; and four counts of failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the misconduct alleged.

VonTersch had been disciplined once before for professional misconduct before he was disbarred in the present case.

William Armand Wright

State Bar #75236, Roseville (February 4, 2024)

Wright was disbarred after he failed to participate in his disciplinary proceeding.

The State Bar Court found all procedural and substantive factors were met in the case: proper service of the charges, actual notice of the proceedings prior to default, proper entry of the default, and a factual basis for discipline.

Wright was found culpable of failing to comply with several conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order. Specifically, he failed to schedule and participate in an initial meeting with the Office of Probation, failed to report that he had reviewed the Rules of Professional Conduct and specified sections of the California Business and Professions Code as directed, failed to submit his first quarterly written report, and failed to show timely payment of restitution as required. In addition, he failed to file a declaration of compliance of compliance, as mandated by court rules, due to his suspended status (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 9.20).

Wright had three prior records of discipline, and there was a pending criminal investigation matter (not yet referred to the State Bar Court) at the time he was disbarred in the instant case.

SUSPENSION

Ronda Nadine Baldwin-Kennedy

State Bar #302813, Agoura Hills (February 4, 2024)

Baldwin-Kennedy was suspended for 90 days and placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to committing six acts of professional misconduct related to three separate client matters.

In the first case at hand, Baldwin-Kennedy was retained to represent a client and her son in a personal injury action related to an automobile accident in California. The client was one of the drivers and her son, who had disabilities, was a passenger in her car. Baldwin-Kennedy filed on the behalf of the two of them, as well as two additional passengers in the client's car--without informing them of the consequences of a potential conflict or securing their written consent to the arrangement. When a settlement was reached, the client executed an agreement on her son's behalf. It was conditioned upon securing court approval that Baldwin-Kennedy was to secure. However, she did not obtain the required approval within the set timeframe, nor did she file a request for dismissal. Over opposing counsel's objection, Baldwin-Kennedy stated she was working on retaining counsel in Nevada, where her clients lived; she took no further action in the California case, and it was dismissed. However, she sent the client forms required to proceed in pro se in Nevada--both to seek guardianship of the son and to have the settlement approved, which reopened the matter. She ultimately appeared at a California hearing at which the court sought additional time and information to enforce the Nevada judgment. In the meantime, Baldwin-Kennedy had changed addresses without informing the court, which sent communications to her former address before ultimately dismissing the matter again. Baldwin-Kennedy did not respond to the client's requests for a case update, which she had lodged periodically over a six-month period.

In the second case, Baldwin-Kennedy again represented clients--a married couple and their two children--who had been injured in an automobile accident. She deposited settlement funds received into her client trust account, then negotiated a reduction in one of the medical liens. She failed to timely pay the lien, or to maintain sufficient funds in her client trust account to cover the amount to be held on the client's behalf.

And in the third matter, Baldwin-Kennedy was retained to represent a client in a dog bite case. She was unable to effectuate service on the defendant, but did not inform her client. The court issued an order to show cause regarding sanctions or dismissal in the case; it then granted Baldwin-Kennedy's motion to be relieved as counsel.

In aggravation, Baldwin-Kennedy committed multiple acts of wrongdoing, and harmed a highly vulnerable client who had severe disabilities and was disadvantaged in representation as living out-of-state.

In mitigation, she entered into a prefiling stipulation and was allotted limited weight for character letters written by 15 individuals--several of whom were not aware of the charges of misconduct or denied that the allegations were true.

Daniel V. Behesnilian

State Bar #75805, Beverly Hills (February 4, 2024)

Behesnilian was suspended from practicing law for 90 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing three acts of professional misconduct related to a single client case: two counts of commingling funds in his client trust account and one of allowing others to use the entrusted funds for a fraudulent and unlawful enterprise--an act involving moral turpitude.

Behesnilian rented out an office space in his law office suite to a former client. He also gave the tenant access and permission to receive and deposit funds for his personal use in Behesnilian's client trust account. The tenant and an associate operated a financial company investing their customers' funds in the gold trade in Saudi Arabia. Though Behesnilian did not represent any of the customers, he was aware that his client trust account was being used as a flow-through for numerous third parties who were not his clients; their deposits were processed through the account, then quicky transferred to the tenant's checking account.

The tenant and his partner, who are believed to have fled the country, were ultimately charged with illegally offering and selling unqualified, non-exempt securities and with operating as an unlicensed financial planner. After one of their customers complained to the State Bar when she was unable to obtain return of the funds she had invested, Behesnilian eventually paid her $15,500--the amount she had deposited into the trust account minus "interest payments" she had received through the financial company's scheme.

Cristina Marie Brooks-Montgomery

State Bar #229007, Lompoc (February 16, 2024)

Brooks-Montgomery was suspended for 90 days and placed on probation for two years after she stipulated to committing 14 acts of professional misconduct.

The wrongdoing was related to six separate matters. It included: being convicted of a felony, failing to promptly refund unearned advanced fees upon terminating employment, failing to keep a client informed of significant case developments, failing to comply with a court order, and failing to promptly release a client's papers and property after being requested to do so. She was also culpable of two counts each of failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing clients, failing to participate in the State Bar's investigations of the wrongdoing alleged, and commingling personal and client funds in a client trust account, as well as three counts of failing to render appropriate accountings of client funds.

Four client cases had similar fact patterns: Brooks-Montgomery was hired to help clients in dissolution of marriage and family law cases, then failed to file necessary petitions or judgment packets. The clients all filed complaints with the State Bar. Most hired new counsel after terminating Brooks-Montgomery's services. Two of the clients, in person or through counsel, requested accountings of their funds, which were not tendered until after their State Bar complaints were filed.

In another matter, Brooks-Montgomery was involved in an automobile accident in which she collided with the two cars in front of her that were stopped at a red light; both of the other drivers were injured. Preliminary alcohol screen tests indicated that Brooks-Montgomery's blood alcohol was .385 and .388%; an additional test showed a blood alcohol concentration of .371. She was arrested at the scene and charged with causing bodily injuries while driving under the influence of alcohol (Cal. Veh. Code § 23153(a)). The State Bar Court determined the offense did not involve moral turpitude, but did warrant professional discipline.

In aggravation, Brooks-Montgomery committed multiple acts of wrongdoing--and caused personal and property injuries to others while driving under the influence.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for nearly 18 1/2 months, provided letters from 16 individuals taken from a range in the legal and general communities--all of whom vouched for her good character, and suffered from marital difficulties at the time of the misconduct that were related to her wrongdoing.

Howard Jong-Yol Choi

State Bar #284364, Buena Park (February 4, 2024)

Choi was suspended from the practice of law for 60 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing seven acts of professional misconduct related to two separate client matters.

His wrongdoing included: failing to report judicial sanctions imposed to the State Bar, and two counts each of violating court orders, failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing clients, and entering an improper business transaction with a client.

In one matter, Choi was hired to represent a client who had been injured in an automobile accident. He filed a complaint, but failed to file a proof of service or a default judgment after the defendants did not appear. After Choi failed to appear at a subsequent order to show cause hearing, the case was dismissed--and the statute of limitations ran out, barring further litigation in the matter. In addition, Choi twice loaned the client sums of money--$300 and $500--but failed to advise her in writing of her right to seek the advice of independent counsel before entering into the transaction.

In the second case, Choi represented a client seeking personal and property damages arising from an auto accident. He filed an application to have a guardian appointed for the client's minor son, who was also named as a plaintiff. However, he then failed to file a petition and order approving the minor's compromise or to appear at order to show cause hearings scheduled by the court, and was sanctioned. He did not pay the $1,000 sanction imposed, nor did he report it to the State Bar as required.

In aggravation, Choi committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed the client whose case was dismissed.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation and was allotted some mitigating weight for letters attesting to his good character written by six individuals--two of whom knew him for a short time and only one of whom was a member of the legal community.

Nathan Daly Clark

State Bar #256472, Albany (February 4, 2024)

Clark was suspended from practicing law for 90 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to failing to comply with numerous conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order. Specifically, he failed to schedule a required meeting with the Office of Probation, failed to submit several quarterly written reports, failed to abstain from using alcohol, failed to provide a drug and alcohol screening report, and missed both a Lawyer Assistance Program (LAP) test and therapy meeting--and failed to attend the required number of LAP meetings. In addition, he failed to attend five abstinence-based self-help meetings, failed to take two drug and alcohol tests and present proof of treatment by both a licensed psychologist and mental health expert, and failed to attend the State Bar Ethics School as required.

In aggravation, Clark had a prior record of discipline, committed multiple acts of misconduct, and showed indifference toward rectifying the consequences of his misconduct.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, saving the State Bar resources and time in handling the matter.

Daniel Lee Cornelious, Jr.

State Bar #285836, Santa Ana (February 4, 2024)

Cornelious was suspended for 15 months--with credit given for an earlier period of inactive enrollment, satisfying that requirement--and placed on probation for two years.

In his last disciplinary matter, Cornelious stipulated to committing three acts of professional misconduct: failing to act with reasonable diligence on behalf of his client, failing to pay court-ordered sanctions, and failing to report those sanctions to the State Bar as required. In that case, Cornelious failed to appear at trial for a client in a criminal case, appeared late at a subsequent order to show cause hearing--and offered explanations the court found to be "spurious" and "not credible."

In aggravation, Cornelious had a prior record of discipline and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed his client.

In mitigation, he demonstrated remorse and provided evidence of performing pro bono and community work.

Cornelious had also successfully completed the State Bar Court's Alternative Discipline Program after establishing a nexus between his substance abuse issues and misconduct--entitling him to the lower end of discipline imposed in the instant case.

Jacob Aaron Gelegan

State Bar #303159, Burbank (February 4, 2024)

Gelegan was suspended from the practice of law for 60 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to failing to comply with numerous conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order: a public reproval.

Specifically, Gelegan failed to provide proof of attending the State Bar Ethics School and passing its final exam, and failed to provide proof of complying with his criminal probation conditions. He also failed to provide the Office of Probation with several reports required--those related to abstaining from alcohol and illegal drug use, and attending two self-help groups focusing on abstinence, as well as final program reports.

In aggravation, Gelegan had a prior record of discipline, committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the instant case, and demonstrated indifference to rehabilitating himself.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

Aaron Thomas Gordon

State Bar #305013, Encinitas (February 4, 2024)

Gordon was suspended from practicing law for one year after a probation revocation proceeding in which he was found to have violated conditions imposed in an earlier discipline order.

The State Bar Court found that a preponderance of the evidence established that Gordon had proper notice of the conditions ordered, yet failed to comply with them. Specifically, he failed to schedule and participate in meetings with his probation case coordinator, and failed to submit his initial quarterly written report and declaration that he had read the Rules of Professional Conduct and specified sections of the California Business and Professions Code as mandated.

In aggravation, Gordon had prior records of discipline, which the court noted "involved misconduct very similar to that which is now before the court." He also was given aggravating weight for committing multiple acts of wrongdoing in the instant case, for showing indifference toward rectifying or atoning for his misconduct, and for demonstrating a lack of cooperation by failing to participate in the present proceeding.

Michael L. Guisti

State Bar #200914, Garden Grove (February 16, 2024)

Guisti was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing seven acts of professional misconduct related to four separate client matters. His wrongdoing included: failing to perform legal services with diligence and failing to return unearned advanced fees; two counts of failing to return unearned advanced fees; and three counts of failing to render appropriate accountings of client funds. An additional 26 counts charged were dismissed "in the interest of justice."

In one client case, Guisti failed to deposit $10,000 received as advanced fees from a client with a criminal case into a trust account.

In another matter, a client incarcerated in prison paid Guisti $3,000 in advanced fees to revise a writ of habeas corpus. Guisti failed to take any action in the matter, and did not refund the fee or provide an accounting after terminating his representation

In another case, Guisti was hired to represent a client in a criminal case involving an outstanding gun violence restraining order. The client terminated the representation and demanded a refund and accounting. About one year later, Guisti sent an accounting, which indicated he had earned the entire $10,000 advance fee paid.

And in the final matter, Guisti represented another client in a criminal matter, who subsequently terminated his representation and demanded an accounting of the $6,000 in advanced fees he had paid by credit card. The bank's dispute resolution department denied the client's request for a refund based on documents Guisti provided--including proof of his work product. In the stipulation in the instant case, Guisti agreed to provide the client with an accounting.

In aggravation, Guisti committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that injured a client who was highly vulnerable due to being incarcerated.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law for approximately 19 years without a record of discipline.

Allen Clarence Hassan

State Bar #104024, Sacramento (February 4, 2024)

Hassan was suspended for one year and placed on probation for two years.

The State Bar Court found by clear and convincing evidence that he violated several disciplinary probation conditions: failing to timely schedule and attend an initial meeting with the Office of Probation, failing to timely submit two written reports as well as a final report, and failing to provide timely proof of completing the State Bar's Ethics and Client Trust Accounting Schools.

In aggravation, Hassan had two prior records of discipline and committed multiple acts of misconduct.

In mitigation, he was allotted moderate weight for stipulating to easily provable facts and for declarations from seven individuals who vouched for his good character--some of which were not signed under penalty of perjury and others that demonstrated a limited showing of familiarity with the details of the misconduct.

Hassan, who is 87 years old, was also given moderate weight for attempting in good faith to comply with the probation conditions imposed through various attempted communications with the Office of Probation, with the court acknowledging "Probation's need to efficiently manage its resources," while also noting that "some practitioners are less adept at communication through email and other technologies."

Wilfred Joseph Killian

State Bar #207885, Beverly Hills (February 4, 2024)

Killian was suspended from practicing law for one year and placed on probation for three years after he was found culpable of appearing as legal representative without authority to do so, seeking to mislead the court, and making intentional misrepresentations and acting deceitfully--misconduct involving moral turpitude. He was also culpable of two counts of failing to obey court orders. The wrongdoing was related to a single client case.

In the underlying matter, Killian was retained to help a corporate client collect a judgment of approximately $5 million. In pursuing the case, he sought bank records held both by individual defendants and businesses with which they were associated. Those subpoenas were quashed, with the judge finding they were improperly served. The judge also ordered that future documents should be served by email as well as other legally mandated service methods.

As a discovery strategy, Killian sought out and located a judgment creditor in another lawsuit involving the defendants in the hope of holding depositions and issuing subpoenas more freely in the debt collection case. He found a fitting judgment creditor in a dog bite case, and proposed an arrangement in which his corporate client would satisfy the dog bite judgment of $12,000 in exchange for "the opportunity to use the judgment to conduct post-discovery."

None of the parties involved agreed to the arrangement. However, Killian proceeded in the dog bite case--seeking production of the same bank records he had attempted to secure earlier. Opposing counsel repeatedly attempted to secure copies of the subpoenas and notices, but Killian did not cooperate. He then issued a second and third set of subpoenas in the dog bite case, falsely representing that he was the attorney in that matter. A judge later quashed the subpoenas and imposed sanctions, finding that Killian had not been granted legal authority to associate as counsel in the dog bite case.

The court later issued an order requiring Killian to turn over all records that had been obtained illegally, and to destroy copies of those records within 10 days. Killian took no action in response to that order.

In aggravation, Killian committed multiple acts of wrongdoing, showed indifference toward rectifying or atoning for the consequences of his misconduct, demonstrated a lack of candor as evidence by his untruthful trial testimony, significantly harmed the administration of justice--and was also given limited aggravating weight for the uncharged misconduct of willfully appearing without authority to do so.

In mitigation, he presented evidence from a range of people: letters from seven individuals and live testimony from four--all of whom vouched for his good character. He was also allowed moderate weight for having practiced law for approximately 20 years without a record of discipline--the weight of that diminished due to his indifference and lack of candor.

PROBATION

Emry James Allen

State Bar #60414, Elk Grove (February 4, 2024)

Allen was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to failing to comply with numerous conditions attached to an earlier discipline order: a private reproval.

Specifically, he failed to timely schedule and participate in an initial meeting with the Office of Probation, failed to timely submit three quarterly written reports and one final one, and failed to submit poof of attending the State Bar Ethics School and passing its final test, or to submit proof of passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam as mandated.

In aggravation, Allen had a prior record of discipline and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the instant case.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, provided seven character letters from a wide range of references, and took steps to recognize the import of his wrongdoing by belatedly satisfying most of the conditions attached to his private reproval.

Nathan Finch Ballard

State Bar #202847, West Hollywood (February 4, 2024)

Ballard was placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to earlier pleading no contest to one felony count of causing corporal injury to a spouse (Cal. Penal Code § 273.5(a)) and one count of child endangerment (Cal. Penal Code § 273a(a))--also a felony.

In the underlying matter, Ballard and his wife and two young children were vacationing, staying in a rented bungalow. Ballard, who had been drinking throughout the day, engaged in an argument with his wife--pushing her into a glass patio door. While intoxicated, Ballard then grabbed a pillow from a bed where one of his children was sleeping, and laid on top of it, with his weight pressing on the child underneath him. The next day, Ballard's wife secured an emergency protective order covering her and the children; the couple ultimately divorced. Ballard sought and completed treatment and therapy for substance abuse.

The State Bar Court determined that the wrongdoing at issue did not involve moral turpitude, but did involve other misconduct warranting professional discipline.

In mitigation, Ballard entered into a pretrial stipulation, provided letters from 14 individuals attesting to his good character, took objective steps to change his behavior by voluntarily entering into substance abuse treatment, and was suffering emotional difficulties due to the illness and death of his parents. He was also allotted some mitigating weight for having actively practiced law discipline-free for approximately six years.

Daniel Mark Bornstein

State Bar #181711, Larkspur (February 4, 2024)

Bornstein was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to earlier pleading guilty to one count of driving with a blood alcohol content level of .08% or higher (Cal. Veh. Code § 23152(b)).

In the underlying incident, police officers stopped Bornstein, who was driving erratically. He admitted to having consumed alcohol prior to the stop, and was unable to perform the field sobriety tests the officers administered. Breath tests at the scene indicated a blood alcohol content of .22% and .23%.

Bornstein later completed a 45-day inpatient rehabilitation program.

In aggravation, Bornstein had a prior record of discipline--also related to driving under the influence.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, and also completed abstinence-based treatment.

Ming Ji

State Bar #256696, Pleasanton (February 4, 2024)

Ji was placed on probation for one year after he was found culpable of committing six counts of professional misconduct related to two separate client matters.

His wrongdoing included: failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, failing to inform clients of a significant case development, failing to promptly return unearned advance fees, as well as two counts of violating court orders.

Two business partners hired Ji to represent them in a lawsuit alleging fraud against several defendants. He filed a complaint on their behalf, and a default was ultimately entered against the defendants--along with a court order that Ji should request a default prove up hearing and file updated case management statements. After he failed to do so, the court issued an order to show cause regarding his failure to diligently prosecute the case, and the case was eventually dismissed with prejudice. Six months after the dismissal, Ji filed a declaration, admitting his failures to act had been the cause of the dismissal. The clients retained new counsel. Ji had not responded to the clients' requests for an update on the status of the case for the preceding eight months.

In the second client matter, Ji was paid $6,000 as a retainer to represent a business client in a dispute with a contractor. The client subsequently informed Ji it had reached a resolution with the contractor, and requested that the case be closed, and any unearned fees returned. Ji ignored repeated requests for the refund over a six-month period--and issued it only after the client filed a State bar complaint against him.

In aggravation, Ji committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed his clients.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 12 years, took steps to repair the damage his misconduct had caused, and provided letters from seven individuals spanning the legal and general communities--all of whom attested to his good character.

Tamela L. King

State Bar #182632, Los Angeles (February 4, 2024)

King was placed on probation for one year. She earlier stipulated to a felony conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol with three prior convictions (Cal. Veh. Code §§ 23550 and 23152(a)), as well as a misdemeanor conviction of possessing an open alcohol container in a park (Los Angeles Code § 17.04.440) and to commingling client and personal funds in her client trust account.

The State Bar Court determined that the facts and circumstances surrounding both of the alcohol-related convictions did not involve moral turpitude, but did involve other misconduct warranting professional discipline.

The client trust fund violations involved 16 instances of paying personal expenses from the account and 13 instances of commingling personal funds in the account over a period of approximately three months.

In aggravation, King committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, she entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for 16 years, did not harm any clients through her acts of misconduct, and suffered from emotional difficulties due to financial problems, substance abuse problems, and bouts of homelessness.

David Michael Medby

State Bar #227401, Long Beach (February 4, 2024)

Medby was placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to pleading no contest to one misdemeanor count of driving under the influence of alcohol (Cal. Veh. Code § 23152(a)).

In the underlying matter, Medby drove his car in reverse, striking and damaging a parked motorcycle. Investigating police officers found and stopped him nearby, where he admitted to drinking before driving and failed to satisfactorily complete field sobriety tests.

An earlier disciplinary case had been resolved by stipulation to a public reproval with conditions. It was also based on a conviction related to driving under the influence.

In aggravation, Medby had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and submitted letters from eight individuals in the legal and general communities--all of whom attested to his good character.

Martin Roy Nichols

State Bar #102454, Soquel (February 9, 2024)

Nichols was placed on probation for 18 months--the lower-end range of discipline for the underlying misconduct involved--after he successfully completed the conditions of participating in the State Bar Court's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP).

He had earlier stipulated to committing four acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter: failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to act with reasonable diligence on his client's behalf, failing to promptly render an accounting of client funds, and failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries.

In the underlying matter, Nichols was hired to represent a client in a marital dissolution, accepting $6,500 in advanced fees. He filed a dissolution petition and then submitted a default judgment and marital settlement agreement, which the court rejected because the parties' signatures had not been notarized. Nichols failed to attend two schedule status conferences, or to respond to the client's voicemail, email, and text messages requesting an update in the case.

Nichols did appear at the final status conference in the case, where the client terminated his services. He failed to provide her with an accounting of the advanced fees she had paid.

In aggravation, Nichols had a prior record of discipline, engaged in multiple acts of misconduct, and caused significant emotional distress to his client.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation--and has now successfully completed the ADP.

Ondine Lior Nuchi

State Bar #131037, San Francisco (February 9, 2024)

Nuchi was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing two acts of professional misconduct: disobeying court orders and failing to report judicial sanctions imposed on him to the State Bar as required. The wrongdoing occurred as he represented himself in a family law matter in which his former wife alleged he had failed to make annual payments required by the terms of their marital settlement agreement.

Nuchi failed to appear at two scheduled judgment debtors examinations and failed to pay attorney's fees awarded, or to pay sanctions awards imposed or report them to the State Bar as required.

In aggravation, Nuchi committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for 33 years, and submitted letters from nine individuals attesting to his good character and to his performance of pro bono services in the community.