August 2024

DISBARMENT

Jennifer Michelle George

State Bar #211701, Oceanside (June 19, 2024)

George was disbarred by default after the California State Bar received verification of the finality of her conviction for committing a felony battery in another jurisdiction (Fla. Stat. § 784.041).

The matter was referred to the State Bar's Hearing Department for a hearing and recommendation of possible discipline to be imposed, and it ultimately found the offense did not involve moral turpitude. George failed to appear at trial--despite filing an initial response to the charges and participating through counsel and in pro per at earlier court conferences in the matter. Two days before the trial, she filed a resignation with charges pending with the Review Department.

In the underlying incident, George engaged in a fight with a former romantic partner, cutting him on the arm with a knife. Shortly after that, she used the knife to pick open the lock on the back door of the man's dwelling, entered, and stabbed him in the stomach. She then fled. Investigating officers located and arrested her near to where the stabbing had occurred. She entered a plea of nolo contendere to a reduced charge of felony battery. Her probation conditions included the requirement of paying restitution; however, she ceased paying and owes $138,809.89 plus interest.

Craig Allyn Jue

State Bar #118093, San Juan Capistrano (June 28, 2024)

Jue was disbarred by default after he failed to file a response to the notice of disciplinary charges filed against him. The State Bar's Office of Chief Trial Counsel submitted proof that Jue had actual notice of his disciplinary proceeding; when contacted by telephone, Jue indicated that he intended to proceed by default. The State Bar Court determined that he did not seek to have the default subsequently entered against him set aside or vacated.

Jue was found culpable of failing to comply with the 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 submit a declaration attesting to his compliance with the requirement of reading specified sections of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and failed to submit five written quarterly reports to the State Bar as mandated in the order.

Jue had two prior records of discipline before being disbarred in the instant case.

Adam J. Luetto

State Bar #264188, Fullerton (June 28, 2024)

Luetto was disbarred by default after he failed to participate, either through counsel or in person, in the disciplinary proceeding charging him with failing to comply with the terms of his disciplinary probation.

Specifically, he failed to timely schedule an initial meeting with the Office of Probation, failed to timely submit a copy of the required medical waiver for his mental health treatment providers and to submit their declarations, and failed to submit quarterly mental health self-reports as well as quarterly reports by a psychiatrist. In addition, he failed to timely complete the State Bar Ethics School, and failed to submit quarterly written reports, criminal probation reports, and AA meeting reports. He also failed to submit or timely submit to testing for substance abuse.

The State Bar Court determined that all procedural requirements, including adequate notice, had been satisfied in the case, and that Luetto did not move to have the default ultimately entered against him set aside or vacated.

Luetto had one prior record of professional discipline at the time he was disbarred.

Bimal Kumar Sambhi

State Bar #223914, Pasadena (June 19, 2024)

Sambhi was disbarred by default after he failed to appear, either in person or through counsel, at his disciplinary proceeding.

He was found culpable of all nine counts charged--all of them related to a single client matter. His wrongdoing included failing to maintain client funds in a trust account, failing to return unearned advance fees, failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing his client, and failing to respond to the client's numerous reasonable status inquiries. He was also found culpable of improperly withdrawing from employment and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged, as well as two counts of disobeying court orders.

Though the Office of Chief Trial Counsel's first default motion in the matter was denied for being substantively deficient, the renewed motion was granted. The State Bar Court determined that the motion included a supporting declaration of reasonable diligence in attempting to notify Sambhi of the proceeding, and that he did not respond to the petition for disbarment or move to set aside or vacate the default ultimately entered against him.

SUSPENSION

John Edmond Chaix

State Bar #153894, Newport Beach (June 28, 2024)

Chaix was suspended from practicing law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to failing to properly maintain funds in trust.

Chaix established a client trust account, but relied on a non-attorney bookkeeper to manage and administer it. When the bookkeeper retired, she recommended a replacement, who held herself out as experienced in dealing with office management--including providing law firm banking services. Chaix did not train the bookkeeper or her replacement, nor did he verify their experience in handling client trust account matters.

Over a 34-month span of time, his client trust account was overdrawn, and Chaix failed to deposit or maintain funds in the account on behalf of three separate clients. He was disciplined by the State Bar of Arizona for this misconduct. That body imposed a four-year actual suspension.

After discovering the mismanagement related to the account, Chaix hired a CPA to review his firm's financial accounts and practices. He also made restitution to all three clients affected.

In aggravation, Chaix committed multiple acts of misconduct.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law in California discipline-free for approximately 17 years, demonstrated spontaneous remorse and recognition of his wrongdoing, made restitution to the clients, and submitted letters from seven individuals--all of whom attested to his good character. He was also allotted minimal mitigating weight due to the fact that the misconduct occurred more than seven years ago, and he had since improved his office practices--that weight lessened somewhat as overlapping with his "spontaneous remorse."

Alex Holguin

State Bar #271861, Los Angeles (June 19, 2024)

Holguin was suspended from the practice of law for 120 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing 10 acts of professional misconduct. The charges related to his mishandling of two separate immigration matters.

Holguin's wrongdoing included: failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to promptly release clients' papers and property after being requested to do so, 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 act with reasonable diligence in representing clients, failing to keep clients informed of significant case developments, and making false and misleading statements to clients--misconduct involving moral turpitude.

In one case, Holguin represented four family members seeking nonimmigrant status. He submitted applications and petitions for them--all of which were denied based on his failure to respond to requests for evidence from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The USCIS later reopened the petitions, but Holguin did not inform three of the clients, and misrepresented to the fourth one that he would "be in touch" if more information was needed, when he knew that additional information and documents were necessary to proceed. All four petitions were subsequently denied again--two for failure to respond to USCIS requests for more information, two based on the denial of dependent petitions. Holguin did not inform the clients of the denials. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security then initiated removal proceedings against three of them. Holguin ignored most of the clients' requests for information on their status, or falsely claimed he had no additional information. They eventually hired new counsel; their removal proceedings were then dismissed and the USCIS approved some petitions.

In the second matter, Holguin represented one of the clients referenced earlier in a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) action, which included a work authorization. Several months later, the client wrote to Holguin, seeking information about his DACA renewal application. Holguin responded that he had not yet received updated information about the application; in fact, he filed it two days later. As a result, the client accrued three months of unlawful presence in the U.S., rendering him unprotected from removal from the U.S. and being ineligible to be employed in America.

In aggravation, Holguin committed multiple acts of misconduct, and significantly harmed his clients, who were highly vulnerable due to their uncertain immigration status.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, and had no prior record of discipline in nearly eight years of practice. He also received diminished mitigating weight for character reference letters from four individuals--all of whom are lawyers, and for experiencing emotional difficulties that did not occur during the time of his misconduct and where no expert testimony was offered to establish those difficulties were related to his wrongdoing.

Margaret Ann Miller

State Bar #142569, Jamaica, New York (June 5, 2024)

Miller was suspended from the practice of law for six months and placed on probation for two years, with credit given for a period of interim suspension that began on July 10, 2023.

She had earlier stipulated to pleading no contest to acting as an accessory after the fact to a felony (Cal. Penal Code § 32)--a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.

In the underlying matter, Miller called police to report that a vehicle belonging to her son had been stolen. In fact, she had earlier been informed by officers at a different station that the car had been involved in a hit and run accident and had been towed. Both Miller and her son provided information and filed a stolen vehicle report with police and made an insurance claim for the allegedly stolen vehicle. They repeated their false claims to insurance investigators, who were able to determine that the car's ignition lock system had not been compromised, and that a key had been used to start it last. Miller withdrew her insurance claim after investigators requested an examination under oath.

Cellphone records obtained during the investigation of the case also determined that Miller's son had been in the vicinity of the accident when it occurred, and that he called and summoned her shortly afterward.
In mitigation, Miller entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 31 years, and presented evidence that she suffered from emotional difficulties at the time of the misconduct that were a "traumatic response" to law enforcement's repeated mistreatment of her son based on his race. She was also allotted mitigating credit for letters from 36 individuals taken from a range of references in the legal and general communities--all of whom vouched for her good character, as well as for evidence of providing extensive community service and pro bono work.

Jeffrey Bryan Smith

State Bar #150095, Long Beach (June 19, 2024)

Smith was suspended from practicing law for 60 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to failing to comply with several conditions attached to a disciplinary order imposed earlier.

Specifically, he failed to submit two timely written quarterly reports as well as a final report to the Office of Probation, failed to make and verify timely payment of the sanctions imposed, and failed to take and provide proof of passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam as required. The State Bar Court verified that Office of Probation specialists had given Smith ample reminders of the obligations and their deadlines, both in writing and by phone.

In aggravation, Smith had been disciplined by the State Bar for professional misconduct twice previously, and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the instant case.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and submitted letters from five individuals who had known him for some time and who were aware of the extent of his misconduct--all of whom attested to his good character.

Jeffrey Thomas Vanderveen

State Bar #110064, Vista (June 19, 2024)

Vanderveen was suspended from the practice of law for two years and placed on probation for three years after he stipulated to committing six acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter.

He was culpable of seeking to mislead a judge, failing to maintain client funds in trust, and collecting an illegal fee, as well as three counts involving moral turpitude: misappropriating client funds and two counts of making intentional material misrepresentations.

In the underlying matter, Vanderveen was hired by a professional fiduciary for representation in administering a trust in which she served as successor trustee. After the initial trustee was moved from an assisted living facility and taken to live with her niece, she revoked the fiduciary as trustee. The niece and her mother (the initial trustee's sister) filed a conservatorship petition in which they sought appointment of a conservator who would also serve as successor trustee. Vanderveen, on behalf of the fiduciary/original successor trustee, contested her removal. However, a court appointed a new conservator/trustee.

After the fiduciary was removed as trustee, she transferred $33,575 from the trust to Vanderveen's client trust account; he then transferred $18, 231 to himself as payment for costs and attorney fees, and also paid the fiduciary $18,119 for work done after she was removed as trustee.

A new successor trustee was ultimately appointed, who was also the conservator of the estate. From then on, litigation ensued over the fiduciary's accounting and questioning the propriety of some payments that had been made from the trust.

A probate court ultimately found that several payments the fiduciary had made were excessive or improper and ordered them to be refunded to the trust. Those rulings were affirmed on appeal. Vanderveen then returned the funds he and the fiduciary had received in payment from the trust--an amount totaling $33,320.

In aggravation, Vanderveen committed multiple acts of misconduct and significantly harmed a client who was highly vulnerable due to declining health.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for more than 30 years, and provided letters from 10 individuals taken from a range in the legal and general communities attesting to his good character, as well as evidence of performing community service.

Brenda Elizabeth Vargas

State Bar #153230, Villa Park (June 5, 2024)

Vargas was suspended for 18 months and placed on probation for three years after she stipulated to committing five acts of professional misconduct related to two separate client matters.

Her wrongdoing included: failing to act with reasonable diligence on behalf of a client, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, failing to keep a client informed of significant case developments, failing to promptly release a clients papers and property after being requested to do so, and appearing as attorney of record on behalf of a client after her representation had been terminated.

In one case, Vargas was hired to represent a client in an ongoing matter involving domestic violence and divorce. Initially, she prepared several documents for the client to file in pro per, then appeared at a hearing on a petition for a restraining order. Shortly after that, Vargas was substituted into the case on the client's behalf. She also appeared at a later hearing at which the court ordered her to prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing (FOAH). Vargas submitted the FOAH more than a year and a-half after the court had ordered it but did not inform her client, nor did she inform the client she had been suspended from practicing law under the terms of a prior disciplinary matter. During the course of her representation, Vargas failed to respond to six written and eight telephone requests from the client seeking information about the status of the case.

In the second matter, Vargas represented several tenants of an apartment complex who were pursuing habitability claims against the owner. At some point, two of the clients terminated Vargas' representation and sought a case file. Vargas did not respond, but later appeared at trial setting conferences, despite the clients' earlier requests to terminate her services. She eventually provided a limited client file after one of the clients had been dismissed from the case with prejudice.

In aggravation, Vargas had three prior records of discipline, and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the instant matter.
In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation and acknowledged her wrongdoing to the State Bar and outlined steps she had taken to prevent similar misconduct in the future.

PROBATION

Lynn Akemi Miyamoto

State Bar #128313, Sherman Oaks (June 28, 2024)

Miyamoto was placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to committing four acts of professional misconduct: failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, failing to keep the client informed of significant case developments, and failing to respond to the client's reasonable inquiries.

All the charges related to a single client matter. Miyamoto was hired by a firm to provide immigrant visa processing services for its employees. She obtained an H-1B status for one employee, allowing him, as a foreign national, to work in the U.S. for a three-year period; she also obtained a one-year extension after the original status expired. That extension expired after Miyamoto failed to file an additional extension, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services then notified her that the client would be required to obtain a visa through the consulate. Miyamoto failed to inform the client of the consular processing requirement, and failed to respond to the client's numerous requests for the approval notice of her H-1B, or to address questions about whether the lapse in lawful status caused by the failure to file for an extension would affect the ability to work and adjust status.

The client eventually learned she was unable to adjust to lawful permanent residency because she had fallen out of lawful status. The client then urged Miyamoto to petition for a nunc pro tunc waiver to correct the matter, but she failed to do so, and failed to respond to the client's requests for an update in the matter.

In aggravation, Miyamoto significantly harmed her client, who was highly vulnerable due to an uncertain immigration status, and who ultimately lost the ability to adjust status.

In mitigation, she entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 36 years, and submitted letters from eight individuals who attested to her good character and to the recognitions and honors of services she had received.

--Barbara Kate Repa