=> Cal. Lawyers Disbarred - short list

[Open FleshWound]

CAUTION!
More than 171,500 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the
same names. All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court documents and should be read
carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.

DISBARMENTS
MONDAY U. ABENGOWE [#143986], 41, of West Los Angeles was disbarred Sept. 23, 2000, and was ordered
to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Conduct.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Abengowe misappropriated more than $3,200
from a client, wrote at least 57 bad checks against his client trust account, wrote another 30
checks on the trust account to pay personal expenses, split fees with non-lawyers, failed to perform
legal services competently or communicate with a client, and improperly withdrew from employment. He
also did not cooperate with the bar's investigation of his conduct.

Noting that Abengowe was disciplined last year for misappropriation and mishandling entrusted funds,
Judge Madge Watai recommended his disbarment. His "misappropriation of client funds on a second
occasion, occurring after he had been charged with the first misappropriation, clearly demonstrates
that he is a danger to the public and to the integrity of the legal profession," Watai wrote.

Abengowe was hired to handle a personal injury and property damage claim. Although Abengowe drew up
a fee agreement giving him a one-third contingency fee, the client did not sign it. Abengowe
received two settlement checks totaling about $4,900; one was made out to him and the client, the
other to the client only. Abengowe deposited both checks in his client trust account.

When the client tried to cash a $1,000 check from Abengowe, it was returned for insufficient funds.
At one point, the trust account was overdrawn by $14,804.40. After the check bounced, the client
tried repeatedly to get his share of the settlement funds, but Abengowe did not return his phone
calls and there is no evidence the client ever got any money.

The court found that he did not notify his client that he'd received settlement funds, did not
maintain client funds, misappropriated funds and failed to communicate with a client.

ROBERT JAY BARTH [#75776], 57, of Beverly Hills was disbarred Sept. 23, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

Barth did not meet the requirements of a disciplinary order last year that he comply with rule 955
by notifying his clients and all other pertinent parties of his suspension and filing an affidavit
to that effect with the Supreme Court.

That was his seventh disciplinary order since 1991; Barth has not been eligible to practice since
April 1998.

In 1991, he was given two stayed suspensions for failure to complete legal services competently
twice, respond to client inquiries, refund unearned fees or cooperate with the bar's investigation.
He also improperly withdrew from employment.

He was given an actual 75-day suspension the following year for violating the terms of his probation
and for the unauthorized practice of law. His probation was revoked in 1994, and, in 1997, he was
disciplined twice for misconduct, including failing to perform legal services competently or respond
to client inquiries and for again failing to comply with probation conditions.

In recommending Barth's disbarment, State Bar Court Judge Carlos Velarde wrote, Barth "has
demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed
on California attorneys as indicated by his seven instances of prior misconduct although he has been
given several opportunities to do so." Velarde also pointed out that Barth did not participate in
the final disciplinary proceedings.

DAVID A. DOBBS [#130931], 40, of San Francisco was disbarred Sept. 23, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

Dobbs failed to file with the Supreme Court an affidavit stating that he had notified his clients
and other pertinent parties of his suspension from practice. His failure to do so violated rule 955
and was grounds for disbarment, which was recommended in a default proceeding.

The underlying misconduct, which resulted in a 1998 disciplinary order, involved Dobbs' failure to
perform legal services competently, communicate with a client, return unearned fees or participate
in the bar's investigation. He was required to make restitution as part of the order.

When he violated the probation conditions, he was actually suspended for two years in 1999 and was
ordered to comply with rule 955.

LAWRENCE ALLEN GRIGSBY [#106819], 54, of Los Angeles was disbarred Sept. 23, 2000, and was ordered
to comply with rule 955.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Grigsby did not comply with rule 955, as
required by a 1998 order. He did not submit to the Supreme Court an affidavit stating that he
notified his clients and other pertinent parties of his suspension from practice.

The 1998 discipline was the result of three consolidated cases in which Grigsby stipulated to
failing to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients, refund unearned fees,
properly handle entrusted funds or pay out client funds, respond to client inquiries, or cooperate
with the bar's investigation. He also improperly withdrew from employment. His acts constituted
moral turpitude.

MITCHELL K. JAYSON [#108416], 52, of Palm Desert was disbarred Sept. 23, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

Jayson did not meet the requirements of a 1999 discipline order that he comply with rule 955 by
notifying his clients and other pertinent parties of his suspension and submit an affidavit to that
effect to the Supreme Court. His disbarment was recommended in a default proceeding.

Jayson has three prior disciplines, starting with a private reproval in 1993 after he stipulated
that he failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with a client, promptly refund
unearned fees or maintain complete client trust account records, and admitted that he improperly
withdrew from representation.

He stipulated to additional misconduct in 1997, including one count each of failure to communicate,
comply with a court order, perform legal services competently and cooperate with a bar
investigation.

In 1999, he was actually suspended for one year when he did not comply with conditions attached to
the 1997 probation.

LINCOLN N. MINTZ [#37610], 58, of Oakland was disbarred Sept. 23, 2000, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court recommended that Mintz be disbarred as a result of
misconduct committed with four prior findings of wrongdoing.

In 1968, he represented a criminal defendant who says he paid Mintz $10,000. Although Mintz appeared
in court once with the client, he did not return phone calls or respond to requests for information.
In fact, said the court, he became irate when the client disputed decisions Mintz made without
consulting him.

In addition to the criminal charges, the client faced an employment termination proceeding to be
held in a closed hearing before an administrative law judge. Mintz was not hired to represent him at
that hearing, but did not give the client his file and he could not adequately represent himself.

The bar court found that Mintz failed to return a client's file or communicate with a client,
misconduct which normally would result in a reproval or suspension. However, because of his four
previous disciplines, including one only five months earlier, the court recommended disbarment.

In 1995, Mintz was privately reproved. Two years later, he was suspended and placed on two years of
probation for mishandling client matters and failing to respond to State Bar investigations.

He was disciplined again in 1999 for similar misconduct, and last April was placed on actual
suspension, until the bar court granted a motion for relief, for multiple acts of wrongdoing,
including abandoning clients, failure to communicate and return a file and not responding to bar
investigations.

ROBERT ALTON HERNDON [#76757], 55, of San Diego was disbarred Sept. 29, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Herndon committed multiple acts of
wrongdoing, including misappropriating at least $53,800 in client funds, and significantly harmed
two clients.

In one matter, he represented a couple in the sale of their shares of stock for $33,000. Herndon
received a check for that amount and told the clients he deposited the funds in a client trust
account. He later told them he'd invested their money in a time deposit or certificate of deposit in
a Curacao bank. Herndon sent the clients regular statements for six years, indicating at one point
that their investment had grown to more than $127,000; the clients were content to have him
administer the money.

Herndon also invested $20,800 of another couple's money he collected for them, but they never gave
him the authority to do so and demanded that he return the funds to them. He never did so.

In 1996, Herndon filed for bankruptcy and listed the two couples as creditors but tried to discharge
any claim they had against him. They contested his actions.

In the subsequent bankruptcy proceedings, Herndon did not comply with court orders, a bench warrant
was issued for his arrest and he fled. The warrant is outstanding.

In a second matter, he accepted a $50,000 loan from a client and signed a promissory note in which
he agreed to repay the money, plus 10.25 percent interest, within 18 months. He did not advise the
client to seek independent legal advice or obtain his written consent to the terms of the loan.

Herndon never repaid the funds.

In recommending disbarment, Judge Michael D. Marcus wrote that Herndon "frustrated all efforts to
recover these funds by refusing to comply with the orders of the bankruptcy court. There is no gray
area concerning such misconduct; especially since [Herndon] has fled the jurisdiction."

RICHARD ARNOLD ROCHA [#49728], 59, of Pomona was disbarred Sept. 29, 2000, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

Rocha did not comply with a 1999 disciplinary order requiring him to comply with rule 955 by
notifying his clients and other parties of his suspension from practice and submitting an affidavit
to that effect to the Supreme Court.

The original discipline was the result of mishandling three client matters by failing to pay medical
liens, maintain client funds in trust or perform legal services competently.

SUSPENSIONS/PROBATION
BRUCE DONALD SAFRAN [#58206], 55, of Tarzana was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on five
years of probation with an actual three-year suspension and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation,
take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Sept. 14, 2000.

Safran represented a client in a fraud case stemming from an investment venture in which she lost
$32,000. He stipulated that he arranged a $10,000 settlement without the client's knowledge, forged
her signature on the settlement agreement and the check, misappropriated the money and dismissed the
suit without telling her.

Two years later, Safran created a fictitious judgment which called for a $21,000 settlement and set
out a payment schedule. He forged the opposing attorney's signature. For the next two years, he
engaged in an elaborate scheme to deceive his client and conceal his theft, paying her about $21,000
in "settlement payments," many of them late or drawn against insufficient funds. He used his
personal, office and client trust account funds to make the payments.

He stipulated that he failed to keep his client informed about developments in her case, notify her
of receipt of settlement funds, or maintain the settlement funds in trust. The forgeries,
misappropriation and deceit of his client were acts of moral turpitude.

In another matter, Safran was arrested in 1997 for having sex with a prostitute in his car. He
entered a plea of no contest to one count of trespass and the original charge of engaging in lewd
conduct in public was dropped.

Safran has a prior record of discipline. In 1976, he was suspended following a conviction of two
counts of annoying or molesting children, and in 1998, he was disciplined for his actions in the
fraud case.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation. As a result of the 1994 Los Angeles
earthquake, his home was badly damaged requiring absences from his law practice, and he suffered
emotional problems. He also devoted significant time to charitable and community activities.

NORBERT ANTHONY SCHLEI [#28772], 71, of Santa Monica was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on
one year of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year. He received credit for 38 months spent on interim suspension and is now an attorney in good
standing. The order took effect Sept. 14, 2000.

Once head of the office of legal counsel under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, Schlei and his Los
Angeles law firm accepted a case in 1985 representing 60 Japanese nationals who were the holders of
two kinds of financial instruments in very large denominations - the smallest was the yen equivalent
of $100 million.

What began as an extraordinarily complicated case ultimately led to a misdemeanor conviction for
Schlei, who never admitted guilt, after six years of criminal prosecution and a half million in
legal fees which led to his financial ruin.

The goal of the case was to persuade the Japanese government to acknowledge that disputed
certificates of redemption and cashier's checks were genuine and represented part of a secret slush
fund dating back to the occupation of Japan after World War II. Schlei believed the bank notes were
valid.

The case was pursued off and on for seven years and was never resolved; Schlei and the firm never
received any payment for their services. Over the course of the case, Schlei consistently advised
the government and everyone with whom he discussed the matter that the genuineness of the bank notes
was disputed.

At one point, one of his clients secretly met with an individual and entrusted some of the disputed
bank notes to him. Schlei had advised his clients to avoid the individual and was unaware of the
meeting.

U.S. Treasury agents set up a sting operation and arrested the individual, who gave the agents
access to his safe deposit box containing the bank notes.

Schlei and his client were indicted on 15 counts which portrayed his legal work as part of a
conspiracy, even though he had had no contact with two of his co-defendants and had advised his
clients to have no contact with the co-defendant who was arrested in the sting operation.

Schlei was convicted of one felony and one misdemeanor. As a result of the felony conviction, the
State Bar Court placed him on interim suspension. Two and a half years later, an appellate court
reversed and vacated both convictions and remanded the misdemeanor (conspiracy to possess
counterfeit foreign bank notes) to the district court for a hearing on Schlei's motion for a new
trial based on government intimidation of witnesses.

Nine months later, bar prosecutors notified the court and it lifted the interim suspension which by
then had lasted more than 38 months.

When Schlei was offered a deal a few months later under which he would drop his claims in exchange
for leaving the misdemeanor conviction in effect, he accepted, without admitting guilt and believing
the bar would not pursue the matter further.

Instead, the bar, which had earlier said the misdemeanor "may or may not involve moral turpitude"
changed its mind, said it did involve moral turpitude and issued a second interim suspension. A
month later, it granted Schlei's motion to vacate in the interests of justice.

"The criminal proceedings, the payment of defense costs and the interim suspension have irreparably
damaged [Schlei's] livelihood, financial resources and reputation," wrote bar court Judge Madge
Watai. She concluded that although the conspiracy conviction is conclusive evidence of Schlei's
guilt, it was not a crime of moral turpitude.

She noted his "distinguished career," extensive professional affiliations and almost 40 years of
charitable and civic activities.

WILLIAM ROBERT SIEFKES [#160381], 37, of Huntington Beach was suspended for 30 days, stayed, placed
on three years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect
Sept. 14, 2000.

Siefkes stipulated to two counts of misconduct, stemming from convictions. In one case, he pleaded
guilty to driving with a blood alcohol level of .21 percent with a prior.

In the second matter, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery, after he was arrested at his
apartment complex swimming pool. He had fallen into the pool three times and then as he stepped into
a jacuzzi, he grabbed the hand of another individual, bending it backward.

Police officers who responded said Siefkes had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, a three-day growth of
beard, was unsteady and smelled of alcohol.

In mitigation, he has no record of prior discipline and cooperated with the bar's investigation.

FELIX TORRES JR. [#135480], 50, of Fair Oaks was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on five
years of probation with an actual three-year suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE, comply
with rule 955 and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 14, 2000.

Torres appealed a State Bar Court hearing judge's recommendation that he be disbarred, and review
Judge Kenneth Norian reduced the recommended discipline.

Norian upheld the hearing depart-ment's finding that Torres committed acts of moral turpitude by
harassing a client and inflicting emotional distress on her.

Torres represented the client in a medical malpractice case against a plastic surgeon. According to
Norian's decision, Torres unintentionally gave her incorrect legal advice and the court awarded the
plastic surgeon almost $10,000 in costs.

At about that time, Torres began to receive hang-up phone calls which he believed were being made by
his angry client. As a result, he made more than 100 late night phones calls to her, hanging up or
leaving an anonymous message.

The client sued Torres for malpractice, harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and
negligent infliction of emotional distress and won a $308,000 jury verdict. During the trial, Torres
falsely asserted that he and the client had a social relationship. Torres has not paid her anything;
he is indigent and lives on public and private disability payments.

Norian reversed the hearing judge's findings that Torres advanced facts prejudicial to his client
and failed to communicate with her.

However, he said Torres' testimony before the bar court was dishonest and that he harmed his client,
displayed indifference and did not appreciate the seriousness of his misconduct.

In mitigation, Torres provided many hours of free legal services to the poor and disadvantaged.

BRADLEY ALAN ARNOLD [#93085], 64, of Woodland Hills was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on
three years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to prove his
rehabilitation and take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Sept. 23, 2000.

Arnold stipulated that he failed to maintain client funds in a trust account and misappropriated
nearly $9,000 in client funds.

Arnold represented a client in a personal injury case on a contingency fee basis. His partner
settled the case and the two lawyers received a settlement draft for $15,000 which they deposited
into their client trust account. Neither attorney disbursed money to the client or to a lienholder,
and they allowed the balance in the trust account to fall below the required amount. At one point,
the balance was below $1,000.

About nine months after receiving the settlement funds, Arnold's partner gave the client $5,282 as
his share and said he was keeping about $3,500 to reimburse the insurer for medical payments made.
The insurer was never reimbursed.

In mitigation, Arnold displayed candor and cooperated with the bar's investigation.

He has two previous discipline orders. In 1993, he was suspended and placed on probation for failing
to act competently or pay out client funds. In 1996, he was disciplined again for failing to act
competently or respond to reasonable client inquiries.

LARRY JAMES BRYANT [#80908], 54, of Los Angeles was suspended for three years, stayed, and was
actually suspended for two years and until he attends ethics school, makes restitution, proves his
rehabilitation and the State Bar Court grants a motion to end the suspension. He also was ordered to
comply with any probation conditions imposed as a condition of terminating the suspension, and he
must take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Sept. 23, 2000.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Bryant did not comply with the terms of a
1997 probation: he filed no probation reports, did not make restitution or attend ethics school, and
he did not keep his address current with the bar.

The underlying misconduct included failing to report a sanction to the bar and failing to cooperate
with the bar's investigation.

MARCELLO MARIO DiMAURO [#59302], 55, of Glendale was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one
year of probation with an actual 30-day suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year. The order took effect Sept. 23, 2000.

The charges against DiMauro involved overdrafts from his client trust account; the insufficient
funds were a result of poor bookkeeping and failing to wait the requisite period of time for
deposited checks to clear.

In three separate matters, 27 checks were written against insufficient funds.

DiMauro stipulated that he failed to maintain client funds in a trust account.

In mitigation, no clients were harmed, DiMauro cooperated with the bar's investigation and he
presented evidence of his good character.

He was privately reproved in 1987 for failing to act competently.

JEFFREY STEVEN NELSON [#149494], 44, of Tampa, Fla., was suspended for three years, stayed, placed
on three years of probation with an actual 20-month suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE. If
the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect
Sept. 23, 2000.

In 1998, Nelson pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of writing a bad check for $850. The check
did not involve his client trust account, had nothing to do with the practice of law, and Nelson
made restitution. However, the misconduct involved moral turpitude and Nelson has been on interim
suspension since July 1998.

At the time, Nelson was a deputy attorney general with the California Attorney General. As a result
of the interim suspension, he lost his job. He complied with the conditions of his probation and in
January 2000, he withdrew his plea and his conviction was dismissed.

He has no record of discipline.

TONY RODRIGUEZ [#102882], 48, of Cerritos was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years
of probation with an actual 18-month suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with
rule 955. The order took effect Sept. 23, 2000.

Rodriguez stipulated to 19 counts of misconduct, all involving mishandling his client trust account,
in four consolidated cases.

He repeatedly wrote checks against insufficient funds, allowed the balance in the trust account to
fall below the required amount, misappropriated client funds, failed to maintain client funds in a
trust account, commingled personal and client funds, and failed to cooperate with the bar's
investigation. Some of the misconduct amounted to moral turpitude.

Rodriguez has been disciplined twice previously. In 1994, he stipulated to issuing nine checks
against insufficient funds and failing to maintain client funds in trust, and in 1996, he was
disciplined for failing to file two quarterly probation reports.

ALAN RUBINSTEIN [#93371], 49, of Westminster was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year
and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 23, 2000.

Rubinstein stipulated to misconduct in seven consolidated matters, each involving improper
maintenance of his client trust account, failure to perform legal services competently and
committing acts of moral turpitude.

Rubenstein's problems were the result of lax supervision of an individual he hired to do collection
work. He did not carefully oversee either the substance of client files or accounting methods used
by his employee, nor did he adequately review his client trust account.

The employee forged Rubenstein's signature on several checks and impersonated Rubenstein in order to
obtain wire transfers from the account. As a result, the balance in the account fell below the
required amount repeatedly.

In mitigation, Rubenstein has no record of discipline, demonstrated remorse and showed
rehabilitation, presented testimony attesting to his good character and cooperated with the bar's
investigation.

ANDRE KEITH SILVOLA [#109154], 51, of Colorado Springs, Colo., was suspended for three years,
stayed, placed on three years of probation with a one-year actual suspension, and was ordered to
prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 23, 2000.

Silvola was disciplined in 1998 but failed to comply with the terms of his probation. He failed to
file seven quarterly reports, or submit a law office management plan or proof of his attendance at
six hours of MCLE classes.

The original discipline entailed failure to act competently or respond to client inquiries,
accepting compensation from a non-client, failure to properly withdraw from employment and
committing acts of moral turpitude. Silvola was disciplined again for not complying with the terms
of his probation.

In mitigation, he suffers from major depressive disorder, for which he receives treatment, and he
cooperated with the bar's investigation.

ALAN CRAIG BAIL [#88955], 47, of Playa del Rey was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on five
years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Sept. 29,
2000.

Bail stipulated to misconduct in six consolidated cases, all involving personal injury cases.

In one matter, he deposited in his trust account $145,000, of which $42,000 should have been paid to
the U.S. Postal Service, his client's employer, for reimbursement of workers' compensation benefits,
and another $31,000 to seven medical providers.

Bail paid one doctor nine months after receiving the settlement, paid two other medical liens 20
months later, and did not pay the rest. Several years after the settlement, he still owed the postal
service more than $14,000, but his client trust account had a balance of just under $2,000.

Bail failed to file suit in another matter resulting in a significant financial loss for his client.
He lost another case and judgment was entered for the opposing clients for their costs, but her
never informed his clients. When his health deteriorated, he informed some clients he could no
longer handle their matters, but he did not return complete files.

Bail stipulated to one count of failing to perform competently and one count of failing to pay out
client funds and to two counts each of failing to respond to client inquiries or keep clients
informed of developments in their cases, return client files and hold client funds in a client trust
account, and to misappropriating client funds, a violation involving moral turpitude. He also did
not keep his address current with the State Bar.

In mitigation, Bail has taken steps to atone for any consequences of his misconduct, including
ceasing practice at the end of 1995, remaining inactive from 1996 to the present and seeking
psychiatric evaluation. He also suffered extreme emotional difficulties from which he has recovered
through medical treatment.

Bail also was disciplined in 1993 for failure to return a file, return unearned fees or account for
client funds.

DONALD BARNETT [#33012], 63, of Rolling Hills Estates was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on
one year of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year. The order took effect Sept. 29, 2000.

Barnett stipulated that in a personal injury case, he failed to properly maintain client funds in a
client trust account, commingled client and personal funds and failed to promptly pay out client
funds as requested.

He settled the case, which he took on contingency, for $33,000, but allowed the balance in his trust
account to fall below the required amount before paying his client's medical bills. A month after
the settlement, Barnett deposited a check for $50,000 - a loan - in the trust account, and several
months later another loan for $15,000.

In mitigation, Barnett took steps to demonstrate his remorse, cooperated with the bar's
investigation and presented testimony attesting to his good character.

KENNETH DAVID BUCKWALTER [#50213], 54, of Auburn was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on
actual suspension until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension, and was
ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years,
Buckwalter must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 29, 2000.

Buckwalter was suspended in 1997 and ordered to comply with rule 955. At the time, he was attorney
of record in a case in El Dorado County.

He failed to provide notice of his suspension to opposing counsel or the court by the deadline; the
notice was dated properly but not mailed until three weeks after the deadline. He filed an affidavit
with the State Bar Court, stating he had complied with rule 955.

While suspended, Buckwalter made two court appearances in connection with the El Dorado case and
entered into an agreement on behalf of his client.

In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Buckwalter practiced law while suspended and
failed to comply with rule 955.

The original discipline was the result of failing to perform legal services competently, entering
into a business transaction with a client without obtain the required written consent and knowingly
acquiring a pecuniary interest adverse to his client without providing the required written notice
or obtaining the required written consent.

The probation of RICHARD M. CANTILLON [#27479], 72, of Riverside was revoked, a previously ordered
stay of suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for three years and until he makes
restitution and proves his rehabilitation. He was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955.
Credit toward the actual suspension will be given for the period of involuntary inactive enrollment
which began June 5, 2000. The order took effect Sept. 29, 2000.

Cantillon stipulated to misconduct in 11 consolidated cases and in 1998 was suspended and placed on
probation, with requirements that he pay more than $54,000 in restitution to 23 individuals and
prove his rehabilitation. In addition, he was ordered to submit quarterly probation reports.

Cantillon did not submit five probation reports.

He has a record of prior discipline, including a 1995 private reproval for failing to supervise his
employees or perform legal services competently. He was later suspended for 30 days for not
complying with the probation requirements attached t the reproval.

The 1998 discipline involved 28 clients and multiple instances of misconduct, including 21 counts of
failing to act competently or refund unearned fees, and multiple counts of failing to respond to
client inquiries, promptly pay out client funds, return client files, or cooperate with the bar's
investigation, and for charging an unconscionable fee.

ROBERT RAFAEL CATALANO [#37408], 61, of Bakersfield was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on
five years of probation with a three-year actual suspension, and was ordered to prove his
rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Sept. 29, 2000.

Catalano sought review of a State Bar Court hearing judge's discipline recommendation, arguing that
it was excessive. The review department upheld the recommendation.

Catalano was convicted in 1994 of wilful disobedience of a court order, a misdemeanor, and four
misdemeanor counts of failing to file tax returns. The hearing judge found that disobeying a court
order involved moral turpitude and the other counts involved misconduct warranting discipline.

Over a 10-year period, Catalano suffered severe financial problems as a result of a contentious
divorce, the acrimonious break-up of his law partnership and a dispute with his former partner over
fees from a case in the state of Washington. He filed for bankruptcy twice and was a defendant in a
costly lawsuit stemming from his efforts to buy a house.

He misrepresented to a bank from which he sought a $100,000 line of credit that a certificate of
deposit he pledged as security was owned by him and unencumbered by any liens. In fact, the CD was
purchased with the attorney's fees and costs from the Washington case and was subject to claims by
his former partner. Catalano eventually was ordered by a court to pay his ex-partner that money,
plus interest, amounting to $125,000.

Catalano and his wife did not file tax returns for 1984-87 because, they said, their records were in
the possession of either attorneys and accountants for Catalano's first wife, attorneys and
accountants for his creditors, or parties involved in the bankruptcy. He subsequently filed his
returns, but has not paid all his back taxes and is trying to work out a five-year payment plan.

The no contest plea to a charge of disobeying a court order resulted from the dispute over the fees
in the Washington case.

The review department found that Catalano's misconduct involved deception or concealment and that
his testimony and arguments before the hearing department demonstrated a lack of insight into his
misconduct.

TIMOTHY L. DAVIS [#141612], 46, of Columbus, Ohio, was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on
three years of probation with an actual two-year suspension, and was ordered to prove his
rehabilitation and take the MPRE. Credit will be given for the period of interim suspension which
began June 24, 1999. The order took effect Sept. 29, 2000.

Davis pleaded guilty in 1999 to assault with a deadly weapon and making threats to commit a crime
resulting in death or great bodily harm.

In mitigation, he has no record of discipline since his 1989 admission to the bar and he cooperated
with its investigation.

GERALDINE D. GREEN [#50282], 67, of Los Angeles was suspended for three months and until she pays
sanctions and proves her rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 29, 2000.

In February 1991, Green filed a wrongful death suit against Los Angeles County; it was dismissed in
July.

In September, she filed suit in state court and subsequently filed four amended complaints.

In February 1994, the court denied her motion to file a fifth amended complaint and sanctioned her
more than $1,000, ruling that she had acted in bad faith and used frivolous tactics. She did not
report the sanction to the State Bar for more than two years.

In 1995, Green returned to federal court and filed an action similar to the original federal
complaint. The court dismissed the case, said it was frivolous and sanctioned Green $2,312.

Green stipulated that she continued her employment knowing that her objective was to pursue
litigation that was not warranted under law.

Green has a record of three disciplines. In 1993, she was privately reproved for failing to properly
maintain her client trust account or pay out client funds, and in 1995, she was suspended for
failing to act competently, return client papers, comply with probation conditions, respond to
client inquiries or cooperate with the bar's investigation and disobeying a court order.

Last year, she was suspended again for failing to respond to client inquiries or perform competently
and for committing acts of moral turpitude.

In mitigation, she suffered from severe financial stress at the time of the misconduct.

e

[Open FleshWound]

12/00

CAUTION!
More than 171,235 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the

same names. All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court documents and should be read
carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.

DISBARMENTS
STANFORD YING KIT LAU [#100994], 45, of West Hills was disbarred Aug. 26, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court.

Lau failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 1998 disciplinary order requiring him
to make restitution and attend MCLE classes in ethics and law office management, and he moved
without notifying the State Bar.

He has three prior disciplines, "two of which are extremely serious," wrote State Bar Court Judge
Nancy Roberts Lonsdale.

He was publicly reproved in 1989 for failing to cooperate with a bar investigation.

In 1994, he was disciplined for multiple acts of professional misconduct, including conflicts of
interest, mishandling client matters and trust account violations. When he did not comply with his
probation conditions, he was again disciplined in 1998; further trust account improprieties and
another failure to cooperate with the bar's investigation also were charged.

"Where there are two prior records of discipline, disbarment is the appropriate sanction, unless the
most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate," Lonsdale wrote. Because there was no
showing of mitigation, she recommended Lau's disbarment.

THOMAS EDWARD LANTZ [#102205], 47, of San Francisco was disbarred Sept. 8, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

In two consolidated matters, the State Bar Court found that Lantz failed to return files, pay liens
promptly, keep entrusted monies in trust, and respond to bar investigations, and he also commingled
personal and client funds and misappropriated funds.

In one matter, he did not pay his client's outstanding chiropractic bill for five years, resulting
in an adverse credit rating for the client.

In a case involving a minor, Lantz spent a great deal of money on expert fees and other matters in
preparation for a three-week trial which settled for the amount of the pretrial offer. Because a
minor was involved, court approval was required. Lantz never put the agreement in writing for the
judge's approval or scheduled a hearing, but took 25 percent of the settlement as fees. Some 22
months after the settlement was reached, he paid the minor's mother almost $30,000. A doctor in the
case was not paid for two years.

In a personal injury case Lantz took over as the third attorney, the first attorney held a lien of
$24,000 for costs only. The second attorney had settled with one defendant for $10,000 and agreed to
pay the first attorney half that amount toward his lien, but substituted out before payment was
made. Lantz then released the full amount to his client. When he settled with another defendant for
$65,000, he never notified the first attorney of the settlement, then refused to pay, then finally
agreed to pay him $15,000. The funds were never paid.

In addition, the court found that Lantz engaged in a series of improprieties in his handling of his
trust account: monies which should have been held in trust were not, and a "revolving account" was
operated in which payments to one client were funded by another client's settlement money. The court
also found that Lantz "left funds in trust or placed them in his wife's name to avoid his legitimate
creditors."

Lantz also was disciplined in 1997, and the court found in aggravation that he repeatedly misused
bankruptcy procedures to delay resolution of a civil suit filed against him by a client.

In recommending Lantz' disbarment, Judge Nancy Roberts Lonsdale said he harmed his clients and other
parties, accepts no responsibility for his actions and continually misappropriated funds. "His
actions go far beyond negligent administration of the trust fund, and constitute outright theft of
client funds," Lonsdale wrote. She also pointed to a record "replete with [Lantz's] evasive,
argumentative and untruthful testimony in this proceeding."

CARL ERIC MUNSON [#116881], 51, of Los Angeles was disbarred Sept. 8, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

Munson failed to meet the requirement of a 1998 order that he comply with rule 955. He did not
submit to the Supreme Court an affidavit stating that he had notified his clients and other
pertinent parties of his suspension from practice. Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for
disbarment.

The underlying discipline, in which he defaulted, was the result of Munson's failure to competently
perform legal services, return unearned fees, respond to client inquiries, cooperate with the bar's
investigation or maintain a current address with the bar, and he improperly withdrew from
employment.

TERRY WAYNE DENNIS [#146505], 38, of Artesia was disbarred Sept. 14, 2000, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

Dennis did not comply with rule 955, as ordered in a 1998 discipline.

In a default case, he was found to have mishandled his client trust account and he did not promptly
pay out client funds.

Dennis's default also was entered in the disbarment proceeding. Failure to comply with rule 955 is
grounds for disbarment.

RAYMOND J. KIM [#171209], 33, of Downey was disbarred Sept. 14, 2000, and was ordered to comply with
rule 955.

Kim failed to comply with rule 955, as ordered by the Supreme Court in a 1998 discipline. The

disbarment was recommended in a default proceeding.

The original discipline was the result of Kim's failure to perform legal services competently,
refund unearned fees or respond to client inquiries, and he withdrew from employment without
protecting his client's interests.

LIH-JIUAN GRACE LIN [#147155], 44, of Alhambra was disbarred Sept. 14, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Lin failed to render an accounting of client
funds in her possession, return client files, maintain client funds in her trust account or
cooperate with the bar's investigation, and she misappropriated client funds, an act of moral
turpitude.

Lin's misconduct occurred in two cases she handled for one client, who paid $6,000 as advance fees
and $1,000 as advance costs. The client also gave Lin another $7,500 as a "provisional seizure
fund."

The client asked Lin to stop working on the cases and sought a refund of the seizure fund money and
a return of his files. Lin did not respond.

When the client complained to the bar, Lin requested three time extensions over three months and
then stopped responding to bar inquiries.

In recommending Lin's disbarment, bar court Judge Madge S. Watai pointed to her "apparent lack of a
sense of duty and responsibility as an attorney."

SUSPENSIONS/PROBATION
The probation of JOHN INGRAHAM MEEKER [#95878], 50, of Roseville was revoked, the previous stay of
suspension was lifted, and he was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of
probation with a six-month actual suspension, and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation and comply
with rule 955. Credit will be given for a 60-day suspension previously served. The order took effect
Aug. 17, 2000.

Meeker was suspended and placed on probation in 1998 but violated the terms of his probation by not
filing quarterly reports, not having an accountant review his trust account and not signing up for
ethics school, trust accounting school or the professional responsibility exam. Although the bar was
essentially shut down due to a funding crisis, the State Bar Court said the shutdown was not the
basis for Meeker's failure to comply.

When he received a warning letter, he did attend ethics school, trust accounting school, and took,
but did not pass, the PRE. He filed quarterly reports and belatedly had an accountant examine his
books, but his statement did not show when monies went into and out of trust.

At the time of his problems, Meeker was going through an acrimonious divorce, two close friends
died, and when he was suspended for failing the professional responsibility exam, his income
suffered. He is now undergoing counseling, has closed his law practice and works with a friend who
manages the law office, and has retained ethics counsel.

The discipline underlying the probation revocation was the result of trust account violations. In
addition, Meeker was privately reproved in 1989, was given a stayed suspension in 1991, and his
probation was extended in 1993 for failing to comply with its conditions.

DENISE D. MOOREHEAD [#136369], 47, of Oakland was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three
years of probation, and was ordered to prove her rehabilitation, make restitution and take the MPRE.
The order took effect Aug. 17, 2000.

Moorehead stipulated to seven instances of misconduct in three consolidated cases.

In the first matter, she filed suit related to the termination of her client's employment. But she
failed to appear for three conferences, did not file a proper case management statement with the
court and did not serve the complaint on the opposing party. The case was dismissed and Moorehead
was sanctioned $1,000.

She stipulated that she failed to perform legal services competently, report a sanction to the State
Bar, pay the sanctions or abide by court orders.

In the second matter, after filing a personal injury complaint for a client, Moorehead failed to
appear at numerous hearings or participate in discovery in a timely manner, was sanctioned three
times and allowed the case to be dismissed. She also failed to properly withdraw from
representation.

After being terminated by another client, she wrote to the client's employer and, representing
herself as the attorney, said the client "presents a serious health and safety danger to herself and
others." By doing so, she advanced facts prejudicial to her client's reputation.

In mitigation, Moorehead had no record of prior discipline, she was suffering from depression at the
time of the misconduct and experienced a series of personal and family crises.

ELEANOR L. PRESTON [#129138], 57, of San Bernardino was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on
three years of probation with a six-month actual suspension, and was ordered to prove her
rehabilitation, take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Aug.
17, 2000.

Preston stipulated to three counts of misconduct in three client matters.

In the first, she settled a personal injury claim, but did not pay the client's medical bills for
six months.

She also did not pay medical bills in a second personal injury case for six months, allowed the
balance in her client trust account to fall below the required amount, and misappropriated client
funds, an act of moral turpitude.

She engaged in almost identical misconduct in a third personal injury matter, failing to pay a
medical provider for eight months, misappropriating client funds and failing to maintain client

funds in a trust account.

In mitigation, she made restitution and cooperated with the bar's investigation.

Preston was disciplined in 1993 and 1994 for failing to act competently, pay out client funds,
properly maintain client funds and committing an act of moral turpitude.

CRAIG BELDEN STALKER [#41930], 60, of Gold River was suspended for one year, stayed, and was
actually suspended for 90 days and until he completes ethics school and until the State Bar Court
grants a motion to terminate his suspension. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must
prove his rehabilitation. He also was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule
955. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2000.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Stalker failed to comply with the conditions
attached to a 1998 public reproval for failing to complete services for a client and failing to

cooperate with the bar's investigation.

He did not attend ethics school or take the MPRE by the required deadline.

JOHN OWEN STANSBURY [#43117], 58, of Oakland was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on actu
al suspension for 90 days and until he makes restitution, complies with rule 955, attends ethics
school and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the actual suspension. If the actual
suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. He also was ordered to take the
MPRE. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2000.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Stansbury violated the terms of a 1998
public reproval based on his failure to return unearned fees to a client. He also defaulted in the
reproval hearing.

He did not make restitution or attend ethics school by the required deadline.

LEWIS R. WIENER [#41186], 59, of Corte Madera was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with a 45-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2000.

Wiener stipulated that he failed to comply with the conditions attached to a 1998 discipline order:
he did not submit quarterly probation reports, attend ethics school, or stop practicing law during
an actual 30-day suspension.

Wiener said he did not receive and was unaware of the disciplinary order although it was properly
mailed and there is a presumption that he received it. He acknowledged that his failure to comply
with probation conditions is considered legally wilful even though he was not actually aware of the
order.

The 1998 discipline was the result of failing to perform legal services competently, respond to a
client's inquiries or cooperate with the bar's investigation.

He also was privately reproved in 1990 for failure to perform competently or communicate with
clients.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigated and acted in good faith.

The probation of CHET WILLIAMS [#160015], 42, of Los Angeles was extended for six months. The order
took effect Aug. 17, 2000.

Williams stipulated that he violated the terms of a 1998 discipline order: He did not submit proof
of completion of six hours of MCLE courses in ethics, client relations or law office management on
time.

The original discipline was imposed for failure to promptly return client papers and for failing to
disclose to a client a possible conflict of interest in a real estate matter.

LOUIS A. WYSOCKI [#182579], 35, of Rubidoux was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on probation
for three years and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Aug. 17,
2000.

Wysocki stipulated to misconduct in eight consolidated matters. He failed to communicate with
clients in four instances, failed to return a client file three times, failed to distribute
settlement funds three times, twice did not provide an accounting, failed to perform competently
once and withdrew from representation without protecting his client's interests in one matter.

Six of the matters were personal injury cases. In several matters, he received his clients'
settlement funds, deposited them in his client trust account and took his fees and costs, but then
did not pay medical liens or give the clients their share of the money. In one case, because Wysocki
did not respond to calls from his client or the client's doctors about payment of medical liens,
there was a delay in providing medical treatment to the client.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation.

The probation of PAUL YANEZ [#100492], 48, of Anaheim was revoked, the stay of suspension was lifted
and he was actually suspended for two years and until he proves his rehabilitation. He was ordered
to attend ethics school, complete 12 hours of MCLE instruction in law office management and comply
with rule 955. Credit towards the actual suspension will be given for the period of involuntary
inactive enrollment which began April 9. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2000.

Yanez failed to comply with probation conditions attached to two 1998 disciplinary orders; he did
not file six quarterly probation reports, attend ethics school or complete 12 hours of training in
law office management.

The underlying disciplines involved failing to perform legal services, communicate with clients, or
cooperate with the bar's investigation, and he practiced law while suspended for failing to comply
with a child and family support order.

GILBERT S. AZAFRANI [#97395], 51, of Marina Del Rey was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on
one year of probation with an actual 30-day suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within a
year, unless he already passed it in connection with an earlier discipline order. The order took
effect Aug. 19, 2000.

Azafrani stipulated that he did not comply with conditions attached to a 1998 private reproval; he
did not take the professional responsibility exam, or complete nine hours of ethics training and
nine hours of MCLE training in law office management by the deadline. He did complete the ethics
classes about a month late and completed eight and a half hours of law office management classes
late.

The 1998 private reproval was imposed for not complying with conditions attached to a 1997 private
reproval and for a violation of trust account regulations. The 1997 reproval was the result of
failing to return a client file, maintain complete records of client funds, promptly pay out client
funds or cooperate with the bar's investigation.

In mitigation, Azafrani, who became a father for the first time at age 45, became his daughter's
primary care-giver when she was two. As a result, he reduced his law practice, could not take the
required MCLE courses and during the bar shutdown, was unable to speak to anyone in the discipline
system about his problems.

CHARLES H. KROHN [#77073], 48, of Los Angeles was suspended for four years, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with an 18-month actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year and to prove his rehabilitation. He will receive credit for the period of involuntary inactive
enrollment which began July 19, 1998. The order took effect Aug. 19, 2000.

Krohn appealed a recommendation by a State Bar Court hearing judge, arguing that there was
insufficient evidence about his misconduct and that the suggested discipline was excessive. The
review department agreed with the hearing judge's findings about Krohn's actions, but reduced the
recommended discipline. Because he was enrolled inactive for 18 months, the inactive enrollment was
terminated and Krohn was returned to active status.

The bar court found that through a series of actions, Krohn repeatedly failed to perform legal
services competently for his client in a bankruptcy matter, did not cooperate with the bar's
investigation and did not comply with probation conditions imposed in an earlier discipline.

Among other things, Krohn did not file a reorganization plan or seek an extension of time to file
the plan in the bankruptcy proceeding, did not appear at an unlawful detainer trial, did not appear
at a creditors' meeting and did not file a complaint to set aside the trustee's sale of his client's
house.

Krohn did not file probation reports required by a 1996 disciplinary order, and completed 10.25 of
the required 12 hours of continuing education in ethics.

The 1996 order was the result of misconduct in six client matters, including failure to perform
legal services competently, communicate with clients or notify the bar of $1,839 in sanctions. He
improperly withdrew from representation and he disobeyed a court order. Krohn also did not comply
with probation conditions imposed in a 1994 disciplinary order for failure to perform competently in
five matters or communicate with clients in six matters, improper withdrawal in two matters and
disobeying court orders in one matter.

In mitigation, Krohn suffered from serious medical problems and he performed community service.

ROBERT SAMUEL SIMON [#187823], 36, of Portland, Ore., was suspended for 60 days and was ordered to
comply with the conditions of a stipulation reached March 17, 2000. The order took effect Aug. 19,
2000.

Simon stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently in two matters. In the first,
he helped a client obtain a land use permit when he did not possess the legal knowledge necessary to
handle the matter. He executed a notary without witnessing people's signatures, he recorded the
deeds in question, filed an application for a land use permit and then recorded deeds transferring
title back to the original owners. When questions arose about transferring title back to the
original owners before the land use permit was approved, Simon's client withdrew his application.

In a second matter, Simon undertook to have a judgment lien against his client's home vacated.
Without giving the lienholder adequate notice of his intention to appear before the court, Simon
made an appearance, the court vacated the lien, and his client refinanced his home. The court later
reinstated the lien retroactively.

In mitigation, Simon has no prior record of discipline.

ALLAN LEE DOLLISON [#177299], 34, of Saipan was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years
of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and until he makes restitution and proves his
rehabilitation, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order
took effect Aug. 26, 2000.

Dollison stipulated to 16 counts of misconduct in four consolidated cases: three counts each of
failing to perform legal services competently or respond to client inquiries and improperly
withdrawing from representation, and two counts each of failing to return client files, refund
unearned fees and cooperate with the bar's investigation.

As part of one case Dollison was handling, he agreed to file a motion to set aside a default that
had been entered against his client. After not responding to his client's inquiries, Dollison told
her he had filed a motion that was denied by the court. He provided a copy of the motion, a notice
of ruling which stated an attorney had appeared on behalf of the other party.

In fact, Dollison never filed a motion, there was no hearing, he fabricated the notice of ruling and
forged signatures on documents he sent to the client. His misrepresentations were acts of moral
turpitude. He never refunded his fee.

He vacated his office and did not notify clients or the courts, he failed to appear at hearings and
failed to follow court orders. Two cases were dismissed as a result of failure to prosecute. One
client's wages were garnished to pay a default judgment, and other clients were forced to hire new
counsel to complete their bankruptcy petition.

In mitigation, Dollison started a solo practice soon after his admission to the bar, but due to a
lack of experience and business acumen, he accepted difficult cases for relatively low fees. He
abandoned several matters when he moved to a new office in order to stabilize his practice. He also
suffered from depression and is under the care of a psychiatrist.

JEROME EDELMAN [#41749], 61, of Tustin was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on two years of
probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The
order took effect Aug. 26, 2000.

Edelman stipulated that, without obtaining his clients' written consent, he represented multiple
clients in a matter in which the clients' interests conflicted. He also commingled personal and
client funds in his client trust account.

Edelman substituted in to a bankruptcy matter which concluded without settling one debt, because
neither the debt nor the creditors was listed on the petition's schedule of creditors. The couple
who filed for bankruptcy and the creditors in question all were clients of Edelman.

The bankrupt clients decided to pay the creditors and gave Edelman $6,000. He withdrew fees from
both couples and paid a balance of $1,525 to the creditors. They returned the check, saying they
were entitled to more money.

Edelman placed the funds in his client trust account and left it there while he performed $1,525
worth of work for the creditors/clients. He did not withdraw the funds as his fees for three months,
and thus commingled personal and client funds.

Edelman also was disciplined in 1996 for charging an unconscionable fee, failing to refund an
unearned fee and committing acts of moral turpitude.

SIDNEY B. HUBBARD [#87501], 54, of Davis was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for
30 days and until he completes ethics school and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate

the suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension

exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. He must comply with any probation conditions
imposed by the bar court. The order took effect Aug. 26, 2000.

Hubbard entered into an agreement in lieu of discipline in 1997, after he failed to comply with
conditions attached to a 1995 public reproval which resulted from a conviction for possession of
methamphetamine. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that he did not attend ethics
school or take the MPRE as ordered.

The public reproval also was issued by way of default.

In recommending Hubbard's suspension, the court noted the defaults and said he hung up during a
telephonic conference with the court, showing "a lack of respect for disciplinary proceedings."

JOHN R. LIVINGSTON [#80324], 50, of Irvine was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended
for one year and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the actual suspension, and
was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. He must comply with any probation conditions
imposed by the bar court. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his
rehabilitation. The order took effect Aug. 26, 2000.

In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Livingston did not comply with conditions attached
to an agreement in lieu of discipline he reached with the bar in 1997 as a result of a criminal
conviction. He did not file quarterly probation reports.

Livingston was executive vice president of a company and induced a savings and loan to transfer
approximately $24 million in corporate bonds to a bank to secure a $9.2 million loan to his
corporation. He falsely assured the S&L that all documents and fees would be returned if the
transaction was not funded within a specified period, knowing that his company was not in a
financial position to do that.

Livingston pleaded no contest and was sentenced to five years, deferred, and was ordered to make
restitution of $25,000.

In mitigation, Livingston has no record of discipline since his 1978 admission to the bar.

CHARLES M. MARX [#124630], 40, of San Carlos was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years
of probation with a 30-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The
order took effect Aug. 26, 2000.

Marx was disbarred from the federal district court's eastern district in 1999 for abandoning a
client. The court also found that he did not appear at a disciplinary hearing before the court,
"repeatedly flouted the orders of the court," and failed to appear when ordered to do so.

He stipulated that he withdrew from representation of four clients without protecting their
interests, failed to communicate with clients and ignored court orders over a 15-month period.

In mitigation, Marx has no record of discipline since his 1986 admission to the bar, he cooperated
with the bar's investigation, he was experiencing marital difficulties at the time and he had
physical problems which resulted from a bicycle accident but which went partially untreated because
he had no health insurance.

RICHARD HAMM [#61401], 54, of San Jose was suspended for 120 days, stayed, placed on two years of
probation and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 7, 2000.

Hamm stipulated to misconduct in two matters.

In a federal criminal appeal, he represented a defendant who spoke Vietnamese. Hamm and his client
communicated with the help of a translator to whom the client paid $6,000 as advanced fees. Both
Hamm and his client believed Hamm had received the $6,000.

After a month of work, the client hired a different attorney and Hamm wrote a letter indicating a
check for $4,000 was enclosed as a refund of unearned fees. However, no such check was in the
letter, which was on Hamm's letterhead but was unsigned.

The client never received a refund and Hamm says he never received the original $6,000, which his
staff erroneously said he had received.

He stipulated that he did not properly supervise his staff in the management and accounting of
client funds.

In the second case, he settled a personal injury case but did not pay a medical lien for almost
eight months. The lien was paid from Hamm's general account because the balance in his checking
account had fallen below the required amount.

He stipulated that he failed to maintain client funds in trust and that he failed to perform legal
services by not properly supervising his staff, which had the responsibility of paying medical
liens.

Hamm has no record of discipline since his 1974 admission to the bar.

CHARLOTTE A. HASSETT [#140285], 51, of Beverly Hills was suspended for one year, stayed, was
actually suspended for 90 days and until she makes restitution and the State Bar Court grants a
motion to terminate the actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule
955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, she must prove her rehabilitation. The order took
effect Sept. 7, 2000.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that in a legal malpractice matter in which
Hassett represented the defendant, she made misleading statements to the judge, an act of moral
turpitude. She also did not cooperate with the bar's investigation.

The court entered judgment against Hassett's client and the opposing client sought fees and costs. A
month after Hassett received the motion, she sought a delay, telling opposing counsel she had not
had time to prepare a response even though she had received the papers in a timely manner and that
she was not certain whether she was to continue to represent her client.

However, she later submitted a signed declaration to the court that she received the motion late.
She did not respond to a request by opposing counsel that she sign a new declaration that her
earlier statement to the court was incorrect. The judge eventually imposed sanctions on Hassett,
which she did not pay.

MICHAEL VINCENT JOHNSON [#100957], 50, of Victorville was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on
two years of probation with a six-month actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within
one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Sept. 7, 2000.

Johnson stipulated that he failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 1998
disciplinary order; he did not file two quarterly probation reports or complete ethics school or
pass the MPRE by the required deadline.

The discipline resulted from failing to perform legal services competently, respond to reasonable
client inquiries or cooperate with the bar's investigation and for withdrawing from employment
without protecting his client's interests.

In mitigation, no client was harmed by Johnson's actions.

JOSEPH HENRY MARMAN [#129517], 44, of Citrus Heights was suspended for 90 days, stayed, placed on
one year of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year. The order took effect Sept. 7, 2000.

Marman stipulated that he did not comply with probation conditions attached to a 1995 disciplinary
order by failing to pay restitution to two creditors.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation and he had serious financial problems.

JOHN VODONICK aka EMIL J. VODONICK [#63089], 54, of Nevada City was suspended for two years, stayed,
placed on five years of probation and was ordered to make restitution. The order took effect Sept.
7, 2000.

In 1997, Vodonick stipulated to a public reproval for failing to promptly refund unearned fees owed
to his clients. As a condition of the reproval, he was required to make restitution amounting to
more than $53,000 to those clients within a year. Vodonick sought an extension of time, which was
partially granted, and he was ordered to make full restitution by February 1999.

By that time, he had made no payments, had set aside no money in his trust account and did not seek
another time extension. After that, he tried to negotiate a payment schedule with his clients'
attorney, and early in 2000 they worked out a repayment plan of nearly $75,000.

Vodonick paid the first installment.

He stipulated that he did not make restitution on time.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation.

STEPHEN LESLIE WHEELER [#39466], 59, of Fallbrook was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on
five years of probation with a two-year actual suspension, and was ordered to make restitution and
pay sanctions, prove his rehabilitation, develop a law office management plan and comply with rule
955. The order took effect Sept. 7, 2000.

Wheeler stipulated to misconduct in four cases, two involving failure to comply with conditions
attached to previous disciplinary orders in 1996 and 1998. In those matters, he did not submit nine
quarterly probation reports, enroll in the bar's law office management section or submit a
management plan, pass the MPRE, attend ethics school or record-keeping school, or take required MCLE
classes.

He also owes restitution exceeding $90,000 to three parties.

Wheeler failed to perform legal services competently in a civil matter which was dismissed when he
failed to make two appearances or abide by a court order. He did not tell the client the case was
dismissed or that sanctions were imposed on the client. In a second case he handled for the same
client, he failed to communicate.

He did not cooperate with the bar's investigation of either matter.

Wheeler also practiced law while suspended for failing to take the MPRE in conjunction with a
disciplinary order.

He has a record of four disciplines, extending back to 1992.

STEVEN L. DOBBS [#26967], 81, of Studio City was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three

years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one

year. The order took effect Sept. 14, 2000.

Dobbs stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently in a matter involving a
default on a mortgage held by his client.

He employed a disbarred attorney, who prepared a lawsuit that Dobbs reviewed before it was filed. He
states the employee handled the matter after that.

Dobbs stipulated that he filed a lawsuit in a matter that should have been handled by foreclosure,
failed to respond to discovery requests or to amend a complaint, and failed to supervise his
employee.

He also exposed his clients to sanctions and awards amounting to more than $20,000, which with
interest ultimately totaled more than $49,000. Opposing counsel filed liens against his client's
home and when it was sold, the client had to pay attorneys $49,000 out of the escrow. Dobbs also
accepted a fee to file an appeal, but never filed it and never communicated again with the client,
who lost his ability to foreclose on the property on which he held the mortgage.

In mitigation, Dobbs has no record of discipline in more than 40 years of practice and he cooperated

with the bar's investigation.

TIMOTHY MILLS EHRITT [#122106], 47, of Ventura was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on 18
months of probation with a 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within a year. The

order took effect Sept. 14, 2000.

After a settlement was reached in a workers' compensation case, Ehritt noticed the judge had not
signed the opinion so he signed her name on the document.

Ehritt apologized to the judge after she discovered the forgery.

Ehritt stipulated that his actions amounted to moral turpitude.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation.

GREGORY D. GORMAN [#152716], 37, of Sherman Oaks was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one

year. The order took effect Sept. 14, 2000.

Gorman stipulated that he commingled personal and client funds in his client trust account and that
he failed to maintain the account properly.

He left his fees in the trust account and repeatedly wrote checks to pay personal expenses. At one
point, he allowed the balance in the trust account to drop below the required amount, used one
client's funds to pay another client and wrote a check against insufficient funds.

In mitigation, no clients complained to the State Bar and the clients received the funds to which
they were entitled.

BRUCE ALLAN MANDEL [#149539], 38, of Torrance was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with a five-month actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within a
year. Credit towards the actual suspension will be given for a period of interim suspension which
began Nov. 12, 1999. The order took effect Sept. 14, 2000.

Mandel was convicted last year of attempted unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor after he made
arrangements to meet someone he met in a chat room. He was arrested at a hotel where he went to meet
the girl. Mandel made three online contacts with the underage girl who was actually a police
officer.

He also made contact with what he believed were three other underage girls, also law enforcement
officers, and asked them to e-mail photos

In mitigation, Mandel has no record of discipline, he demonstrated remorse, and he had
emotional/physical problems, family problems and financial problems at the time of the misconduct.

NEILL DAHL O'MALLEY aka NICK O'MALLEY [#64441], 60, of Santa Ana was suspended for 90 days, stayed,
and was placed on one year of probation with a 30-day suspension. The order took effect Sept. 14,
2000.

O'Malley stipulated to misconduct in five matters; he practiced law or held himself out as an
attorney while suspended.

When he received a suspension order in 1997, it did not state the date the actual suspension was to
begin.

His attorney advised him the Supreme Court would issue an implementation order, which would be at
least 30 days after the suspension order, and said O'Malley was free to practice until that time. In
fact, the suspension was in place at that time.

The 1997 discipline was the result of failing to respond to client inquiries or promptly return
client files and committing an act of moral turpitude.

In mitigation, O'Malley cooperated with the bar's investigation and acted in good faith.

PAUL PARK [#144210], 37, of Los Angeles was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of
probation with a 60-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The

order took effect Sept. 14, 2000.

Park stipulated that in one matter, he failed to maintain funds in his client trust account,
commingled assets and failed to maintain adequate records for the account.

In a second matter, Park communicated with a represented party in a personal injury case.

In mitigation, he has no record of discipline since his 1989 admission to the bar, he cooperated
with the investigation and no client was harmed.

DANIEL GENE RUSSELL [#96063], 53, of Concord was suspended for five years, stayed, and was actually
suspended for two years and until he makes restitution and proves his rehabilitation and until the
State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate his suspension. He was ordered to take the MPRE and

comply with rule 955. The order took effect Sept. 14, 2000.

In a default hearing, the bar court found Russell committed misconduct in four matters, including
failure to competently perform legal services, communicate with clients, refund unearned fees,
return client files or cooperate with the bar's investigation. He also improperly withdrew from
employment.

In one matter, a couple hired Russell to prepare wills, powers of attorney and living trusts, paying
him $1,500 in advanced fees. He moved without telling the clients, said he needed more information
in order to prepare the documents, and over the course of two years communicated only sporadically
with them. Eventually, his phone and fax were disconnected and letters were returned with no
forwarding address.

Russell's behavior was similar in a marital dissolution case, which he repeatedly told his client he
was working on. He did not obtain a divorce for his client, who had to handle the case himself.

He represented another client in a dispute with her stepson over the proceeds from the sale of real
property they owned jointly. The stepson sued Russell's client and later filed for bankruptcy,
including on his list of debts $50,000 owed to his stepmother.

Despite inquiries from his client, Russell did nothing to prevent the discharge of the debt. The
original case ultimately was dismissed as well.

The bar court found that Russell also abandoned his clients when they were sued by their condominium
association for failing to pay their dues and make repairs to their deck. His clients were unable to
contact Russell, and he finally admitted he had done no work on the case but said he would seek a
continuance. His request was denied, trial went forward and judgment was entered against Russell's
clients in the amount of almost $7,000. The plaintiffs also won legal fees and costs, amounting to a
total judgment of more than $11,000. He did not tell his clients about the judgments for three
months.

In mitigation, Russell has no record of discipline since his 1980 admission to the bar.

MARK KENDALL WORCESTER [#94706], 45, of Irvine was suspended for two years, stayed, actually
suspended for 90 days and until he attends ethics school and the State Bar Court grants a motion to
end the actual suspension, and he was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the

actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept.

14, 2000.

In a default hearing, the bar court found that Worcester failed to comply with conditions attached
to a 1996 private reproval; he did not file four quarterly probation reports, complete ethics school
or take the MPRE.

His misconduct began with an agreement in lieu of discipline for failing to competently handle three
civil matters and failing to communicate with a client. When he did not comply with conditions
attached to the agreement, he was privately reproved.

RESIGNATIONS/CHARGES PENDING
MARK ALAN WHITEFIELD [#73143], 56, of Tucson, Ariz. (July 9, 2000)

JEFFREY MICHAEL BROWN [#137983], 37, of Cardiff (July 14, 2000)

ELVETA LOUISE FRANCIS [#93320], 57, of Santa Rosa (July 14, 2000)

BERMAN SWARTTZ [#17038], 85, of Los Angeles (July 14, 2000)

KATHERINE A. MILLER ZESSIN [#122549], 48, of Ventura (July 14, 2000)

[Open FleshWound]

11/00

CAUTION!
Nearly 171,145 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the same

names. All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court documents and should be read carefully
for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.

DISBARMENTS
EUGENIO PEGUERO JR.[#109822], 43, of Huntington Park was disbarred July 9, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court.

The State Bar Court found that in three personal injury matters, Peguero did not pay his clients'
medical bills after settling the cases. He misappropriated client funds, an act of moral turpitude,
did not return his clients' phone calls or respond to their letters and failed to cooperate with the
bar's investigation.

In addition, he did not comply with conditions attached to a 1997 discipline; he did not submit
quarterly reports, an office organization plan, or proof of attendance at ethics school, and he did
not make restitution. That discipline resulted from Peguero's failure to promptly respond to client
inquiries or to return client files.

Judge Madge S. Watai recommended Peguero's disbarment, noting his "grossly negligent wilful
misappropriation" of more than $3,700 in client funds, his "complete disregard" for the welfare of
several clients and his non-compliance with probation conditions he had agreed to meet.

BRUCE D. CURNICK [#151869], 46, of Temecula was disbarred July 19, 2000, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

In a default hearing, the State Bar Court found Curnick committed 18 violations of professional
rules, including misappropriating about $40,000 of client funds, making misrepresentations to
clients, disregarding the welfare of seven clients and acts of moral turpitude.

Recommending Curnick's disbarment, Judge Madge S. Watai found that he failed to perform legal
services three times, return unearned fees five times, return one file, maintain his client trust
account properly, provide an accounting to one client and disburse settlement funds. He committed
three acts of moral turpitude, including twice making misrepresentations to clients and one instance
of misappropriation.

Three clients won default judgments against Curnick in small claims court.

In a bankruptcy case in which Curnick filed a Chapter 11 petition, he then did not do the required
follow-up work. When his clients received an offer from an investor which would have enabled them to
bring all debts current and dismiss the bankruptcy, Curnick did not file a dismissal motion despite
several requests from the clients to do so. He told the clients he had filed the motion. Eventually
one of the clients filed the motion himself.

In another matter, Curnick settled a personal injury claim for $80,000, gave almost $19,000 to the
client, took his fee and costs and said he would hold the remaining $35,000 to pay any Medi-Cal
liens that might be filed. He misappropriated that money.

The client obtained a default judgment against him for more than $41,000, which he never paid.

PHILIP LEONARD STIMAC [#80719], 49, of Gilroy was disbarred July 28, 2000, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

The State Bar Court recommended Stimac's disbarment after finding five instances of misconduct,
including filing unjust litigation, filing malicious litigation, making an unfounded claim, showing
disrespect to the court and committing an act of moral turpitude.

The discipline stems from a finding of the federal court that Stimac engaged in unjust and frivolous
litigation in four lawsuits he filed against various agencies and officials of the federal
government. They began with a claim that the Department of Education's civil rights office did not
properly handle Stimac's claim that he was wrongfully terminated from his position at Gavilan
Community College.

A federal judge dismissed the first suit, filed in 1992, and was affirmed by the appellate court.

Stimac filed another action in 1993, charging Attorney General Janet Reno and two assistant U.S.
Attorneys who had defended the first action, charging they did not properly investigate his claims
and engaged in a conspiracy against him. The action was dismissed and Stimac's appeal was
unsuccessful.

He filed a third suit in 1995 on behalf of another client, making similar claims against many of the
same defendants and others involved in the operation of community colleges, teachers unions and
attorneys. That action was dismissed with prejudice when Stimac failed to respond to a defense
motion for dismissal.

Stimac's fourth suit alleged a criminal RICO conspiracy among many of the same defendants and added
others, including President Clinton. The action also alleged perjury and fraud.

A fourth federal judge dismissed the complaint with prejudice and imposed $5,000 in sanctions under
federal rule 11, which the judge said was designed to address the very problem presented by Stimac's
suit: "the problem of frivolous filings and the use of judicial procedures as a tool for
harassment." The judge's order was affirmed on appeal.

Bar court Judge Nancy Roberts Lonsdale said Stimac's arguments in his trial brief were rambling and
incoherent and found the federal courts had given him a fair hearing.

She said he engaged in frivolous and unjust litigation, filed a frivolous lawsuit in bad faith for
the purpose of harassing and maliciously injuring the defendants and that his conduct amounted to
moral turpitude. In addition, Lonsdale said Stimac made unfounded claims in the lawsuit and that by
his actions, he failed to maintain respect due to the courts.

Stimac harassed a Department of Education employee, files or threatens litigation against anyone who
attempts to curb his misconduct and "is not behaving in a professional manner," Lonsdale said. "He
abuses court processes to harass and punish those whom he perceives to be his enemies."

ROBERT BRUCE AYRES [#84922], 49, of Hawyard was disbarred Aug. 17, 2000, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Ayres failed to complete probation
requirements attached to two different disciplinary orders. He failed to pay restitution, attend
remedial schooling or file quarterly probation reports. He has been actually suspended since 1994
for his continued failure to make restitution.

In addition, Ayres has two other disciplines, the first in 1994 as a result of multiple acts of
professional misconduct, including failure to communicate with clients and serious trust account
violations. He never made the required showing of rehabilitation.

HENRY DENNIS CRUZ [#129047], 43, of Saratoga was summarily disbarred Aug. 17, 2000, and was ordered

to comply with rule 955.

An attorney may be summarily disbarred if convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude per se.

Cruz was convicted in 1999 of passing a check issued on insufficient funds with intent to defraud.

Although the State Bar Court's review department noted that two summary disbarment cases are under
review by the Supreme Court, it made the disbarment recommendation because the statute in question
remains in effect.

DOUGLASS EDWARD HUBERT [#32173], 64, of Monterey was disbarred Aug. 17, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

In two consolidated default proceedings, the State Bar Court found that Hubert failed to meet the
requirements of a 1998 disciplinary order. He did not submit to the Supreme Court an affidavit
stating that he notified all clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his suspension
from practice, as required by rule 955. Nor did he make restitution to a client, reimburse the
Client Security Fund, submit five quarterly probation reports, attend ethics school or notify the
bar of his change of address.

The underlying discipline was the result of Hubert's failure to perform legal services competently,
adequately communicate with a client, refund unearned fees and return client files and improper
withdrawal from employment.

LEE SHERMAN MEYER [#174820], 31, of San Diego was summarily disbarred Aug. 17, 2000, and was ordered

to comply with rule 955.

Meyer was convicted in 1998 of one count of forgery and one count of burglary of an inhabited
dwelling, both felonies.

Forgery involves moral turpitude. Although the bar court relied on a non-attorney discipline case in
deciding burglary is a felony involving moral turpitude, it found that "a fundamentally deceitful
act demonstrating a readiness to do evil clearly falls within the definition of moral turpitude for
attorney disciplinary purposes."

PETER RIND VAN PETTEN [#94396], 48, of Santa Monica was disbarred Aug. 17, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Van Petten misappropriated client funds, did
not pay settlement funds to medical providers, allowed the balance in his client trust account to
fall below the required amount and did not respond to his client's requests for information. He also
did not cooperate with the bar's investigation of his actions.

Van Petten had settled a personal injury matter for $50,000 in 1996, ultimately giving his client
$22,801. He paid the client's medical bills with his own funds and misappropriated $23,333.49 from
the client.

Van Petten was disciplined in 1999 in another default proceeding.

SUSPENSIONS/PROBATION
The probation of MICHAEL NEWTON ALEXANDER [#105279], 44, of Rancho Cucamonga was revoked, the
previously ordered stay of suspension was lifted, he was suspended for one year and until he proves
his rehabilitation, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. Credit toward the suspension shall be
given for a period of involuntary inactive enrollment which began April 1, 2000. The order took
effect July 2, 2000.

Alexander was disciplined in August 1999, but failed to comply with the conditions of his probation.

That discipline resulted from Alexander's failure to keep a client informed of significant events
and not responding to another client's inquiries, and for failing to properly withdraw from a case,
account for funds, perform legal services competently, promptly return a client's file or cooperate

with the bar's investigation.

Among the conditions of probation he did not meet were requirements that he submit quarterly
probation reports, submit a law office organization plan and submit declarations regarding three
clients. He was to provide an accounting to one client and submit the matter for arbitration if the
client disputed the accounting, he was to pay a $1,500 judgment in another case, and in the third
matter, he was to resolve the underlying issues in a lawsuit filed against him.

BEN D. COOPER [#97494], 53, of San Diego was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on two years
of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect July 2, 2000.

Cooper stipulated to misconduct in two matters.

In the first, he was hired by a client to handle three different matters and to disburse funds
received in settlements and stipulated judgments. In May 1997, he received a check for almost
$23,000 on behalf of his client, but did not provide an accounting for a month and gave his client
only $10,000 of the money.

When he did not account for the remaining funds, the client fired him. Cooper never gave the client
any additional funds and acknowledged that his fees did not exceed the remaining $13,000. He
stipulated that he did not release client funds and did not provide an accounting.

In the second matter, Cooper guaranteed his client a net recovery of $5,000 if her personal injury
case settled. Cooper said he would try to negotiate reduced medical liens and would pay those liens
from the remainder of the settlement.

He received $10,500 in settlement funds, gave $5,000 to the client and paid three of four liens. He
asked the fourth doctor to reduce his bill by 50 percent, as the other lienholders had done, from
$2,053, to $1,026.50.

The doctor said that prior to the settlement, he advised Cooper's client he would reduce his bill by
only 20 percent. He told Cooper he would accept payment of $1,642.40 as reduced payment, but only if
a check were received within 72 hours. Cooper sent no payment.

The doctor eventually sued Cooper in small claims court and won a judgment which Cooper was late in
appealing. The judgment amounted to $2,258.30 as principal, $50 as costs and a $200 sanction which
had been ordered earlier.

Cooper tried to negotiate the judgment with the doctor, who rejected his offer of $2,053 as full
payment. Cooper did not pay either the judgment or the sanction.

He stipulated that he failed to promptly pay a medical lienholder.

In mitigation, the billing information in the first case was lost by Cooper's computer system,
delaying his ability to provide an accounting. He has no record of discipline since his 1981
admission to the bar, and he cooperated with the bar's investigation.

CHARLES A. DeCUIR JR. [#99217], 50, of Sacramento was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with a 60-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year. The order took effect July 2, 2000.

DeCuir stipulated to misconduct related to his handling of client funds in two matters.

In the first, he settled a personal injury case for more than $53,000, deposited the funds in his
client trust account, paid his client what she was due and told her he needed to keep more than
$15,000 in trust to pay her medical bills. However, he allowed the balance in the account to fall
far below the required amount. After depositing funds from his operating account, he paid nine
medical providers on his client's behalf, some more than a year after the case was settled.

In a civil case, which he settled for $225,000, DeCuir paid some medical liens but did not pay a
hospital bill of about $37,000. He eventually satisfied the lien, but allowed the balance in his
trust account to fall below the required amount.

In both matters, he stipulated that he failed to pay medical liens promptly or maintain settlement
funds in trust. In the first case, he also commingled funds.

In mitigation, in the first matter, DeCuir continued to pursue a reduction in the amounts of medical
bills and won a refund for his client. In the second case, he made restitution to the hospital. He
did not use funds for his own benefit in either case.

DeCuir also demonstrated his rehabilitation and remorse, cooperated with the bar's investigation and
has no record of prior discipline since his 1981 admission to the bar.

DAVID J. EDLOW [#160199], 44, of Santa Rosa was suspended for four years, stayed, placed on four
years of probation with an actual two-year suspension, and was ordered to make restitution, prove
his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect July 2, 2000.

Edlow stipulated to misconduct in four matters, involving his handling of client funds.

In one matter, he commingled personal and client funds in his client trust account and wrote five
checks against insufficient funds.

In three matters, he properly deposited settlement monies in his client trust account and paid his
clients what they were owed, but he failed to pay medical liens and allowed the balance in his trust
account to fall below the required amount. He stipulated to three counts of misappropriating the
proceeds of settlement drafts, amounting to about $15,000. Misappropriation is an act of moral
turpitude.

In another case, he failed to have a settlement draft properly endorsed and deposited in his trust
account; the check was then canceled by the insurance company. He also did not pay the medical
lienholder in that matter.

In mitigation, Edlow's financial situation as a sole practitioner was extremely tenuous at the time
of his misconduct and he was looking for a more dependable source of income. He also cooperated with
the bar's investigation.

GABRIEL FREDERICK FAGIANI [#156043], 35, of Encino was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on
three years of probation with an actual two-year suspension and until he makes restitution and
proves his rehabilitation, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took
effect July 2, 2000.

The State Bar Court found that Fagiani committed misconduct in two matters and that the facts and
circumstances surrounding a conviction for trespass involved moral turpitude.

In the first matter, Fagiani represented a client in a personal injury case and settled the case for
$11,000. He gave the client $3,200 as her share, kept $4,000 as his fee and wrote a check for $2,000
to a chiropractor. That check bounced, however, and the court found Fagiani's explanation not
credible. He had testified that the chiropractor agreed to not cash the check for several days,
waiting for the settlement check to clear, but then negotiated the check early. Bank records did not
support Fagiani's testimony about when he deposited the funds.

In the second matter, Fagiani did not pay his client's share of settlement funds, nor did he respond
to calls or a letter. When the client moved and instructed Fagiani to pay the funds to his mother,
Fagiani claimed he paid the mother $940 in cash and produced a receipt he said she signed.

The mother denied receiving any funds and a handwriting expert said the signature on the receipt did
not match the mother's signature.

The client died before receiving any funds.

In a third matter, Fagiani was accused of shoplifting at Disneyland and was charged with petty
theft. When he failed to appear in court, a bench warrant was issued, he appeared, was cited for
contempt and was fined $250.

Fagiani eventually pleaded no contest to trespass but said the plea was made for purposes of
expediency rather than because he was guilty. He was placed on informal probation and was ordered to
pay a $940 fine. His claim to have paid the fine in cash was disputed by a court accounting manager,
who also said the receipt he presented was not a court receipt.

The bar court found Fagiani's explanation of how the item from Disneyland (a $38 Snow White figurine
of "Happy" the dwarf) came to be in his possession not credible and concluded he took it without
paying for it.

In mitigation, Fagiani admitted he made mistakes and stated that he had taken steps to rectify his
trust accounting problems. He voluntarily attended the bar's trust accounting school.

The court found, however, "several instances of fabrication" by Fagiani and noted that one client
died waiting to receive his share of settlement funds.

JOHN ALAN GOALWIN [#70974], 51, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation and
take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect July 2, 2000.

Goalwin stipulated to 11 counts of misconduct in six matters.

He failed to refund an unearned fee or promptly return client files, allowed the balance in his
client trust account to fall below the required amount, paid client medical bills late, placed
settlement funds in his personal checking account instead of a client trust account, failed to
provide an accounting of client funds, misappropriated client money, commingled personal and client
funds, and failed to properly maintain his client trust account.

In a child support action, he did not verify a verbal agreement he had made with the district
attorney and a default judgment was entered against his client, ordering monthly support payments of
$1,025.

He failed to perform legal services in a lawsuit for the collection of a real estate broker's
commission. He learned his client did not have a valid claim, but did not withdraw from the case.
Instead, he allowed the matter to be lost through two motions for summary judgment which he did not
oppose. Judgment was entered against his client in the amount of $2,625, and Goalwin did not notify
the client for 10 weeks.

In mitigation, Goalwin has no record of discipline since his 1976 admission to the bar, and he
served on the board of directors of a foundation which operates three drug and alcohol
rehabilitation programs in Los Angeles.

VICTOR R. LAWHORN [#83596], 47, of Oakland was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his
rehabilitation. The order took effect July 2, 2000.

Lawhorn handled a case until it was transferred from superior to municipal court, and then he failed
to do any more work on the matter or to withdraw from employment. As a result, the matter was never
completed.

Disciplined in 1997 for failing to perform legal services competently or return a file promptly,
Lawhorn did not complete any of the probation requirements. He failed to turn in a single quarterly
report or a final report, did not attend ethics school and did not take the professional
responsibility exam.

Lawhorn also was disciplined in 1987 for the negligent misappropriation of client funds.

In mitigation, he had severe family problems which required him to be out of the state for extended
periods of time, he completed the probation conditions required by the 1997 discipline, and he
stipulated to a civil judgment against him in favor of his former client.

ALFRED ABRAHAM LEVITT [#113453], 41, of Citrus Heights was suspended for two years, stayed, placed
on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within
one year. The order took effect July 2, 2000.

In 1997, Levitt was convicted in Orange County of the unauthorized practice of law and driving with
a suspended license.

He had been suspended in 1995 for failing to pay bar dues. Eight months into the suspension, Levitt
successfully applied for a position as a part-time in-house counsel for a small business and
disclosed his ineligibility to practice. His employer agreed to pay Levitt's bar dues but could not
do so immediately. In the meantime, however, he had an immediate legal problem which Levitt handled
by doing research, providing advice regarding legal strategy, preparing a brief and appearing in
court. Prior to the appearance, he disclosed his status to opposing counsel, who informed the judge.
The judge did not strike the pleadings Levitt filed, prohibit his appearance, impose sanctions or
hold Levitt in contempt. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Levitt's client.

His employer paid his bar dues and Levitt was reinstated as a member of the bar.

Levitt argued that he should not be disciplined because his suspension was administrative in nature,
he disclosed it fully and was reinstated to practice one day after his court appearance. The State
Bar Court, however, noted he was convicted of unauthorized practice, but even without a conviction,
he violated the statute prohibiting the practice of law while suspended.

In recommending suspension rather than disbarment, the court took into account "the totality of the
circumstances, including the absence of a prior record of discipline and the absence of aggravating
factors."

VITA MARIE MANDALLA [#105200], 48, of Woodland was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect July 2,
2000.

A deputy district attorney in Yolo County, Mandalla was the prosecutor in a murder trial involving
three defendants. The first trial ended in a mistrial, and a decision was made to prosecute the
defendants separately.

A witness in both trials changed his testimony in an interview in Mandalla's office. She instructed
an investigator not to write a summary of the interview and said she would inform defense counsel
about what was said. Although she told the other attorney about three new pieces of information
which came to light in the interview, she did not disclose a key statement which surfaced in
testimony the following day.

Mandalla stipulated that she failed to perform legal services competently and she suppressed
evidence she had a legal obligation to reveal. As a result of her misconduct, the trial was delayed
and the court was required to hold hearings on the issue of her misconduct.

In mitigation, she has no record of prior discipline, she cooperated with the bar's investigation
and she is active in her church.

DAVID PAUL RITZINGER [#80589], 49, of Novato was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with a two-year actual suspension, and was ordered to make restitution and prove
his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect July 2, 2000.

The State Bar Court found that Ritzinger committed misconduct involving eight clients as well as
misconduct with respect to television advertisements. Included in the courts' findings were five
acts of moral turpitude, four counts of failing to return an unearned fee, three counts of failing
to communicate with clients, two counts of charging an unconscionable fee and one count of failing
to properly account for advanced fees.

Ritzinger ran a series of 30-second television commercials in 1994 and 1995 advertising his services
as a family and criminal lawyer. The bar court found that some of the disclaimers could not be
easily read or understood and therefore the advertising was misleading.

Ritzinger operated several law offices in the Bay Area, marketing his services to people of limited
means. The court found that when his business grew quickly, he lost control of the practice,
non-lawyers gave legal advice and financial decisions were made by employees who did not consult
with Ritzinger. "As a result, a system set up to benefit lower-income clients turned against those
very clients," wrote Judge Eugene Brott.

Clients frequently came to Ritzinger's offices and signed up for what they believed were flat fee
contracts. Bills were not sent for long periods of time and then the client was informed that a bill
had skyrocketed. When the client was unable to pay the extra, unexpected charges, Ritzinger's firm
filed motions alleging that the client had provided a check which was dishonored. Although Ritzinger
testified that his firm did not use a standard form for such an allegation, the court found that
several identical forms were filed in one day. It found that Ritzinger's "grossly negligent
supervision of his staff" led to the filing of a materially false declaration.

One client, for example, retained the firm to handle a family law matter. She said she was in dire
financial straits and on welfare. The woman was told there would be a flat fee of $1,290 to handle
her matter. The contract, however, provided for a minimum, non-refundable initial retainer of $1,290
and an hourly attorney billing rate of $225.

Several months later, the client received a bill for $5,532. Less the $1,290, she owed $4,242. The
client refused to sign a substitution of attorney form and next received a notice of motion to
withdraw. She and her husband eventually signed a stipulated judgment prepared by an attorney in the
Ritzinger firm, but also received a final bill for $5,836.

The court found Ritzinger charged an unconscionable fee, failed to keep the client informed of a
significant development in her case (the huge fee), and that the threats to withdraw amounted to
moral turpitude.

"In its totality," Brott wrote, "this case presents a somewhat unpleasant picture of the
establishment of a legal 'mill' of which [Ritzinger] lost control."

In mitigation, Ritzinger made efforts to change his practices and his contracts, he stopped
advertising and he cooperated with a monitor appointed to oversee his practices.

ELLEN MAFRED ROLLINS [#96626], 44, of Long Beach was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on four
years of probation with an actual 90-day suspension, and was ordered to prove her rehabilitation,
take the MPRE within two years and comply with rule 955. The order took effect July 2, 2000.

Rollins did not comply with the probation conditions attached to two discipline orders requiring her
to make restitution to a client in the amount of $2,500. She did comply with the other conditions.

The discipline initially arose as a result of Rollins' failure to perform legal services competently
or refund unearned fees. She also was privately reproved in 1992 for a misdemeanor conviction for
driving without a license.

In mitigation, Rollins cooperated with the bar's investigation and has been unable to make
restitution because of continuing financial hardship.

EARL F. TRITT III [#141754], 45, of Poway was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years
of probation with an actual one-year suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with
rule 955. The order took effect July 2, 2000.

In 1998, Tritt pleaded guilty to one count of driving under the influence, with one prior.

He was privately reproved in 1992 for his second DUI conviction, and in 1994, he was disciplined for
failing to comply with the conditions attached to the reproval, including failing to file two
quarterly reports on time and failing to submit proof of enrollment in the bar's alcohol program. He
also violated professional rules regarding maintaining client funds in trust and committed an act of
moral turpitude - misappropriation.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation.

ALLEN DALE WEST [#134456], 45, of Redondo Beach was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one
year of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year.
The order took effect July 2, 2000.

West was charged with 16 felony counts of insurance fraud, grand theft and money laundering in 1994.
He pleaded no contest to a single misdemeanor violation of the Insurance Code for what is commonly
called capping, the offering or accepting of inducements for referrals of clients and cases.

He has no record of discipline.

IAN G. LOCKHON [#170081], 36, of San Diego was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on two years
of probation with an actual 90-day suspension and until he makes restitution, and was ordered to
take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years,
he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect July 9, 2000.

Lockhon stipulated that he commingled funds in his client trust account, wrote checks for personal
and business expenses on the account, wrote checks to "cash" numerous times, allowed his health club
dues to be debited from the account, and wrote two checks against insufficient funds in the account.

Because his actions diffused the nature of his client trust account so creditors or other third
parties could not readily identify it, he endangered client funds and his actions constituted
dishonesty involving moral turpitude.

Lockhon stipulated that in a second matter, he improperly withdrew from representation without
protecting his client's interests and he failed to refund unearned fees. In that matter, he withdrew
from the case after discovery deadlines and after a date set for his client's deposition, forcing
his client to represent herself in those matters as well as at a case management hearing and a
scheduled mediation.

In mitigation, Lockhon has no record of discipline since his 1994 admission to the bar and he
cooperated with the investigation.

DAVID MICHAEL SALENTINE [#92312], 57, of San Francisco was suspended for one year, stayed, and
placed on one year of probation. The order took effect July 9, 2000.

Salentine stipulated that he failed to comply with the conditions attached to a 1998 private
reproval. He filed five quarterly probation reports late, filed proof of attendance at Alcoholics
Anonymous meetings late, and made restitution payments late. At the time of his stipulation, he
still owed the remainder of the restitution.

TACY EVA TULLY [#166781], 33, of Chico was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of

probation with an actual 30-day suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The

order took effect July 9, 2000.

Tully stipulated that she misled the court by denying she had told a client he could withdraw his
plea.

Tully represented a criminal defendant who had five pending cases. When the district attorney
offered to settle one of the pending cases and her client rejected the offer, Tully broke the news
that his girlfriend was expecting twins. She then relayed another settlement offer and encouraged
her client to accept it. Tully's client said she told him he could withdraw his plea at a later time
on the grounds that the news about the twins caused him stress. The client then accepted the plea
offer.

The client's father said Tully told him that evening that the client had an "out" - the news about
the twins - if he wanted to change his plea.

When the client later tried to withdraw his plea, the court ordered a hearing, and Tully admitted
telling her client about the twins but denied telling him he could change his plea later. The court
did not accept her testimony.

In mitigation, she has no record of discipline since her 1993 admission to the bar and she

cooperated with the bar's investigation.

GREGORY STEVEN EMERY, [#91861], 48, of Auburn was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with an actual 45-day suspension, and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation,
make restitution and take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect July 14, 2000.

Emery stipulated to 13 counts of misconduct in four consolidated cases.

In a conservatorship and probate matter, Emery collected fees without court approval, collected an
illegal fee, and failed to file an accounting on time, and then filed an inaccurate accounting,
failed to prepare an order or take any action in a conservatorship proceeding, and failed to perform
legal services competently in the probate matter. Emery also failed to pay two surcharges imposed on
him as a result of his actions.

In a second probate matter, Emery failed to perform legal services or communicate with his client,
and he did not deliver entrusted funds for nearly four years. Although he did not file required
court papers, he did issue an account check to his client representing her one-third interest in the
sale proceeds of her mother's real estate. For the next two years, Emery took no other significant
steps in the probate proceeding.

He did not keep appointments, did not provide documents to his client, had no written communication
with his client for three years, and failed to file a final accounting and petition for partial
distribution on time, causing the court to postpone a hearing seven times.

Emery stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently in two divorce matters; he
closed his law offices without completing the cases or arranging for new counsel for his clients.

In mitigation, Emery has no prior record of discipline, he cooperated with the bar's investigation
and he was suffering extreme emotional difficulties at the time of the misconduct. He was caring for
his father, who had a brain tumor and eventually died.

GERALD FINK [#34969], 65, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years
of probation with a one-year actual suspension, and was ordered to make restitution, take the MPRE
and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his
rehabilitation. The order took effect July 14, 2000.

Fink stipulated that he failed to maintain client funds in his client trust account and he
misappropriated more than $8,000 from a client.

The misconduct resulted from a personal injury claim Fink and his partner settled for $15,000. He
deposited the insurance draft in his client trust account, but did not disburse any of the funds. He
allowed the balance in the account to fall below the required amount.

Nine months after receiving the funds, he gave his client just over $5,000 and said he was keeping
about $3,500 to reimburse an insurance company for medical expenses. He never made the reimbursement
and told his client's daughter he did not have enough money to make the reimbursement.

Fink has been disciplined three times previously. He misappropriated client funds and failed to
provide an accounting in one matter, and in another, he failed to perform legal services
competently, keep a client informed about developments in a case, promptly return client files and
pay out client funds, did not avoid interests adverse to a client, improperly withdrew from
employment, and committed acts of moral turpitude.

His probation in the second case was extended.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation.

RAYMOND ROY LEE [#149316], 45, of Lincoln Acres was suspended for 30 days, stayed, placed on two
years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect July 14,
2000.

Lee stipulated that he committed an act of petty theft, a crime involving moral turpitude, by taking
four toy scale metal airplanes from a Long's drug store without paying for them. He pleaded guilty
to one count of trespassing.

In mitigation, Lee has no record of prior discipline and he was suffering from extreme emotional
difficulties at the time of the misconduct. He cooperated with the bar's investigation.

DAVID LYNN [73718], 53, of Los Angeles was suspended for 60 days, stayed, and was placed on 18
months of probation. The order took effect July 14, 2000

Lynn stipulated to misconduct in two matters.

He did not communicate with his clients, provide timely responses to discovery or notify his clients
they were to appear for depositions in an action involving an automobile accident. As a result, they
were sanctioned $750.

In the second matter, Lynn did not comply with conditions attached to a 1998 probation; he submitted
quarterly reports late.

In mitigation, he could not clarify his probation requirements as a result of the 1998 shut-down of
most bar operations. His reports were submitted late as a result of uncertainty.

In the first matter, Lynn was informed by another attorney that the clients had hired new counsel
and his services were no longer needed. In fact, the attorney was representing the clients in a
different matter, but before the situation was clarified, the discovery sanctions had been obtained.
Lynn's failure to communicate with his clients was due in large part to his erroneous belief that he
was not authorized to act on behalf of his clients.

MARC A. DUXBURY [#140889], 38, of Carlsbad was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years
of probation with a six-month actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MRPE within one year
and comply with rule 955. The order took effect July 19, 2000.

State Bar prosecutors sought an increase in the actual suspension recommended by a bar court hearing
judge from 120 days to one year. Duxbury, who asserted in the hearing department that his misconduct
warranted only a reproval, argued before the review department that a 120-day suspension was
appropriate.

Duxbury was convicted in 1997 of a misdemeanor violation of the Insurance Code, prohibiting offering
compensation for the referral of clients. He accepted one matter from an undercover police officer.

The review judge reduced the level of mitigation but upheld the aggravating circumstances found by
the hearing department. As a result, the actual suspension was increased to six months.

MICHAEL JAMES KISSINGER [#91584], 53, of San Francisco was suspended for two years, stayed, placed
on two years of probation with a one-year actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within
one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect July 19, 2000.

Kissinger was retained to represent a client in a wrongful death matter for a one-third contingent
fee. He told the client he was experienced in personal injury and wrongful death litigation when, in
fact, he had little or no experience in those areas.

Kissinger's client's ex-wife and mother of the decedent also was a claimant in the case and was
represented by counsel. Kissinger told his client he had reached an apportionment agreement with the
ex-wife dividing any settlement equally between them. In fact, he had reached no such agreement.
Believing a 50-50 arrangement had been worked out, Kissinger's client accepted a $450,000 settlement
offer. Following an apportionment hearing, however, he was awarded $100,000.

Kissinger's misrepresentations amounted to moral turpitude.

After his client fired him, Kissinger filed a lien for attorney's fees of $150,000. He later told
his client he could request a fee arbitration and said he would seek fees of $75,000. Following an
arbitration hearing, Kissinger's fees were determined to be $2,925.65.

He stipulated that he charged an unconscionable fee.

In mitigation, he had no prior discipline and he cooperated with the bar's investigation.

MICHAEL JOSEPH ACKERMAN [#104170], 44, of Palo Alto was suspended for five years, stayed, and was
actually suspended for three years and until he proves his rehabilitation, makes restitution, and
the State Bar Court grants a motion to end the suspension. He must comply with any probation
conditions imposed at that time, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Aug.
17, 2000.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found Ackerman committed multiple acts of misconduct,
including entering into unfair business transactions with two clients, committing acts of moral
turpitude in two client matters, failing to perform legal services for one client, and failing to
cooperate with three bar investigations of his actions.

In one matter, Ackerman obtained two loans, totaling $8,000, from a client but did not put the terms
of the loans in writing, did not provide a promissory note, did not offer an agreement for payment
of interest despite the fact that the client obtained the money from a cash advance on his credit
card and had to pay interest, did not provide any security and did not set a date for repayment.

The client fired Ackerman and obtained a default judgment for repayment of the loan; no money has
been repaid.

In a medical malpractice case, Ackerman failed to appear at five case management hearings and one
status review hearing, leading to the court's dismissal of the action. For 14 months, he told the
clients the case was still viable and said he was engaged in settlement negotiations, acts of moral
turpitude. When he was fired, he delayed two months before returning his clients' file. He did not
cooperate with the bar's investigation.

Ackerman borrowed $16,000 from another client, who signed two promissory notes stating that Ackerman
had advised him he could seek independent legal advice when, in fact, he had not done so. Ackerman
provided no security for either loan. When he made his first loan payment 16 months later, the check
bounced and the client obtained a default judgment against Ackerman, who has not repaid any of the
loan.

His misrepresentations constituted moral turpitude.

Ackerman has no record of discipline in 12 years of practice.

GEORGE A. BAKER [#146479], 49, of Modesto was suspended for one year, stayed, and was actually
suspended for 30 days and until he attends ethics school and the State Bar Court grants a motion to
end the suspension. He must comply with any probation conditions ordered at that time, take the MPRE
and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his
rehabilitation. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2000.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Baker did not comply with the terms of a
1997 disciplinary order by failing to attend ethics school or take the professional responsibility
exam.

The original discipline resulted from one count of client abandonment.

DAVE MICHAEL BARELA [#102601], 48, of Diamond Bar was suspended for 60 days, stayed, placed on two
years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Aug. 17,
2000.

Barela stipulated that in a personal injury matter, he failed to maintain settlement funds in a
client trust account, promptly pay a medical provider, respond to status inquiries from his client
or keep the client informed of developments in his case.

Barela assigned the file in the case to a paralegal who did not pay a discounted medical lien.
Barela was unaware the payment had not been made and paid the full amount himself. He also was
unaware of the client's efforts to contact him.

In mitigation, he has no record of discipline, he acted in good faith and his client was not harmed.

ANGELA BARSEGHIAN [#140852], 46, of Los Angeles was suspended for 60 days, stayed, placed on one
year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Aug. 17,
2000.

Barseghian stipulated that she withdrew from employment without protecting her clients' interests,
failed to comply with a court-ordered sanction and did not report the sanction to the State Bar.

She represented several clients in a personal injury case, but eventually withdrew from the case
because of other commitments. For an unexplained reason, substitution of attorney forms were
executed for two clients but not two others, and Barseghian was unaware that not all the forms were
received by the court clerk.

Subsequently, a court order in the matter was sent to Barseghian, but she had moved and does not
recall ever seeing the order. She missed a hearing, was sanctioned and did not pay the sanctions.
The case was dismissed.

Barseghian was disciplined in 1996 for failing to promptly pay out client funds.

In mitigation, she has provided substantial pro bono work for individuals in the Russian Armenian
community, her office was disrupted because of asbestos problems in her building, she was forced to
move three times and her mail was rerouted.

THOMAS MAXIMUS CONNOLLY III [#68777], 54, of San Diego was suspended for three years, stayed, placed
on three years of probation with an actual 30-month suspension, and was ordered to prove his
rehabilitation and take the MPRE within one year. Credit will be given for a period of interim
suspension which began July 1, 1997. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2000.

Connolly stipulated that convictions for two felonies and two misdemeanors all involved moral
turpitude .

He was convicted in 1997 of four criminal counts resulting from his involvement with a 14-year- old
girl: oral copulation of a person under 16 and committing a lewd act with a 14-year-old child, both
felonies; and soliciting prostitution and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, both
misdemeanors.

He has no record of prior discipline.

JOSEPH LESTER COWAN JR. [#55559], 60, of Berkeley was suspended for four years, stayed, placed on
four years of probation with an actual two-year suspension, and was ordered to prove his
rehabilitation, and take the MPRE. Credit will be given for the period of actual suspension which
began July 2, 1997. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2000.

In 1997, Cowan pleaded guilty to one felony and eight misdemeanors as a result of an accident on the
Golden Gate Bridge in which one individual died and seven others were injured. Cowan was not
adhering to his prescribed treatment for epilepsy and suffered a seizure just prior to the accident.

He was sentenced to four years in state prison and was ordered to pay $10,000 as a restitution fine
and more than $17,000 in fines to the victims. He paid the restitution.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation, demonstrated remorse and presented
testimony attesting to his good character and involvement in charitable and community affairs.

The probation of KIM CALDER HAYES [#133757], 50, of Berkeley was revoked, the previous stay of
suspension was lifted, and he was actually suspended for five months and ordered to prove his
rehabilitation in one matter, and actually suspended for 11 months in another matter, to run
consecutively. He also was ordered to attend ethics school and comply with rule 955. Credit toward
the actual suspension will be given for a period of involuntary inactive enrollment which began Jan.
21, 2000. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2000.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Hayes failed to comply with two 1998
disciplinary orders; he did not file quarterly probation reports on time. The underlying discipline
was the result of failing to respond to a client's reasonable inquiries, perform legal services
competently, promptly return client files or refund unearned fees and for improperly withdrawing
from a case.

DEBORAH G. LEVINSON [#123773], 40, of West Hills was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on
probation for three years with an actual two-year suspension, was ordered to make restitution to
four individuals, prove her rehabilitation, attend ethics school and the bar's trust accounting
class, provide a written statement from a mental health professional, take the MPRE and comply with
rule 955. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2000.

In 1996, Levinson stipulated to misconduct in 21 consolidated matters. She stipulated that she
failed to comply with probation conditions in at least 15 separate respects - failure to submit 11
quarterly reports and three mental health reports and failure to take the trust fund record-keeping
class.

The discipline was the result of failing to perform legal services competently, respond to client
inquiries or provide former clients with their files and withdrawing from employment without
protecting her clients' interests. She also was disciplined in 1993 for failing to perform legal
services, communicate with clients or promptly pay medical providers.

In mitigation, she has severe financial problems and since the motion to revoke her probation was
filed, she has been cooperative.

CHARLES LUKE McKISSACK [#33526], 63, of Los Angeles was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on
actual suspension for two years and until he makes restitution and returns all documents to a former
client, proves his rehabilitation and the State Bar Court approves a motion to terminate the actual
suspension. He also was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with any probation conditions that may
be ordered upon termination of the actual suspension. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2000.

McKissack was ordered as part of a 1997 discipline to make restitution of $10,000 plus interest to a
former client and to return his papers and other property within 45 days. He did not do so, nor did
he file quarterly probation reports or attend ethics school, also conditions of probation.

The underlying discipline was the result of failure to perform legal services competently,
communicate significant developments to his client, return unearned fees of about $10,000, return
client papers, render an accounting or cooperate with the bar's investigation.

McKissack did not participate in the proceedings.

JOHN JOSEPH McNAMARA [#80407], 49, of Ventura was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on one
year of probation with an order that he make restitution, and was ordered to take the MPRE within
one year. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2000.

McNamara stipulated that he failed to properly administer his client trust account, maintain client
funds in his trust account or respond to client inquiries.

A client paid McNamara $500 as an advance fee and a $185 "filing charge" to litigate a defamation of
character case. McNamara never filed the suit and the client requested a return of the $185.
McNamara did not refund any money and allowed the balance in his trust account to fall below the
required amount.

He did not respond to his client's requests for a refund and complaints that he had performed no
work on the case.

In mitigation, he has no prior discipline and he cooperated with the bar's investigation.

CORRECTIONS
John Collier Pyle [#98212] was suspended in June for 30 months. The length of suspension was
incorrect in the October issue of the California Bar Journal.

Also, a report that Rory D. Izsak [#119861] was suspended for failure to pass the professional
responsibility exam was incorrect. He took and passed the exam on time and was not suspended.

[Open FleshWound]

Oct 2000

CAUTION!
Nearly 171,125 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the same

names. All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court documents and should be read carefully
for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.

DISBARMENTS
INDERJEET SINGH AULAKH [#47411], 68, of Visalia was disbarred July 2, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court.

Aulakh did not comply with a rule 955 requirement in a1999 discipline order; he did not file an
affidavit with the Supreme Court stating that he had notified his clients and other pertinent
parties of his suspension from practice. Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment.

The original discipline was the result of Aulakh's abandonment of an incarcerated client and a
failure to account for or return unearned fees.

In recommending disbarment, State Bar Court Judge Nancy Roberts Lonsdale also pointed out that
Aulakh did not participate in the proceedings, "which raises a grave concern that he has no regard
whatsoever for his professional obligations."

GERARD FRANKLIN CANEVARO [#74215], 55, of Santa Fe, N.M., was disbarred July 2, 2000, and was

ordered to comply with rule 955.

Canevaro failed to comply with rule 955, as required by a 1998 discipline order. He did not submit
to the Supreme Court an affidavit attesting that he notified his clients and other pertinent parties

of his suspension from practice.

He was disciplined in California after having been indefinitely suspended from practice in New
Mexico for failing to perform legal services on behalf of a client, relocating his office without
notifying his client and failing to return client files, including medical records.

His misconduct in New Mexico was found to violate California rules, including failure to competently
perform legal services, return client files, communicate with a client and cooperate with a bar
investigation.

Canevaro did not participate in proceedings in either state, leading to defaults.

JAIME V. LOPEZ [#134226], 46, of Los Angeles was disbarred July 2, 2000, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

Lopez misappropriated $25,000 in client funds received as settlement of a personal injury case.
Although he deposited the funds in his client trust account, he allowed the balance to fall to a
negative amount.

On behalf of three clients, he wrote checks against insufficient funds to medical providers.

The State Bar Court found that Lopez failed to notify a client of his receipt of client funds,
failed to maintain the funds in his client trust account, misappropriated client funds, wrote bad
checks and committed acts of moral turpitude. He also did not maintain a current address with the
State Bar.

In recommending Lopez' disbarment, Judge Carlos Velarde noted that his actions were connected to the
practice of law and "it is this type of conduct which particularly undermines the public's
confidence in the legal profession and which this court does not take lightly."

SUSPENSIONS/PROBATION
RALPH S. BRANSCOM [#53209], 56, of San Diego was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on three
years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect June 7,
2000.

Branscom stipulated to four counts of misconduct in two cases.

In the first, he failed to perform legal services competently or respond to his client's inquiries
in a patent application. Despite advance payment, he did no work on the application, failed to
attend a meeting about his lack of progress, and never filed the application. He did not return his
client's numerous phone calls.

Branscom stipulated to similar misconduct in another patent application he was hired to prepare and
file in January 1995. He did not respond to four letters and 19 phone calls, and in May 1996, a
member of his staff told the client the firm was dissolving and Branscom's whereabouts were unknown.
Branscom spoke to the client at some point that month and said he would not meet with him.

The client submitted a petition for an extension of time to the Patent Trademark Office. In November
1996, Branscom filed the patent application and followed it to the point at which a fee was due. He
did not pay the fee.

In mitigation, Branscom is a former president of the San Diego Patent Law Association and twice
chaired the local bar association's client relations committee. He has no record of discipline.

DENNIS R. CONSTANT [#85119], 47, of Upland was suspended for 30 days, stayed, placed on one year of
probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect June 7, 2000.

Constant did not timely comply with the terms of a 1997 private reproval: he filed quarterly
probation reports, made restitution and attended ethics school after the required deadlines.

In mitigation, he did not practice law, was earning a minimal salary, and could not make restitution
because of financial hardship.

The original discipline was the result of Constant's failure to perform legal services competently,
refund unearned fees, keep clients informed about developments in their case and cooperate with the
bar's investigation.

JOHN DAVID RANDOLPH [#87613], 57, of San Jose was suspended for one year, stayed, and was placed on
one year of probation with an actual 30-day suspension. The order took effect June 7, 2000.

Randolph stipulated that he misused or mismanaged his client trust account and commingled personal
and client funds. He deposited and maintained personal funds in the account, wrote checks to himself
not related to the payment of attorney fees, and wrote checks against insufficient funds in the
account.

He kept no client funds in the account since he was suspended from practice from February 1997 to
February 1998.

In mitigation, no clients were harmed, Randolph suffered family and financial problems and he took
steps in recognition of his wrongdoing.

The original discipline was imposed for splitting fees with a nonlawyer, mishandling client funds

and failing to cooperate with the bar's investigation.

ARTHUR F. SILBER [#130768], 52, of Los Angeles was suspended for four years, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with an actual one-year suspension, and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation,
take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect June 7, 2000.

Silber stipulated that he failed to comply with the probation conditions attached to two
disciplinary orders. He did not attend ethics school, submit five quarterly probation reports,
submit evidence that he obtained mental health treatment or furnish proof that he had not practiced
law while suspended. He committed a total of 15 probation violations.

Silber had been disciplined for failure to perform legal services competently, keep clients informed
about developments in their cases, return client property and cooperate with a bar investigation,

and he improperly withdrew from employment.

In mitigation, Silber states that his noncompliance was due in significant part to his previously
undiagnosed alcoholism. He now is sober and attends regular AA meetings.

MICHAEL B. SPIZER [#35211], 63, of Los Angeles was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension and was ordered to comply with rule 955. The
order took effect June 7, 2000.

Spizer was suspended from practice from January to March 1998. Because he was living in a "sober
living" situation, he did not receive notice of the suspension immediately.

He practiced law while suspended, making court appearances in a case he had accepted before his
suspension. He said he had not received notice of his suspension at the time. He also had accepted a
$2,500 fee to represent his client.

Following one court appearance, Spizer entered an inpatient residential drug treatment program for a
28-day stay. Two days later, he was suspended for failing to pass the professional responsibility
exam, a probation condition which had been attached to an earlier discipline.

He missed several court appearances because he was living in the inpatient facility. He later
explained to the court his reason for missing the hearings. Spizer did not refund the unearned fee
until after a complaint was made to the State Bar.

Another client hired Spizer to represent him in a criminal matter, but when the client learned
Spizer was suspended, he declined the representation. Spizer said he could not refund the client's
advance fee because he did not have the money. He returned the money after learning that the client
filed a claim with the Client Security Fund.

Spizer has a record of three other disciplines. In 1990, he received a stayed suspension and
probation for failure to perform, communicate with clients or promptly return files. Following a
default hearing in 1997, he was again disciplined for two client abandonments. A year later, he
stipulated to misconduct that included accepting a fee while suspended and disclosing a confidence
while representing a client with whom he was romantically involved.

In mitigation, Spizer, who became a drug addict after the breakup of his marriage of 25 years, lives
in a residential treatment facility whose administrators report he is committed to sobriety. He
cooperated with the bar's investigation and he made restitution.

JOSEPH TRENK [#101459], 45, of Van Nuys was suspended for two years, stayed, and was placed on two
years of probation with a 30-day actual suspension and until he attends ethics school and completes
six MCLE hours in law practice management and six hours in legal ethics. If the actual suspension
exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 955, and if it exceeds two years, he must prove his
rehabilitation. The order took effect June 7, 2000.

Trenk failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 1997 public reproval - he submitted
four quarterly probation reports late and he did not attend ethics school or complete six hours each
of MCLE courses in ethics and law office management.

Trenk has two prior records of discipline. The public reproval was based on a failure to perform,
return the client's file or cooperate with the bar's investigation. In a 1998 case, he mishandled
four client matters by failing to perform or communicate with clients and in one instance, he failed
to obey a court order.

The court gave some mitigating weight to Trenk's family circumstances, which include his wife's
multiple sclerosis and his father's two bypass surgeries, and to the fact that he complied with
probation conditions either in part or late. The bar court also conceded that part of the discipline
order may have been confusing.

JOHN COLLIER PYLE [#98212], 53, of Lodi was suspended for four years, stayed, placed on four years
of probation with an actual 30-month suspension, and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation, take
the MPRE, attend ethics school and comply with rule 955. The order took effect June 9, 2000.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Pyle committed multiple acts of wrongdoing,
including trust account violations, writing bad checks, misappropriation, misrepresentation and
practicing law while suspended. His actions involved moral turpitude and dishonesty.

Pyle was publicly reproved in 1996, and although he made the required restitution, he did not take
the professional responsibility exam or attend ethics school.

In another count, the court found that he improperly used his client trust account as a personal
account by both writing personal checks and commingling personal and client funds. He also wrote
checks against insufficient funds and did not cooperate with the bar's investigation.

Pyle substituted into a civil action, but according to the court, he did not defend the action,
refund unearned fees, keep his client informed of any developments, and entered into a stipulated
judgment without his client's knowledge or consent. A default judgment in the case had been set
aside, and after Pyle filed an answer to the complaint, he did not conduct any discovery or take any
action to defend the case. Sanctions were issued against his client, but Pyle did not notify him. He
allowed facts against his client's interests to be admitted.

After not hearing from Pyle for seven months, the client went to his office and learned a trial date
had been set. He authorized Pyle to make a settlement offer of approximately $1,800 and paid Pyle
$250 to prepare "letters of discovery." No letters were prepared, no discovery was conducted and
Pyle agreed to a stipulated judgment of $4,500. When the client objected, Pyle said he would rectify
the situation by writing a letter to the judge.

When the client received his file, it contained a letter to the judge which had not been mailed and
a document which had been altered.

The client sued Pyle; a default judgment was entered when Pyle did not defend the action. He was
ordered to refund $1,000 to the client but did not do so.

In another case Pyle took on a contingency basis, he received and cashed a settlement check, but did
not place the money in his trust account. He repeatedly told his client there was a delay with the
draft clearing his account and did not disburse his funds for six months. The bar court found that
Pyle misappropriated client funds, made misrepresentations to a client, failed to place entrusted
funds in a trust account, and used the trust account for personal purposes.

Pyle also was the attorney of record in three cases and took action on those matters while he was
suspended for nonpayment of bar dues.

Pyle has a prior record of discipline.

ROBERT NEIL MARCUS [#158299], 37, of Los Angeles was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on
three years of probation with a one-year actual suspension, and was ordered to make restitution,
prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect June 11,
2000.

The State Bar Court found that in representing a client in a loss of consortium claim, Marcus
asserted a claim in bad faith to fees he was not owed, failed to deposit and maintain the disputed
fees in a client trust account although he had notice of pending tax liens against him and allowed
the funds to be taken by the IRS to satisfy his personal tax obligations and, in part, a default
judgment. He took no steps to have the levied funds released by the taxing authorities.

In addition, the court found, Marcus charged an unconscionable fee, claiming in excess of $28,000
for work the court valued at no more than $2,000 and for which he was awarded no fees in two
arbitrations.

The case began as a personal injury and loss of consortium claim by a couple who eventually
divorced. The divorce settlement provided the wife with spousal support of more than $72,000, plus 5
percent of any future net recovery received by the husband in his personal injury case.

When the wife hired Marcus to handle the loss of consortium claim, he was put on notice that his
contingency fee did not extend to the client's divorce settlement money, which had been agreed to
prior to his hiring.

The personal injury case settled in favor of Marcus' client and her ex-husband and the loss of
consortium claim settled for $100,000. Marcus had several discussions with the couple's personal
injury lawyer calculating the wife's 5 percent share of that settlement. They agreed she would
receive $82,480.79, which included the $72,000 from the divorce and another $10,000 representing her
share of the personal injury settlement less about $3,000 in costs.

When Marcus and the client received the $100,000 settlement in the loss of consortium case, he
claimed he was entitled to $61,826 as fees - one-third from that case and one-third ($28,493) from
the divorce settlement lien against the personal injury settlement.

The client disagreed and instructed Marcus to take one-third of the loss of consortium settlement as
his fee, disburse $38,173 to her and place the remaining $28,493 in trust as disputed funds. Marcus
sued her.

He and the client then placed the disputed funds in a money market account rather than a client
trust account.

Both a fee arbitrator and a judicial arbitrator ruled that Marcus was not entitled to any part of
the divorce settlement in fees.

Meanwhile, the money market account was depleted when the IRS and the California Franchise Tax Board
seized most of it to satisfy Marcus' outstanding tax obligations and a bank seized what was left to
satisfy a $156,790 default judgment against Marcus. Marcus took no action to have any of the
agencies replenish the account and his client received none of the money to which she was entitled.
She has never received her settlement funds.

The court cited in mitigation Marcus' pro bono work, a donation to the Diabetes Foundation and the
donation of uniforms to a softball team.

DAVID C. ANTON [#94852], 45, of Kensington was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years
of probation with a 45-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The
order took effect June 11, 2000.

In a wrongful termination case filed in federal court, Anton admitted he fabricated evidence. He
attributed his actions to emotional and mental difficulties and said he sought counseling and
planned to take a sabbatical.

As a result of his admission, he was suspended for one year from federal practice, was ordered to
take the professional responsibility exam, reimburse opposing parties for costs and attorneys' fees
and pay a $2,000 fine. He paid the fine and reimbursed the opposing parties.

The matter was referred to the State Bar. Anton stipulated that he intentionally sought to mislead
the court and committed an act of mortal turpitude.

In mitigation, he was suffering from depression, he reported his misconduct to the bar and
cooperated with the investigation, and he removed himself from the case and took no fee, reduced his
workload and contributed $25,000 towards his client's settlement. In exchange, the opposing parties
agreed not to enforce the order requiring Anton to pay costs and attorneys' fees.

Anton was privately reproved in 1989 for failure to deposit funds in trust.

STEVEN JOSEPH BARTH [#104204], 48, of San Jose was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with a 45-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year.
The order took effect June 11, 2000.

Barth stipulated to one count of failing to comply with probation conditions attached to a 1998
public reproval. He did not submit six quarterly probation reports, take the MPRE by the required
deadline, attend ethics school or keep his address current with the State Bar.

In a second matter, he stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently. He took over
an Arizona case although he is not licensed to practice there. He carried the case on the inactive
calendar for months with the court's permission, but when he finally obtained permission to appear
pro hac vice, no work had been done and the case was dismissed.

MARLENE YVETTE BISHOP [#94732], 50, of Charlotte, N.C., was suspended for one year, stayed, placed
on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect
June 21, 2000.

Bishop stipulated that she made a false representation to the court and submitted a document
containing incorrect information, an act of moral turpitude.

As an attorney in the U.S. Attorney's office, Bishop failed to meet a deadline for filing the
government's answer. Several days after the deadline, Bishop asked her secretary to call the judge's
secretary and say the answer had been prepared but not filed on time because her secretary was
absent from work. Her secretary later became aware that Bishop had not completed the answer until
after the deadline and informed a supervisor.

When the motion for extra time was filed, it contained the incorrect explanation about the absent
secretary. Bishop's office informed the judge about the misstatements, which she admitted.

Bishop is also a member of the Washington, D.C. bar, which issued an informal admonition as a result
of her misconduct.

In mitigation, Bishop had recently adopted a newborn child at the time of her misconduct, her older
child had medical problems and Bishop also developed a neurological disorder. She remains under
treatment and also receives psychological counseling.

She has no record of prior discipline, although the stipulation notes that as a former attorney for
the State Bar, she "was, or should have been, much more aware than the average attorney of the
wrongfulness of her acts and the likelihood they involve moral turpitude."

DELORIS ANN BROWN [#107776], 58, of Los Angeles was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on
one year of probation. The order took effect June 21, 2000.

Brown stipulated that she did not meet a requirement of a 1998 discipline that she comply with rule
955. She did not submit to the Supreme Court an affidavit stating that she had notified her clients
and other pertinent parties of her suspension from practice.

In mitigation, she sought help from the State Bar's probation office regarding compliance with rule
955, but was unable to contact anyone because of layoffs in the discipline office. She filed the
correct affidavit late.

The original discipline was the result of failing to perform competently, promptly pay client funds
or deposit client funds in a trust account.

BRYANT K. CALLOWAY [#140431], 38, of Irvine was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years
of probation, and was ordered to make restitution and demonstrate his rehabilitation. The order took
effect June 21, 2000.

Calloway stipulated that he did not comply with the conditions of a 1998 private reproval. He did
not submit three quarterly probation reports or submit proof of passing the MPRE on time. He has
since passed the exam.

The reproval was the result of failing to keep a client informed about significant developments in a
case and failing to perform legal services competently.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar and he experienced family problems.

RICHARD JAMES COOPER [#88156], 48, of San Jose was suspended for six months, until he makes
restitution and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension. If the
suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. He also was ordered to take the MPRE
and comply with rule 955. The order took effect June 21, 2000.

In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Cooper failed to perform legal services
competently, return unearned fees or maintain a current address with the bar. He also practiced law
while suspended and committed acts of moral turpitude.

Cooper was hired in 1997 to handle a name change for a client's adult stepson and a minor for whom
the client was the legal guardian. Although he prepared the papers and had the client sign them, he
did not file the petition or obtain the consent of the natural parents of the minor about the name
change.

Cooper subsequently was suspended from practice for not paying his bar dues.

He told the client a hearing on the name changes was scheduled and said he would arrange for the
minor child's mother to agree to the name change. In fact, no hearing was scheduled. He then told
the client that the child's parents' consent was not necessary.

When the client learned the petition had not been filed and a hearing was never scheduled, he fired
Cooper and asked for a refund of the $1,750 fee he had paid. When no refund was forthcoming, the
client was awarded a judgment against Cooper for $1,750. It was not paid.

In mitigation, Cooper has no record of discipline in 17 years of practice.

RUDY DAVID GUZZETTA [#59450], 53, of San Jose was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year
of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect June 21, 2000.

Guzzetta stipulated that in two matters, he did not return client papers and property, despite the
repeated requests of his clients.

In both matters, he represented criminal defendants. After each was convicted, they were represented
by new attorneys to appeal their convictions. When the appellate lawyers sought the files, Guzzetta
did not provide them. In one matter, a paralegal went to Guzzetta's office to retrieve the file.

Guzzetta also did not cooperate with the bar's investigation.

He has two records of discipline, in 1987 and 1993, for misconduct including failure to perform
legal services competently and failure to properly preserve client funds.

In mitigation, Guzzetta was suffering from physical difficulties at the time of the misconduct.

MALCOLM LEVINTHAL [#32209], 73, of Santa Barbara was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one
year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect June 21,
2000.

Levinthal stipulated that he practiced law while suspended for non-payment of bar dues.

At the time he was suspended in 1995, Levinthal asked the bar to waive payment of fees and costs he
owed ($1,300) or postpone payment until the following year, because he did not have enough money to
pay what he owed. The bar notified him it could not process his request immediately.

At the same time, he faced a court deadline in a matter he had been handling for two years for a
long-time client. He filed two documents with the court, which addressed the question of filing the
appellate documents while Levinthal was suspended and the court ruled that it was permissible in
order to preserve his clients' rights.

Levinthal was disciplined in 1994 for failure to avoid adverse interests and for failing to keep his

address current with the bar.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar, no clients were harmed, and he faced financial
difficulties at the time of his misconduct.

CATHERINE THUY THANH SANCHIRICO [#170682], 33, of Foothill Ranch was suspended for one year, stayed,
and placed on two years of probation. The order took effect June 21, 2000.

Sanchirico stipulated that she did not comply with the conditions attached to a 1997 private
reproval by not completing six hours of continuing education in law office management. She also did
not respond when disciplinary charges were filed and her default was entered in June 1999.
Sanchirico was placed on inactive enrollment at that time.

The private reproval was for failing to perform, improperly withdrawing from representation, failing
to refund unearned fees and trust account violations.

In mitigation, Sanchirico tried to file a change of address with the bar during its shutdown
following the 1997 veto of the fee bill, but the change was not made. She also was unable to obtain
information about her discipline at the time. She maintains she sent a probation report which was
not received by the bar.

JAMES HARVEY SLOEY [#78180], 52, of Manhattan Beach was suspended for 30 months, stayed, placed on
three years of probation, and was ordered to make restitution and to take the MPRE within one year.
The order took effect June 21, 2000.

Sloey entered into a stipulation with the State Bar in 1996, but because of financial problems was
unable to comply with the requirement that he make restitution to one individual. He did comply with
the other terms of the probation, including submitting quarterly reports, completing 30 hours of
education in both law office management and/or ethics and client relations, attending ethics school
and client trust account school and taking the MPRE.

The newest order requires him to complete restitution in the amount of $63,980.50.

The original discipline resulted from Sloey's failure to perform legal services competently.

LUIS RENE VALDEZ [#153865], 39, of Santa Ana was suspended for six months, stayed, and placed on two
years of probation. The order took effect June 21, 2000.

Valdez stipulated to misconduct in three matters.

In two of the cases, he represented clients on workers' compensation claims, but both hired a new
lawyer after not hearing from Valdez for lengthy periods. Valdez did not provide the clients' files
to the new lawyer for nine months.

In a third workers' compensation matter, he stopped returning his client's phone calls and the
client hired a new lawyer.

Valdez stipulated to failing to release client property promptly and failing to respond to a client'
s reasonable status inquiries.

Valdez has two prior disciplines: a public reproval in 1997 for improperly withdrawing from a case
and failing to respond to client inquiries or cooperate with the bar's investigation, and a 1999
suspension for disobeying a court order and failing to comply with conditions attached to the
reproval.

In mitigation, Valdez was under financial stress, he cooperated with the bar's investigation and no
clients were harmed.

WALTER F. WIGGINS JR. [#138403], 38, of Verdugo City was suspended for six months, stayed, and
placed on 18 months of probation. The order took effect June 21, 2000.

Wiggins represented a corporation in the collection of accounts receivable; he was required to remit
the company's portion of all the money collected on its behalf. Although he collected numerous
checks over the course of nine months, he did not turn over any funds to the client.

The client fired Wiggins and despite repeated demands for an accounting, he did not pay any funds
for nine months.

He stipulated that he did not promptly pay client funds, failed to provide an accounting, failed to
return client files for more than a year and a half, and used his client trust account as a personal
account, commingling personal and client funds.

In mitigation, Wiggins has no record of discipline. His delay in paying monies, returning files and
accounting for client funds was exacerbated by a fire in his office and the Northridge earthquake,
both of which caused damage to his office and its contents and resulted in the dislocation of his
practice.

DONALD JOSEPH ZAITZOW [#99213], 47, of San Diego was suspended for one year, stayed, and was placed
on one year of probation with a 75-day actual suspension. The order took effect June 21, 2000.

Zaitzow stipulated to misconduct in four consolidated cases, each the result of practicing law while
suspended for non-payment of bar dues.

He was previously publicly reproved for failing to perform legal services competently, communicate
with a client, or return an unearned fee and client file. He did not comply with the conditions of
the reproval.

In mitigation, Zaitzow suffers from severe diabetes-related health problems, including a heart
condition and symptoms which affected his mental ability to concentrate and attend to his
responsibilities.

He has reduced his practice, handling fewer than 10 cases.

HOWARD STEPHEN LEVINE [#61881], 50, of Arleta was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with a six-month actual suspension, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. If

the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect

June 22, 2000.

Levine stipulated to mishandling client funds in two personal injury matters.

After receiving settlement funds and depositing them in his client trust account, Levine allowed the
balance in the account to fall below the required amount, he did not provide an accounting to his
clients when asked to do so, he misappropriated funds and he wrote checks against insufficient
funds. His acts constituted moral turpitude.

In mitigation, Levine had no record of discipline for almost 25 years, he completed the bar's trust
accounting class, and he no longer practices.

JONATHAN ROBERT ADLER [#49989], 59, of Beverly Hills was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on
two years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and until he makes restitution, and he was
ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he
must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect June 23, 2000.

Adler was charged with failing to report to the State Bar a $1,100 sanction imposed by a Los Angeles
court and with making misrepresentations in quarterly reports while he was on disciplinary
probation.

He stipulated that he did not pay the sanction and that two probation reports contained
inaccuracies, but he disputed the sanction order and argued that if it were void, he would not be
required to report it to the bar.

The sanction was imposed in the first of two unlawful detainer actions. In the second action, Adler
obtained a $26,000 judgment against the opposing party. He argued that he was entitled to one-third
of that judgment and therefore has the right of set-off against the sanction claim.

However, according to a finding by State Bar Court Judge Carlos Velarde, who rejected Adler's
arguments, there is no court order granting Adler the right to set off his claim, and the sanction
order resulted from the first, not the second unlawful detainer action granting his client the
$26,000 judgment.

Velarde found that Adler failed to report the sanction to the bar within 30 days and disobeyed a
court order. He also found that Adler failed to comply with probation conditions.

Adler has a record of three prior discipines. In 1994, he was suspended for practicing law while
suspended for non-payment of bar dues over a four-year period. The following year, he was
disciplined for improperly withdrawing from employment, and in 1997, he was again disciplined for
failing to perform legal services competently, return client files or keep his client informed.

In mitigation, Adler spent a large part of his career in public service and has done pro bono work
for more than 20 years.

JUDITH A. FINCH [#114851], 64, of Alamo was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on two years
of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and until she demonstrates her rehabilitation and
satisfies a judgment entered in Alameda County Superior Court. If the suspension exceeds 90 days,
she must comply with rule 955. The order took effect Aug. 16, 2000,

Finch stipulated to three acts of misconduct relating to entering into business agreements with a
client.

In the first instance, Finch and her husband bought a condominium in 1988 with a client and her
husband. By doing so, Finch entered into a business agreement with a client whose terms were not in
writing and to which the client did not give written consent.

In 1991, Finch and her husband accepted personal loans of $10,000 from the client, promising to
repay the loans over time. Finch stipulated that she entered into a business transaction which was
unfair to the client, the terms were not disclosed to or consented to in writing by the client, and
Finch did not advise the client to seek independent counsel.

In 1992, the client arranged a $50,000 loan to refinance the 1988 loan related to the purchase of
the condominium. The loan was to be secured by the client's residence and Finch and her husband were
to repay one-half of the principle plus interest. In 1996, the terms of the refinance agreement were
put in writing and post-dated to 1992.

The terms of both the $10,000 loan and the refinance agreement were unfair because no collateral was
provided by Finch and her husband and no promissory note was executed to memorialize the Finches'
obligations.

The client eventually sued Finch for malpractice and Finch and her husband for breach of contract
and won a judgment of $50,000 which has not been paid.

In mitigation, Finch has no record of discipline since her 1984 admission to the bar.

INTERIM SUSPENSION
SIMONA ROSALES BAKKER [#98225], 54, of San Diego was placed on interim suspension May 1, 2000,
following convictions for two counts of concealment of assets, and one count each of making false
statements in bankruptcy proceedings, money laundering and filing false tax returns, all felonies
involving moral turpitude. She was ordered to comply with rule 955.

KENT KLOKOW [#71519], 51, of Santa Cruz was placed on interim suspension May 1, 2000, following his
conviction for felony possession of a controlled substance (cocaine). He was ordered to comply with
rule 955.

RALPH JOHN LEARDO [#97066], 51, of Brisbane was placed on interim suspension May 1, 2000, following
his conviction for one count of possession of a controlled substance, a felony, and one count of
driving under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

DANA HUGH ANDERSON [#59081], 55, of Fresno was placed on interim suspension May 13, 2000, following
his conviction of one count of driving under the influence of alcohol with three priors. He was

ordered to comply with rule 955.

CRISTETA SAIOT PAGUIRIGAN [#115992], 40, of Los Angeles was placed on interim suspension May 30,
2000, following her conviction for two counts of grand theft. She was ordered to comply with rule
955.

RICHARD JOHN MATHIAS [#137485], 37, of Los Angeles was placed on interim suspension May 30, 2000,
following convictions for possession of methamphetamine for sale, transportation of a controlled
substance, possession of a controlled substance, possession for sale and the sale of ketamine, and
possession with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, all felonies. He was ordered to comply with
rule 955.

DOUGLAS BRIAN KANE [#92752], 50, of Santa Maria was placed on interim suspension May 30, 2000,
following his conviction of one count of possession of a controlled substance. He was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

DAIN ROY BIRKLEY [#69884], 53, of Modesto was placed on interim suspension May 30, 2000, following
convictions for manufacturing a controlled substance and possession for sale of a controlled
substance. Both were felonies involving methamphetamine. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

SHAPOUR SHAWN KHASTOO [#134194], 53, of Beverly Hills was placed on interim suspension June 11,
2000, following a conviction for making a false statement on a federal tax return. He was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

SAM L. STONE [#37716], 62, of Fortuna was placed on interim suspension June 22, 2000, following a
conviction for felony drunk driving; he had three prior DUI convictions within the past seven years.
He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

ROBERT L. FENTON [#56982], 51, of Monterey was placed on interim suspension June 30, 2000, following
his conviction for offering a bribe to a public officer. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

RESIGNATIONS/CHARGES PENDING
LARRY A. MORSE [#80441], 58, of Stanton (June 23, 2000)
SUSPENSION/FAILURE TO PASS PRE
RICHARD CARL CAMINO [#79847], 53, of Newport Beach (March 22, 2000)

LARRY HOWARD KREUEGER [#46885], 57, of Sherman Oaks (March 22, 2000)

HOWARD CRAIG KNADLER [#85063], 48, of Colfax (April 7, 2000)

GEORGE ANTHONY CREQUE [#115580], 45, of Willow Springs (April 24, 2000)

DEBBIE RUTH DETRIXHE [#102659], 45, of Hermosa Beach (April 24, 2000)

CARL ERIC MUNSON [#116881], 51, of Los Angeles (April 24, 2000)

JEREMY ANDREW ARCHDEACON [#83167], 50, of Oakland (May 22, 2000)

IRIS Z. SPECTOR [#107506], 42, of Corona Del Mar (June 1, 2000)

MICHAEL DAVID MARK [#112959], 42, of Los Angeles (June 2, 2000)

R. SCOTT FERRIS [#101672], 45, of Hemet (June 12, 2000)

IRIS LYNNE JOHNSON-BRIGHT [#91735], 48, of Culver City (June 12, 2000)

JAMES TERRILL LOCKE [#127516], 52, of Sacramento (June 12, 2000)

PUBLIC REPROVAL
JEFFREY SCOTT DOGGETT [#147235], 38, of San Diego (Feb. 9, 2000)

CHRISTOPHER COGLEY [#79263], 52, of Phoenix (Feb. 16, 2000)

FRANZ EDWARD KRELL JR. [#112895], 44, of La Jolla (March 11, 2000)

PAUL RAYMOND SHANKMAN [#113608], 43, of Redondo Beach (April 8, 2000)

JOSE MARCELINO ONTIVERAS [#69245], 56, of Ventura (April 9, 2000)

JOHN MICHAEL KELLY [#44531], 61, of Santa Monica (May 8, 2000)

REINSTATEMENT
JOHN MICHAEL GEORGE [#80084], 54, of Santa Ana (March 15, 2000)

PATRICIA ANN LYNCH [#101711], 45, of Santa Ana (March 24, 2000)

[Open FleshWound]

09/00

CAUTION!
Nearly 170,050 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the same

names. All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court documents and should be read carefully
for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.

DISBARMENTS
ARTHUR MARVIN MELVIN [#85173], 64, of Lake Forest was disbarred May 7, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court.

Melvin had been ordered in 1998 to comply with rule 955 as part of a disciplinary order. Rule 955
requires attorneys who are suspended to notify their clients, opposing counsel and any other
pertinent parties of the discipline and to submit an affidavit to that effect to the Supreme Court.
Melvin did not submit the required affidavit.

He was originally disciplined in 1996 for failing to perform legal services competently, respond to
a client's inquiries about the status of a case, refund an unearned fee or cooperate with the bar's
investigation. When he violated the probation conditions attached to the order, his probation was
extended for two years and the 955 order was imposed.

He did not participate in the disbarment proceedings.

In recommending Melvin's disbarment, State Bar Court Judge Carlos Velarde wrote, he "has
demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of the court
imposed on California attorneys although he has been given several opportunities to do so."

LOUIS SOSA FLORES [#57017], 65, of Santa Fe Springs was disbarred May 11, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

Flores, who has a record of four prior disciplines, did not comply with rule 955, as required by a
previous discipline order. He did not file an affidavit with the Supreme Court stating that he had
notified his clients and other pertinent parties about his suspension from practice.

He was first disciplined in 1983 for misappropriating client funds, failing to perform legal
services competently and committing acts of moral turpitude. In 1992, he stipulated to misconduct
including failure to competently perform legal services and maintain records of entrusted funds.

Three years later, Flores stipulated to failure to notify a client of receipt of settlement monies
and failure to maintain entrusted funds in his client trust account. When he did not comply with the
terms of that probation by failing to submit quarterly probation reports, he was again disciplined
in 1998. It was his failure to comply with those requirements that led to Flores' disbarment.

GARY OSBORNE KENT [#61707], 52, of Torrance was disbarred May 11, 2000, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

Kent was disciplined in 1998 for failing to comply with the probation conditions of a 1996
disciplinary order, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. He failed to submit an affidavit to the
Supreme Court stating that he had notified opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his
suspension from practice, and on that basis was disbarred.

The original discipline was imposed after Kent stipulated to numerous instances of practicing law
while suspended for nonpayment of bar dues.

He did not participate in the disbarment proceedings.

MARCI A. SANDOVAL [#154001], 50, of Berea, Ky., was disbarred May 11, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

Sandoval violated rule 955 by failing to submit to the Supreme Court an affidavit stating that she
notified opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of her suspension from practice in 1998. That
discipline was imposed in a default proceeding after a finding that she failed to communicate with a
client, twice withdrew from employment without protecting her client's interests and failed to
return unearned fees.

In another discipline proceeding, Sandoval was found to have committed acts of moral turpitude,
using her client trust account to pay personal obligations, issuing checks against insufficient
funds in her trust account and twice failing to cooperate with a bar investigation of her conduct.

She did not participate in the disbarment proceeding.

WAYNE BRUCE ALLBIN [#65024], 59, of Alameda was disbarred May 19, 2000, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

Allbin did not file with the Supreme Court the rule 955 affidavit required by a 1998 discipline
order.

He was disciplined at that time for failing to comply with probation conditions attached to an order
earlier that year for failing to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients,
return unearned fees or cooperate with the bar's investigation and for practicing law while
suspended.

Allbin also was disciplined in 1997 for failing to file an appeal for a client, return unearned fees

or cooperate with the bar's investigation.

He did not participate in the disbarment proceeding.

BASIL E. CLARK [#129154], 42, of Beverly Hills was disbarred May 21, 2000, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

In a default proceeding, Clark was found to have committed misconduct in three matters.

In a personal injury matter which he settled for $14,000, Clark did not pay his client's
chiropractor, did not return the client's phone calls, allowed the balance in his client trust

account to fall below the required amount, misappropriated client funds, failed to maintain client

funds in trust and did not cooperate with the bar's investigation.

While handling the case, Clark was suspended from practice; he therefore engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law.

Clark represented another client in a personal injury case, and after the client fired him, he
received a settlement check on her behalf. Clark did not notify the client of the receipt of the
check, which was endorsed and deposited in his client trust account. He then did not return phone
calls from his client's new attorney or respond to a letter demanding reimbursement.

He misappropriated $1,199 in client funds, an act of moral turpitude, and did not cooperate with the
bar's investigation.

Clark has been disciplined twice previously. In 1996, he was suspended and placed on probation for
misconduct relating to 10 clients and including failing to perform competently, communicate with
clients, return documents or promptly pay out funds. He also withdrew from representation without
protecting a cli-

ent's interests and wrote three checks against insufficient funds in his client trust account. His
actions involved moral turpitude.

Clark was disciplined again in 1998 for at least 18 different misdeeds, including mishandling funds
from five settlements, misappropriating client funds, writing bad checks, failing to provide
competent legal services, return unearned fees, or pay medical liens for seven different clients.

He also did not comply with a rule 955 order that was part of the 1996 discipline.

Clark did not participate in the disbarment proceedings.

In recommending disbarment, State Bar Court Judge Michael D. Marcus described Clark as "an
unrepentant wrongdoer and a danger to past and future clients. His disbarment . . . is the only way
to protect the public, the profession and the courts against any future harm."

JOHN V. POWELL III [#84254], 50, of Sacramento was disbarred May 21, 2000, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Powell committed six counts of misconduct.
Although bar prosecutors had sought a suspension, the court found Powell's actions serious enough to
warrant disbarment.

In the first matter, he was hired to handle a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition for a client who owed
$1.5 million on an apartment building he owned and had additional debts of $750,000. The bank
holding the note on the apartment building filed for relief from an automatic stay and two other
motions. Instead of filing schedules and statements of financial affairs for his client, Powell
filed an application to convert the bankruptcy to a Chapter 13 proceeding.

He knew his client was ineligible for Chapter 13 relief due to his pre-bankruptcy indebtedness and
he knew the case would be automatically dismissed upon failure to file schedules or a reorganization
plan.

The court found that Powell filed the application for the purpose of having the bankruptcy case
automatically dismissed, he presented a claim in litigation which was not warranted, and he
maintained an unjust action.

In the second matter, Powell substituted in to a divorce proceeding, in which he represented a woman
who had won more than $9 million in the lottery and was receiving $92,800 in annual installments.
The court had issued an order to deposit funds in trust and ordered the woman to give the lottery
disbursement check to her lawyer, minus attorney's fees and payments to the woman and her husband.

When Powell took over the case for the woman, he agreed to represent her on an hourly basis, with a
minimum charge of $1,500, payable when the court allowed it. The client signed a fee agreement and
gave Powell $31,000 as the remainder of her annual lottery proceeds.

Powell later billed the client for a contingency fee of $33,408, plus his hourly rate, plus costs.
When the client asked for a copy of her fee agreement, Powell sent a document, allegedly signed by
the client, that included a 10 percent entitlement for Powell to funds obtained which exceeded 50
percent of community property. The fee agreement was fabricated by Powell, according to the court.

He did not provide his client with an accounting of her entrusted funds, did not return her file and
did not respond to bar inquiries about his conduct.

Powell had three previous disciplines; in 1987, he was suspended and placed on probation for
abandoning three clients; in 1997, he was publicly reproved for failing to return unearned fees to a
client after a fee arbitration; and earlier this year, he was suspended for failing to comply with
the probation conditions of the reproval.

JANICE G. COLOMBO [#118864], 43, of Selma was summarily disbarred June 7, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

Colombo was convicted in 1999 of one count of burglary of an uninhabited dwelling. According to
State Bar Court Presiding Judge James Obrien, the crime met the two criteria for summary disbarment
because it was a felony and it involved moral turpitude.

STANLEY A. GRUMET [#95227], 53, of Pacifica was disbarred June 7, 2000, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

Grumet failed to comply with a rule 955 requirement attached to a 1998 discipline order. He did not

file with the Supreme Court an affidavit stating that he had notified his clients and other

pertinent parties of his suspension.

The 1998 order was imposed because Grumet did not comply with probation conditions attached to a
1994 discipline imposed as the result of a conviction for stalking. He failed to file quarterly
probation reports regarding his compliance with a substance abuse program and did not submit a
statement from a mental health professional or a drug screen report.

He did not participate in the disbarment proceeding.

PADGETT COVENTRY PRICE [#113594], 52, of Riverside was disbarred June 7, 2000.

In a default hearing, the State Bar Court found that Price failed to comply with rule 955, as
ordered in a 1998 discipline. Price was convicted of three counts of subscribing to a false tax
return, a felony involving moral turpitude, and was placed on interim suspension with a requirement

to comply with rule 955.

She did not file with the Supreme Court an affidavit stating that she had notified her clients and
other pertinent parties of her suspension.

Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment.

JAMES EDWARD WILKOSKI [#49860], 59, of Anaheim was disbarred June 11, 2000.

Wilkoski failed to file with the Supreme Court the affidavit required by rule 955, which is grounds
for disbarment.

He has a record of two prior disciplines.

In 1994, he was suspended for failing to respect the court and failing to comply with court orders
in connection with his representation of a criminal defendant.

He was suspended and placed on probation in 1998 for making a material misrepresentation to the
court, seeking to mislead the court as to his status as an attorney and of violating his probation
from the 1994 matter by not filing his final probation report and not attending ethics school. The
bar court also found that he made false statements in earlier probation reports.

"The current misconduct demonstrates a pattern of misconduct," wrote bar court Judge Madge S. Watai.
Wilkoski's "disciplinary history evidences [his] continuing refusal to comply with court orders and
to comply with his professional obligations."

ROBERT ALAN WALKER [#158171], 49, of El Sobrante was disbarred June 21, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Walker failed to comply with rule 955 by not
filing with the Supreme Court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients and other pertinent

parties of his suspension from practice.

Walker was suspended, placed on probation and ordered to make restitution to three clients in 1998.
As a result of drug addiction, he was unable to perform legal services and was found culpable of
failure to perform or return unearned fees in three matters, failure to communicate with clients
twice and improperly withdrawing from employment four times.

In addition, he was disciplined earlier the same year for similar misconduct.

SUSPENSIONS/PROBATION
JOHN FORREST FRANKLIN II [#100737], 46, of Reseda was suspended for nine months, stayed, placed on
two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect May
7, 2000.

Franklin was privately reproved in 1998, but failed to comply with the conditions of probation,
including failing to file quarterly probation reports, attend ethics school or take the professional
responsibility exam.

The reproval was the result of three counts of failing to perform legal services competently, one
count of failing to refund an unearned fee, one count of failing to maintain proper records, and
three counts each of failing to respond to clients' inquires and failing to cooperate with the bar's
investigation.

In mitigation, Franklin cooperated with the bar.

JEFFREY BRENT LUGASH [#41458], 60, of Encino was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on two
years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect May 7,
2000.

Lugash did not comply with the conditions attached to a 1998 private reproval: he failed to file a
quarterly probation report on time or to take and pass the professional responsibility exam. In

mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation.

The reproval was imposed as a result of Lugash' failure to keep all agreements reached in lieu of
disciplinary prosecution.

ANDREW JAMES PRENDIVILLE [#93003], 47, of Corona Del Mar was suspended for one year, stayed, placed
on three years of probation with an actual six-month suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE
within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect May 7, 2000.

Prendiville stipulated to misconduct in seven consolidated matters.

In four of the matters, he wrote numerous checks against his client trust account for payment of
personal and business expenses, several against insufficient funds. He stipulated that he commingled
personal and client funds.

In two other matters, he allowed the balance in the trust account to fall below what was required.

During the time of the misconduct, Prendiville was the plaintiff in a major civil case and devoted
much of his time to the litigation. He failed to withdraw earned fees that accumulated in the trust
account and he did not properly reconcile and balance his trust account records.

In another case, Prendiville was retained to file a civil complaint against a hospital for elder
abuse and false imprisonment. He failed to timely file the suit and as a result, his clients lost a
potential cause of action.

Prendiville also was convicted in 1999 of driving under the influence with two priors and having a
blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit.

Prendiville has a prior record of discipline; he was suspended and placed on probation in 1996.

In mitigation, his misuse of his client trust account ended when he attended ethics school in 1997,
and he settled a potential claim for professional negligence in the matter involving elder abuse.

ARNOLD LEE ROSEN [#48572], 62, of Encino was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three years
of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The
order took effect May 7, 2000.

Rosen was convicted of misdemeanor driving under the influence in 1994. In 1997, he was again
convicted of a misdemeanor DUI following a two-vehicle collision in which both Rosen and the driver
of the other car sustained minor injuries. Rosen's blood alcohol level was .18. As a result of that
conviction, his probation from the first DUI was revoked.

He subsequently complied with all probation requirements.

In mitigation, Rosen's alcohol abuse has not caused any known adverse effect on his performance as a
lawyer, and no client has been harmed. He cooperated with the bar's investigation.

BENJAMIN NEWTON WYATT JR. [#33214], 67, of Los Angeles was suspended for three years, stayed, placed
on five years of probation with an actual three-year suspension, and was ordered to make
restitution, prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect
May 7, 2000.

Wyatt stipulated to misconduct in six cases.

In the first matter, he handled a client's divorce for a $1,500 fee. He checked in with the court
clerk the day a hearing and mediation were scheduled, and then went to the mediation, which did not
go forward because neither the opposing counsel nor the opposing client was present. Wyatt
mistakenly assumed both the hearing and the mediation were taken off calendar and left the court
without confirming matters with clerk.

The hearing was held in Wyatt's absence, his client's wife won custody and his client was ordered to
pay spousal and child support. He did not inform his client about the ruling and did not return
numerous phone calls.

Wyatt stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently or respond to a client's
inquiries. He also failed to cooperate with a subsequent bar investigation of his actions.

Wyatt stipulated to a private reproval in 1995, but did not comply with its probationary conditions
by failing to take and pass the professional responsibility exam. In a 1997 disciplinary order,
reference was made to evidence that Wyatt had not taken the MPRE, as ordered as a condition of the
reproval. Wyatt sought review of the order and said under penalty of perjury that he had taken and
passed the MPRE when he had not.

Wyatt also practiced law on behalf of three clients while suspended later the same year. He did not
comply with the conditions of his probation.

Wyatt has been disciplined by the bar five times, beginning in 1975.

In mitigation, he appeared in court while suspended because he could not find substitute counsel for
his clients. He provided letters from attorneys attesting to his reputation as a respected member of
the legal community.

LAWRENCE CRAWFORD BRAGG [#33302], 67, of Hacienda Heights was suspended for two years, stayed,
placed on three years of probation with an actual 14-month suspension, and was ordered to make
restitution and comply with rule 955. The order took effect May 11, 2000.

Bragg stipulated to three counts of misconduct.

In two cases, he split fees with nonlawyer employees and did not cooperate with the bar's
investigation when the employees filed complaints about him.

In the third matter, Bragg settled a personal injury case for two clients and withheld more than
$53,000 to pay their medical care providers. He did not tell the clients he negotiated a reduction
in their medical bills totaling nearly $20,000, which he kept.

Bragg asserts that he was informed by his staff that the clients had approved his retention of the
money as additional fees in exchange for negotiating reduced medical bills. He also claims the staff
said one of the clients signed a settlement distribution sheet reflecting the fees.

He did not respond to the bar's investigation of the matter.

Bragg also was disciplined in 1998 for sharing fees with a nonlawyer, failing to perform legal
services competently in a personal injury case, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude by allowing
a nonlawyer to practice law.

LINCOLN N. MINTZ [#37610], 58, of Oakland was suspended for one year and until he attends ethics
school and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate his actual suspension. If the
suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. He also was ordered to comply with
rule 955. The order took effect May 11, 2000.

The State Bar Court found that Mintz committed misconduct in two client matters.

In the first, he abandoned a case he took over in 1996 that had been filed in San Mateo Superior
Court. He did not respond to his client's inquiries or notify opposing counsel of his appearance,
conducted no investigation or discovery, took no action to move the matter forward and then failed
to appear at a hearing for summary judgment. He did not return his client's file.

In a second matter, Mintz filed a notice of appeal and an opening brief in a criminal matter but
then did not tell his client that he decided not to file a rebuttal brief and had waived oral
argument. He also did not notify the client when the Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction or tell
the client he had decided not to seek a writ of review. The time to seek review expired before the
client learned about the developments in his case.

Mintz did not cooperate with the bar's investigation of either matter.

Mintz has a history of discipline beginning with a 1995 private reproval for abandoning a client and
failing to participate in the bar's investigation. In 1997, he was suspended for failing to comply
with the conditions of the reproval, and in 1999, he was disciplined again for failure to
communicate with two clients, comply with the terms of his probation or cooperate with eight bar
investigations.

Hearing Judge Nancy Roberts Lonsdale declined to place Mintz on probation, noting, "These incidents
are not isolated; they are part of a long pattern of [Mintz's] failure to communicate with his
clients and with the State Bar."

The probation of WILLIAM LESLIE O'BRYAN [#42335], 63, of Playa Del Rey was extended for nine months.
The order took effect May 11, 2000.

O'Bryan was suspended and placed on probation in 1997, but he did not file three quarterly probation
reports on time, make two restitution payments or submit evidence of having completed six hours of
MCLE.

The discipline was for failure to perform legal services competently, refund unearned fees or
respond promptly to client inquiries.

In mitigation, O'Bryan had financial problems, no clients were harmed and he cooperated with the bar
's investigation.

BRIAN VICTOR WILLIAM POGUE [#118157], 46, of Los Angeles was placed on actual suspension for 30 days
and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension. If the suspension exceeds
two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. He was ordered to take the MPRE and, if the suspension
exceeds 90 days, comply with rule 955. The order took effect May 11, 2000.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Pogue failed to appear at a hearing in a
suit he filed on behalf of three plaintiffs and was sanctioned $500 and ordered to appear at a later
hearing. He neither paid the sanctions nor appeared at the subsequent hearing.

GERARD E. SABO [#74988], 50, of Glendale was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of
probation with a 30-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The
order took effect May 11, 2000.

Sabo stipulated to three counts of misconduct.

He failed to report to the State Bar a $1,300 sanction which was imposed after he filed a
cross-complaint on behalf of his clients, who were defendants in a case, without the court's
permission.

The other two counts involved Sabo's failure to comply with probation conditions attached to a 1996
disciplinary order. He did not submit two probation reports.

In mitigation, Sabo was heavily involved in preparation for a juvenile court matter at the time the
first probation report was due and he mistakenly believed the final report was not due until the
investigation of the sanction matter was completed.

He presented letters attesting to his good character and he performed pro bono work.

The 1996 discipline was the result of a failure to perform legal services competently, return client
papers promptly, communicate with clients, keep an agreement made in lieu of discipline or cooperate
with the bar's investigation. He also appeared for a party without authority.

BARBARA SHARPE [#177488], 41, of San Jose was suspended for one year and until she completes ethics
school and the State Bar Court issues an order to terminate the suspension. If the suspension
exceeds two years, she must prove her rehabilitation. She also was ordered to comply with any
probation conditions imposed as a condition for terminating the suspension, to take the MPRE and to
comply with rule 955. The order took effect May 11, 2000.

Sharpe was suspended from practice August 12, 1996. Four days later, she filed a civil action on
behalf of a client and corresponded with two agencies stating that she was the attorney for her
client. She never notified the client of her suspension as she pursued his case.

When she failed to respond adequately to his inquiries, however, the client became suspicious and
learned of her suspension, hired a new lawyer and sought the return of his file. She has not
returned the file.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Sharpe practiced law while suspended,
violated a court order, failed to keep her client advised of a development in his case or respond to
his status inquiries, failed to return his file and committed acts of moral turpitude. The court
dismissed charges that Sharpe did not cooperate with the bar's investigation since she did not keep
her address current and all bar letters to her were returned.

LYNN S. YOUNG [#54860], 52, of Napa was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of
probation with a 90-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and
comply with rule 955. The order took effect May 11, 2000.

Young stipulated to misconduct in two matters and after a trial was held on a third matter, the
State Bar Court found that she committed acts of moral turpitude by fabricating a document.

Young stipulated that she accepted an unlawful fee without approval of the bankruptcy court and
failed to repay it in a timely fashion. In the second matter, she agreed she had filed and pursued a
frivolous appeal and failed to pay attorney's fees as ordered by the court.

In the case which went to trial, Young's co-counsel allowed the statute of limitations to expire in
a personal injury matter in which their client had been injured by a drunk driver. They had rejected
a $35,000 settlement offer from an insurance company but had failed to file a complaint on time.

About three weeks after the statute expired, Young and the other attorney filed a complaint, taking
the position that the continuing settlement negotiations would prevent the company from asserting a
statute of limitations defense. They knew that restitution would be available to their client as a
result of the criminal prosecution of the other driver. However, they were unaware of a statute that
provides an additional year to file a complaint if the other driver is found guilty.

After the statute expired, Young made a counter-demand of the insurer for $90,000. When the
insurance adjustor asked for a copy of the complaint, neither Young nor her co-counsel responded.
Through a series of phone calls, the adjustor learned the date the complaint had been filed. When
she asked Young what the filing date was, Young said she did not know. Eventually, the adjustor
received a fax of the complaint from Young's office which showed an "endorsed" date prior to the
expiration of the statute rather than the actual date the complaint was filed.

According to the court, Young "did nothing to investigate or attempt to determine who had faxed an
altered document. . . . She stated that the matter 'had nothing to do with [her],' and was
'innocuous and unimportant.'"

The court found that Young misrepresented to the insurance adjustor that she did not know the filing
date of the complaint and was responsible for faxing an altered complaint. "She stood accused,"
wrote Judge Nancy Roberts Lonsdale, "publicly and in writing, of fabricating a court document and
sending it to an opposing party. An innocent attorney would never have let such a serious, public
accusation stand uninvestigated and unrefuted."

DALLAS D. BROCK [#26459], 72, of San Francisco was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with a 30-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year. The order took effect May 19, 2000.

Brock stipulated that he wrote seven checks against insufficient funds in his client trust account
over a two-year period. None of the checks involved misappropriated funds, but resulted from his
payment to clients, third-party lienholders or himself before settlement checks deposited in the
account had cleared. Brock rectified each overdraft as soon as it was brought to his attention.

His actions involved moral turpitude.

Brock has five prior instances of discipline, from 1989 to 1995, for misconduct including failure to
perform legal services competently, communicate with clients or comply with probation requirements
and improperly withdrawing from representation.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation and no client funds or funds owed to any
other party were involved.

PHILIP JOSEPH GIRARDIN [#142664], 54, of Glendale was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on
five years of probation with a six-month actual suspension, and was ordered to prove his
rehabilitation and take the MPRE within one year. Credit towards the actual suspension will be given
for the period of interim suspension which began May 16, 1999. The order took effect May 19, 2000.

In 1998, Girardin pleaded no contest to two felony counts of driving under the influence and was
sentenced to two years in state prison. He had six prior DUI convictions.

He stipulated that his actions constituted misconduct warranting discipline because his behavior
showed a lack of respect for the legal system as well as an alcohol abuse problem. Both problems, if
not checked, could spill over into his practice and adversely affect his representation of clients,
according to the stipulation.

In mitigation, Girardin has been sober for two years and attends daily AA meetings. He cooperated
with the bar's disciplinary proceedings.

ABRAHAM N. GOLDMAN [#102080], 50, of Oregon House was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with a six-month actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect May 19, 2000.

Goldman stipulated to misconduct in five consolidated cases.

In the first matter, he was hired to represent a client in a dispute with a former employer. Goldman
did not file the suit for more than five months and did almost nothing to move the case forward.
Without consulting his client, he moved to dismiss with prejudice the claims against one defendant
and the remainder was dismissed by the court. Goldman did not appear at the hearing or submit an
objection. After the case was dismissed, Goldman asked his client for authority to dismiss the
lawsuit.

He stipulated that he did not keep his client informed about developments in his case or perform
legal services competently and he committed an act of moral turpitude.

In a second case, Goldman brought a series of lawsuits on behalf of several clients against two
groups of defendants involved with nursing homes. Without obtaining their informed, written consent,
he settled the case against one defendant for an aggregate of $150,000, a violation of a rule of
professional conduct. Goldman says he obtained global settlement waivers from each client before
complaints were filed with the bar. He provided some of the waivers to the bar.

Goldman used the $150,000 settlement as seed money to fund the litigation against the second group
of defendants. When that matter settled, Goldman prepared settlement statements that did not
accurately reflect how the original settlement was to be distributed. With respect to two clients,
he did not provide an accounting showing cost deductions from their settlement funds.

He settled one client's claims for less than the client had authorized.

In a related matter, Goldman represented a client individually and as conservator of an estate in
connection with their claims against one of the groups of defendants. The client authorized Goldman
to settle for $100,000. The client's family members objected, however, and signed an authorization
which changed the settlement authority level to $125,000. Goldman settled for $100,000 and
stipulated that he did not perform legal services competently.

He also stipulated to mishandling his trust account and client funds. However, he did not act
intentionally to misappropriate client funds. He represents that his clients received all the funds
to which they were entitled and he admitted that he failed to adequately supervise his staff and
monitor their activities with respect to his client trust account.

In mitigation, Goldman has no record of discipline since his 1981 admission to the bar and he
demonstrated good character and rehabilitation. His wife became seriously ill after the birth of the
couple's second child, and Goldman had to care for his wife and their children. He himself became
ill and arranged for another lawyer to take over the nursing home cases.

RICHARD WAYNE LINDSTROM [#107863], 57, of Sacramento was suspended for one year, stayed, and was
placed on one year of probation. The order took effect May 19, 2000.

Lindstrom stipulated that he represented two clients in the same criminal matter in which their
cases had been consolidated but there was a potential conflict in their legal interests. He did so
without their informed written consent. He also accepted compensation from one client without
obtaining the other's consent.

When a third case was consolidated, Lindstrom represented two criminal defendants in an action in
which the facts surrounding the case presented the parties with an actual conflict of interest.

Lindstrom also was disciplined in 1997 for misconduct that included failure to perform legal
services competently, refund unearned fees or keep clients informed of developments in their case,
and withdrawing from employment without protecting his client's interests

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation and no clients were harmed.

JEFFREY A. TEPPER [#96176], 48, of San Jose was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on probation
for two years with a 30-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE, comply with rule
955 and comply with the requirements of a Santa Clara County court order. If the actual suspension
exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect May 19, 2000.

Tepper stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently as executor of and attorney
for an estate: He failed to act expeditiously to allow the estate to close, to take appropriate
steps regarding notice to interested parties and filing court documents or to prevent certain assets
from going to the state.

He was subsequently removed as executor and ordered by a judge to turn over to an estate
representative any estate property in his possession.

He did not cooperate with the bar's investigation.

In mitigation, Tepper has no record of discipline since his 1980 admission to the bar, he cooperated
with the bar's investigation and he faced a wide array of personal problems at the time of the
misconduct, including the death of his father, a serious injury to his mother, for whom he is the
primary caregiver, and his divorce. He also was a defendant in civil litigation of a serious nature,
which eventually was resolved in his favor.

The probation of MICHAEL JUDSON BIGLOW [#47473], 55, of Fresno was revoked, the previous stay of
suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for two years and until he proves his
rehabilitation. He was ordered to attend ethics school, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The
order took effect May 26, 2000.

Biglow violated the terms of a 1998 disciplinary probation by failing to submit three quarterly
probation reports or to provide evidence that he obtained psychiatric or psychological treatment at
least twice a month.

The original discipline resulted from Biglow practicing law while suspended.

He has a record of three other disciplines. In 1994, he was privately reproved for failing to
perform competently in one client matter. Because he failed to comply with the probation terms
attached to the reproval, he was disciplined the following year. In 1997, the probation was extended
and Biglow was suspended for again failing to comply with probation conditions from the earlier
discipline.

Biglow "should not be permitted to remain on probation," wrote bar court Judge Eugene Brott. "His
noncompliance with his probation conditions demonstrates his inability or unwillingness to conform
to the requirements of the law and raises concerns about the need to protect the public."

Biglow did not participate in the disciplinary proceeding against him.

RESIGNATIONS/CHARGES PENDING
INNA ELANA GOFMAN [#152356], 39, of Van Nuys (May 7, 2000)

MICHAEL H. GOTTLIEB [#71011], 50, of Fallbrook (May 7, 2000)

JON ERIC HOLLMANN [#91996], 49, of San Diego (May 7, 2000)

NOEL STEPHEN OLSHAN [#62311], 58, of Sherman Oaks (May 7, 2000)

DANIEL ROBERT RAMIREZ [#136667], 52, of Bloomington (May 7, 222)

CARL WILEY SHERMAN [#56090], 60, of Compton (May 7, 2000)

ROBERT JAMES SPEAS [#126360], 60, of Temecula (May 7, 2000)

KENNETH CHARLES BLICKENSTAFF [#75854], 49, of South Pasadena (May 19, 2000)

SAMUEL REECE [#127002], 48, of Manhattan Beach (May 21, 2000)

ALBERT JOSEPH FORN [#21973], 80, of Los Angeles (May 21, 2000)

THOMAS A. LACEY [#31359], 67, of Modesto (May 31, 2000)

FLOYD J. MORRIS [#141167], 46, of Merced (June 8, 2000)

[Open FleshWound]

08/00

CAUTION!
Nearly 170,825 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the same

names. All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court documents and should be read carefully
for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.

DISBARMENTS
DONALD G. DURBIN JR. [#37882], 68, of El Monte was disbarred April 7, 2000, and ordered to comply
with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court.

Durbin failed to meet the requirements of a 1998 disciplinary order, under which he was to notify
his clients, opposing attorneys and any other party of his suspension from practice, and to submit

an affidavit to that effect to the Supreme Court.

Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment.

Durbin has a record of four prior disciplines.

The first was a 1975 public reproval for misleading opposing counsel and the court, failure to
perform legal services competently or respond to clients' inquiries, and deliberately
misrepresenting the status of a case.

Two years later, the State Bar Court found that he failed to perform competently, refund unearned
fees or promptly return client files, and he abandoned a case and practiced law while suspended.
Because he failed to comply with a rule 955 requirement in that discipline, he was again suspended
from practice.

In the last discipline, underlying the disbarment, Durbin failed to perform legal services
competently, refund unearned fees or cooperate with the bar's investigation, and he committed acts
of moral turpitude.

GERHARD M. HEIMANN [#36868], 71, of Burbank was disbarred April 19, 2000, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

Heimann failed to comply with rule 955, a requirement of a 1998 discipline order. He did not notify
his clients, opposing attorneys or other pertinent parties of his suspension from practice or submit

an affidavit to that effect to the Supreme Court.

The 1998 order, Heimann's fourth discipline, was the result of accepting employment adverse to a
former client without the client's written informed consent and of practicing law while suspended.

Heimann has a record of three other disciplines, beginning with a 1992 suspension for
misappropriation of more than $100,000 in client funds, failing to maintain his client trust
account, entering into unauthorized business transactions with clients' funds, failure to perform
legal services and failure to provide clients with an accounting of their funds.

When he failed to comply with probation conditions, he was again disciplined in 1994.

As a result of practicing law while suspended, Heimann was suspended for six months in 1995 and was

ordered to comply with rule 955.

In recommending Heimann's disbarment, State Bar Court Judge Madge S. Watai wrote, "Although he has
been given several opportunities to do so, [Heimann] has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply
with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys."

Heimann did not participate in the disbarment proceedings and his default was entered.

EDWARD DEANE DONOVAN [#145981], 43, of West Hills was disbarred April 23, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

Donovan violated a 1998 disciplinary requirement ordering that he comply with rule 955.

He has a record of three prior disciplines; his default was entered in each.

In 1995, he was suspended following a third DUI conviction. The following year, the bar court found
that he failed to return a client's file.

The third discipline was the result of Donovan's failure to file quarterly probation reports.

SUSPENSIONS/PROBATION
EVELYN ANN KRAMER [#107242], 44, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with a six-month actual suspension, and was ordered to prove her rehabilitation,
make restitution and comply with rule 955. The order took effect March 17, 2000.

Kramer stipulated to misconduct in four cases.

In one matter, a case she was handling was dismissed because Kramer failed to appear at a status
conference. When the client hired a new attorney, Kramer signed the substitution of attorney form
but did not provide the client's file.

The dismissal of the case was set aside, Kramer was ordered to pay sanctions of $1,500 within 30
days, and she was ordered to turn over the client's file within 10 days. She did not pay the
sanctions or report them to the State Bar and did not turn over the file. She also did not cooperate
with the bar's investigation.

In another matter, Kramer represented a couple in a bankruptcy case, performing a substantial amount
of work. However, she and the clients had trouble communicating with one another, and Kramer was not
present when the case was called for hearing. The case was dismissed.

Kramer had been with the clients' daughter at the time, and informed her the parents were not
eligible for the form of bankruptcy they sought. Nonetheless, Kramer was fired and the clients
proceeded to have the dismissal set aside. She stipulated that she failed to perform legal services
competently.

Kramer was sanctioned more than $4,000 in another case, but did not pay the sanction or report it to
the bar.

She was disciplined in 1997 but did not comply with the conditions of probation; she failed to
submit quarterly probation reports, attend ethics school, pay restitution, settle a fee dispute or
enroll in the bar's law practice management section.

In mitigation, Kramer eventually satisfied all the probation conditions and she cooperated with the
bar's investigation.

KAREN REED [#134022], 50, of Beverly Hills was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years
of probation with a 90-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and
comply with rule 955. The order took effect March 17, 2000.

According to a stipulation Reed reached with the State Bar, she entered into a business relationship
with another attorney, Gilbert Geilim, in 1991, and acted as an employee, paid on a salary basis of
$4,000 to $4,500 per month.

She lent her name to Geilim in the operation of a personal injury practice and gave him and his
employees control of two client trust accounts. Between 1991 and 1994, Reed made little or no effort
to supervise the operation of the trust accounts or to oversee the actions taken in her name by
Geilim and his staff.

When she became aware of what she terms "suspicious activity," she demanded the return of her trust
account. When she received the account, she found a balance of about $110,000 but did not know what
the funds represented or to whom they belonged. She did not sever her business relationship with
Geilim until 1994.

In 1991, three clients employed Reed to represent them in a personal injury matter. As a result of
her failure to supervise Geilim or to oversee her client trust account, settlement drafts for the
three were received, cashed and deposited without the clients' or Reed's knowledge, settlement
proceeds were not promptly distributed to two clients, medical liens for the three were not honored
and settlement funds were misappropriated.

Reed's conduct constituted gross negligence amounting to moral turpitude.

In mitigation, she was involved in an acrimonious divorce at the time, she sought professional
assistance for extreme emotional difficulties, she took steps to demonstrate remorse and she

cooperated with the bar's investigation.

LAURENCE DAVID STRICK [#75097], 49, of Los Angeles was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on
two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect March
17, 2000.

Strick failed to comply with the conditions of a 1997 private reproval: he did not attend ethics
school, take and pass the professional responsibility exam or complete eight hours of MCLE courses
in attorney-client relations and/or legal ethics.

Strick submitted evidence of extensive mitigation involving the severe illnesses of both his wife
and daughter. For medical reasons, they live in the Bay Area while Strick's practice is in Los
Angeles. Strick supports two households and faces large ongoing medical bills.

PETER HOWE BLUNT [#153392], 54, of Sausalito was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on one year
of probation with a six-month actual suspension, and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation, take
the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect March 24, 2000.

Blunt was suspended by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1998 for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice, engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer's fitness to
practice, and for knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal.

Because his misconduct would warrant discipline in California had it been committed in this state,
he was disciplined in California.

Blunt was found in contempt in Colorado for breaching various court orders involving a lawsuit filed
against him in connection with a real estate partnership, for failing to appear, and for "repeated
and intentional" interference with a liquidator in his attempts to sell property.

In mitigation, he has no record of discipline in California since his 1991 admission and he

cooperated with the bar's investigation.

DENNIS ANGELO JEBBIA [#100945], 45, of San Marino was suspended for 18 months, placed on one year of
probation, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. Credit shall be given for a period of
interim suspension which began April 29, 1998. The order took effect March 24, 2000.

Jebbia was convicted of making false statements on three separate loan applications by submitting
false tax returns.

In mitigation, he has no record of prior discipline, no client was harmed, he cooperated with the
bar's investigation and he took steps to demonstrate his remorse.

VINCENT LEWIS JONES [#147473], 44, of San Francisco was suspended for 30 days, stayed, placed on one
year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect March 24,
2000.

Jones stipulated that he failed to comply with the conditions of a 1997 private reproval; he did not
file two quarterly probation reports, take the MPRE, provide proof of attendance at Alcoholics
Anonymous meetings or report compliance with his criminal probation following a DUI conviction..

In mitigation, no client was harmed, Jones demonstrated remorse and he cooperated with the bar's
investigation.

LAWRENCE MASON KELLY [#111218], 65, of Etna was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years
of probation with a six-month actual suspension, and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation, take
the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect March 24, 2000.

Kelly was suspended from practice in 1997, and among other probation conditions, he was required to
comply with rule 955 by notifying clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his
suspension. He filed an affidavit with the Supreme Court swearing that he had done so.

However, at the time of his suspension, he was attorney of record in a case pending in Siskiyou
Superior Court. He did not notify the court or opposing counsel of his suspension.

The parties stipulated that despite his conduct, there was no finding of bad faith.

Kelly has been disciplined four times previously - in 1992, twice in 1994, and again in 1997 - for
offenses ranging from failing to respond to clients' inquiries to failing to act competently to

failing to comply with probation conditions.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation and he mistakenly believed the Siskiyou
matter was not pending and that notification was not required by rule 955.

RICHARD ALAN KERNODLE [#112513], 50, of Martinez was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension, and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation.
The order took effect March 24, 2000.

Kernodle stipulated to five counts of misconduct.

He performed no legal services and failed to communicate with a client who paid an advance $500 fee
to help him obtain a reduction in child support payments.

The client fired Kernodle and demanded a refund of unearned fees, and when Kernodle did not respond,
the client filed a small claims court complaint. The client eventually settled for $630.

When a State Bar investigator contacted Kernodle about the case, he provided misleading information
about a material aspect of the complaint.

In a separate matter, Kernodle failed to comply with the probation conditions of a 1998 disciplinary
order that resulted from misconduct in seven client matters. He did not file quarterly probation
reports or submit statements of compliance with a law office management plan.

LAURA LUCIANA SANTOS [#150378], 46, of Los Angeles was suspended for four years, stayed, placed on
four years of probation with an actual two-year suspension, and was ordered to make restitution,
prove her rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect March 24,
2000.

Santos stipulated to misconduct in seven consolidated cases.

In the first matter, she represented a client in a marital dissolution. Her client agreed to pay
$10,100 to satisfy outstanding child support payments and other obligations and stipulated that
$2,000 of that amount was to be deposited in trust for his daughter. Santos was to be the trustee,
the funds were to be used solely for tuition and books, and all remaining trust funds were to be
distributed to the daughter when she turned 23.

Santos allowed the balance in her client trust account to fall below the required $2,000, she did
not reimburse the young woman for tuition or books as requested, and she did not forward the balance
of the trust when the woman turned 23. Santos stipulated that she misappropriated client funds,
failed to promptly pay out client funds, failed to perform legal services competently, and committed
acts of moral turpitude.

In another matter, she was employed to handle an issue of past due child support and received a $500
advance fee. Santos did not contact the district attorney's office on her clients' behalf, failed to
provide them with any documentation, did not respond to their multiple phone calls and did not
return unearned fees when the clients sought a refund.

Although she filed a divorce petition for another client, Santos did not respond to that client's
requests for status reports. When another client failed to pay an opposing party's legal fees,
Santos was sanctioned $1,000. She neither paid the sanction nor reported it to the bar. She also
failed to perform legal services in two other cases, and she did not cooperate with three separate
bar investigations of her misconduct.

Santos was disciplined in 1996 for failure to properly maintain client funds, refund an unearned
fee, perform legal services competently or respond to client inquiries. However, she failed to
comply with probation conditions: she did not submit quarterly reports, attend ethics school or
client trust account record keeping school, complete MCLE courses on law office management or
participate in a mediation program.

ROBERT CHARLES WHEELER [#118465], 43, of Concord was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two
years of probation, and was ordered to make restitution and take the MPRE within one year. The order
took effect March 24, 2000.

Wheeler stipulated to misconduct in two cases.

In a probate matter, he requested and received an advance $1,500 retainer without prior court
approval, thereby collecting an illegal fee. He stipulated that he failed to provide legal services
by failing to initiate the probate in a timely manner, failing to handle a request for a premium
payment by a probate bonding company, and by failing to conclude the probate.

Wheeler was hired by another client, who paid $522.50 in advanced fees, to represent her in
obtaining repairs to her condominium. He did no work on the case anddid not respond to his client's
status inquiries, return her documents or refund the advance fee.

In mitigation, Wheeler has no record of prior discipline and he cooperated with the bar's
investigation.

THOMAS ORLANDO HURST IV [#37525], 65, of San Jose was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two
years of probation, and was ordered to make restitution and take the MPRE within one year. The order
took effect April 7, 2000.

Hurst stipulated to misconduct in his handling of two dissolution cases.

His client paid $5,250 in advanced fees in the first matter, and Hurst filed a petition for
dissolution and prepared and sent some financial disclosure papers his client's husband had
requested.

Several months later, his client decided to file for bankruptcy and asked Hurst to draft the marital
settlement agreement quickly in order that she could file bankruptcy papers. He did not do so, nor
did he return her phone calls, provide an accounting of the advance fees or return the unearned fee.

A second client paid Hurst $2,500 in advance to handle her divorce, but he did not return numerous
phone calls, and at one point told her he'd received an extension to respond to a petition. When the
client hired a new lawyer, Hurst did not respond to her letter seeking a refund of fees, nor did he
repay the unearned fees.

In mitigation, Hurst has no prior record of discipline, he presented testimony about his good
character, and he was under the wrong impression that the bankruptcy attorney would finalize his
first client's marital settlement agreement.

JONNIE HILDA JOHNSON-PARKER [#113574], 48, of Inglewood was suspended for one year, stayed, placed
on three years of probation with a 120-day actual suspension, and was ordered to comply with rule
955. The order took effect April 8, 2000.

Johnson-Parker stipulated that she failed to maintain estate funds in trust, provide an accounting
of those funds despite the repeated demands of a successor counsel to the trust, or transfer the
estate funds.

Hired to handle the probate of a

client's deceased mother, Johnson-Parker received the net proceeds - $187,106.40 - from the sale of
the mother's home and deposited it into her client trust account. After making distributions to her
client and another estate beneficiary, she should have maintained a balance of at least $153,000 in
the trust account.

Because Johnson-Parker did not reconcile her trust account ledger with monthly bank statements on a
regular basis, the balance fell below the required amount.

The client hired a new attorney, who asked Johnson-Parker for an accounting and the transfer of
funds. She provided no accounting and sent $50,000 as a partial transfer of estate funds. It was not
until a court ordered an accounting and a transfer that the balance of the money was given to the
client.

In mitigation, the client was not harmed.

WENDY ANN McGHEE [#97028], 45, of Vista was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three years of
probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect April 8, 2000.

McGhee stipulated to misconduct in three cases. She failed to perform legal services competently
three times, refund unearned fees three times, and withdrew from employment without protecting her
client's interests.

In the first matter, McGhee was retained to represent a client, who paid $950 in advance fees, in a
child support case. She did not file an answer on his behalf or take any other steps to resolve the
matter, nor did she appear at default hearings. She did not refund the client's fees when asked to
do so.

The second matter was a marital dissolution for which the client also paid $950 in June 1997. It was
not until May 1998 that McGhee had the dissolution petition served on her client's wife, but she
took no further action and never filed a proof of service. In the interim, she did not return
repeated phone calls, was evicted from her office and her phone was disconnected. McGhee did not
refund any part of the advanced fee.

McGhee filed an incomplete petition in a third divorce case and did no further work. She did not
refund any part of a $500 advance fee.

In mitigation, McGhee practiced for 16 years without any discipline. In 1996, her husband and law
partner died unexpectedly, leaving her with four children, ages 4, 6, 10 and 14. She was unable to
keep up with the demands of her law practice and was overwhelmed by alcoholism and depression. She
is now sober and in treatment for her depression.

She also made full restitution to the three clients.

JAMES L. SACCHERI [#67381], 54, of Fresno was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years
of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and
to comply with rule 955. The order took effect April 8, 2000.

Saccheri was hired to represent a client in 1985 in a civil lawsuit against a recreational vehicle
dealer. The suit settled in 1986 for $15,000 and an apparent agreement to make repairs in the
future. When the company refused to make the repairs, the client instructed Saccheri to file a
second action for breach of settlement agreement.

Saccheri told the client in March 1987 that the suit was filed and sent him a bill. In fact, the
suit was not filed until 1995, when it was barred by the statute of limitations and ultimately
dismissed. Neither the defendant nor its attorney was ever served with a complaint.

He also represented the client's son in a defamation action which was to be filed in 1989 but was
not filed until 1995. That action also was barred by the statute of limitations and resulted in a
cross-complaint against his client for abuse of process.

The same client retained Saccheri to handle a matter involving the defective installation of a
floor. Again, no action was filed until 1995, and neither the defendant nor its attorney ever was
served with a complaint or summons.

Saccheri stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, maintained actions that
were not just or legal and committed acts involving moral turpitude.

In mitigation, Saccheri has no record of discipline in 24 years of practice.

JOHN PATRICK LETHER [#49595], 54, of Carlsborg, Wash., was suspended for two years, stayed, placed
on three years of probation with a 30-day actual suspension, and was ordered to prove his
rehabilitation and take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect April 15, 2000.

In 1995, Lether pleaded guilty to failing to file a federal income tax return, a misdemeanor, for
tax year 1990.

He has four prior records of discipline. In 1989, he was publicly reproved for failing to promptly
refund unearned fees or perform legal services competently. The following year, he was disciplined
for failure to communicate and failing to take the professional responsibility exam, as required by
the 1989 order.

His probation was revoked in 1992 for failure to file quarterly probation reports, and in 1993, he
was suspended for failure to comply with probation conditions or with rule 955.

MURRAY PALITZ [#67062], 63, of Westminster was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years
of probation with a 60-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The
order took effect April 15, 2000.

Palitz was arrested in an Orange County sting operation which focused on payments to non- attorneys
for referrals of personal injury cases and splitting legal fees with non-lawyers.

He was contacted by representatives of a fictitious consulting business which purported to need a
lawyer to help them process personal injury cases.

Palitz reluctantly processed one case through his office, introducing an investigator to his wife,
who corresponded with the insurer and negotiated a settlement. He created a fee-splitting
arrangement under which direct disbursements were made only to the client and his doctor. Palitz
refused to disburse the funds without personally meeting the client and obtaining the client's
signature on settlement documents and the settlement check

There was no indication Palitz encouraged padding any medical bills or otherwise engaged in
insurance fraud by submitting inflated billings. He accepted only one case.

Palitz was convicted of four counts of offering rebates as an inducement to client referral,
misdemeanor violations of the Insurance Code, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000 and complete
250 hours of community service.

In mitigation, he practiced law for 24 years in the same location without any record of misconduct.
He represented his purported client in good faith and believed he was paying the consulting firm for
its considerable investigative work on the personal injury matter. He cooperated with law
enforcement, reimbursed the insurer for the amount he received as fees and enrolled himself and his
wife in a professional responsibility course upon his arrest.

BIANA COLTUN [#105572], 43, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years
of probation with a one-year actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year.
She received credit for a period of interim suspension which began in December 1998. The order took
effect April 19, 2000.

Coltun pleaded guilty in 1998 to filing a false income tax return.

A fire at her law firm in 1991 destroyed much of her property, including files related to client
matters and bookkeeping. An accountant was hired by Coltun's father to prepare her and her parents'
tax returns for 1991, and partly because of the fire, Coltun could provide only an estimate of her
earnings. However, she provided an estimate she knew was too low, ultimately resulting in the
underpayment of $103,381 to the IRS.

Her tax return was verified by a written declaration that it was made under penalty of perjury. The
estimate of her gross income was later determined to have been $382,227 lower than her actual gross
income. (She also underestimated her business expenses by approximately $260,000.)

In mitigation, Coltun was diagnosed as suffering from a victimology complex, based upon a lifetime
of almost total control by her parents. The family emigrated from the Soviet Union after
experiencing years of political persecution. Coltun was coerced by her father into an arranged
marriage and he controlled virtually all her financial affairs.

She has divorced and remarried, has children and has staked out a greater degree of independence
from her parents.

In addition, she paid the balance due the IRS and has hired a tax expert to ensure that her tax
returns are prepared properly and her books are in order.

MARK IRVIN BLANKENSHIP [#130506], 40, of Riverside was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on
five years of probation with an actual six-month suspension and was ordered to prove his
rehabilitation, take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect April
23, 2000.

Blankenship stipulated to 10 counts of misconduct in three cases.

In the first matter, he was retained to represent a client in a civil action. He did not appear at
court conferences and failed to file an opposition to a summary judgment motion, and stipulated that
he failed to provide competent legal services. He also failed to return the client's papers for
almost three years.

When his client filed a complaint with the State Bar, Blankenship sought to resolve his differences
with the client and urged her to withdraw her complaint, a violation of the Business and Professions
Code. He did not cooperate with the bar's investigation.

In a second matter, Blankenship stipulated that he entered into a business transaction with a client
without making certain the terms of the transaction were fair, without advising the client to seek
independent legal counsel and without having the client consent in writing to the terms of the
transaction.

Blankenship purchased property from a client's son, signed four promissory notes in favor of the
client, but did not make the payments. He also asked the client for a personal loan of $115,000, was
to record two deeds of trust but never did, and when he obtained $273,000 for the same client in
another matter, he asked for and received a $273,000 loan from the client. No payments were made.

In a civil matter for which Blankenship received $1,000 in advanced fees, he filed a complaint one
year later, failed to appear in court on behalf of his clients, failed to file oppositions which led
to a dismissal with prejudice, and failed to notify his clients that the case had been dismissed and
judgment entered against them. He also accepted a payment from his clients purportedly for the
purpose of getting the court to set a hearing date - after judgment had been entered.

Blankenship stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, keep his clients
informed about developments in their case or return his clients' file. In addition, accepting a
check for services that could not be rendered and misrepresenting the purpose for which he took the
money was an act of moral turpitude. Blankenship also did not cooperate with the bar's
investigation.

In mitigation, two of his legal partnerships dissolved over three years, events which were
time-consuming and burdensome. Blankenship has legal partnership debts, as well as spousal, family
and child support. He filed bankruptcy in 1996. He also has performed four to eight hours each month
of pro bono legal work.

DAVID LANSING CHAPMAN [#60783], 61, of San Marino was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two
years of probation, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect April
23, 2000.

Chapman failed to comply with any the probation conditions attached to a 1998 public reproval. He
did not submit quarterly probation reports, attend ethics school or provide proof of passage of the
MPRE.

DOUGLAS JOSEPH DOMINO [#159940], 46, of Running Springs was suspended for six months, stayed, placed
on two years of probation with an actual 75-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within
one year. The order took effect April 23, 2000.

In 1999, Domino was convicted of three misdemeanors: giving false information to a police officer,
leaving the scene of an accident and carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle.

A retired police officer, Domino rear-ended a vehicle, never stopped and, after pursuit by the
driver of the other car, he abandoned his truck when it got stuck in the dirt. Police found a loaded
.380-caliber handgun in the car.

When he was questioned later, Domino denied any involvement in the accident, saying his truck had
been stolen and claiming he was in a bar at the time of the incident.

In mitigation, Domino had no record of discipline in nearly six years of practice. He has abstained
from alcohol since 1998 and attends meetings of "The Other Bar" regularly.

WILLIAM ELLISON KING [#127648], 48, of Rohnert Park was suspended for one and a half years, stayed,
placed on five years of probation with an actual six-month suspension, and was ordered to take the
MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect on April 23, 2000.

King filed for bankruptcy in 1994, at a time when he was representing numerous clients on a
contingency fee basis in ongoing litigation. He had done about $21,000 worth of legal work at the
time the bankruptcy petition was filed. King knew that a portion of the post-petition recovery
belonged to the estate.

When the bankruptcy trustee sought information about the litigation and King's fee agreements, he
said he had performed only "a modest" amount of work prior to filing for bankruptcy. When he later
received a $25,000 fee, he did not report it to the bankruptcy trustee.

King stipulated that he committed acts of dishonesty.

About the same time, he also was representing a party in a jury trial and was awarded $30,195 in
attorney's fees. The fees earned before the bankruptcy petition belonged to the bankruptcy estate
and the fees earned post-petition belonged to King.

King did not disclose to the trustee that he received $36,500 in fees and costs, and misled the
trustee into believing the matter was on appeal when the appeal had been denied. He kept the amount
of fees which were due to the estate.

King stipulated that he engaged in repeated acts of dishonesty and moral turpitude.

In mitigation, King was under severe financial stress, had family problems, has no record of
discipline and no clients were harmed. He has closed his law practice.

INTERIM SUSPENSION
GLENN ALAN BESNYL [#165587], 39, of Rancho Cucamonga was placed on interim suspension April 14,
2000, following his conviction on one count of indecent exposure with priors. He was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

STANLEY M. DUPREE [#63726], 53, of San Francisco was placed on interim suspension April 14, 2000,
following his conviction on one count of grand theft. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

JEFFREY LEE DUNAVANT [#181886], 32, of Kirkwood, Mo., was placed on interim suspension April 14,
2000, following his conviction in Massachusetts for possession of marijuana with intent to
distribute and conspiracy to possess marijuana. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

GIL S. MAGNO [#134938], 48, of Carson was placed on interim suspension April 14, 2000, following his
conviction on two counts of mail fraud. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

ROBERT A. DEL CAMPO [#45005], 62, of Arroyo Grande was placed on interim suspension April 17, 2000,
following a federal conviction of one count of conversion of government property. He was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

ANTHONY I. FURR [#61204], 62, of Sacramento was placed on interim suspension April 17, 2000,
following convictions for conspiring to dissuade a witness, dissuading a witness for gain, offering
to bribe a witness and conspiring to pervert or obstruct justice. He was ordered to comply with rule
955.

FRANCINE DIANE NEEDLES [#95776], 47, of Los Angeles was placed on interim suspension April 17, 2000,
following federal convictions on two counts of mail fraud. She was ordered to comply with rule 955.

RESIGNATIONS/CHARGES PENDING
DENSFIELD S. ALEXANDER [#127546], 45, of Oakland (April 5, 2000)

F. THOMAS ECK III [#45095], 55, of Napa (April 5, 2000)

ANDREW JOHNSON PARROTT [#109803], 50, of Escondido (April 5, 2000)

OSCAR S. STEMPEL [#44653], 65, of Los Angeles (April 14, 2000)

JAMES PATRICK TIERNEY [#55308], 57, of Malibu (April 14, 2000)

BYRON PETER HALLING [#82281], 55, of Ramona (April 23, 2000)

[Open FleshWound]

07/00

CAUTION!
Nearly 169,575 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the same

names. All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court documents and should be read carefully
for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.

DISBARMENTS
JAMES THEODORE BAKIS [#44415], 58, of Huntington Beach was disbarred Feb. 18, 2000.

Bakis failed to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court after he was disciplined in
1998; he did not file an affidavit with the Supreme Court attesting that he had notified his clients
and all other pertinent parties that he was suspended from practice.

The 1998 discipline resulted from misconduct which included improperly withdrawing from
representation without protecting his client's interests, and failure to keep his client informed of
developments in his case, cooperate with the bar's investigation or maintain a current address with
the bar.

Bakis was publicly reproved in 1993 for failure to competently perform legal services, communicate
with a client, or promptly return a client's files and for improperly withdrawing from employment.

BRIAN D. BEAUDOIN [#128925], 41, of San Diego was disbarred Feb. 18, 2000.

Beaudoin failed to comply with rule 955, as ordered in a 1997 discipline, by not filing the required
affidavit with the Supreme Court. His case was abated in 1998 during the State Bar's funding crisis,
but when the matter was reactivated, attempts to locate Beaudoin were unsuccessful. The bar still
has not found him.

The original misconduct was the result of abandoning a client and failing to provide an accounting
of funds he received on behalf of his client or preserving those funds in a client trust account. He

was ordered to make restitution.

SUSAN LEE MESKO [#156763], 41, of El Segundo was disbarred Feb. 25, 2000, and ordered to comply with
rule 955.

Mesko failed to comply with rule 955, as ordered in a 1998 discipline, by not filing the required
affidavit with the Supreme Court stating she had notified her clients and other parties of her
suspension.

She was originally disciplined for failing to perform competently for four clients, failing to
communicate with clients, return their papers, refund unearned fees or cooperate with the bar's
investigation, and for making material misrepresentations to clients, improperly withdrawing from
representation, appearing in litigation without the approval of a client, practicing law while
suspended and holding herself out to practice law while suspended.

In recommending Mesko's disbarment, State Bar Court Judge Michael Marcus wrote, "This court is
unaware of any facts or circumstances that would justify departure from the usual sanction of
disbarment for [Mesko's] wilful violation of rule 955."

ANDREW TODD FRISCH [#141624], 42, of Downieville was disbarred March 17, 2000, and ordered to comply
with rule 955.

Frisch failed to comply with rule 955, as ordered in a 1998 discipline, by not submitting an
affidavit to the Supreme Court attesting that he had notified all clients and other parties of his
suspension from practice.

He had been suspended for taking an unconscionable fee from a client and obtaining an improper loan
from the same client. He also was enrolled inactive by the bar in 1996 for failing to comply with a
fee arbitration award.

Frisch did not participate in any of the disciplinary proceedings, which the court said "raises a

grave concern that he has no regard whatsoever for his professional obligations."

AARON B. PAYNE [#77713], 48, of El Cerrito was disbarred March 17, 2000, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

Payne did not comply with rule 955, as ordered in a 1998 discipline. He did not respond to the
notice of charges and his default was entered last September.

The original discipline resulted from a DUI conviction with three priors.

Payne "has a long history of failing to comply with probationary programs designed to help him
overcome his clear pattern of alcohol abuse and reckless, drunken driving," wrote bar court Judge
Nancy Roberts Lonsdale. She said his failure to participate in the disciplinary proceedings "raises

a grave concern that he has no regard whatsoever for his professional obligations."

MARK N.J. BUSH [#107435], 54, of Torrance was disbarred March 24, 2000, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

The State Bar Court found that Bush committed misconduct in eight consolidated cases, repeatedly
disregarding his trust accounting obligations during a three-year period. He wrote at least 17
checks for personal use against his client trust account.

The same type of misconduct resulted in criminal charges in 1998, when he was convicted of property
theft for taking $950 in client trust account funds that should have been used to pay a client's
doctor.

In the newest case, the court found that Bush allowed the balance in his trust account to dip below
the required amount, did not properly maintain client funds in trust, misappropriated client funds,
failed to respond to client inquiries, failed to pay his clients' doctors, and did not cooperate
with the bar's investigation. His actions constituted moral turpitude. The misappropriation totaled
more than $35,000.

Bush did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings, and his default was entered.

In recommending disbarment, Judge Carlos Velarde noted that Bush demonstrated a pattern of
misconduct over several years and offered no explanation for his conduct. "The court has no reason
to believe that [Bush] could or would conform his behavior to the ethical rules, particularly in
light of his failure to participate," Velarde wrote.

SUSPENSIONS/PROBATION
LEO JOSEPH MORIARTY JR. [#140093], 46, of Irvine was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with a 30-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year. The order took effect Feb. 12, 2000.

Moriarty stipulated to misconduct in two matters.

In the first, he falsely told a court several times that a criminal defendant was represented by
another attorney and that he was making special appearances for that attorney. He stipulated that he
misled the court and by doing so committed an act of moral turpitude.

In the second matter, Moriarty stipulated that he improperly withdrew from employment by failing to
communicate with his client and allowing her case to be dismissed.

In that case, he filed a product liability complaint over a car fire. The automobile did not remain
in his client's possession, so Moriarty determined there was no viable cause of action since the car
was not available for inspection.

Moriarty did not appear at two hearings, the case was dismissed with prejudice, and he took no steps
to set aside the dismissal.

Although Moriarty says he told his client the case would be dismissed if it could not be settled,
his client claims Moriarty never communicated any intention to allow a dismissal. He also stated
that his failure to appear and the resulting dismissal were intentional, since a case could not be
made at trial.

Moriarty does admit he never spoke to the client after the matter was dismissed.

MARTIN H. RUB [#62586], 50, of Encino was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of
probation with a requirement that he make restitution and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year. The order took effect Feb. 12, 2000.

Rub stipulated to misconduct involving settlement funds he received for five clients. Although he
prepared breakdown sheets and contends he forwarded them, with releases for the clients' signatures,
the clients never received the documents. The funds were not disbursed for five months.

The doctor who treated the clients never was paid, although Rub wrote two checks for him.

Rub stipulated that he failed to communicate with clients, promptly notify them of his receipt of
settlement funds, pay out funds as requested by the clients, or perform competently to insure that
medical liens were paid, and he did not properly maintain his client trust account.

In mitigation, he paid his clients' attorney fees when they hired new counsel and he has no record
of prior discipline.

DAVID ALLEN TALLEY [#148057], 40, of Suisun was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on one year
of probation with a 60-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The
order took effect Feb. 12, 2000.

Talley stipulated to four instances of misconduct.

He was hired in 1994 to prepare a living trust for a client. He was suspended in 1996 for
non-payment of dues. Just prior to the suspension, the client asked him to revise her trust.

Over the next eight months, the client called Talley once a month; he never returned the phone calls
or made the changes to the trust. He never told the client of his suspension or made arrangements
for other counsel to represent her.

Talley stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, keep his client informed of
significant developments in her matter, or promptly respond to her status inquiries.

He also represented another client in an immigration matter while he was suspended.

In another case, Talley agreed to prepare a living trust for another client, but when the client
tried to contact him several years later, he did not return phone calls. The client fired him and
asked that his files be returned. The file was not returned for 13 months.

Talley stipulated that he failed to respond to the client's inquiries or promptly return his files
when requested.

In mitigation, Talley practiced for nine years without any discipline, he cooperated with the bar's
investigation, and took steps to make amends with his clients.

ROBERT H. BARNHILL [#46513], 67, of Calabasas was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and until he proves rehabilitation, and was
ordered to take the MPRE. The order took effect Feb. 17, 2000.

Barnhill stipulated to misconduct in two matters. In the first, he represented a client in two
personal injury matters. He filed a claim in the first, but failed to pursue it after learning the
defendant was not insured. He then told the client that he had filed a demand for arbitration when
he had not.

He never filed a complaint in the second personal injury case.

Barnhill accepted a workers' compensation case, an area with which he was unfamiliar, because he had
represented the client in other matters. He then failed to do any work on the case.

For almost two years, the client, his son and daughter contacted Barnhill repeatedly. On each
occasion, Barnhill informed them he was working on the case and that it was proceeding in court.

Barnhill stipulated that he failed to perform the legal services for which he was employed in both
cases and committed acts of moral turpitude by misrepresenting the facts to his clients.

Barnhill was publicly reproved in 1989, and in 1992 was disciplined for failing to perform legal
services competently, keep a client informed about his case or promptly deliver client funds,
improperly withdrawing from a case, and for committing acts of moral turpitude.

JOAN BAUMGARTEN [#108909],49, of North Palm Springs was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on
two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE and prove her rehabilitation. The order took
effect Feb. 17, 2000.

Baumgarten stipulated to five counts of misconduct.

Publicly reproved in 1997, Baumgarten did not comply with the conditions attached to the reproval.
She failed to submit quarterly probation reports, mental health reports and a law office
reorganization plan, and she did not attend ethics school or take the professional responsibility
exam.

In an insurance matter, Baumgarten did not file an answer on her client's behalf and did not seek to
set aside the resulting entry of default, despite repeated assurances that she would do so.

She stipulated that she failed to perform legal services competently, respond to her client's
reasonable status inquiries, and refund unearned fees. She also did not cooperate with the bar's
investigation.

Baumgarten was publicly reproved in 1997 for failing to act competently, promptly return client
papers, respond to a client's status inquiries or cooperate with the bar's investigation.

In mitigation, Baumgarten suffered from chronic serious health problems, requiring several
surgeries. She could not drive, was housebound and bedridden for a time, and she incurred thousands
of dollars in uninsured medical and hospital bills. In addition, her mother died after a three-week
hospitalization, exacerbating Baumgarten's physical and mental stress.

STEVEN R. FINCH [#80033], 51, of Hollywood was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with an actual one-year suspension, and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation,
take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Feb. 17, 2000.

Finch stipulated to two counts of making false representations to the court and committing acts of
moral turpitude.

Finch was cited by the California Highway Patrol in 1997 for driving a car without a license plate
and with tinted left and right front windows. In order to have such a citation cleared, the
corrections must be made and the car inspected by a law enforcement officer.

Finch appeared in court, said the citation had been signed off, and although he did not produce
documentation, the court dismissed the counts. Finch had not made the necessary changes to the car.
When he was cited again several months later, he admitted he had not made the required changes and
was given two $180 fines for the infractions. The fines were suspended since Finch provided proof of
compliance.

In another matter, Finch represented a defendant who was charged with contempt for disobeying a
court order. He twice told the district attorney the victim in the case wished to drop a temporary
restraining order against Finch's client. Based on those representations, the court dismissed the
case against Finch's client.

In fact, Finch never talked to the victim, who did not wish to drop the restraining order.

Finch was suspended for five years, beginning in 1987, as a result of a conviction for possession of
goods stolen from interstate shipment.

KATHY LYNN HOLDER [#153045], 43, of San Bernardino was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on
five years of probation with an actual three-year suspension and until she proves her rehabilitation
and makes restitution, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took
effect Feb. 17, 2000.

In a personal injury matter, Holder wrote a check to her client's chiropractor which was incorrectly
returned by the bank for insufficient funds. Although the bank rectified its mistake, Holder never
paid the medical lien. She stipulated to failure to maintain funds in a client trust account,
promptly deliver client funds or cooperate with the bar's investigation.

As part of a 1997 discipline order, Holder was required to comply with rule 955 of the California
Rules of Court by notifying all her clients and other pertinent parties that she was suspended from
practice and submitting an affidavit to that effect to the Supreme Court. She submitted her
affidavit after the deadline and stipulated to failing to comply with a court order.

In addition, Holder did not comply with other conditions of that probation or the conditions
attached to a 1996 probation by the required deadlines.

In mitigation, she expressed remorse and said she attempted to make restitution to the chiropractor,
but he moved to another state. She submitted a lengthy declaration about personal problems,
including the death of her secretary, her guardianship of her boyfriend's three children after his
death, eviction from her office and bankruptcy.

JOHN WALLACE LARSON [#30700], 72, of Walnut Creek was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with a nine-month actual suspension, and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation
and take the MPRE. Credit toward the actual suspension will be given for a period of interim
suspension which began April 2, 1999. The order took effect Feb. 17, 2000.

Larson pleaded guilty to grand theft in 1999, based on retaining funds due to 21 different clients
over a three-and-a-half year period. He had negotiated medical lien discounts and kept the
difference rather than refunding it to his clients.

The aggregate amount of the loss to the clients was $8,600; Larson made restitution in amounts
satisfactory to the court.

In mitigation, Larson cooperated with law enforcement and with the bar's investigation and he has no
prior record of discipline.

BRUCE JAY FRIEDMAN [#57053], 51, of San Anselmo was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on
three years of probation. The order took effect Feb. 18, 2000.

The State Bar Court's review department increased the discipline which had been recommended by a
hearing judge, particularly because an additional discipline was recommended in the interim.

Friedman's problems began with a private reproval, imposed after he practiced law in Wyoming without
a license. The review department characterized his misconduct as minor.

When he did not comply with the conditions attached to the reproval, he was again reproved, with
additional conditions. That led to a third set of disciplinary charges, to which Friedman stipulated
before the bar court. It recommended a six-month stayed suspension and two years of probation.

In a fourth proceeding in which Friedman's default was entered, he failed to perform legal services,
return a client's business records, respond to a client's requests for information, or refund
unearned attorney's fees, and he improperly withdrew from employment.

Bar prosecutors petitioned the review department to increase the recommended discipline, arguing
that the hearing judge did not consider aggravation including multiple acts of misconduct,
indifference toward rectification and a failure to cooperate in the last disciplinary matter.

The review department said it was "extremely troubled" by Friedman's repeated failure to comply with
"the simplest of reproval conditions," and concluded that an actual suspension was necessary to
impress on him the seriousness of his conduct.

MARTIN K. HARARY [#49911], 55, of Oxnard was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of
probation with an actual one-year suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year.
Credit was given for a period of interim suspension which began March 31, 1998. The order took
effect Feb. 18, 2000.

In 1998, Harary pleaded no contest to two counts of unlawfully paying client referral fees, a
violation of the Insurance Code. In a sting operation in Ventura County, he accepted two personal
injury cases referred by a fictitious medical marketing operation.

Although he declined the deal when it was first offered, Harary then suggested a way to circumvent
rules governing fee-sharing.

In mitigation, he has no record of prior discipline and cooperated with the bar's investigation, and
no client was harmed by the misconduct.

KEITH GERARD LIGGINS [#124055], 43, of Los Angeles was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on
three years of probation with an actual suspension of one year and until he makes restitution, and

was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years,

he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Feb. 18, 2000.

Liggins stipulated that he failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 1997 discipline.
Among other things, he failed to submit to the State Bar's probation office proof that he made
restitution, attended ethics school, completed three hours of MCLE instruction in law office
management, joined the bar's law practice management section or returned client files.

The original misconduct included seven counts of failing to perform legal services competently, five
counts of failing to return client papers, two counts of failing to refund unearned fees, nine
counts of failing to respond to client inquiries and three counts of violating a court order.

HAROLD SAMUEL WROBEL [#120783], 40, of Pacific Palisades was suspended for one year, stayed, placed

on three years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect

Feb. 18, 2000.

In 1997, Wrobel was convicted of conspiracy to violate currency reporting requirements. He was
acquitted of charges of conspiracy to launder drug trafficking proceeds and money laundering.

Wrobel was arrested with another California lawyer and a Las Vegas casino collections manager for
their roles in exchanging large amounts of currency, supposedly derived from drug sales, for money
orders. The scheme was actually a Drug Enforcement Agency sting operation, with the DEA supplying
the money.

The other lawyer gave Wrobel two payments of $100,000 in currency which he exchanged for cashiers
checks. Wrobel then structured deposits of the cash into his accounts to avoid the $10,000 statutory
reporting requirement and was paid $3,000 for conducting the transactions.

He was arrested during a third, similar transaction.

NORMAN A. LEWIN [#123734], 40, of Glendale was suspended for 90 days, stayed, placed on one year of
probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within a year. The order took effect Feb. 17, 2000.

Lewin stipulated that he failed to maintain his client trust account, misappropriated client funds,
wrote checks against insufficient funds and commingled personal and client funds.

He allowed the balance in the trust account to fall below the required amount numerous times, wrote
several checks against insufficient funds, and used the account to pay personal expenses.

In mitigation, he has no record of discipline, has hired an accountant to monitor his trust account

and cooperated with the bar's investigation.

DAVID GREGORY ROTH [#123893], 44, of Portola Valley was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on
two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and was ordered to make restitution and take
the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Feb. 25, 2000.

Roth stipulated to misconduct in his handling of two criminal matters.

In the first, he twice failed to appear in court with his client, and he did not meet with the
client or keep him informed about the status of his case. Roth was removed as attorney of record at
his client's request.

In the second matter, he nodded off and fell asleep three times during a criminal jury trial. A
mistrial was declared upon a motion by his client's co-defendants. Roth underwent a drug test, and
although it was negative, the bailiff noticed several needle marks on his arm.

In mitigation, Roth cooperated with the bar's investigation and sought help for his substance abuse
problems.

ALAN G. KAROW [#131353], 39, of Santa Barbara was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with a 60-day actual suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation, and he
was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect March 5, 2000.

Karow stipulated that he failed to comply with conditions attached to a 1997 probation: he failed to
submit five quarterly probation reports or proof of attendance at a substance abuse program, and
failed to attend ethics school, take the MPRE or maintain a current address with the bar.

In mitigation, he currently is enrolled in a substance abuse program.

The original discipline was imposed for failure to perform legal services competently or promptly
return client files and for withdrawing from a case without protecting his client's interests.

DIANE HELENE NADLER [#116798], 46, of San Jose was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three
years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within a year. The order took effect March 5,
2000.

In two separate cases, Nadler stipulated that she did not deposit client funds in a trust account.

In the first matter, she deposited a $25,000 settlement draft in her general account. She also
maintained between $4,000-8,000 of her own money in her trust account.

In a second case in which she represented a client in an action for child support, Nadler deposited
support payments for the client in her general account and then issued checks to the client from
that account.

In mitigation, Nadler has no record of discipline and her clients were not deprived of any funds as
a result of her actions.

MICHAEL BRUCE BAKER [#53099], 53, of Thousand Oaks was suspended for five years, stayed, and was
placed on six years of probation with an actual three-year suspension and until he proves his

rehabilitation. He was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. Credit toward the actual

suspension will be given for a period of interim suspension which began Nov. 8, 1996. The order took
effect March 17, 2000.

According to a stipulation Baker reached with the bar, he was convicted for the fourth time of
indecent exposure in 1996. He served 15 months in jail.

His history of exhibitionism is the result of a medical condition for which he has undergone
therapy. He has agreed to return to therapy as a result of the stipulation.

Baker was privately reproved twice for previous convictions.

In mitigation, his conduct did not involve clients.

BRENT O'MALLEY BARNES [#68656], 62, of San Diego was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with a 45-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year.

The order took effect March 17, 2000.

Barnes stipulated that due to his misuse of his client trust account and poor record-keeping, the
balance in the account fell below the required amount on nine dates. In addition, he deposited
non-client funds belonging to a friend and employee in the trust account and he commingled personal
funds in the account as well.

Barnes was publicly reproved in 1990.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation.

PATRIZIA JANE BOEN [#112399], 52, of Mission Viejo was suspended for two years, stayed, and was
placed on three years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension. The order took effect March 17,
2000.

Boen stipulated to misconduct in two cases.

In the first, she represented a client who had been severely injured and hospitalized. His son hired
Boen to handle a personal injury matter and to establish a conservatorship, paying a $1,000 fee.

When the son expressed concern two months later that he had heard nothing from Boen, she assured him
she was handling the matter and she did contact some of the father's creditors.

However, she did not petition the court for the conservatorship and decided the personal injury
action could not be pursued. She did not advise the cli-ent's son about her decisions.

The son fired Boen and sought a refund of the advanced fee, which she did not return.

The son then filed a small claims action against Boen, who eventually was ordered to refund $1,200
plus $77 in costs.

She stipulated that she failed to properly withdraw from employment and protect her client's
interests, and failed to respond to a client's inquiries or promptly return an advanced fee.

In the second matter, Boen was publicly reproved with conditions in 1995. She did not file nine
quarterly probation reports or complete six hours of MCLE courses.

In mitigation, Boen suffered health problems and had to care for her terminally ill mother for more
than a year. She presently does not practice.

RAYMOND ORTIZ BUENDIA [#94975], 47, of San Diego was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within a year.
The order took effect March 17, 2000, but the actual suspension began April 2.

Buendia stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently in three immigration
matters. In the first, he filed a single asylum application for a family of four. When informed
individual applications were required for each family member, he re-submitted the applications,
which were denied because they were incomplete. He never completed the filing.

Buendia then represented two sons in the family separately before the INS. As a result of his
actions, one son was deported and the case of the other son, who faced a deportation proceeding, was
considered abandoned. In those matters, Buendia failed to file court papers or explain his failure
to file papers in a timely fashion, paid an incorrect filing fee, and entered an incorrect alien
registration number on the motion.

Buendia also stipulated that he failed to properly manage his client trust account, letting the
balance fall to a negative amount and writing two checks against insufficient funds.

Buendia was publicly reproved in 1990 as a result of false advertising, and was disciplined in 1993
for failing to comply with the conditions of the reproval, mishandling his client trust account and
failing to perform legal services competently or communicate with clients.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation.

JACK SAMUEL FELTSCHER, aka JACOB SAMUEL FELTSCHER [#91973], 48, of Escondido was suspended for one
year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 30-day actual suspension and was ordered to
take the MPRE within a year. The order took effect March 17, 2000.

Feltscher practiced law and held himself out as entitled to practice while he was suspended in 1995

for non-payment of bar dues.

He has no record of discipline since his 1980 admission to the bar.

GERALDINE D. GREEN [#50282], 67, of Los Angeles was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on five
years of probation with an actual two-year suspension and was ordered to comply with rule 955. The
order took effect March 17, 2000.

Green petitioned for review of a hearing judge's findings of misconduct and sought a reduction of
the recommended discipline, arguing that the State Bar failed to prove she committed any violations.
The review department upheld the hearing judge's findings on most charges, and reduced the actual
suspension from 30 months to 24 after finding "serious aggravation, which compels significant actual
suspension."

Green, who is a former California Commissioner of Corporations, represented a client in the
wrongful death of his wife and unborn child in a car accident. The case was dismissed, following
mediation, by attorneys for the plaintiff, who signed a release as to the drivers and owners of two
automobiles involved in the accident and their insurance carriers.

Green then filed a products liability action in superior court against Nissan. When Nissan demurred,
she filed no opposition and the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Several months later,
Green tried to vacate the court's order, blaming her staff for not scheduling a response or an
appearance.

The review department agreed with the hearing judge that Green did not respond to the demurrer
because she concluded she could not overcome it. It did not find, however, that her conduct was
reckless.

Although not charged, the review department found that Green misrepresented to the superior court
her reasons for neither opposing the demurrer or appearing in court for the hearing. It also agreed
that Green did not keep her client notified about developments in the case.

In a second matter, Green represented a psychologist in litigation involving breaches of a lease.
The review judges found she failed to attend two status conferences and tried to obscure that
failure by billing the client for attending one conference and for mileage. She had her client sign
blank forms, and did not show the client proposed responses to interrogatories before filing them.

She did not inform her client about developments in her case.

Green was privately reproved in 1993 for writing two bad checks on her trust account. When she
failed to comply with the conditions of the reproval, she was disciplined in 1995. That discipline
also included her acknowledgment of failing to perform legal services competently or to keep clients
advised of developments in their cases.

In mitigation, Green has a history of involvement in social and civic affairs, including serving as
president of the Beverly Hills NAACP and accepting pro bono referrals from two Los Angeles
congresswomen.

CONNIE SUE KRAMER [#100973], 52, of Long Beach was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with an actual six-month suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect March 17, 2000.

Kramer stipulated that she failed to perform legal services competently by not supervising an
employee's work in 12 different matters, by not finalizing a divorce and by failing to confirm a
settlement and appear at trial. She also did not appear at a hearing when no settlement had been
reached and did not file a cross-complaint as promised.

Kramer formed a business relationship with a paralegal in 1995, opening a bank account to which he
was a co-signatory. By March 1996, the paralegal was paying Kramer's business bills, making deposits
for her and maintaining her client files. Kramer, who had closed her law office but maintained a
post office box and handled some work out of the paralegal's office, was neither regularly checking
on the status of her cases nor picking up her mail.

In the 12 client matters in which she was charged, the paralegal variously entered into settlement
negotiations, signed Kramer's name on legal documents without her knowledge, did not tell Kramer she
had been hired by clients, failed to return advance fees, made misrepresentations to clients and
opposing lawyers and deposited client funds into his personal account.

Several clients were harmed: a judgment was ordered against a couple, a mother's visitation rights
were negatively affected and a writ of attachment was issued against another client.

Kramer was disciplined with a public reproval in 1996, but did not comply with probation
conditions - she did not attend ethics school or take the professional responsibility exam.

She also stipulated to writing a check against insufficient funds in her client trust account.

In mitigation, Kramer was suffering from depression, lost her home to foreclosure, has taken steps
to compensate the injured clients and cooperated with the bar's investigation.

INTERIM SUSPENSION
FRANCIS LEONARD GILL [#112768], 41, of Agana, Guam, was placed on interim suspension Jan. 3, 2000,
following his conviction for conspiracy to commit theft, attempted theft, and conspiracy to tamper
with public records. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

INNA ELANA GOFMAN [#152356], 39, of Van Nuys was placed on interim suspension Jan. 7, 2000,
following her conviction in federal court for mail fraud. She was ordered to comply with rule 955.

F. THOMAS ECK III [#45095], 55, of Napa was placed on interim suspension Jan. 21, 2000, following
his conviction in federal court for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. He was ordered to comply with
rule 955.

SOCRATES G. DOMINGO [#137333], 44, of Simi Valley was placed on interim suspension Jan. 21, 2000,
following his conviction on federal charges of mail fraud, money laundering and aiding and abetting.
He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

MARC SEAN HARVEY [#115689], 40, of Woodland Hills was placed on interim suspension Jan. 21, 2000,
following his conviction for two counts of possession of a controlled substance. He was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

JEFFREY J. WIEBE [#147834], 37, of Alameda was placed on interim suspension Feb. 28, 2000, following
a 1999 conviction for hit and run with property damage and resisting arrest. He was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

ELIZABETH PRICE [#85536], 54, of San Rafael was placed on interim suspension March 4, 2000,
following her conviction on federal charges of perjury and making false statements for use in
determining Social Security benefits. She was ordered to comply with rule 955.

RESIGNATIONS/CHARGES PENDING
JAMES LEE CARTER [#88061], 49, of San Francisco (Feb. 24, 2000)

LEONARD DALE BASINGER [#52200], 56, of Orange (March 19, 2000)

SETH JORDAN KELSEY [#61696], 49, of Westminster (April 23, 2000)

SUSPENSION/FAILURE TO PASS PRE
TRACY D. BEALL [#161168], 36, of Mechanicsburg, Ohio (Jan. 10, 2000)

EARL F. TRITT III [#141754], 44, of Poway (Jan. 28, 2000)

WILLIAM RANDOLPH NEILL [#43582], 58, of Los Angeles (March 10, 2000)

PUBLIC REPROVAL
BILL J. WEIR JR. [#98824], 51, of Joshua Tree (Nov. 24, 1999)

JANG WOO LEE [#116980], 54, of Los Angeles (Nov. 26, 1999)

KYLE MARIE LAPESARDE [#110812], 48, of Los Angeles (Dec. 10, 1999)

MICHAEL JOHN ROARK [#41685], 58, of Bonita (Dec. 15, 1999)

GARY VICTOR DUBIN [#34595], 51, of Honolulu (Dec. 31, 1999)

ROBERT JOHN CORRY [#171979], 32, of Washington, D.C. (Jan. 6, 2000)

HUGH E. COMISKEY JR. [#52292], 56, of Alturas (Feb. 12, 2000)

REINSTATEMENT
BARRY STEVEN MARLIN [#35096], 66, of Los Angeles (Jan. 4, 2000)

[Open FleshWound]

05/00

CAUTION!
Nearly 169,450 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the same

names. All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court documents and should be read carefully
for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.

DISBARMENTS
WILLIAM EDGAR DAVIS III [#101641], 46, of Los Angeles was disbarred Jan. 12, 2000. He was ordered to
comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Davis intentionally failed to perform legal
services competently in two matters and twice failed to communicate with clients.

The court recommended disbarment because of the "overwhelming predominance of aggravating
circumstances."

In the first matter, a client paid Davis $650 to file a bankruptcy matter. After a month, he stopped
communicating with her and she was unable to reach him despite at least 25 phone calls.

His paralegal prepared the bankruptcy petition, which the client filed on her own. Davis never paid
the paralegal or reviewed her work; she placed 26 calls to him but he never responded.

Davis never prepared a bankruptcy petition for another client, who had paid him $1,000. He did not
return phone calls or refund the fee.

According to the bar court, Davis threatened both clients with a lawsuit for slander. The threat to
the first client amounted to moral turpitude because Davis improperly attempted to dissuade the
ex-client from pursuing her complaint to the bar. He did not ask the second client to withdraw his
complaint.

Davis was disciplined twice previously. In 1993, he was suspended for abandoning three criminal
clients, disobeying four court orders to appear at hearings, and abandoning a client in a personal
injury matter.

In 1999, the bar court found that Davis failed to maintain in trust $2,299 of a client's funds, and
delayed 19 months before paying a medical lien.

JAMES ALBERT MOSER [#159600], 54, of Fairfax was disbarred Jan. 16, 2000. He was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

Moser was disbarred in a default proceeding for failure to comply with a 1998 rule 955 requirement;
he did not submit to the Supreme Court an affidavit stating that he had notified all pertinent

parties of his suspension from practice.

The earlier discipline was imposed as a result of Moser's repeated writing of personal checks
against his client trust account. Many of the checks were returned for insufficient funds.

The misconduct began less than three years after Moser was admitted to practice.

DAVID RICHARD RANCOURT [#161461], 34, of Providence, R.I., was disbarred Feb. 12, 2000, and was

ordered to comply with rule 955.

Rancourt did not comply with a 1998 rule 955 requirement by not filing the required affidavit with
the Supreme Court.

The earlier discipline was imposed for Rancourt's failure to comply with the conditions of a public
reproval and for failing to properly represent a client.

The reproval was based on misconduct affecting an incarcerated client, with whom Rancourt did not
communicate and for whom he failed to perform legal services.

Rancourt's default was entered when he failed to participate in the disbarment proceeding.

LINDA LENORE WILGUS [#112204], 56, of Danville was disbarred Feb. 12, 2000, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

Wilgus did not file with the Supreme Court the rule 955 affidavit required by a 1998 disciplinary
order. Her disbarment was recommended in a default hearing.

The earlier discipline involved three client matters in which Wilgus failed to perform legal
services competently, respond to client inquiries or communicate with a client. She also bounced
several checks written against her client trust account, and did not cooperate with the bar's
investigation of her conduct.

SUSPENSIONS/PROBATION
KEVIN CHRISTOPHER McDONOUGH [#99944], 45, of Clinton, Conn., was suspended for two years, stayed,
placed on two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension, and was ordered to prove his
rehabilitation and take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Dec. 19, 1999, and he
returned to active status Feb. 17, 2000.

McDonough stipulated to three counts of misconduct.

He did not maintain adequate trust account records, used his trust account for personal and business
purposes unrelated to any client matter, and wrote several checks against insufficient funds.

In mitigation, McDonough has no record of prior discipline, no clients were harmed and he was
suffering from alcoholism.

THOMAS H. MAHONEY [#44287], 67, of Sacramento was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on two
years of probation. The order took effect Dec. 19, 1999.

Mahoney failed to comply with conditions attached to a 1998 public reproval: he did not provide
proof of participation in a fee arbitration, provided no proof that he had made any payment to a
former client, and did not attend ethics school or file quarterly probation reports.

The public reproval was the result of Mahoney's failure to comply with conditions of an agreement in
lieu of discipline he reached with the State Bar in 1997.

The underlying conduct involved a failure to return advanced fees after Mahoney and a client ended
their relationship.

In mitigation, Mahoney suffered marital and family difficulties, has had a series of
hospitalizations, including three surgeries, and has significantly reduced his caseload.

CAROL LYNN MARTIN [#157177], 32, of San Jose was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with a one-year actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year. Credit towards the actual suspension will be given for an interim suspension which began Dec.
5, 1998. If the period of actual suspension exceeds two years, she must prove her rehabilitation.
The order took effect Dec. 19, 1999.

Martin pleaded no contest in 1998 to one count of first degree burglary. She had acquired the key to
a friend's home and took clothing, jewelry and other personal items.

The victim had been both friendly and abusive over the years; her behavior reinforced abusive
behavior Martin has suffered for much of her life.

In mitigation, Martin has undergone therapy to deal with past abuse which led to a psychological
disorder. Her therapist reported that the disorder was related to Martin's actions in the burglary
matter.

Martin cooperated with the investigation and presented significant testimony as to her good
character.

JOSE ANGEL RODRIGUEZ [#62551], 51, of El Monte was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on
probation for three years. The order took effect Dec. 19, 1999.

Rodriguez violated the terms of a 1995 probation by failing to file quarterly reports or
certificates from a certified public accountant that he is properly maintaining his client trust
account.

He had stipulated to trust account violations, failure to perform legal services competently,
failure to communicate with clients and the unauthorized practice of law.

At the time of Rodriguez' misconduct, he was a municipal court commissioner.

In mitigation, Rodriguez was depressed due to the humiliation caused by the discipline order, had
family problems, suffered from alcoholism and was suspended from his job because of the discipline.
He submitted letters attesting to his good character, attends AA meetings, has a long record of pro
bono activities and presides over a successful drug court.

MALIK ALI MUHAMMAD [#74824], 54, of Oakland was suspended for 30 days. The order took effect Dec.
19, 1999.

Muhammad failed to comply with conditions attached to a public reproval and an agreement in lieu of
discipline: he did not attend ethics school or take the professional responsibility exam.

The discipline resulted from a contempt conviction.

Muhammad, a devout Muslim and strong supporter of the black community, had intentionally failed to
appear in court twice as a protest of the verdict in the Rodney King beating case. He served jail
time for the conviction, which eventually led to discipline by the State Bar. The bar court found
that he violated a court order and showed disrespect to a court.

Muhammad intentionally failed to comply with the disciplinary orders as a protest against what he
perceives as a racist system.

LUIS RENE VALDEZ [#153865], 38, of Santa Ana was suspended for 60 days, stayed, placed on one year
of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Dec. 19, 1999.

Valdez failed to comply with conditions attached to a 1997 public reproval: he has not filed six
quarterly probation reports, taken the MPRE, attended ethics school or completed six hours of
instruction in law office management.

The underlying misconduct to which he stipulated involved failure to respond to client inquiries and
keep them informed about developments in their matters, improperly withdrawing from representation
without protecting a cli-ent's interests, and failure to cooperate with the bar's investigation.

In mitigation, he was suffering from financial stress at the time of the misconduct, and no clients
were harmed by his failure to comply with the probation conditions.

The probation of JEFFREY JOHN WIEBE [#147834], 37, of Alameda was extended for one year, beginning
Dec. 19, 1999.

Wiebe failed to comply with probation conditions attached to 1998 discipline order: he filed two
quarterly reports late and completed ethics school and trust accounting school after the deadlines.

In mitigation, Wiebe is enrolled in a residential substance abuse program, learning strategies to
cope with the stress of working as a sole practitioner.

The underlying misconduct involved failure to avoid adverse interests with a client, maintain client
funds in a trust account, or pay out client funds promptly.

MARK J. FLANNICK [#169998], 36, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year. The order took effect Dec. 31, 1999.

Flannick worked as an "attorney-advisor" for the federal government, in a job which requires him to
be a member of the bar in good standing even though he does not practice law.

He was suspended in 1997 for nonpayment of bar dues, but failed to notify his employer of the
suspension and held himself out as entitled to practice.

In mitigation, no one was harmed by Flannick's conduct and he cooperated with the bar's
investigation.

MATTHEW CHARLES LONG [#55857], 67, of Los Angeles was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two
years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Dec. 31,
1999.

Long violated the terms of a 1997 disciplinary probation by failing to submit four quarterly
reports, attend six hours of MCLE courses on law office management or take the professional
responsibility exam.

The 1997 order resulted from Long's failure to comply with the terms of a 1995 public reproval
requiring him to take the MPRE.

DONETIA R. MESHACK [#118044], 42, of Los Angeles was suspended for 90 days and until she makes
restitution and she was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the suspension exceeds
two years, she must prove her rehabilitation. The order took effect Dec. 31, 1999.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Meshack violated the terms of a 1998 public
reproval by failing to submit five quarterly reports, proof of membership in the law practice
management section or proof of completion of the professional responsibility exam, and she had not
made restitution to a client.

It is her fourth disciplinary proceeding and the third involving probation violations.

Meshack was privately reproved in 1995 for failing to perform legal services competently, return
client papers and property or refund unearned fees.

In 1997, she was publicly reproved for failure to refund unearned fees, cooperate with a bar
investigation, maintain a current address with the bar and for failing to comply with conditions
attached to the private reproval. She had not provided proof of restitution, completed ethics school
or taken the professional responsibility exam.

The following year, she was again publicly reproved for failing to file quarterly probation reports,
prove her membership in the law practice management section or submit proof of restitution, all
required in the 1997 order.

LINCOLN N. MINTZ [#37610], 58, of Oakland was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years
of probation with a nine-month actual suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation, and was
ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Dec. 31, 1999.

Mintz stipulated to eight instances of failing to respond to State Bar inquiries about complaints
filed against him by clients.

In one case, he was hired to represent a client in a pending fee arbitration proceeding, but after a
couple of months of work, Mintz stopped communicating with his client. He stipulated to failure to
respond to his client's reasonable status inquiries and to improperly withdrawing from employment.

Mintz also stopped communicating with a client who was charged with two murders.

Mintz was disciplined in 1997 for failing to comply with the conditions of an earlier private
reproval.

In the current case, he stipulated that he also failed to comply with the conditions of his 1997
probation by not filing quarterly reports or developing a law office management plan.

BRUCE STEVEN WEINER [#78533], 48, of Newport Beach was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on 18
months of probation with 120 days of actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Dec. 31, 1999.

Weiner stipulated to misconduct in four matters.

In the first, he practiced law while suspended for failure to pay bar dues; he appeared in court or
filed pleadings on four separate occasions as the attorney of record for the plaintiff in a civil
matter. He then failed to cooperate with the bar's investigation.

He represented another client in a personal injury matter and although the client terminated his
services, he communicated with her in a way that constituted giving legal advice during the time he
was suspended.

Weiner also was suspended in a 1997 disciplinary order, but did not comply with probation
conditions: he failed to submit probation reports on time and completed ethics school after the
required deadline.

That matter was the result of unauthorized practice, collecting an illegal or unconscionable fee and
failure to promptly refund unearned fees.

In mitigation, Weiner mistakenly thought his discipline cases had been abated and his efforts to
clarify the status of his cases were unsuccessful due to the partial shutdown of the bar's
discipline system in 1998.

He has done charitable work for a child abuse prevention organization.

BYRON WILLIE COOPER [#166578], 37, of Palo Alto was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE. The order took
effect Jan. 5, 2000.

Cooper pleaded no contest in 1998 to three misdemeanors - knowingly dissuading a witness from giving
testimony, prowling on the private property of another and disturbing the peace by fighting in a
public place.

Although Cooper was placed on interim suspension by the bar in 1999, the suspension was later
vacated and referred to the State Bar Court's hearing department for a decision recommending the
discipline to be imposed.

Cooper's troubles began when he drove into a motel parking lot one night to eat some food he had
purchased at a fast food outlet on his way home from work.

According to a stipulation he reached with the bar, he felt that as a black man, he was less likely
to be questioned if he were on private property rather than on the street at 11 p.m.

Cooper stepped out of his car to see what was on the floor of an empty carport when a man in a truck
drove up and accused him of looking in his window. When Cooper tried to leave, the truck driver
blocked his car.

Cooper and the truck driver grappled over a cell phone, which Cooper grabbed and threw over a fence.
Meanwhile, the truck moved and struck a parked car. The driver's daughter and a neighbor emerged
from the motel and began to fight with Cooper, who was knocked to the ground.

He was able to get up and drove away.

In mitigation, no victims or witnesses were injured and no client was involved. Cooper graduated
from the West Point Military Academy and received the Army Commendation Medal after serving in the
armed forces. He has a record of community service.

WILLIAM ROMAN GARDNER [#95186], 45, of San Francisco was suspended for three months, stayed, and
placed on probation for one year and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took
effect Jan. 5, 2000.

Gardner stipulated to misconduct in two matters.

In the first, he was hired to obtain an annulment of marriage after the client's dissolution matter
had been acted upon in court. When Gardner filed a petition for nullity,. he did not file a motion
to set aside the judgment of dissolution.

After the opposing party filed a motion to quash, Gardner dismissed the motion for annulment with
prejudice and did no further work on the case.

He stipulated that he failed to act competently.

In the other matter, Gardner was suspended from practice for a month in 1994 for nonpayment of bar
dues. He practiced law during the course of the suspension.

In mitigation, he has no record of prior discipline, he cooperated with the bar's investigation, and
no harm was done to any clients.

DARRYL JEROME BILLUPS [#65216], 52, of Hayward was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on
three years of probation with an actual 20-month suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE.
Credit toward the suspension will be given for an interim suspension which began Aug. 17, 1999. The
order took effect Jan. 12, 1999.

Billups was convicted in 1997 of driving under the influence with four priors. He was found by a
police officer in Berkeley slumped over his steering wheel with the engine of his car still running.
His blood alcohol level was .22. At the time, he was driving on a suspended license.

Billups was placed on interim suspension by the State Bar Court in 1997, was ordered to comply with
rule 955 of the California Rules of Court and filed the required affidavit stating that he had
notified all pertinent parties of his suspension from practice.

He stipulated that during the interim suspension, he failed to notify a court, in which he made an
appearance, of his suspension.

In mitigation, he has no record of prior discipline.

BRUCE ALLEN BROWN [#140111], 51, of Manhattan Beach was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on
three years of probation with a nine-month actual suspension and until he makes restitution, and was
ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, Brown
must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Jan. 12, 2000.

In 1993, Brown filed a complaint for slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress
against another attorney in Los Angeles Superior Court. According to the State Bar Court, the
plaintiffs were fictitious and the allegations in the complaint were untrue.

A court commissioner found that the matter was frivolous and that Brown acted in bad faith for the
purpose of annoying the other attorney. Brown was ordered to pay the defendant in the suit sanctions
totalling $11,315.75.

He then filed a second slander action against the same attorney and also named his former wife as a
defendant. Again, the bar court said, the plaintiffs were fictitious and the allegations untrue. The
case was dismissed.

The bar court found that by filing and prosecuting two frivolous suits, Brown sought to mislead the
court, failed to pursue only actions that appear to be legal, and committed acts of moral turpitude.

BRUCE CLINTON HILL [#43427], 57, of Woodland Hills was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on
two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE. The order
took effect Jan. 12, 2000.

Hill was retained and paid $1,000 in 1989 to represent a client in a breach of contract matter and
to procure an attorney in Kansas to handle an unrelated foreclosure proceeding in that state.

He did no work in the breach of contract matter, which was lost when the statute of limitations
expired, and never hired counsel in Kansas. For seven years, he advised his client that he had filed
the breach of contract complaint and provided a false case number to the client's bankruptcy
attorney.

Hill stipulated that he failed to perform legal services for his client and that he committed acts
of moral turpitude by making false representations.

He has no record of discipline since his 1969 admission to the bar.

CHARLES HAROLD KAVALARIS [#46853], 56, of San Jose was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on
four years of probation with a one-year actual suspension and was ordered to comply with rule 955.
The order took effect Feb. 21, 2000.

Kavalaris engaged in fee-splitting with nonlawyers in a kickback scheme. From 1985 until 1991,
Kavalaris and his law partner paid more than $130,000 to the secretary-treasurer of the San Jose
Teamsters Union for referrals of personal injury clients. From 1987 to 1991, they paid another
$150,000-plus to other nonlawyers in exchange for referrals.

Although Kavalaris said the statute of limitations had run on the misconduct, the State Bar Court
disagreed. Under rule 51 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, the statute of limitations
applies only to investigations initiated because of a complaint by an individual. The investigation
of Kavalaris was initiated by a bar attorney, who read about the kickback scheme in the newspaper in
1995.

The court found that Kavalaris' actions also involved moral turpitude.

He also wrote two checks against insufficient funds in his client trust account and commingled
personal and client funds in the account.

Kavalaris was disciplined in 1997 for failing to communicate with a client or pay and report
sanctions, for improperly withdrawing from a case and for a second DUI conviction. When he violated
his probation by failing to file a probation report on time, he was suspended for 60 days. He
practiced law while suspended, appearing at two arbitration hearings, making a court appearance and
finalizing settlement of a case.

The bar court said it found the trust account violations and Kavalaris' unauthorized law practice
more troubling than the earlier kickback scheme.

His actions "show a disregard for the orders of the Supreme Court and the review department of the
State Bar Court," wrote Judge Nancy Roberts Lonsdale. How-ever, she rejected the bar's
recommendation that Kavalaris be disbarred.

In mitigation, Kavalaris is an alcoholic (now sober), suffers from acute depression, has acted as a
judge pro tem, and provides free legal advice to other members of Alcoholics Anonymous. The
fee-splitting misconduct occurred from 1985 to 1991 and ceased eight years ago.

The probation of WILLIAM L. BRYAN JR. [#117084], 47, of Foothill Ranch was revoked, the previous
stay of suspension was lifted, and he was given a new two-year suspension, stayed, and placed on two
years of probation with a 60-day actual suspension. The order took effect Jan. 15, 2000.

Bryan was disciplined in 1998 for misconduct in three consolidated cases. His actions included
failure to perform legal services competently, promptly return client papers or respond to client
inquiries, improperly withdrawing from representation and false advertising.

He failed to comply with eight separate conditions of the 1998 probation, including submitting
quarterly probation reports, attending ethics school, attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings and
taking the professional responsibility examination.

In mitigation, the misconduct occurred at a time Bryan was suffering from severe emotional
difficulties and had family problems. He and his wife were about to adopt a baby when the birth
mother took the child back, an event which worsened Bryan's manic depressive illness. In addition,
he and his wife cared for his wife's terminally ill parents at their home.

PETER JOHN DANIELS [#52310], 58, of Cupertino was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three
years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Jan. 16,
2000.

Daniels pleaded no contest in 1998 to four misdemeanors: two counts of threatening to commit a crime
resulting in death or great bodily harm, one count of infliction of corporal injury on a spouse, and
one count of alcohol-related reckless driving.

His wife had accused him of twice threatening to kill her and of shaking her so hard that her neck
was injured.

As part of his probation, he is required to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and to seek
counseling.

He cooperated with the bar's investigation.

MARVIN EMERY PARKER [#109164], 47, of Inglewood was suspended for 90 days and until the State Bar
Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension. He was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with
rule 955. If the suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. He also must comply
with any probation requirements imposed as a condition for terminating his suspension. The order
took effect Jan. 16, 2000.

Parker was publicly reproved in 1997 for allowing the statute of limitations to expire on his client
's personal injury matter, despite calls from his client.

He did not fulfill the conditions of his reproval - he failed to file quarterly probation reports,
attend ethics school or take the MPRE.

The probation of THOMAS PATRICK FREYDL [#159567], 58, of Montebello was revoked, the previous stay
of suspension was lifted, and he was suspended for six months with credit for a 45-day period of
actual suspension and for a period of involuntary inactive enrollment that began Nov. 7, 1999. He
was ordered to comply with rule 955. The order took effect Feb. 3, 2000.

Freydl was disciplined in 1998 but failed to file quarterly probation reports, a condition of his
probation.

He had stipulated to five counts of misconduct in two client matters, including failing to return
unearned fees or respond to client inquiries. He also entered into a loan agreement with a client
without putting the terms of the loan into writing or advising the client to seek independent
counsel.

The probation of MICHAEL BANCROFT LLOYD [#71708], 49, of Riverside was revoked, the stay of
suspension lifted and he was ordered suspended for six months. He must comply with rule 955. The
order took effect Feb. 3, 2000.

Lloyd did not submit three quarterly reports required by a 1998 discipline order. That misconduct
involved Lloyd having his clients, without their informed written consent or authority, purchase a
$125,000 annuity with Lloyd as beneficiary in order to secure his legal fees.

CHRISTINA M. ARNALL [#85869], 50, of Northridge was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on
three years of probation with an actual two-year suspension, and was ordered to make restitution,
prove her rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Feb. 12,
2000.

According to a stipulation Arnall reached with the bar, she was retained to represent six people who
had been trapped in an elevator. She settled the case for $20,000, which was deposited in her client
trust account, but she never paid the clients and stopped communicating with them.

The clients employed new counsel who requested the return of the clients' files three times. Arnall
ignored the requests.

Although she reached a settlement agreement with the clients, Arnall paid only $2,000 of the $22,000
she owed.

She also commingled personal and client funds in her trust account, and wrote more than 30 checks
against insufficient funds.

In mitigation, Arnall has no record of discipline since her 1979 admission to the bar, and she had
financial difficulties and family problems at the time of the misconduct.

FRANK CATALLO [#55523], 61, of Palm Desert was suspended for one year, stayed, and was placed on
probation for one year with a 45-day actual suspension. The order took effect Feb. 12, 2000.

Catallo stipulated to misconduct involving his client trust account.

He deposited settlement funds for a client and her two minor daughters, but allowed the balance in
the trust account to fall below the required amount four times. He commingled personal and client
funds in the account.

Catallo did not petition the court for a compromise of the daughters' settlements, as required by
the probate code, so their portion of the funds was not placed into an interest-bearing blocked
account until they reached the age of 18. Catallo also took one-third of their settlement as
attorney fees.

He stipulated that he failed to properly supervise his client trust account, commingled personal and
client funds, and collected an illegal fee by taking one-third of the daughters' settlement without
a court order.

In mitigation, Catallo cooperated with the bar's investigation, has no record of prior discipline,
has a strong record of community service, and took immediate steps to rectify the problems with his
trust account.

ARTHUR HOW FONG [#80048], 53, of Los Angeles was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three
years of probation with a 120-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Feb. 12, 2000.

Fong stipulated that he failed to fulfill the requirements of an earlier discipline by not
sumbitting an affidavit to the Supreme Court attesting that he had notified all clients and other
pertinent parties of a 1998 suspension.

That misconduct involved commingling personal and client funds in his client trust account. Fong
wrote 36 personal checks for more than $5,400 against the account.

In mitigation, no clients were harmed, Fong showed remorse and cooperated with the bar's
investigation, and at the time of the misconduct, he faced severe financial stress as well as
physical disabilities.

BILL MARK MILESTONE [#160548], 41, of Santa Cruz was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on
three years of probation with an actual one-year suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE and
comply with rule 955. Credit towards the suspension will be given for an interim suspension which
began Dec. 5, 1998. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation.
The order took effect Feb. 12, 2000.

Milestone pleaded no contest in 1998 to embezzlement, an offense involving moral turpitude.

He stipulated that he settled a client's personal injury case for more than $31,000, paid the client
and paid the liens against the settlement. He kept $10,000 as his fee.

Once he was informed the insurance company and the medical center had released their liens, he
transferred more than $6,000 remaining in the trust account to his personal account.

In mitigation, Milestone believed once the client received her share of the settlement, the balance
could be distributed to the attorneys. He did not believe he had done anything wrong.

The client received the entire amount of the settlement and paid no fees to Milestone or a previous
attorney.

Milestone also cooperated with the bar's investigation and submitted numerous letters attesting to
his good character and reputation.

RESIGNATIONS/CHARGES PENDING
GREGORY LYLE PEDLAR [#92987], 46, of Novato (Dec. 12, 1999)

JOHN CHADWICK WEAVER [#86709], 77, of Santa Monica (Dec. 12, 1999)

KELLY MARTIN WILSON [#153577], 48, of Martinez (Dec. 12, 1999)

CYRUS ALAN COX [#146017], 44, of Longwood, Fla. (Dec. 19, 1999)

RAMIN SANJAR [#143557], 39, of Glendale (Jan. 1, 2000)

KEVIN FOSTER SCHONEMAN [#90889], 46, of Sacramento (Jan. 12, 2000)

DANIEL THOMAS DONNELLY [#64029], 51, of Hemet (Feb. 12, 2000)

GAIL ANN EASTON [#79988], 48, of San Jose (Feb. 12, 2000)

JOHN B. EVANS [#61068], 55, of San Francisco (Feb. 12, 2000)

EKITA L. MITCHELL [#139685], 46, of Silver Springs, Md. (Feb. 12, 2000)

TERRENCE LEE MEYER [#129447], 54, of Fair Oaks (Feb. 12, 2000)

[Open FleshWound]

06/00

CAUTION!
More than 169,370 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the
same names.

All discipline reports should be read carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.
Attorneys must report address changes within 30 days.

All discipline summaries are taken from the State Bar Court decisions.

DISBARMENTS
PAUL MICHAEL GRAY [#140320], 52, of Hemet was disbarred Dec. 12, 1999, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

Gray failed to comply with a rule 955 requirement in a 1998 disciplinary order. He did not submit an
affidavit to the Supreme Court attesting that he had notified all clients, opposing parties and
pertinent courts of his suspension. Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment.

The 1998 discipline was the result of Gray's failure to advise in writing his elderly and
incapacitated client of her right to seek independent counsel before loaning Gray money. He then
obtained the loan without getting the client's written consent to its terms and continued to see
the client despite a restraining order and later an injunction to avoid contact with her.

Gray abandoned another client who had hired him to evict a tenant.

MARTIN WOLFF [#73211], 52, of Koror, PW, was disbarred Dec. 19, 1999, and ordered to comply with
rule 955.

Wolff failed to comply with a rule 955 requirement in a 1998 disciplinary order by not submitting
the necessary affidavit to the Supreme Court.

The discipline came in a default proceeding brought because of misconduct in Hawaii, where Wolff
wrongfully accused opposing counsel in a civil case of fabricating evidence.

The court also found that between 1989 and 1996, he made 14 separate and meritless accusations
alleging dishonesty, false statement, fraud and subornation of perjury against 10 attorneys. He
communicated with a represented party, made a false statement to a court and forced two female
domestic employees to walk naked through the streets.

An attorney can be disciplined in California for misconduct in another state if those actions would
have led to discipline here had they occurred in this state.

MICHAEL CLARK MANNIX [#80365], 53, of Boulder, Colo., was disbarred Dec. 31, 1999.

Mannix was disbarred in Colorado in 1997 for misconduct in five matters.

The State Bar Court determined that his misconduct in Colorado warrants the imposition of discipline
in California.

Mannix's actions included failure to perform (four counts), keep clients reasonably informed (three
counts), return unearned fees (three counts) and cooperate with a bar investigation (five counts),
improperly withdrawing from representation three times, commingling client and personal funds, three
instances of dishonesty, charging an excessive fee, and unauthorized practice of law.

The Colorado Supreme Court found that in mitigation, Mannix appeared to have genuine remorse for his
misconduct.

However, he was twice disciplined in 1994 and failed to participate in the disbarment proceedings.

FRANKLIN K.P. MOORE [#134411], 38, of Puerto Vallarta was disbarred Dec. 31, 1999, and ordered to
comply with rule 955.

Moore failed to comply with a rule 955 requirement in a 1998 disciplinary order by not submitting
the required affidavit to the Supreme Court.

He had failed to perform legal services competently or refund unearned fees, and his misconduct
constituted moral turpitude.

SUSPENSIONS/PROBATION
FRANCIS J. BLOOMINGDALE [#52935], 63, of La Mesa was suspended for two years and until he proves his
rehabilitation and makes restitution to a client in the amount of $89,250.33. The order took effect
Oct. 15, 1999.

Initially disciplined in 1994 for misappropriating funds from his brother-in-law/client,
Bloomingdale's probation in that case was revoked in 1996 when he failed to comply with probation
requirements.

The 1996 order included attendance at ethics school as a condition of probation. His failure to do
so resulted in the new discipline. Bloomingdale also was privately reproved in 1988.

BITA LOGHMAN HOFFMAN [#159205], 34, of San Diego was suspended for 90 days, stayed, placed on one
year of probation with a 30-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year.
The order took effect Oct. 15, 1999.

Hoffman modified a court order without the consent or knowledge of that court. Since the change was
minor (involving the location of retirement funds) and no one benefitted from the change, the bar
court did not find that Hoffman's conduct entailed moral turpitude.

In a second matter, Hoffman signed her client's name to two declarations which she then submitted to
a court. She said she did so for the convenience of both her client and herself. The bar court found
she misled the court and committed an act of moral turpitude.

In mitigation, Hoffman presented four witnesses at trial to attest to her good character. She has no
record of prior discipline, volunteers with a non-profit corporation and has done pro bono work at a
battered women's shelter.

MONDAY U. ABENGOWE [#143986], 41, of West Los Angeles was suspended for four years, stayed, placed
on four years of probation with an actual two-year suspension and until he proves his
rehabilitation, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect
Oct. 15, 1999.

Abengowe stipulated to misconduct in eight consolidated cases.

Much of the misconduct involved the use of his client trust accounts. He wrote more than 60 checks
against insufficient funds, wrote checks for personal expenses against his trust accounts,
misappropriated client funds and committed acts of moral turpitude. Abengowe also paid commissions
to his employees and others for referring or settling cases. The amount of the commissions depended
upon the amount of the settlement. He stipulated that he engaged in fee-splitting with
non-attorneys.

He also stipulated to two counts of failure to perform legal services competently or to communicate
with clients, and one count of improperly withdrawing from representation without protecting his
client's interests.

He did not cooperate with the bar's investigation.

VICTOR H. TOSCANO [#80753], 54, of Glendale was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years
of probation with a requirement that he make restitution, and was ordered to take the MPRE within
one year. The order took effect Oct. 15, 1999.

Toscano violated the terms of a 1997 private reproval by failing to make restitution in the amount
of $940.

MICHAEL CHARLES MOUSTAKAS [#55953], 59, of Northridge was suspended for 60 days, stayed, and was
ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Oct. 15, 1999. In a separate order,
effective Nov. 4, 1999, he was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years of probation
with an actual two-year suspension, and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and
comply with rule 955.

In the first case, a default proceeding, Moustakas held himself out as entitled to practice law
while he was suspended for 60 days in 1997. He kept a greeting on his answering machine indicating
he was a lawyer in good standing, when in fact he was ineligible to practice as a result of failing
to pay funds to clients, maintain records of client funds, respond to reasonable status inquiries,
pay medical providers, and cooperate with the bar's investigation.

The second discipline case also was a default proceeding in two consolidated matters. The State Bar
Court found that Moustakas violated probation conditions in two separate disciplinary cases.

In one matter, he did not file a quarterly probation report, a certificate from a certified public
accountant, proof of enrollment in a law practice management class, or an office management plan,
and he failed to make restitution.

In that matter, Moustakas had stipulated that he failed to promptly pay funds to two separate
clients, maintain records of funds he received on behalf of those clients, respond to status
inquiries, promptly pay funds to a medical provider, obtain written consent to his joint
representation of two clients, or cooperate with the bar's investigation.

In the second matter, he failed to make restitution by the required deadline, as ordered in a
private reproval.

Because the restitution involved only $20, the case was dismissed by a hearing judge, but the bar
court's review department ruled that the judge had erred and remanded the case back to him.

Moustakas repaid the $20 plus interest, but he did not do so by the required deadline.

He has a record of discipline which also includes a 1998 suspension for failing to comply with a
condition of a 1995 private reproval and with several conditions of the 1997 discipline.

MARVIN H. MITCHELSON [#27801], 72, of Los Angeles was suspended for four years, stayed, placed on
four years of probation with an actual four-year suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation.
Mitchel-son has appealed the actual suspension; a hearing was scheduled for April 25. The judge will
then have 10 days to rule. The order took effect Oct. 17, 1999.

In 1993, Mitchelson was convicted of four counts of filing false income tax returns and was ordered
to pay the IRS $2.2 million. Subsequently, the State Bar placed him on interim suspension May 3,
1993.

While on interim suspension, Mitchel-son mistakenly assumed that his client trust account could be
changed to a personal account and requested the bank to make the change. The bank did not comply,
but Mitchelson believed the account had been changed and he used it for personal purposes.

While suspended, he also provided legal advice to a woman about an assault case and received $500
for his services. He stipulated that he exceeded the scope of his paralegal duties.

Mitchelson also stipulated to misconduct in a 1986 case in which he failed to communicate with a
client or return her files after he won a judgment for her of more than $443,000. She had sought the
return of her files in order to enforce the judgment she had obtained.

Mitchelson has a record of discipline which includes a 1993 suspension for failure to adequately
supervise an associate and improper conduct in the use of a client trust account, a 1994 suspension
for failure to take the professional responsibility exam, a 1995 probation revocation, and a 1996
discipline for failure to provide accountings or return unearned fees in 14 client matters.

In mitigation, Mitchelson has practiced for more than 35 years, handling noteworthy cases in the
family and criminal law arenas. He also has written widely and is often a guest speaker.

JOHN G. MONKMAN JR. (aka GRANNIS MONKMAN), [#51174], 54, of Pasadena was suspended for 60 days,
stayed, placed on one year of probation with a requirement that he make restitution, and was ordered
to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Oct. 15, 1999.

Monkman stipulated to misconduct in five consolidated matters.

He and his client were sanctioned more than $5,000 ($700 for failure to attend a deposition related
to discovery) in a marital dissolution. He neither paid the sanctions nor reported them to the State
Bar, as required.

Monkman also was sanctioned twice in another dissolution matter, and did not pay those sanctions
either.

In a third matter, he threatened to file a complaint against his clients' dentist in order to gain
advantage in a civil dispute.

In mitigation, Monkman has no record of discipline in almost 30 years of practice.

JOHN EDWARD TERRY [#78404], 53, of Amarillo, Texas, was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on
two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Oct.
15, 1999.

Terry was publicly reproved in 1997 for failure to act competently and return client papers promptly
when requested.

As part of the reproval, he was required to take and pass the professional responsibility exam
within a year. His failure to do so resulted in this discipline.

HILARY T. SCANTLEBURY [#67421], 56, of Barrington, Ill., was suspended for three years and until he
attends ethics school, proves his rehabilitation and takes the MPRE. The order took effect Oct. 22,
1999.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Scantlebury should be disciplined in
California for misconduct he committed in Illinois. The Illinois Supreme Court suspended Scantlebury
from practice for three years in 1998.

It found that he converted at least $96,000 of client funds, lied to clients, forged a notary's
signature to a release of claims and forged a client's signature to settlement drafts.

In his Illinois practice, Scantlebury misappropriated entrusted funds in six matters, failed to
deposit client funds in a trust account five times, failed twice to promptly pay clients funds to
which they were entitled, did not communicate with clients, misrepresented the status of client
matters, issued checks against insufficient funds and commingled personal and client funds.

Four of his actions constituted moral turpitude.

In mitigation, Scantlebury suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder, an addiction to alcohol
and depression which may have caused the misconduct. He now is a member of Alcoholics Anonymous and
takes prozac for his depression.

An attorney who is disciplined for misconduct in another state is subject to discipline in
California if the misconduct would have led to disciplinary action had it been committed in
California.

Scantlebury has not practiced in California since 1978, when he was suspended for failing to pay bar
dues.

KENNETH NEIL BRODY [#160292], 34, of Sacramento was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on one
year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Nov. 4,
1999.

Brody stipulated that he failed to perform competent legal services by using his status as an
attorney to sign official forms without adequately supervising the processing of those forms.

Brody's brother was a principal of a southern California company that represented clients seeking a
reduction in the assessed value of their real estate. Appeals forms must be signed either by the
property owner or by an attorney acting as the property owner's agent.

Each year, new forms are issued only a few weeks before the appeal deadline, so Brody's brother
asked him to sign the forms in order to avoid obtaining the signatures of hundreds of clients.

During the summer of 1994, Brody signed hundreds of appeal forms, but he did no work for the clients
other than comparing the information on the forms with the data from the company. He was paid $500.

Brody signed more forms the following summer, for another $500.

He did not contract with any property owners to have an attorney/client relationship, never met with
or spoke to any of the property owners, did not review any supporting materials to assure that the
clients actually sought a reduction in their assessments, did not appear at any hearings and assumed
no other responsibilities for the appeals.

Employees of the company also signed Brody's signature without his knowledge. One unauthorized
appeal, resulting in an increased tax assessment, was submitted with Brody's purported signature. He
did not sign that appeal.

In mitigation, Brody has no record of discipline and cooperated with the bar's investigation.

DENNIS REID HOPTOWIT [#61544], 53, of Chico was suspended for 90 days, stayed, placed on one year of
probation, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Nov. 4, 1999.

In 1997, Hoptowit pleaded no contest to driving under the influence with a prior conviction, after
he was arrested with a blood alcohol level of .18. His conduct did not constitute moral turpitude
but did warrant discipline.

In a second case, Hoptowit represented a client who pleaded no contest to drunken driving and was
ordered to pay a $1,240 fine. The client was to give partial payments to Hoptowit, who was to
forward the money to the court. Hoptowit did not deposit two checks from the client in his client
trust account, and he commingled personal and client funds in the account.

When he did not return his client's phone calls, the client sent payment of his fine directly to the
court. On the deadline for final payment, Hoptowit determined the client still owed $195, so
Hoptowit paid the balance in cash.

Hoptowit stipulated that he commingled funds, failed to deposit client funds in the trust account,

and failed to communicate with a client.

In mitigation, he has no prior record of discipline and he cooperated with the bar's investigation.

HENRY J. KOEHLER IV [#52539], 65, of Beverly Hills was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on
two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year. The order took effect Nov. 4, 1999.

A State Bar Court hearing judge found that Koehler improperly withdrew from representation of a
client in a family law matter, exonerated him of charges of practicing law while suspended, and
recommended a two-year stayed suspension, a 30-day actual suspension and two years of probation.

The bar sought review, urging a one-year suspension and a finding that Koehler improperly practiced
law.

The review department upheld the hearing judge's findings, although it increased the actual
suspension to 60 days.

According to the record, Koehler was retained by a client to represent him in a divorce action with
a custody dispute. The client agreed to pay $10,000 and attorney's fees of $250 an hour. When the
court ruled against the client, Koehler and the client discussed their options: "run out the clock"
by using up the remaining $2,200 in the advance fee, or petition the court of appeal, a task which
would take an estimated 20 to 25 hours over a weekend.

The client agreed to the petition, stating he had $30,000 in a pension fund, presumably to pay his
legal fees.

The following day, one of Koehler's assistants called the client and instructed him to come to the
office with lunch. When he arrived, he met with two assistants, who told him he must either pay an
additional $5,000 or agree to substitute Koehler out of the case. The custody issue was scheduled
for six days later, the client did not have the money and he reluctantly signed a substitution
relieving Koehler.

His former attorney was unable to represent him at the hearing, which had been planned for one year,
so the client represented himself. The client and his spouse ultimately reached a stipulated
settlement of the custody issue.

Although Koehler wrote to the client's former lawyer, provided a status report and suggested he
would help with the appeal, the record showed no evidence the petition ever was filed.

The bar court hearing judge found that Koehler abandoned his client without protecting his
interests.

Koehler has been disciplined twice previously. In 1976, he was privately reproved for failing to
timely perform legal services in four matters, and in 1992, he was suspended for six months for
failure to perform legal services in a time-sensitive matter and for improper handling of trust
accounts.

In mitigation, several clients attested to Koehler's good character, and he has performed
not-for-profit work for fathers' rights organizations.

SHELLY MARIE MATIS [#95507], 45, of Rancho Cucamonga was suspended for 90 days and until she makes
restitution and proves her rehabilitation, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule
955. The order took effect Nov. 4, 1999.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Matis committed misconduct in two matters.

In the first, she represented a collection agency, filing several lawsuits and providing status
reports about various collection matters. She was to receive a 15 percent contingent fee from all
monies collected.

At a certain point, Matis did not pay the agency the money it was due ($85) from checks she received
from a debtor, she stopped performing any work, and did not answer letters or provide information
about any of the matters she was handling.

When the agency hired new counsel, Matis did not respond to their letters or return files. In
addition, the balance of her client trust account fell below zero and the account was closed.

The bar court found that Matis withdrew from employment without taking steps to avoid prejudice to a
client, failed to respond to status requests, return the client's papers and property, or cooperate
with the bar's investigation, and misappropriated funds held in trust.

In a second matter, she was hired by another attorney to handle 14 collection matters. A month
later, the attorney terminated Matis' services and repeatedly requested the return of her files.
Matis finally returned the files 20 months later.

In mitigation, Matis has no record of prior discipline.

STANLEY NICHOLS [#44310], 68, of San Bernardino was suspended for two years, stayed, and was ordered
to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Nov. 4, 1999.

Nichols stipulated to misconduct in three consolidated cases.

In the first matter, he was hired to contest a 30-day notice to quit, but did not act within the 30
days. When the client was served with an unlawful detainer action, Nichols again did not act quickly
despite numerous telephone calls, a default was entered and the client was evicted.

When the client went to Nichols' office to obtain his file, the client agreed to allow Nichols to
continue to represent him with the understanding he would file a breach of contract action on the
cli-ent's behalf. Nichols failed to do so and did not respond to the client's request that he return
his papers and refund his fees.

In the second case, Nichols substituted into a case but never filed the substitution form, took any
action on his client's behalf or responded to the client's inquiries about the case.

In another matter, Nichols was hired to initiate foreclosure proceedings and file suit to obtain
money owed to his client. Nine months later, the client hired another company which foreclosed on
the property in question. He asked Nichols to provide an accounting and return any unearned fees,
but Nichols never did so.

Nichols stipulated that he twice failed to perform legal services competently, respond to client
inquiries, or provide an accounting, and that he did not return one client's files.

The probation of ROBERT OTHNIEL WALSH [#60153], 61, of Porterville was revoked and the previous stay
of suspension was lifted, and he was ordered suspended for six months with credit from a previous
45-day actual suspension and from a period of involuntary inactive enrollment which began July 7,
1999. He also was ordered to comply with rule 955. The order took effect Nov. 4, 1999.

Walsh failed to comply with the conditions of a 1997 probation, including attending ethics school,
filing quarterly probation reports and completing six hours of CLE courses.

The '97 order also resulted from a failure to comply with conditions attached to an agreement he had
reached with the bar in lieu of actual discipline.

The original misconduct involved his failure to perform legal services competently or communicate
with a client.

The probation of BARBARA A. COOPER [#70489], 59, of Hesperia was revoked, the previous stay of
suspension was lifted, and she was suspended for six months and ordered to comply with rule 955.
Credit toward the suspension was given for a period of involuntary inactive enrollment which began
Aug. 14, 1999. The order took effect Nov. 14, 1999.

In August 1997, Cooper reached a stipulation with the State Bar in four consolidated cases which
required her to comply with numerous probation conditions. She failed to submit a law office
management plan, file three quarterly probation reports, submit proof of her attendance at ethics
school and various MCLE courses, join the law practice management section, take the MPRE, or verify
that she sought treatment from a mental health professional.

The original discipline involved misconduct in four client matters, including failure to perform
legal services competently in two matters, failure to return three client files, failure to
communicate with one client or respond to client inquiries, and improperly withdrawing from a case.
She also did not cooperate with the bar's investigation.

There was no mitigation.

DANIELLE FARRENS WONG [#140944], 52, of Stockton was suspended for three years, stayed, and placed
on three years of probation with an actual one-year suspension and until she proves her fitness to
practice law and her rehabilitation from alcohol/drug addiction. She also was ordered to pass the
MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Nov. 17, 1999.

Wong stipulated to misconduct in four cases, each stemming from Wong's use of alcohol.

In November 1997, she pleaded no contest to driving under the influence in El Dorado County. She had
argued with a tow truck driver who advised her not to drive after he pulled her out of a ditch. She
drove away and was arrested with one unopened and two open bottles of wine in her car.

Later that month, she pleaded no contest in San Joaquin County to driving a vehicle while having a
blood alcohol count of more than .08 percent (her blood alcohol count was .25).

The same day, she pleaded guilty to one count of battery. Wong was arrested in July for throwing a
can of oven cleaner and a glass coffee pot at her daughter and housekeeper. She had returned home
two days earlier, after serving a 72-hour confinement at San Joaquin County Mental Health, and had
been intoxicated since. Wong argued with her daughter when the 17-year-old refused to give her
mother her car keys.

About a month later, Wong pleaded no contest to one count of driving with a suspended or revoked
license.

She has a prior record of discipline, following a 1993 conviction for obtaining a controlled
substance (Demerol) by fraud. She also failed to meet the probation conditions attached to the
Placerville DUI, and a bench warrant was issued.

In mitigation, she cooperated with the bar's investigation of her conduct.

ANDRE KEITH SILVOLA [#109154], 51, of Colorado Springs was placed on two years of probation and
suspended for one year and until he proves his rehabilitation. The order took effect Nov. 17, 1999.

Silvola was disciplined in 1998 and was ordered at the time to comply with rule 955. He stipulated
that he did not comply because he filed the required affidavit a month late.

In mitigation, Silvola was suffering from Major Depressive Disorder at the time. He had no clients,
no pending litigation and no client files or unearned fees in his possession.

JAMES HERRICK COFFER [#111466], 51, of Concord was suspended for 90 days, placed on six months of
probation, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. The order took effect Nov. 25, 1999.

Coffer stipulated to three counts of misconduct. He practiced law while suspended for non-payment of
bar dues in the first matter.

He failed to properly supervise his employees in two bankruptcy cases. In the first, Coffer's client
was ordered to pay a bank $5,000 by close of business on July 21, 1995. Although the client had the
funds ready, Coffer's employees said the client could send the money overnight and they would notify
the bank.

The employees failed to do so, the bank refused payment and scheduled a sale of the client's home. A
third bankruptcy filed by Coffer on the client's behalf was dismissed.

In the second matter, a client's bankruptcy case was dismissed because of delayed compliance with a
payment plan. As a result, one of the creditors scheduled a trustee's sale of the client's property.
Coffer filed an application to re-open the case instead of a motion to vacate. The motion to vacate
was filed after the trustee's sale.

In mitigation, Coffer performed additional legal services for those clients free of charge and he

cooperated with the bar's investigation.

JAMES LAWRENCE WELLMAN [#116357], 40, of Woodland Hills was suspended for one year, stayed, placed
on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect
Nov. 25, 1999.

Wellman failed to comply with the conditions of a 1998 private reproval. He did not file five
quarterly probation reports or proof of completion of nine hours of MCLE courses.

He said he believed he did not have to comply because the State Bar's disciplinary activities were
curtailed during its funding crisis.

JOHNNY ELEUTARIO MOSQUEDA [#162225], 52, of Chino Hills was suspended for one year, stayed, placed
on two years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE and
comply with rule 955. The order took effect Dec. 1, 1999.

Mosqueda pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts of violating the insurance code after he was
arrested in a 1997 sting operation in Orange County.

The undercover operation targeted law offices paying non-attorneys for referrals of personal injury
cases and splitting fees with non-attorneys.

Although Mosqueda rejected an offer made by an investigator, telling him it was illegal, he
nonetheless agreed to a 60/40 split of the attorney's fee, with 60 percent going to the phony
consulting firm which was to refer personal injury cases.

Mosqueda received a fabricated police report, retainer agreement and other information before
agreeing to take on the case. He then received fabricated medical reports and statements from the
consulting firm.

He sent a demand letter to an insurance carrier and later negotiated a settlement, giving a
percentage to the consulting firm.

In mitigation, Mosqueda cooperated with the bar's investigation and demonstrated his remorse.

SARAJANE CROSBY [#65552], 57, of Mill Valley was suspended for one year, stayed, and ordered to take
the MPRE within a year. The order took effect Dec. 1, 1999.

In 1996, Crosby entered into an agreement in lieu of discipline (ALD) following two convictions for
driving with a suspended license. She stipulated that she failed to comply with the ALD conditions,
including submitting quarterly reports, participating in a substance abuse program and attending
ethics school.

In mitigation, Crosby was admitted to three medical facilities for treatment of alcoholism over 19
months during the time in question. She had no prior discipline record.

MELANIE LORRAINE JONES [#153698], 39, of Oakland was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with an actual six-month suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Dec. 8, 1999.

Jones stipulated that in 1995, she wrote 16 checks for insufficient funds in her client trust
account. In addition, she commingled personal and client funds in the account and wrote 51 checks
for personal expenses.

Jones also misappropriated funds from two clients.

In mitigation, Jones has no record of prior discipline.

THOMAS A. LACEY [#31359], 67, of Modesto was suspended for four years, stayed, placed on four years
of probation with an actual one-year suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year
and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Dec. 10, 1999.

Lacey's resignation from the bar is pending.

The State Bar Court found that Lacey committed acts of misconduct in two matters.

The first involved a divorce in which Lacey represented the husband. Although he deposited more than
$275,000 in proceeds from the sale of real estate in his client trust account, Lacey later
transferred the funds to a joint tenancy account in his and his client's names. He used his client's
Social Security number to establish the account.

For two years, before the divorce was final, Lacey paid his client $1,400 monthly in interest
payments from the account. He did not inform the court or opposing counsel about the account or the
payments.

His actions violated a court order and constituted moral turpitude, and he breached his fiduciary
duty to his client's wife.

In another case, Lacey concocted a scheme involving real property owned by a couple who were under
financial pressure and wanted to sell it. They entered into an agreement with Grajeda and
Associates, a business which bought and sold property in which the owner had little or no equity.

The couple gave Grajeda a grant deed and $800 for closing costs, but he did not immediately record
the deed.

Another couple who was interested in buying the house was informed by a realtor that Grajeda was
under investigation for fraudulent practices. The realtor put both couples in touch with Lacey, who
is a real estate broker as well as an attorney.

Despite a potential conflict of interest, Lacey represented both couples in a scheme to defeat
Grajeda of his interest in the property without any further payment.

The buyers paid the first couple $6,000, held in Lacey's trust account, which he used to make
payments for various costs and expenses, including attorney's fees.

Lacey filed a notice of default which contained misrepresentations, fabricated backdated documents,
and improperly attempted to shield his clients from potential civil liability.

The scheme resulted in several legal proceedings, including two unlawful detainer actions, and
actions for injunctive relief, malicious prosecution and cancellation of deed, two appeals and
non-judicial foreclosure proceedings.

The bar court found that Lacey represented adverse parties without obtaining their informed written
consent and he committed acts of moral turpitude.

In mitigation, he practiced for 31 years without discipline, is involved in civic and legal
activities, and has a record of pro bono and community service.

KATHRYN RAFFEE BUFFINGTON [#82565], 48, of Long Beach was suspended for one year, stayed, and was
placed on one year of probation with a 30-day actual suspension. The order took effect Dec. 19,
1999.

Buffington was convicted in 1998 of driving under the influence, failure to provide identification
information at an accident with property damage and child endangerment.

She had left the scene of an accident in which she struck a fire hydrant; her 11-year-old daughter
was a passenger in her car.

Buffington had a previous DUI conviction in 1996.

She stipulated that her misconduct warranted discipline and constituted moral turpitude.

In mitigation, she has no prior record of discipline and cooperated with the bar's investigation.

DUANE D'ROY DADE [#140379], 42, of Upland was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years
of probation with an actual 60-day suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE. The order took
effect Dec. 19, 1999.

Dade stipulated to two instances of failing to properly maintain his client trust account. He wrote
one check against insufficient funds and he allowed the balance to fall below the required amount.

Dade presented extensive mitigation: he had no prior record of discipline, cooperated with the
investigation, hired a bookkeeper and accountant to prevent further problems, and he provided
evidence of his good character. In addition, at the time of the misconduct, Dade was supporting his
parents and grandmother financially.

FRANKLIN FEIGENBAUM [#134403], 37, of Northridge was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on one
year of probation with a 90-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within a year
and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Dec. 19, 1999.

Feigenbaum was hired as an independent contract attorney to represent a corporate client. Although
he filed the client's answer to a complaint and filed a statement of claim in the arbitration phase
of the case, he did no further work.

He did not communicate with the client or notify the client about a hearing, missed a conference
call dealing with the arbitration, and did not respond to requests for a status report.

When the State Bar tried to investigate, an inquiry letter was returned as undeliverable.

Feigenbaum then changed his address and went inactive at the same time, but he did not cooperate
with the investigation.

In a default proceeding, the bar court found that he withdrew from employment without protecting his
client's interests and failed to keep his client informed about developments in its case.

INTERIM SUSPENSION
CHARLES T. HINDLEY [#55738], 75, of San Bernardino was placed on interim suspension Oct. 27, 1999,
following a conviction for one count of receiving stolen property. He was ordered to comply with
rule 955.

STEVEN R. JONES [#46843], 57, of San Diego was placed on interim suspension Nov. 7, 1999, after he
was convicted of aiding and abetting illegal monetary transactions. He was ordered to comply with
rule 955.

BRUCE ALLAN MANDEL [#149539], 37, of Redondo Beach was placed on interim suspension Nov. 12, 1999,
following a conviction of attempted unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. He was ordered to
comply with rule 955.

FLOYD J. MORRIS [#141167], 45, of Merced was placed on interim suspension Nov. 12, 1999, following a
conviction for one count of grand theft. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

JOHN EDWIN NEWMAN [#93191], 49, of Apple Valley was placed on interim suspension Nov. 18, 1999,
following his conviction for six felonies: two counts of murder, two counts of gross vehicular
manslaughter while intoxicated, one count of causing injury while driving under the influence and
one count of causing injury with a blood alcohol level above .08. He was ordered to comply with rule
955.

JANICE G. COLOMBO, a.k.a. JANICE G. MINER [#118864], 43, of Selma was placed on interim suspension
Nov. 19, 1999, following her conviction of one count of burglary. She was ordered to comply with
rule 955.

HENRY DAVID CRUZ [#129047], 42, of Saratoga was placed on interim suspension Nov. 22, 1999,
following his conviction for fraudulently writing a bad check, a felony. He was ordered to comply
with rule 955.

MARTIN S. ROSMAN [#140374], 38, of Taft was placed on interim suspension Nov. 22, 1999, following
his conviction for money laundering. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

JEFFREY MICHAEL BROWN [#137983], 37, of Encinitas was placed on interim suspension Dec. 8, 1999,
following his conviction for passing a worthless check. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

DANIEL JOHN KLIER [#168679], 39, of Encino was placed on interim suspension Dec. 8, 1999, following
his conviction for intentional deceit or collusion by an attorney. He was ordered to comply with
rule 955.

MICHAEL ARNOLD LEVIN [#41448], 58, of Burbank was placed on interim suspension Dec. 22, 1999,
following his conviction on two counts of making terrorist threats. He was ordered to comply with
rule 955.

RESIGNATIONS/CHARGES PENDING
JOSEPH A. BILLINGSLEY [#85405], 48, of Oakland (Oct. 15, 1999)

DAVID E. BROWN [#85788], 62, of Sacramento (Oct. 15, 1999)

OLIVIA T. IBARRA [#71307], 48, of Long Beach (Oct. 15, 1999)

TODD W. JACOBSEN [#153798], 35, of Brea (Oct. 15, 1999)

GEORGE H. McNEAL [#42987], 59, of Los Angeles (Oct. 15, 1999)

GREGORY A. MACCARONE [#114229], 45, of Sherman Oaks (Oct. 15, 1999)

RICHARD SAAVEDRA [#54473], 58, of Huntington Beach (Oct. 15, 1999)

KENNETH P. SAMMUT [#175669], 31, of Sacramento (Oct. 15, 1999)

BRIAN D. STROMSOE [#60075], 59, of Laverne (Oct. 15, 1999)

NICOLAS S. PALUMBO [#172276], 50, of San Jose (Oct. 22, 1999)

DANIEL ANTHONY BORZONI [#94786], 54, of Gardena (Nov. 4, 1999)

RONALD CARL BROWN [#92531], 44, of Woodland Hills (Nov. 4, 1999)

GERMAIN LABAT JR. [#105902], 54, of Whittier (Nov. 4, 1999)

PATRICIA E. SHIELDS [#173175], 47, of Clipper Mills (Nov. 4, 1999)

ROBERT HUNTER WILSON [#75216], 51, of Los Altos (Nov. 4, 1999)

THOMAS McREYNOLDS JONES [#38003], 58, of Irvine (Nov. 6, 1999)

STEVEN EDMUND REEVE [#67246], 60, of Colton (Nov. 6, 1999)

CAROLYN ANN HARRINGTON [#83566], 54, of Sacramento (Nov. 17, 1999)

DOUGLAS ALLEN LONG [#55856], 55, of Gig Harbor, Wash. (Nov. 17, 1999)

RANDALL L. MARR [#153256], 44, of Soquel (Nov. 17, 1999)

GARY L. MUNSON [#139480], 56, of Los Angeles (Nov. 17, 1999)

STEPHEN C. STEWART [#38706], 66, of West Orange (Nov. 24, 1999)

DEAN RUSSELL HYATT [#53797], 55, of Ontario (Dec. 1, 1999)

TERRY L. KELLY [#140466], 42, of Las Vegas (Dec. 1, 1999)

ALYSA BETH ROSEN [#146010], 37, of Woodland Hills (Dec. 1, 1999)

STEVEN LEE BEDIENT [#70114], 53, of El Dorado (Dec. 12, 1999)

SUSPENSION/FAILURE TO PASS PRE
MICHAEL VINCENT JOHNSON [#100957], 50, of Victorville (Aug. 31, 1999)

WILLIAM W. WOO [#98489], 51, of Santa Ana (Oct. 15, 1999)

TERRENCE L. MEYER [#129447], 54, of Fair Oaks (Nov. 1, 1999)

SIDNEY H. ARDEN [#26926], 77, of La Quinta (Nov. 2, 1999)

KIM CALDER HAYES [#133757], 49, of Berkeley (Nov. 2, 1999)

MARK R. POVRAZNIK [#153629], 39, of Sherman Oaks (Nov. 2, 1999)

JERRY MARTIN COHEN [#44450], 62, of San Diego (Dec. 13, 1999)

PUBLIC REPROVAL
CARLOS CASTANEDA [#140786], 43, of San Diego (Aug. 14, 1999)

JOHN C. MONTANO [#166382], 32, of Tustin (Aug. 22, 1999)

LARRY A. MORSE [#80441], 57, of Stanton (Sept. 4, 1999)

JAY S. ROTHMAN [#49739], 57, of Sherman Oaks (Sept. 9, 1999)

JOSEPH AMATO [#38509], 66, of Rancho Mirage (Sept. 24, 1999)

GEORGE D. BERGLUND [#133677], 52, of Half Moon Bay (Oct. 1, 1999)

MICHAEL P. FEDYNYSHYN [#123566], 41, of San Diego (Oct. 2, 1999)

ANN HILL [#76777], 50, of Los Angeles (Oct. 3, 1999)

JAMES J. SULLIVAN [#80724], 57, of Novato (Oct. 8, 1999)

JAMES CAMERON BAGEMAN [#38512], 66, of Portola Valley (Oct. 10, 1999)

HENRY R. ESKINS [#123898], 40, of Surfside (Nov. 11, 1999)

REINSTATEMENT
LAURA BETH SALANT HEISEN [#112412], 44, of Agoura Hills (Aug. 11, 1999)

TERRELL S. ROOT [#77938], 48, of Los Gatos (Sept. 22, 1999)

[Open FleshWound]

04/00

CAUTION!
More than 169,300 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the
same names.

All discipline reports should be read carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.
Attorneys must report address changes within 30 days.

DISBARMENTS
JOSEPH MICHAEL COLLER [#79893], 49, of Granada Hills was disbarred Nov. 18, 1999, and ordered to
comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court.

Coller failed to meet the conditions of a 1998 discipline order requiring him to comply with rule
955 by notifying his clients and other pertinent parties of his suspension from practice and

submitting an affidavit to that effect to the Supreme Court.

He had stipulated to misconduct including failure to communicate with clients, perform legal
services competently, pay out client funds and maintain client funds in a trust account, and to
collecting an illegal or unconscionable fee. His conduct amounted to moral turpitude due to
misappropriation of client funds.

He was suspended for 10 months and until he made restitution.

The disbarment was ordered after a default proceeding.

Coller "has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of
court imposed on California attorneys although he has been given several opportunities to do so,"
wrote hearing Judge Carlos E. Velarde.

" . . . It would undermine the integrity of the disciplinary system and damage public confidence in
the legal profession if (Coller) were not disbarred for his unexplained wilful disobedience of the
Supreme Court's order."

BARRY B. ESKANOS [#125092], 40, of Yuba City was disbarred Nov. 18, 1999, and ordered to comply with
rule 955.

Eskanos settled a case involving an automobile fire for $107,500, receiving three separate payments.
Eskanos' trust account records showed he wrote 12 checks, totalling $42,789.06 to "cash," and one
check for $17,439.06 was used to purchase a cashier's check payable to "Sacramento Jaguar."

He disbursed the amounts owed to his clients and one insurance company, but $71,928.25 owed another
insurer, CSAA, was not paid.

His records show no entry reflecting a transfer of that amount to any other account.

CSAA eventually sued Eskanos, who claimed he had mailed the payment but it was refused, and later
said he would not appear at a hearing because his default in the case was vacated. Neither claim was
true.

The court awarded CSAA $88,466.67, which included $10,000 in punitive damages.

Eskanos paid the judgment by a check drawn on a stock brokerage account held in the joint personal
names of two Colorado residents whose surname is Eskanos. At the time, the balance in his trust
account was almost $37,000. (At one point, it dropped below $500.)

The bar court found that Eskanos failed to perform legal services competently, failed to maintain
CSAA's funds in trust, and engaged in acts of moral turpitude by making misrepresentations to CSAA
and misappropriating funds. He also failed to cooperate with the bar's investigation.

In mitigation, Eskanos had a discipline-free record and he presented five witnesses who attested to
his good character. However, none of the witnesses was familiar with the charges against him.

Eskanos presented no defense at his trial before the bar, asserting his Fifth Amendment rights. He
was criminally charged as a result of the matter, and although the charges were dismissed, the
investigation continues with the possibility he may be recharged. He rejected a draft protective
order offered by the court, and maintained he could not call witnesses or cross-examine those called
by the bar. Although he alluded to exculpatory evidence, he declined to present it.

The court said it feared Eskanos might commit further misconduct and concluded he "should not be
permitted to practice law again without first proving, by clear and convincing evidence in a
reinstatement proceeding, his rehabilitation and present moral qualifications for readmission."

JAMES HALL THOMAS [#41143], 63, of Lodi was disbarred Nov. 18, 1999, and ordered to comply with rule
955.

Thomas was suspended for two years in 1996 and ordered to attend ethics school within a year. He
failed to do so.

He has a record of discipline in two prior matters. In 1982, he was given a stayed suspension and
ordered to make restitution to three clients. At the time, he'd been suspended for two years for
non-payment of bar dues.

The discipline was the result of failure to perform legal services competently or communicate with
clients and improper withdrawal from employment.

He paid his dues in 1993 and the stayed suspension and probation from 1982 took effect at that time.
In 1996, he was disciplined again for failing to comply with conditions of the 1982 probation,
including filing quarterly probation reports.

He never paid the restitution ordered in 1982.

In recommending Thomas' disbarment, the bar court pointed out that he has been continuously
suspended since 1980, and has failed to make restitution, comply with probation conditions, attend
ethics school or participate in two disciplinary proceedings.

DONALD VINCENT POHLMEYER [#89056], 50, of Union City, N.J., was disbarred Nov. 25, 1999.

Pohlmeyer was disbarred in New Jersey in 1997, after the Office of Attorney Ethics found that he
misappropriated $35,960.33 from an estate for which he was the administrator. He also failed to
communicate with his client, pay out client funds or cooperate with the investigation of his
activities.

Under the California Business and Professions Code, professional misconduct committed in another
state is evidence that the attorney is culpable of misconduct in this state. The State Bar Court
determined that Pohlmeyer's conduct in New Jersey violated the California Rules of Professional
Conduct and the State Bar Act.

There was no mitigation.

MIGUEL ANGEL VERDUGO [#73020], 55, of Northridge was disbarred Nov. 25, 1999, and ordered to comply
with rule 955.

Verdugo violated a 1998 disciplinary order requiring him to comply with rule 955 of the California
Rules of Court by notifying all clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his
suspension and submitting an affidavit to that effect to the Supreme Court.

Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment. He did not participate in the disbarment
proceeding.

Verdugo has a history of failing to comply with probation conditions attached to disciplinary
orders.

In 1993 and 1995, he was suspended for abandoning a client and failing to communicate. In 1996, he
was suspended for failure to comply with conditions of the 1993 order. In addition, he violated a
court order, failed to perform legal services competently, respond to client inquiries or cooperate
with the bar's investigation, and he withdrew from employment without protecting his client's
interests. At that time, he was ordered to comply with rule 955.

He was disciplined again in 1998 for failure to comply with probation conditions.

In recommending Verdugo's disbarment, the bar court said he "has demonstrated an unwillingness or an
inability to comply with his professional obligations and the rules of conduct imposed on lawyers."

MICHAEL J. MORIARTY [#51185], 56, of Corte Madera was disbarred Nov. 26, 1999, and ordered to comply
with rule 955.

In three consolidated cases, the State Bar Court found that between 1988 and 1994, Moriarty
committed multiple acts of wrongdoing involving six clients and demonstrated a pattern of
dishonesty.

He failed to perform legal services competently, failed to promptly pay settlement funds, violated
court orders, filed a frivolous lawsuit and was disrespectful to the court. In addition, he
commingled funds, mismanaged his trust account, forged signatures, made misrepresentations to the
court and committed acts of moral turpitude.

In one matter, Moriarty represented the plaintiff in a products liability case. The court declared
two mistrials because of Moriarty's conduct, which included misleading the jury, making references
the court specifically told him to avoid, and continued argumentative statements. Moriarty was
sanctioned more than $43,000 and was found in contempt twice.

The bar court found that Moriarty violated court orders, engaged in trial misconduct, failed to
maintain respect for the courts and misled the jury.

In a legal malpractice action, Moriarty made a false declaration to the court and made a false
accusation against the opposing party. He did not promptly pay a medical provider in a personal
injury case, and failed to maintain settlement funds in trust or supervise his trust account. His
gross mismanagement of his trust account amounted to moral turpitude.

At his clients' insistence, he continued to pursue a medical malpractice case which had been
dismissed because of his misconduct. Nevertheless, he failed to appear at a hearing.

He forged six proofs of service in that matter, was sanctioned by the court and never paid the
sanctions, and falsely told the court a list of experts had been served on opposing counsel.

Although Moriarty had a 33 percent contingency fee agreement with his clients in an insurance fraud
matter, he unilaterally kept the entire $9,000 he received in settlement. He deposited the fund in
his general account instead of his trust account and did not notify his clients that he'd received
the money.

In mitigation, Moriarty had no record of discipline in 16 years of practice. Although he presented
three character witnesses, they were unfamiliar with the extent of Moriarty's misconduct, so the
weight given their testimony was somewhat lessened. In addition, two judges and two attorneys
presented evidence of Moriarty's bad character.

Moriarty told the bar court he needed a continuance of the disciplinary trial dates because he had a
trial scheduled in Placer County. However, the opposing counsel testified that there was no conflict
on one of the days.

Furthermore, during the Placer trial, Moriarty allowed his expert witness to testify that he had no
relationship with Moriarty other than as a professional consultant. In fact, Moriarty represented
the expert in a lawsuit. The bar court found that Moriarty intentionally suborned perjury, which it
called "moral turpitude of the most extreme nature."

In recommending Moriarty's disbarment, bar court Judge Nancy Roberts Lonsdale wrote that his
"conduct long ago entered the realm of intentional, deceitful actions. . . . This type of egregious
dishonesty simply cannot be countenanced in an attorney of (his) experience and years. . . . He
cannot be trusted to remain as a member of the State Bar without public endangerment."

SUSPENSIONS/PROBATION
VALERIE SUE WEISS [#126500], 39, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two
years of probation with an actual 90-day suspension, and was ordered to prove her rehabilitation,
take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Sept. 17, 1999.

The State Bar Court found that Weiss committed misconduct in four consolidated cases.

In one matter, she served as a court-appointed trustee for a couple's marital assets and represented
the husband in a divorce proceeding. As trustee, Weiss was to collect monthly trust income, pay the
mortgage and disburse the balance equally between the couple. She wrote two checks to the wife
against insufficient funds.

After she was replaced by another lawyer, she did not respond to requests from the new lawyer or the
wife for an accounting and for her client's file.

In a second matter, Weiss represented a client and her siblings who were contesting a will. She
unwittingly wrote a check for the filing fee against a client trust account which was closed. When
the check bounced, Weiss assumed it had been returned by her client's bank and demanded the client
write another check.

When the client and her siblings terminated Weiss' employment and demanded a return of their file,
she refused to do so.

At the time the client fired Weiss, the files were at the client's home at Weiss' request. The
client planned to reorganize them. Weiss demanded the client return the files to her and the client
said she would do so after reviewing them for discrepancies in Weiss' billings.

Weiss accused the client of stealing the files and twice asked the police to contact the client. The
client then returned the files.

The client also had paid Weiss with a $2,500 check drawn against her credit card, which contained a
notation that it was not valid after a certain date. Although the credit card company said it would
honor the check, Weiss demanded a new check, then cashed them both.

In a third matter, Weiss filed a class action lawsuit against the federal, state, county and San
Diego city governments after her legally parked car was towed and impounded. The tow was the result
of Weiss' failure to pay five expired-meter violations and four citations for failure to display
registration tags on her license plate.

The federal district court found that the suit was frivolous and vexatious.

The bar court found in a fourth matter that Weiss failed to maintain the respect due courts of
justice when she entered a courthouse after hours to file documents. At the time, she was suffering
from severe pain due to surgery; she told the court the incident was a "once in a lifetime event."

In mitigation, Weiss is remorseful about the court incident. Little weight was given to other
mitigation she presented, including seven years of discipline-free practice and physical
disabilities and emotional difficulties at the time of the misconduct.

STEPHEN BERNARD [#56553], 53, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on
probation for three years with an actual six-month suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation
and places $5,500 in an interest bearing account in trust for a former client. He also was ordered
to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Oct. 15, 1999.

Bernard misappropriated client funds and failed to maintain client funds in trust in a personal
injury case. He settled the case and disbursed funds to a medical provider and his client. Before
the client cashed the check, he allowed the balance of his trust account to fall below the required
amount because he paid personal expenses from the account.

In another personal injury matter, Bernard committed the same violations. He again allowed the
balance of his trust account to dip below the required amount by paying personal bills with client
funds.

In mitigation, he has no record of discipline since his 1973 admission to the bar, he was engaged in
a bitter divorce and child custody battle at the time of the misconduct, and he was using illegal
drugs. He voluntarily sought treatment and currently undergoes therapy.

[Open FleshWound]

03/00

CAUTION!
More than 169,130 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the
same names.

All discipline reports should be read carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.
Attorneys must report address changes within 30 days.

DISBARMENTS
KEVIN REID RICHARDS [#108590], 46, of Templeton was disbarred Nov. 4, 1999, and was ordered to
comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court.

Originally privately reproved in 1995 for failing to communicate with two clients or perform legal
services competently, Richards did not comply with conditions of that discipline or a subsequent
probation order.

As part of the private reproval, he was required to attend ethics school and take the professional
responsibility exam within one year.

When he did neither, he was suspended in 1997 until he complied with those two requirements. He also
was ordered to comply with rule 955 by notifying his clients and other pertinent parties of his
suspension and to file an affidavit to that effect with the Supreme Court.

His failure to file the affidavit resulted in his disbarment. He did not participate in the
proceedings and there was no mitigation.

SUSPENSIONS/PROBATION
STEVEN HAROLD GROSS [#100833], 56, of Agoura Hills was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on
one year of probation, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Sept.
17, 1999.

Gross was convicted in 1998 of conspiracy and capping as a result of a sting operation in Ventura
County. Both felonies were reduced at sentencing to misdemeanors.

He was approached on one occasion by the operator of a chiropractic office and an undercover officer
posing as the owner of a medical referral business. The chiropractic business planned to pay the
phony referral office for workers' comp and personal injury referrals.

Gross advised that he would pay referral fees, handle any clients sent to him, and suggested a way
to avoid a direct connection between him and the referral agency.

Two undercover agents posing as personal injury clients met with Gross, who made an insurance
demand. He also agreed to pay the referral agency, and said he expected a settlement of
approximately $5,000.

Ultimately, 12 suspects, including four attorneys, five chiropractors, two office managers and one
psychologist, were arrested in the sting operation. Indictments were returned against 10
individuals.

In mitigation, Gross practiced for 12 years without any discipline.

The conspiracy charge arose from a single conversation, in which Gross agreed to pay for personal
injury referrals. The capping charge was the result of a single referral.

Gross never actually paid for the referral.

Although the charges were reduced to misdemeanors at the time of sentencing, they remain felonies
within the meaning of the Business and Professions Code.

NANCY MARIE JONES [#61648], 51, of San Diego was suspended for 30 days, stayed, placed on one year
of probation, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Sept. 17,
1999.

Jones stipulated to two counts of practicing law while she was suspended for failure to pay dues.

In one of the matters, her client terminated her services, but Jones did not read the letter until
nine days after it was received in her office. The day before she read the letter, she sent a
complaint on behalf of her client to federal court and it was actually filed three days later.

She wrote to her client and then served the complaint on the opposing parties because she believed
it was necessary to protect her client's rights.

By filing a complaint after her termination, Jones appeared without authority.

In mitigation, Jones' failure to pay bar dues was a result of financial hardship. During the period
of misconduct, she was suffering from personal difficulties resulting from the death of her mother
and her father's heart attack.

OREN JACQUES MARSH [#118015], 41, of Glendale was suspended for four years, stayed, and was placed
on five years of probation with an actual 18-month suspension and until he makes restitution and
proves rehabilitation. He was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took
effect Sept. 17, 1999.

Marsh stipulated to misconduct in 12 consolidated cases.

He settled six personal injury cases without the consent of his clients. He then misrepresented the
status of cases and failed to maintain settlement funds in trust. Client signatures were forged on
checks; some checks were written against insufficient funds.

A medical malpractice case was dismissed because Marsh was unable to find an expert witness to
testify on his client's behalf. He failed to adequately communicate the problem to his client,
although Marsh believed his client had approved the dismissal of the action.

He and a client were sanctioned by the court in another malpractice action. The sanctions never were
paid.

The bar court found that Marsh failed to perform legal services competently six times, failed to
maintain client funds in trust six times and committed 12 acts of moral turpitude.

Marsh presented extensive mitigation detailing years of hard luck. His office manager, with whom he
was close friends, embezzled both client and personal funds. He was out of his office for long
periods of time because of a series of debilitating health problems, including shoulder surgery,
three serious automobile accidents, and a spider bite which led to a life-threatening bacterial
infection. Multiple prescriptions written by multiple doctors led to an addiction to pain killers.

A car was repossessed, his house was foreclosed and Marsh and his wife were forced to declare
bankruptcy.

Marsh has overcome his drug problem and repaid all his clients and most of the medical providers who
were owed money.

JAMES H. ZANDER [#54870], 52, of Encino was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on five years
of probation with a one year actual suspension, and was ordered to pay a $54,754 sanction order,
take the MPRE within one year, and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Sept. 17, 1999.

Zander's law firm was involved in a probate matter from 1981 to 1991. An associate handled the bulk
of the case until he left Zander's firm and substituted into the case in 1982.

Zander disputed an accounting and demanded payment of additional fees. The court found that he had
been overpaid and directed him to refund his former associate $1,909 to compensate for the
overpayment. Zander appealed the order settling the estate.

In ensuing litigation which lasted for several more years, the Court of Appeal found that Zander
continued a frivolous appeal after a stipulated settlement and imposed a sanction of $54,754.70
against him. Part was payable to the administrator's attorneys and $50,000, payable to the estate's
administrator, was ordered to deter the "species of sham appeal here apparent."

The State Bar Court found that Zander violated the rules of professional conduct by wrongfully
continuing an appeal and by misleading a judge. It also found he committed four acts of moral
turpitude.

Zander made misstatements in affidavits supporting two writs, in arguments opposing another attorney
's petition for payment and in an opening statement in an appeal.

Zander appealed the bar court's discipline recommendation to the review department, alleging 29
points of error by the hearing judge. The review department upheld the hearing judge and actually
increased the level of discipline.

In mitigation, Zander suffered from cancer which metastasized in 1991, requiring surgery and
chemotherapy, which proved disabling. His income was reduced, making it difficult to pay the
sanctions and care for his family.

The review department noted, however, that most of the misconduct occurred prior to his health
problems. His misconduct included multiple acts of wrongdoing over a significant time period and
caused significant harm to the administration of justice, the court found.

STEPHEN S. KING [#33489], 62, of Santa Monica was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on five
years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within a year.
The order took effect Sept. 24, 1999.

King stipulated to misconduct in three consolidated cases, and two other cases were dismissed.

In the first case, King represented a doctor in a divorce and five other matters. He did not notify
the doctor for three months that he had received $15,000 from the sale of his client's residence.
Because King was representing the doctor in other matters, he mistakenly believed he had the
authorization to sign the client's name on the check and deposit it in his client trust account.
King then took the $15,000 and applied it toward fees the doctor purportedly owed on the other
cases.

King stipulated that he failed to maintain client funds pending their authorized distribution, and
he failed to notify a client of the receipt of funds.

King prepared and filed a lawsuit against another client's former attorney, but he did not file an
answer to a summons and complaint or request a time extension. As a result, a default judgment was
entered against his client. King stipulated that he acted with gross negligence in failing to
perform legal services for his client. In mitigation, he succeeded in getting the default set aside.

In a third matter, he represented a client in a slip and fall claim which settled for $25,000.
Because the client's expenses exceeded the amount of the settlement, King negotiated reduced fees
with her medical providers. However, it took him nine months to distribute the settlement proceeds.

In mitigation, King has an extensive background in teaching and lecturing in law schools for 30
years, has been active in professional groups involved with family law, and has served as both an
arbitrator and a judge pro tem in the Los Angeles courts.

MARK E. POWERS [#132894], 42, of Santa Maria was suspended for nine months and placed on three years
of probation. Credit toward the suspension will be given for the period of interim suspension which
began June 9, 1997. The order took effect Sept. 24, 1999.

Powers was convicted in 1997 of assault with a deadly weapon, second degree burglary, possession of
cocaine, battery and being under the influence of cocaine. He was found not guilty of battery
causing serious bodily harm, but the jury found true special allegations of inflicting great bodily
injury on the victim.

An appellate court upheld the felony convictions, and Powers was sentenced to 270 days in custody,
100 hours of community service and probation, with requirements for random drug tests and anger
management therapy.

He had assaulted a friend of his former girlfriend, with whom he had a daughter. When the police
responded to the fight, they found a packet of cocaine in his pocket, although Powers denied it
belonged to him.

The State Bar Court found that his misconduct did not constitute acts of moral turpitude.

Powers was privately reproved in 1994 after pleading no contest to hitting another friend of his
then-girlfriend. As part of his 1997 interim suspension for the criminal convictions, he was ordered
to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court by notifying all clients and other
pertinent parties of his suspension and filing an affidavit with the Supreme Court.

He failed to file the required affidavit, but he had no clients at the time. Nonetheless, he was
given an additional suspension by the bar.

In mitigation, Powers voluntarily entered substance abuse and anger management programs before being
ordered to do so by the court.

He regularly attends church and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, has been sober for three years, and
undergoes regular drug testing.

He submitted letters attesting to his good character, is employed as a law clerk, has repaired his
relationship with his ex-girlfriend, and has remarried.

DANIEL PATRICK WILLSEY [#143772], 39, of Pasadena was suspended for nine months, stayed, placed on
two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Sept.
24, 1999.

Willsey stipulated that he failed to comply with the conditions of a 1997 private reproval. He did
not submit three quarterly probation reports or proof of attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous
meetings.

Willsey also was privately reproved in 1998.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation.

The probation of DAVID A. DOBBS [#130931], 39, of San Francisco is revoked, the previous stay of
suspension was lifted and he was suspended for two years and ordered to comply with rule 955. The

order took effect Oct. 15, 1999.

In 1998, Dobbs was given a stayed suspension and three years of probation with conditions, including
quarterly probation reports, restitution to a former client and development of a law office
management plan.

He failed to comply with those probation requirements.

[Open FleshWound]

02/00

CAUTION!
More than 168,930 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the
same names.

All discipline reports should be read carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.
Attorneys must report address changes within 30 days.

SUSPENSIONS/PROBATION
DAVID MARTIN AGNEW [#49991], 53, of Westlake Village was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on
probation for two years with an actual 60-day suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within
one year. The order took effect Sept. 17, 1999.

Agnew was placed on interim suspension in 1994, following a conviction for conspiracy to transport,
distribute or import marijuana. At the time, he was ordered to comply with rule 955 of the
California Rules of Court by notifying all clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of
his suspension and submitting an affidavit to the Supreme Court stating that he had made the
notifications.

He filed the affidavit two months late, immediately following a status conference with a bar court
judge. The new discipline is based on a finding that he wilfully violated rule 955.

Agnew argued that he thought the public would not be harmed if he failed to submit an affidavit. He
is physically disabled by a severe spinal injury, terminated his law practice in 1989, has been an
inactive member of the bar since 1990, and has no clients or cases.

He also believed he had to have an affidavit notarized, requiring him "to crawl to a notary public"
and exacerbate his medical condition.

In mitigation, Agnew has no record of discipline in 22 years of practice. His chronic spinal
problems also were seen as mitigating.

Because the hearing judge did not order Agnew to submit quarterly probation reports, the bar
appealed to the review department, but it declined to add further probationary requirements.

RICHARD A. CANATELLA [#53264], 61, of San Francisco was suspended for 18 months, stayed, placed on
18 months of probation with a 30-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one
year. The order took effect Sept. 17, 1999.

Canatella stipulated to filing numerous frivolous actions in courts in San Mateo, San Francisco, and
Santa Clara county courts, as well as in the California Court of Appeal and federal district and
appeals courts.

Six were civil matters he filed relating to a criminal case in which he represented a babysitter who
was convicted of second degree murder and felony child abuse. The civil cases, filed on behalf of
the babysitter and her parents, who owned the house where she lived, included legal malpractice,
insurance bad faith, and allegations that various defendants conspired to deprive his clients of
their constitutional rights.

Canatella's involvement in nine other matters also was the subject of discipline.

Sanctions were ordered against him or his clients 37 times. Courts repeatedly found him responsible
for frivolous, meritless and vexatious actions. Sanctions totalled more than $18,000 in one matter,
and the opposing parties were granted all fees and costs in another.

In one case, a federal judge said, "This complaint is a paradigm for 'frivolous.'" Wrote another
federal jurist: "Plaintiff's repeated attempt to challenge the sanctions and judgments . . . in the
face of clear authority that his claim is frivolous evidences his bad faith and wrongful purpose."

In mitigation, Canatella has no record of discipline since beginning to practice law in 1972 and he
demonstrated his good character by presenting testimonials from eight people, including four
attorneys and three judges. He also presented a lengthy list of his professional accomplishments.

WILLIAM EDGAR DAVIS III [#101641], 45, of Los Angeles was suspended for four years, stayed, placed
on three years of probation with an actual three-year suspension, and was ordered to make
restitution, prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect
Sept. 17, 1999.

In a personal injury case, Davis deposited two insurance checks into his client trust account.
However, at one point, the balance fell below the required amount, and Davis thus failed to maintain
client funds in trust.

He also failed to promptly pay out client funds by delaying payment of a medical lien for 19 months,
and he misappropriated client funds, committing an act of moral turpitude.

Davis has a prior record of discipline. He was suspended for abandoning clients and disobeying court
orders to appear at hearings for those clients.

He did not cooperate with the bar's investigation of the newer case.

JEFFREY D. EASLEY [#149036], 43, of Denver was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on one year
of probation, and was ordered to take the MPRE within a year. The order took effect Sept. 17, 1999.

Easley was disciplined by the Colorado state bar as a result of activities during his representation
of 60 women in a sexual harassment case.

He employed a private investigator and a female counselor to assist him in handling the litigation.
Although he drafted a memo offering to pay the two 7.5 percent of his fee, the employees ended up
billing on an hourly rate basis.

During the course of the litigation, Easley had sex with one of his clients.

Easley entered into a stipulation with the Colorado bar that his conduct violated three rules of
professional conduct. The Colorado Supreme Court subsequently ruled in an unrelated case that a
sexual relationship between a lawyer and client "during the course of the professional relationship
is inherently and insidiously harmful." Easley was suspended for 60 days in Colorado.

Sex with a client violates the California Business and Professions Code. An attorney can be
disciplined in California for professional misconduct in another jurisdiction if that same conduct
would have violated California law had it occurred here.

In mitigation, Easley has no prior record of discipline, cooperated with the bar's investigation,
and voluntarily stipulated to misconduct.

BARBARA JEAN KUEHN [#152283], 47, of Burlingame was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on
three years of probation with a one-year actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE. Credit
toward the actual suspension will be given for an interim suspension which began Dec. 5, 1998. The
order took effect Sept. 17, 1999.

Kuehn represented a woman in a dissolution in which the family home was sold, profits were to be
split 50-50 after payment of debts, and Kuehn was entrusted with the proceeds of the sale.

She distributed more than $6,000 of the entrusted funds to herself without obtaining the court's
authorization. As a result, she was charged with, and pleaded no contest to, embezzlement. She
agreed to cease practice for one year, home detention for six months, a fine of $3,750, three years
of probation and 200 hours of community service.

Kuehn was placed on interim suspension last December.

In mitigation, she and her bookkeeper assert that the client gave them permission to take the legal
fees from her share of the funds. Slightly more than one-half was taken through oversight and a
failure to carefully supervise. Kuehn believed at all times that she was acting with her client's
authority to pay her fees.

The bar received more than 75 letters attesting to Kuehn's good character. She was a recipient of a
bar pro bono award, and has been an active leader in local and state bar associations.

There were claims, supported by witnesses, that a criminal prosecution for a minor embezzlement that
would otherwise have been addressed in civil court, was highly unusual.

[Open FleshWound]

01/00

CAUTION!
More than 165,850 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the
same names.

All discipline reports should be read carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.
Attorneys must report address changes within 30 days.

DISBARMENTS
CURTIS A. SCOTT [#144352], 48, of Anderson was disbarred Oct. 22, 1999, and was ordered to comply
with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Scott committed multiple acts of misconduct,
including abandoning a client, failing to return unearned fees and communicate with clients, writing
bad checks and failing to cooperate with the bar's investigation.

He twice asked clients for personal loans without advising them to seek independent legal counsel or
obtaining the clients' written consent to the transaction. In both cases, he deceived the clients by
falsely telling them he was entitled to statutory fees in legal proceedings. He also indicated the
loans were secured when they were not.

Scott also mishandled his client trust account, writing 73 checks of more than $6,500 for personal
expenses. Two were written against insufficient funds.

In one matter, Scott was hired to draft a will, prepare a declaration of homestead and draft two
documents creating life estates for his client. He did not do the work, answer his client's phone
calls or return unearned fees. In fact, he moved his office without notifying the client.

In mitigation, he has no record of discipline since his 1989 admission to the bar.

State Bar Court Judge Nancy Roberts Lonsdale said she saw no alternative to disbarment. "The
misconduct involves serious financial impropriety and dishonesty," Lonsdale wrote. "There is nothing
to assure the court that such improprieties will not be repeated."

INTERIM SUSPENSION
RONALD C. BROWN [#92531], 44, of Woodland Hills was placed on interim suspension Oct. 23, 1999,
following a conviction for aiding and abetting wire fraud. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.
Brown resigned with charges pending Nov. 4.

MITCHELL H. KREITENBERG [#108440], 41, of Los Angeles was placed on interim suspension Oct. 27,
1999, following a federal conviction for conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service. He was

[Ken (NY)]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:58:44 -0700, "Open FleshWound"
<n...@dont.email.me> wrote:

>CAUTION!
>More than 171,235 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the
>same names. All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court documents and should be read
>carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.

Man, what is your point?
Ken (NY)
--
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________

http://www.danielfaulkner.com/
for the truth about Mumia Abu-Jamal

The Bottom Line...
If the Democrats wanted Al Gore
to be President that badly, they
should have voted for impeachment.

No trees were harmed to bring you this e-Presentation...

[The Big Kahuna]

"Open FleshWound" <n...@dont.email.me> wrote in message
news:chub6.4382$8v5.7...@news.uswest.net...

> 12/00
>
> CAUTION!
> More than 171,235 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California.
Many attorneys share the
> same names. All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court
documents and should be read
> carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.

CAUTION! There is a moron spamming newsgroups with disbarred lawyer
listings from CA. Who the fuck cares?

[Open FleshWound]

"Ken (NY)" <ken4...@usa.nospam.net> wrote in message news:3a74cded...@news3.speakeasy.net...

> On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:58:44 -0700, "Open FleshWound"
> <n...@dont.email.me> wrote:
>
> >CAUTION!
> >More than 171,235 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the
> >same names. All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court documents and should be read
> >carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers.
>
> Man, what is your point?
> Ken (NY)

Information is power ....

[Open FleshWound]

"The Big Kanacka" <t...@tbk.tbk> wrote in message
news:ueBb6.11529$vZ3.5...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...

Only an idiot like you would consider this information spam ...
It shows what a loser and moron you truly are.

[Jason Corley]

In us.legal Open FleshWound <n...@dont.email.me> wrote:

> "The Big Kanacka" <t...@tbk.tbk> wrote in message
> news:ueBb6.11529$vZ3.5...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
>>
>>

>> CAUTION! There is a moron spamming newsgroups with disbarred lawyer
>> listings from CA. Who the fuck cares?

> Only an idiot like you would consider this information spam ...
> It shows what a loser and moron you truly are.

It's not spam, because it's on-topic. However, it is grossly annoying,
because ANYONE can get this information from the California State Bar
website and from www.findlaw.com.

--
***************************************************************************
"I was pleased to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't
know."----- Mark Twain, _Life on the Mississippi_
Jason Corley | le...@aeonsociety.org | ICQ 41199011

[Open FleshWound]

"Jason Corley" <cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote in message
news:3a6f...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net...

> In us.legal Open FleshWound <n...@dont.email.me> wrote:
>
> > "The Big Kanacka" <t...@tbk.tbk> wrote in message
> > news:ueBb6.11529$vZ3.5...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> CAUTION! There is a moron spamming newsgroups with disbarred lawyer
> >> listings from CA. Who the fuck cares?
>
> > Only an idiot like you would consider this information spam ...
> > It shows what a loser and moron you truly are.
>
> It's not spam, because it's on-topic. However, it is grossly annoying,
> because ANYONE can get this information from the California State Bar
> website and from www.findlaw.com.

But not everyone does know it's there, and those html pages can change
and/or disappear. By posting the information in USENET nntp, it is available to
many others who othewise might not know or see it, and it gets permanently archived
in the massive USNET search engines, like DejaNews.com, regardless of what
may happen to the html pages ....

[Jason Corley]

In us.legal Open FleshWound <n...@dont.email.me> wrote:

> But not everyone does know it's there, and those html pages can change
> and/or disappear. By posting the information in USENET nntp, it is available to
> many others who othewise might not know or see it, and it gets permanently archived
> in the massive USNET search engines, like DejaNews.com, regardless of what
> may happen to the html pages ....

Okay. I'll just killfile you then.

[Open FleshWound]

"Jason Corley" <cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote in message
news:3a6f...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net...

> In us.legal Open FleshWound <n...@dont.email.me> wrote:
>
> > But not everyone does know it's there, and those html pages can change
> > and/or disappear. By posting the information in USENET nntp, it is available to
> > many others who othewise might not know or see it, and it gets permanently archived
> > in the massive USNET search engines, like DejaNews.com, regardless of what
> > may happen to the html pages ....
>
> Okay. I'll just killfile you then.

Please do ... and hurry before you accidentally learn something new ....

Bet you don't .....

[The Big Kahuna]

"Open FleshWound" <n...@dont.email.me> wrote in message

news:m6Mb6.5813$RB5.5...@news.uswest.net...

>
> "Jason Corley" <cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote in message
> news:3a6f...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net...
> >

> > Okay. I'll just killfile you then.
>
> Please do ... and hurry before you accidentally learn something new ....
>
> Bet you don't .....

What an idiot. It's a damn shame Usenet was discovered by such colossal
morons such as yourself; it ruined it for the rest of us.

[Open FleshWound]

"The Big Kahuna" <t...@tbk.tbk> wrote in message
news:GSNb6.33510$vZ3.7...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...

Hey Big Kanacka ... too bad people like me were developing USENET 10 years
before your fat couch-potato ass ever heard about the "internet" on da TV ...
If you can't run with the big dogs newbie, then stay on the porch!

[Frank R]

In article <PeHb6.3061$RB5.3...@news.uswest.net>,

"Open FleshWound" <n...@dont.email.me> wrote:
>
> > >CAUTION!
> > >More than 171,235 attorneys are eligible to practice law in
California. Many attorneys share the
> > >same names.
>

> Information is power ....

But what is the relevance of which lawyers were disbarred?

Do you think they're out collecting new clients who have to be warned
they're not attorneys any more?

Frank

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

[The Big Kahuna]

"Open FleshWound" <n...@dont.email.me> wrote in message

news:qaSb6.8664$RB5.8...@news.uswest.net...

> too bad people like me were developing USENET 10 years
> before your fat couch-potato ass ever heard about the "internet" on da TV
...
> If you can't run with the big dogs newbie, then stay on the porch!

I doubt it, dickwad -- it's all talk from your end. Moron's like you always
talk big, when in reality they've amounted to dick in their lives.

[Open FleshWound]

"Frank R" <fra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:94osib$gv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> In article <PeHb6.3061$RB5.3...@news.uswest.net>,
> "Open FleshWound" <n...@dont.email.me> wrote:
> >
> > > >CAUTION!
> > > >More than 171,235 attorneys are eligible to practice law in
> California. Many attorneys share the
> > > >same names.
> >
> > Information is power ....
>
> But what is the relevance of which lawyers were disbarred?

Try real hard and think of just one ... of the many reasons it would
be of benefit to know ...come on, you can do it.

> Do you think they're out collecting new clients who have to be warned
> they're not attorneys any more?

And that never has happened before, has it ...?
Or those suspended and now reinsatated ...?
Perhaps a potential client would like to know their history ...
Or a past victim who sees that others too have been victimized,
and now comes forward with their complaint also ...?
Or the nacient lawyer/student who didn't realize one could
actually be disbarred/suspended for *that* conduct ....?
.... and the list goes on and on .....did you actually read
any/all the fact patterns of misbehavior?

>
> Frank

Deliberately obtuse today Frank ...?

[B. Richardson]

Open FleshWound wrote:

> And that never has happened before, has it ...?
> Or those suspended and now reinsatated ...?
> Perhaps a potential client would like to know their history ...
> Or a past victim who sees that others too have been victimized,
> and now comes forward with their complaint also ...?
> Or the nacient lawyer/student who didn't realize one could
> actually be disbarred/suspended for *that* conduct ....?
> .... and the list goes on and on .....did you actually read
> any/all the fact patterns of misbehavior?

So if this is such a *cause celebre* for you, why stop at California? There are 49
other states and I know that at least some of them post similar information. Please
continue to spam us with your nonsense...

[Frank R]

In article <kV1c6.1525$TI5.3...@news.uswest.net>,

"Open FleshWound" <n...@dont.email.me> wrote:
>
> "Frank R" <fra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94osib$gv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <PeHb6.3061$RB5.3...@news.uswest.net>,
> > "Open FleshWound" <n...@dont.email.me> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >CAUTION!
> > > > >More than 171,235 attorneys are eligible to practice law in
> > California. Many attorneys share the
> > > > >same names.
> > >
> > > Information is power ....
> >
> > But what is the relevance of which lawyers were disbarred?
>

> > Do you think they're out collecting new clients who have to be
warned
> > they're not attorneys any more?
>
> And that never has happened before, has it ...?
> Or those suspended and now reinsatated ...?
> Perhaps a potential client would like to know their history ...
> Or a past victim who sees that others too have been victimized,
> and now comes forward with their complaint also ...?

Disbarred attorneys are not "suspended." They're disbarred.

Past victims and future clients don't search the internet news groups
for the few names you publish; if they want info, they can log onto
the Calif State Bar website; it's there on-line and for free. Even
deja news expires in less than two years. ANY record of public
discipline -- including a public reprimand -- makes it on the state bar
site.

> Or the nacient lawyer/student who didn't realize one could
> actually be disbarred/suspended for *that* conduct ....?

They don't search the newsgroups; standards of ethical behavior are
well covered in law school, PLUS they get the magazine with the list
and description.

> .... and the list goes on and on .....did you actually read
> any/all the fact patterns of misbehavior?

I've read more of those reports than you have -- and not on the
internet, either.

[Frank R]

In article <3A70EB74...@ix.netcom.com>,

"B. Richardson" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> So if this is such a *cause celebre* for you, why stop at California?
There are 49
> other states and I know that at least some of them post similar
information.

Because he wants to spam, instead of truly spread info. If he wants to
spread info, all he needs to do is set up a website.

[Neil]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Open FleshWound wrote:

> Or the nacient lawyer/student who didn't realize one could
> actually be disbarred/suspended for *that* conduct ....?

Appreciate the concern but all law schools today require a
course in Ethics in order to graduate, which is essentially
a study of what conduct leads to suspension and disbarment.

I don't think it actually changes anything. To the ethical
law graduates, it's interesting to learn and can be a
helpful guide in some grey areas. To the unethical law
graduates, it probably teaches them how to get away with
more crap than it teaches them "ethical values".

-N

[Open FleshWound]

"B. Richardson" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:3A70EB74...@ix.netcom.com...

Per your request ... I'll get right on it .....

>Please
> continue to spam us with your nonsense...

Why do you continue to spam ...?

[Open FleshWound]

"Frank R" <fra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:94r8g9$3cr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> In article <3A70EB74...@ix.netcom.com>,
> "B. Richardson" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > So if this is such a *cause celebre* for you, why stop at California?
> There are 49
> > other states and I know that at least some of them post similar
> information.
>
> Because he wants to spam, instead of truly spread info. If he wants to
> spread info, all he needs to do is set up a website.

Why do you spam Frankie ....? Why don't you shut yer yap and set up
a www site ....?

>
> Frank
>
>
<sig spam snipped>

[Open FleshWound]

"Frank R" <fra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:94r8d5$3av$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> In article <kV1c6.1525$TI5.3...@news.uswest.net>,
> "Open FleshWound" <n...@dont.email.me> wrote:
> >
> > "Frank R" <fra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:94osib$gv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <PeHb6.3061$RB5.3...@news.uswest.net>,
> > > "Open FleshWound" <n...@dont.email.me> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >CAUTION!
> > > > > >More than 171,235 attorneys are eligible to practice law in
> > > California. Many attorneys share the
> > > > > >same names.
> > > >
> > > > Information is power ....
> > >
> > > But what is the relevance of which lawyers were disbarred?
> >
> > > Do you think they're out collecting new clients who have to be
> warned
> > > they're not attorneys any more?
> >
> > And that never has happened before, has it ...?
> > Or those suspended and now reinsatated ...?
> > Perhaps a potential client would like to know their history ...
> > Or a past victim who sees that others too have been victimized,
> > and now comes forward with their complaint also ...?
>
> Disbarred attorneys are not "suspended." They're disbarred.

Brillinat Frankie ... did ya lean that in law school?

PS. Disbarred lawyers can be readmitted ....

>
> Past victims and future clients don't search the internet news groups
> for the few names you publish;

Really? Sez you .... not!

> if they want info, they can log onto
> the Calif State Bar website;

If they know it's there, or they can scan DejaNews, in which case
they find the posting you whine about ....
wassamatter Frankie, someone you know named on that list ...?

> it's there on-line and for free. Even
> deja news expires in less than two years. ANY record of public
> discipline -- including a public reprimand -- makes it on the state bar
> site.
>
> > Or the nacient lawyer/student who didn't realize one could
> > actually be disbarred/suspended for *that* conduct ....?
>
> They don't search the newsgroups;

Liar.

> standards of ethical behavior are
> well covered in law school,

Which of course explains all the lawyers who do get
suspended or disbarred ....

> PLUS they get the magazine with the list
> and description.
>
> > .... and the list goes on and on .....did you actually read
> > any/all the fact patterns of misbehavior?
>
> I've read more of those reports than you have -- and not on the
> internet, either.

So you speak for the whole world now, Frankie?

>
> Frank
>
<sig spam snipped>

[law_...@my-deja.com]

>
> Past victims and future clients don't search the internet news groups
> for the few names you publish; if they want info, they can log onto
> the Calif State Bar website; it's there on-line and for free. Even
> deja news expires in less than two years. ANY record of public
> discipline -- including a public reprimand -- makes it on the state bar
> site.
>
> > Or the nacient lawyer/student who didn't realize one could
> > actually be disbarred/suspended for *that* conduct ....?
>
> They don't search the newsgroups; standards of ethical behavior are
> well covered in law school, PLUS they get the magazine with the list
> and description.
>
>

Preceisely why anyone interested should visit the
<a href="http://www.calbar.org">Cal State Bar</a>. Put in the name of
any lawyer to see if they are
active or if there is a record of public discipline against them.

I'll bet you can do the same at most other state bar sites too!