September 2019

DISBARMENT

Robert Carlin Burlison, Jr.

State Bar No. 97461, La Canada Flintridge (August 10, 2019)

Burlison was disbarred after he stipulated to committing three acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter. He was culpable of failing to promptly account for client funds, as well as two acts involving moral turpitude: misappropriating funds held in trust and making an intentional misrepresentation to a court.

Burlison was hired to represent a client who had been appointed administrator and personal representative of an estate. As part of that representation, he filed a malpractice action against a law firm, claiming it had failed to file a timely wrongful death action on behalf of the decedent. That lawsuit settled for $95,000; Burlison deposited the settlement check received into his client trust account. In his first and second reports filed in the probate court, he failed to include the amount received for the malpractice settlement.

For a period of more than two years, Burlison’s trust account balance fell way below permissible limits as he withdrew more than $80,000 as fees and costs — without first seeking the required court approval. He also failed to provide his client with an accounting of the distribution of the estate until more than nine months after probate closed. The first draft accounting claimed more than $139,150 in legal fees, offering the client $7,500 if she would authorize him to collect the fees as billed; he failed to inform her that the probate court had approved only $31,861.

In aggravation, Burlison committed multiple acts of wrongdoing, had a prior record of discipline, overreached in billing his client, and failed to make full restitution to her.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and presented letters from eight individuals taken from a range in the legal and general communities who attested to his good character and substantial volunteer activities.

Dee Ella Dorey

State Bar No. 163203, Newbury Park (August 10, 2019)

Dorey was disbarred by default after she failed to participate in the disciplinary proceeding charging her with four counts of professional misconduct despite receiving adequate notice and opportunity.

Upon entry of the default, the factual allegations were deemed admitted — and Dorey was found culpable of all courts charged: failing to comply with state law by holding herself out as entitled to practice law when she was not entitled to do so, practicing law when not entitled — misconduct involving moral turpitude, failing to cooperate in the State Bar’s investigation of the wrongdoing alleged, and failing to update her State Bar official records within 30 days after vacating her office as required.

Lawrence Joseph McSwiggan

State Bar No. 214415, Newton, Massachusetts (August 10, 2019)

McSwiggan was disbarred by default after he failed to participate in his California State Bar disciplinary proceeding, either in person or through counsel, and a default was ordered against him. He did not move to have that order set aside or vacated. The State Bar Court judge determined that reasonable diligence was used to notify him of the proceeding.

In the underlying matter, McSwiggan was suspended from practicing law for six months in Massachusetts after the Supreme Judicial Court there determined he had committed professional misconduct related to two matters. That tribunal found that he failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, failed to keep individual client records, failed to cooperate with the Massachusetts Bar Counsel’s requests for information during its disciplinary investigation, and failed to comply with an administrative suspension order imposed.

Issues in the instant proceeding were limited to the appropriate discipline to be imposed in California, whether McSwiggan’s culpability in the Massachusetts proceeding would warrant imposing professional discipline under California law, and whether the Massachusetts proceeding provided fundamental constitutional protection.

Upon receiving a certified copy of the Massachusetts order, the California State Bar Court judge deemed it conclusive evidence of culpability of professional misconduct in this state and warranted discipline as a matter of law.

McSwiggan had been disciplined by the California State Bar for professional misconduct once before — also for a reciprocal discipline matter in Massachusetts.

Kenneth Edward Ostrove

State Bar No. 111222, Valley Village (August 16, 2019)

Ostrove was disbarred after he stipulated to committing 14 acts of professional misconduct. His wrongdoing included: failing to comply with conditions attached to his disciplinary probation, seeking to mislead the court by filing a document containing false statements, and holding himself out as entitled to practice law when he was actually suspended; two counts of violating his duty to give notice to clients and counsel of his suspended status and file quarterly written probation reports; four counts of violating court orders; and four counts involving moral turpitude related to practicing law while suspended.

Ostrove represented an estate and widow under threat of multiple lawsuits filed by investors seeking a return of real estate investments they had made in the decedent’s business. During much of the representation, he was actually suspended due to professional misconduct, and so engaged in unauthorized practice. During that time, he also filed compliance declarations and quarterly reports — declaring under penalty of perjury that he was in full compliance with regulatory laws and rules; in fact, he was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, rendering all such statements false.

In aggravation, Ostrove committed multiple acts of misconduct, showed a lack of insight into the seriousness of his wrongdoing, and had three previous records of discipline.

In recommending disbarment, the State Bar Court judge noted the various discipline orders imposed on Ostrove over a seven-year period and underscored that he was “a recidivist with each act of misconduct more serious than the last.”

Anthony Emmanuel Pagkas

State Bar No. 186112, Los Gatos (August 16, 2019)

Pagkas was disbarred after being terminated from the State Bar’s Alternative Discipline Program for failing to adhere to its contractual terms. Included in the misconduct causing the termination was his failure to report his arrest and convictions of engaging in lewd conduct in public (Cal Penal Code Section 647(a) and disturbing the peace (Cal. Penal Code Section 415(2)).

Pagkas had two prior records of discipline when the disbarment recommendation was issued.

Steven Robert Rafalovich

State Bar No. 217976, Corona Del Mar (August 9, 2019)

Rafalovich was disbarred by default after he failed to file a response to the notice of hearing on conviction, when the default order was entered against him. The State Bar Court judge determined that he had received adequate legal notice of the underlying disciplinary proceeding.

Rafalovich was earlier convicted of the felony of making criminal threats (Cal. Penal Code Section 422(a)) and of disobeying a domestic relations court order (Cal. Penal Code Section 273.6(a)). His ex-wife had recently been awarded custody of their child, and he had been granted supervised visits twice monthly. Shortly after that order was issued, and continuing until his arrest about six months later, he sent his ex-wife more than 632 text messages, graphically threatening to harm, mutilate, or kill her — many of which were admitted into evidence.

The Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar alleged he sent her hundreds of additional text messages with similarly threatening content — each of which could have supported additional counts of the offenses charged.

Rafalovich was sentenced to two years in state prison, and has now been released from custody.

Jannette I. Ramos

State Bar No. 200334, French Camp (August 10, 2019)

Ramos was disbarred by default after she failed to appear at the trial of the disciplinary charges against her, or to move to have the default entered set aside or vacated. The State Bar Court judge determined she had received adequate legal notice of the proceeding.

She was found culpable of all six counts charged: failing to maintain client funds in trust, two counts of commingling personal funds in her client trust account, and three counts involving moral turpitude: misappropriating client funds and making misrepresentations to a State Bar investigator and to a client’s medical provider.

Ramos had one prior record of discipline at the time the disbarment recommendation was made.

Stephen Christopher Ronca

State Bar No. 183255, San Luis Obispo (August 9, 2019)

Ronca was disbarred by default after he failed to appear, either in person or through counsel, at his disciplinary hearing. He did not move to have the default order entered against him set aside or vacated.

He was found culpable of failing to comply with conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order. Specifically, he failed to timely submit proof of attending Ethics School and Client Trust Accounting School, as well as failing to timely submit a final written quarterly report to the State Bar.

Ronca had one prior record of discipline.

SUSPENSION

Christopher Brian Conkle

State Bar No. 255177, Distrito Federal, Mexico (August 10, 2019)

Conkle was suspended from practicing law for 90 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to commingling personal funds in his client trust account and failing to render an appropriate accounting to the client.

In the underlying matter, Conkle represented a client in a wrongful foreclosure and financial elder abuse case, ultimately receiving a settlement for $317, 587; he deposited the settlement check into his client trust account, which then had a balance of 0. He then received an additional settlement check in the case for $40,000, which he also deposited into the account. Over the next three years, Conkle made five electronic withdrawals from the account to pay personal expenses; the amount withdrawn represented his earned fees.

When the Office of the Public Guardian petitioned for appointment of a probate conservator for the client, the appointed attorney requested an accounting of the disbursements made on behalf of the conservatee. The court deemed the declaration Conkle tendered to be insufficient and requested additional documentation, which he failed to provide.

In aggravation, Conkle committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation.

Anthony E. Contreras

State Bar No. 171699, Whittier (August 16, 2019)

Contreras was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to failing to report judicial sanctions to the State Bar within 30 days of the date he learned they were imposed upon him.

In the underlying matter, Contreras was personally ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $8,310 to a defendant corporation. His motion to vacate and set aside the sanctions was denied, and he received a copy of the court’s order around the time it was issued. After requesting an extension of time, he ultimately paid the full amount due, but never reported the imposition to the State Bar as required.

In aggravation, Contreras had been disciplined for professional misconduct twice before.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and produced four declarations from character witnesses — though the State Bar Court judge noted: “Typically, three to four favorable character witnesses are afforded little or no weight in mitigation.”

Arthur Mark Feuerborn

State Bar No. 213866, Camarillo (August 10, 2019)

Feuerborn was suspended for 90 days and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing five acts of professional misconduct in a single client case: violating a court order and making a misleading statement in a court filing — wrongdoing involving moral turpitude, as well as three counts of failing to report judicial sanctions imposed against him to the State Bar.

In the underlying matter, Feuerborn acted as an escrow agent related to the sale of life insurance proceeds to retail investors. The investors transferred money to his client trust account to compensate the broker; Feuerborn then transferred funds to the broker at his direction, receiving and transferring a total of nearly $300,000. While acting as agent, Feuerborn knew that the trustee was investigating and had actually filed an adversary proceeding against the broker — ultimately securing a default judgment for $1.6 million for a fraudulent investment scheme.

In response to the trustee’s subpoena requesting Feuerborn to produce documents in his “possession, care, custody, or control” related to the broker’s property in a related bankruptcy action, he falsely stated he had none. The bankruptcy court ordered him to produce the documentation he held and issued three sanctions orders against him totaling more than $319,250, which he failed to report to the State Bar as required.

In aggravation, Feuerborn committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed the administration of justice.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for 14 years, and provided character references from a range of more than 60 individuals attesting to his good character.

John Joseph Fuery

State Bar No. 177634, Elk Grove (August 9, 2019)

Fuery was suspended from the practice of law for 60 days and placed on probation for two years following his appeal of the hearing judge’s order below. He had been found culpable of the unauthorized practice of law and holding himself out as entitled to practice while he was suspended — misconduct involving moral turpitude.

Fuery had been suspended from practicing law for failing to pay membership dues. State Bar representatives had previously informed him of his fee payment obligation by both mail and email before suspending his license. Soon after he was suspended, however, Fuery appeared in court and requested discovery in a case for one client and agreed to appear at an arraignment for another.

The State Bar Court judge and panel on appeal found that both acts constituted the unauthorized practice of law.

Fuery appealed, notwithstanding his stipulation at the original trial that he committed the acts alleged. He argued that the proceedings against him were “based on lies” and politically motivated to harm him and his medical marijuana clients — and that cognitive problems after brain surgery prevented him from comprehending that he should determine that his dues were paid before holding himself out as entitled to practice law. The panel on appeal opined: “We reject that argument because the record shows that Fuery was well enough to take on two clients and appear on their behalf in court.”

In aggravation, the panel found Fuery lacked insight into his misconduct, “characterizing himself as the victim, which demonstrates that he is unable to understand that his own actions have led to these proceedings.” It also gave substantial aggravating weight to two additional instances of unauthorized practice that were not originally charged, but substantiated by statements found in exhibits he offered at the initial trial.

In mitigation, he was given some credit for physical disabilities suffered during the misconduct; moderate weight for practice law for 20 years discipline-free and for stipulating to facts at trial; and substantial mitigating weight for the four witnesses who testified and eight individuals who offered written declarations attesting to his good character.

Suzanne Flournoy Goulding

State Bar No. 177830, Glendora (August 16, 2019)

Goulding was suspended from practicing law for 90 days and placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to committing three acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter.

Her wrongdoing included failing to maintain accurate and complete records of her client trust account, failing to maintain the required balance in that account, and misappropriating funds from that account — an act involving moral turpitude.

Goulding represented a client in an action for the wrongful death of his son, ultimately settling the case for $25,000. She received the settlement check from the liability insurer and deposited it into her client trust account, issuing a check from the account for her fees and costs, as well as additional withdrawals — causing the balance to drop below the permissible amount.

For more than two years, Goulding had asked her staff to maintain her account records, but did not personally review the records or confirm their accuracy. As a result, she did not discover the error at issue until more than two years after it occurred — when the State Bar initiated its investigation.

In aggravation, Goulding committed multiple acts of misconduct.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 20 years, and provided letters from seven individuals from both the legal and general communities who attested to her good character; one also described Goulding’s community service work.

Daniela Koiman

State Bar No. 170482, Calabasas (August 10, 2019)

Koiman was suspended for 60 days and placed on probation for two years after she stipulated to committing eight acts of professional misconduct related to two client matters.

Her wrongdoing consisted of: failing to promptly return unearned advanced fees, failing to promptly release a client file after being requested to do so, failing to promptly respond to reasonable client inquiries, and failing to keep a client informed of significant case developments. It also included two counts each of failing to perform legal services with competence and failing to render appropriate accountings of client funds.

In one case, Koiman was hired to represent a client in an immigration matter — accepting $600 in advanced fees and $600 for a court appearance. When she failed to appear at a master hearing, the immigration court ordered the client to be deported in absentia, though Koiman did not inform him of the order. The client learned of the removal order when he subsequently hired another attorney to help with obtaining a green card; he paid new counsel an additional $3,800 to reopen the proceedings and terminate the deportation order.

In the second matter, Koiman was hired to represent another client in obtaining a visa, then ignored his requests for an update on the case for approximately five months, when she informed him of the need to complete an updated form. The client provided updated information, but Koiman did not respond to his repeated requests for an update on his case. Two years after he initially engaged Koiman, the client hired a new attorney for help with his visa application.

In aggravation, Koiman committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed her clients.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law for 20 years without a record of discipline, submitted evidence from 12 individuals — all of whom attested to her good character, and had been suffering from extreme physical difficulties during the time of her misconduct, subsequently alleviated by surgery and physical therapy.

Victor Steven Korechoff

State Bar No. 146826, Alhambra (August 10, 2019)

Korechoff was suspended from practicing law for 60 days and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing seven acts of professional misconduct related to two client matters.

He was culpable of failing to return a client’s papers and property after multiple requests to do so, failing to respond to a client’s reasonable case status inquiries, and improperly terminating his employment, as well as two counts each of failing to perform legal services with competence and failing to keep clients reasonably informed of significant case developments.

In one case, Korechoff represented a client in a medical malpractice matter. After filing the initial complaint, however, he failed to respond to opposing counsel’s discovery requests, appear at related hearings, or communicate with the client. After two years, Korechoff’s paralegal informed the client that Korechoff had decided to withdraw from representing her. She did not complete the proffered substitution of attorney form, and the case was ultimately dismissed.

In the other matter, Korechoff was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case. He then ignored six of the client’s monthly calls requesting information. Korechoff filed a civil lawsuit on the client’s behalf about two years after being retained. He then did no work on the case, which was also dismissed.

In aggravation, Korechoff committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed both his clients and the administration of justice by wasting court time and resources.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation and had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 23 years.

Matthew Paul Krupnick

State Bar No. 234822, West Hollywood (August 10, 2019)

Krupnick was suspended from the practice of law for 90 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing six acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter: failing to report judicial sanctions imposed, making a false statement to a State Bar investigator, and four counts of violating court orders.

In the underlying matter, Krupnick filed a civil complaint for damages for a client, then failed to take any substantial action — in the process, violating several court orders to file reports, responses, and declarations and to appear at a hearing and scheduling conference. The court ultimately dismissed the action sanctioned Krupnick $2,500 — which he did not report to the State Bar and did not pay for nearly four years after payment was due.

In aggravation, Krupnick committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he had practiced law for approximately 10 years without a record of discipline.

Isileli Tupou Manaia Mataele, San Diego

State Bar No. 266863, (August 16, 2019)

Mataele was suspended from practicing law for 60 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to failing to cooperate in the State Bar’s investigation of the wrongdoing he was alleged to have committed.

After confirming his email and office addresses in a phone call with a State Bar investigator, Mataele failed to respond to four letters of inquiry and emails regarding its pending disciplinary investigation.

In aggravation, Mataele had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

Perfisity McGhee

State Bar No. 81234, Inglewood (August 9, 2019)

McGhee was suspended for 30 days and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing five acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter. His wrongdoing included failing to report judicial sanctions imposed to the State Bar, and two counts each of failing to maintain just legal actions and disobeying court orders.

McGhee substituted in as the attorney of record in an appeal of a motion for summary judgment in a case that originated as an unlawful detainer action. An initial lis pendens was expunged, setting in motion the statutory requirement prohibiting claimants from recording additional lis pendens on the affected property without first seeking leave of the court (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 405.36). McGhee, however, filed second and third lis pendens notices, both of which were ultimately expunged. The court found the motions were frivolous, unjust, and filed solely to delay the legal proceedings. It ordered McGhee to pay $20,000 in attorney’s fees and $2,500 in sanctions; he did not pay either amount, nor did he report the sanctions imposed to the State Bar as required.

In aggravation, McGhee committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that harmed the administration of justice.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law for 24 years without a record of discipline.

Anthony James Palik

State Bar No. 190971, San Francisco (August 16, 2019)

Palik was suspended for one year and placed on probation for three years after he stipulated to committing 13 acts of professional misconduct related to four client matters, as well as being convicted of criminal misdemeanors.

He was culpable of displaying a loaded firearm during a quarrel (Cal. Penal Code Section 417(a)(2)) and failing to respond to a client’s reasonable requests for case status updates; two counts of failing to promptly refund unearned advanced fees; and three counts each of failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to render appropriate accountings of client funds upon terminating employment, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar’s investigation of the wrongdoing alleged. He was also culpable of two additional criminal charges, not related to client dealings.

In three of the client matters, Palik took on representation of clients with various immigration issues, then did little work on their cases and failed to account for the funds they had paid to retain him.

In another matter, Palik leased an office to a woman who held herself out as an “immigration consultant” and misrepresented to a client that she had affiliated with an attorney. When the client became unhappy with her promised representation, he went to her office, which was located inside Palik’s law office. The client and Palik argued and wrestled after the client began recording their interaction on his cell phone. Palik called the police to report the client as a trespasser. Before they arrived, he took out ammunition and a semiautomatic pistol from his desk drawer and threatened the client with it.

In the conviction proceeding, Palik became despondent after arguing with his wife. Described as “distraught and suicidal,” he loaded the pistol he owned and walked the streets for 12 hours with it in his pocket before checking himself into a hospital emergency room. He was subsequently charged with concealing a firearm on his person (Cal. Penal Code Section 25400(a)(2) and carrying a loaded firearm (Cal. Penal Code Section 25850(a)). The State Bar Court judge found that the facts and circumstances surrounding the convictions did not involve moral turpitude, but did involve other misconduct warranting discipline.

In aggravation, Palik committed multiple acts of wrongdoing, failed to make restitution to his clients, and had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

George Garcia Perez

State Bar No. 226515, San Diego (August 9, 2019)

Perez was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing six acts of professional misconduct related to two client matters.

His wrongdoing included: failing to provide legal services with competence and improperly withdrawing from employment, as well as two counts each of failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries about case status and failing to cooperate in the State Bar’s investigation of the misconduct alleged.

In one client matter, Perez was hired to represent a minor injured in a slip-and-fall at a grocery store. After a six-month period, during which Perez failed to take any substantive steps to resolve the matter or to communicate with the client about the case, the client filed a complaint with the State Bar. Two months later, Perez contacted the grocery store for information, but again took no action to resolve the case or communicate with the client. The client then filed a second complaint with the State Bar. Perez failed to submit written responses in either of the State Bar investigations; he eventually requested an extension to respond, but failed to do so.

In the second case, Perez was hired to represent a client in a workers’ compensation matter. She initially informed him she was unwilling to settle the case; he failed to respond to her inquiries about it for more than six months. About 3 ½ years after she hired Perez, the client filed a complaint with the State Bar, then requested that he settle the case. After ignoring five messages from State Bar investigators, Perez again requested an extension to respond, but again failed to do so.

In aggravation, Perez committed multiple acts of wrongdoing and showed indifference to rectifying his wrongs by ignoring the State Bar’s warnings about the possible consequences of failing to communicate with his client.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law approximately 11 years without a record of discipline.

Ruth Ellen Ratzlaff

State Bar No. 87615, Kingsburg (August 9, 2019)

Ratzlaff was suspended for 60 days and placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to committing two acts of professional misconduct: failing to perform legal services with competence and violating a court order.

The misconduct, which occurred in a single client matter, occurred when Ratzlaff represented a client who was conservator of the person and estate of a sibling who had developmental disabilities. The entire estate was invested in purchasing a home, the interest then sold with the proceeds earmarked for a pooled special needs trust administered by a nonprofit organization. Ratzlaff received the proceeds, amounting to nearly $55,000, and deposited it into her client trust account — using approximately $4,000 to pay court-authorized expenses.

Various orders and amendments were made to the trust agreement, with the court eventually ordering Ratzlaff to prepare an amended order reflecting the changes discussed during a hearing. She failed to do so, however — and also failed to appear at multiple court-ordered hearings and failed to give requested status reports. As a consequence, funding of the special needs trust was ultimately delayed by approximately seven years. Ratzlaff was twice sanctioned — in the amounts of $100 and $300 — but failed to pay the sanctions immediately as ordered.

In aggravation, Ratzlaff committed two acts of misconduct which qualify as “multiple acts of wrongdoing,” caused significant harm to a highly vulnerable client, and had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation, submitted letters from eight individuals attesting to her good character as well as evidence of pro bono and community service, and was suffering extreme emotional difficulties during the time of the misconduct due to her husband’s unexpected death.

Sandra Lynette Smith

State Bar No. 172881, Oakland (August 9, 2019)

Smith was suspended from practicing law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to committing three acts of professional misconduct related to two client matters: one count of failing to respond to a client’s reasonable inquiries and two counts of failing to perform legal services with competence.

In one case, Smith was hired to file a petition for a writ of administrative mandate for a client in a wrongful termination case. She filed the writ, but failed to appear at the subsequent case management conferences and order to show cause hearing; she served the writ on the defendants in the case 18 months after the court ordered her to do so. She then failed to respond to several text and email messages and a certified letter the client sent after learning from the court that Smith had not appeared as required. Nearly two years after being retained, Smith refunded the client’s legal fees and continued to represent her until the case was resolved.

In the other matter, Smith was hired in a limited capacity to draft a petition for writ of administrative mandate for a pro per litigant. She drafted the writ, but failed to appear at the scheduled case management conference. The court then set an order to show cause hearing in the case — and the client asked for Smith’s assistance at the hearing. The day before the hearing, Smith emailed the client a substitution of attorney form; she was unable to appear due to health issues. The client was unable to file for the substitution, however, because Smith had failed to sign the form or to follow up on her promise to set a new hearing date. The case was ultimately dismissed.

In aggravation, Smith committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed her client.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law for 21 years without a record of discipline, and was suffering from anxiety and depression at the time of the misconduct — her condition now treated and improved as attested by her therapist. In addition, she was allotted mitigating weight for showing candor and being cooperative during the State Bar’s investigation and also for evidence of her good character as offered in letters from seven witnesses, as well as credible evidence she had performed substantial community service and pro bono work.

Jimmy Swinder

State Bar No. 288934, Los Angeles (August 10, 2019)

Swinder was suspended for 18 months and placed on probation for three years after he stipulated to committing 33 acts of professional misconduct related to seven separate clients.

He was culpable of failing to provide legal services with competence, failing to promptly release clients’ papers and property after terminating employment, improperly withdrawing from employment, failing to keep clients informed of significant case developments, failing to provide clients with the requisite separate statement before offering mortgage loan modification services, and accepting legal fees before fully performing promised loan modification services.

He was also culpable of: two counts each of failing to promptly refund unearned client fees, failing to render proper accountings of client funds, failing to perform legal services with competence, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries; three counts each of aiding others in the unauthorized practice of law and failing to support state laws; five counts of charging and collecting illegal fees; and six counts of failing to cooperate in the State Bar’s investigations of the wrongdoing alleged.

Swinder’s misconduct related to a business connected to three different corporations he had formed in California: two were described as law firms, the other as a document preparation service. One of the corporations took immigration-related cases; the other two processed loan modifications. While all clients paid in installments, Swinder performed no substantial legal services for them. Two clients with immigration matters were forced to hire other counsel to handle their cases. None of the five clients seeking loan modification services received them: some were located in states in which Swinder was not licensed to practice, and evidence showed some cases were handled entirely by unsupervised non-attorney staff.

In aggravation, Swinder committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed highly vulnerable clients: people seeking legal assistance with their immigration status and those in mortgage distress. He also failed to promptly pay restitution to all clients for unearned fees he had charged and accepted.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

Trent Wayne Thompson

State Bar No. 214367, Hemet (August 9, 2019)

Thompson was suspended from the practice of law for 90 days and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing five acts of professional misconduct related to mismanaging his client trust account.

He was culpable of failing to maintain appropriate records of client funds and misappropriating client funds for his own purposes — misconduct involving moral turpitude, as well as three counts of commingling personal and client or law firm funds.

The bank at which Thompson maintained a client trust account informed the State Bar that the account had an insufficient balance to cover a check that was presented and not paid. An investigation revealed that over a five-month period, Thompson failed to keep proper records for client funds in the account — relying on a bookkeeper who was unable to perform the service due to severe medical issues. During that time, he also issued 15 checks and electronic withdrawals from the account to pay personal expenses, held personal funds in the account after his interest in them became fixed, and misappropriated approximately $5,775 in client funds for his own purposes due to his gross negligence in managing the account.

In aggravation, he committed multiple acts of misconduct.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 14 years, and presented evidence of his good character as attested by eight individuals taken from a range in the legal and general communities, as well as evidence of performing civic service and charitable work.

Luke Christopher Zouvas

State Bar No. 216154, San Diego (August 10, 2019)

Zouvas was suspended from practicing law for 90 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to depositing and maintaining personal finds, as well as issuing payments for personal expenses, from his client trust account.

Zouvas had a client trust account in which he maintained only personal funds, no client funds. Over a period of nearly 15 months, he issued 161 payments for personal expenses from that account.

In aggravation, Zouvas engaged in a pattern of misconduct.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, did not harm any client or the administration of justice, and had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 16 years.

PROBATION

Keith Quang Nguyen

State Bar No. 267209, Rancho Cucamonga (August 10, 2019)

Nguyen was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to failing to comply with several conditions imposed in an earlier discipline order.

Specifically, he failed to timely contact the Office of Probation to schedule a required initial meeting, failed to timely submit a written quarterly report and a final written report, and failed to provide proof of passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam as mandated.

In aggravation, Nguyen committed multiple acts of wrongdoing and had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, submitted letters from eight individuals taken from a range in the legal and general communities — all of whom attested to his good character, and suffered from emotional difficulties, now treated, due to the breakup of his law firm.

— Barbara Kate Repa