February 2020

DISBARMENT

Albert Loeb Boasberg

State Bar No. 31205, Daly City (December 4, 2019)

Boasberg was summarily disbarred after the State Bar Court received evidence that his convictions of two counts of embezzlement of an elder dependent adult (Cal. Penal Code Section 368(e)) and two counts of insurance fraud (Cal. Penal Code Section 550(b)(2)) had become final.

The offenses are felonies involving moral turpitude.

Gregory Andrew Broiles

State Bar No. 229384, Campbell (December 4, 2019)

Broiles was disbarred by default after he failed to participate in his disciplinary proceeding, either in person or through counsel. The State Bar Court determined he had received adequate legal notice and had not moved to have the default entered against him set aside or vacated.

He was found culpable of seven counts of professional misconduct. They included: failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, charging and collecting an illegal fee, failing to promptly release a client’s papers and property after terminating employment, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and holding himself out as entitled to practice law when he was not — an act involving moral turpitude.

He was also culpable of failing to update his address on State Bar records and failing to comply with eight separate conditions attached to a disciplinary probation imposed earlier.

Broiles had one prior record of professional discipline.

David Neil Clyde

State Bar No. 89068, Fresno (December 1, 2019)

Clyde was disbarred by default after he failed to participate in his disciplinary proceeding, either in person or through counsel, despite having adequate notice and opportunity to do so. He did not respond to the petition for disbarment or move to set aside or vacate the default ultimately entered against him.

He was found culpable of four acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter: failing to return unearned advanced fees, failing to render an accounting of client funds, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries about a case, and making a material false statement to the clients he represented in an immigration matter — an act involving moral turpitude.

Clyde had one prior record of discipline.

Anthony James Dunne

State Bar No. 146642, San Diego (December 1, 2019)

Dunne was disbarred by default after failing to participate in the trial of his disciplinary charges. He initially appeared at a status conference and hired an attorney to represent him, then substituted himself in pro per, but allowed a default to be entered. He did not move to have that default set aside or vacated.

The factual allegations in the notice of disciplinary charges were deemed admitted, and the State Bar Court judge found they supported the findings of culpability on all five counts of professional misconduct charged.

Dunne’s wrongdoing, which related to mishandling his client trust account, included commingling personal and client funds, failing to obey a court order to maintain a specified amount in trust, improperly depositing his own funds totaling more than $419,000, improperly paying personal expenses totaling more than $100,000 from his client trust account, and misappropriating more than $54,000 held in trust for a client — an act involving moral turpitude.

Paul Lars Henderson, III

State Bar No. 69910, Medford, Oregon (December 4, 2019)

Henderson was disbarred by default in California after he failed to participate in an expedited, streamlined proceeding despite receiving adequate legal notice. He did not seek to have the default order entered against hm set aside or vacated.

He had earlier been disciplined by the Oregon Supreme Court for professional misconduct committed in that state, though he had been suspended from practicing law in California since 1993 due to his failure to pay State Bar dues.

The California State Bar Court judge determined that Henderson’s misconduct in Oregon also supported a finding that he had violated a statute, rule, or court order in this state that would warrant professional discipline.

Specifically, his wrongdoing in Oregon was the equivalent of six counts of misconduct in California: failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to communicate with a client, improperly withdrawing from employment, failing to return a client’s papers and property when requested to do so, failing to return unearned advanced fees, and failing to cooperate in a disciplinary proceeding.

Jason Edward Lavender

State Bar No. 203650, Redlands (December 4, 2019)

Lavender was summarily disbarred after his criminal convictions became final. His offenses included committing a lewd act upon a child (Cal. Penal Code Section 288(c)(1)) and orally copulating a person under 16 years old (Cal. Penal Code Section 288(b)(2)).

Both offenses are felonies involving moral turpitude.

Lisa Lynn Maki

State Bar No. 158987, Calabasas (December 1, 2019)

Maki was disbarred. She had appealed the hearing judge’s recommendation of disbarment after a trial consolidating charges against her and finding her culpable of a total of nine acts of professional misconduct.

Her wrongdoing, affirmed on appeal, included two counts of failing to maintain client funds in trust and three counts of failing to pay client funds promptly, as well as four counts involving moral turpitude including misappropriating a total of nearly $300,000 in client funds and issuing three checks while aware there were insufficient funds to cover them.

Maki stipulated that she was culpable of four counts involving moral turpitude: two counts of misappropriation and two of issuing checks with insufficient funds.

On appeal, she contended the additional charges should be dismissed as duplicative, an argument the State Bar Court panel rejected.

In aggravation, Maki committed multiple acts of misconduct that caused significant financial and emotional harm to her clients by depriving them of funds when they were financially desperate.

In mitigation, she cooperated with the State Bar by entering into an extensive stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 24 years, and submitted evidence of performing substantial pro bono and community work. Maki was also allotted nominal mitigating weight for submitting 14 character references — most of whom were unaware of the extent of the misconduct alleged, as their letters and declarations preceded the formal charges filed against her.

One of Maki’s primary arguments was that her misconduct was caused by a health crisis resulting from “an unexpected adverse reaction to her prescription psychotropic medications that severely impaired her cognitive functioning.” Both the hearing judge and panel on appeal rejected this assertion — noting that neither Maki’s testimony nor the experts’ letters that were introduced clearly and convincingly established that her condition was directly responsible for her misconduct.

The panel also underscored that during the period of misconduct, Maki was able to focus on many tasks without cognitive difficulty. It noted: “For example, she accepted and deposited settlement funds, transferred them to her general account, used them to pay personal expenses, engaged in other litigation work, repeatedly made detailed excused for non-payment to her clients, and admitted to [one of the clients] that she mishandled the money and had ‘messed everything up.’”

Joseph Christopher Marto

State Bar No. 171425, St. Pete Beach, Florida (December 1, 2019)

Marto was disbarred by default after failing to participate in his disciplinary proceeding despite having actual notice of it and participating in the initial status conference in the matter.

He was charged with 32 counts of professional misconduct involving seven correlated matters, and found culpable of all but one of the counts. His wrongdoing included: failing to communicate significant case developments to a client, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, failing to release clients’ papers and property after terminating employment, and failing to obey court orders; two counts of failing to provide clients with adequate accountings; three counts of mishandling funds in his client trust account; four counts each of improperly withdrawing from employment and failing to return unearned advanced fees; five counts of failing to cooperate in the State Bar’s disciplinary investigations; and six counts of failing to perform legal services with competence.

In addition, he was found culpable of three counts involving moral turpitude: issuing a check with insufficient funds to support it, as well as two counts of misappropriating client funds.

There were additional disciplinary matters pending against Marto when the disbarment recommendation was issued.

Dane Paul Miller

State Bar No. 226332, Los Angeles (December 1, 2019)

Miller was disbarred by default after he failed to participate in the disciplinary proceeding in which he was charged with a single count of professional misconduct: willfully violating a court rule by failing to file a declaration of compliance as mandated in an earlier disciplinary probation order (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 9.20).

The motion for default complied with all legal requirements — including a supporting declaration of reasonable diligence declaring the additional steps to provide him with notice of the proceedings. He did not respond to the petition for disbarment, nor did he move to have the default entered against him set aside or vacated.

Miller had been disciplined by the State Bar for professional misconduct twice before.

Gouri Gopalan Nair

State Bar No. 270900, Coppell, Texas (December 4, 2019)

Nair was disbarred by default after he failed to participate in his disciplinary proceeding and a default was entered.

He was found culpable of all 13 counts with which he was charged. The misconduct, which occurred in three distinct client matters, included: failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries, and failing to inform a client of significant case developments; two counts of failing to render appropriate accountings of client funds; and three counts each of failing to promptly release clients’ files and failing to cooperate in the State Bar’s disciplinary investigations.

He was also culpable of failing to serve the California State Bar with written notice that he was employing a person who had been disbarred in another jurisdiction and of notice of terminating that employment as required.

Nair had one prior record of discipline, and there were other disciplinary matters pending against him when he was disbarred.

Sean Enrique O’Keefe

State Bar No. 116418, San Diego (December 4, 2019)

O’Keefe was summarily disbarred following receipt of the finality of his conviction for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and health care fraud (18 U.S.C. Section 1349).

The offense is a felony involving moral turpitude.

Warren Joseph Small

State Bar No. 90945, Riverside (December 1, 2019)

Small was disbarred after a contested proceeding in which he was found culpable of wrongfully simulating his client’s name on documents filed with a court — an act involving moral turpitude.

In the underlying matter, Small was hired to represent a client in a dissolution matter. In the course of that representation, he completed 11 documents and filed them with the court — all of them signed by Small with the client’s name and without filing an affidavit acknowledging the true signatory, as required by statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 446(a)). The court became aware of Small’s actions in two separate notices — made during statements to the court three and four years after the original documents were filed.

In an initial hearing on the matter, Small stipulated that he had signed the client’s name under penalty of perjury and that he had lied to the superior court that his client had been “unavailable” to sign them on his own. However, at his disciplinary hearing approximately five years later, his testimony changed: He then claimed there was insufficient time for the client to receive the pleadings by mail, and that he signed the client’s name to another document when they were in the same room “with their hands touching.”

The State Bar Court judge rejected these claims as lacking credibility, noting their “extensive contradictory and revisionist history” and underscoring that Sharp could not controvert a stipulated fact.

In aggravation, Small had three prior records of discipline and committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed the administration of justice. He also demonstrated lack of candor by offering contradictory testimony as well as a lack of insight into his wrongdoing and indifference toward atoning for it. The State Bar Court judge found the lack of insight “particularly troubling when Respondent, for a number of years, served as a pro tem judge in family court and should have appreciated the need for a judge to be provided documents containing accurate and truthful averments made by each party.”

In mitigation, Small entered into an extensive stipulation as to facts and was given nominal mitigating weight for performing community service, as he failed to provide evidence to support that claim.

Nicholas Basil Spirtos

State Bar No. 195430, Pomona (December 4, 2019)

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

He was found culpable of six counts of professional misconduct related to two clients he represented in a collections action.

The wrongdoing included: failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to obtain court permission to withdraw from representation, failing to release a client’s file after being requested to do so, failing to communicate significant case developments to the client, and failing to participate in the State Bar investigation of the alleged misconduct.

There was one additional disciplinary investigation pending against Spirtos when he was disbarred.

William Walton Stewart

State Bar No. 49805, Norco (December 1, 2019)

Stewart was summarily disbarred. He had earlier been convicted of the felonies of aiding and abetting structuring of transactions to evade reporting requirements (31 U.S.C. Section 5324(a)(3)) and aiding and abetting money laundering (18 U.S.C. Sections 1956(a)(3) and 2) — an offense involving moral turpitude.

Lynne Yates-Carter

State Bar No. 73252, San Jose (December 4, 2019)

Yates-Carter was disbarred by default after she failed to file a response to the notice of disciplinary charges alleging that she committed eight counts of professional misconduct related to two client matters.

Though properly served, she did not participate in her disciplinary proceeding and a default was entered against her

As a result, the factual allegations in the charges were deemed admitted and she was found culpable of all counts: failing to render an appropriate accounting of client funds and failing to promptly release a client’s papers and property, as well as two counts each of failing to respond promptly to clients’ reasonable inquiries about case status, failing to refund unearned advance fees and failing to cooperate in the State Bar’s disciplinary investigations.

SUSPENSION

Scott L. Adkins

State Bar No. 194809, Grayson, Kentucky (December 4, 2019)

Adkins was suspended from practicing law for one year and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing eight acts of professional misconduct: six related to a client matter and two related to a disciplinary probation violation.

His wrongdoing included: failing to practice law with competence, failing to inform his client of significant case developments, failing to promptly release the client’s papers and property as requested, failing to promptly refund unearned advanced fees, and practicing law without informing the court and his client that he was ineligible to do so — an act involving moral turpitude.

In the client case, Adkins was retained to bring an action against a bank, alleging a breach of an agreement. He filed an initial complaint, but failed to appear at a scheduling conference or respond to an order to show cause in the case. He subsequently became ineligible to practice law due to a failure to pay State Bar membership dues, but continued to communicate with the client and the court about the case. The court eventually dismissed all three of the actions Adkins had filed against the bank.

In the State Bar disciplinary matter, Adkins failed to comply with several conditions contained in a reproval order — including failing to meet with his assigned probation officer and to file several required written reports, as well as failing to file proofs of attending requisite self-help group meetings, passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam, or meeting the ethics options offered.

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

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation acknowledging his misconduct.

Teresa Faye Bristow

State Bar No. 241075, Roseville (December 4, 2019)

Bristow was suspended from the practice of law for one year and placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to failing to file a declaration of compliance (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 9.20) as required in an earlier disciplinary probation order.

Though she had earlier stipulated to all the probation conditions that had been imposed, she erroneously believed that because she had no clients and had not practiced law for more than three years, she was not required to file the declaration. The Office of Probation both posted a reminder letter to Bristow’s private member profile and emailed her, emphasizing the need to file it, but she did not check her profile or see the email message; it then sent a letter informing her that noncompliance could include disbarment. She then apologized, explained her misunderstanding, and agreed to comply.

In aggravation, Bristow had two prior records of discipline.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation and did not harm clients, the public, or the administration of justice through her misconduct.

Donald S. Edgar

State Bar No. 139324, Santa Rosa (December 4, 2019)

Edgar was suspended for two years and placed on probation for three years after he stipulated to committing 14 acts of misconduct related to seven client matters: seven counts each of misappropriating client funds and of misrepresenting the amounts incurred in expenses in settlement negotiation — wrongdoing involving moral turpitude.

In the underlying matter, Edgar represented the seven complainant clients in mass tort cases against a company offering medical products and health care services. As part of the settlement in the actions, a trust fund was created to distribute funds to the individual plaintiffs — with guidelines to their attorneys to submit records of their fees and the expenses incurred, which would be deducted from their awards. The distributions were managed by a court-appointed claims administrator.

Edgar instructed his paralegal to prepare the paperwork, including a spreadsheet of expenses for each of the seven cases — and though he knew the expense amounts were vastly overstated, he did not act to verify and correct them. As a result, he ultimately received an overpayment of $56,000 in client funds to which he was not entitled.

In aggravation, Edgar committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed his clients.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 26 years, presented 10 letters from a wide range of individuals attesting to his good character as well as evidence of performing substantial community and pro bono services, and was suffering from extreme stress due to marital problems during the times of the misconduct.

Thomas Oscar Gillis

State Bar No. 40186, Modesto (December 1, 2019)

Gillis was suspended from practicing law for two years and placed on probation for four years after he stipulated to committing 15 acts of professional misconduct related to four different client cases.

His wrongdoing included: failing to promptly refund unearned advanced fees, improperly withdrawing from employment, failing to keep clients informed about significant case developments, failing to assure client funds were placed in trust; three counts of aiding and abetting in the unauthorized practice of law; and four counts of failing to practice law with competence.

Four additional counts involved moral turpitude: inadequately supervising a non-lawyer employee who ultimately misappropriated the client funds and three counts of submitting false statements on court-filed documents.

In facts common to all four cases, Gillis was the sole attorney in a firm specializing in bankruptcy law, with offices in five locations throughout California. While he worked primarily out of one office, the other locations were staffed by non-lawyer employees.

One of the employees absconded with client funds and was ultimately charged with grand theft, forgery, and obtaining money by false pretenses and embezzlement. Other employees effectively practiced law by advising bankruptcy clients — often erroneously, sometimes altering client documents without their knowledge, and fraudulently completing credit counseling classes. Gillis failed to supervise the employees, and in some cases, had no contact at all with the clients he allegedly represented.

In aggravation, Gillis committed multiple acts of misconduct and had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, cooperated with authorities in pressing criminal charges against the former employee who had stolen money from clients, and was given limited mitigation credit for declarations provided by five individuals who attested to his good character.

Douglas Gordon Iler

State Bar No. 235350, Huntington Beach (December 1, 2019)

Iler was suspended from the practice of law and placed on probation for two years following a contested disciplinary proceeding in which he was found culpable of 19 of the 24 counts of professional misconduct with which he was charged.

His wrongdoing, which occurred in connection with four separate client matters, included: failing to return a client’s papers and property after being requested to do so; two counts each of failing to perform legal service with competence and improperly withdrawing from employment; three counts each of failing to communicate significant case developments to clients, failing to obey court orders, and failing to cooperate in State Bar investigations of the wrongdoing alleged; and five counts of making material misrepresentations to his clients and court officers — misconduct involving moral turpitude.

In the underlying client matters mostly involving protracted litigation, Iler engaged in a similar pattern of behavior: basically failing to timely respond to motions discovery requests, and to file other pleadings, as well as failing to appear at scheduled hearings — then mispresenting to clients that he had done work he hadn’t performed, or that the cases were proceeding well when in reality, they were not. In many instances, he was unresponsive to requests from clients and opposing counsel seeking information and status updates.

Three of the cases were dismissed; one client was forced to pay sanctions and court fees of nearly $34,700; other clients were denied settlement funds to which they would have been entitled due to his mishandling of the case.

In aggravation, Iler committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed his clients and the administration of justice, and demonstrated indifference toward rectifying the consequences of his misconduct.

In mitigation, he stipulated to a number of facts and to culpability on eight counts and was allotted only minimal weight for testimony from four character witnesses because they were not aware of the full extent of his wrongdoing. He was also given minimal mitigating credit for having practiced law 10 years discipline-free — as the misconduct charged was serious and for the emotional distress of marital difficulties, his father’s death, and dissolution of his law firm, which occurred contemporaneously.

In recommending discipline, the State Bar Court judge emphasized Iler’s “blatant disregard of his professional responsibilities,” specifically noting: “His inactions caused unnecessary continuances, sanctions, and dismissals, resulting in substantial harm to the clients. Particularly egregious were his misrepresentations.”

Vyacheslav Kuznyetsov

State Bar No. 290407, Van Nuys (December 4, 2019)

Kuznyetsov was suspended for 90 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to failing to comply with several conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary probation — including failing to submit several compliant written reports and proof of passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam to the Office of Probation.

He also misrepresented on one filed report that he had complied with all probation conditions imposed, when in fact he was delinquent in paying a monthly installment of an agreed plan to pay a fine, restitution, and fees — an act involving moral turpitude.

In aggravation, Kuznyetsov committed multiple acts f wrongdoing, failed to comply with criminal probation, and had a prior record of professional discipline.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

Gregory Henrick Mitts

State Bar No. 71981, Bakersfield (December 1, 2019)

Mitts was suspended from practicing law for six months and placed on probation for two years after a contested disciplinary proceeding in which he was charged with 12 counts of professional misconduct involving three separate client matters and a probation condition.

He admitted to culpability as to 11 of the counts; the State Bar Court judge dismissed one of them, but found him culpable of the twelfth count in the instant proceeding.

Specifically, he was culpable of one count each of: failing to render an accounting of client funds, improperly withdrawing from employment, failing to return unearned advanced fees, failing to release a client file when requested to do so, and falsely reporting to the State Bar that he had complied with all ethical obligations — misconduct involving moral turpitude.

In addition, he was culpable of two counts each of failing to provide legal services with competence, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, and failing to inform clients of significant developments in their cases.

The fact patterns in the client matters were substantially similar. Mitts was hired by two clients to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus, accepting a total of $41,000 as advanced fees. However, he filed one petition untimely and completely failed to file the other petition — without informing the clients or responding to their numerous status inquiries. In the third case, he was hired to represent a couple in a dispute with an aviation company, but failed to oppose the company’s motion for summary judgment.

All three cases were ultimately dismissed.

In aggravation, Mitts committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed one of the clients as well as the administration of justice and had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, he admitted culpability to most of the charges against him, preserving court time and resources.

Mina Lee Ramirez

State Bar No. 118302, Modesto (December 1, 2019)

Ramirez was suspended from the practice of law for two years and placed on probation for three years after she stipulated to committing 21 acts of professional misconduct related to nine client matters.

Her wrongdoing included: collecting an unconscionable fee and failing to obey court orders; two counts of failing to perform legal services with competence; three counts each of failing to render appropriate accountings of client funds, commingling personal funds in her client trust account, and failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries; and four counts of failing to return unearned advanced fees.

In addition, she was culpable of four counts involving moral turpitude: providing a false and fraudulent billing statement and breaching her fiduciary duty to safeguard client funds, as well as two counts of misappropriating client funds.

The gravamen of most of the cases involving misconduct was money mismanagement, including improper handling of her client trust account. Ramirez repeatedly failed to account for clients’ funds or to return unearned fees after they terminated her employment. Several of them also complained about her failure to return their calls, letters, and faxes seeking information about their cases.

In aggravation, Ramirez committed multiple acts of wrongdoing, engaged in a pattern of misconduct by repeatedly failing to return unearned fees and render accountings, and caused significant harm to her clients — several of whom were deprived of their money for long periods.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law for approximately 30 years without a record of discipline, and provided letters from 11 members of the legal and general communities who were aware of her misconduct but vouched for her good moral character and legal ability.

Donald Charles Schwartz

State Bar No. 122476, Aptos (December 4, 2019)

Schwartz was suspended for one year and placed on probation for three years after a contested disciplinary matter in which he was ultimately found culpable of two of the nine counts of professional misconduct with which he was charged: failing to obey a court order and making misrepresentations on proofs of service — an act involving moral turpitude. The misconduct occurred in two separate matters.

In one matter, Schwartz served opposing counsel with a number of forms purporting to disclose financial information for his client in a dissolution case. It was his first family law case involving financial disclosures, and he was unfamiliar with the various disclosures required and the proper Judicial Council forms to use. On one of the forms he served, FL-140: Declaration of Disclosure, he stated under penalty of perjury that he had attached another document, FL-142: Schedule of Assets and Debts.

In reality, he had created his own version of the schedule, believing that it was a better representation of his client’s assets and debts. Opposing counsel, however, was resolute in requiring the FL-142 — and Schwartz later provided a copy of that form signed by his client; it contained the same information he had supplied on his own form.

On appeal, he argued that the substance of the form should control, rather than the form number. The State Bar Court judge disagreed, underscoring that Schwartz never indicated that he served a different form to disclose his client’s financial information — and finding that though the false statements were not intentional, they nonetheless “constituted moral turpitude by gross negligence.”

In the second matter, Schwartz was found culpable of failing to obey the court’s order directing him to comply with the rule requiring him to notify clients and opposing counsel or adverse parties after a disciplinary suspension from practice (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 9.20).

Based on his review of the rule and advice of his counsel, who was a former trial counsel for the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar, Schwartz believed it was not necessary to send our formal notices to opposing counsel and his clients if he did not have any clients on the effective date of his suspension, nor did he file a copy of the required notices with any court as mandated. The State Bar Court judge found this a willful violation of the compliance requirements.

Paul D. Stockler

State Bar No. 171401, Anchorage, Alaska (December 4, 2019)

Stockler was suspended from practicing law for 60 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to being convicted of three misdemeanor counts of failing to file income tax returns (26 U.S.C. Section 7203).

The State Bar Court judge concluded that the facts and circumstances surrounding the violations did not involve moral turpitude, but did involve other misconduct warranting professional discipline.

In aggravation, Stockler committed multiple acts of misconduct.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 13 years before engaging in the instant wrongdoing.

PROBATION

Patrick Joseph Cullan

State Bar No. 206427, Omaha, Nebraska (December 4, 2019)

Cullan was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing misconduct that subjected him to discipline in another jurisdiction.

The California State Bar Court judge found, as a matter of law, that the misconduct there also warranted imposing discipline in this state.

Cullan is a medical doctor admitted to practice law in both Nebraska and California. In the underlying matter, he also submitted an application to be admitted to practice pro hac vice in an Iowa case. One of the questions on the application was whether the applicant had been sanctioned by a court in the previous five years. Though Cullan checked “no,” he had in fact been sanctioned twice during that period. The Iowa Supreme Court subsequently issued a public reprimand based on that falsehood.

In mitigation, Cullan entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law for 16 years in California and nine years in Nebraska without any records of discipline, and presented evidence of his community service as well as letters from eight individuals — all of whom attested to his good character.

Jamie Jiyoon Kim

State Bar No. 271898, La Mirada (December 4, 2019)

Kim was placed on probation for two years after stipulating to committing two acts of professional misconduct related to a single case: failing to perform legal services with competence and failing to keep her client reasonable informed of several significant case developments.

In the underlying matter, Kim represented a client in a breach of contract lawsuit based on failure to repay a loan. She filed a complaint alleging two causes of action — one of which contained a significant error as it contained boilerplate language related to another cause of action. Though opposing counsel stipulated to allowing the complaint to be amended, Kim did not do so, nor did she appear at a later hearing in the case, which was eventually dismissed with prejudice. She also failed to inform the client of the true status of the case.

The client hired new counsel and settled the matter for $10,000, then successfully sued Kim in small claims court for $3,500 plus costs.

In aggravation, Kim committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed her client.

In mitigation, she entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law approximately six years discipline-free, and suffered the stress of traveling and caring for her ill father-in-law during the time of the misconduct.

Mary Theresa Muse

State Bar No. 84856, El Dorado Hills (December 4, 2019)

Muse was placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to failing to comply with several conditions of a disciplinary reproval imposed earlier.

Specifically, she failed to schedule and attend a timely meeting with her probation officer, failed to review the Rules of Professional Conduct, and failed to submit a written quarterly report to the Office of Probation.

In aggravation, Muse had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation, did not harm any members of the public or the administration of justice through her wrongdoing, and was treated for a physical illness requiring hospitalization during the time of her misconduct.

Arturo Esteban Sandoval

State Bar No. 227077, Walnut Creek (December 1, 2019)

Sandoval was placed on probation for three years in a conviction referral proceeding after successfully completing the State Bar Court’s Alternative Discipline Program (ADP).

He had earlier been convicted of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with two prior DUI convictions (Cal. Veh. Code Section 23152(a)) and driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content greater than .08% with two prior DUI convictions (Cal. Veh. Code Section 23152(b)). Both offenses are criminal misdemeanors, and the parties stipulated that the facts and circumstances surrounding them did not involve moral turpitude, but did involve other conduct warranting professional discipline.

In aggravation, Sandoval had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, he entered into a stipulation. He also successfully completed ADP, which the State Bar Court judge noted “standing alone, is very significant mitigation.”

— Barabara Kate Repa