September 2024

DISBARMENT

Howard Bruce Abbott
State Bar #210358, San Diego (July 12, 2024)

Abbott was summarily disbarred after the Office of Chief Trial Counsel submitted proof of the finality of his conviction for committing wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343). The offense is a felony involving moral turpitude per se.

Facts relevant to the underlying conviction: Abbott, acting as trustee of an irrevocable life insurance trust, received money to pay for premiums to keep the insurance current. However, instead of making those payments, he kept more than $500,000 to pay for his own personal expenses.

After the policy was terminated, Abbott forged documents that purported to show it was still in good standing. And when the insured died, Abbott sent additional forged documents, claiming to substantiate that the death benefit claim was being processed.

Based on these facts, which Abbott admitted in his plea agreement, the State Bar Court recommended disbarment, as well as the maximum monetary sanction that could be imposed for the violation.

Lenore LuAnn Albert
State Bar #210876, Laguna Beach (July 17, 2024)

Albert was disbarred after both she and the State Bar's Office of Chief Trial Counsel appealed the hearing judge's recommendation of 18 months of actual suspension in her case.

The panel on appeal found her culpable of six counts of professional misconduct: disobeying court rules; two counts each of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) and engaging in UPL in another jurisdiction, as well as one count of knowingly engaging in UPL--an act involving moral turpitude.

Albert was suspended by the California Supreme Court twice. The instant case involves Albert's actions in two cases pending in district court while she was suspended. Before either of the suspensions were ordered, she began representing a client in a civil action filed in the U.S. District

Court, Eastern District. As the case progressed and her suspension took effect, however, she failed to promptly notify that tribunal that she had actually been suspended from the practice of law by order of the California Supreme Court, making her ineligible to practice in the district court in accord with the local rules. During the period in question, she prepared and filed a motion to vacate the judgment entered in the case as well as other documents--identifying herself as an attorney in the filings. She also provided legal services and advice to additional individuals while suspended--listing her State Bar number on court filings and other documents and adding "Esq." after her name.

In aggravation, Albert had two prior overlapping discipline orders, and was given limited aggravating weight for committing multiple acts of wrongdoing that wasted judicial time and resources and for demonstrating indifference for the consequences of her misconduct.

In mitigation, she was allotted moderate weight for testimony and declarations from 10 individuals who vouched for her good character and for evidence of performing community service, as well as minimal weight for stipulating to some easily provable facts.

Brooke Campbell
State Bar #201389, Austin, Texas (July 12, 2024)

Campbell was summarily disbarred. She had earlier entered a guilty plea to committing six counts of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343). Pending final disposition of the proceeding, she was suspended from practicing law and ordered to comply with the notice provisions for suspended attorneys (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 9.20), but she failed to do so.

After an appeal of the wire fraud conviction, she was sentenced to a custodial term of 37 months.

Some relevant facts include that Campbell abused her position as chief business officer of a financial technology company by diverting approximately $510,000 to shell companies she created. As part of that scheme, she also submitted fraudulent expenses for reimbursement--including $4,575 for dog boarding--which she personally approved. In addition, she made four purchases of cryptocurrency of $100,000 each, and diverted those funds to an account she controlled.

The underlying offense here, wire fraud, is a felony that involves moral turpitude per se as it "necessarily involves an intent to defraud or intentional dishonesty for the purpose of personal gain." The State Bar Court determined that committing the felony involving moral turpitude qualified Campbell to be summarily disbarred.

Michelle Gold
State Bar #230835, Bonita (July 26, 2024)

Gold was summarily disbarred after she failed to participate in the disciplinary proceeding in which she was charged with three counts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter.

The State Bar Court determined that all procedural requirements, including proper notice and service, were satisfied in the case, and that Gold did not move to have the default ultimately entered against her set aside or vacated.

The factual allegations in the notice of disciplinary charges were then deemed admitted, and Gold was found culpable of all three counts charged: disobeying court orders to provide requested information verifying an urgent medical condition, to provide discovery responses, and to pay sanctions imposed; failing to report judicial sanctions to the State Bar as required; and failing to act with reasonable diligence on behalf of a client.

Scott David Hughes
State Bar #253611, Newport Beach (July 12, 2024)

Hughes was summarily disbarred.

He earlier pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. §1956(h)). The offense is a felony that necessarily involves moral turpitude.

As part of a plea agreement, Hughes had agreed to forfeit more than $18 million dollars to the United States--representing the amount of property involved in one of the counts charged.

The State Bar Court was satisfied with the proof that the conviction was final, and that Hughes did not file an appeal in the matter, then recommended disbarment.

SUSPENSION

Wazir-Ali Muhammad Al-Haqq
State Bar #189683, Pomona (July 12, 2024)

Al-Haqq was suspended from practicing law for two years, with credit given for an earlier period of inactive enrollment, and placed on probation for two years after he successfully completed the State Bar Court's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP).

The present case arose out of complaints against Al-Haqq that were filed by the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. He was disciplined in four matters in that jurisdiction, but failed to report that fact to the California State Bar as required.

Al-Haqq stipulated that his misconduct in Colorado also constituted a violation of various California rules and statutes. Specifically, he failed to maintain records of funds and securities entrusted to him, improperly withdrew from employment, and failed to promptly return a client file, and also committed three counts of failing to perform legal services with competence.

In aggravation, Al-Haqq committed multiple acts of misconduct, engaged in overreaching with clients who were highly vulnerable, demonstrated indifference to his wrongdoing, failed to make restitution, and had a prior record of discipline in Colorado. In mitigation, he submitted evidence of his good character.

Al-Haqq then sought to participate in the State Bar Court's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP), as well as its Lawyer Assistance Program (LAP). He subsequently submitted a declaration to this court, establishing a nexus between mental health issues and the charges in the case at hand, and successfully completed both programs--a fact now given additional mitigating weight.

Kent H. Bulloch
State Bar #275515, Santa Rosa (July 26, 2024)

Bulloch was suspended for 90 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to violating several conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order.

Specifically, he failed to schedule and attend an initial meeting with the Office of Probation, failed to review and verify that he had read the Rules of Professional Conduct and Business & Professions Code as mandated, failed to attend the State Bar Ethics School, failed to timely submit quarterly written reports to the Office of Probation as well as a final written report, and failed to take and provide proof of passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam.

In aggravation, Bulloch had a prior record of discipline, committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the present case, and demonstrated indifference toward rectifying the consequences of his misconduct.

Nicholas Anthony Capozzi
State Bar #275568, Clovis (July 10, 2024)

Capozzi was suspended from practicing law for two years and placed on probation for three years after he stipulated to committing a pattern of misconduct over a six-year period.

His wrongdoing, which encompassed 12 State Bar disciplinary cases involving nine separate clients, included more than 60 ethical violations. Among them: failing to comply with conditions attached to an earlier disciplinary order, failing to promptly distribute funds belonging to a client, failing to report a judgment entered against him to the State Bar, and failing to maintain a trust record; two counts each of failing to perform legal services with competence; failing to keep clients reasonably informed of significant case developments, and failing to maintain client funds in trust; four counts of commingling personal and client funds; five counts each of failing to account for client funds and failing to promptly return client papers and property after being requested to do so; six counts each of failing to promptly refund unearned advanced fees and accepting payment form a third party without obtaining clients' written consents; seven counts of failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries; and eight counts of failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing clients.

An additional four counts involved moral turpitude: two counts each of misappropriating client funds and falsely claiming he had performed various legal services on behalf of clients.

In several cases, Capozzi undertook representation of individuals who were incarcerated or dealing with criminal appeals. He typically accepted advance fees from friends or relatives without first seeking the clients' consents, then performed little to no work in the cases. He then failed to respond to their inquiries about progress.

In another matter, Capozzi accepted a fee from a client in Utah involved in a federal forfeiture, intending to become admitted pro hac vice, though he failed to do so, and the court entered a judgment against the client. She later sued him for breach of contract, professional negligence, and fraud; he did not report the judgment entered against him to the California State Bar as required.

Additional counts related to his mishandling of client and trust funds.

In aggravation, Capozzi had a prior record of discipline, engaged in a pattern of misconduct that significantly harmed several clients--six of whom were highly vulnerable due to their incarceration, and failed to make restitution of unearned fees and undistributed client funds.
In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, experienced significant personal and family problems during the time of his misconduct, and was allotted moderate mitigating weight for character reference letters from four individuals--all of whom were attorneys.

Carrie Lynn Freestone
State Bar #130914, San Francisco (July 31, 2024)

Freestone was suspended for 18 months and placed on probation for three years after she stipulated to being convicted of one count of using tear gas on another individual and two counts of theft, as well as violating two court orders related to a prior disciplinary matter.

Freestone was twice convicted of theft. In one case, pursuant to a plea agreement, she pled nolo contendere to one count of petty theft (Cal. Penal Code §484(a)) related to a shoplifting incident. In a second matter, which occurred a few months later, Freestone pled nolo contendere to committing theft (Cal. Penal Code §487(c)) and burglary of a business (Cal. Penal Code §459(m)). Both offenses are misdemeanors.

The Review Department of the State Bar Court determined that all three of the violations enumerated above involved moral turpitude per se.

In another matter, while Freestone was on probation for the prior convictions, she sprayed tear gas on the individual who managed her apartment when she approached Freestone to sign a work permit. When investigating officers were summoned to the scene, Freestone at first blocked them from entering her apartment and denied spraying any substance, but eventually directed them to a pencil-sized canister in a dresser drawer that was found to contain tear gas. Freestone was then arrested. The State Bar Court determined that the facts and circumstances surrounding that violation did not involve moral turpitude, but did involve other misconduct that warranted discipline.

In a proceeding initiated by the State Bar, Freestone failed to timely file a declaration of compliance as required by court order (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 9.20). She made two attempts to file a declaration, both of them late, and both of which were rejected by the filing clerk.

In aggravation, Freestone committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation, and had practiced law for approximately 15 years without a record of discipline. She was also allotted mitigating weight due to the fact that the violations occurred remotely in time--that years ago--and that she has participated in extensive counseling since that time.

Timothy Elwood Gomes
State Bar #168140, San Francisco (July 12, 2024)

Gomes was suspended from the practice of law for 90 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to one count of commingling personal funds in his client trust account. After receiving an invoice from the State Bar pertaining to funds due related to a prior disciplinary matter, Gomes deposited $2,050 of his personal funds into the client trust account, and signed a check to the State Bar for an amount that exceeded that. No client funds were in the trust account at the time. The check was not honored due to insufficient funds.

In aggravation, Gomes had been disciplined by the State Bar for unprofessional conduct twice previously.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, caused no harm to clients with his misconduct, and experienced events causing extreme emotional and physical distress during the time of the misconduct. He was also allotted limited mitigating weight for letters submitted by four individuals attesting to his good character and the hardships he suffered; none of them appeared to understand the full extent of his misconduct.

--Barbara Kate Repa