October 2024

DISBARMENT

Lauren Arrington Davis
State Bar # 315311, Piedmont (August 14, 2024)

Davis was disbarred after she stipulated to committing several acts of professional misconduct.

Her wrongdoing included: violating numerous conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order, three counts of violating court orders, failing to perform legal services with reasonable diligence, failing to keep a client informed of significant case developments, and failing to promptly return the client's papers and property after terminating representation.

In the earliest act of misconduct included in the present case, Davis continued to represent a client in an immigration matter, taking the client's file with her when she left the firm with which she had previously been employed--though she did not inform the client of these facts. After the client's asylum application was denied, she failed to file a brief supporting an appeal as she had promised. During the course of representation, Davis was suspended from practicing law for two years, though she did not inform the client as required, nor did she return the client's file after being requested to do so. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the appeal in the client's case due to Davis' failure to file a brief; the client and her minor child are facing deportation.

After being terminated from the State Bar's Alternative Discipline Program for failing to comply with the program's terms, Davis was placed on probation, which included several conditions--most of which she failed to fulfill. Specifically, she failed to schedule an initial meeting with her probation specialist, failed to verify with the Office of Probation that she had reviewed the Rules of Professional Conduct and specific sections of the Business & Professions Code as ordered, failed to submit various reports to the Office of Probation--including four quarterly written reports, medical reports, and client fund reports. She also failed to submit a medical waiver and proof of commencing counseling, as well as failing to attend the State Bar's Client Trust Accounting and Ethics Schools.

In addition, she failed to comply with three additional requirements related to discipline imposed--including failing to comply with notice requirements for suspended attorneys (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 9.20), failing to notify her client of her suspension and disqualification to continue representation, and failing to return the client's file within 30 days of being suspended.

In aggravation, Davis had a prior record of discipline, and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing--some of which significantly harmed a client.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation.

Kirk Callan Endres
State Bar #225526, Jackson (August 14, 2024)

Endres was disbarred by default after he was found culpable of violating several of the conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order.

Despite having actual notice of the instant proceeding--and after making a brief appearance by video on the trial date--Endres chose not to participate further; the court then entered a default against him and placed him on inactive enrollment.

The State Bar Court determined that all procedural requirements had been met in the case: proper service, actual notice of the proceedings, and proper entry of default--as well as the substantive requirement that there was a factual basis for imposing discipline.

Endres' specific misconduct included: failing to review and attest to reviewing the Rules of Professional Conduct and Business & Professions as mandated, failing to file six quarterly written reports, and failing to attend and submit proof of attending the State Bar Ethics School.

Endres had been disciplined by the State Bar once previously for professional misconduct, and there were three abated disciplinary matters pending against him when he was disbarred in the present case.

Edgar Sargsyan
State Bar #308998, Montebello (August 23, 2024)

Sargsyan was summarily disbarred after the State Bar Court received sufficient evidence that his convictions had not been appealed and had become final. They included one count each of conspiracy to commit bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349), bribing a public official (18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(C)), and making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)).

The offenses are all felonies that the court found "necessarily" involve moral turpitude.

Charles Allen Tweedy
State Bar #96234, Gold River (August 23, 2024)

Tweedy was disbarred by default after he failed to participate, either in person or through counsel, in his disciplinary proceeding.
The State Bar Court found that all procedural requirements--including sufficient notice--had been satisfied, and that there was an adequate factual basis to impose discipline. It also found that Tweedy did not respond to the petition for disbarment, nor did he move to have the default order entered against him set aside or vacated.

He was found culpable of both counts of misconduct charged: failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged, and failing to perform legal services with diligence.

SUSPENSION

Augustine Carlos Batara
State Bar #165850, Hemet (August 16, 2024)

Batara was suspended from the practice of law for 60 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing five acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter.

He was culpable of: failing to provide legal services with competence, failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, failing to deposit client funds in a trust account, commingling personal and client funds in his client trust account, and failing to promptly provide an accounting of client fees held.

In the underlying matter, Batara represented a married couple to prepare and file both an Application for Provisional Presence Waiver and consular processing applications. He accepted $5,050 in advanced flat fees, which he deposited in a non-trust account without obtaining the clients' prior consent to do so. Despite knowing that time was of the essence in preparing and filing the waiver, he failed to do so--and hedged on telling the client about that failure. He also advised one of the clients that she was eligible to adjust her status to lawful permanent residency, though she was not. Batara failed to provide an accounting of the clients' funds until more than five months after they terminated his services.

In aggravation, Batara committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed his clients--one of whom was highly vulnerable due to an uncertain immigration status, and concealed his failure to file the requested immigration waiver from a client.
In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 30 years, and was allotted limited mitigating weight for providing character reference letters from seven people who were not taken from a broad range in the legal and general communities.

John Paul Garcia
State Bar #222210, Los Angeles (August 16, 2024)

Garcia was suspended from practicing law for one year and placed on probation for three years after he stipulated to committing 16 acts of professional misconduct related to client funds and misrepresentations in four distinct matters.

He was culpable of: commingling personal and client funds and five counts of failing to maintain the requisite balance in his client trust account, as well as numerous counts involving moral turpitude: issuing checks knowing there were insufficient funds to cover them, four counts of making material misrepresentations to his clients, and five counts of misappropriating client funds.

All the cases involved personal injury clients, and followed a similar fact pattern. Garcia accepted settlement checks, deposited them into his client trust account, but disbursed the proceeds incorrectly--shorting the clients when medical payments were resolved for less than stated in the settlement disbursement memorandums and keeping the amount in excess for himself and his law firm. In addition, he paid for business expenses from his client trust account, issued checks backed by insufficient funds, and caused his trust fund balance to dip to impermissible levels in several instances.

In aggravation, Garcia had two prior records of discipline and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the instant case.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, presented letters from 10 individuals taken from a range in the legal and general communities--all of whom attested to his good character, and suffered physical difficulties during the time of the misconduct from which he is now fully recovered.

Robert Earl McCann
State Bar #170286, Sacramento (August 23, 2024)

McCann was suspended for 15 months and placed on probation for three years. He had conceded culpability on 10 of the 18 counts of misconduct found by the hearing judge, but disputed the remaining eight. The panel on appeal affirmed all but one count of culpability--that one involving moral turpitude--and made some differing findings on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances determined below.

McCann was ultimately found culpable of: maintaining an unjust action, failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, failing to inform a client of significant case developments, failing to obey a court order, failing to obtain court permission to withdraw from representation; two counts of failing to comply with laws; and three counts each of failing to return unearned advanced fees, seeking client agreements not to pursue disciplinary complaints, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged.

In a pivotal case in the instant matter, McCann prepared four mechanic's liens against a residence at the insistence of his client, who was also a friend; he did not provide notice to another party he knew to have asserted an ownership interest in the property as statutorily required. That party was subsequently awarded more than $3,000 in attorney's fees based on the court's belief that the liens were unenforceable as a matter of law. The panel on appeal, however, found that McCann had "an honest, but mistaken and unreasonable belief" he could file the lien for services--and the charge related to that count of misconduct was dismissed.

In another matter, McCann was retained to help recover losses for a car that was purchased, but stolen from the car lot, then damaged. However, he did not timely file the required case management conference statements, and did not appear at the court-ordered conferences, nor did he respond to a later order to show cause regarding potential dismissal of the matter. The case was dismissed with prejudice. In later correspondence, McCann represented to the State Bar that the issues with his former client were a "fee dispute," and that the client had agreed to withdraw his request for arbitration as well as the complaint to the State Bar for a dollar amount to compromise and defend the matter. McCann testified he had presented other "similar letters" to clients.

In a third matter, McCann was retained to assist and file documents related to a marital dissolution; the client paid a retainer of $1,000. Two years later, she sought reimbursement, citing McCann's failure to communicate with her. Nearly a year after that, he refunded the retainer amount, attaching a letter for her to sign in which she purported to withdraw the State Bar complaint.

And in a fourth matter, McCann undertook representation of an elderly client in a bankruptcy matter; he received five payments of $30 payment--all of which the client delivered directly to his office. McCann performed no work on the case, and he stipulated that he had constructively terminated his services some 15 months after being hired. About a year later, McCann issued the client a refund--though not in the full amount. She testified that he required her to sign a letter requesting that her State Bar complaint be "immediately dismissed" before he would tender a refund.

In aggravation, McCann had one prior record of discipline and committed multiple acts of misconduct in the present case that substantially harmed at least one client who was also vulnerable due to her age and financial limitations, and demonstrated a lack of insight into his wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he cooperated in the disciplinary investigation by conceding to some culpability and stipulating to some easily provable facts.

PROBATION

Fernando Acuna, Jr.
State Bar #298601, Garden Grove (August 14, 2024)

Acuna was placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to pleading guilty to one count of driving with a blood alcohol content of .08% or more (Cal. Veh. Code § 23152(b)), and admitted enhancements of driving with a blood alcohol content of .15% or more (Cal. Veh. Code § 23578) and having a prior conviction within 10 years (Cal. Veh. Code § 23540).

Acuna was pulled over by highway patrol officers after driving his vehicle on the wrong side of the highway at a speed of 65 to 75 mph. A blood sample taken a short time later revealed a blood alcohol concentration of .25%. At the time of the incident at issue, Acuna had two prior DUI convictions. Following this conviction, he complied with criminal probation conditions imposed--including participating in weekly AA meetings and counseling.

The State Bar Court determined that the facts and circumstances surrounding the instant violation did not involve moral turpitude, but did involve other misconduct warranting professional discipline.

In mitigation, Acuna entered into a pretrial stipulation and was allotted some mitigating weight for having practiced law discipline-free for approximately nine years.

Eric Blaine Alspaugh
State Bar #232554, Irvine (August 23, 2024)

Alspaugh was placed on probation for one year after a reciprocal discipline matter was initiated and conducted. He had been found culpable of committing several acts of professional misconduct while practicing in another jurisdiction. In that matter, the U.S Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) suspended Alspaugh from practicing in that jurisdiction for 30 days and paced on probation for 12 months.

In the underlying matter, Alspaugh, who specialized in patent prosecution services, represented a client seeking patent protection for medical device inventions. When he failed to correct several substantive issues in the initial patent application, it was abandoned. Alspaugh then recommended pursuing international patent protection; the application he prepared, however, was also noncompliant--and Alspaugh failed to correct it or to inform the client of the need to correct it. The client lost rights to that patent.

The client also hired Alspaugh to secure a patent for another medical invention, with the understanding that he would pay a $5,000 "capped fee" for that work. Alspaugh received and negotiated the check, but applied it to outstanding balances for prior patent services instead of to the device at hand.

Alspaugh terminated the attorney/client relationship, though the USPTO rejected the request for withdrawal, finding he had failed to file a power of attorney with a pending application. At Alspaugh's request, the client subsequently paid $1,317 for "renewal annuity fees," though Alspaugh again applied that to the client's outstanding account balance--causing the client to incur a late fee on the annuity payment.

After the USPTO filed a complaint, Alspaugh entered into a settlement agreement in which he stipulated to committing nine violations of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct. The State Bar Court found the USPTO proceedings provided fundamental constitutional protection, and that Alspaugh's misconduct also warranted imposing discipline in California. It found the USPTO violations also constituted culpability of: failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to communicate significant developments to his client, and two counts of improperly withdrawing from employment.

In aggravation, Alspaugh committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 12 years, provided numerous examples of performing pro bono and community service, and presented character evidence from 12 individuals take from a range of the legal and general communities--all of whom were aware of the nature and extent of the wrongdoing charged and all of whom vouched for his good character.

--Barbara Kate Repa