November 2024

DISBARMENT

George Anthony Munoz
State Bar #291278, Corcoran (September 11, 2024)

Munoz was disbarred.

Earlier, he had been accepted into the State Bar's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP) in a consolidated disciplinary matter, with the express understanding that his eligibility was contingent on participating in the Lawyer Assistance Program (LAP) and certifying one year of substance-free living--and that court sanctions for failing to comply included possible termination from the ADP.

However, after a series of non-compliant LAP reports, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Munoz had breached the terms of the agreement and terminated him from ADP.

The instant matter involved Munoz's failure to file a compliant declaration as required in an earlier disciplinary order (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 9.20), as well as violations of numerous other conditions related to that order. His prior record involved violations in three client matters related to performance issues, failing to account for services rendered, and committing acts involving moral turpitude. The aggravating circumstances there included committing multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed a client. In mitigation, he had entered into a pretrial stipulation.

In the present case, the court allotted aggravating weight to the fact that Munoz committed multiple acts of wrongdoing and had a prior record of discipline.

Because Munoz was terminated from the ADP, the court recommend that the higher level of discipline should be imposed--disbarment--as set out in the confidential statement controlling the matter.

Robert E. Riemer
State Bar #94337, Van Nuys (September 11, 2024)

Riemer was summarily disbarred after he failed to participate in the disciplinary hearing in which he was charged with two counts of professional misconduct: failing to support the law by breaching his duty to act in good faith with other members of a joint venture, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's pending disciplinary investigation.

The State Bar Court determined that all procedural and substantive factors had been satisfied: proper notice of the charges and proceeding, proper entry of a default, and the existence of factual allegations supporting a finding of violations warranting professional discipline.

He was found culpable of both counts charged.

Riemer had a prior record of discipline before being disbarred in this case.

SUSPENSION

Andrew Robert Chivinski
State Bar #236861, San Diego (September 4, 2024)

Chivinski was suspended from the practice of law for 60 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 act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, failing to keep a client reasonably informed of significant case developments, failing to consult with the client about how to reach goals in her case, failing to maintain the required balance in his client trust account, commingling personal and client funds in the account, and failing to maintain a written journal and accurate ledgers for the account.

Three of those counts of misconduct involved financial mismanagement. Chivinski received a settlement check on behalf of three clients in the amount of $142,080.88, and deposited it in his client trust account. Over a 10-month period, he issued numerous checks and debits in the account to pay personal expenses--including 116 payments through Venmo, and for homeowners' association fees and a property management business. He did not keep an accounting of the trust account, and the balance dipped to impermissible levels.

In the other matter, Chivinski represented a client in a medical malpractice matter. He received discovery requests from opposing counsel, which he failed to prepare, nor did he respond to counsel's request to meet and confer or at a hearing to compel responses. He did not inform his client that discovery responses were due. The case was eventually dismissed.

In aggravation, Chivinski committed multiple acts of misconduct and was given moderate weight for causing harm to a client, whose case was dismissed without prejudice.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law for 16 years discipline-free, submitted eight character reference letters, as well as evidence of performing community service, and took remedial steps to ensure compliant office management practices in the future. He was also allotted mitigating weight for having experienced emotional difficulties during the time of the misconduct.

Stephen Charles Daly
State Bar #127150, Rancho Palos Verdes (September 13, 2024)

Daly was suspended from practicing law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to failing to comply with several conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order.

Specifically, he failed to notify his client, opposing counsel, and the court of his interim suspension in addition to failing to file an affidavit of compliance--all of which were required by court rule and order (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 9.20).

In mitigation, Daly entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law for approximately 35 years before committing the instant misconduct.

Warren Michael Finn
State Bar #34970, Playa del Rey (September 4, 2024)

Finn was suspended for three years following an uncontested proceeding in which the disciplinary probation previously imposed was revoked due to his failure to comply with conditions specified in it.

The State Bar Court found by a preponderance of evidence that Finn had proper notice of the probation conditions imposed, yet failed to comply with several of them. Specifically, he failed to schedule and participate in the required meetings with his probation case manager, failed to submit his initial quarterly written report and declaration attesting that he had read the Rules of Professional Conduct and specified Business & Professions Code sections, and failed to submit two additional quarterly reports as mandated.

Consequently, the court recommended revoking Finn's probation, and that the previously stayed three-year suspension order should be imposed instead.

In aggravation, Finn had a prior record of discipline, committed multiple acts of misconduct, demonstrated indifference toward rectifying his misconduct, and failed to participate in the disciplinary proceeding related to the charges of wrongdoing.

Motaz M. Gerges
State Bar #202175, Granada Hills (September 13, 2024)

Gerges was suspended for one year and placed on probation for three years. He had originally been charged with 32 counts of professional misconduct involving 15 clients.

He was found culpable of all but one of the charges. His wrongdoing included: failing to maintain complete records of client funds; eight counts of failing to maintain client funds in trust; and 18 counts of commingling personal and client funds in his client trust account. An additional four counts of misappropriating client funds involved moral turpitude.

The gravamen of the disciplinary misconduct involved Gerges' mishandling of client funds. He made several deposits of personal funds into his client trust account, wrote a check from it to pay his personal expenses, and caused the balance in the account to fall below zero. In several of the client matters enumerated in the State Bar Court's opinion, Gerges failed to deposit settlement funds received into his client trust account. In other cases, he issued checks for his legal fees and costs from his client trust account prior to receiving funds on behalf of the clients.

In aggravation, Gerges had a prior record of discipline and committed multiple acts of misconduct in the instant case.

In mitigation, he presented testimony from eight witnesses taken from a range in the legal and general communities who vouched for his good character and to his performance of community service and pro bono work. He was also allotted moderate mitigating weight for cooperation because of entering into a stipulation of facts and admission of documents, and for evidence of various health conditions he suffered that were "at least in part" responsible for his ethical failures.

Gary Wayne Loftis
State Bar #235816, Culver City (September 13, 2024)

Loftis was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing eight acts of professional misconduct connected to two client cases. All counts related to disobeying various court orders.

In the underlying matter, Loftis represented defendants in two pending cases. However, he failed to attend a total of eight court appearances--including status conferences and order to show cause hearings. He was sanctioned several times for these failures, for a total of $3,000--and his failure to pay those sanctions comprised four of the counts of which he was found culpable.

In aggravation, Loftis had a prior record of discipline and committed multiple acts of misconduct in the present case.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, and was experiencing extreme emotional difficulties at the time of the misconduct for which he is continuing to receive treatment. He was also allotted moderate mitigating weight for letters provided by five individuals who vouched for his good character, but were not aware of the misconduct at issue.

Alfred Lustgarten
State Bar #189503, Valencia (September 4, 2024)

Lustgarten was suspended from practicing law for two years and placed on probation for four years after he stipulated to committing 41 acts of professional misconduct.

His wrongdoing included: mischaracterizing a fee as a retainer, failing to promptly return a client's papers and property after being requested to do so, and failing to provide an accounting of client fees held in trust; two counts each of failing to maintain adequate records of client funds and property, failing to promptly disburse client funds held in trust, and commingling personal funds in his client trust account; five counts of failing to disclose his employment of a disbarred attorney to his clients and to the State Bar; and six counts of failing to maintain client funds in trust. He was also culpable of 10 counts of misappropriating client funds by gross negligence and 11 counts of failing to maintain client funds in trust.

Lustgarten maintained three client trust accounts and one personal account at various banks. For more than five years, he failed to maintain ledgers for many of the clients, making it impossible to identify which clients were related to the attorney fee deposits made. During that period, he made 18 transfers of funds from one account to another, but was unable to explain the purpose of the transfers due to his poor recordkeeping. A check he issued for a medical lien resulted in an overdraft of the account from which it was drawn.

In additional cases, Lustgarten disbursed funds to his employees and to himself from his client trust account as advances on funds from anticipated settlements before actually receiving the settlement payments--misappropriating funds from other clients and lienholders, and in some cases, failing to disburse all funds owed to the clients involved. He also erroneously deposited client funds into his personal account, and deposited personal funds into his client trust account. The State Bar Court determined he had misappropriated approximately $85,685 from his clients and lienholders.

In addition to the numerous charges of financial mismanagement, Lustgarten entered written fee agreements with clients--failing to disclose to them or to the State Bar that the paralegal he hired to work on their cases was a disbarred attorney, or to specify the specific tasks the disbarred attorney was hired to perform as required.

In aggravation, Lustgarten committed multiple acts of wrongdoing and is unable to account for some of the client funds entrusted to him.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law for nearly 20 years without a record of discipline, and was given limited mitigating weight for character letters submitted by 12 individuals--most of whom were not fully aware of the misconduct at issue.

Richard Philip Sax
State Bar #80632, Santa Rosa (September 13, 2024)

Sax was suspended for six months and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing six acts of professional misconduct related to mismanaging client funds.

Specifically, his wrongdoing included: failing to maintain the required balance in his client trust account, failing to maintain a client ledger and other accounting for client funds held in trust, as well as two counts each of commingling personal and client funds, and of misappropriating client funds--misconduct involving moral turpitude.

Sax entered contracts with a company that agreed to help with litigation in which he was the attorney of record in exchange for some of the proceeds and fees related to those lawsuits. The company eventually sued Sax for breach of contract and fiduciary duty. Sax then opened a client trust account. The court entered summary judgment in favor of the company and awarded damages in its favor in the amount of $323,611.21.

Over a five-month period, Sax made three deposits of his personal funds into his client trust account in an attempt to shield the money from the company's collection efforts. He also received and deposited client settlement proceeds, but allowed the balance to dip below a permissible level. He also made three deposits of his personal funds and wrote checks for personal and business expenses--all from the trust account.

Sax subsequently took corrective measures in an attempt to ensure the monetary mismanagement would not reoccur--hiring an accountant, maintaining trust account records, and purchasing client trust management software.

In aggravation, Sax committed multiple acts of misconduct, and also intentionally commingled personal funds into his client trust account to shield them from a creditor.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 39 years, took remedial measures to prevent future occurrences of similar misconduct, and was candid with the State Bar during its investigation of the wrongdoing alleged. He was also allotted significant mitigating weight for character reference letters from eight individuals taken from a range in the community--all of whom were aware of the misconduct at issue.

Patrick Joseph Steele
State Bar #106840, Bakersfield (September 13, 2024)

Steele was suspended from practicing law for two years after an uncontested probation revocation proceeding in which the State Bar Court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he had violated several probation conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order.

He did not file a response to the motion to revoke his probation, and the matter was submitted for a decision on the papers: an amended motion and supporting documents.

Steele was found culpable of violating numerous probation conditions, including failing to contact the Office of Probation and schedule an initial meeting there, and failing to file a first written quarterly report. It was specified that Steele's report was to include: a declaration that he had read the Rules of Professional Conduct and specified portions of the Business & Professions Code and completed the e-learning course titled "California Rules of Professional Conduct and State Bar Act Overview," as well as a self-report of complying with the probation conditions imposed in his underlying criminal matter, and proof of attending abstinence-based self-help group meetings.

The Office of Probation sent Steele courtesy reminder letters noting the relevant due dates for each of the conditions imposed.

In aggravation, Steele had a prior record of discipline, had committed multiple acts of misconduct in the instant case, demonstrated indifference to rectifying the consequences of his wrongdoing, and showed a lack of cooperation by failing to participate in the State Bar's investigation of the charges filed against him.

--Barbara Kate Repa