December 2024

DISBARMENT

Dante Sean Ardite
State Bar #207039, Redondo Beach (October 4, 2024)

Ardite was disbarred by default after he failed to file a response to the notice of disciplinary charges against him. He had received actual notice of the charges and disciplinary proceeding, having appeared at a remote initial status conference in the matter.

A default order was then entered against him, which the State Bar Court determined complied with all procedural requirements. Ardite did not move to have that order set aside or vacated.

He was found culpable of 10 counts of professional misconduct: failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to inform his client of significant case developments, failing to deposit client funds in a trust account, improperly representing co-defendants in the same criminal matter, failing to return unearned advanced fees, and accepting fees from a non-client, as well as four counts of failing to cooperate in the State Bar's attempted investigation of the wrongdoing alleged.

Ardite had two prior records of discipline and at the time he was disbarred, there were two additional disciplinary matters and several other disciplinary investigations pending against him.

Jerald Scott Bennett
State Bar #123450, Riverside (October 9, 2024)

Bennett was disbarred after he stipulated to committing five acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter.

His wrongdoing included: failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing his client, failing to communicate the terms of a settlement offer to the client, failing to keep the client reasonable informed of significant case developments, failing to pay court-ordered sanctions, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the misconduct alleged.

Bennett was hired to represent a client with a civil claim against a mortuary she alleged had mishandled her son's remains. However, he failed to provide requested discovery responses following several extensions, and failed to file an opposition to the defendant's motion to compel. The right to a jury trial in the case was forfeited due to Bennett's failure to deposit jury fees.

The court granted the motion to compel and imposed $600 in sanctions; Bennett did not inform his client of either action, nor did he inform her of the court's motion for summary judgment, which was subsequently granted. He failed to respond to the State Bar's numerous requests for information related to the client's allegations of his misconduct in the matter.

In aggravation, Bennett had two prior records of discipline, and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the instant case, which significantly harmed his client.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

Steve Sungsoo Chang
State Bar #205082, Los Angeles (October 18, 2024)

Chan was disbarred by default after he failed to file a response to the notice of disciplinary charges informing him of the professional misconduct he was accused of committing.

The State Bar Court determined that all procedural requirements, including reasonable diligence used to notify Chang of the proceedings, had been satisfied in the case--and that he had not moved to set aside or vacate the default ultimately entered against him.

He was found culpable of failing to comply with the conditions of a previous disciplinary probation order. Specifically, he failed to contact the Office of Probation and to meet with his assigned officer there, failed to read and verify that he had read the Rules of Professional Conduct and related provisions of the State Bar Act as ordered, and failed to submit two quarterly written reports.

Chang had been disciplined by the State Bar for professional misconduct twice previously before being disbarred in the present case.

Mathew James Erausquin
State Bar #255217, Alexandria, Virginia (October 25, 2024)

Erausquin was summarily disbarred.

He earlier pled guilty and was convicted of six counts of sex trafficking of a minor (18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1) (b)2, and (c)).

The offense is a felony, and the court found it involved moral turpitude, noting: "Regardless of whether a victim is a minor or an adult, the offense is such a serious breach of the duties of respect and care that all adults owe to society, and it shows such a flagrant disrespect for the law and for societal norms, that continuation of his State Bar membership would be likely to undermine public confidence in and respect for the legal profession."

Philip William Ganong
State Bar #88414, Irvine (October 4, 2024)

Ganong was summarily disbarred.

He was convicted of participating in a conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, as well as nine counts of making fraudulent claims for payments of healthcare benefits (Cal. Penal Code § 550(a)(6))--felonies involving moral turpitude per se. In addition, Ganong admitted to the enhancement allegation of engaging in a pattern of related fraudulent felony conduct involving taking more than $500,000.

Erick G. Garcia Hernandez
State Bar #278603, Glendale (October 4, 2024)

Hernandez was disbarred after he stipulated to committing 20 acts of professional misconduct related to several client matters.

He was culpable of: failing to provide legal services with competence, failing to comply with conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order, and failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client; two counts of failing to keep a client reasonably informed of significant case developments; and three counts each of failing to provide accountings of client funds and failing to refund unearned advanced fees.

Additional counts of misconduct involved moral turpitude: collecting a payment from a client to whom he actually owed money and eight counts of making material misrepresentations to a client and on declarations and reports filed with the State Bar.

Hernandez was hired to represent three clients in separate immigration matters. In one case, he filed two pleadings with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, but failed to follow up with a required immigration visa. In another, he agreed to represent a woman and her daughter "up, through, and including, a merits hearing;" however, he conceded to their removal during an earlier hearing. And in the third case, Hernandez represented a man and his two children who had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement upon entering the Unites States; he misinformed them they would not need to appear in person and failed to file additional documents with the Immigration Court, which issued orders for their removal.

While representing all three of these clients, Hernandez was suspended from practicing under the terms of an unrelated disciplinary order, and informed the clients he would be unable to continue as their attorney. Though he stated in declarations filed with the State Bar Court that he had returned all unearned advanced fees and complied with the applicable act and rules, he in fact had not done so.

Hernandez also failed to comply with several conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order--including failing to make restitution to two clients as ordered and failing to timely submit a quarterly written report.

In aggravation, Hernandez had a prior record of discipline, committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the instant matter that significantly harmed several clients who were highly vulnerable due to their uncertain immigration status, and failed to make restitution to three clients who suffered due to his misconduct.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation.

Jose Luis Huizar
State Bar #195726, Los Angeles (October 16, 2024)

Huizar was summarily disbarred after he pled guilty to being part of a racketeering conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)) and tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201).

The State Bar Court did not base its disbarment recommendation on the tax evasion charge. However, it did find that the racketeering charge was a felony that necessarily involves moral turpitude, and that conviction alone qualified Huizar for summary disbarment.

Sergio Valdovinos Ramirez
State Bar #318157, Manhattan Beach (October 18. 2024)

[Sergio Valdovinos Ramirez informed the hearing judge in the original proceeding that he should be referred to as "Valdovinos," in keeping with his firm name, the Valdovinos Law Firm.]

He was disbarred after the State Bar Court panel on appeal affirmed his culpability on all 19 counts of professional misconduct originally charged.

His wrongdoing, which related to five client matters, included: failing to perform legal services with diligence, failing to inform a client of significant case developments, failing to deposit client funds in a trust account, and six counts of failing to return unearned advanced fees. Additional counts involved moral turpitude, including: three counts each of misappropriating client funds and issuing checks from an account with insufficient funds to cover them, as well as four counts of making material misrepresentations to clients and to the State Bar.

Valdovinos initially sought extensions to file documents and to delay his trial--claiming he was undergoing treatment for cancer. However, after he failed to produce the requested medical documentation of his condition, State Bar investigators found no records verifying that he was receiving the treatment claimed, nor was there any evidence of his alleged treating physician at the medical facility where he claimed he was receiving treatment.

In one of the underlying cases, Valdovinos was hired to represent a client in a workers' compensation appeal--accepting a total retainer of $11,800 in the form of five checks. Valdovinos cashed all of them, depositing the funds into his checking account, from which he paid several personal debts. After requesting but not receiving evidence of progress on his case, the client terminated the relationship and asked for his client file and a full refund of the money paid. While Valdovinos produced a check for $11,800 at trial, the client testified he had never received it.

There were also insufficient funds in Valdovinos' account to cover that amount.

In a second client matter, Valdovinos was contacted to represent a client in a personal injury matter--accepting sums for filing and hiring a private investigator, which he promptly used to pay personal expenses instead. During the course of representation, Valdovinos made several misrepresentations to the client--claiming that he had settled her case, presenting fabricated settlement documents, claiming to have received a settlement check, and claiming the insurer promised to pay the client an additional $10,000 to cover attorney fees. In fact, he had never filed a complaint in the case. He issued three checks to the client--all of which could not be cashed due to insufficient funds--as a ploy to convince her he was making progress on her case. He failed to inform the client that the statute of limitations for her claim expired, barring her from pursuing damages.

In a third case, Valdovinos was hired to represent a client with a claim against a former employer. He accepted a "filing fee" of $550, then falsely claimed he had filed a federal civil claim in the matter--even providing a fake case number. He later claimed to have settled the case, providing the client a check for $58,000 in alleged settlement proceeds; the check was denied for insufficient funds, as was a subsequent replacement check. Valdovinos eventually sent the client a document purportedly signed by a State Bar investigator setting out a deadline for delivering documents and settlement funds. It, too, was falsified.

Valdovinos also represented a client seeking an appeal of an immigration decision. He secured a total of $18,500 as a retainer and expert witness fee. He then sought an additional $14,000--allegedly to pay a bail bond and to use as a charitable donation to establish the client's ties to the community. When the client requested that his money be returned, Valdovinos issued two checks to the client in partial repayment--both of which were returned for insufficient funds.

Finally, Valdovinos was retained to contest a conservatorship of a 91-year-old woman. He was paid a total of $73,965-ostensibly to cover a retainer, as well as other miscellaneous costs--and reported that a temporary conservator had been appointed at an ex parte hearing, In fact, no hearing had been held, and Valdovinos again depleted his checking and client trust accounts through numerous personal and cash withdrawals.

In aggravation, Valdovinos committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed several clients, demonstrated a lack of candor as shown through his untruthful testimony, and failed to make restitution to his clients.

The State Bar Court panel began its opinion recommending disbarment by flatly declaring: "This case is about an attorney's egregious acts of dishonesty that occurred in his practice and continued throughout his disciplinary trial." It concluded with a quote from a California Supreme Court case that it found offered "particularly relevant guidance," as follows: "The records here disclose an unrelenting indifference to the obligations of an attorney by deliberately . . . diverting his clients' funds to his own uses and purposes. . . . An attorney who is shown to have embarked on a course of conduct during which such breaches become commonplace is not entitled to be recommended to the public as a person worthy of trust, and accordingly not entitled to continue to practice law." (Resner v. State Bar, 53 Cal. 2d 605, 614-615 (1960).)

Marc Andre Scheirer
State Bar #182772, Abbotsford, British Columbia (October 4, 2023)

Scheirer was disbarred by default following a conviction referral matter involving a misdemeanor committed in another jurisdiction: two counts of assault in the fourth degree-domestic violence (Rev. Code of Wash. 9A.36.041). When the conviction became final, the case was referred to the California State Bar's Hearing Department for a hearing and recommendation of potential discipline to be imposed.

Scheirer did not file a response to the notice of hearing on conviction, nor did he move to have the default entered against him set aside or vacated. When the Office of Chief Trial Counsel contacted Scheirer by telephone, he indicated he had not practiced law in California for more than 24 years, and stated that he understood the repercussions of not participating in the instant proceeding.

In the underlying matter, Scheirer drove with his three minor children and his female companion's nine-year-old child to meet with the companion at a hotel. The two adults then engaged in a heated verbal exchange. The woman's child was seated on her lap when Scheirer struck the child, then punched and choked the woman until the child begged him to stop.
Scheirer pled guilty to two counts of assault in the fourth degree, and was sentenced to serve 12 months of imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently.

SUSPENSION

James Lee Andion
State Bar #93276, Los Angeles (October 25, 2024)

Andion was suspended from practicing law for three years and placed on probation for five years after he stipulated to committing numerous acts of professional misconduct related to numerous client cases.

His wrongdoing included: failing to promptly release a client's papers and property after being requested to do so, failing to remove earned fees from his client trust account, commingling personal and client funds in his trust account, failing to inform clients of significant case developments, settling a potential malpractice claim against him without informing the client of the right to seek advice of independent counsel, and failing to respond to clients' reasonable status inquiries; two counts each of improperly sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer, and aiding another in the unauthorized practice of law; four counts of failing to maintain client funds in trust; seven counts of improperly withdrawing from employment; eight counts of failing to promptly return unearned advanced fees, and 10 count of failing to practice law with competence. He was also culpable of several counts involving moral turpitude: authorizing a non-attorney to draft legal documents in a case, as well as misappropriating client funds.

The crux of the underlying matter is that Andion employed a non-lawyer as his office manager, knowing that she had been involved in her husband's disciplinary case in another jurisdiction that had been based on unauthorized practice of law. As part of her work duties, Andion allowed her to hold herself out as an attorney, provide legal advice, draft and file legal documents, and set and collect legal fees in numerous client cases involving immigration issues. While the office manager assured clients she "would be in charge" of drafting and filing related documents, Andion, who was the attorney of record in several cases, performed none of the legal services required in the cases. In one case, Andion directed that the office manager's husband, who had been suspended in another jurisdiction and was not entitled to practice law in California, should draft an appeal for a client. Andion also allowed another office manager, also a non-attorney, to hold herself out as an attorney and provide legal advice and services to his immigration clients.

Additional issues involved Andion's assent to allowing both officer managers to deposit client fees into their personal bank accounts and to then pay him from those accounts--acts that constituted sharing legal fees. He also commingled client and personal funds in his client trust account.

In aggravation, Andion had a prior record of discipline and committed numerous acts of wrongdoing in the instant case--some of which demonstrated a pattern of misconduct, and much of which involved highly vulnerable clients due to uncertain immigration statuses.
In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, submitted evidence of his good character as attested by 13 individuals taken from a range in the legal and general communities, and paid restitution to several of the clients involved.

Brian R. Bird
State Bar #257565, Ventura (October 4, 2024)

Bird was suspended from the practice of law for one year after it was determined in an uncontested probation revocation proceeding that he had violated several conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order.

Specifically, he failed to timely schedule an initial meeting with his assigned probation case coordinator, failed to timely file an initial quarterly written report that was to include several declarations--including that he had read complied with all provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct, declarations relating to his abstinence of using alcohol and drugs and treatment for substance abuse, and a self-report as to his compliance with other conditions imposed in an underlying criminal matter.

Despite receiving numerous courtesy reminders, by telephone, U.S. mail, and email, Bird failed to comply with the probation conditions enumerated.

In aggravation, Bird had a prior record of discipline--which also involved violating the terms of a court-imposed probation, committed multiple acts of misconduct in the instant case, demonstrated indifference toward rectifying or atoning for the consequences of his wrongdoing, and showed a lack of cooperation by failing to participate in the instant disciplinary proceeding.

Kiarash Shamloo Champion
State Bar #304863, Encino (October 9, 2024)

Champion was suspended for 18 months and placed on probation for three years after he stipulated to committing eight acts of professional misconduct related to one client matter and to monetary mismanagement and misappropriation.

He was culpable of entering into an improper business relationship with a client; two counts each of failing to maintain the required balance in his client trust account and misappropriating client funds--misconduct involving moral turpitude; as well as three counts of commingling personal and client funds.

In the client matter, Champion was hired to represent an individual with a personal injury claim and to pursue an additional action against an insurance carrier on an underinsured motorist claim. The client agreed to pay a 33.3% contingency fee as well as a flat interest fee of 20% on any loans Champion might make to him; he was not advised to seek advice from independent counsel about the arrangement. He also designated Champion as his agent in a power of attorney, authorized to execute any checks and releases. Champion received a settlement check for $15,000, which he deposited into his client trust account. The client then sought an advance on his settlement proceeds; he and Champion agreed to an advance of $3,000, with a flat interest rate of 10%. After the client terminated the relationship, Champion continued to hold the settlement amount in his client trust account, eventually allowing it to be overdrawn.

In the other case consolidated here, Champion negligently maintained his client trust account--failing to monitor it or to keep appropriate records of the funds in it--resulting in a total of $109,541.62 misappropriated from 14 clients. Over an eight-month period, he made advances to 17 clients before receiving or depositing funds on their behalf and three additional trust account checks in an additional three-month period; the payments were drawn from his personal funds, or could not be traced to their rightful owners due to shoddy monitoring. He also issued two checks from the trust account to pay business and personal expenses.

In aggravation, Champion committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, suffered emotional and physical difficulties during the time of the misconduct, presented declarations and letters from 11 individuals who vouched for his good character, and suffered challenges to managing his office due to COVID 19.

In addition, he was allotted mitigating credit for taking remedial action to monitor and maintain his billing and accounting and for making full restitution for the misappropriated funds at issue.

Renee Michelle Daughetee
State Bar #257018, Huntington Beach (October 18, 2024)

Daughetee was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after being found culpable of two counts of professional misconduct: failing to deposit client funds in a trust account and failing to cooperate with the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged. The wrongdoing was related to a single client matter. The State Bar's Office of Chief Trial Counsel moved to dismiss three additional charges against Daughetee at the commencement of trial in the matter.

Daughetee was hired to help a client who had a monetary judgment entered against him in a civil case; he paid an initial $800 retainer fee via PayPal, which she did not deposit in a client trust account. The client filed a complaint against Daughetee with the State Bar, though she did not respond to any of the three investigation letters posted on her State Bar profile, nor did she respond to notifications that had been mailed and emailed to her or request an extension of time to respond.

In aggravation, Daughetee had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, she was allotted limited weight for cooperating by entering into a brief stipulation of facts.

Benjamin A. Eilenberg
State Bar #261288, Fullerton (October 25, 2024)

Eilenberg was suspended from practicing law for two years and placed on probation for three years after successfully completing the State Bar Court's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP). The suspension period has already been satisfied due to the credit given for a related wo-year period of inactive enrollment.

The underlying matter involved five consolidated cases.

One case involved three judge complaints and a probation referral. Eilenberg stipulated to committing three counts of professional misconduct: failing to obey a court order, failing to report judicial sanctions imposed, and failing to comply with conditions attached to a disciplinary probation.

In another case, he stipulated to failing to return a client file upon terminating representation, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, and two counts of failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged.

In two additional probation referral matters, Eilenberg stipulated to failing to meet the obligations imposed by the California Supreme Court on disciplined attorneys (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 9.20), and failing to comply with conditions attached to a disciplinary order that was imposed earlier.

And finally, in a matter involving a single client, he stipulated to failing to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his client, failing to promptly return the client's file upon terminating services, and again, failing to cooperate in the State Bar's disciplinary investigation.

In aggravation in the consolidated cases, Eilenberg had a prior record of discipline, committed multiple acts of wrongdoing and demonstrated indifference as to the consequences of his misconduct.

In mitigation, the court in the instant case considered his successful completion of the ADP.

Because Eilenberg successfully completed the ADP, the court ordered that the lower level of discipline, contained in the confidential statement related to the case, should be imposed in the resent matter.

Adam Nathan Gurley
State Bar #178656, San Francisco (October 4, 2024)

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

He was culpable of engaging in unlawful harassment, making threats to his client--wrongdoing involving moral turpitude, representing clients with potentially adverse interests without securing their written consents, and two counts of offering to pay clients in exchange for having them refrain from filing disciplinary complaints with the State Bar.

In one matter, Gurley was retained to represent a client in a paternity, child support, and visitation case. Approximately 10 months later, the client called Gurley to inform him that she was dissatisfied with his services. He responded by telling her he was associated with the Hell's Angels, and sent 11 emails and text messages--some of them in the middle of the night--demanding between $3,00 and $26,300 in attorney fees. Fearing for her safety, the client secured a temporary restraining order against Gurley, who wrongly accused the client of sending an unknown individual to his home, and threatened to send an off-duty police officer to "mend the individual's ways." The court subsequently granted a three-year permanent restraining order against Gurley, and affirmed it after he appealed. Gurley then sent the client multiple emails, offering to dismiss a breach of contract case he had filed for unpaid legal fees and to provide her with money if she would agree to terminate the restraining order and withdraw the State Bar complaint she had filed.

In another case, Gurley met with a prospective client for help with a dissolution matter. The two talked for two hours, and the individual provided some relevant documents, though ultimately did not retain Gurley. However, the prospective client's spouse did hire Gurley, who substituted in as counsel of record in the dissolution case she had initiated; he did not obtain written consent from either of the spouses. Opposing counsel filed a request for an order to disqualify Gurley based on the conflict of interest, and he then substituted out of the case. The client then advised him of her intent to file a complaint with the State Bar; Gurley offered to pay her $5,000 in exchange for waiving all claims and agreeing to refrain from filing the State Bar complaint.

In aggravation, Gurley committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed both clients.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for 24 years, was suffering emotional difficulties during the time of the misconduct, and was allotted limited mitigating weight for character letters from 29 individuals--many of whom did not demonstrate a complete understanding of the full nature and extent of the misconduct involved.

Matthew J. Kumar
State Bar #283521, Sherman Oaks (October 4, 2024)

Kumar was suspended from practicing law for 90 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing seven acts of professional misconduct.

His wrongdoing included: failing to comply with the conditions of a disciplinary probation that was imposed earlier; two counts of failing to complete and maintain journals and ledgers of client funds; and four counts of commingling personal and client funds in his trust account.

Relevant facts behind the fund mismanagement counts: Kumar maintained two client trust accounts. He made four deposits of personal and business funds into his client trust accounts, and paid business and personal expenses from those accounts using personal funds improperly left in them on 65 occasions. He failed to maintain records or journals for either of the accounts.

In addition, as stipulated, Kumar failed to comply with several conditions attached to a disciplinary probation order. Specifically, he failed to schedule and meet with the Office of Probation as specified, failed to review the Rules of Professional Conduct and report his compliance with that requirement, failed to file three written quarterly reports, and failed to complete the e-learning course titled "California Rules of Professional Conduct and State Bar Act Overview."

In aggravation, Kumar had a prior record and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the present case.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, and his misconduct caused no harm to a client or to the administration of justice.

Robert Earl McCann
State Bar #170286, Sacramento (October 11, 2024)

McCann was suspended for 15 months and placed on probation for three years. In the original disciplinary matter, he was charged with 29 counts of professional misconduct related to five client matters. The hearing judge below found him culpable on 18 counts, and dismissed 11.

On appeal, McCann conceded culpability on 10 of the 18 counts; the panel found him culpable of a total of 17 counts of misconduct. His wrongdoing included: failing to perform legal services with competence, maintaining an unjust action, failing to inform his client of significant case developments, failing to obey a court order, improperly withdrawing from representation, and failing to respond to client inquiries; two counts of failing to comply with the law; and three counts each of soliciting agreements from clients to withdraw disciplinary complaints against him, failing to return unearned advanced fees, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the misconduct alleged.

In one of the underlying client matters, McCann prepared four mechanic's liens against a residence on behalf of a client, recording all of them with differing descriptions of the labor, materials, services, or equipment underlying each lien. When filing one of the liens, McCann was aware that one individual was asserting an ownership interest in the property, but did not provide her with notice prior to filing the lien as legally required. A court found the failure to give the requisite advance notice made the liens unenforceable as a matter of law, and also found those filing the liens were not statutorily entitled to do so.

In another case, an individual entered an agreement with a paralegal group, seeking to recover losses from a stolen vehicle--making four payments toward satisfying a retainer. Two receipts for the payments were issued on McCann's letterhead. McCann subsequently filed a civil case on the client's behalf, but failed to file the required case management conference statements or to appear at the court-ordered conference or hearing; the case was dismissed with prejudice. The client requested a fee arbitration and filed a complaint about McCann with the State Bar. McCann characterized the matter as a "fee dispute," and assured the Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) that the client had agreed to withdraw the arbitration request and the State Bar complaint. The client informed the OCTC that he did not wish to drop his complain, however, and produced a letter from an individual McCann had used as an interpreter, purporting to withdraw the complaint and asking for the client's signature.

And in another matter, McCann was hired to assist a client in preparing and filing documents for a marital dissolution, paying a retainer of $1,000. When she could not reach him for several months she sought a refund. After the OCTC interceded, McCann refunded the money, then sent the client an email thanking her "for her agreement to dismiss the State Bar complaint"--which included a drafted letter for her to sign and submit to the State Bar.

And a final matter involved an elderly client seeking help with a bankruptcy petition--paying a retainer in installments. The client therafter was unable to reach McCann, who conceded that he did no work on the case and constructively terminated his employment. He eventually met with the client and paid a full refund--again tendering a draft of a letter requesting the State Bar charges should be withdrawn; she testified that she signed the letter, believing that was required to secure the refund.

In recommending the discipline imposed in this case, the panel expressed the hope that McCann "understands he cannot ask any future client to withdraw a bar complaint."

In aggravation, McCann had a prior record of discipline, committed multiple acts of misconduct in the instant case that substantially harmed a client whose case was dismissed, and was given limited aggravating weight for showing an indifference toward rectifying or atoning for the consequences of his conduct and for mishandling a case for an elderly client--though she was neither infirm nor cognitively impaired.

In mitigation, he entered into some factual stipulations.

Lotfy Mrich
State Bar #202286, Ontario (October 9, 2024)

Mrich was suspended from practice for 90 days--with credit given for a previous period of inactive enrollment--and placed on probation for two years after successfully completing the State Bar Court's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP).

In the underlying consolidated disciplinary matters, he stipulated to failing to perform legal services with competence, improperly withdrawing from employment, failing to keep his client reasonably informed of significant case developments, seeking to mislead a judge, and accepting compensation from a third party without a prior written consent from his client, as well as two counts of failing to comply with court orders.

In aggravation, Mrich had a prior record of discipline, committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed a client, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, and committed the misconduct at issue while on probation.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation. His successful completion of ADP was also weighed in as a mitigating factor in the instant case.

Because he had fully satisfied ll the ADP conditions, the court imposed the lower-end range of discipline, as specified in the terms of the negotiated contract.

Joan M. Tajon
State Bar #312427, Vista (October 11, 2024)

Tajon was suspended from the practice of law for six months and placed on probation for two years after the State Bar Court found her culpable of seven of the nine counts with which she was initially charged.

She was found culpable of seeking to mislead a judge, failing to correct a false statement made to a tribunal, maintaining an unjust legal action, charging improper fees, and failing to deposit client funds in a trust account, as well as two counts involving moral turpitude: making a material misrepresentation on a document filed with the court and filing a motion containing misleading assertions.

In the underlying matter, Tajon was hired to represent a client pursuing a legal malpractice claim against her former attorney, accepting $5,000 as an advanced fee. However, within days, there was a breakdown in the attorney/client relationship, and Tajon filed a motion to be relieved as counsel less than a month after being hired. The client then sued Tajon for legal malpractice in addition to other claims; an arbitrator entered a judgment against Tajon in the amount of $10,555.50.

Though negotiations to resolve the judgment were not successful, an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment (ASJ) was filed with the court in the case; the signature of the client's new counsel had been forged on it. That counsel sent four messages to Tajon asking her to resolve the matter--the last inferring she "may well be a party to the forgery." Tajon responded to the last message, stating she was not involved in the forgery, but not asserting that she had paid or satisfied the judgment at issue. She claimed that any payments "should have come" from old bank accounts that were now closed, and records were no longer in the banking systems.

Tajon responded to a State Bar investigator's requests for proof of payment by invoking her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

The State Bar Court found that the ASJ was false, and filed with the intent to mislead the court into believing the judgment was satisfied," noting that the document "conveniently terminated" Tajon's obligation to pay the judgment. It further noted that her "evasive and deceptive conduct following the filing of the ASJ is also proof of her involvement in the forgery."

In aggravation, Tajon committed multiple acts of wrongdoing, showed indifference toward rectifying or atoning for the consequences of her misconduct, and demonstrated a lack of candor by offering suspect trial testimony.

In mitigation, she was allotted minimal weight for performing community service.

Richard S. Tom
State Bar #127292, South Pasadena (October 25, 2024)

Tom was suspended from practicing law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing two acts of professional misconduct related to a single matter. Both charges involved making grossly negligent misrepresentations--wrongdoing involving moral turpitude.

Relevant facts in the matter: Tom was one of several attorneys assigned to serve as counsel for the city of Los Angeles and its Department of Water & Power to deal with issues arising from a newly-implemented billing system for consumers. An underlying legal strategy in the litigation was to shift the blame for billing errors to the company that implemented the system. Tom's role was to assist counsel by providing documents and information needed to pursue related claims. He was also responsible for reviewing, revising, and finalizing the fee agreement with outside counsel--and came to know there were potential conflicts in having them represent both the city and related ratepayer consumer class.

In the course of the litigation, Tom signed a written declaration under penalty of perjury that contained several false and misleading statements about certain documents he averred were protected as attorney work product. In addition, he made several materially false and misleading statements in a subsequent deposition.

In aggravation, Tom committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed the administration of justice and led to the waste of judicial resources needed to uncover the truth in the matter.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law for approximately 30 years without a record of discipline, offered evidence of performing a substantial amount of community service, and was allotted moderate mitigating weight for character letters by 11 individuals--the weight lessened because they expressed little understanding of the full extent of the misconduct at issue.

PROBATION

Randel Jay Campbell
State Bar #209324, Concord (October 18, 2024)

Campbell was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing four acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter.

His wrongdoing included: failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing his client, improperly withdrawing from employment, and failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries.

In the underlying matter, Campbell associated as "of counsel" with a partner in a firm, representing a client in a breach of contract lawsuit against a contractor. The initial complaint was filed in superior court; the defendant filed a notice to remove the case to federal court.

After the law partner's firm dissolved, Campbell agreed to continue to represent the client in the civil lawsuit. However, he failed to file the substitution of attorney forms that the client had executed. About a year later, the court issued a minute order, noting that Campbell had not filed required documents in the case, nor had he filed a status report as ordered. The case was dismissed without prejudice. Campbell then assured the client that he would prepare and file a motion to set aside the judgment as to the dismissal. He then failed to respond to four subsequent requests from the client seeking status updates.

In aggravation, Campbell committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed his client.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation and had practiced law for approximately 18 years without a record of discipline before committing the wrongdoing in the present case.

--Barbara Kate Repa