April 2025

DISBARMENT

Claudia Alice Cullison
State Bar #175954, Tygard, Oregon (March 7, 2025)

Cullison was disbarred by default in California after the instant disciplinary proceeding, which was initiated by the Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the local State Bar.

Cullison had earlier stipulated to committing several acts of professional misconduct in the state of Oregon, where she was also admitted to practice law. The wrongdoing related to a single client matter. The Disciplinary Board in Oregon ordered her to be suspended from practicing law there due to the misconduct.

The California State Bar found that the misconduct in the Oregon also reflected violations in California warranting discipline, including: failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, failing to respond to the client's reasonable inquiries, failing to explain a legal matter sufficiently to allow the client to make informed decisions about proceeding, failing to disclose the fact she had been suspended from practicing law, and actually practicing law while not entitled to do so.

The California State Bar Court found that all requirements ensuring fundamental constitutional protection, including proper notice, had been satisfied in the case, and that Cullison did not move to have the default entered against her set aside or vacated.

SUSPENSION

Je Myung Cha
State Bar #254260, Los Angeles (February 26, 2025)

Cha was suspended from practicing law for two years and placed on probation for three years after being found culpable of five counts of professional misconduct related to mishandling funds.

His wrongdoing included: failing to maintain client funds in a trust account, withdrawing disputed funds prior to resolving issues with them, commingling personal and client funds, failing to maintain appropriate records of client funds, and misappropriating nearly $12,500 in client funds--an act involving moral turpitude.

In the underlying atter, Cha was retained to represent a client injured in a slip-and-fall accident. Both signed a medical lien, and the provider eventually submitted a bill for $12,530. The personal injury claim settled for $30,000. The insurer paid by check, which Cha deposited into his client trust account, but the balance dipped to an impermissible level before the medical lienholder had been paid.

Cha and the medical provider engaged in a dispute concerning their communications about the settlement and payment of the lien. At trial, they gave conflicting evidence about their interactions--which included a lapse in communication that lasted more than a year, while both experienced personal and professional challenges. The State Bar Court noted that it found them both "to be generally credible witnesses," but concluded that "the limited and inconclusive evidence presented at trial" precluded it from crediting one version of events over the other.

The medical provider eventually filed two small claims cases against the client, who had also signed the lien. One case was dismissed; the other was resolved in favor of the medical provider--a judgment of $5,000 plus costs. Believing he was entitled to the remaining balance on his $12,530 bill, the medical provider filed a complaint against Cha with the State Bar. Cha was unable to provide State Bar investigators with a trust account journal or monthly reconciliation documents for his trust account.

In aggravation, Cha committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that substantially harmed his client, and demonstrated indifference toward rectifying or atoning for the consequences of his misconduct.

In mitigation, he was allotted moderate weight for having practiced law discipline-free for approximately 13 years--the mitigation lessened because the misconduct was serious and Cha had not demonstrated that it was aberrational, and for entering into a stipulation of facts, though no admission of culpability. He was also given limited mitigating weight for experiencing significant health issues during the time of the misconduct, as there was limited evidence of a direct causal link between the two.

Gabriel Eric Dorman
State Bar #182340, Irvine (February 28, 2025)

Dorman was suspended from the practice of law for 60 days and placed on probation for one year after successfully completing the conditions of participating in the State Bar Court's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP).

There were two notices of disciplinary charges filed against Dorman, which were consolidated. He then submitted a statement establishing a nexus between his mental health and substance abuse issues and the charges in the consolidated matter. Shortly after that, he entered into a stipulation setting forth factual findings, legal conclusions, and mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

In one case, Dorman admitted to failing to comply with a condition imposed in an earlier disciplinary probation. Specifically, he failed to provide proof of attending and passing the exam given at the end of the State Bar Ethics School by the specified due date.

In the second matter, he was culpable of seven counts of professional misconduct: failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to act with reasonable diligence on his client's behalf, failing to deposit advanced fees in a client trust account, improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to return unearned advanced fees, failing to keep his client informed of significant case developments, and then failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged.

In aggravation, Dorman had a prior record of discipline, and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that substantially harmed his client, who was arrested after a bench warrant was issued, required to pay $30,000 in bail to be released from criminal custody, and was forced to retain new counsel in his case.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, and as an added mitigating factor in the present case, he successfully completed the ADP.

Emmanuel Fomukong Fobi
State Bar #210764, Oxnard (February 28, 2025)

Fobi was suspended for 60 days and placed on probation for one year. He previously stipulated to committing two acts of professional misconduct involving moral turpitude: making an intentional misrepresentation during settlement negotiations and breaching his fiduciary duty to his client. The wrongdoing occurred in two separate client matters.

In one case, Fobi represented a client in a personal injury matter, receiving a medical lien on the client's behalf. In negotiating with the medical provider, Fobi asserted that the case had settled for $12,500; in fact, he knew it had settled for $19,000.

The second matter also involved a personal injury case with the small provider holding a medical lien. Fobi again misrepresented the amount of the underlying settlement--claiming it was $7,300 when in fact the case had settled for $10,000.

In both cases, Fobi disbursed all settlement funds received, including paying his own attorney's fees--and failed to fully honor the medical liens involved.

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

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, and provided letters from six individuals taken from the legal and general communities--all of whom attested to his good character and commitment to performing community service. He was also allotted mitigating weight because the violations occurred five years ago, with no additional misconduct during that time, and because the State Bar's excessive delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings prejudiced Fobi.

William Salzwedel
State Bar #225331, Thousand Oaks (February 28, 2025)

Salzwedel was suspended from practicing law for two years and placed on probation for three years after he stipulated to committing five acts of professional misconduct related to two separate matters.

He was culpable of failing to comply with conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order, and practicing law when not legally entitled to do so, as well as three counts of violating court orders.

Salzwedel was disciplined by the State Bar in an earlier order. Under its terms, he was suspended for six months and placed on probation for one year and ordered to fulfill a number of conditions, but failed to comply with a number of them despite having proper notice of his obligations. Specifically, he failed to schedule and attend an initial meeting with the Office of Probation, failed to timely submit four quarterly written reports as well as a final one, failed to review and attest to reviewing the California Rules of Professional Conduct and sections of the Business and Professions Code as directed, and failed to attend the State Bar's Ethics School and pass its final examination.

While suspended, Salzwedel held himself out as entitled to practice law and in fact, communicated with opposing counsel and filed proofs of service and a declaration in an ongoing case. In addition, he failed to notify his clients, opposing counsel, and the court of his suspended status as required by court order (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 9.20).

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

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

PROBATION

Edgar Javier Reynoso
State Bar #189447, Irvine (February 26, 2025)

Reynoso was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to pleading guilty to one count of driving under the influence of alcohol (Cal. Veh. Code § 23152(a)) and one count of driving with a blood alcohol content of .08% or more (Cal. Veh. Code § 23152(b)). The violations are misdemeanors, and the State Bar Court determined they did not involve moral turpitude.

The facts underlying the conviction: Reynoso crashed his vehicle into another car, then cut in front of that car and drove directly into a concrete center divider wall. A highway patrol officer at the scene noted Reynoso's unsteady gait, breath smelling of alcohol, and reddened eyes. Reynoso was arrested after he refused to perform any field sobriety tests. Breath tests revealed a blood alcohol content of .102% and .105%. Twenty years earlier, Reynoso had been convicted of reckless driving involving alcohol.

In aggravation, Reynoso had a prior record of discipline: a public reproval.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation in the instant case.

--Barbara Kate Repa