October 2026

DISBARMENT

Denae A. Beland

State Bar #289821, El Dorado Hills (August 7, 2026)

Beland was summarily disbarred after being found guilty of corruptly endeavoring to impede the due administration of Internal Revenue laws (26 U.S.C. § 7212(a)).

The offense is a felony involving moral turpitude.

The State Bar Court recommended disbarment after receiving proof of the finality of the conviction.

Phillip Barry Greer

State Bar #96438, Newport Beach (August 28, 2026)

Greer was disbarred after being found culpable of 24 acts of professional misconduct in the present matter, which consolidated two notices of disciplinary charges.

Greer appeared remotely at 9:30 a.m. on the first day of trial, without giving prior notice to the court, which directed him to appear in person in two hours. Trial eventually commenced after noon, and after Greer claimed he arrived later than ordered because he went to the wrong court. He cross-examined several witnesses, then announced his intention to leave to "beat traffic"--claiming the court was biased and he was unable to receive a fair trial. In keeping with procedural rules (Cal. Bus. & Prof Code § 6111), the court notified him it could continue without his presence. Though Greer appeared briefly at trial by Zoom the next day despite the court order to appear in person, he declared the proceeding was a "farce," and left while the first witness was being sworn.

His wrongdoing included failing to keep clients informed of significant case developments and failing to deposit client funds in a trust account, as well as two counts involving moral turpitude: making false and misleading statements to opposing counsel and in a written report to the Office of Probation. He was also found culpable of an additional 20 counts of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and of doing so intentionally--misconduct involving moral turpitude.

In a previous discipline order, Greer was actually suspended for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after being found culpable of committing four acts of professional misconduct. One month after that order took place, the State Bar's Office of Attorney Regulation and Consumer Resources informed Greer that he also owed disciplinary costs and would remain suspended until they were paid in full. However, while Greer was suspended, he engaged in plea negotiations and ultimately accepted a plea for his client in a criminal case. He also sent a text to opposing counsel falsely stating that his suspension had been vacated, and also falsely claimed he was in compliance in his quarterly written report to the Office of Probation.

Greer was again suspended for approximately six months after he failed to complete and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam as required in the disciplinary order. While suspended, he nevertheless undertook representation in a political recall campaign, represented his wife in a consumer lawsuit, and engaged with opposing counsel extensively in an additional matter involving a discovery dispute.

Greer had raised several issues on appeal, though the State Bar Court noted none of them had merit. It did, however, address two of them in the current opinion. The first was Greer's claim of error based on a refusal to accommodate hiss need to take care of an elderly family member. The court noted: "Greer has a well-established pattern of seeking continuances based on family health issues," and underscored that he failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. Greer also argued that hearsay evidence was improperly admitted at trial, but the court noted that he chose to be absent for most of the proceeding, so had waived belated hearsay objections.

In aggravation, Greer had three previous records of discipline, and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the instant case. He also demonstrated indifference to the gravity of his wrongdoing--showing a "dismissive attitude toward his ethical lapses" by suing the State Bar and many of the complaining witnesses--alleging they engaged in a conspiracy by reporting his UPL and displaying "pointed insouciance" in his sporadic and unauthorized early court appearances in the case.

Michael William Hand, aka Michael William Koper

State Bar #281422, Towanda, Pennsylvania (August 28, 2026)

Hand was disbarred after he stipulated to committing acts of professional misconduct in another jurisdiction--New York--that resulted in his disbarment there.

The California State Bar Court determined that Hand's culpability as confirmed by the Supreme Court of New York also warranted imposing discipline under the laws and rules in this state. Specifically, he was found culpable of: offering evidence that he knew to be false; engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and intentionally fabricating and illegally procuring documents and destroying material evidence--wrongdoing involving moral turpitude.

In the underlying matter, Hand filed a Chapter 7 proceeding in a New York bankruptcy court, after which three creditors filed adversary proceedings seeking determinations that certain debts owed were not dischargeable. The creditors eventually filed a motion for sanctions against Hand--alleging that he fabricated documents and then used them with the intent to defraud them and the bankruptcy court. Specifically, he manipulated the dates and times on computerized documents including loan authorizations, a home lease approval, and life insurance purchase approval, among others. He also used his computer to access an email account to illegally procure the plaintiffs' corporate and legal records, and installed a program that allowed him to fabricate email messages purportedly sent years earlier, as well as a computer program that overwrote more than 62,000 files--many of which would have been relevant to the plaintiffs' case.

In aggravation, Hand committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed the administration of justice.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

In the sanction order issued by the bankruptcy court, Hand conceded his pattern of misbehavior prejudiced the plaintiffs by forcing them to respond to fabricated claims and pursue their cases against him while he possessed their confidential records and other evidence.

Anne Elizabeth Hill

State Bar #257778, Palo Alto (August 28, 2026)

Hill was disbarred by default after she failed to participate in the disciplinary proceeding in which she was charged with a single count of professional misconduct: failing to obey a court order. Specifically, she failed to file a declaration of compliance after being suspended as ordered (Cal. R. of Ct., rule 9.20).

When the State Bar's Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) reached Hill by phone shortly after she received notice, she reported that she had not practiced law in 14 years and did not intend to oppose a default motion. The OCTC spoke with Hill again after the default was entered, explaining the steps required to have the order set aside, but she took no further action.

Satisfied that all procedural requirements had been satisfied and that the default was final, the State Bar Court recommended disbarment.

There was an additional disciplinary matter pending against Hi when she was disbarred in the present case.

Michael Jacob Libman

State Bar #222353, Tarzana (August 28, 2026)

Libman was disbarred after being found culpable of numerous ethical violations committed in two separate disciplinary cases that were consolidated here.

His wrongdoing included: two counts each of failing to obey court orders and failing to disclose a potentially adverse relationship without obtaining his client's prior written approval. He was also found culpable of several counts involving moral turpitude: collaborating to advance a scheme that prioritized other interests over those of his client, and attempting to gain unauthorized access to the phone and email account of a judge and attorney, as well as two counts of making false and misleading material misrepresentations.

In the underlying matter, Libman was hired as local counsel representing a plaintiff in a class action against the city of Los Angeles alleging utility overcharging; he was specifically selected after a request to find counsel who would be "friendly" to the city's interests. Two actions were filed in the matter: the class action against the city and an action by the city suing the company that had designed the billing system at issue. In fact, the settlement proposal in the case had been drafted by counsel representing the city--then sent and signed by Libman's lead counsel. The court did not approve it initially.

While the class action was pending, Libman was involved in an unrelated personal injury matter--seeking out as co-counsel one of the attorneys representing Los Angeles in the overbilling case without disclosing the conflict to his client.

In anticipation of the court approving the class action, Libman submitted a detailed list of 32 cases in which substantial settlements were achieved, claiming he had "collaborated and co-counseled" with the firm that won the settlements. In fact, while Libman's firm leased office space from the settling firm for several years, they had never collaborated. Libman also claimed to have sent 1,340 hours on the overbilling class--including 68.25 hours on "legal and factual research and drafting of initial complaint and amended complaint." In fact, the complaints were drafted without his input.

Libman received approximately $1.65 million for his role in the case when it was settled.

After discovery in the other lawsuit--filed by the city--the judge discovered potential conflicts of interest and appointed new class counsel, directing him to also ascertain whether the class action settlement had been fair and reasonable. In addition, the judge ordered Libman to produce all relevant accounting records and work product documentation. After Libman produced only a one-page document deemed to be inadequate, new class counsel deposed him. Libman then refused to answer many questions posed--including work he allegedly done in the 32 previous class actions. Libman was then held in contempt; he was also ordered to disgorge the attorney's fees previously received, but failed to do so, and was again held in contempt.

After exhausting his appeals of the disgorgement order and non-monetary sanction imposed in state court, Libman appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied cert.

In a related but separate action, Libman became convinced that the judge and new class counsel had an "improper financial connection," and attempted to launch a "covert investigation"--which involved hiring an Israeli advanced intelligence gathering organization to get access to their email and phone accounts. In furtherance of that scheme, Libman strategized with one of the affiliated class action attorneys using burner phones--unaware that individual was working with the FBI in a potential crackdown on the scheme. Libman also appeared at the home of the lawyer he was targeting--ostensibly to serve a subpoena--and also filed retaliatory legal actions against the lawyer.

In aggravation, Libman committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that substantially harmed the target of his investigation scheme, demonstrated a lack of appreciation for his misconduct and obligations as an attorney, and was given moderate aggravating weight for lack of candor related to a single contradiction in trial testimony.

In mitigation, he was allotted moderate weight for having practiced law approximately 13 years without a record of discipline, and limited weight for character testimony from seven witnesses--the majority of whom were unaware of the specific charges against him.

Dino Luigi Lusica

State Bar #227285, Whittier (August 14, 2026)

Lusica was disbarred by default after he failed to participate in his disciplinary proceeding despite receiving adequate notice and opportunity to do so. As a consequence, a default was entered against him in the case, and the State Bar Court determined that he failed to move to have it set aside or vacated within 90 days.

The factual allegations in the charges filed against Lusica were deemed admitted, and he was found culpable of all 29 counts charged that were related to four separate clients--all of them involved in divorce matters.

His wrongdoing included: failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries and failing to deposit funds in a client trust account; two counts each of representing adverse parties without their informed written consent and failing to inform his clients of significant case developments; three counts of improperly withdrawing from employment; and four counts each of failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to perform legal services with diligence, failing to provide an accounting of client funds received after terminating his employment, failing to refund unearned advanced fees, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the misconduct alleged.

There were two additional non-public disciplinary matters pending against Lusica, which were abated at the time he was disbarred in the present case.

LoriAnn Owens

State Bar #315230, Concord (August 7, 2026)

Owens was disbarred by default after she failed to appear at the disciplinary trial in which she was charged with 46 counts of professional misconduct related to eight separate client matters. The State Bar Court found that all procedural requirements, including adequate service and notice, have been met and that there is a factual basis for imposing discipline. It also found that a default had been properly entered in the case, and that Owens had not moved to have it set aside or vacated.

As a result, the factual allegations in the charges were deemed admitted and no further proof was required to establish their truth.

Owens was found culpable of all counts charged. Her wrongdoing included: failing to render an accounting of client funds, failing to communicate a settlement offer to a client, and failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries; two counts each of failing to obey court orders and failing to release clients' files upon terminating employment; six counts of failing to perform legal service with diligence; eight counts each of failing to refund unearned advance fees and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the misconduct alleged; and nine counts of failing to maintain client funds in trust.

An additional eight counts involved moral turpitude: one count of making an intentional misrepresentation to a client, and seven counts of misappropriating client funds.

There were other disciplinary charges and investigations, unspecified in number and nature, pending against Owens when she was disbarred in the present case.

SUSPENSION

Sepideh Ardestani

State Bar #274259, Los Angeles (August 7, 2026)

Ardestani was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to committing two acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter: failing to perform legal services with competence and signing and submitting a motion to a court containing false information--wrongdoing involving moral turpitude.

Ardestani represented a plaintiff in a wage and hour action in a federal court. After the court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, she filed a motion for reconsideration. It contained "numerous internal citations and quotes from decisions that were non-existent, did not contain the language quoted, or did not support the propositions for which they were offered." After the defendants filed an opposition noting these inconsistencies, Ardestani filed a reply stating that the misstatements were "minor" and "typographical errors"--and later testified in court, without providing documentation, that they might have occurred while transferring information from handwritten notes she had taken while doing legal research for a friend. The court found Ardestani was not forthcoming, and sanctioned her $1,500--underscoring that her conduct led to a "waste of limited time and judicial resources in a district that has labored under a long-standing caseload crisis."

In aggravation, Ardestani caused significant harm to the administration of justice and showed a lack of candor by failing to provide evidence to support her claim that her misconduct was the result of clerical errors.

In mitigation, she entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for more than 14 years, submitted nine good character letters from a wide range of references, and was suffering from the stress of caretaking an elderly family member at the time of the misconduct.

Steven Douglas Baric

State Bar #200066, Newport Beach (August 14, 2026)

Baric was suspended from practicing law for three years and placed on probation for four years after he was found culpable of nine counts of professional misconduct--including failing to distribute client funds promptly, failing to render an account of client funds, commingling personal and client funds, and failing to maintain complete records of client funds, as well as two counts of failing to maintain client funds in a trust account. Three additional counts involved moral turpitude: making material misrepresentations to a client, and two counts of misappropriating client funds. The wrongdoing related to a single client matter.

Baric entered into a stipulation ahead of trial admitting to the facts establishing his culpability for each of the violations, but disputed that the misappropriation alleged was intentional.

In the underlying matter, Baric was retained to represent a married couple pursuing a wrongful death action after their young son was killed during police pursuit of a vehicle. The clients maintained their case with Baric as he worked as a contractor for two firms before opening his own practice. The case was settled for $850,000, with the settlement check written to Baric's firm "in trust for" the clients. Baric deposited it into his client trust account, and before paying the clients, wrote several checks--reducing the balance in the account to an impermissible level. Though Baric's legal assistant had informed the clients that their settlement check had been received, Baric falsely told them on several subsequent occasions it had not--then claimed he had received only partial payment, and later, that the bank had placed a hold on the funds, and still later, that he had mailed their settlement funds to an old address by mistake. Though Baric eventually negotiated a check to the clients after depositing two checks into his client trust account to cover the amount, he failed to maintain proper accounting, a written journal, or reconciliation of their funds.

Though only sparse facts were included in the State Bar Court's opinion in the resent case, there was a second matter involving an "unnamed client" for whom Baric received a settlement check for $30,000 and deposited it into his client trust account. He admitted that he failed to maintain the required account balance in that transaction. After the bank issued a nonsufficient funds notice on the account Baric admitted to removing the $30,000 from the account--claiming he did so to safeguard the funds after the account was compromised by fraud.

In aggravation, Baric committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed his client.

In mitigation, he had practiced law for approximately 25 years without a record of discipline, cooperated in the State Bar investigation, submitted character reference letters and some live trial testimony from 19 individuals, and made full restitution to his client before the State Bar investigation began. He also received mitigating weight for emotional difficulties caused by family stressors--limited because there was no demonstration that it accounted for his "most egregious violation" of knowingly misappropriating client funds, as well as limited weight for remorse that occurred months after the misconduct, and for performing community service--though the record lacked specific, quantifying details as to its quality, duration, and impact.

Geoffrey Thomas Bentley

State Bar #324355, San Diego (August 21, 2026)

Bentley was suspended for nine months and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing three acts of professional misconduct: seeking to mislead a judge, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of law, and making numerous false statements in pleadings filed with the court--wrongdoing involving moral turpitude.

A U.S. district court judge disqualified Bentley as counsel in a case, prompting the district's standing committee on discipline to file a petition to initiate proceedings against him based on seven separate charges. Facts found in that jurisdiction included that Bentley filed 16 disability rights access lawsuits on behalf of a single individual in federal court, as well as 16 state court lawsuits naming himself as plaintiff in the same timeframe. Though the defendants were the same, Bentley failed to file notices of the related cases. A magistrate issued an order to show cause as to why Bentley should not be disqualified for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, noting the pattern of filing nearly identical pairs of lawsuits.

Bentley defended that in the course of representing the plaintiff asserting disability, he visited the defendants' premises to investigate all claims, and had grounds for disability rights lawsuits as the plaintiff in an action against the facilities he was unable to access. The court concluded that was a false representation, as it conflicted with Bentley's assertion he had visited the facilities to investigate the claims at issue. It characterized numerous statements concerning the purpose of his visits as "incomplete, implausible, inconsistent, and verifiably untrue."

The State Bar Court determined that as a matter of law, Bentley's culpability as adjudicated by the other jurisdiction also warranted imposing discipline in the instant case.

In aggravation, Bentley committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed the administration of justice.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, took remedial measures to avoid similar misconduct, and provided letters from nine individuals taken from the legal and general communities--all of whom vouched for his good moral character.

John Michael Genga

State Bar #125522, Encino (August 21, 2026)

Genga was suspended from practicing law for six months and placed on probation for three years after he stipulated to committing six acts of professional misconduct related to mishandling client funds.

His wrongdoing included commingling personal and client funds in his client trust account, failing to withdraw fees from his client trust account at the earliest reasonable time after they became fixed, and failing to maintain complete records of client funds, as well as three counts involving moral turpitude: making an intentional misrepresentation to the State Bar and two counts of certifying and affirming false statements to the Client Trust Account Trust Account Protection program.

Genga maintained two accounts at one bank: a client trust account and a business operating account. Over a period spanning just more than seven years, he misused the client trust account in numerous ways: failing to withdraw earned attorney's fees when required on 130 occasions; making 81transfers of personal funds from his operating account to client trust account to "hold in reserve;" and initiating 104 automatic withdrawals and 32 wire transfers from his client trust account to pay personal expenses. Also during that period, he failed to maintain a written ledger, written journal, bank statements, or monthly reconciliations for the account.

A number of health insurance premium payments made from Genga's client trust account were reversed due to insufficient funds, prompting the State Bar's Office of Chief Trial Counsel to send him letters requesting an explanation. While he responded that he had "mistakenly designated" his trust account rather than his operating account as the source of payment for the insurance premiums, he continued the prohibited practice for approximately two years.

In addition, Genga submitted two statements to the Client Trust Account Protection Program certifying that he maintained the requisite records and reconciliations for his client trust account when he knew that to be untrue.

In aggravation, Genga committed multiple acts of misconduct and engaged in a pattern of mishandling his financial accounts.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 31 years, and submitted character reference letters from seven individuals--the mitigating weight of that lessened because the individuals did not represent a range in the community and the letters did not indicate knowledge of the full extent of Genga's wrongdoing.

Dennise Suzanne Henderson

State Bar #208640, Sacramento (August 7, 2026)

Henderson was suspended for six months and placed on probation for two years.

She stipulated to culpability for 20 counts of wrongdoing charged, but disputed three additional charges. The State Bar Court found that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel failed to prove those charges and dismissed them, basing its discipline recommendation on the stipulated misconduct.

Henderson's wrongdoing, which involved three client matters and a court reported action, included: failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, failing to inform her client of a significant case development, and failing to report judicial sanctions imposed to the State Bar; two counts each of failing to render accounts of client funds and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged; and 13 counts of failing to obey court orders.

In one client matter, Henderson was hired to substitute into a wrongful disclosure action, accepting an advance fee of $10,000. Approximately 3 1/2 years after being hired, she filed a complaint in federal court, but did not timely file a case management conference statement despite several notices from the court, nor did she respond to a subsequent order to show cause, or orders to serve a second defendant with a complaint. The case was ultimately dismissed--though Henderson did not inform them; the clients hired another attorney to file an emergency bankruptcy petition so they could keep their home. Henderson did not provide the clients with the requested written accounting of the fees paid, nor did she respond to four letters of inquiry from the Office of Chief Trial Counsel attempting to investigate the matter.

In a second wrongful disclosure case, Henderson failed to file a timely joint status report or to respond to a subsequent order to show cause. She failed to pay the sanctions then imposed upon her, or to timely report them to the State Bar as required.

A third client case involved disputed funds. The findings of fact included that Henderson filed a civil complaint against a bank on behalf of a client and her partner. It settled for $625,000 after mediation; the fee agreement specified that Henderson was to receive 40% of the settlement amount, or $250,000--with the remainder to be split between the two clients. Complications arose over an agreement in which Henderson was to hold one of the client's settlement funds in a spendthrift trust to protect Social Security and disability benefits. The client gave inconsistent testimony about the handling and expectations related to the trust funds, but the State Bar Court dismissed claims of misappropriation and failure to hold the settlement funds appropriately in trust--finding only a failure to render an appropriate accounting of them.

And in the court reported action, Henderson represented herself and a co-defendant in an unlawful detainer matter. The court imposed sanctions of $750--payable to the plaintiff--due to her failure to appear at a mandatory pretrial settlement conference. The court imposed two additional sanctions based on subsequent failures to appear. She untimely reported the sanctions imposed to the State Bar, but failed to pay them.

In aggravation, Henderson committed multiple acts of wrongdoing. She also received limited aggravating weight for having a previous record of discipline that was imposed after the current disciplinary proceeding commenced and for causing harm to clients, where evidence of that harm lacked details.

In mitigation, she stipulated to culpability for 20 of the 24 counts originally charged--helping to conserve court and State Bar resources and demonstrating her acceptance of responsibility for her misconduct.

Jonathan Hidalgo

State Bar #296073, Los Angeles (August 14, 2026)

Hidalgo was suspended from practicing law for nine months and placed on probation for one year after successfully completing the State Bar Court's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP). He was given credit for a 10-month period of inactive enrollment imposed earlier.

After disciplinary charges were filed against him in 2022, Hidalgo submitted evidence showing a nexus between his substance abuse and mental health issues and the misconduct alleged. He was then accepted into the program.

Nearly two years later, another notice of disciplinary charges was filed against Hidalgo--consolidated with the first--and the newly filed matter was also referred to ADP. Due to a State Bar Court oversight, however, there was a delay in incorporating the second matter, necessitating an amended contact and waiver for ADP participation as well as an amended stipulation.

In it, Hidalgo stipulated to committing 29 counts of professional misconduct related to nine client matters. His wrongdoing included: accepting legal fees for a third party without obtaining the client's prior written consent, failing to deposit client funds in trust, and making false and misleading statements to a client--misconduct involving moral turpitude; two counts each of failing to return unearned advanced fees and failing to comply with probation conditions imposed earlier; three counts of failing to perform legal services with competence; four counts each of failing to communicate with clients regarding case matters and improperly withdrawing from employment; five counts of failing to participate in the State bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged; and six counts of failing to render appropriate accountings of client funds.

In aggravation, Hidalgo had two prior records of discipline and committed multiple acts of misconduct in the instant case that significantly harmed several clients who were highly vulnerable due to their uncertain immigration status. In addition, the court allotted aggravating weight after determining Hidalgo engaged in a "dangerous pattern" of misconduct after considering his entire record spanning approximately six years and affecting 37 distinct client matters.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, submitted good character references from 10 individuals demonstrated remorse and a recognition of his wrongdoing, and was experiencing severe financial and family stress during the time of the misconduct. The court also considered Hildalgo's successful completion of the ADP to be a mitigating factor--and recommended the lower level of discipline in this case, as set out in the amended confidential statement of alternative dispositions and orders.

Michael Hurey

State Bar #139550, Valencia (August 28, 2026)

Hurey was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to being culpable of three acts of professional misconduct: failing to act with reasonable diligence, failing to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to his client, and failing to keep the client informed of a significant case development.

The wrongdoing related to a single case in which Hurey represented a client who had been ordered by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) to secure legal representation in an arbitration. Hurey initially sought and was granted a two-week extension to review the case. AAA then informed him that the client was delinquent in paying the $9,000 fee due, and that failure to do so by a specific date might result in suspension of the arbitration. On that final due date, the client informed Hurey he would be undergoing a surgical procedure and asked for an additional extension of the arbitration fee payment deadline.

Hurey did not request an extension, but changed course and informed the client he "would not be able to take the case," then failed to respond to the client's additional inquiries.

AAA subsequently dismissed the case due to the failure to pay the arbitration fee, and it could not be reopened.

In aggravation, Hurey had two prior records of discipline, and caused significant harm to his client in the present matter, whose case was dismissed.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and provided letters from seven individuals who had known him for substantial periods and were familiar with the extent of his misconduct--all of whom vouched for his good character.

Leslie Klein

State Bar #50908, Van Nuys (August 7, 2026)

Klein was suspended for six months and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing three acts of professional misconduct: failing to report a judgment against him as well as a discipline order imposed by another agency to the State Bar as mandated, and failing to maintain the respect due to a court.

Klein was issued a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) certificate in 1994. Approximately 25 years later, the accountancy board issued an accusation against him. In response, he executed a stipulated surrender of license and order--effectively acknowledging that, if proven, the charges and accusations against him constituted cause for imposing discipline on his CPA certificate. He failed to report the discipline to the State Bar within 30 days as required.

Six years later, a superior court entered a judgment against Klein in the amount of $24,334,038.99 for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, intentional misrepresentation, concealment, financial abuse, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court noted, "though not relevant to culpability," that Klein had mistakenly believed that the judgment was not final for purposes of reporting pending resolution of the appeal in the case.

In the third matter, Klein was subject to an order requiring him to disclose all assets he owned or controlled. He failed to do so and subsequently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

In aggravation, Klein had been disciplined by the State Bar for professional misconduct twice previously, and committed multiple acts of misconduct in the instant case.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

Geoff Conner Newlan

State Bar #173698, Santa Barbara (August 28, 2026)

Newlan was suspended from practicing law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he successfully completed the State Bar Court's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP).

After an initial notice of disciplinary charges was filed against him, Newlan requested that his case be referred to the ADP for an evaluation of his eligibility to participate in the program. During the evaluation process, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel filed two additional charges against Newlan; the court consolidated all three matters--and Newlan submitted a declaration establishing a nexus between his mental health issues and the misconduct alleged. He was accepted for ADP participation, and an additional case alleging misconduct was filed--and eventually consolidated with the other three, necessitating an amended stipulation and revised levels of disposition.

The present opinion summarized the misconduct at issue, which occurred over a period of just over six years, as engaging in "numerous performance, communication, and withdrawal related violations in seven client matters," as well as making a misrepresentation to a client, substituting out of a matter in bad faith for purposes of delaying trial, failing to pay court-ordered sanctions, and failing to cooperate in four State Bar investigations. In all, he stipulated to culpability for 37 counts of misconduct.

In aggravation, Newlan committed multiple acts of wrongdoing, caused significant harm to one of his clients, and failed to make restitution to two of them.

In mitigation, he had practiced law for more than 20 years before the misconduct began--and also successfully completed the ADP requirements.

Miriam Graciela Ortiz

State Bar #281888, Oakland (August 7, 2026)

Ortiz was suspended from the practice of law for six months and placed on probation for two years after she stipulated to committing four acts of professional misconduct related to mishandling client funds.

Her wrongdoing included: withdrawing disputed funds from her client trust account before the ownership interest in them became fixed, failing to maintain the required balance in that account, failing to promptly distribute settlement funds to a medical lienholder, and misappropriating client funds--misconduct involving moral turpitude.

In the underlying matter, Ortiz represented a client in a personal injury matter. They executed a medical lien that expressly provided that Ortiz was to pay the lienholder directly from any funds received in the matter, and to withhold those funds from the settlement, judgment, or verdict that might attain in the case.

Ortiz received $15,000 in settlement funds and deposited them into her client trust account, then sent demands to the medical lienholder to reduce the medical bill. The lienholder indicated he would agree to reducing the bill only if all parties involved also agree to reduce their recoveries in the same proportion. After Ortiz failed to respond, the lienholder informed her his bill was overdue--and eventually indicated he would send the matter to a collection agency.

Over the next several months, Ortiz transferred money from her client trust account to her business account--reducing the balance to an impermissible level. Ortiz paid to satisfy the medical lien after the State Bar began an investigation into the matter.

In mitigation, Ortiz entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for nine years, suffered from extreme emotional difficulties during the time of the misconduct due to a divorce prompted by domestic violence, and provided nine character letters from individuals hailing from a range in the legal and general communities.

Benjamin Laurence Pavone

State Bar #181826, San Diego (August 21, 2026)

Pavone was suspended for 18 months and placed on probation for three years after he appealed that same discipline order recommended by the hearing judge. The State Bar Court panel on review dismissed one of the counts of professional misconduct against Pavone, but found him culpable of the other seven counts originally charged.

He was found culpable of: failing to inform his client of a significant case developments, charging an unconscionable fee, accepting a fee from a third party without the client's prior written consent, and failing to maintain respect due to a court, as well as three counts involving moral turpitude: making intentional misrepresentations to his client, breaching his duty of loyalty and overreaching in his dealings with her. The violations all related to a single client matter.

Pavone, who the court noted had "little experience in trusts or probate law," was retained to represent a young client involved in a twisted and contentious trust and estate and conservatorship matter involving her elderly grandmother, the trustor. Their fee agreement included an estimate that his representation could "cost approximately $100,000 or 'conceivably more.'" An ex parte petition had been filed to appoint a temporary successor trustee and remove Pavone's client from the position, but he testified he was unaware of it until the morning of the hearing on the petition was held 10 days later. The temporary successor was appointed. The client later testified that Pavone's negative comments impugning the judge and others involved in the case gave her cause for concern.

Two courts eventually ordered the client to pay rent on the property on which she was living, which was deemed an asset in the underlying trust. After the trustor's death, Pavone filed a declaration in California court accusing the judge, inter alia, of "cronyism," "making foolish and biased remarks" and "protectionist rulings."

Of relevance to the instant case on the unconscionable fee charge: Pavone's first invoice billed $107,093; a second invoice set out an additional $51,194 in costs and fees; a third totaled $186, 892; a fourth charged more than $430,000 in new fees. A final invoice sent after Pavone terminated his representation indicated the client owed him $507,361. Pavone's documents also revealed he had received a total of $7,000 from the client's relatives--later testifying at trial he "was not aware of a rule that [clients] should have a written disclosure about receiving money from non-clients." Pavone later claimed he had a lien against the proceeds of estate property sold, as well as money she had received previously. He then sued the client. A jury ultimately determined Pavone owed the client $3,000, which he has not paid. A CPA and attorney certified as an estate planning specialist testified at trial that the charges in the matter should have run between $100,000 and $150,000--and that many of the actions Pavone took in the case demonstrated a "fundamental lack of understanding about probate proceedings and probate court."

Regarding the related charge of failing to inform the client of significant case developments, the hearing judge had underscored that Pavone did not give any accounting to the client that his fees and costs had increased in excess of $390,000, nor did he convey the judge's admonition that the related litigation was depleting trust assets.

The hearing judge and the panel on appeal also found that Pavone made numerous verbal and written misstatements and intentional misrepresentations in the course of the representation that constituted moral turpitude--in particular, his claim to the client that there was a "fraudulent or criminal conspiracy" involving opposing counsel, her great aunt and the professional fiduciary--and aided by the judge--to deprive the client of her inheritance rights.

In recommending 18 months of actual suspension, the panel focused on both the misrepresentations and overreaching that violated his fiduciary duties to the client. It also emphasized the findings of unconscionable fees, noting: "His refusal to stop pursuing his ill-fated actions led to fees that may have initially been within the bounds of reason but quickly escalated to unconscionable levels and led to unwarranted court filings."

And it concluded: "Beyond his unethical actions that led to culpability findings, Pavone's disparaging conduct during trial and here on review is quite troubling. His conduct illustrates he has little, if any, understanding of or remorse for his conduct or his proper role in our profession."

In aggravation, Pavone committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed the administration of justice, and demonstrated indifference toward atoning for his misconduct. He was also given limited aggravating weight for having a prior record of discipline for conduct that occurred after the events alleged in the instant case--on the reasoning that he "did not have an opportunity to heed the import of the prior proceeding before committing the misconduct in the present matter."

In mitigation, he was allotted limited weight for two character letters that were admitted. (Pavone had proffered a total of 42 written statements as character references--40 of which the hearing judge excluded because they did not establish that the authors consented to their use and predated the disciplinary charges in the present case.)

Pete Carter Schroepfer

State Bar #284001, Walnut (August 28, 2026)

Schroepfer was suspended from practicing law for six months and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing five acts of professional misconduct--most of them related to mismanaging client funds.

Schroepfer maintained two client trust accounts related to two separate legal practices. He had full supervisorial and managerial authority over both practices, but delegated many of the related duties to his office manager, who was not a lawyer. Over a period of nearly five years, he failed to track the number of employees working at his firms, nor did he perform evaluations of their work. He also delegated all responsibility for his client trust accounts to the office manager, without reviewing the specifics and accuracy of the funds passing through them. As a result of his negligence in supervising and managing the accounts, the funds were disbursed erroneously and wrongfully applied for his own use. After one of the accounts had a negative balance, the State Bar requested records for both accounts. When he failed to do so for more than a year, it issued a subpoena; the records eventually tendered were incomplete and contained errors.

In aggravation, Schroepfer committed multiple acts of misconduct and showed indifference toward rectifying his wrongdoing by failing to comply with the State Bar's requests for documents for more than a year.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately eight years, and received nominal mitigating weight for good character references from four individuals--all of them friends--who were not taken from a range in the legal and general communities.

James Charles Shields

State Bar #186836, Torrance (August 21, 2026)

Shields was suspended for one year and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing 17 acts of professional misconduct related to four distinct client matters.

His wrongdoing included: failing to perform legal services with reasonable diligence, failing to maintain a written ledger of client funds, entering into an impermissible fee agreement, failing to provide an accounting of client funds after terminating services, and accepting an advance fee from a third party without obtaining the client's prior written consent. He was also culpable of two counts each of failing to maintain the required balance in his client trust account and failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, as well as three counts each of failing to keep clients informed of significant case developments, and failing to promptly refund unearned advanced fees. An additional two counts of misappropriating client funds involved moral turpitude.

In one client case, Shields executed two fee agreements with a client: the first was for a flat fee to negotiate Medi-Cal reimbursement, the second was for an hourly fee to handle the related probate matter. He accepted and deposited the flat fee, transferring it into his client trust account, then transferred the funds into his operating account before doing any meaningful work on the case. After the client's hardship waiver was denied, he submitted a complaint to the State Bar, then sought arbitration--disputing Shields' retention of the $8,000 fee paid. Shields and the client eventually agreed to settle the matter for $7,000; Shields paid, but did not provide a written ledger, journal, or monthly reconciliation of the client funds held.

In another matter, Shields entered a fee agreement with a client that contained "retainer" language but was not a true retainer. Shields received the fee paid in advance, but the client then decided not to pursue the underlying legal action. After Shields did not refund the fee, the client submitted a complaint to the State Bar. Shields made partial repayment the next day--without an accounting--and paid the remainder nearly two years later.

In a third matter, Shields received an advance fee of $5,000 from a client's cousin without obtaining the client's written consent, which he transferred into his client trust account. Shields then ignored the client's pleas for a case status update and she hired new counsel and filed a complaint with the State Bar. Shields eventually refunded the fee that had been paid.

And in the fourth client case, Shields received an advance fee of $7,500 from a client seeking representation in an estate matter, but ignored her request for case status updates for approximately 18 months--eventually refunding the unearned advance fees after the State Bar began an investigation into the matter.

 In aggravation, Shields committed multiple acts of wrongdoing, significantly harmed his clients by failing to issue timely restitution to them--and made restitution only after the State Bar initiated proceedings or the client sought fee arbitration.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, practiced law discipline-free for nearly 24 years, presented letters from 13 individuals taken from a broad range of the legal and general communities attesting to his good character, offered evidence of performing pro bono and community service, and took proactive steps to improve his practice--including completing the State Bar's Client Trust Accounting and Ethics Schools.

-- Barbara Kate Repa