June 2019

DISBARMENT

Drago Charles Baric

State Bar No. 105383, San Pedro (May 10, 2019)

Baric was disbarred after appealing the State Bar Court’s hearing judge’s finding of culpability of three counts of professional misconduct and recommendation of disbarment.

Upon independently reviewing the record, the State Bar Court panel dismissed two of the counts, but affirmed the finding of one count of moral turpitude, as well as the recommendation of disbarment.

In the underlying matter, Baric filed a bankruptcy petition on behalf of himself and his wife, listing a bank as the secured creditor of his residence. The bank filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay on the property, arguing the bankruptcy case was filed in bad faith, merely as an attempt to transfer ownership of the real estate without the bank’s consent. It offered as evidence two earlier bankruptcy petitions: one filed by Baric’s mother-in-law, the other by his wife; while the mother-in-law’s petition was pending, she quitclaimed her ownership interest in the property to her daughter. The bankruptcy court ultimately dismissed Baric’s petition.

Just 11 days later, Baric filed another bankruptcy petition, which again was dismissed as “part of a scheme to delay, hinder, and defraud creditors” — with the court adding a proviso prohibiting Baric from filing any new bankruptcy petition for a year. The bank then acquired legal ownership of the property, but on the day it acquired the judgment for possession, Baric filed another bankruptcy and then a fourth one — both of which were ultimately dismissed.

The State Bar Court panel found the record to be clear and convincing that Baric’s filing of the bankruptcy petitions and their timing was “only to vex the secured creditor through the use of the automatic stay” and keep the bank from gaining possession of the property for almost three years — a scheme that, as a whole, constituted moral turpitude.

In aggravation, Baric committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly wasted judicial resources, had three serious prior records of discipline — all of which involved actual suspensions, and demonstrated indifference to his misconduct while exhibiting disrespect for the present proceeding by refusing to testify at trial and describing it as a “mockery of justice” and a “kangaroo kourt” in a deposition and a court sign-in sheet.

In mitigation, the panel reversed the hearing judge and allowed moderate weight for evidence of community service, which was offered without corroboration.

Ira Cohen

State Bar No. 79888, Westlake Village (May 10, 2019)

Cohen was disbarred by default after he failed to appear at his disciplinary proceeding despite receiving adequate legal notice and having the opportunity to do so. He did not seek to have the default order entered against him set aside or vacated.

He was found culpable of four acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter. Specifically, he failed to promptly release a client’s papers and property after terminating his employment, failed to promptly refund unearned advanced fees, failed to maintain records and render an accounting of client property, and failed to respond to reasonable client inquiries.

Cohen had one prior record of discipline.

Steele Nicolson Gillaspey

State Bar No. 145935, San Diego (May 26, 2019)

Gillaspey was disbarred by default after he failed to appear, either in person or through counsel, at his disciplinary proceeding despite having actual notice of the trial date. He did not move to have the default order entered against him set aside or vacated.

He was found culpable of 16 of the 19 counts of professional misconduct with which he had been charged. His wrongdoing included: failing to perform legal services with competence, maintaining an unjust action, failing to promptly respond to client inquiries about a case, failing to report court-imposed sanctions to the State Bar, and making a misrepresentation to a court — misconduct involving moral turpitude.

He was also culpable of two counts each of improperly withdrawing from employment, failing to render appropriate accountings to clients, failing to promptly return unearned advanced fees, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar’s investigations of the wrongdoing alleged, as well as three counts of failing to communicate significant case developments to clients.

Arturo Fernando Shaw Gutierrez

State Bar No. 232276, Oxnard (May 24, 2019)

Gutierrez was summarily disbarred after the Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar transmitted evidence that the court of appeal’s opinion became final by remittitur — also signaling that the underlying convictions had become final.

He had been convicted of the misdemeanor of arranging to meet a minor for a lewd purpose (Cal. Penal Code Section 288.4(a)), as well as three felonies involving moral turpitude: attempting a lewd act on a child 14 or 15 years of age (Cal. Penal Code Sections 644 and 288(c)(1)), luring a child with the intent to commit a specific crime (Cal. Penal Code Section 288.3), and meeting a minor to commit lewd conduct (Cal. Penal Code Section 288.4(b)).

Kyle Sheldon Hackett

State Bar No. 194658, Los Angeles (May 26, 2019)

Hackett was disbarred by default after failing to participate in his disciplinary proceeding despite receiving adequate notice and opportunity to do so. He did not move to have the default entered against him set aside or vacated, and the factual allegations against him were then admitted.

He was found culpable of failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to inform his client of significant case developments, failing to comply with a court order directing him to pay sanctions, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar’s investigation of the wrongdoing alleged.

Hackett had two prior records of discipline, and there were additional disciplinary matters pending against him when the disbarment recommendation was made.

Esther M. Kim

State Bar No. 271155, Hesperia (May 10, 2019)

Kim was disbarred after she stipulated to committing several acts of professional misconduct. She pled nolo contendere to soliciting business from an individual she knew intended to commit insurance fraud (Cal. Penal Code Section 549 and Cal. Ins. Code Section 1871.4) — a felony involving moral turpitude. She also was culpable of violating several conditions attached to an earlier disciplinary order, including: twice failing to schedule initial meetings with her probation officer, failing to submit four quarterly written reports to the State Bar, and failing to attend the State Bar Ethics School.

In the underlying conviction matter, Kim entered into a business relationship with three non-attorneys. She operated a law office in an office building one of them had established but did no legal work at the firm, showing up only occasionally to sign correspondence and pick up checks to deposit. At least 18 settlement checks totaling nearly $135,175 were made out to Kim’s law office as part or complete payee; these checks were negotiated at a check cashing business rather than deposited into a client trust account.

In addition, Kim’s firm represented her two sisters and two other clients in auto accident claims involving falsified medical bills; in one case, no accident had actually occurred.

In aggravation, Kim committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed the public and had been disciplined by the State Bar for professional misconduct twice before.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation.

William Buckner Menn, II

State Bar No. 250462, Sacramento (May 26, 2019)

Menn was disbarred by default after failing to participate in his disciplinary proceeding despite having adequate notice and opportunity to do so. He did not move to have the default order entered against him set aside or vacated.

He was found culpable of seven counts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter. The wrongdoing included: failing to perform legal services with competence, violating a court order requesting him to appear at a hearing, improperly withdrawing from employment, failing to return unearned advanced fees, failing to provide the client with an appropriate accounting, failing to respond promptly to the client’s reasonable inquiries about case status, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar’s investigation of the wrongdoing he was alleged to have committed.

Judy Unkyung Paik

State Bar No. 230988, Los Angeles (May 10, 2019)

Paik was disbarred by default after she failed to appear, either in person or through counsel, at the disciplinary proceeding held upon the finality of her conviction of defrauding an innkeeper by nonpayment (Cal. Penal Code Section 537(a)(1)). The offense is a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.

Paik appeared by telephone for the initial status conference in the case, but did not file an answer to the Notice on Hearing of Conviction, nor did she move to have the default entered against her set aside or vacated.

In the underlying matter, Paik entered a grocery store and was observed eating food taken from various parts of the store, then leaving without paying for any of it. The store manager complained he had seen her doing this same thing on at least 12 prior occasions.

Zachary Brooke Roberts

State Bar No. 201739, Henderson, Nevada (May 26, 2019)

Roberts was summarily disbarred following finality of his conviction of conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. Section 371).

The offense is a felony involving moral turpitude.

William West Seegmiller

State Bar No. 98740, Newport Beach (May 26, 2019)

Seegmiller was disbarred after he stipulated to committing 20 acts of professional misconduct, most of them related to mismanaging funds in the two client trust accounts maintained for his two law firms.

In the client trust matters, he was culpable of failing to respond to numerous case status inquiries; three counts of failing to promptly pay settlement funds; and seven counts each of failing to maintain the requisite balance in his client trust accounts and misappropriating client funds — misconduct involving moral turpitude. He was also found culpable of two counts related to a prior disciplinary probation: failing to comply with Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act, and then falsely stating in his quarterly written probation reports that he had complied — conduct that also involved moral turpitude.

The bulk of the misconduct was discovered after the State Bar instituted an investigation in response to an anonymous complaint from an employee alleging that Seegmiller used client trust money for his own personal expenses, delaying payments to clients and medical lienholders. An additional four counts were related to a client complaint about financial mismanagement.

In aggravation, Seegmiller committed multiple acts of wrongdoing and had been disciplined by the State Bar on three prior occasions.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

In recommending discipline, the State Bar Court judge underscored the similarities among the present and past instances of misconduct, noting: “Despite having been disciplined on three prior occasions, that discipline has not impressed upon respondent his need to comply with his ethical obligations surrounding the supervision of his office and his trust accounting. In fact, respondent’s misconduct has become significantly more serious and widespread since his third disciplinary matter.”

Barbara Truman Zorr

State Bar No. 112693, San Rafael (May 10, 2019)

Zorr was disbarred by default after she failed to file a response to the Notice of Disciplinary Charges against her or to move to have the default ordered against her set aside or vacated. The State Bar Court judge determined that she had received adequate legal notice of the disciplinary proceeding.

As a result, the factual allegations in the charged were deemed admitted as true.

Zorr was found culpable of violating a court rule by failing to file a declaration of compliance as mandated under the terms of an earlier disciplinary order (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 9.20). She was also culpable of violating several conditions imposed in that order, including: failing to contact the Office of Probation to schedule an initial meeting with her probation officer and failing to submit quarterly written reports as required.

Zorr had been disciplined by the State Bar for professional misconduct twice previously.

SUSPENSION

Franklin Samuel Adler

State Bar No. 56417, Beverly Hills (May 15, 2019)

Adler was suspended from practicing law for six months and placed on probation for one year following a probation revocation proceeding in which he was found to have violated several conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order.

Specifically, he failed to schedule a meeting and meet with his probation deputy, failed to timely submit two quarterly written reports, and failed to file proof of providing an accounting to a client as mandated.

In aggravation, Adler committed multiple acts of wrongdoing, had a prior record of discipline, and demonstrated indifference toward rectifying his misconduct by failing to comply with his probation conditions after the State Bar notified him several times of the fact and consequences of his noncompliance.

Victor Lamont Block

State Bar No. 205096, Laguna Beach (May 26, 2019)

Block was suspended from the practice of law for 90 days and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing eights acts of professional misconduct related to several client matters.

He was culpable of two counts of failing to keep clients informed of significant case developments and three counts each of representing clients without disclosing a previous relationship with a party in the same matter and failing to obtain the prior written consent of a former client before agreeing to represent another client with adverse interests.

The underlying matters had substantially similar fact patterns. Block was an associate attorney at a law firm that represented Ford Motor Company. While employed at the firm, he defended Ford in a number of Song-Beverly Consumer lawsuits, or lemon law actions, billing more than 3,184 hours in approximately 300 separate matters. After that time, he agreed to represent a total of 13 clients in lawsuits alleging Ford delivered cars to them that contained serious defects and nonconformities. Block did not obtain Ford’s informed written consent to represent the clients, nor did he inform the clients of his previous relationship with Ford. In at least two cases, he failed to inform clients of the company’s successful attempts to disqualify him as counsel in the matters.

In aggravation, Block committed multiple acts of misconduct.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation and had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 17 years.

Gabriel Castellanos

State Bar No. 227702, West Covina (May 26, 2019)

Castellanos was suspended for six months and placed on probation for two years after being found culpable of committing seven counts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter.

He stipulated to being culpable of six of the counts — including failing to promptly inform a client of receipt of her funds, failing to promptly pay the client funds to which she was entitled, and failing to inform the client of significant case developments; as well as misconduct involving moral turpitude: depositing a check into his client trust account without the client’s proper endorsement, making numerous misrepresentations to his client, and also making multiple representations to the State Bar in its investigation of the misconduct alleged.

He was also found culpable of an additional count of misconduct to which he did not stipulate: entering into an agreement to settle a claim against him without providing a written advisement that the client could seek the advice of an independent attorney.

In the underlying matter, Castellanos represented a client in a dissolution matter — ultimately securing a judgment providing for an equalization payment of $20,000 to Castellanos’s client from her former husband. Castellanos received a check for that amount, made payable to him and the client, but did not inform the client. He deposited the check in his client trust account without securing her endorsement or consent to do so — nor did he inform her a final dissolution judgment had been entered for more than 13 months.

After the judgment was entered and payment received, Castellanos made numerous misrepresentations to the client — delaying payment to her for nearly 2 ½ years. He later made many misrepresentations to State Bar investigators pursuing the client’s eventual complaint. Castellanos and the client ultimately resolved their ensuing fee dispute through arbitration, though the agreement they reached did not inform her she could seek the advice of an independent attorney to approve it.

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

In mitigation, he entered into a stipulation regarding most of the counts alleged, and received moderate mitigating weight for having practiced law for nine years without a record of discipline and for suffering from emotional and family problems during the time of the misconduct. He was also allotted slight mitigating weight for good character evidence submitted by a judge, an attorney, a former client, and a marriage therapist — which the State Bar Court judge found did not come from a “wide range of references in the legal and general communities” as required for maximum consideration.

Dmitri N. Chtyrev

State Bar No. 266591, Beverly Hills (May 26, 2019)

Chtyrev was suspended from practicing law for 30 days and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing two acts of professional misconduct constituting moral turpitude related to a single client matter.

Chtyrev was retained to represent a client in a personal injury case; the fee agreement also gave him a special power of attorney authorizing him to sign documents related to the case on behalf of the client.

Chtyrev was subsequently informed that the client died, but he did not attempt to ascertain the date of death, which had in fact occurred prior to settling the case, nor did he inform the insurance company, which had entered into a settlement exceeding the decedent’s medical expenses after being tendered a release; Chtyrev had instructed an employee to sign the client’s name to it.

In aggravation, Chtyrev committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law approximately seven years without a record of discipline, and presented reference letters from six individuals — all of whom attested to his good character and professional skill.

Diddo Ruth Clark

State Bar No. 79876, Lafayette (May 17, 2019)

Clark was suspended from practicing law for 60 days and placed on probation for one year after appealing the hearing judge’s recommendation of that discipline. She had been found culpable of appearing for a party without the authority to do so.

In the underlying matter, Clark initially represented her brother in an action against four other siblings related to a family trust. He later informed her that he did not want her to appear as his attorney, as he believed courts were prejudiced against her because she had been found to be a vexatious litigant in another family-related litigation. He filed a substitution of attorney form, indicating his intent to represent himself; Clark refused to sign the form. However, she submitted several additional joint pleadings in the case, purporting to represent herself in pro per and as her brother’s attorney.

In aggravation, Clark had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, she presented testimony of three witnesses and submitted declaration from six additional witnesses from a range in the community — all of whom attested to her good character. She was also allotted modest mitigating weight for evidence of performing community service, much of which occurred prior to the misconduct at issue and which could not be quantified from the record.

Gary Wayne Ervin

State Bar No. 91333, Fair Oaks (March 11, 2019)

Ervin was suspended in the interim following his conviction of assault with a deadly weapon (Cal. Penal Code 245(a)(1)).

The offense is a felony that may or may not involve moral turpitude, depending on the specific facts and circumstances surrounding it.

Logan Michael Fairfax

State Bar No. 243381, San Diego (March 25, 2019)

Fairfax was suspended in the interim pending final disposition of his conviction of aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. Section 2) in structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements (31 U.S.C. Sections 5324(a)(3) and (4)).

The offense is a felony that may or may not involve moral turpitude, depending on the specific facts and circumstances.

Angela Denise Green

State Bar No. 225660, Riverbank (May 26, 2019)

Green was suspended for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to committing one act of professional misconduct involving moral turpitude: forging her client’s signature on a request for dismissal form filed with a court in a dissolution case.

In aggravation, Green harmed the administration of justice through her wrongdoing.

In mitigation, she entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law approximately 14 years without a record of discipline, and provided seven letters from members of the legal and general communities attesting to her good character.

Mark Reman Hamilton

State Bar No. 176374, Orange (May 26, 2019)

Hamilton was suspended from the practice of law for six months and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to being found culpable of professional misconduct as determined by a U.S. bankruptcy court. That court imposed a minimum two-year suspension from the bankruptcy court as discipline, and the State Bar Court judge determined that those proceedings provided fundamental constitutional protection in the instant case.

In the underlying matter, Hamilton filed a verification of a master mailing list of creditors. The debtor’s landlord, who was not included on the list, subsequently filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in order to complete an unlawful detainer proceeding against the debtor. He and the debtor later filed an amended creditor matrix, with declarations acknowledging that the landlord’s name was left off the list to prevent him from learning about the bankruptcy.

In a later hearing on the matter, Hamilton testified he believed the omission would be “inconsequential pursuant to what I read on the Internet.”

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

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law for approximately 21 years without a record of discipline, suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and severe pain caused by previous injuries — now treated and stabilized, and submitted 14 character references from individuals attesting to his good character.

Sharon Arlene Healey

State Bar No. 138002, Seattle, Washington (May 26 2019)

Healey was suspended for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to committing three acts of professional misconduct, two of them related to a single client matter: failing to deposit client funds in a trust account and failing to release the client’s papers and property after terminating employment. She was also culpable of failing to comply with all conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary probation order.

In the matter involving an immigration client, Healey was retained to submit an application for a provisional unlawful presence waiver. The retainer agreement provided for half the attorney fee upfront, with the filing fees to be remitted when the waiver was filed. Instead, the client deposited all the advanced fees and costs into Healey’s business checking account, earmarking sums for each. Healey worked on the case, including multiple drafts of the accompanying declaration, for nearly two years before the client terminated her services.

For the next month, the client’s new counsel requested the file and unearned fees and unused costs, though he had been informed Healey was out of the office due to surgery and other pressing family issues.

Healey forwarded the file and refunded the fees and costs after the client filed a complaint with the State Bar.

In aggravation, Healey committed multiple acts of wrongdoing and had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, she entered into a prefiling stipulation.

Jason Edward Lavender

State Bar No. 203650, Redlands (March 25, 2019)

Lavender was suspended in the interim pending final disposition of his convictions of one count of oral copulation of a person under 16 years old (Cal. Penal Code Section 288a(b)(2)) and two counts of committing a lewd act on a child (Cal. Penal Code Section 288(c)(1)) — both felonies involving moral turpitude.

Julianne Major

State Bar No. 195895, Santa Rosa (May 2, 2019)

Major was suspended from practicing law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to committing one count of professional misconduct: failing to support the law.

Major represented the husband in a dissolution action involving child custody issues. As part of the proceedings, a court ordered the wife, who worked as a registered nurse, to undergo drug testing three times weekly, with the results to be sent directly to Major. A state statute (Cal. Fam. Code Section 3041.5) specifies that the results of such tests must be kept confidential — and may be used only in a court’s determination of the best interests of children involved. However, after receiving three reports of positive drug tests, Major sent a letter along with a copy of the test results to the Board of Registered Nurses. She also emailed the results of three of the tests to another third party: the estranged wife of a man that the wife in the instant matter had been dating — asking that the source of the tests not be revealed.

A court sanctioned Major and her client $2,000 for the wrongful dissemination of the confidential test results; she paid the full amount and reported the sanctions to the State Bar as required.

In aggravation, Major committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that also involved concealment, an aggravating factor.

In mitigation, she entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for 19 years, and presented seven letters from a range of individuals who attested to her good character, as well as evidence of performing substantial community service and pro bono work.

After the discipline order was issued, Major sought and was granted a motion to defer suspension for good cause; the original suspension date was delayed until May 2, 2019.

Alan Vance McAllister

State Bar No. 057733, San Jose (March 18, 2019)

McAllister was suspended from practicing law pending proof of passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam as mandated in an earlier State Bar disciplinary order.

Michael Laurence Howard Meyer

State Bar No. 101096, Los Angeles (May 10, 2019)

Meyer was suspended from practicing law for 90 days and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing two acts of professional misconduct: commingling personal and client funds in his client trust account and failing to cooperate in the State Bar’s investigation of the misconduct alleged.

Over a nine-month period, Meyer made more than 450 check and debit purchases from his client trust account that were not client-related and also deposited personal funds into it. A State Bar investigator, alerted by the bank that the account had insufficient funds activity in it, contacted Meyer several times by both mail and email to address the matter; he failed to respond.

In aggravation, Meyer committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he had no prior record of discipline in more than 23 years of practicing law.

John Louis Mlnarik

State Bar No. 257882, Santa Clara (May 10, 2019)

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

He was culpable of accepting legal fees from a third party without obtaining a client’s informed written consent to do so, as well as two acts each of collecting illegal fees and charging or attempting to charge clients’ credit cards after his services were terminated — misconduct involving moral turpitude.

In one case, a woman consulted Mlnarik for assistance with a loan modification. A friend attended the initial consultation with her — and paid $500 for the consult, as well as an additional $5,000 in advanced fees on behalf of the client. Mlnarik did not obtain the client’s written consent to the payment arrangement. He later billed an additional $13,828 for the loan modification work, although he had not yet completed it. The client then terminated Mlnarik’s services; the next day, he charged the friend’s credit card for the legal fees — also without her knowledge and consent. He refunded the fees after the woman complained to the State Bar.

In the second matter, Mlnarik was hired to defend a client in a lawsuit, accepting $1,000 in cash and a written authorization to charge the client’s credit card an additional $1,500 for a total of $2,500 in advanced fees. For four months, the client also gave Mlnarik written authorization to charge his credit card for any additional legal fees incurred in the case.

Shortly after that, however, the client withdrew the credit card authorization and a few weeks later, after the two disagreed over the handling of the case, Mlnarik sent the client a substitution of attorney form and an invoice for $6,200 — the total amount of outstanding fees. Mlnarik subsequently attempted to charge the amount to the client’s credit card, but the company declined the charge. That same day, Mlnarik’s office attempted three separate charges of $1,000 each; two were declined — and the company ultimately reversed the one that had been allowed.

In aggravation, Mlnarik committed multiple acts of misconduct.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for eight years, provided letters from 10 individuals taken from both the legal and general communities attesting to his good character, and offered evidence of performing substantial community and volunteer service.

Matthew David Pearson

State Bar No. 227390, Sacramento (May 26, 2019)

Pearson was suspended from practicing law for 60 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing nine acts of professional misconduct related to two client matters.

His wrongdoing included: improperly withdrawing from employment, failing to respond promptly to reasonable client inquiries, and failing to release the clients’ papers and property after being requested to do so, as well as two counts each of failing to provide clients with accountings, failing to refund unearned advanced fees, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar’s investigations of the misconduct alleged.

In one client matter, Pearson accepted $3,000 in advanced fees from a married couple to substitute into a probate case and enforce an agreement on their behalf. They emphasized that time was of the essence, and emailed a completed substitution of attorney form back to him on the day they received it. They terminated Pearson’s services about five months later, after he failed to file the form or respond to their requests for information.

In the other matter, Pearson accepted $1,500 as advanced fees to represent a married couple in a dispute with their neighbor over a driveway easement. Again, he performed no legal services for them and ignored messages requesting case status updates. When they made a personal visit to his office address, they found it was a Crossfit Gym. He did not deliver on the promise to refund their fees, nor did he provide an accounting of them.

In aggravation, Pearson committed multiple acts of misconduct and demonstrated a lack of candor and cooperation in his client dealings.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation and had practiced law for 24 years without a prior record of discipline.

Stuart Michael Price

State Bar No. 150439, Sherman Oaks (May 10, 2019)

Price was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing two acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter: maintaining a frivolous lawsuit and failing to perform legal services with competence.

In the underlying matter, Price owned a law firm that negotiated a debt repayment for a client — settled after negotiations for a lump sum payment of $3,000. Before the lump sum was paid, however, the sheriff’s office garnished the client’s wages. Although opposing counsel directed the sheriff’s office to terminate the garnishment, the client’s wages were garnished a second time — after the payment had been made in full.

Opposing counsel informed Price and that although he had given the sheriff’s office — the only entity authorized to terminate a garnishment order — timely notice, it mistakenly enforced the order. Despite receiving this information, however, Price filed a lawsuit alleging opposing counsel violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because of the improper garnishments. A court eventually granted summary judgment in favor of the opposing counsel and granted a motion for sanctions of more than $29,500 against Price, finding that the lawsuit was precluded by precedent and filed “without a reasonable and competent inquiry into the facts underlying the case.”

In response, Price directed an associate attorney in his firm to draft a motion to reconsider the sanctions, which Price signed and filed. That motion contained misrepresentations that opposing counsel had suppressed documents. The court then sanctioned Price an additional $500.

In aggravation, Price committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed the administration of justice, and his failure to review and correct his associate’s motion resulted in a court document containing misrepresentations.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law for more than 25 years discipline-free, and provided nine letters from a wide range of references attesting to his good character.

Sebastian Rucci, Youngstown, Ohio

State Bar No. 178114 (March 25, 2019)

Rucci was suspended from practicing law pending proof of passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination — one of the conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order.

Alexander Wailes Wallace

State Bar No. 78479, Long Beach (May 10, 2019)

Wallace was suspended for 90 days and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing six counts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter. In addition, he was culpable of violating several conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary probation order: failing to schedule an initial meeting with his probation officer, provide proof of passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam, and to file a quarterly and final written report as directed.

In the client matter, he was also found culpable of failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to obtain prior written consent of clients with potentially adverse interests, failing to inform his clients of an actual conflict of interest, breaching his fiduciary duty to the clients, failing to make four court-ordered appearances, and failing to return a client file after being requested to do so.

Wallace was hired by eight siblings to removing another sibling as their mother’s conservator and to have two of them appointed as co-conservators in her stead. He did not obtain their informed written consent to the multiple representation, despite potential disagreements as to the care and finances of the conservatee. A court granted the appointment of the co-conservators.

Nine days after the conservatee died, an actual conflict arose over one client’s insistence on being reimbursed $74,000 in expenses from the estate — a position Wallace defended in court and to the other clients. The court issued seven orders for Wallace to file an accounting or appear in court; he did not appear at any of the hearings or tender any accountings until more than two years later.

That accounting contained numerous deficiencies, which were not cured during the nine times continuances were granted to do so. Eventually, the case was moved into probate, and a Public Administrator was appointed to file a final accounting; it was approved over Wallace’s objections.

Several years after retaining him, one of the siblings terminated Wallace’s representation in a written letter, requesting her file — which he did not return.

In aggravation, Wallace committed multiple acts of misconduct that severely harmed the administration of justice and the clients by delaying the estate distribution by seven years. He also had a prior record of discipline and demonstrated indifference to rectifying his misconduct by failing to take steps to comply with his probation conditions.

Adam Wang

State Bar No. 201233, Pleasanton (May 10, 2019)

Wang was suspended from the practice of law for 90 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing two acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter: failing to promptly respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries about a case and improperly terminating representation.

In the underlying matter, Wang signed a fee agreement with a client in an employment case that specified the client could not accept a settlement unless the employer agreed to pay the client’s attorney fees. It also directed that if the client insisted on a settlement inadequate to cover the fees, the contingency fee would be increased to 50 percent; if that amount was insufficient, the client would have to make up the difference before receiving any settlement proceeds.

Wang then filed a lawsuit in federal court, which was dismissed. In a subsequent superior court case, the client was awarded $55,104. Wang did not take any action to collect on the judgment, then failed to return the client’s calls and terminated his representation without explaining that additional steps would be needed to collect the settlement offered.

After the client filed a complaint with the State Bar, investigators there asked Wang for a copy of the retainer agreement he and the client had executed. In response, he sent an unsigned and undated agreement that differed from the one the client produced; he later explained he could not find the agreement, so sent a copy of the “standard” one he typically used in wage hour cases.

In aggravation, Wang’s fee agreement constituted overreaching by attempting to intrude on the outcome of the case and demonstrated a lack of candor by misrepresenting the true nature of the agreement he tendered to State Bar investigators.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law for more than eight years without a record of discipline.

David Marvin Wiseblood

State Bar No. 115312, San Francisco (April 28, 2019)

Wiseblood was earlier suspended from the practice of law pending proof of passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam — one of the terms imposed in an earlier disciplinary order. On April 28, 2019, he was ordered inactive.

PROBATION

Edelmira Medina

State Bar No. 285577, Hacienda Heights (May 26, 2019)

Medina was placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to failing to comply with several conditions attached to a disciplinary order imposed earlier. Specifically, she failed to submit a timely quarterly report and a final written report to the Office of Probation, as well as proof of passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam as required.

In aggravation, Medina committed multiple acts of wrongdoing and had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, she entered into a prefiling stipulation, suffered physical difficulties due to pregnancy and delivery complications during the time of the misconduct, and cooperated with the State Bar in attempting to come into compliance with the probation conditions.

— Barbara Kate Repa