April 2024

DISBARMENT

David Everette Bowden

State Bar #190932, Chicago, Illinois (March 8, 2024)

Bowden was summarily disbarred based on his participation in a drug trafficking organization that imported cocaine from Texas, then stored and sold it in Illinois.

He earlier pled guilty to conspiring to distribute a controlled substance (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1))--a felony involving moral turpitude, and was disbarred after the conviction became final.

Mark Alan Brifman

State Bar #75923, Mission Hills (March 8, 2024)

Brifman was disbarred by default after he failed to file a response to the notice of disciplinary charges filed against him or to participate in the subsequent proceeding despite having adequate notice and opportunity to do so.

He was found culpable of violating several conditions imposed in an earlier probation order by failing to schedule and participate in an initial meeting with the Office of Probation, failing to report that he had reviewed the Rules of Professional Conduct and relevant statutory provisions as mandated, and failing to submit two quarterly written reports.

The State Bar Court determined that all procedural requirements, including legally adequate notice, had been satisfied in the case--and that Brifman did not move to have the default entered against him set aside or vacated.

Brifman had been disciplined by the State Bar three times before being disbarred in the instant case.

Carolyn Chan

State Bar #147978, Chico (March 8, 2024)

Chan was disbarred by default after a disciplinary proceeding in which she was charged with six counts of professional misconduct.

Despite having actual notice of the matter--she acknowledged receiving the notice of charges in a telephone call with the Office of Chief Trial Counsel--Chan failed to participate, and the court eventually entered her default. It also found that all procedural requirements had been satisfied and that there was an adequate factual basis for disciplinary misconduct.

She was found culpable of all counts charged: failing to support the law, failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing her client, failing to promptly refund unearned advanced fees, failing to render accounts of client funds, and failing to participate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged. An additional count--holding herself out as entitled to practice law while on inactive status--involved moral turpitude.

Chan had two prior records of discipline before she was disbarred in the instant case.

Frank Lada Kucera

State Bar #124617, Alameda (March 8, 2024)

Kucera, charged with 19 counts of professional misconduct, was disbarred by default. He did not participate in the proceedings related to those charges.

The State Bar Court determined that Kucera had actual notice of the proceedings, as he initially contacted the Office of Chief Trial Counsel by phone. Investigators there informed him that a notice of disciplinary charges had been filed against him, that a response to it was past due, that he had missed the hearing held in the case, and that a motion for default had also been filed. Kucera did not file a written response to the motion, nor did he move to have the default entered against him set aside or vacated.

The State Bar Court also determined that the factual allegations in the notice of disciplinary charges supported the conclusion that Kucera was culpable as charged--and that his misconduct warranted professional discipline.

He was found culpable of 16 of the 19 counts charged. His wrongdoing included: failing to inform his client of significant case developments; two counts of failing to represent his client diligently; and three counts each of failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to properly maintain client funds in trust, and failing to distribute client funds promptly after being requested to do so.

Additional misconduct involved moral turpitude: one count of issuing checks knowing there were insufficient funds to cover them and three counts of misappropriating client funds.

Kucera had been disciplined twice previously, and there were numerous investigations pending against him when he was disbarred in the present case.

Richard Anthony LaCava

State Bar #135653, San Francisco (March 8, 2024)

LaCava was disbarred by default. He was charged with three counts of professional misconduct: two counts of commingling personal and client funds in his client trust account, and one count of failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing that was charged.

The State Bar Court determined that the notice of disciplinary charges had been properly served, that reasonable diligence had been used in notifying LaCava before the default order was entered against him, that the default had been properly entered, and that there was a factual basis for imposing professional discipline.

LaCava did not respond to the petition for disbarment, nor did he move to have the default entered against him set aside or vacated. He was found culpable of all counts charged.

There was one disciplinary investigation pending against LaCava at the time he was disbarred in the present case.

Diego John Velasquez

State Bar 176961, La Jolla (March 8, 2024)

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

His wrongdoing included: failing to maintain the required balance in his client trust account; two counts of engaging in the practice of law while not authorized to do so; and four counts of failing to comply with court rules. Additional misconduct involved moral turpitude: one count of misappropriating client funds and two counts of making material misrepresentations in documents provided to the State Bar.

Under the terms of an earlier discipline order, Velasquez had been placed on probation for three years and actually suspended from practicing law for 18 months. He was also required to comply with court rules specifying that he inform clients and opposing counsel of his suspended status, as well as file a compliance declaration with the State Bar. However, he falsely stated he had no clients in pending matters. While suspended, he represented two clients in divorce proceedings without notifying his clients or opposing counsel of his inactive status.

Before the discipline order was issued, Velasquez received a settlement check on behalf of a client he had represented in a legal dispute with a store. He deposited the check in his client trust account, but a few weeks, later, caused the account balance to dip well below the amount he was required to maintain on the client's behalf.

In aggravation, Velasquez committed multiple acts of misconduct in the present matter, had a prior record of discipline, and demonstrated a lack of insight into the seriousness of his wrongdoing and indifference toward rectification.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation.

SUSPENSION

Peter Leo Kutrubes

State Bar # 176024, Manchester, New Hampshire (February 4, 2024)

Kutrubes was suspended for six months--that time to run consecutive with a one-year actual suspension previously imposed--and placed on probation for one year after stipulating to committing 28 acts of professional misconduct. All of the wrongdoing related to a single client case.

The misconduct included failing to keep his clients reasonably informed of significant case developments and failing to perform legal services with competence as well as 26 counts of failing to comply with court orders.

In the underlying matter, Kutrubes represented a married couple in a breach of contract and quiet title action.

During the course of the case, the court issued numerous orders--including orders to file a case management conference statement, to file various specific responses, to appear at hearings, and to pay sanctions. Kutrubes was served with all the orders, but failed to comply with them. During the 2 1/2 years he was listed as counsel of record in the case, he failed to inform his clients of at least 23 developments in their cases that the court deemed were significant.

In aggravation, Kutrubes had three prior records of discipline, and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the instant case that significantly burdened the court--requiring multiple orders, hearings, and sanctions.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, was dealing with family problems directly related to the time of the misconduct, and offered evidence of performing community service and pro bono work.

In its opinion, the State Bar Court cited precedent underscoring that the failure to comply with court orders is a serious transgression: "Other than outright deceit it is difficult to imagine conduct in the course of legal representation more unbefitting an attorney" ( Barnum v. State Bar, 52 Cal.3d 104 at 112 (1990)).

As the six months of actual suspension imposed in this case relates to misconduct that predated and overlapped with misconduct for which he was already suspended for one year, Kutrubes was actually suspended for a total of 18 months.

Joe Alfred Luna

State Bar #310961, Rancho Mirage (February 4, 2024)

Luna was suspended from the practice of law for 60 days and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing six acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter.

He was culpable of: failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to maintain client funds in trust, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, failing to maintain adequate records of client funds, failing to promptly refund unearned advanced fees, and failing to promptly release the clients' papers and property after being requested to do so.

Luna was hired by a married couple--one of whom was a legal permanent resident seeking to become a U.S. citizen. The clients paid an advanced fee of $12,000, which Luna deposited in a non-trust account. He then filed residency applications (I-130 and I-485) for the client, despite the fact he already had residency status. The U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) notified Luna and the clients of an interview scheduled related to the residency case. A few days before the interview date, Luna requested a rescheduling; he did not inform the clients. But on the day of the interview, Luna told them he could not attend; they urged him to reschedule it promptly, before their background check expired.

The USCIS denied the I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) on the basis that it had been abandoned when the clients failed to appear at the interview "without submitting any correspondence about why they were unable to appear." The USCIS also denied the I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Resident) because the I-130 had been denied. Luna received notice of these denials, but did not inform the clients.

Luna sent a letter to the USCIS, asking it to reopen the case, but it has not done so. He then ignored the clients' repeated requests for updates on their case. Approximately two years after the clients had obtained new counsel and requested their file and a refund of fees paid to him, Luna complied.

In aggravation, Luna committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that harmed a client who was vulnerable due to his uncertain immigration status.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and submitted good character references from six individuals--though the weight of that was tempered by the fact that none of them were members of the legal community.

Elizabeth Leigh Martin

State Bar #302111, Bakersfield (February 4, 2024)

Martin was suspended for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to failing to act with reasonable diligence and making a material misrepresentation to a client--misconduct involving moral turpitude. The wrongdoing occurred in a single client case.

Martin was retained to represent a client in uncontested dissolution of marriage proceedings. After the parties had executed a marital separation agreement, the client asked Martin to file it to initiate the proceeding. Approximately five months later, the client asked for a case update, and Martin indicated the paperwork had been filed. In fact, she did not file it until more than six months later.

Martin subsequently filed a default judgment packet, which the court rejected as incomplete due to the failure to include required disclosures.

The client retained new counsel in the case.

In mitigation, Martin entered into a pretrial stipulation, provided letters from six individuals taken from the legal and general communities--all of whom attested to her good character, and submitted evidence of performing volunteer community service.

Kristoffer Steven Mayfield

State Bar #241093, Running Springs (February 4, 2024)

Mayfield was suspended from the practice of law for 90 days. He had been accepted to participate in the State Bar Court's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP), but chose to terminate before graduating from it.

The two underlying matters were consolidated. One involved Mayfield's conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (Cal. Veh. Code § 23152(a)); he had previously been convicted of a "wet reckless" (Cal. Veh. Code §23103.5). In the other, Mayfield stipulated to failing to obey a court order, as well as two counts involving moral turpitude: sending numerous threatening emails and to threatening to make coercive misrepresentations to two attorneys after a disagreement developed over a referral fee.

Because Mayfield did not complete the ADP successfully, the court recommended the higher level of discipline, which was imposed in this case.

Lynnette Nicole McAlister-Villegas

State Bar #310820, Kissimmee, Florida (February 4, 2024)

McAlister-Villegas was suspended from practicing law for 30 days and placed on probation for two years after she stipulated to committing 15 acts of professional misconduct related to two separate client matters.

Her wrongdoing included: failing to report court-ordered sanctions to the State Bar as required and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged; two counts each of failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, improperly withdrawing from representation, and failing to perform legal services with competence; and seven counts of disobeying court orders.

In one client case, McAlister-Villegas substituted in as attorney of record in a legal malpractice case. She failed to file pretrial documents in the case in contravention of three court orders; she was sanctioned $750 for this failure. Her client then learned that McAlister-Villegas had a significant medical issue and was hospitalized. The next day, the court conducted a final status conference at which the trial date was continued and two additional proceedings were scheduled: a status/trial readiness conference and an order to show cause related to the sanctions imposed. It included an order that McAlister-Villegas had to provide medical documentation for her failures to file and appear, as well as a mandate that she meet and confer with opposing counsel in the case. Opposing counsel moved for sanctions against McAlister-Villegas and her client, which were granted. McAlister-Villegas did not appear at the hearing of that matter, nor did she pay the sanctions. Additional sanctions were imposed due to her failure to provide medical documentation as requested. At a final status conference, the court granted the client's request to proceed in pro per; he was precluded from introducing any exhibits in the case due to the earlier violations of court orders.

In the other client matter, McAlister-Villegas was hired to help a client in a marital dissolution. Their fee agreement provided that McAlister-Villegas was to bill a legal insurance provider for the first 25 hours of legal work; the client would then be responsible for paying a $1,500 advanced fee, as well as costs and services not covered by the insurance. McAlister-Villegas filed a response to the petition for divorce and offered to prepare a will and trust and other estate planning documents for the client. The client agreed, and drafts of the documents were provided about nine months later; they included an incorrect date for the client's daughter that needed to be corrected. McAlister-Villegas took no further action on the case, nor did she sign a substitution of attorney form as requested.

In aggravation, McAlister-Villegas committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that burdened the court, which expended time and resources trying to secure her presence and participation.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation, suffered from extreme emotional difficulties during the time of the misconduct, and provided letters from six individuals--all of whom attested to her good character.

William Berry Palmer, II

State Bar #106144, Las Vegas, Nevada (February 4, 2024)

Palmer was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to violating several conditions set out in an earlier disciplinary order--a public reproval--that stemmed from a guilty plea he had entered in Nevada acknowledging mishandling of client funds there.

In the instant case, Palmer's misconduct included failing to submit two timely quarterly written reports with the Office of Probation, and failing to provide proof of passing the Multistate professional Responsibility Exam and of completing the State Bar's Ethics and Client Trust Account Schools.

In mitigation, Palmer entered into a pretrial stipulation and was experiencing extreme emotional difficulties, exacerbated by his wife's death, during the time of the misconduct.

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

Larry A. Peluso

State Bar #281380, Newport Beach (February 4, 2024)

Peluso was suspended for one year and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing 11 acts of professional misconduct related to a single client.

He was culpable of failing to inform both the State Bar and his client of employing a disbarred attorney, failing to provide an accounting of entrusted client funds, failing to promptly release the client's file upon terminating employment, failing to maintain the required balance in his client trust account, and misappropriating client funds--misconduct involving moral turpitude. He was also found culpable of two counts of withdrawing disputed funds from his client trust account, and three counts of entering into an improper business transaction with a client.

Peluso, a solo practitioner, hired a lawyer he knew to have been disbarred as his only staff member, though he failed to inform the State Bar of the employment as required.

He was retained to represent a client in a wage and hour case. The retained agreement did not disclose the disbarred attorney's status, though she performed administrative and clerical work on the case.

Peluso subsequently loaned the client $2,500--without putting the transaction in writing, disclosing any loan terms, or advising the client to seek advice about the arrangement from independent counsel.

The client was then injured in two separate incidents while driving for rideshare companies--and again hired Peluso to handle the related personal injury claims. The disbarred attorney in Peluso's office handled the administrative and clerical work on the case--again, without a disclosure of her disbarred status.

Peluso made two additional loans to the client without reducing the arrangement to writing--though the memo line of the loan check indicated it was an "advance on case proceeds."

He eventually received $15,000 in settlement funds, and deposited the check into his client trust account, then withdrew a portion as his fee. A few days later, the client and Peluso disagreed over the proper shares of the settlement; the client terminated their relationship and hired new counsel. The disbarred attorney subsequently sent the client a message, misstating that the law required Peluso to repay himself the loans from the settlement funds.

The client submitted a complaint to the State Bar. That same day, Peluso disbursed an additional $6,530 to himself "as repayment of the loans" he had made to the client, and then disbursed an additional $2,470 to himself, claiming it was based on costs incurred and unaccounted legal fees.

In aggravation, Peluso committed multiple acts of wrongdoing and failed to make restitution for the misappropriated funds.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and was allotted some mitigating weight for having practiced law for approximately 8 1/2 years without a record of discipline.

Jacob Harrison Slaughter

State Bar #300810, Costa Mesa (February 4, 2024)

Slaughter was suspended from practicing law for four months and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing 19 acts of professional misconduct related to a debt settlement negotiation business scheme, as well as two separate client cases.

His wrongdoing included: willfully violating the law, failing to support controlling law, making material misrepresentations about legal services, and soliciting clients for pecuniary gain. He was also culpable of two counts each of failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, failing to keep clients informed of significant case developments, failing to perform legal services with diligence, improperly withdrawing from employment, failing to refund unearned advanced fees, and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, as well as three counts of collecting illegal fees.

Slaughter contracted with three individuals (one of them a licensed California attorney), in operating a "debt relief operation" purporting to provide services to clients seeking to negotiate or reduce their student loan debt. The operation used telemarketing to reach potential clients, and Slaughter presented debt settlement negotiation as a legal service in both his individual fee agreements and in his client solicitations. He contracted to receive 10-20% of the fees collected from the clients.

As operated, Slaughter was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law--assisting the business in collecting illegal advanced fees and actually practicing law in states in which he was not authorized or licensed to practice. He actively procured and directed a non-attorney staff member to market his services and instructed them about providing debt-related legal advice to clients. In just over three years, a total of $240,000 was collected from approximately 600 clients on Slaughter's behalf. They were advanced fees--collected before any debt relief work was performed and before confirming that a client had made at least one payment on an altered debt.

The two client cases followed an essentially similar fact pattern: Slaughter was hired to assist in reducing or eliminating student loan debts. He advised the clients to stop making payments to creditors and instead make payments directly to his firm--though he failed to take any action on their cases. The clients' credit scores plummeted. Slaughter did not respond to their numerous requests for information about their cases, nor did he inform them when he sold the business to a new attorney or provide contact information for the new owner.

In aggravation, Slaughter committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed several clients--many of whom were vulnerable due to financially weakened positions, demonstrated indifference about the consequences of his actions, and failed to make restitution to one of the clients he wronged.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, cooperated with the State Bar by providing evidence of misconduct useful in it investigations, and provided declarations of his good character from seven witnesses taken from the legal and general communities--one of whom also mentioned Slaughter's volunteer work.

Deepa Talwar

State Bar #277358, Rancho Palos Verdes (February 4, 2024)

Talwar was suspended from practicing law for 90 days and placed on probation for two years after she stipulated to committing three acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter: charging and collecting an unconscionable fee, contracting with a client to prospectively limit her liability, and entering into an improper business transaction with the client.

Talwar was retained to recover surplus funds from a foreclosure sale that were being held by a trustee, agreeing to a 15% contingency fee. The client had previously retained a debt collection business to do the work. The day after Talwar was hired, the trustee sent a letter indicating the funds were ready to be disbursed.

The attorney associated with the debt collection business sent a letter to Talwar and the client indicating he had previously secured a 30% contingency fee and lien in the case. The client initially denied that the attorney had done any work on the case, but then requested that the bulk of the sale proceeds by released to her directly "because a medical condition made it difficult for her to handle the stress" of a dispute between Talwar and the other attorney.

Talwar agreed to the request, but failed to inform the client that the other attorney's 30% contingency fee acted as the upper limit on the amount they could divide, or that she had a fiduciary duty to disburse the undisputed portion of the recover to the client. Instead, Talwar sent a release agreement for the client to sign, which included a statement that the client would release her from "any and all claims" against her, and that the client was required to sign the release before receiving any funds. By Talwar's computation, she was to receive just over $11,123--which was $9,238.85 more than she was legally entitled to receive.

In aggravation, Talwar harmed her client by taking more than her share of the fee to which she was entitled and forcing the client "to deal with the stress of the attorneys fighting over fees that the attorneys should have addressed without her involvement."

In mitigation, she entered into a prefiling stipulation, presented 21 letters from an array of individuals attesting to her good character and her investment in charitable work, and was allotted slight mitigating weight for having practiced law discipline-free for approximately 8 1/2 before engaging in the misconduct at issue.

Edward A. Torres

State Bar #112191, Pasadena (February 4, 2024)

Torres was suspended for 18 months and placed on probation for three years after he stipulated to committing 17 acts of misconduct related to his representation of several clients pursuing claims for personal injuries.

He was culpable of: failing to promptly pay funds to which a client was entitled and failing to maintain complete records of client funds received; four counts of failing to maintain the required balance in his client trust account; and six counts of commingling personal and client funds in his trust account. An additional five counts involved moral turpitude: presenting the State Bar with a falsified transaction report for his client trust account, as well as four counts of misappropriating client funds.

Torres , a sole practitioner, was retained by five different clients in a two-year period--all of them pursuing personal injury claims.

In one case, he received a $1,500 settlement check, but misplaced it, and it was never deposited. He disbursed $500 to the client--issuing a check from his client trust account.

In the other matters, Torres caused the balance in his client trust account to dip to impermissibly low levels before paying off the liens to his clients and their medical providers.

He did not maintain records of the finds received on behalf of these five clients, nor did he maintain monthly reconciliations of his client trust fund--and in two cases, did not maintain client ledgers.

The evidence also showed that Torres deposited funds belonging to him into his client trust account and made disbursements from it for his own personal use and expenses, and repeatedly made disbursements from the account without securing client consents.

In aggravation, Torres committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that substantially harmed his client and a medical provider by depriving them of funds to which they were entitled.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law for more than 34 years discipline-free, suffered from emotional and physical problems due to his father's death and his own heart surgery, as well as family problems due to handling his mother's estate contested by feuding siblings and office management problems complicated by COVID-19 strictures and a flooded premises. In addition, he provided evidence of his good character in the form of declarations and letters from 10 individuals from a wide range of backgrounds, and evidence of performing a substantial amount of community service. And finally, he attended the State Bar's Client Trust Accounting and Ethics Schools and consulted other individuals experienced with trust management for advice on handling client funds properly.

Though the State Bar Court noted that a misappropriation case of $14,400--the total involved here--"generally calls for disbarment," it found that the factors of mitigation were "sufficiently compelling to support a departure from the presumed sanction."

Vasumathi Vijayraghavan

State Bar #310372, Laguna Beach (March 8, 2024)

Vijayraghavan was suspended from practicing law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after stipulating to committing seven acts of professional misconduct related to four distinct client matters.

The wrongdoing included three counts of disobeying courts orders and four counts of failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing clients.

In three of the matters at issue, Vijayraghavan was hired to represent clients in various legal matters, then failed to represent them diligently--including failing to file a complaint as promised, failing to comply with discovery requests, failing to communicate with opposing counsel, failing to attend scheduled court hearings, and failing to respond to court orders requiring responses. In one case, she needlessly filed a second lawsuit involving the same facts and parties rather than amending the initial complaint in the case.

In the fourth matter, Vijayraghavan self-reported sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous lawsuit after the statute of limitations had run in the case.

In aggravation, Vijayraghavan committed multiple acts of wrongdoing which caused harm to his clients--two of whom had their cases dismissed and one of whom was sanctioned.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation and presented letters from 10 individuals taken from a range in the legal and general communities--all of whom attested to her good character.

PROBATION

Melina Shalysse Benninghoff

State Bar #167711, Fresno (March 8, 2024)

Benninghoff was placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to pleading no contest to one count each of driving with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of .08% (Cal. Veh. Code § 23152(b)) and driving on a suspended license due to prior DUIs (Cal. Veh. Code § 14601.2)--both misdemeanors--admitting special allegations related to two prior convictions.

Benninghoff, while driving, made an unsafe turn, then crashed into a wooden power pole, which caused major damage to the front of her car. At the time, her driver's license had been suspended, and she was on informal criminal probation due to a prior DUI. At the scene, she admitted to police officers that she was under the influence of alcohol and that she owned the damaged car, but claimed her "boyfriend" had been driving during the collision and had fled. Based on her detailed physical description of the fictitious boyfriend, police conducted an area check, a search of the collision site for shoeprints, and deployed a K-9 to attempt a scent track.

Benninghoff declined to participate in any field tests, and was then arrested. A blood test showed a blood alcohol concentration of .21%.

The State Bar Court determined that the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation involved moral turpitude--finding it involved dishonesty to the police and a breach of Benninghoff's duties to society.

In aggravation, Benninghoff had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation and took prompt, objective steps to address her alcohol addiction by enrolling in the State Bar's Lawyer's Assistance Program, and is participating in ongoing treatment. Benninghoff was also allotted mitigating credit because the violation at issue was deemed to be remote in time--occurring before she sought treatment.

Janet Audrey Lawson

State Bar #107321, Ventura (February 4, 2024)

Lawson was placed on probation for three years after she stipulated to committing several acts of professional misconduct related to a single client case: failing to represent her clients diligently and failing to maintain the required balance in her client trust account, as well as commingling personal and client funds in the account.

Lawson was retained to represent a married couple in a bankruptcy proceeding they had initially filed in pro per. She initially filed certificates of compliance and applications for entry of discharge for both clients, but then failed to file a motion to approve fees or to take any other action on the case.

The clients had paid $15,000 as a retainer fee, and Lawson was required to maintain half that amount in trust for the clients, but failed to do so. She commingled funds in the account by paying her own business expenses and failing to timely withdraw earned fees from the account.

In aggravation, Lawson committed multiple acts of wrongdoing and caused significant harm to her clients.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 34 years, and received limited mitigating weight for letters submitted by four individuals attesting to her good character.

Glen Timothy Neal

State Bar #145627, Madera (February 4, 2024)

Neal was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to two alcohol-related driving convictions: one for "wet reckless" driving (Cal. Veh. Code §§ 23103 and 23103); the other for driving with a blood alcohol content of .08% or higher (Cal. Veh. Code § 23152(b)) with an enhancement for having a blood alcohol concentration of .15% or higher and refusing to take a chemical test (Cal. Veh. Code § 23578).

The Hearing Department of the State Bar Court determined that the facts and circumstances surrounding both of the convictions did not rise to the level of moral turpitude, but did involve misconduct warranting professional discipline.

In aggravation, Neal had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and provided letters from eight individuals taken from a range in the legal and general communities--all of whom attested to his good character.

Though the court expressed concern that the two DUI arrests occurred over a short time--within approximately 14 months of one another--it recommended discipline at the low range of the sanction because of the mitigation involved.

Jeffrey Brian Towns

State Bar #120419, Gardena (February 4, 2024)

Towns was placed on probation for one year.

He had earlier stipulated to pleading no contest to one misdemeanor count of inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition (Cal. Penal Code § 273.5(a)).

In the underlying matter, police responded to a 911 call made from Towns' residence around 5 p.m. They interviewed a person there who identified himself as Towns' finance and cohabitant. He said that Towns had been drinking alcohol since the early morning, that the two had been arguing all day, and that Towns had hit him with a cordless phone.

Police observed bruising and a laceration on the man's forehead, then arrested Towns and booked the phone protruding from his pocket into evidence.

The State Bar Court determined that the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation did not involve moral turpitude, but did involve other misconduct warranting discipline--and recommended the probation imposed.

Michelle Elizabeth Wells Trigger

State Bar #288008, Sacramento (February 4, 2024)

Trigger was placed on probation for two years after she stipulated to committing 11 acts of professional misconduct related to two separate client matters.

She was culpable of: failing to represent a client diligently, failing to keep her client informed of significant case developments, improperly terminating employment, failing to promptly release a client's papers and property after being requested to do so, and failing to promptly account for a client's funds. She was also found culpable of two counts each of failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to promptly respond to reasonable client inquiries, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigations of the wrongdoing alleged.

In one case, Trigger was retained to help modify an existing custody arrangement. The client sought to remove overnight visits between her former partner and their minor child, concerned for the child's safety. Trigger failed to take several essential actions in the case--including failing to file a motion to amend or to file any discovery requests. She filed a declaration that contained several substantive errors that the client had noted, and failed to inform the client that a motion to compel her responses to discovery requests had been filed. Trigger then constructively withdrew by failing to take additional steps in the case, but did not inform the client. She did not respond to the client's requests for case updates, nor did she promptly sign a substitution of attorney form. The client incurred an additional $1,000 in fees during her efforts to remove Trigger as the attorney of record.

In the second client matter, Trigger represented a client seeking a reduction in alimony based on his decreased income. She failed to file a request for an order modifying the support payments, or to reply to any of the 13 text messages the client sent seeking an update on the case. The client eventually hired new counsel, but was ordered to pay more than $80.000 in arrears that accumulated during the time Trigger represented him.

In aggravation, Trigger committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed both of the clients involved.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation, suffered extreme emotional difficulties during the time of her misconduct due to the death of her fiancé, and offered letters from 31 individuals who attested to her good character. She was also allotted slight mitigating weight for having practiced law for seven years without a record of discipline.

Martha Michiko Vartanian

State Bar #323979, Los Angeles (March 8, 2024)

Vartanian was placed on probation for two years after she stipulated to previously entering a guilty plea to driving under the influence of alcohol (Cal. Veh. Code § 23152(a)) and driving with a blood alcohol content of .08% or more (Cal. Veh. Code § 23152(b))--both misdemeanors. She also had a prior misdemeanor conviction for the same offenses. Vartanian's sentence was imposed in connection with the first count, and stayed on the second count.

In the underlying matter, Vartanian rear-ended another vehicle after failing to stop at a red traffic light--causing damage to the other vehicle and slight bodily injury to the driver. After disclosing her identity to the other driver, Vartanian fled the scene on foot. She was arrested shortly afterward, after failing field sobriety tests and giving confusing details about the incident--requiring officers to search out and find corroborating witnesses. Alcohol screening revealed a blood alcohol content of .192 and .200 percent.

The State Bar Court determined that the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation did not involve moral turpitude, but did involved misconduct warranting professional discipline.

In mitigation, Vartanian entered into a pretrial stipulation and submitted letters from eight individuals attesting to her good character.

In aggravation, she significantly harmed the administration of justice by providing inconsistent details to law enforcement, requiring the expenditure of their time and resources.

Eric Marc Willens

State Bar #207125, Carpinteria (February 4, 2024)

Willens was placed on probation for three years.

He earlier pled guilty to committing a domestic battery (Cal. Penal Code § 243(e)(1)). The offense is a misdemeanor.

The Hearing Department of the State bar Court determined that the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation did not involve moral turpitude, but did involve misconduct warranting professional discipline.

Willens' wife was asleep in the bedroom of their apartment one morning when she was awakened by Willens hitting her. They both left the bedroom, and Willens then yelled at her and hit her in the ribcage. She retreated to a bathroom and called police, who arrested Willens after he admitted to the battery. He was then served with an emergency protective order requiring him to stay 100 yards away from his wife and the apartment.

Despite the order, he returned to the apartment the next day to collect his car keys and computer. He made no threats or comments to his wife while there. She had locked herself in the bathroom and again summoned police, who arrived after Willens left.

In mitigation, Willens entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 20 years before committing the misconduct at issue.

Though an additional counts of disobeying a court order (Cal. Penal Code § 166(a)(4) was dismissed pursuant to Willens' plea agreement, the court noted that violation was "a significant part of the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense for which respondent was convicted."

Joel Lewis Zakuto

State Bar #97989, Simi Valley (February 4, 2024)

Zakuto was placed on probation for two years.

He stipulated to pleading guilty to one count each of grand theft (Cal. Penal Code § 487(a)) and second degree commercial burglary (Cal. Penal Code §§ 459 and 460(b)), as well as two counts of petty theft (Cal. Penal Code § 484(a)). All the offenses are misdemeanors.

After the State Bar's Review Department determined the offenses involved moral turpitude as a matter of law, the matter was referred to the Hearing Department to determine the appropriate discipline to be imposed.

In the underlying matter, Zakuto attended a Christmas party at which he consumed several alcoholic beverages, then drove to another location and continued drinking until approximately 9 a.m. the next morning. He then drove to an Apple retail store and took an iPhone without paying for it. He later returned to the store and attempted to take additional merchandise, but was detained by a store security guard.

In aggravation, Zakuto had a prior record of discipline, which also involved petty theft.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, submitted letters from nine individuals taken from a range in the legal and general communities, and demonstrated his remorse and recognition of wrongdoing by entering programs to treat his alcohol addiction and took a hiatus from practicing law to address the disease.