June 2025

DISBARMENT

Patrick Ryan Anderson
State Bar #254931, Ames, Iowa (April 16, 2025)

Anderson was disbarred after he stipulated to committing 12 acts of professional misconduct related to two separate client matters.

His wrongdoing included: improperly representing clients with potentially conflicting interests, failing to maintain the required balance in his client trust account, willfully violating a court order, failing to report a civil judgment entered against him to the State Bar, and failing to report discipline imposed upon him in another jurisdiction to the California State Bar, as well as two counts of failing to promptly notify clients of settlement funds received.

An additional five counts involved moral turpitude: forging signatures on settlement checks, misappropriating client funds, and three counts of making false and misleading statements to clients.

In one case, Anderson represented a married couple and their son, who had been injured in a vehicle accident. He did not inform them in advance of the potential conflict in representing the driver and passengers injured in a vehicle accident--nor did he obtain their written consent to the representation. Anderson received three separate ettlement checks for the parties, simulated their signatures as endorsements, and deposited the checks into a non-client trust account. He then spent the fnds for his own personal use, and later told the clients he would "check on the status" of the settlement payments, while fully aware he had reeive and spent them. He later paid the clients in full.

In the second case, Anderson as retained to help a client with a closing on a rental home she was purchasing. He entered into a contract with the client, who agreed to lend Anderson's company $50,000 to acquired an interest in the property. He received the funds, but used them for his own purposes rather than the property purchase. The client subsequently agreed to make additional loans to Anderson's company; Anderson had misrepresented that his company had sufficient equity to protect the loan, as well as misrepresenting the true purpose of much of the loan money. The client later sued to recover the loan funds. An Iowa court found Anderson had diverted $147,285 from a court-ordered receivership for his own benefit; the Supreme Court of Iowa then revoked his license to practice law in that state.

In aggravation, Anderson committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

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

Rafael Carrillo
State Bar #289288, Stockton (April 16, 2025)

Carrillo was disbarred by default after he failed to pariticpate, either in person or through counsel, in the disciplinary proceeding in which he was charged with 15 counts of professional misconduct.

The record reflected that reasonable diligence was used to notify Carrillo of the proceeding, and the State Bar Court determined that the default order was properly entered against him and that he did not move to have it set aside or vacated.

As a result, the factual allegations in the notice of disciplinary charges was deemed admitted, and the court determined that they supported culpability on all 15 counts. They included: failing to maintain an adequate balance in his client trust account, and failing to maintain adequate records of client funds; two counts of commingling personal and client funds, and nine counts of failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigations of the wrongdoing alleged. Two additional counts involved moral turpitude: misappropriating client funds, and issuing checks without sufficient funds to satisfy them.

At the time Carrillo was disbarred in the present case, there were approximately 94 additional disciplinary matters pending against him.

David Allan Demanski
State Bar #177979, El Cajon (April 18, 2025)

Demanski was summarily disbarred after he pled guilty to committing grand theft of personal property (Cal. Penal Code § 487(a)) and the conviction became final.

The offense is a felony involving moral turpitude.

Louis Liberty
State Bar #147975, Foster City (April 18, 2025)

Liberty was disbarred by default after he faild to participate in the disciplinary proceeding in which he was charged with five counts of professional misconduct.

The court found all procedural requirements, including proper notice, had been satisfied, that there was an adequate factual basis for disciplinary misconduct, and that Liberty did not move to have the default ultimately entered against him set aside or vacated. He was found culpable of all counts charged: failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to keep his client apprised of significant case developments, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and two cunts of failing to obey court orders.

Liberty had been disciplined by the State Bar three times previously, and there were additional disciplinary matters pending but not yet filed at the time he was disbarred in the instant case.

Daniel Stephen March
State Bar #106854, Tustin (April 16, 2025)

March was disbarred by default. He initially filed a response to the notice of disciplinary charges against him, appeared at settlement conferences and filed a joint stiulation for a remote trial, but later sought and was granted a withdrawal of that response. He then failed to participate in his disciplinary proceeding. The court found there was an adequate factual basis for culpability on all seven counts charged.

They included: failing to keep complete records of client funds, two counts of commingling personal and client funds in a trust account, and four counts of failing to cooerpate in the State Bar's investigation of the charges against him.

March had one prior record of discipline and there was one additional disciplinary matter pending against him at the time he was disbarred.

Michael Richards
State Bar #229790, Santa Cruz (April 16, 2025)

Richards was disbarred after failing to complete the State Bar Court's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP).

An underlying proceeding originally involved seven separately filed conviction referral matters. The Review Department referred the cases to the Hearing Department, to hold hearings, decide whether moral turpitude was involved in the violations at hand, to determine whether the misconduct warranted professional discipline, and if so, to recommend the appropriate sanction to be imposed.

Though Richards submitted a statement establishing a nexus between his substance abuse and mental health difficulties and was accepted into the ADP, he was terminated from the program due to his noncompliance--and the court then imposed the higher-range of discipline set forth in the term of the related contract; he was disbarred.

Richards was involved in seven "encounters" involving disturbing and violent behavior; he stipulated that he regularly used methamphetamine during the time of the incidents--which resulted in convictions for battering an intimate partner (Cal. Penal Code § 243(e)(1)), possession of methamphetamine Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11377, and five counts of public intoxication (Cal. Penal Code 647(f).

Additional violations and convictions followed. In one, Richards drove onto a sidewalk, damaging public property--then entered a park, swinging a piece of wood and telling responding officers he was being chased by people in "Mexican wrestler masks." While Richards was on probation, he twice had run-ins with law enforcement involving erratic behavior and pled no contest to resisting arrest (Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1)) in the matters; his sentence was suspended, with additional probation terms requiring him to complete a residential treatment program.

However, over the next 18 months, he engaged in several additional incidents involving erratic public behavior, public intoxication, vandalism, violating a domestic violence restraining order, and resisting arrest. He eventually stipulated that the facts and circumstances of his convictions involved moral turpitude.

In mitigation, Richards entered into a stipulation admitting culpability and had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 11 years.

In aggravation his multiple acts of misconduct caused significant harm to the public ad to the administration of justice.

SUSPENSION

Andrew Nicholas Dimitriou
State Bar #187733, San Francisco (April 18, 2025)

Dimitriou was suspended for 18 months and placed on probation for three years after he stipulated to committing four acts of professional misconduct related to two separate client matters: failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client failing to inform a client of significant case developments, failing to proptly release a cliet file after being requested to do so, and failing to obey court orders to pay sanctions.

In one client matter, Dimitriou was retained to represent a client in a real estate matter, accepting $3,000 in advance fees. He filed the lawsuit, but failed to respond to written discovery requests or to inform the client that responses were needed. As the failure to provide responses continued, the court ordered monetary and evidentiary sanctions against the client, though Dimitriou did not inform her of them until several months later. In the interim, opposing counsel filed a motion for summary judgment; the case was ultimately dismissed with prejudice.

In the second matter Dimitriou, along with another attorney, represented th defendants in a legal malpractice case. Dimitriou failed to serve discovery responses on behalf of his client, and was again sanctioned. After Dimitriou substituted out of the case, he issued a check as partial payment of the monetary sanctions owed, but the check was returned for insufficient funds. He eventually paid the sanctions five years later, after he State Bar's investigation of the matter.

In aggravation, Dimitriou had a prior record of discipline, and committed multiple acts of misconduct in the present case that significantly harmed a client.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, was suffering from emotional difficulties during he times of the misconduct, and submitte letters from seven individuals taken from the general and legal communities--all of whom vouched for his good character.

Ernest Roy Krause
State Bar #56343, Sacramento (April 11, 2025)

Krause was suspended from practicing law for three years and placed on probation for three years.

He was found culpable of all 11 counts of professional misconduct with which he was charged: charging an improper fee and seeking to mislead a judge, as well as three counts each of improperly supervising a nonlawyer in providing legal services and aiding in the unauthorized practice of law. An additional three counts of intentionally aiding a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law involved moral turpitude.

The crux of the matter was three cases in which Krause was affiliated with a nonlawyer--alternately identified as a "student attorney," "State Bar Verified Law Office Study program student, and "law office student student." In fact, he was not enrolled in the State Bar's Law Office Study Program as claimed, having been declined after submitting two deficient applications to the program.

While Krause participated in the court proceedings in the three matters at hand, it was the nonattorney who primarily signed relevant documents, conducted depositions, advanced legal points, conducted questioning, and introduced exhibits--unequivocally engaging in practicing law. The factual and legal explanation he presented at trial were later omitted from one of the trials. Opposing counsel had questioned the validity of the nonlawyer's participation; the State Bar had issued cease and desist orders to prevent his practice of law, but he continued to do so. Krause tacitly endorsed the misrepresentations and unauthorized practice and sought to mislead a judicial officer by claining the nonattorney was a "certified law office study student."

In the trial of the present disciplinary charges, the nonlawyer, identified as "verified law student," also undertook to represent Krause until the court instructed him to leave the Zoom proceedings. Throughout the proceeding, however, Krause "appeared to be communicating with someone else"--and he decined to answer any questions during direct examination, asserting a "blanket Fifth Amendment privilege.

At trial, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar argued that Krause should be disbarred for the misconduct at issue; Krause countered that all charges should be dismissed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations; he had previously filed six otions to dismiss, four orders to show cause, and three motions to strike the notice of disciplinary charges filed against him.

In aggravation, Krause had a prior record of discipline, committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the instant case, demonstrated indifference toward atoning for the consequence of his misconduct by showing "recurring nonchalance," and displayed a lack of candor and cooperation during the disciplinary process.

Justin Anton McCrea
State Bar #320046, Carmichael (April 16, 2025)

McCrea was suspended from the practice of law for three years and placed o probation for five years after he stipulated to being convicted of two felonies related to two separate incidents. He was culpable of being grossly negligent in discharging a firearm (Cal. Penal Code § 246.3) and threatening public officers (Cal. Penal Code § 71).The consolidated cases were sent to the Hearing Department for a determination of whether the offenses involved moral turpitude.

In the first incident, McCrea believed he heard sounds made by an intruder in his home, grabbed his handgun, and summoned a friend to come to his home. She arrived, but stayed outside the home while McCrea entered the home--firing his weapon in an attempt to scare the perceived intruder. He then summoned police to the scene. When the investigating officers arrived, they found McCrea acting erratically, and he appeared to be under the influence of methamphetamine; they located more than four grams of the substance in a dresser drawer in the home. Though McCrea retreated into his home and locked the door, he eventually exited the home and was detained.

In the second incident, McCrea received a notice that three of his children had been disenrolled in their after-school care program because he habitually picked them up late from the program. School officials, who had been offput by McCrea's belligerent behavior in the past, engaged representatives from the "Safe Schools" program to ensure he ha received notice of the disenrollments. He answered the door to his home, but denied being the person to whom the notice was addressed. He then called a school employee and became irate, threatening to physically harm her before traveling to the school and demanding to meet with her in person. After a school administrator calmed him down, McCrea left the premises.

In aggravation, McCrea committed multiple acts of wrongdoing--the threatening behaviors leading to the felony convictions as well as possession of methamphetamine.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, saving the State Bar considerable time and resources.

John Ernest Ricci
State Bar #154482, San Francisco (April 18, 2025)

Ricci was suspended from practicing law for two years and placed on probation for three years after he stipulated to committing 50 acts of professional misconduct related to 14 client cases.

His wrongdoing included failing to provide a proper accounting of client funds; two counts of failing to inform clients of significant case developments; four counts of failing to hold client funds in a trust account; and five counts each of failing to perform legal services with competence and failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries about the status of their cases.

He was also culpable of seven counts of improperly withdrawing from employment; 11 counts of failing to represent clients with diligence; and 15 counts of failing to promptly refund advanced fees paid.

The fact patterns in all the cases were substantially similar: Ricci accepted advanced fees for cases in which clients were seeking help with immigration matters. In most cases, he performed no services of value after that. In several cases, he provided clients with insufficient information about their situations, or the likelihood of successfully obtaining the resuts they sought. In all cases, Ricci made tardy, partial, or no repayment of the unearned fees advanced to him--or made refunds only after the State Bar began investigating his misconduct.

In aggravation, Ricci had a prior record of discipline and commited multiple acts of wrongdoing thqat harmed his clients--all of whom were highly vulnerable as seeking to obtain legal status in the United States.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

Christopher Salvatore Scarcella
State Bar #280213, Claremont (April 16, 2025)

Scarcella was suspended for 90 days and placed on probation for one year atyer he stipulated to committing four acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter. He was culpable of failing to provide a proper accounting of client funds, two cunts of failing to deposit cient funds in a trust account, and submitting a false and misleading statement to State Bar investigators--an act involving moral turpitude.

Scarcella was retained to represent a client in a probate matter. The parties' fee agreement provided for an initial retainer of $2,975, with an hourly rate charge of $425. An additional invoice requested $3,662, with $2,125 denoted as advanced fees; Scarcella failed to deposit the advanced fee amount in a cient trust account. The client subsequently terminated his services and requested a refund of the payments she had made and filed a complaint with the State Bar. Scarcella falsely told State Bar investigators that he had earned all advanced fees paid, and also submitted a falsified invoice indicated dates, times, and services rendered.

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

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

Joseph Anthony Virgilio
State Bar #139376, Woodland Hills (April 16, 2025)

Virgilio was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing 13 acts of professional misconduct related to four client cases.

His wrongdoing included: failing to perform legal services with competence and failing to return unearned advanced fees; two counts each of failing to represent clients with diligence and improperly charging legal fees; three counts of failing to keep clients informed of significant case developments; and four counts of accepting compensation for legal services without first obtaining the client's written consent.

In three cases, Virgilio agreed to represent clients who were incarcerated--accepting advanced legal fees from their relatives without obtaining the clients' written consents. In all three cases, the courts denied the relief sought. In two of the cases, Virgilio assured the clients he would pursue additional legal avenues, but failed to do so.

In a fourth matter, Virgilio agreed to serve a cease-and-desist letter on behalf of a client, who agreed to pay $3,500. Their fee agreement improperly designated the fee as a "true retainer" that was "earned upon receipt."

In aggravation, Virgilio had a prior record of discipline, and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the instant case--three of which involved clients who were highly vulnerable due to their incarceration.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation.

PROBATION

Mehran David Alaei
State Bar #283273, Del Mar (April 18, 2025)

Alaei was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to being convicted of three misdemeanors--driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .08% or more (Cal. Veh. Code §23152(b)) and two counts of domestic battery (Cal. Penal Code §243e(1)), as well as an additional act of professional misconduct: entering into an improper business relationship with a client.

In two matters, police were summoned to a home inhabited by Alaei's former domestic partner, where they found the partner had a large abrasion on her knee; Alaei yelled at her at the scene--urging her to tell offices that "nothing happened." Five witnesses had earlier observed Alaei drag her down their property and drop her into the bushes. The next month, police were again summoned to respond to a domestic violence incident involving Alaei and the woman. Alaei had accosted the former partner while she was attempting to place their child in a carseat. He yelled at her and became verbally aggressive, then removed a GPS tracker from her car's front tire.

In the client-related matter, Alaei represented a client in a real estate matter. He and two other individuals then agreed to purchase the property, though Alaei faild to disclose his interest in the property or to seek the client's informed written consent to the transaction; nthe client subsequently sued him in small claims court.

In aggravation, Alaei committed multiple acts of misconduct.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 7 1/2 years, and provided letters from 10 individuals--all of whom attested to his good character.

Marc Harrison Richards
State Bar #120297, Huntington Beach (April 18, 2025)

Richards was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to failing to comply with the terms of a disciplinary order--a reproval--that had been imposed earlier.

Specifically, he failed to schedule and participate in an intitial meeting with the Office of Probation, failed to submit three quarterly written reports, failed to complete and verify completion of te e-learning course titled "California Rules of Proessional Conduct and State Bar Act Overview," and failed to attest to having read the California Rules of Professional Conduct as well as specified sections of the Business and Professions Code as ordered.

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

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, presented nine letters from a rnage of insividuals fully aware of the misconduct at issue who attested to his good character, belatedly complied with one of the probation conditions by registering to take the Mulistate Porfessionak Resoinsibility Exam, and rovided evidence of emotional stress related to caring for a termilly ill parent at the time of the misconduct.

--Barbara Kate Repa