July 2025

DISBARMENT

Donald Ralph Aron
State Bar #104188, Sacramento (June 6, 2025)

Aron was summarily disbarred after he stipulated to being convicted of committing an assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Cal. Penal Code § 245(a)(4)).

The offense is a felony involving moral turpitude.

Sherry Lee Collins
State Bar #154010, Riverside (June 26, 2025)

Collins was disbarred by default after she failed to participate, in person or through counsel, in her disciplinary proceedings.

The State Bar Court determined that all procedural requirements had been met in the matter: proper service of the charges against her, reasonable diligence in giving notice of the proceedings, proper entry of default--which she did not move to set aside or vacate, and factual allegations supporting culpability of the misconduct charged.

She was found culpable of 11 counts of professional misconduct related to three client matters. The wrongdoing included: failing to return unearned advanced fees, failing to respond to client requests for case status updates, and improperly withdrawing from representation; two counts of failing to comply with the law; as well as three counts each of failing to obey court orders and failing to cooperate in the State Bar investigations of the wrongdoing alleged.

Alfred Mills Cook
State Bar #79905, Sacramento (June 6, 2025)

Cook was disbarred by default after he failed to respond to the notice of disciplinary charges against him, or to take any part in the related proceedings.

The State Bar Court determined that the charges had been properly served, that reasonable diligence had been used in notifying Cook of the proceedings before a default was entered against him, that the default was properly entered, and that there was a satisfactory basis to impose discipline.

Cook was found culpable of failing to comply with several conditions imposed in an earlier discipline order. Specifically, he filed to timely submit to the Office of Probation a quarterly written report, a declaration attesting to his compliance with the requirement that he review the Rules of Professional Conduct and relevant sections of the Business and Professions Code, and a declaration attesting to his compliance with the e-learning course entitled "California Rules of Professional Conduct and State Bar Act Overview." He was also culpable of three counts of failing to comply with a court rule (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.20) requiring suspended attorneys to inform former clients, give required notices, and file a declaration of compliance with the rule.

Cook had one prior record of discipline, and there was one additional State Bar investigation pending against him at the time he was disbarred in the instant case.

Reed Leonard McLurkin
State Bar #165323, Los Angeles (June 26, 2025)

McLurkin was disbarred by default. He failed to participate in the disciplinary proceeding in which he was charged with 16 counts of professional misconduct, despite receiving adequate notice and opportunity to do so.

Though he did appear at three status conferences in the matter, he did not file a response to the disciplinary charges or participate in the proceedings after that, nor did he move to have the default ultimately entered against him set aside or vacated.

As a result, the factual allegations in the charges were admitted and deemed as true, and McLurkin was found culpable of all counts, which related to a single client matter. They included: failing to disclose a potential conflict of interest to clients, failing to render an appropriate accounting of client funds, failing to return unearned advanced fees, failing to deposit client funds in a trust account, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's disciplinary investigation; two counts of failing to obey court orders; and three counts each of failing to act with competence, failing to act with diligence, and failing to inform his client of significant case developments.

McLurkin had been disciplined twice previously before being disbarred in the present case.

Paul Steven Metsch

State Bar #121912, San Diego (June 27, 2025)

Metsch was summarily disbarred after he pled guilty to grand theft by embezzlement (Cal. Penal Code §487), and the State Bar received evidence that the conviction became final.

The offense is a felony involving moral turpitude.

Rossana Pilar Mitchell
State Bar #210305, Chino (June 6, 2025)

Mitchell was disbarred after contesting the hearing judge's decision recommending disbarment as the appropriate discipline to be imposed.

In the proceeding below, she was found culpable of failing to obey a court rule, improperly acquiring a pecuniary interest adverse to a client, failing to refund unearned advanced fees, and two counts of failing to render an accounting of client funds.

In aggravation, Mitchell committed multiple acts of misconduct, and had a prior record of discipline. The State Bar Court also found she showed indifference to accepting responsibility for her wrongdoing and knowingly submitted false information on the compliance declaration she filed.

In mitigation, she was allotted moderate weight for evidence of performing community service, limited weight for stipulating to easily proven facts, and minimal credit for evidence from five individuals supporting her good character who did not represent a range in the legal and general communities and were not aware of the full extent of the preset misconduct.

In the earlier disciplinary proceeding, Mitchell was suspended from practicing law for six months and placed on probation for two years based on misconduct related to three client matters. A condition imposed by the California Supreme Court required Mitchell to comply with the rule (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 9.20) requiring disciplined attorneys to notify clients and others of their suspended status. The final order specified the filing date for the notification, as well as an admonition that failing to comply "may result in disbarment or suspension."

She was subsequently found culpable of making a material misrepresentation in a compliance declaration--misconduct involving moral turpitude.

Mitchell alleged in this appeal that she should have been allotted mitigating credit for her good faith belief as to her reporting obligations, and should not have received aggravating weight for indifference. The panel on appeal found the findings were supported by the record, and affirmed the disbarment recommendation.

The gravamen of the matter in this case was the issue of complying with the 9.20 notice requirements. As Mitchell's suspension date approached, she left substitution of attorney forms with an associate, but did not ensure they were actually executed and filed. As of the date that the compliance order was filed, Mitchell represented five clients, and appeared remotely in two cases, then subsequently filed a declaration stating that she had no clients and did not represent any clients in pending matters. She did not inform any of the clients of her suspension, but sent out a mass email stating she needed "personal time off" and telling one client she was going on "vacation."

In recommending disbarment, the panel underscored: "We find Mitchell knew that her rule 9.20 compliance declaration contained false information when it was filed and was an attempt to mislead the courts regarding her compliance. Due to her dishonesty, Mitchell's misconduct is more egregious than other rule 9.20 violation cases, such as those resulting from unsuccessful attempts to file the compliance declaration or filing it late."

Chad Thomas Pratt
State Bar #149746, Los Angeles (June 13, 2025)

Pratt was disbarred after appealing the hearing judge's recommendation of disbarment below. The panel on appeal affirmed the findings of culpability on three counts of professional misconduct: engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, seeking to mislead a judge, and making a material misrepresentation in court--wrongdoing involving moral turpitude.

In the underlying matter, Pratt represented an individual who had been designated as a vexatious litigant as well as that individual's associates in various matters in state and federal courts. The individual used various attorneys, including Pratt, to pursue his claims, and also used acquaintances to act as shadow plaintiffs.

In two actions, Pratt substituted in as attorney of record and filed 10 pleadings under his name, though they had been drafted by the individual who had hired him. In a court hearing, the judge questioned whether Pratt had in fact drafted the pleadings at issue--noting that the format and writing styles were similar to those the individual had written himself and then filed under assumed identities in earlier actions. Pratt responded that he had drafted and filed the documents. The judge at the hearing ultimately dismissed the cases, indicating he "strongly suspected bad faith conduct" by the plaintiff and Pratt.

In addition, Pratt had earlier been suspended for a year in his third disciplinary matter. However, during his actual suspension period, he appeared telephonically on behalf of plaintiffs alleging various claims in a real estate matter.

In aggravation, Pratt had three prior records of discipline--all of them involving actual suspensions, and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the instant case.

In mitigation, he was allotted moderate weight for stipulating to facts and the admission of documents prior to trial, for presenting evidence of performing community service, and for emotional difficulties occasioned by his wife's illness and death.

Vincent J. Quigg
State Bar #108932, Long Beach (June 6, 2025)

Quigg was disbarred after he appealed the decision below finding his underlying conviction involved moral turpitude and recommending disbarment. The State Bar Court panel in the instant case affirmed the finding of moral turpitude, found no compelling predominating mitigation, and affirmed the disbarment recommendation.

Underlying facts of note: Quigg had been disciplined by the State Bar Court for professional misconduct three times earlier; the present matter stems from his history of domestic violence with his ex-wife, to whom he had been married for nine years.

In an earlier case, he had been disciplined after being found guilty of causing corporal injury to a spouse (Cal. Penal Code § 273.5(a)). The superior court had also issued a criminal protective order forbidding him to come within 100 yards of his former wife, which was later amended to allow "peaceful contact."

However, a few years later, Quigg was again involved in a physical altercation--hitting, punching, and shoving his ex-wife--resulting in injuries to her ear, eye, and head. She was again granted a protective order forbidding contact. The day the order was set to expire, she filed for divorce and for an additional restraining order, which was granted. Quigg violated that order in several ways--by sending texts, posting messages on Facebook, calling her on the phone, attending the gym when he likely knew his ex-wife would be there, and at one point returning to the family home, ostensibly to "visit the dogs." He was subsequently found guilty of violating a domestic relations protective order (Cal. Penal Code § 273.6(a)), and another protective order was issued restricting his contact and prohibiting additional contact.

While Quigg contested the finding that his misconduct included moral turpitude, the State Bar Court in the present case found specifically that: "His continued and persistent violations of the TRO reflect a brazen effort to place himself above the law, which reveals moral turpitude." In addition, while recommending disbarment, it noted: "We find Quigg's actions surrounding his conviction demonstrate such a flagrant disrespect for the law that knowledge of his misconduct would likely undermine public confidence in and respect for the legal profession."

In aggravation, Quigg had three prior records of discipline, and caused significant emotional harm to his ex-wife.

In mitigation, he was allotted limited weight for presenting character references from individuals who lacked full knowledge of the facts and scope of his misconduct, and for entering into a limited stipulation in the case.

SUSPENSION

Robert Marlowe Amparan
State Bar #172132, San Francisco (June 6, 2025)

Amparan was suspended from practicing law for one year and placed on probation for two years after successfully completing the State Bar's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP).

As background: A notice of disciplinary charges was filed against Amparan in September of 2021; at his request, the case was referred to ADP for an evaluation of his eligibility to participate. During the evaluation, in June 2022, a second notice of charges was filed against him. The two matters were consolidated.

Amparan submitted a declaration establishing a nexus between his mental health and substance abuse and the misconduct charged in the disciplinary matters, and was accepted into the ADP.

He stipulated to culpability for performance, communication, and withdrawal violations--a total of 120 counts of misconduct that related to 62 clients and spanned a 20-month period. His wrongdoing included: two counts each of failing to obey court orders and failing to maintain respect due to courts; 21 counts of failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing clients; 25 counts of improperly withdrawing from representation; 33 counts of failing to communicate with clients; and 37 counts of failing to return unearned advanced fees.

In aggravation, Amparan committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed his clients.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for 26 years before committing the misconduct at issue, and provided evidence of his good character. In the present case, the State Bar Court also considered Amparan's successful competition of the ADP as an additional mitigating factor.

The court then ordered the lower level of discipline contained in the confidential statement to which Amparan had agreed upon entering the ADP.

Rachael Anne Callahan
State Bar #275627, San Diego (June 6, 2025)

Callahan was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to committing two acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter.

She was culpable of making a false declaration in a court filing and knowingly making an unauthorized deposit of a client check--wrongdoing involving moral turpitude.

Callahan, whose practice involved representing landlords in unlawful detainer matters, signed various leases with an individual related to commercial space for her law office. Several years later, she sued him in small claims court, seeking a return of the security deposit in addition to other expenses. He then filed a civil action against her, seeking money damages for alleged lease breaches and also seeking recovery of the property leased to her. The parties reached a settlement, with the landlord agreeing to pay Callahan $34,000 within 15 days after she vacated the premises, with an extra five days allowed for porting the phones--and an additional agreement that both parties would drop all other claims related to the matter.

Callahan complied, and drafted and signed an agreement memorializing the settlement terms. Counsel for the landlord then sent an agreement containing significant modifications to the settlement, as well as a photocopy of a cashier's check for $34,000--noting the check should be held "pending the parties entering into a written settlement agreement." Callahan did not sign the newly drafted agreement, but negotiated the check by mobile deposit, despite knowing the transaction was not authorized.

The check amount was ultimately refunded, and the court awarded Callahan costs.

In mitigation, Callahan entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for more than 13 years, and provided reference letters from 26 individuals--including opposing counsel--all of whom vouched for her good character.

Bryan Thomas Castorina
State Bar #162843, Laguna Niguel (June 13, 2025)

Castorina was suspended from practicing law for 90 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing five acts of professional misconduct related to two client matters.

His wrongdoing included: failing to pursue only legal and just actions, failing to report judicial sanctions imposed against him to the State Bar, two counts of violating court orders, and an additional count involving moral turpitude: making false and misleading statements in a court filing.

The factual stipulations included that Castorina was hired to represent an individual in a wrongful foreclosure and quiet title action. Some time after Castorina filed a complaint related to obtaining quiet title, the client informed him he had filed a bankruptcy petition--and produced a receipt for the filing fee. However, Castorina did not take any action to confirm the true date and time of the filing. Opposing counsel subsequently sent Castorina a certificate confirming that the foreclosure sale of the property took place about four hours before the bankruptcy petition was filed, and sought to dismiss the case. Instead, Castorina filed a fourth amended complaint alleging that a bankruptcy automatic stay was in effect when the foreclosure sale occurred. Opposing counsel moved to strike the complaint as frivolous; the court agreed--finding the complaint was "without factual foundation"--and imposed sanctions. Castorina paid the sanctions of $3,714 more than 5 1/2 months after they were due, and only after the State Bar began an investigation of the matter.

In another matter, Castorina was hired to set aside a default judgment entered against a used car dealership. A date for a deposition in the case was set, but Castorina notified opposing counsel the day before--claiming no witness could be presented and that he was planning to move to withdraw from the case, which he did several months later. In the meantime, however, the court had sanctioned him after he did not file an objection to a motion to compel the deposition. Castorina paid the sanctions imposed more than 11 months after the due date, and again only after the State Bar's investigation had commenced.

In aggravation, Castorina had a prior record of discipline, and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the instant case that caused significant harm to the administration of justice.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and submitted 10 letters from individuals taken from the legal and general communities--all of whom were aware of his misconduct, and all of whom vouched for his good character.

Kenneth Maynard Cavin
State Bar #166489, Clovis (June 6, 2025)

Cavin was suspended for 90 days and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing eight acts of professional misconduct related to two client matters; two of the counts were dismissed "in the interest of justice."

He was culpable of: charging an impermissible fee, failing to represent a client with reasonable diligence, failing to deposit client funds in a trust account, failing to promptly release a client's papers and property after terminating employment, failing to render an accounting of client funds, improperly withdrawing from employment, violating a court order, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged.

In one of the matters, Cavin substituted in as counsel in a marriage dissolution case. After the petition was granted, the court ordered Cavin to prepare and submit the judgment for opposing counsel to review. Cavin failed to do so, however, and failed to do any substantive work on the case for approximately seven years, ceased communicating with the client, and eventually constructively terminated his employment without informing the client.

In the other case, he was hired to represent a client in another dissolution matter--accepting $7,500 as an initial fee and $300, his hourly rate, for the initial consultation. The fee agreement noted that half of the initial engagement fee was "non-refundable and earned upon receipt." Cavin deposited the $7,500 in a non-client account. The divorce petition in the case was granted, and the court again ordered Cavin to prepare an Order After Hearing and submit it to opposing counsel. He failed to do so, failed to appear at a status conference in the case, and ceased all communication with the client. He later agreed to provide the client with a substitution on attorney, but did not do so. The client filed to proceed in pro per.

In aggravation, Cavin committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed a client.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law approximately 26 years without a record of discipline.

Brian Keith Harbaugh
State Bar #219131, Santa Rosa (June 6, 2025)

Harbaugh was suspended from practicing law for 60 days and placed on probation for one year after successfully completing the State Bar Court's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP).

The underlying proceeding involved eight conviction referral matters--involving nine misdemeanors that may or may not involve moral turpitude, depending on the facts and circumstances. The matter was referred to the State Bar's Hearing Department for a determination of whether moral turpitude was involved, and whether the misconduct otherwise merited professional discipline.

After the charges were filed, Harbaugh submitted a statement to establish a nexus between his alcohol abuse and mental health difficulties and the misconduct in this consolidated proceeding. The court filed the parties' stipulation setting forth the facts, legal conclusions, and mitigating and aggravating circumstances--and accepted Harbaugh into the ADP.

Harbaugh was culpable of driving with a license that had been revoked or suspended for failing a blood alcohol content test (Cal. Veh. Code § 14601.5(a)), violating a protective order (Cal. Penal Code § 273.6), and contempt of court for violating a restraining order (Cal. Penal Code § 166(c)(1)), as well as two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol (Cal. Veh. Code § 23152(a)).

Additional counts involved moral turpitude: resisting an executive officer by threat of force (Cal. Penal Code § 69), public intoxication (Cal. Penal Code § 647(f)), and two counts of making criminal threats (Cal. Penal Code § 422 (a)).

In aggravation, Harbaugh committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 19 years, and provided eight letters from individuals taken from the legal and general communities--all of whom vouched for his good character. In the instant matter, he was allotted additional mitigating credit for successfully completing the ADP.

The court imposed the discipline on the lower-end range--60 days of actual suspension and probation with conditions--according to the terms of the negotiated ADP contract.

Nicolette Rose Hoekstra
State Bar #322632, Los Angeles (June 6, 2025)

Hoekstra was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after she stipulated to committing two acts of professional misconduct related to falsifying her vehicle registration; both acts involved moral turpitude.

In the underlying matter, an investigator from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) observed Hoekstra's car parked near the DMV office, bearing a registration sticker that showed obvious signs of tampering. The investigator confirmed that the car's registration had actually expired, and that the affixed sticker did not correspond to the vehicle's license plate. The inspector removed the plate from the car--and left her business card on the vehicle.

Hoekstra's DMV file included several violations for failing to have a valid registration over the previous eight years.

When Hoekstra went to the DMV office to inquire about the business card left on her car, she falsely claimed to have paid for her registration, and also falsely claimed to have "borrowed the registration sticker from a friend."

In mitigation, Hoekstra entered into a pretrial stipulation, provided evidence of family problems related to her grandmother's illness that caused her mental and emotional challenges, and presented letters from nine individuals with varying backgrounds--all of whom attested to her good character.

Christopher Patrick Welch
State Bar #224984, Ventura (June 6, 2025)

Welch was suspended from practicing law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing six acts of professional misconduct.

His acts of wrongdoing, characterized as "reportable actions," included: two counts each of engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, failing to timely pay judicial sanctions, and failing to report the judicial sanctions imposed to the State Bar as required.

Four matters stemmed from cases pending in superior court.

In three of the cases, Welch, the attorney of record in all of them, failed to appear at an arraignment, a sentencing hearing, and a pretrial conference. He was sanctioned by the judge, who cited his "pattern of conduct of failing to appear and represent a client," as well as "the pattern of attempting to shift blame for this lack of diligence to others, including his clients, his contract lawyers, and his clerical staff." He paid the sanctions six months after payment was due, and reported them to the State Bar three months late.

In a fourth matter, another judge sanctioned Welch, who had appeared late for several scheduled court dates and failed to appear on the second day of trial while representing a client facing a possible life sentence. In citing Welch for contempt, the judge took special note of the repercussions and effect on jurors who had been empaneled but kept waiting--some of them then excused, including in his ruling that: "court resources were not utilized effectively, the time of the assigned deputy district attorney was not used efficiently, the defendant was left wondering where his attorney was and why his trial was not proceeding, and over 100 citizens left jury service with a negative view of the court system."

And in a separate matter, Welch pled nolo contendere to two misdemeanor counts: possessing an assault weapon (Cal. Penal Code §3065(a)) and possessing firearms in a residence in which a resident is prohibited from owning or having access to them (Cal. Penal Code § 25135(a)). The charges were filed after law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Welch's residence and seized 28 firearms (including semiautomatic rifles and 10 unregistered firearms), three gun silencers, several high capacity gun magazines, and 15,000 rounds of various ammunition.

In aggravation, Welch committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed both the public and the administration of justice.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 15 years, demonstrated remorse and recognition of his wrongdoing, submitted character reference letters from 16 individuals as well as a detailed declaration of performing pro bono and community service, and provided evidence of experiencing emotional difficulties during the misconduct that are now successfully being treated. He also received mitigating credit due to the State Bar's five-year delay in prosecuting the disciplinary charges against him.

PROBATION

Daniel Jay Bramzon
State Bar #214324, Los Angeles (June 26, 2025)

Bramzon was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing six acts of professional misconduct related to court proceedings in a single client case.

He was culpable of: failing to maintain the respect due to a court, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and failing to report judicial sanctions imposed against him, as well as three counts of disobeying court orders.

Bramzon represented a client defending against a commercial unlawful detainer case. The trial in the matter began in September, 2020--Bramzon's first case in the jurisdiction during the COVID-19 lockdown. On the first day of trial, the parties were informed that the court would be asking potential jurors some COVID-related questions, and that counsel was forbidden from doing so directly. However, Bramzon posed COVID-related questions to potential jurors during voir dire, even after the court admonished him; he was sanctioned for violating the direct court order. He was cited for contempt again for lowering his protective face mask during voir dire in contravention of court warnings. The court declared a mistrial after Bramzon suggested in the jurors' presence that the trial should have been postponed as he had requested. He challenged that ruling, again in open court.

After the mistrial was declared, the court admonished Bramzon, and stated in an order that it was convinced he had "intentionally caused the mistrial in a bad faith effort to delay the proceedings and punish the court and plaintiff for the denial of a continuance motion, despite the fact his client's writ petition challenging that ruling had been denied by the court of appeal the day after it was filed." It also underscored that Bramzon had declined two opportunities to apologize for his actions.

When Bramzon appeared at the courthouse after the mistrial, he refused to answer numerous COVID-19 screening questions--resulting in six additional contempt charges and additional sanctions. Bramzon was then "relieved from participating in the case"--causing a second mistrial in the matter.

In aggravation, Bramzon committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed the administration of justice by necessitating two mistrials.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law for approximately 19 years without a record of discipline, and presented letters from 14 individuals--all of whom were aware of the particulars of the misconduct, and all of whom vouched for his good character.

--Barbara Kate Repa