August 2025

DISBARMENT

Alfred Windsor Sloan, II
State Bar #230432, Beverly Hills (July 11, 2025)

Sloan was disbarred after being found culpable of four counts of professional misconduct: failing to promptly distribute client funds and two counts of failing to deposit funds in a trust account as well as one count of intentionally misappropriating client funds, which involves moral turpitude. He stipulated to the underlying facts for all but the misappropriation charge.

The wrongdoing related to a single client matter. Sloan was paid a fixed advanced fee of $10,000 by a corporation to assist in the organization's wind-down. He directed the funds to be wired into a non-client trust account he held at a bank. Shortly after that, Sloan assured the corporation's shareholder, who was the personal guarantor of the group's credit card, that he had begun work on negotiating reduction of the debt on the card. The guarantor had been experiencing extreme financial difficulties, as the corporation's missed monthly payments were reported on his credit history, some of his accounts had been closed, and he became unable to rent or pay for property.

The bank ultimately offered to settle the debt for $16,914. The guarantor and another corporate shareholder advanced money to Sloan to satisfy the debt; they wired the funds directly into his non-client trust account. Though Sloan confirmed that he had paid the settlement amount by the date due, bank records showed that he had transferred the funds to himself and his wife and had made numerous purchases from the trust account, which ultimately had a negative balance. After the guarantor verified that the debt had not been settled and confronted Sloan, Sloan initiated two payments to the bank--both of which were returned for insufficient funds. He then falsely told the guarantor that a bank representative had confirmed the payment had been received.

After the guarantor threatened to file a complaint with the State Bar, Sloan refunded him $2,000--and the balance of the $14,925 nearly six months later.

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

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, and was allotted limited weight for having practiced law discipline-free for approximately 20 years, as he failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that his misconduct is unlikely to reoccur.

SUSPENSION

Marc Steven Applbaum
State Bar #222511, La Jolla (July 25, 2025)

Applbaum was suspended from the practice of law for 90 days and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing three acts of professional misconduct. All three counts--of revealing protected information without the client's informed consent--related to a single matter.

Applbaum represented a client involved in a real property dispute, filing a lis pendens in the matter--incorrectly asserting that the underlying litigation was pending against two individuals. He subsequently added them in an amended complaint. The court granted an expungement of the lis pendens. Applbaum then sought to be relieved as counsel in the matter. In that petition and in a motion opposing attorney's fees and a related affidavit, he revealed various bits of confidential and damaging information about his client without first obtaining the client's written consent to do so.

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

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation and received moderate mitigating weight for reference letters from four individuals--all of whom were attorneys, so did not represent a cross-section of the community.

After acknowledging that there is no published decision in the state sufficiently on point with the instant matter, the California State Bar Court took some guidance from a Florida decision (Florida Bar v. Knowles, 99 So. 3d 918 (2012)), in which an attorney had also disparaged his client's character in multiple motions, and like Applbaum, had a prior record of misconduct. It noted, however, that the Florida case, which involved a disciplinary order of one year of actual suspension, involved misconduct greater in scope than the present matter--and recommended one year of suspension stayed, with an actual suspension of 90 days.

Keith David Griffin
*State Bar #204388, Los Angeles (July 11, 2025) *

Griffin was suspended for 15 months and placed on probation for three years.

He was found culpable of one count of failing to promptly notify clients of settlement funds received on their behalf, and several counts of concealing material information from clients, opposing counsel, and the court--wrongdoing involving moral turpitude.

Griffin was employed for two decades at Girardi Keese--a firm that was dissolved in 2021 after some firm members and its founder were found to have embezzled more than $15 million from clients. He had no ownership or equity interest in the firm or access to its bank accounts before resigning in 2020.

The firm represented four family clients and an individual following an airline crash in 2018 that killed 189 occupants on board; Griffin was one of the primary attorneys handling the cases. The firm entered into a fee sharing arrangement with a Chicago-based firm because the cases were filed in Illinois. Mediated settlements were reached for the clients, with the agreements specifying that funds were to be paid to a client trust account established at Griffin's firm. He prepared detailed settlement memos for each of the family client settlement fund disbursements. The firm made partial payments to the family clients, none to the individual client.

Despite assuring the clients that he would "convey any information" about the settlement funds, Griffin did not divulge that the firm had already received the money. One of the firm's founders, who has subsequently been disbarred, forwarded letters to some of the clients--falsely referencing "tax issues" holding up full distribution of the settlement as well as a "special authorization" related to a 50 percent distribution. Griffin did not respond directly to most of the clients' queries about whether the full settlement amount had been received, though he later admitted it to the individual client who had threatened to initiate a State Bar investigation into the matter. Griffin was also deceptive in communications with two law partners at the Chicago firm, who questioned whether the full settlement funds had been received, nor did he tell them that the money used to partially pay the clients had come from funds generated from an unrelated case.

The Chicago firm ultimately sued Griffin personally to recover its attorney fees for its representation in the litigation; Griffin resigned from the firm two days later. The State Bar Court found that Griffin intentionally made false statements under oath at the contempt hearing held to determine whether sanctions should be issued against him personally.

In aggravation, Griffin committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed the administration of justice and his clients--several of whom were highly vulnerable due to their young ages, geographic distance from the forum, ignorance of the American legal system, and communications that were not in their primary language.

In mitigation, he produced letters from 15 individuals who were aware of the full extent of his misconduct and vouched for his good character. He also received moderate weight for having practiced law discipline-free for 20 years, and for cooperating with the State Bar by entering into a pretrial stipulation as to some facts and documents.

In recommending discipline of 15 months of actual suspension, the State Bar Court noted that it was Griffin's first disciplinary matter. However, it noted: "His own emails show he acted as a mere conduit, or a bystander at a time when his clients needed his advocacy the most. In essence, Griffin walled himself off from the storm swirling around him, partially enabling [the firm founder's] ongoing misappropriation and violations of the court orders. It was not until he was threatened with a State Bar complaint that he began to disclose what he knew."

Michael Anthony Ramos
State Bar #141025, Redlands (July 25, 2025)

Ramos was suspended from practicing law for six months and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing three acts of professional misconduct: suppressing evidence that he had a legal obligation to produce, destroying material that had potential evidentiary value, and deleting information he was duty-bound to preserve--wrongdoing involving moral turpitude.

All three counts were related to a single matter.

Ramos was serving as an elected district attorney when a grand jury issued a 29-count criminal indictment related to a land development company. After that time, Ramos created a campaign email account and used his personal cellphone to communicate regarding campaign matters, as well as the ongoing criminal investigation and prosecution. He deleted text messages from the phone daily--causing them to be inaccessible.

Three of the defendants were acquitted in the criminal case, and charges against the fourth and final defendant were dismissed after a hung jury. The defendants subsequently sued Ramos and others, alleging the investigation and prosecution in which they had engaged were "retaliatory, malicious, or politically motivated." In discovery responses, Ramos failed to include relevant email and text messages. At some point after he was defeated in the district attorney election in 2018, Ramos deactivated his email--causing its contents and messages to be permanently deleted. The plaintiffs in the case (former defendants in the underlying criminal case) filed for sanctions against Ramos, alleging spoliation of evidence. The district court found that Ramos had deliberately deleted the information that he had a duty to preserve.

The case was eventually settled in favor of the plaintiffs for $65 million.

In mitigation, Ramos entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for more than 29 years, and submitted evidence of performing substantial community service.

Adam Rudnick Stull
State Bar #139121, Irvine (July 11, 2025)

Stull was suspended from the practice of law for 18 months and placed on probation for three years after he stipulated to being culpable of two counts of misdemeanor sexual battery (Cal. Penal Code § 243.4(e)(1)). A jury had earlier found him guilty of the offenses, and he was sentenced to serve 150 days in county jail on one count, concurrent with 30 days on the second count; ordered to pay restitution, fees, and fines; submit his DNA; and register as a sex offender.

In the underlying matter, Stull represented a client in her third DUI charge. When she met with him the day before her arraignment, he proceeded to massage her despite her requests that he stop. His movements included touching her underneath her shirt and bra, touching her buttocks underneath her shorts, and attempting to separate her legs.

Stull represented the client at the arraignment, but she hired a new attorney two weeks later, who reported the matter to the police.

In aggravation, Stull had a prior record of discipline--also related to sexual misconduct.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and presented letters from 12 individuals taken from a cross-section of the legal and general communities who were aware of the extent of his misconduct and vouched for his good character.

Gregory Daniel Trimarche
State Bar #143686, Costa Mesa (July 18, 2025)

Trimarche was suspended for one year and placed on probation for two years after he appealed the State Bar Court hearing judge's recommendation of that discipline. The panel on appeal affirmed the culpability and aggravation and mitigation findings with some modifications--notably, increasing the weight for causing substantial harm to his clients.

Trimarche was found culpable of: making a false or misleading statement about his legal practices, two counts of failing to uphold the laws, and intentionally assisting others in committing illegal acts--misconduct involving moral turpitude.

In the underlying matter, Trimarche and two non-attorneys entered into a venture to provide private student loan debt relief. As part of the venture, they recruited and contracted with a telemarketing service that solicited potential customers seeking to reduce their student loans. When individuals with private loans were located, they were referred to "debt attorneys"--four lawyers, two of whom were licensed to practice in California--who performed services such as negotiating with lenders, and were paid a portion of the payment received from the clients assigned to them.

Over approximately five years, the operation collected about $11.8 million in legal fees from 2,600 clients nationwide; Trimarche personally collected about $1.5 million. The business arrangement was subject to the Telemarketing Sales Rule or TSR (16 C.F.R. §310.4(a)(5)(i)(A), (B)), which prohibits any seller or telemarketer from receiving payment for any debt relief service until at least one of the terms of the debt has been altered and the customer has made at least one payment on it. Though he was alerted that fees collected in his operation may be limited by the TSR, Trimarche did not research the matter or address concerns that were raised.

At some point, the State Bar commenced disciplinary investigations against one of the California-licensed attorneys with whom Trimarche was affiliated; she was charged with collecting illegal fees in violation of the TSR, and suspended from practicing law. Still, Trimarche continued the business--including recruiting additional debt attorneys.

Eventually, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau brought a federal lawsuit against Trimarche, the debt attorneys, and others involved. Trimarche then stipulated that he would cease providing debt relief products and services, engaging in telemarketing, and collecting payments from debt relief clients.

In aggravation, Trimarche committed multiple acts of misconduct that substantially harmed his clients, and demonstrated indifference and a lack of insight about the consequences of his misconduct.

In mitigation, he was allotted moderate weight for performing pro bono and community services.

Kerry P. Zeiler
State Bar #233944, Bellevue, Washington (July 11, 2025)

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

His wrongdoing included: accepting an illegal fee, failing to maintain the required balance in his client trust account, failing to report judicial sanctions imposed to the State Bar as required, failing to return unearned advanced fees, and three counts of violating court orders. An additional count--misappropriating client funds--involved moral turpitude.

In the underlying matter, Zeiler was hired to assist a client with matters related to a special needs trust (SNT), accepting an advanced fee of $25,000. He deposited the fee check in his client trust account without first seeking prior court approval of the fee as required. That same day, Zeiler accepted and deposited an additional check for $41,895 from the SNT trustee related to disputed fees in handling the trust. Zeiler settled the fee dispute and paid a portion of the total held for the disputed fees, but kept the remainder of $27, 212 in his client trust account; the balance subsequently dipped to an impermissible level.

The initial trustee was suspended, and the court issued an interim fiduciary to serve. The trustee gave Zeiler an additional check for $19,844 pending court resolution of his fees, which he also deposited in his client trust account. The trustee was ultimately removed. The court denied Zeiler's request for attorney's fees and ordered him to return the advanced fees and remainder held for the SNT fee dispute, but he did not comply--and was sanctioned.

In aggravation, Zeiler committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 12 years, presented letters from six individuals attesting to his good character and charitable work, demonstrated remorse by acknowledging his misconduct ad accepting responsibility for it, and experienced family difficulties associated with raising a child with special needs during the time of his misconduct.

PROBATION

Douglas Everett Klein
State Bar #119924, Beverly Hills (July 11, 2025)

Klein was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing five acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter.

His wrongdoing included: failing to perform legal services with reasonable diligence, as well as two counts each of failing to obey court order and failing to report judicial sanctions imposed to the State Bar as required.

Klein took over representation of a client who had earlier filed a civil complaint against a real estate management company. After opposing counsel moved for a judgment on the pleadings due to Klein's failure to file an amended complaint, he claimed he had failed to timely file because of commitments in other cases he was handling, in addition to time taken observing Rosh Hashanah. The court rejected the explanation, and granted 30 days leave to file an amended complaint, but Klein failed to comply. The court ultimately granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Approximately 17 months after the motion was granted, Klein filed a motion to vacate it. The court sanction him $2,000 for his "inexcusable neglect," and the case was eventually dismissed.

Klein paid the sanctions only after the State Bar began an investigation of the matter.

In aggravation, Klein committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 34 years, and was allotted limited mitigating weight for character letters from six individuals--two of whom seemed unaware of the nature and extent of his misconduct.

--Barbara Kate Repa