December 2025

DISBARMENT

David Doyle Hammon

State Bar #118218, Bishop (October 3, 2025)

Hammon was disbarred by default after he failed to file a response to the notice of disciplinary charges levied against him or otherwise participate in the related proceedings.

The State Bar Court determined that Hammon had received adequate legal notice of the charges, that the default against him had been properly entered, and that he did not move to have it set aside or vacated. As a result, the factual allegations in the charges were deemed admitted, and the court determined that Hammon was culpable of 10 of the 11 counts included in them

He was found culpable of: failing to act with reasonable diligence in presenting his client, 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 commingling personal and client funds in his trust account; two counts of failing to obey court orders; and three counts of failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged.

Jugjit Singh Johal

State Bar #109196, Sacramento (October 16, 2025)

Johal was disbarred by default after he failed to participate, either in person or through counsel, in his disciplinary proceeding.

The State Bar Court determined he had been properly served and had adequate notice of the proceedings. It also found that a default ordered was subsequently properly entered against him, and that he made no move to have it set aside or vacated.

In addition, the court determined that the factual allegations in the notice of disciplinary charges supported a finding that Johal had engaged in misconduct that warranted discipline. As a consequence, he was found culpable of the wrongdoing alleged: one count of failing to maintain complete records of client funds and two counts of commingling personal and client funds in his trust account.

There were 16 additional disciplinary investigations pending against Johal at the time he was disbarred in the instant case.

Konrad Kirk Kuenstler

State Bar #255349, La Mirada (October 24, 2025)

Kuenstler was disbarred after he failed to participate, either in person or through counsel, in the disciplinary proceeding in which he was charged with nine counts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter.

The State Bar Court determined that all procedural requirements had been satisfied--including proper service of the notice of disciplinary charges, reasonable diligence in notifying Kuenstler before a default was entered against him, and proper entry of the default order. It also found a satisfactory basis for disciplining him.

Kuenstler was found culpable of: failing to render a written account of client funds, failing to promptly disburse client funds, failing to maintain client funds in a trust account, failing to timely report to the State Bar that he had been disciplined by a licensing board, failing to release client files, and misappropriating client funds--an act involving moral turpitude. He was also found culpable of three counts of failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged.

David George Smith

State Bar #78228, Oakland (October 16, 2025)

Smith was disbarred by default. He did not file a response to the notice of disciplinary charges against him, nor did he move to have the default ultimately filed against him set aside or vacated.

The State Bar Court found that all procedural requirements had been met in the case, and that there was an adequate factual basis for disciplinary misconduct.

Smith was found culpable of all 11 counts charged, including--failing to keep a client informed of significant case developments, failing to notify a client of funds received on her behalf, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged, as well as two counts each of failing to maintain client funds in a trust account, failing to promptly distribute client funds, and failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries. He was also found culpable of two counts of misappropriating a total of more than $220,000 in funds belonging to clients and medical providers--wrongdoing involving moral turpitude.

There was one additional disciplinary matter pending against Smith when he was disbarred in the present case.

Jake Alexander Soberal

State Bar #277875, Fresno (October 3, 2025)

Soberal was summarily disbarred after he pled guilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1349) and committing wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343). Both offenses are felonies involving moral turpitude.

Noting the requirements for summary disbarment statute and guidance set out in case precedent (In re Paguirigan, 25 Cal. 4th 1 (2001)), the State Bar Court determined that Soberal was not entitled to a hearing to determine whether lesser discipline should be imposed, and focused on disbarment as the proper recommendation.

David Leon Speckman

State Bar #178180, San Diego (October 17, 2025)

Speckman was disbarred after he stipulated to committing numerous acts of professional misconduct related to five client matters.

The wrongdoing, all of which occurred in a U.S. bankruptcy court, also constituted violations of the California Rules of Professional Conduct including--improperly conducting business transactions with a client and failing to avoid a client's adverse interest; two counts each of paying business or personal expenses incurred by a client and advising or assisting in violating the law; four counts of misleading the court by artifice or false statements; five counts of engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and six counts of purchasing property at a foreclose or sale subject to judicial review. An initial five counts were for moral turpitude, related to the misrepresentations at issue.

Speckman was a licensed real estate broker and his wife was a licensed real estate agent. They formed a real estate holding company as an LLC, with Speckman as authorized signatory and his wife the sole member. Over a two-year period, Speckman failed to disclose to the court property transferred from bankruptcy clients to the LLC. Unbeknownst to the clients, Speckman also submitted several declarations and other documents in bankruptcy matters that contained misrepresentations, misstatements, and omissions of material facts.

In three matters, in court filings with the bankruptcy court, Speckman transferred property and made monthly plan payments in contravention of the legal constraints that made the property subject to court approval. In one case, he sought and obtained a loan on a client's property, again in contravention of the stricture requiring prior court approval.

In aggravation, Speckman had a prior record of discipline and committed multiple acts of misconduct, similar to misconduct for which he was previously disciplined, that constituted a pattern of misconduct.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

Aaron Spolin

State Bar #310379, Los Angeles (October 11, 2025)

Spolin was disbarred after he stipulated to committing 34 acts of professional misconduct related to eight separate client matters.

His wrongdoing included: failing to keep clients reasonably informed of significant case developments; eight counts each of failing to explain legal matters to the extent necessary to permit clients to make informed decisions, failing to exercise independent professional judgment, and charging unconscionable fees; and nine counts of causing false or misleading communications based on making material omissions.

The violations at issue in this case all stemmed from a 2018 legislative amendment (Cal. Penal Code §1170(d)(1)). It allowed the court to recall and resentence a defendant upon the district attorney's recommendation as long as the defendant:

• Is 50 years old or older

• Was sentenced to 20 years or more

• Served a minimum of10 year in custody

• Is serving a sentence for a non-serious r non-violent felony

• Had not suffered a prior conviction for a "superstrike" (Cal. Penal Code §667(e)(2)(c)(IV), and

• Is not registered as a sex offender.

In 2020, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office (LADA) issued a directive establishing its own expedited review unit and procedure for defendants who had served 15 years or more. The LADA sent Spolin at least nine letters informing him of the new unit--and the fact that "there was no need to take any action to be considered for resentencing, other than to check the website for updates."

Also during that time, the Orange County District Attorney's Office (OCDA) instituted a procedure setting out that it would only consider requests for resentencing under the amended statute if the requests came directly from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The OCDA sent Spolin at least eight letters informing him of this mandate.

Despite the amended law and the LADA and OCDA giving actual notice of the new procedures they would follow, Spolin undertook to represent eight incarcerated individuals--charging them between $11,700 to $14,700 as a "package" in pursuing resentencing relief. In reality, all the clients were ineligible for relief as all had been convicted of "serious and violent felonies." His representation also contravened the procedures instituted by the LADA and OCDA.

Spolin issued refunds for some of the clients--most of whom did not obtain resentencing relief or commuted sentences--after they complained or the State Bar began investigations.

In addition, Spolin published an announcement on his website stating: "Governor Announces Commutation of Sentence for Spolin Law Client." It omitted the material fact that the client had obtained the commutation on his own behalf, submitting the application in pro per.

In aggravation, Spolin committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused substantial harm to his clients who were highly vulnerable due to being incarcerated and having limited financial means. His misconduct was also deemed to be motivated by personal financial gain--deemed an additional factor in aggravation.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and provided character reference letters from four individuals who have known him for some time and were aware of the extent of his misconduct.

SUSPENSION

Neil Babra

State Bar #250532, Redwood City (October 3, 2025)

Babra was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing 12 acts of professional misconduct related to two separate client matters.

His wrongdoing included: two counts each of failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing clients, failing to keep clients reasonably informed of significant case developments, failing to promptly release clients' papers and property after being requested to do so, failing to provide proper accountings of client funds and failing to cooperate in the State Bar investigations of the wrongdoing he was accused of committing.

Babra represented two married couples in immigration matters. In one case, he failed to file a required petition for the husband and ignored the clients' numerous email requests for information on the matter, or answered cursorily and unsatisfactorily. The couple eventually hired new counsel, who was able to secure the employment authorization they sought. In another case, a married couple sought adjustments to their immigration status. Again, Babra failed to file required forms for the husband, whose immigration status expired, making him ineligible to adjust his status to lawful permanent residency. Again, the couple hired new counsel to secure the required help.

In aggravation, Babra committed multiple acts of misconduct, and significantly harmed clients who were highly vulnerable due to potential removal from the United States based on immigration status.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation and had practiced law discipline-free for nearly 10 years.

Oshin Baghram

State Bar #322019 (October 3, 2025)

Baghram was suspended for one year and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to pleading no contest to a charge of tampering with property owned by or used by utility services (Cal. Penal Code §498(b)(3)). The offense is a misdemeanor.

In the underlying matter, police received two anonymous narcotic complaints stating that a marijuana grow operation was being run at a property Baghram owned. Investigators discovered an "underground vault overload" caused by high consumption on the site. A subsequent warranted search of the premises revealed that the garage on the property had been converted into a marijuana grow operation--equipped with lights, fans, air conditioning, a scrubber, and dehumidifiers; no marijuana plants were found. Additional investigation revealed bypass units had been installed to energize subpanels that supplied electricity that would not be registered by the usual meters. The utility theft occurred over approximately 10 months and the total amount of electricity associated with the bypass circuit was about $26,572.

By the time he entered the plea in the case, Baghram had paid all restitution--including the amount of expenses incurred by the local Department and Water and Power Revenue Security Unit in investigating the matter.

In mitigation, Baghram presented character letters from 15 individuals taken from a mix of the legal and general communities, and also received nominal credit for having practiced law discipline-free for four years before the misconduct.

While recommending one year of actual suspension, the State Bar Court also gave Baghram credit for the period of interim suspension that commenced on February 10, 2025.

Douglas F. Galanter

State Bar #93740, Los Angeles (October 3, 2025)

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

He was culpable of failing to maintain the appropriate balance in his client trust account and disobeying a court order. An additional three counts of misconduct involved moral turpitude: one count of misappropriating client funds and two counts of intentionally making misrepresentations to the State Bar.

Galanter stipulated to the following facts: He was retained to represent a client whose previous attorney had placed a lien for his fees against settlements or judgments that might be recovered in prior unrelated litigation. Galanter received $375,000 in settlement funds intended for the client, and deposited them in his trust account. However, the opposing party disputed the validity of $78,000 of the lien, and Galanter agreed to maintain that amount in trust pending a determination of the matter.

Galanter sued the previous attorney for declaratory relief that the lien was improper; the previous attorney then sued Galanter for breach of contract, inter alia. A few months later, the amount in Galanter's trust account dipped to $583; he had made 105 payments from it to his business account over a period of 5 1/2 months.

After the client terminated Galanter's representation, the client and previous attorney entered a settlement specifying that the $78,000 Galanter  was to have held in trust should be released. He failed to do so, spurring a State Bar investigation of the matter. Galanter made two false and misleading statement to investigators--claiming he had disbursed funds to the client from the disputed amount held.

In aggravation, Galanter committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he had no prior record of discipline in more than 40 years of practicing law, submitted evidence of performing community service and volunteer work, and presented letters from a wide range of individuals--all of whom vouched for his good character.

Gilbert Whitney Leigh

State Bar #153457, San Francisco (October 24, 2025)

Leigh was suspended from practicing law for three years and placed on suspension for four years.

He was found culpable of failing to comply with several conditions imposed in an earlier discipline order. Specifically, he failed to submit timely proof of attending an abstinence-based support group, failed to timely submit several written reports as mandated, failed to submit timely proof of attending AA meetings, and failed to submit timely proof of completing the State Bar's Ethics and CTA Schools.

In aggravation, Leigh had a previous record of discipline and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the instant case.

The court noted that the case was unique in that Leigh had previously received substantial discipline (an actual suspension of 30 months), while the misconduct currently at issue is limited to probation violations. It noted, however, that Leigh "continually disregarded his ethical duties to comply with his probation terms--all while undergoing a hefty suspension," and noted that the order of three years of actual suspension was supported by "the principle of progressive discipline coupled with the standards and case law."

David Earl Lewis, Sr.

State Bar #291230, West Covina (October 3, 2025)

Lewis was suspended from the practice of law for 60 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing seven acts of professional misconduct: failing to maintain the required balance in his client trust account, failing to promptly distribute funds to a client, failing to promptly distribute funds to a medical provider, failing to provide an appropriate accounting of settlement funds, and two counts of failing to notify a client of receipt of settlement funds. He was also culpable of negligently misappropriating client funds--misconduct involving moral turpitude. The wrongdoing was related to a single client case.

In the underlying matter, Lewis agreed to represent a client with a slip and fall case on a contingency basis. He signed medical liens and authorizations from medical providers who had provided the client with care. He also received a settlement check in the case in the amount of $8,250 and deposited it into his trust account, though he did not inform the client of that fact. He settled and paid a few medical liens, but requested a reduction of fees from two others; one agreed to a reduction, the other did not--and Lewis did not continue negotiations.

Before Lewis had paid the client or satisfied the lienholders, the total in his client trust account dipped to an impermissible level; he had effectively misappropriated their funds.

In aggravation, Lewis committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, presented letters from five individuals who attested to his good character, submitted evidence of performing community service, and faced emotional difficulties during the time of the misconduct due to the illnesses and deaths of his parents. He was also allotted nominal mitigating weight for having practiced law for approximately five years without a record of discipline.

Jeffrey Jason Olin

State Bar #298826, Pixley (October 3, 2025)

Olin was suspended for nine months and placed on probation for two years after he appealed the hearing judge's recommendation of 90 days of actual suspension based on three counts of professional misconduct related to his actions surrounding a family law matter involving his wife and son.

After an independent review of the record and consideration of supplemental briefing by the parties, the panel on appeal increased the recommendation of actual suspension to nine months in the present case.

Olin was found culpable of: failing to maintain respect due the courts and judicial officers, making a false statement in reckless disregard of the truth, and threatening a judicial officer with violence--misconduct involving moral turpitude.

The State Bar Court panel began its opinion by explaining the context of the case: "This matter reflects a growing concern in our courts regarding serious misconduct by lawyers in how they refer to or correspond with judicial officers. Often, zealous advocacy is cited as a rationale for tirades leveled at judges and other legal officers." It noted that an enforced silence would likely "engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance respect." It then continued, however: "But such protection has limits, When, a here, the repeated, abusive criticism by an attorney departs from normal or  excessive zealous advocacy, constituting harassment, bordering on misogynistic language, or enters the realm of credible criminal threats against a judicial officer or her family, we cannot stand by and minimize the seriousness of the conduct as simply aggressive lawyering."

Relevant facts include that Olin and his wife entered into a marriage dissolution agreement that included co-parenting provisions. After seven years, however, both parties filed for domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) and temporary restraining orders (TROs)  against one another; she cited verbal and written harassment and a physical assault, he alleged emotional and physical stress based on parental alienation. After a second request, the court granted the ex-wife's request for a DVRO and issued a five-year restraining order against Olin, while denying his second request for a DVRO.

Olin continued to file pleadings "on an ongoing basis," and the commissioner later testified to his "berating language" and "escalating threats" toward her-one of which she perceived as a death threat. He also distributed stickers around the courthouse and appeared in the courtroom wearing a T-shirt--all of which bore statements disparaging the commissioner. The matter was transferred to a judge after the commissioner recused herself. Olin berated the judge in open court and later sent an email accusing him of being bribed by his ex-wife's boyfriend.

Olin also filed several complaints against the commissioner and judge; the supervising judge found no ethical violations and closed the investigation. More than a year later, Olin sent an email to the judge--accusing him of corruption, and concluding: "I sincerely hope you catch an especially painful and prolonged form of terminal brain cancer, tyrant." In the following days, he continued to send disparaging email messages to the commissioner and judge. One of them noted that if Olin "ever won the lottery," he would pay someone to kill the commissioner's minor child. The commissioner secured a restraining order against Olin. Olin continued to send offensive email messages to his ex-wife's boyfriend and to the judges involved in his case--accusing them of dishonesty, corruption, incompetence, judicial misconduct, and other malfeasance.

In evaluating the behavior at issue, the State Bar Court panel acknowledged that disciplinary rules in the legal profession cannot punish legally protected speech. However, it underscored that the First Amendment does not protect false statements made with reckless disregard for the truth--present if an attorney "had no reasonable factual basis for making the statements, considering their nature and the context in which they were made." It asserted that the record "does not reveal any factual basis to support Olin's accusations."

In aggravation, Olin committed multiple acts of misconduct, and demonstrated indifference toward rectifying or atoning for the consequences of his wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he stipulated to some facts, and received minimal mitigating weight for having practiced law discipline-free for approximately seven years.

Todd Stuart Osborne

State Bar #178647, Santa Cruz (October 16, 2025)

Osborne was suspended from the practice of law for 90 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing 16 acts of professional misconduct related to three client matters.

His wrongdoing included: failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to render an accounting of client funds, failing to promptly release a client's papers and property after being requested to do so; two counts each of improperly withdrawing from employment and failing to keep a client informed of significant case developments; and three counts each of failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing clients, and failing to participate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged.

All three of the client matters at issue involved dental malpractice cases and similar fact patterns: Osborne failed to communicate with clients after being retained to represent them. One client eventually settled her case in pro per, another client's case was dismissed after the statute of limitations ran in her case, and a third client had his case dismissed after attempting to terminate Osborne's services. In all three cases, Osborne ignored the letters of inquiry and other communications from State Bar investigators.

In aggravation, Osborne committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed the administration of justice in two cases, and significantly harmed a third client barred from pursuing her case after the statute of limitations had run.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and had no prior record of discipline.

--Barbara Kate Repa