May 2026

DISBARMENT

Gregory Bowen Byberg

State Bar #162874, Marina del Rey (March 21, 2026)

Byberg was disbarred after he stipulated to committing 28 acts of professional misconduct related to eight separate matters.

His wrongdoing included: practicing law while actually suspended from doing so, failing to promptly provide an accounting of client funds, failing to promptly refund unearned advanced fees, and failing to report judicial sanctions imposed against him to the State Bar as required. He was also culpable of two counts each of failing to obey court orders and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigations of the misconduct alleged, as well as six counts each of failing to maintain the required balance in his client trust account, and failing to promptly notify clients of funds received on their behalf.

An additional eight counts involved moral turpitude: two counts of making false and misleading statements to a client and to the State Bar, and six counts of misappropriating client funds.

Most of the client matters involved personal injury claims and followed a similar fact pattern: Byberg received his clients' settlement funds and deposited them into his client trust account--then caused the balance to dip to impermissible levels after effectively misappropriating the money. In most cases, he did not inform the clients that he had received settlement funds to which they were entitled. In one case, he falsely claimed to a client that her settlement funds were "awaiting clearing," and also falsely claimed to State Bar investigators that he had safely retained all of the client's funds in trust.

In another client case, Byberg failed to return advanced fees after the client terminated his services, and also failed to provide an accounting for the work he claimed to have provided.

And in a State Bar investigation matter, Byberg was suspended from practicing law due to his failure to comply with requirements of its Client Trust Account Protection Program. While suspended, he filed complaints and a proof of service of summons in three cases, then failed to provide the State Bar with the requested explanation of his alleged unauthorized practice of law.

In aggravation, Byberg had a prior record of discipline, committed multiple acts of misconduct in the present case that significantly harmed his clients by denying them compensation for their personal injuries, and failed to make restitution to four clients totaling $105,326.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation.

Kevin Hee Young Jang

State Bar #276784, Mexico (March 21, 2026)

Jang was disbarred. He was initially charged with 15 counts of professional misconduct, though the Office of Chief Trial Counsel moved to dismiss one of the counts at trial, which the court granted. The State Bar Court then found him culpable of 13 of the 14 remaining charges.

His wrongdoing included: maintaining an unjust action and failing to return unearned advanced fees; two counts of making intentional misrepresentations to the court and to the State Bar--acts involving moral turpitude; and three counts each of failing to render accountings of client funds, failing to deposit client funds in a trust account, and charging impermissible fees.

Jang was sole owner and operator of his law firm, mostly specializing in tax matters, but taking on some unlawful detainer cases as well. Over a 17-month period, he instigated unlawful detainer actions against 14 property owners--filing the initiating documents, but failing to serve the defendants, then tendering and filing fabricated proofs of service and requesting defaults, obtaining writs of possession--and eventually locking the tenants out of the properties.

After a judge declared that the alleged proofs of service in the matter were fraudulent, Jang switched to filing numerous additional fraudulent proofs of service using different names for the process servers. In all, he fabricated 33 proofs of service--and then, the court noted, also fabricated various stories to the court and to State Bar investigators to cover up his misconduct.

In another matter, Jang represented a client in an arbitration hearing, charging $2,000 denoted as a "non-refundable retainer," though it was not a true retainer. Jang accepted the payment, but did not deposit it in a client trust account. The client lost at the hearing, and claimed Jang "did nothing for her, was not prepared, and abandoned the arbitration by concluding it prematurely." The State Bar Court agreed that Jang did not complete the services he was hired to complete.

Two additional client cases also involved fees that Jang wrongly identified as "non-refundable," though they were not true retainers. Again, he failed to deposit the funds received into a client trust account, and failed to provide a suitable accounting for most of the funds paid.

In aggravation, Jang committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed numerous individuals, and demonstrated indifference and a lack of insight as to the effects of his wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he received limited weight for having practiced law for nearly 10 years without a record of discipline and for presenting letters and testimony by 15 individuals who attested to his good character, but who were not taken from a wide range in the community and did not express that they were aware of the full extent of the misconduct at issue. In addition, he was allotted moderate mitigating weight for having cooperated in the State Bar's investigation of his wrongdoing by admitting culpability to a number of violations--all of which were easily provable.

Charles Z. Stein

State Bar # 265361, North Hollywood (March 29, 2026)

Stein unsuccessfully appealed the hearing judge's recommendation of disbarment after finding him culpable of three of the four counts of misconduct arising from his duties as an escrow agent and paymaster for a COVID-19 vaccine transaction.

He was culpable of failing to maintain client funds in a trust account, failing to comply with the law by breaching his fiduciary duty, and intentionally misappropriating $6,725,000 in entrusted client funds--misconduct involving moral turpitude.

While working as an attorney, Stein was also involved in transactions involving personal protective equipment (PPE) and eventually entered a business arrangement in which he would act as escrow agent and paymaster for a company procuring COVID-19 vaccines that were manufactured in Belgium.

The arrangement included purchase and escrow agreements, and provided that the procuring company would deposit $12 million into Stein's trust account upon executing the purchase agreement and that he would disburse the funds only upon receiving certification from the parties involved that they had met their obligations under the agreement.

Many complications and negotiations among the numerous parties ensued. But the findings most relevant to this disciplinary matter are that Stein failed to maintain $6,725,000 of the escrow funds in his trust account as required, and made disbursements deemed to be in direct contravention of the controlling agreements--including an unauthorized payment to himself.

In addition, Stein concealed the status of the relevant funds from the parties to whom he owed a fiduciary duty, and misrepresented that he could not produce a requested confirmation of transferred funds "because he had processed the transaction online." He also refused to provide requested proof of the amount of funds remaining in his trust account. Private communications introduced at trial revealed that he had aligned his interest with one party to the transaction for his own financial gain--including the promise of being made "a millionaire" and having his law school debt paid off--a sum estimated at $400,000.

In aggravation, Stein committed multiple acts of misconduct that caused significant harm and also demonstrated indifference toward rectifying or atoning for the consequences of his wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he had practiced law for 15 years discipline-free--though the weight of that factor was limited because he failed to acknowledge the gravity of his wrongdoing. He was also allotted limited mitigating credit for stipulating to easily proven facts, and for experiencing emotional difficulties due to stress related to family matters. Substantial mitigating weight was given for trial testimony from eight witness and written declarations from 15 individuals--all of whom vouched for his good character and many of whom testified to his community service over a period of 15 years.

The State Bar Court began its opinion by noting: "This matter emphasizes that an attorney's duties are not limited to those found in the relationship of attorney and client," and underscored that "very serious discipline can be imposed" for violating such duties.

SUSPENSION

Mark Joseph Castro

State Bar #290132, Fresno (March 21, 2026)

Castro was suspended from practicing law for 60 days and placed on probation for two years after he successfully completed the conditions in the State Bar Court's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP).

Castro had earlier submitted a declaration to the court establishing a nexus between his mental health issues and the misconduct he committed. It involved wrongdoing in two client matters as well as mishandling his client trust account.

Specifically, he was culpable of failing to maintain client funds in a trust account, depositing personal funds in that account, paying personal expenses from his client trust account, failing to render a proper accounting, failing to perform legal services with competence, improperly withdrawing from employment, failing to keep a client informed of significant case developments, and three counts of failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged.

In aggravation, Castro committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed two clients: One case was dismissed; another client suffered adverse credit consequences after Castro failed to pay her medical providers.

In mitigation, he submitted evidence of performing community service and provided letters from 11 members of the general public attesting to his good character. He was given additional mitigating weight for completing the ADP.

Raul Benjamin Garcia

State Bar #131912, Redlands (March 29, 2026)

Garcia was suspended from the practice of law for 18 months--with credit given for approximately 22 months of inactive enrollment; he was also placed on probation for two years.

After two disciplinary matters against him were consolidated, Garcia sought to participate in the State Bar Court's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP), submitting evidence showing a nexus between his mental health issues and misconduct in the instant matter. Another notice of disciplinary charges was then filed against Garcia, and that matter was also referred for ADP evaluation. The three cases were consolidated.

As a condition of participating in the ADP, Garcia stipulated to being culpable of failing to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to his client, and failing to timely file a declaration of compliance as the court ordered when he was suspended (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.20), as well as two counts of failing to comply with conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary probation

In aggravation, Garcia had two prior records of discipline and committed multiple acts of misconduct in the present case.

In mitigation, the State Bar Court considered his successful completion of the ADP.

The court recommended that the lower level of discipline be imposed, as contained in the amended confidential statement, and also noted Garcia's cooperation during the disciplinary proceeding, as well as the facts that his misconduct was "somewhat limited," and only involved one client matter.

PROBATION

Gary Richard Carlin

State Bar #44945, Long Beach (March 6, 2026)

Carlin was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing five acts of professional misconduct.

He was culpable of: failing to perform legal services with diligence, disobeying a court order, failing to preserve written ledgers or reconciliations of client funds, and two counts of failing to maintain client funds in trust.

In one of the underlying matters, Carlin substituted into a case that had stalled for several years and had been compelled to arbitration. He attended a hearing on a notice to show cause at which the court directed the parties to "diligently work toward selecting an arbitrator and completing arbitration" before continuing the hearing for an additional five months. However, Carlin had still not agreed to an arbitrator or initiated arbitration by the specified date. The court then ordered counsel to file a joint status report and select an arbitrator by another date--about three months later. Opposing counsel mailed Carlin a letter proposing dates to meet and confer, but he failed to respond. Carlin did respond to a second letter, stating he had "illness and personal issues" and asked counsel to provide the names of two arbitrators. Counsel did so, but Carlin did not reply, nor did he file a status report as directed. An arbitrator was eventually selected, who granted the motion to dismiss the case--citing the fact it had been pending for more than five years.

In the second matter, a reportable action, Carlin received settlement funds in various client matters, and was required to hold them in trust until they could be properly disbursed. However, due to accounting errors, he made numerous erroneous disbursements, which also caused shortfalls in his client trust account. He subsequently replenished the funds and distributed the amounts due to the clients.

In aggravation, Carlin committed multiple acts of misconduct--some of which caused his client significant harm, and was given moderate aggravating weight for uncharged violations related to mishandling his client trust account.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law for approximately 50 years without a record of discipline, and was afforded moderate mitigating weight for letters written by 13 individuals who vouched for his good character, but were not aware of the full extent of his misconduct.

--Barbara Kate Repa