November 2026

DISBARMENT

Kenneth R. Bergquist

State Bar #118846, Walnut Creek (September 25, 2026)

Bergquist was disbarred by default after failing to participate, either in person or through counsel, in the disciplinary proceeding in which he was charged with numerous counts of professional misconduct.

The State Bar Court determined that all procedural requirements, including adequate notice, had been met in the case, that there was an adequate factual basis for imposing discipline and that Bergquist did not respond to the petition for disbarment--nor did he move to have it set aside or vacated.

He was found culpable of 13 of the 14 counts of misconduct originally charged. His wrongdoing included: accepting fees from a non-client without securing the client's prior written consent, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, failing to perform legal services with diligence, failing to promptly pay a client funds due to her, failing to promptly render an accounting of client funds, failing to inform a client of significant case developments, and improperly withdrawing from representation. He was also culpable of two counts each of failing to notify clients of funds received on their behalf, failing to deposit client funds in a trust account, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigations of the wrongdoing alleged.

Yury Galperin

State Bar #232305, Los Angeles (September 4, 2026)

Galperin was disbarred by default. He filed a response to the charges of misconduct and attended the initial status conference and a settlement conference in the case, but despite receiving actual notice, failed to appear at trial.

The State Bar Court determined that he did not seek to have the default subsequently entered against him set aside or vacated.

As a result, the factual allegations in the charges were deemed admitted without further proof to determine their truth. Galperin was found culpable of 24 of the 30 counts of misconduct originally charged--all related to three distinct client cases.

His wrongdoing included: failing to release a client's files after terminating employment; two counts of failing to communicate significant case and representation developments to a client; and three counts each of failing to perform legal services with diligence, failing to deposit client funds in a trust account, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, failing to promptly render accountings of client funds, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigations of the wrongdoing alleged.

An additional six counts involved moral turpitude: three of misappropriating client funds and three of making material misrepresentations to clients.

There was one additional disciplinary matter and six disciplinary investigations pending against Galperin at the time he was disbarred in the current case.

Hannah June Robinson

State Bar #304481, Lawrence, Kansas (September 4, 2026)

Robinson, who was charged with three counts of professional misconduct, was disbarred by default. She did not file a response to the charges, nor did she participate in the disciplinary proceeding in the matter, despite having adequate legal notice. The State Bar Court also determined that Robinson did not move to have the default ultimately entered against her set aside or vacated.

As a result, the factual allegations in the charges were deemed admitted, and the State Bar Court determined that Robinson's actions warranted imposing discipline. She was found culpable of three counts of failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigations of three separate cases alleging misconduct.

SUSPENSION

David Jonathan Cohen

State Bar #145748, Dublin (September 25, 2026)

Cohen was suspended from practicing law for 120 days and placed on probation after entering a plea of nolo contendere to eight counts of professional misconduct. An additional 18 counts originally charged against him were dismissed.

Cohen was deemed culpable of failing to disclose potential conflicts and accepting payment for fees from a third party--both without obtaining prior written consent from the clients and failing to keep his client reasonably informed of significant case developments, as well as five counts of failing to maintain client funds in trust.

In one of the underlying matters, Cohen and his firm were retained to defend an individual charged with 50 felony counts of criminal conduct--including human trafficking, grand theft, rape, insurance fraud, and tax evasion--and to represent him in a related civil matter stemming from the government's seizure of $2.8 million in assets placed with a receiver to create a restitution fund for the victims alleged to have been harmed.

The fee agreement in the representation included a retainer of $60,000 to be billed against at an hourly rate, with an additional specification that once the retainer dropped below $5,000, Cohen and his firm would "ask for an additional $50,000 to replenish it."

Three months after their agreement was in place, the Rules of Professional Conduct were changed to require that clients must sign a written agreement authorizing before advanced fees paid for representation in criminal and civil matters could be deposited in an attorney's operating account.

The client's wife notified Cohen that she would be moving out of her home--and she later stated that she had not received the invoices totaling approximately $651,500 that Cohen had sent to the former address; Cohen disputes that assertion.

While representing the defendant, Cohen also accepted appointment as successor trustee of the client's living trust, without disclosing potential conflicts in the arrangement--including the interest in approving and paying legal expenses incurred. Two years after being retained, Cohen emailed the client's wife--including a complete bill for services rendered to that date. The two then discussed the difficulty in financing the defense.

Cohen eventually moved to withdraw as counsel and be appointed as Harris counsel--at public expense and at a lower rate than what could be charged for other firm matters. During the Harris hearing, Cohen indicated that the fees incurred and paid totaled $601,173.55. The court granted Cohen's motion to withdraw as counsel, but denied his motion to be appointed as Harris counsel. In a subsequent fee arbitration, the panel found the fees charged to be reasonable and necessary to defend the matter at hand. The client rejected the arbitration decision and sued Cohen and others, but the court granted summary judgment in their favor.

In a separate and unrelated case consolidated here, Cohen undertook representation of a client seeking habeas corpus--accepting a fee for legal fees from the client's sister without first obtaining the client's written consent.

In aggravation, Cohen committed multiple acts of misconduct.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for more than 30 years, and submitted letters from seven individuals--all of whom attested to his good character.

John Robert Conwell

State Bar #92129, San Bruno (September 4, 2026)

Conwell was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing two acts of professional misconduct involving a single client over the course of two years: failing to perform legal services with diligence and failing to keep the client informed of significant case developments.

In the case at issue, Conwell represented a client in a defense and countersuit of a civil action. He filed a complaint, which was answered by a cross-complaint. Though Conwell served responses to the interrogatories and request for admission of facts, he failed to serve responses to the related interrogatories and requests for production of documents. In various correspondences to plaintiff's counsel and to the court, Conwell admitted that his failure to respond was "entirely his fault," as he had the required information and documents to prepare them. He admitted that he had not informed his client of the pending requests and emphasized that the client was not at fault.

The court ultimately entered judgment of $180,993 against Conwell's client, and granted the opposition's motion for attorney's fees in the amount of $92,731.50. The client discovered the monetary judgment against her when a lien was placed on her home.

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

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law for approximately 38 years without a record of discipline.

Richard Brian Fox

State Bar #283447, Campbell (September 4, 2026)

Fox was suspended for two years and placed on probation for three years after being found culpable of two acts of professional misconduct related to a family trust: failing to comply with the law, and breaching his fiduciary duties by overreaching--wrongdoing involving moral turpitude.

Fox became the sole trustee of his father's trust, which was amended several times. Most significantly, it provided that Fox would become the sole trustee upon his father's death, and provided that a portion of the trust assets were to pass to the brother's trust rather than to him as an individual.

The brother's trust named Fox as sole trustee, but not a beneficiary. The trust assets were earmarked for care for the brother, who had developmental issues throughout life; any remaining funds were to pass to a designated nonprofit foundation established in the brother's name to benefit children with disabilities.

The brother eventually moved to California, where Fox--who is a doctor in addition to an attorney--helped provide him with care. Fox paid his wife for her services when she pitched in, and the father paid Fox $6,000 monthly until his death. Six months later, the brother was hospitalized in intensive care, with a poor prognosis for recovery. Fox then drafted an amendment to his brother's trust that diverted half of the assets earmarked for the designated snonprofit to Fox and his son, and also provided that assets received from the father's trust would be distributed directly to Fox rather than the foundation. (Funds from the father's trust had not yet been disbursed to the brother's trust.)

The brother executed the trust amendment while in the ICU--though Fox acknowledged that the brother lacked testamentary capacity at the time. The signing was witnessed by a doctor who was Fox's friend--who later testified he "spent little time reviewing the document," signed it "as a favor" to help "get the legal stuff done" and had not seen the brother sign it. The brother died less than a week later.

Two legal actions were then filed against Fox. The first, filed in Minnesota by the foundation and a third brother, sought to remove Fox as trustee and to restrain him from moving trust assets. The Minnesota Court of Appeals ultimately determined that Fox was not entitled to distributions from the trust--and ordered summary judgment against him.

The second action was filed in California by the foundation and Fox's niece and nephew, who were beneficiaries of the brother's trust. They sought to bar Fox from acting as trustee, to appoint an independent successor trustee, and to determine whether Fox committed financial elder abuse. Just prior to trial in that case, Fox filed an admission of facts admitting that the trust amendment was invalid due to the brother's lack of capacity, but claiming that the entire trust was unenforceable. The court on appeal ultimately affirmed the decision that Fox had committed financial elder abuse and exercised undue influence over his brother, and was precluded from asserting that the underlying trust was invalid. The superior court ordered Fox to pay $25,013 in attorney's fees.

In aggravation, Fox showed indifference toward rectifying the consequences of his misconduct--the weight tempered to a moderate degree due to his acknowledgment of undue influence. He also received limited aggravating weight for committing multiple acts of wrongdoing, as the court considered misdeeds of overreaching beyond that included in the pleadings.

In recommending that Fox be actually suspended for two years, the State Bar Court underscored: "His misconduct is troubling as he acted in capacities that should involve trust--family member attorney physician and trustee" and it noted that the recommended discipline was fitting "given the malefactions of Fox's limited appreciation of an attorney's responsibility to uphold fiduciary duties."

Kara S. Holtz

State Bar #255881, Mazatlan, Mexico (September 25, 2026)

Holtz was suspended from the practice of law for one year and placed on probation for two years. She was found culpable of committing 11 acts of professional misconduct related to four separate client cases.

Her wrongdoing included: entering into a prohibited fee arrangement, failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, failing to promptly return client files after being requested to do so, failing to inform a client of significant case developments, failing to render an accounting of client funds, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged; two counts of failing to promptly refund unearned fees; and three counts of failing to deposit client funds in a trust account.

In one matter, Holtz was retained to represent a client in a divorce proceeding. The fee agreement she tendered provided that the client would pay a $10,000 nonrefundable "retainer" fee as well as additional payments of $10,010 to cover hourly fees. Holtz did not deposit any of the funds received into a client trust account. The client eventually retained new counsel and requested a refund of $5,000 designated for a forensic accountant who was never hired, as well as all unearned fees. After he repeated the request, Holtz promised to review her billing records and overnight a check to him, but he failed to do so. A year later after the State Bar began an investigation in the matter, she paid the client the funds due.

In a second matter, Holtz was hired to set aside a marriage agreement the client had entered earlier. However, Holtz failed to take several actions to accomplish the goal of revocation--including failing to file a motion to set aside the settlement or to file an opposition to a request to enforce it. In addition, she failed to inform the client that the judge had entered a tentative ruling granting enforcement of the underlying settlement agreement or to inform her of the order to pay the amount specified in the agreement, to pay sanctions imposed, and to personally appear at a hearing in the matter--all of which were deemed significant case developments.

In a third matter, Holtz undertook representation of a client in a divorce proceeding--accepting a payment of $13,750, which she did not deposit in a client trust account. The client subsequently terminated the representation, claiming there had been "no progress" in the case in approximately six months; she also requested a refund of the fees paid. Holtz failed to comply with two requests made by new counsel to release the client's file. In a belated response to the State Bar's request for information, Holtz tendered 800 pages of documents--only two of which were germane to the case. Citing an ambiguity in the amount of unearned fees, the State Bar Court recommended fee arbitration as a condition of probation in the matter.

And in a fourth case, Holtz was retained to represent a client in a divorce matter--accepting $12,500 in payment which she again did not deposit in a client trust account. Approximately eight months into the representation, the client expressed that she was "growing concerned" about her case and requested a billing statement, then terminated Holtz's services. Holtz failed to respond to repeated requests--made by the client and new counsel--for an accounting of the funds paid.

In aggravation, the court accorded Holtz moderate weight for committing multiple acts of misconduct, and for failing to make restitution--that weight reduced because the Office of Chief Trial Counsel did not establish the amount actually owed.

In mitigation, she had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 12 years, and was afforded limited weight for evidence from four character witnesses who were taken from a limited range (two former clients and two friends) and who demonstrated only a limited understanding of the allegations in the case.

John Warren Levine

State Bar #82295, Beverly Hills (September 25, 2026)

Levine was suspended for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing five acts of professional misconduct--all related to a single client matter.

He was culpable of disobeying a court order, improperly withdrawing from representation, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigation of the alleged wrongdoing, as well as two counts of failing to return unearned advanced fees and unexpended costs.

In the underlying matter, Levine was retained to prepare and file eviction notices against two of his client's tenants. He filed two unlawful detainer actions on the client's behalf, but then failed to serve the complaints on the defendants or to file proofs of service. The court subsequently issued orders to show cause regarding the failure to file proofs of service, but Levine did not appear at the related hearings, nor did he inform the client that the hearings were docketed. After the court dismissed both actions filed on the client's behalf, Levine failed to refund the unearned costs and unexpended fees the client had paid.

In aggravation, Levine committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law for approximately 43 years without a record of discipline.

Louisa Belle Pensanti

State Bar #200988, Sherman Oaks (September 18, 2026)

Pensanti was suspended from practicing law for one year and placed on probation for three years after an appeal in which the State Bar Court panel affirmed the recommendation of the hearing judge below.

She was found culpable of four counts of professional misconduct related to two client matters: failing to obey a court order, failing to report judicial sanctions imposed, making and charging an illegal fee, and accepting a few from a third party without obtaining the client's prior written consent.

In one of the matters at hand, Pensanti was retained to represent a client in a pending criminal matter. A settlement was negotiated and accepted in the case, though Pensanti failed to appear to enter the plea on the first day of scheduled trial as required--appearing instead in another case. She was sanctioned $1,000 for the failure to appear, but failed to report the sanction to the State Bar; she paid the sanction imposed only after the disciplinary action was initiated.

In the second case, Pensanti was retained to represent another client in a pending criminal matter. Their fee agreement provided that she would represent him through the pretrial phase for a flat fee of $1,000--with $4,100 as an initial deposit and $5,900 payable at a later date. The State Bar Court determined that the fee, repeatedly denominated as "nonrefundable," was not a true retainer, but actually a fee advanced for legal services. Pensanti also later stipulated that she received an additional $2,400 from the client's family members to expand the representation to include trial; however, she failed to obtain the client's written consent to do so.

In aggravation, Pensanti had two prior records of discipline and was given limited aggravating weight for committing multiple acts of misconduct.

In mitigation, she entered into a stipulation of facts establishing her culpability on all counts charged, and was allotted moderate mitigating weight for suffering from emotional difficulties during the time of the misconduct due to her husband's poor health and eventual death. She was also afforded limited weight, both for character letters submitted by 22 individuals--most of whom did not demonstrate knowledge of the full scope of the misconduct at issue, and for some evidence of performing pro bono work that lacked specific, quantifiable details.

Kyriacos Stavrou Tsircou

State Bar #209905, Calabasas (September 4, 2026)

Tsircou was suspended from the practice of law for 90 days and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing nine acts of professional misconduct--six rule violations and three statutory violations.

They included: failing to maintain client funds in a trust account, failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to represent a client with reasonable diligence, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, failing to return unearned advanced fees, failing to participate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged, and failing to inform the State Bar of his change of address within 90 days as well as two counts of commingling and mishandling funds in his client trust account.

In the client case at issue, Tsircou was hired to file a provisional patent for a startup company--accepting $5,000 in advanced fees, which he failed to deposit in a client trust account. He then requested needed technical information, which the client provided. However, Tsircou then did not respond to the client's inquiries about the filing, which was time-sensitive, nor did he file the provisional patent. The client then terminated Tsircou's services and requested a refund of the advanced fees paid. Despite numerous requests, Tsircou did not refund the payment until eight months after the State Bar began an investigation of the matter. He also failed to inform the State Bar that he had vacated the office listed on his official membership records.

In the trust account matter, the evidence showed that Tsircou made five transfers of personal funds into his client trust account during a 44-day period and also twice failed to remove funds earned as fees from that account during that same timeframe.

In aggravation, Tsircou committed multiple acts of misconduct and significantly harmed a client by failing to refund unearned fees for more than one year.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law for more than 23 years without a record of discipline.
Fernando Emmanuel Vargas

State Bar #302550, San Francisco (September 25, 2026)

Vargas was suspended from practicing law for six months and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing four acts of professional misconduct--all related to a single client case.

His misconduct included one count of failing to report court-imposed sanctions to the State Bar as required, as well as three counts of disobeying court orders.

In the underlying matter, Vargas undertook representation of a client in a worker's compensation case. He failed to appear at a trial hearing in the matter; instead, a non-attorney employee personally appeared. The judge requested the required documentation from Vargas, showing the applicant's express consent to the non-attorney representative at the hearing. Vargas claimed he had previously attempted to file the document online, then emailed the authorization, which the judge determined contained fraudulent dates and signatures.

The court then issued a notice of intent to impose sanctions and costs against Vargas; in response, he filed a petition to disqualify the judge, but failed to appear at the expedited notice of intent hearing. The court imposed sanctions of $2,250 against Vargas for his failure to appear--which he paid seven months after the due date. It also imposed an additional sanction of $2,500 in costs payable to opposing counsel, which he failed to pay. He did not report the sanctions imposed to the State Bar.

In aggravation, Vargas had a prior record of discipline, committed multiple acts of misconduct in the resent case, and demonstrated indifference toward rectifying the consequences of his misconduct by failing to pay the sanctions imposed.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

In recommending six months of actual suspension, the State Bar Court underscored the importance of the timing of disciplinary proceedings, noting that the misconduct in the present case occurred after Vargas was on notice of the charged misconduct in the prior case pending against him.

PROBATION

Philip C. Law

State Bar #221749 Los Angeles (September 4, 2026)

Law was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing three acts of professional misconduct related toa single client case.

He was culpable of failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, improperly withdrawing from employment, and failing to inform a client of significant case developments.

In the underlying matter, Law represented a client company in breach of contract and unlawful detainer cases. He filed requests for dismissals in both cases, but erroneously identified his plaintiff-client as the defendant, and also misidentified his affiliation when signing his own name on the dismissal form.

The court ultimately dismissed one case, but rejected the dismissal in the other, noting that "the plaintiff's counsel's signature is required."

The client filed a substitution of attorney in the case that remained, but failed to do so in the other case--and opposing counsel then filed a memorandum of costs and motion for attorney's fees totaling $36,966.61, and Law did not respond or file an opposition. Opposing counsel also explain to Law that he remained counsel of record in the case that was dismissed--responsible for post-dismissal proceedings, but Law did not act, nor did he inform the client. The court ultimately granted opposing counsel's request for fees, and the client ultimately secured new counsel. The court rejected the motion to set aside the order for payment of fees, noting that Law's belief that he was not counsel of record despite being informed otherwise was "inexcusable."

In aggravation, Law committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed his client, who was required to hire new counsel.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law for approximately 19 years without a record of discipline.

-- Barbara Kate Repa