|
JEFFREY J. WIEBE [#147834], 38, of
Hillsborough, N.C., was suspended for three years, stayed, placed
on four years of probation for an actual two-year suspension and was
ordered to prove his rehabilitation and take the MPRE. The order took
effect March 22, 2001.
Wiebe represented the plaintiff in a personal
injury matter. When the defendant died, he notified his client he
would make a claim against the defendant’s estate. Six months later,
without telling his client, he dismissed the lawsuit but noted that he
intended to pursue the matter as a creditor.
He then missed the statutory deadline for filing
a complete claim, but did not tell the client about his neglect.
Wiebe was convicted of five misdemeanors in
Alameda County, including a DUI, driving with a suspended license,
leaving the scene of an accident and resisting peace officers. He
stipulated that his conduct involved moral turpitude.
He was placed on interim suspension as a result
of the convictions, but failed to comply with a rule 955 order that he
file with the Supreme Court an affidavit stating that he had notified
his clients and other pertinent parties of his suspension from
practice.
Wiebe also was disciplined in 1999 but did not
comply with probation conditions — he failed to submit two quarterly
probation reports, an office organization plan or proof of attendance
at eight anti-substance abuse meetings. That discipline extended his
probation from a 1995 order which resulted from representing adverse
interests and failing to deposit client funds in a trust account or
promptly pay out client funds.
THOMAS GLEN HAHN [#55041], 54, of Newport
Beach was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years
of probation with an actual nine month suspension, and was ordered to
prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE within one year and comply
with rule 955. The order took effect March 28, 2001.
Hahn stipulated that he failed to comply with
rule 955 by filing a required affidavit late. He also did not complete
ethics school. Both requirements were part of a 1999 disciplinary
order imposed for Hahn’s failure to deposit client funds in a trust
account, keep complete records of client funds, promptly pay out
client funds or return client phone calls, and for committing acts of
moral turpitude.
In mitigation, a physician submitted a report
that Hahn’s failure to file the affidavit on time may have been the
result of his significant depression. He also demonstrated remorse and
cooperated with the bar’s investigation.
GREGORY CHARLES HORN [#66234], 53, of
Calabasas was suspended for five years, stayed, actually suspended
for three years and until he makes restitution, proves his
rehabilitation and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate
his suspension, and he was ordered to comply with rule 955. The order
took effect March 28, 2001.
Horn’s misconduct occurred during a period of
time when he maintained a business relationship with Professional
Account Services Corp. (PASC), a company with offices in Woodland
Hills. Horn authorized PASC to use his name in advertisements for
legal services and he agreed to provide representation to clients who
responded to the ads. He paid the company a monthly fee and allowed it
to communicate with clients, bill them and collect fees.
PASC corresponded with clients using letterhead
that used the Woodland Hills address as Horn’s law office address,
even though he maintained his office in Calabasas.
In four separate matters, Horn was retained to
seek an early release from incarceration for clients in county jails.
Three paid a $1,000 advance fee and the fourth paid $750. Horn did not
contact any of the clients or take any action to obtain their release
from jail, did not return numerous phone calls and letters from the
clients and did not refund the unearned fees.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court
found that Horn failed to perform legal services competently,
communicate with clients, refund unearned fees in all four cases, and
he did not release client property in one of the matters.
Horn also was disciplined in 1998 for failing to
place client funds in a trust account and failing to promptly pay
settlement funds to a doctor at the client’s request.
DOUGLAS BRIAN KANE [#92752], 51, of Santa
Maria was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years
of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to
prove his rehabilitation and take the MPRE within one year. Credit was
given for an interim suspension which began May 30, 2000, and he has
returned to active status. The new order took effect March 28, 2001.
Kane was convicted in March 2000 of possession of
methamphetamine. He was arrested when police served a narcotics search
warrant and found in his pants pockets three plastic baggies
containing about four grams of methamphetamine.
In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s
investigation.
DANIEL D. McLEOD [#127210], 42, of Carmel
was suspended for 90 days, stayed, placed on three years of probation
and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took
effect March 28, 2001.
McLeod stipulated that he failed to perform legal
services competently in one case and misused his trust account in
another matter.
He represented three family members who paid him
$3,500 to handle an appeal from a consent judgment in a long-running
boundary and land use dispute. He did not substitute into the case,
but prepared a notice of appeal showing his clients in propria
persona, and gave the notice to the clients to file. The court clerk
asked the family to file a statement of the nature of the case and the
issues on appeal; the clients forwarded the request to McLeod, who did
not file the statement. As a result, the case was dismissed.
Although McLeod said he would move to set aside
the dismissal, he did not do so. However, he did represent the family
in settlement negotiations for three months. The clients eventually
hired a new attorney and decided not to pursue the appeal.
In the second matter, McLeod wrote 24 checks for
personal purposes against his client trust account and wrote one check
against insufficient funds.
In mitigation, no clients were harmed by
McLeod’s actions and he has no record of prior discipline.
GENE MINDEL [#176828], 39, of Van Nuys was
suspended for six months, stayed, actually suspended for 30 days and
until he makes restitution and the State Bar Court grants a motion to
terminate his suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE. If the
actual suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 955; if it
exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took
effect March 28, 2001.
In a default proceeding, the bar court found that
Mindel failed to perform legal services competently, keep a client
informed about significant developments in a case, refund unearned
fees or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.
He was retained by a client who paid him $1,700
to represent him in a quiet title action. Mindel closed his office
without notifying the client or doing any work. The client had to hire
a new attorney and Mindel never refunded any part of the advance fee.
GARY JOSEPH NEAR [#45678], 61, of San
Francisco was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year
of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The
order took effect March 28, 2001.
Near stipulated to misconduct in two cases.
A client paid him $3,500 to represent her in a
civil matter. She requested a return of the fees two years later, and
Near agreed to pay her in three installments. He failed to make any of
the payments until after the bar got involved. He also did not keep
his address current with the bar and did not cooperate with the
bar’s investigation.
In the second matter, a client paid Near $2,500
to seek modification of a wage attachment order for child support
payments. Near says he concluded modification was not possible. About
a year later, the client met with Near because of the lack of progress
on the case and requested a return of his file and fees.
Near sent a check after the client complained to
the bar.
In mitigation, Near acted in good faith and he
ultimately refunded the entire fee to both clients.
KRYSTAL ROSE CLEMENS [#159525], 44, of Anaheim
Hills was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on probation
for two years and ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order
took effect April 1, 2001.
Clemens stipulated that she failed to return a
$3,000 advance fee to a dissatisfied client who terminated her
services, and she took more than six months to refund $450 in unused
costs.
She was hired to handle a divorce for a client
who instructed her to do no substantive work without his approval in
advance. When the client was served with divorce papers, he called
Clemens for a consultation and was told by a paralegal that another
attorney in the office decided an alternative path to the dissolution
would be appropriate.
When the client could not set up an appointment,
he fired Clemens and asked for a return of unearned fees and costs,
but was told the advance fee was nonrefundable.
Another attorney in the office contacted the
client, who said he had complained to the bar about Clemens but still
wanted her office to represent him since he could not afford new
counsel. The attorney said Clemens’ office would not represent him.
Clemens also was disciplined by the State Bar in
August 1996, receiving a public reproval for failing to perform with
competence in two client matters.
In mitigation, Clemens was candid and cooperative
during the bar’s investigation.
RICHARD WAYNE LINDSTROM [#107863], 58, of San
Marcos was suspended for one year, stayed, and actually suspended
for 90 days and until he files quarterly reports ordered in an earlier
disciplinary matter and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to
end the actual suspension. If the actual suspension exceeds two years,
he must prove his rehabilitation. Lindstrom also was ordered to take
the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect April 1,
2001.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court
found Lindstrom violated his probation by failing to file two
quarterly reports. He was placed on probation and ordered suspended
for 60 days in 1997 after he failed to communicate with his clients or
notify them when he moved his office. He withdrew from employment
without protecting one client’s interests and did not refund
unearned fees.
In another matter, Lindstrom filed for approval
of fees for substituted counsel in 17 unrelated bankruptcy cases. When
he failed to appear at a hearing, however, he was sanctioned $500 for
each case, totaling $8,500. He never paid the sanctions.
PETER HOWE BLUNT [#153392], 55, of Sausalito
was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on probation for one year
and actually suspended for six months. He also was ordered to comply
with rule 955. The order took effect April 6, 2001.
Last year, Blunt received probation with a
six-month actual suspension and was ordered to prove his
rehabilitation, take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule
955. But the State Bar Court found he violated the terms of probation
by failing to file an affidavit showing compliance with 955.
Blunt was suspended by the Colorado Supreme Court
in 1998 for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice, engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s
fitness to practice, and for knowingly disobeying an obligation under
the rules of a tribunal.
Because his misconduct would warrant discipline
in California had it been committed in this state, he was disciplined
in California.
Blunt was found in contempt in Colorado for
breaching various court orders in a lawsuit filed against him in
connection with a real estate partnership, for failing to appear, and
for “repeated and intentional” interference with a liquidator in
his attempts to sell property.
In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s
investigation.
The probation of DAVID RAMIREZ DeQUIT
[#178841], 37, of Olangapo City, The Philippines, was revoked, the
stay of suspension lifted and he was actually suspended for six months
and was ordered to comply with rule 955. Credit toward the actual
suspension will be given for a period of involuntary inactive
enrollment which began Nov. 24, 2000. The order took effect April 6,
2001.
The State Bar Court found DeQuit violated his
July 1999 probation by failing to file quarterly reports, make
restitution, take the MPRE and submit proof of attending ethics
school.
That discipline was imposed in a default
proceeding, in which the bar court found DeQuit failed to perform
legal services competently in a marriage nullification. He failed to
prepare and file necessary papers, and when he went to the Philippines
on a business trip, he told his client he had given the file to
another attorney.
Although he arranged for the other lawyer to make
a court appearance for the client, DeQuit did not employ him to
perform any other services.
DeQuit never filed substitution of attorney
papers and abandoned his client. He did not refund unearned fees.
PATRICK B. KELLY [#55800], 59, of Oceanside
was suspended for two years and until he pays restitution to two
clients totaling $5,500. He also was ordered to comply with rule 955.
The order took effect April 6, 2001.
Kelly violated probation stemming from a 1997
suspension: he filed quarterly probation reports and mental health
reports late, completed ethics school late and did not file proof of
completion of law office management courses on time.
The underlying discipline was the result of
misconduct in two client matters. In one instance, he failed to
competently perform services when he neglected to timely comply with
appropriate government claim-filing procedures for a client who
received injuries at a southern California university. The civil
action was dismissed as a result of Kelly’s failure to comply with
those procedures by the required deadline.
In another matter, Kelly was hired by a client
and her son to file an appeal of a criminal conviction of the son’s
daughter. Kelly failed to take any post-conviction action on behalf of
the daughter.
Kelly was previously disciplined four times by
the State Bar.
KEVIN JOSEPH FRANK [#119102], 42, of Carson was
suspended for one year, stayed, placed on probation for two years,
actually suspended for 30 days and ordered to take the MPRE within one
year. The order took effect April 13, 2001.
Frank stipulated that he mishandled a civil
matter by filing deficient answers to allegations in a complaint about
his client over a period of three months. He did not appear at a
hearing on a motion to strike, nor did he oppose the motion. The
opposing attorney also served a request for admissions on Frank in the
same case, but he did not respond.
The other attorney requested sanctions of
$3,325.70 and $1,266.10 for Frank’s actions in both matters. Frank
eventually was ordered to pay sanctions totaling $1,046 but never did
so.
In mitigation, Frank cited severe financial
stress connected to the theft of his wallet and his handling of a
chaotic criminal case. He had no prior record of discipline and
cooperated with the bar’s investigation.
MARC SEAN HARVEY [#115689], 41, of Costa Mesa
was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on probation for four
years, and actually suspended for 18 months and until he has shown
proof of rehabilitation, fitness to practice and learning and ability
in general law. He also was ordered to take the MPRE, comply with rule
955, abstain from alcohol and narcotics, and attend at least 15
substance abuse meetings per month. The order took effect April 13,
2001.
Harvey stipulated that he was convicted of
charges stemming from a cocaine-induced incident in July 1998. He
entered several homes as he wandered a residential neighborhood at
night and in the early morning, surprising and upsetting residents. No
one was harmed and no property was taken.
He was found guilty in criminal court of three
counts of trespass with intent to injure property rights, two counts
of unauthorized entry into a noncommercial dwelling without consent,
two counts of disorderly conduct and loitering on private property,
and one count of possessing drug paraphernalia.
He was sentenced to three years of probation.
While on probation in 1999 for that matter, he
was charged in Los Angeles with possession of cocaine and possession
of a device for smoking a controlled substance. He failed to appear at
a hearing on the charges and a $100,000 bench warrant was issued for
his arrest. Six weeks later, Harvey was arrested again for cocaine
possession and police had to use force to arrest him.
He pleaded guilty to two counts of felony
possession of cocaine and was placed on three years of probation.
Harvey also stipulated that he was charged last
year in Ventura County with felony cocaine possession and two
misdemeanors: being under the influence of cocaine and possessing a
smoking device.
He has been suspended from practice since Sept.
27, 1999.
In mitigation, Harvey lives in a residential drug
and alcohol recovery home and is enrolled in a variety of counseling
programs. He was not practicing law at the time of the misconduct, he
had family problems, cooperated with the bar’s investigation and
presented many references attesting to his good character.
JOHN J. KOZLOWSKI [#146169], 52, of Santa Rosa
was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for 90 days
and placed on probation for two years. He also was ordered to take the
MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect
April 13, 2001.
Kozlowski’s misconduct stems from five client
matters. One client was ordered deported after Kozlowski did not
notify him of a hearing date, despite repeated phone calls the client
made seeking case updates. Another client’s immigration application
for permanent status was denied after Kozlowski failed to file it,
extend the deadline or notify the client of the problem.
A third case was dismissed when Kozlowski failed
to appear at hearings. When the client learned of the dismissal,
Kozlowski assured her he would have it set aside. But he did not
return the client’s subsequent phone calls and did not proceed with
the case.
In the other cases, Kozlowski failed to respond
to a motion for summary judgment, resulting in a ruling in favor of
the opposing party, and a client was sanctioned after Kozlowski failed
to respond to a motion to expunge.
In mitigation, Kozlowski had no prior record of
discipline and cooperated with the bar’s investigation.
CHARLES G. LESTER [#160084], 47, of Covina
was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on probation for five
years, and actually suspended for three years and until he shows proof
of rehabilitation, fitness to practice and learning and ability in
general law. He also was ordered to take the MPRE during the
suspension period and to comply with rule 955. The order took effect
April 13, 2001.
Lester stipulated to convictions stemming from
three separate criminal cases. In August 1999, he struck a man in the
face during an altercation in a motel. After he was arrested, Lester
interrupted his conversation with police several times to speak to an
imaginary person named Carlos. He admitted to being under the severe
influence of drugs at the time. He was convicted of misdemeanor
battery and received a suspended sentence of one year in jail. He is
currently in a live-in drug treatment program.
In March 2000, Lester was arrested for being
under the influence of a controlled substance after opening the doors
of cars parked at a gas station while mumbling and acting strangely.
He was taken to jail, where he spoke to jail-cell bars as if they were
people. He pleaded no contest and received a sentence concurrent with
that of the battery conviction.
In August 1999, Lester was arrested for driving
under the influence of a controlled substance after driving
erratically and crashing into a rock planter. He pleaded no contest
and received a sentence concurrent with the other two convictions.
In aggravation, Lester was disciplined in October
1998.
Other aggravating factors include causing harm to
the public by battering a person and driving drunk, and showing a
pattern of misconduct.
In mitigation, Lester cooperated with the bar’s
investigation, including agreeing to be put on inactive status.
DEREK ALDEN NGUYEN [#163138], 34, of Millcreek,
Wash., was suspended for three years, stayed, and placed on
probation for four years and until he makes restitution and shows
proof of rehabilitation, fitness to practice and learning and ability
in general law. He also was ordered to take the MPRE during the
suspension period and comply with rule 955. The order took effect
April 13, 2001.
Nguyen stipulated that he violated the terms of
probation for a 1998 disciplinary matter, including failure to obtain
psychiatric counseling, file five quarterly reports, make restitution
to a client, submit proof of attending ethics school or completing
MCLE hours. He also did not notify the bar of a change of address.
The underlying discipline was the result of
misappropriating $12,000 in settlement proceeds in a personal injury
case after he forged the client’s signature on the settlement check.
The client’s share of the settlement was $8,000.
In mitigation, Nguyen is seeing a psychiatrist
and had not yet resolved the emotional and mental issues that led to
the original discipline. He also experienced financial difficulties,
including filing for bankruptcy.
DARNEL A. PARKER [#135739], 40, of La Quinta
was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on probation and actually
suspended for 120 days. He also was ordered to take the MPRE within
one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect April 13,
2001.
Parker did not comply with the probation
requirements of a 1998 probation revocation, which was issued because
of his non-compliance with a 1995 disciplinary order.
The underlying discipline was a 1993 conviction
for drunk driving and giving false information to a police officer.
VLADIMIR VERHOVSKOY [#97039], 55, of San Diego
was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on probation for two years
and actually suspended for 60 days. He also was ordered to take the
MPRE within one year. The order took effect April 13, 2001.
Verhovskoy stipulated to misconduct in four
consolidated matters, all involving negligence in managing his client
trust account. Between June 1998 and January 2000, he issued seven
checks drawn from the account against insufficient funds.
In 1999, he commingled personal funds in the
client trust account, issuing checks drawn from the account to pay
expenses for his law office.
Verhovsky also was disciplined in 1992 for
failure to perform competently or promptly return fees, and for
failing to comply with conditions of an agreement reached in lieu of
discipline.
In mitigation, Verhovsky cooperated with the
bar’s investigation and volunteered
information about the commingling of funds. He acknowledged his
conduct was wrong and has shown willingness to work with the bar in
resolving the matter. No clients were harmed or funds misappropriated.
LEO BENSON WILKES [#114253], 46, of Mountain
View was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on probation for
two years and actually suspended for 30 days. He also was required to
take the MPRE within one year and make restitution. The order took
effect April 13, 2001.
Wilkes stipulated that he failed to perform with
competence in handling a federal race and age discrimination lawsuit
he filed in 1998 on behalf of four clients. He became overwhelmed by
the complexity and demands of the employment case and failed to meet
discovery deadlines, which resulted in more than $11,000 in sanctions.
He persuaded his clients to stipulate to dismissing the case in
exchange for a waiver of the sanctions against them.
Wilkes also failed to keep his clients informed
of developments in the case for almost a year.
In mitigation, Wilkes was suffering from
emotional difficulties and severe financial stress. Even before the
bar intervened, Wilkes offered to refund his clients’ advance fees.
Wilkes was privately reproved in 1996 for failure
to perform competently or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.
TRACY L. WILLIAMS [#161265], 37, of Vallejo
was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for 60 days and
until she makes restitution, and was ordered to take the MPRE. If the
actual suspension exceeds 90 days, she must comply with rule 955; if
it exceeds two years, she must prove her rehabilitation. The order
took effect April 13, 2001.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court
found Williams committed seven acts of misconduct.
She failed to file a bankruptcy proceeding for
one client for 14 months, and did not return the client’s many phone
calls or refund any of her advance fee.
Another client paid Williams $300 to complete a
client’s patent application. Time was of the essence — the
deadline was 60 days later — but Williams did not file the papers,
request a time extension or return her client’s phone calls. Five
days before the deadline, the client fired Williams and retrieved his
file. He later asked for a refund and an accounting, but Williams did
not provide either. |
