 |
 |
  |
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||
|
Caution! More than 196,000 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the same names. All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court documents and should be read carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers. Read the Discipline Key for an explanation of the different levels of disciplinary action. Use Attorney Search to check an attorney's official bar membership record. DISBARMENTS
SUSPENSION/PROBATION
DISBARMENTSCHARLES C. SIMON [#86470], 65, of Glendale was disbarred Oct. 26, 2006, and was ordered to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court. The State Bar Court found that Simon practiced law while suspended by hand-ling two cases, committed two acts of moral turpitude by doing so, failed to cooperate with the bar’s investigation and he did not comply with probation conditions attached to a 2004 disciplinary order. He was suspended and placed on probation by that order, but he did not submit a trust account reconciliation, four quarterly probation reports or proof that he completed ethics school and trust accounting school. The discipline was imposed for Simon’s failure to deposit client funds in a trust account or promptly pay out client funds. While suspended for one month during 2004, he handled two cases for clients, preparing and sending legal correspondence and documents that identified him as a lawyer. His conduct involved moral turpitude. In recommending Simon’s disbarment, Judge Richard Platel wrote, “The serious and unexplained nature of the misconduct, the lack of participation in these proceedings and the existence of a prior disciplinary record suggest that (Simon) is capable of future wrongdoing and raise concerns about his ability or willingness to comply with his ethical responsibilities.” KENNETH ELBERT CALKINS JR. [#102633], 75, of Glendale was disbarred Oct. 26, 2006, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. Calkins did not meet the requirements of a 2005 disciplinary order that he comply with rule 955 by notifying his clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his suspension from practice. Violation of rule 955 is grounds for disbarment. The discipline was imposed after Calkins stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients, refund unearned fees, return a client’s files or update his address with the state Bar, and he abandoned a client. His default was entered in the disbarment proceeding. JAMES L. RATHER [#102875], 53, of Irvine was disbarred Oct. 26, 2006, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. In a default proceeding in which Rather was charged with 26 counts of misconduct, the State Bar Court found he committed 12 acts of wrongdoing. In a bankruptcy case, the court found that Rather failed to perform legal services competently, refund $4,500 in unearned fees or return a client file. Rather filed a deficient bankruptcy petition and when he did not correct it within 15 days, it was dismissed. Rather was precluded from filing a second petition for 180 days. The client paid him $4,500, but he did not file a second petition or perform any services of value. In a tax audit matter, a client hired Rather to represent him before the IRS. He paid $1,500 and Rather said he would handle all meetings and communication with the IRS. However, he failed to appear before an examining officer and provided no legal services of value. The bar court found that he failed to refund unearned fees. The third matter involved a landlord/tenant dispute with respect to a business lease owned by Rather’s client, who paid $3,000 for representation. Rather did not respond to any of the client’s numerous phone calls, faxes or e-mails and did no legal work of any value. The bar court found that he improperly withdrew from the case. In another bankruptcy case, Rather failed to finalize a settlement agreement with his client or cooperate with the opposing counsel, did not respond to his client’s many voicemail messages and committed an act of moral turpitude by misappropriating $5,000 the client gave him to hold in trust and to use to pay taxes. Although Rather was disciplined in Tennessee for helping a non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law and sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer, the bar court declined to impose discipline because the judge said the record did not establish the nature and extent of Rather’s violations. WYNDELL JOHN WRIGHT [#127066], 45, of Los Angeles was disbarred Oct. 27, 2006, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Wright failed to comply with rule 955, as ordered in a 2005 discipline. He did not file with the Supreme Court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. In the underlying matter, Wright was disciplined for misconduct that involved three client matters, commingling client trust funds and issuing checks against insufficient funds. CHARLES C. McCARTHY [#20803], 84, of Encino was disbarred Nov. 9, 2006, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. The State Bar Court review department rejected a hearing judge’s recommendation that McCarthy be suspended for four years and placed on five years of probation for failing to comply with rule 955 and committing acts of moral turpitude by making misrepresentations in his quarterly probation reports, which he filed late. Instead, the review panel urged McCarthy’s disbarment for what it called his “classic, willful violation of rule 955.” McCarthy originally was disciplined in 2003 for misappropriating more than $20,000 from a partner in a limited partnership of which McCarthy was the general partner. Although the hearing judge in that matter urged his disbarment, the review department reduced the recommended discipline. When he was later charged with violating the terms of his probation and faced a bar court trial, McCarthy refused to participate and instructed his counsel to also not participate because he said the trial would take five days instead of the scheduled two days. He also invoked “fundamental constitutional questions of notice and opportunity to be heard.” The hearing judge rejected his arguments and proceeded with trial. The review department found that McCarthy’s probation violations were “willful and dishonest” and said his efforts to delay his trial were simply an attempt “to obstruct the disciplinary proceeding.” McCarthy’s “cavalier attitude toward the disciplinary system convinces us that (McCarthy) does not have the ability or willingness to conform to professional norms for the protection of the public and the administration of justice,” wrote Judge Madge Watai for the review panel. SHEILA ANN WHARTON [#52005], 59, of Los Angeles was disbarred Nov. 12, 2006, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. She failed to comply with rule 955, as ordered in a 2005 discipline. She did not file with the Supreme Court an affidavit stating that she notified her clients and other pertinent parties of her suspension. Wharton was suspended by the Supreme Court of Louisiana for committing 20 acts of misconduct in seven client matters. The State Bar Court in California found that she committed seven violations of California rules and statutes, including an act of moral turpitude and failures to perform legal services competently, communicate with a client, refund unearned fees or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. Wharton did not participate in the disbarment proceedings. GEORGE PARKER MILLS [#81041], 61, of Carlsbad was disbarred Nov. 12, 2006, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Mills committed nine acts of misconduct in two client matters. The first was a marriage dissolution in which Mills agreed with the opposing attorney to deposit the balance of funds received from the sale of the couple’s residence into a trust account maintained by Mills. No funds were to be disbursed without a court order. Mills deposited more than $64,000 into his trust account. He subsequently paid himself $17,000 in fees from the account without obtaining a court order. Mills later made several disbursements with court approval, including a check for almost $21,000 to the other attorney’s trust account that purported to represent half the money he held in trust. When the other lawyer asked for bank statements to verify the amount, Mills did not send her any statements. He knew, bar court Judge Robert M. Talcott found, that the other lawyer was not aware of the disbursement he had made without court approval. Mills was later suspended for non-payment of bar dues but continued to handle the case, appearing in court as attorney of record. Talcott found that Mills engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, collected an illegal fee, failed to maintain client funds in trust and committed three acts of moral turpitude. The second matter involved a property dispute between a client and his former wife. He appeared in court, filed legal documents and billed his client while suspended from practice. The bar court found that he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, charged an illegal fee and committed an act of moral turpitude. Mills was privately reproved in 2001 and again in 2003 for not complying with conditions of the reproval. In recommending Mills’ disbarment, Talcott said he “acted in bad faith by putting his self-interest before that of his client, the opposing party, as well as the superior court’s order and the legal process required to access the . . . entrusted funds. He took care of his own financial interest while disregarding the court’s order and the interest of others to whom he owed a fiduciary duty.” ANN TAYLOR GARRETT [#70923], 62, of Sacramento was disbarred Nov. 24, 2006, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. In a default matter involving three clients, the State Bar Court found that Garrett failed to obey a court order, communicate with a client, account for client funds, cooperate with the State Bar’s investigation or comply with rule 955, and she improperly withdrew from representation. In a divorce matter, Garrett submitted a proposed order and judgment of dissolution to the court, but it was returned as defective with instructions to resubmit a corrected order. She did not do so. In another divorce case, Garrett did some work but it “was of no value . . . as it did not advance the dissolution in any meaningful fashion,” the bar court found. She did not return the client’s many phone calls, account for or refund the $5,000 advance fee and she did not return the client’s file when he hired a new lawyer. Another client hired Garrett to handle two matters, a domestic relations dispute and a dispute over money. Although Garrett worked on one matter, she did not work on the other, and eventually stopped working on either case. She did not respond to the client’s demands for an accounting, a refund or her file. In a fourth matter, Garrett did not comply with a rule 955 order issued as part of a 2005 discipline. She did not file with the Supreme Court an affidavit stating that she had notified her clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of her suspension. The underlying discipline was imposed because Garrett failed to pay unearned fees, account for client funds, properly maintain client funds, return a client file or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. In addition, her probation in that case was revoked when Garrett failed to comply with probation requirements. In recommending her disbarment, Judge Joann Remke wrote that Garrett “has displayed total indifference and lack of remorse by ignoring her present disciplinary proceeding and her second disciplinary proceeding.” SUSPENSION/PROBATIONNICHOLAS FRANCIS COSCIA [#93248], 54, of Cardiff was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Oct. 26, 2006. Coscia pleaded guilty in 2005 to driving under the influence after he was arrested with a blood alcohol level of .21 percent. He also was convicted of DUI in 2002. Coscia was convicted of a federal conspiracy charge in 1997. In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation. MICHAEL EDWIN MANNING [#149757], 45, of Covina was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a four-month actual suspension and was ordered to comply with rule 955 and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Oct. 26, 2006. Manning practiced law while suspended in 2005, remaining attorney of record in a family law case. He did not notify his client of the suspension, failing to keep her informed of significant events in her case. His probation was revoked as a result of failing to submit five quarterly probation reports. He had been disciplined in 2003 for failing to respond to client inquiries, perform legal services competently or render an accounting to a client in settling an estate. MICHAEL F. GALLIGAN [#53572], 56, of San Mateo was suspended for one year, stayed, and was placed on three years of probation with a 120-day actual suspension. The order took effect Oct. 26, 2006. He did not comply with rule 955, as ordered in a 2004 discipline – he submitted the required affidavit to the Supreme Court 39 days late. Galligan was publicly reproved in 2002 for failing to perform legal services competently or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and in 2004 was disciplined for violating his probation by failing to submit two quarterly reports. In mitigation, he demonstrated remorse and good faith, was under severe financial stress and has undergone successful treatment for mental health problems. JOHN F. MORKEN [#153979], 42, of San Francisco was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Oct. 26, 2006. Morken was publicly reproved in 2005, but provided only one required alcohol or blood screening sample over a 10-month period. The samples were to be submitted monthly. The reproval was imposed after Morken was convicted of driving under the influence. In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation. THOMAS M. WITTE [#107542], 52, of Fair Oaks was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on four years of probation with an actual two-year suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE, comply with rule 955 and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Nov. 5, 2006. Witte stipulated to misconduct in three matters. He represented a client in a wrongful death action arising from the fatal shooting of her son. Witte was to receive 40 percent of all amounts recovered. Two liens were filed against any recovery, for money paid to the client through the victims assistance fund and for child support she owed. The matter settled for $22,500. Witte disbursed $3,000 to the client and resolved one lien but could not negotiate a reduction of the child support. He agreed to hold $8,000 in his trust account prior to resolving the liens. Over a two-year period, Witte made payments totaling $983.25 for the child support. Although the client says she provided a copy of a wage and earnings withholding order from her employer and that she instructed Witte to satisfy the family support lien, he claims he received neither the order nor her instructions. Instead, he made five payments to the client totaling $900. The client paid off the child support lien but later received a notice from the bankruptcy court that Witte declared bankruptcy, listed her as a creditor and characterized his $8,000 debt as a personal loan. After the client complained to the bar, Witte sent her a check for $8,000 that she did not cash. He ultimately paid her $8,694.16, which represented $6,116.75 in principal and $2,577.41 in interest. Witte stipulated that he failed to promptly pay or maintain client funds, he sought to mislead a judge and he misappropriated client funds, committing an act of moral turpitude. In a second matter, Witte substituted in to a case his client had filed against his brother involving a dissolution of a partnership and partition of real property. The first law firm had sued the client for attorney’s fees amounting to more than $51,000 and a court had given the firm the right to attach the client’s property. Witte was hired to handle both matters. He was to be paid $10,000 for the case against the client’s brother, to be paid upon sale of the property, and he agreed to accept half of any amount by which the client was able to reduce his bill from the first lawyer. The night before trial was to begin in the brothers’ matter, Witte demanded $15,000 instead of $10,000 because he had spent so much time on the case. The judge ordered that the partnership properties be sold and the proceeds divided between the brothers. A few months later, an arbitrator in the attorney fees matter awarded more than $39,000 to the lawyers. The client instructed Witte to work to remove the lawyers’ lien on the partnership property so he could pay them. The client fired Witte because he was dissatisfied with the way he handled the trial and because he increased his fee on short notice. Witte refused to substitute out of either case, asked to be allowed to negotiate with the other law firm to reduce the award and indicated he was entitled to more money. He then filed a notice of lien against the client on real estate proceeds, claiming the client owed him $25,000 in attorney fees. He filed a second lien later for his fee in the attorney fee case. Witte also rejected the arbitrator award of attorneys’ fees without the client’s authorization. He eventually sued his client and the other law firm for fees and argued at a hearing that he remained attorney of record for the client because he never signed a substitution form. When one of the defendants served a deposition subpoena on Witte, he tried to have the motion quashed and sought sanctions. The court denied his motion and ordered him to appear, but he failed to do so. The court found him guilty of contempt and sanctioned him $1,000. Witte stipulated that he failed to promptly release a client file, violated a court order, failed to support the law and appeared for a party without authority. In the final matter, Witte represented an administrator of an estate and in filing a document on his client’s behalf, made unfounded personal attacks on two women because they were women. He stipulated that he failed to maintain respect to the courts and judicial officers. In mitigation, Witte faced financial and family problems and he suffered emotional or physical difficulties. CHRISTINE LOUISE GARCIA [#209701], 32, of San Francisco was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 120-day actual suspension and was ordered to make restitution, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Nov. 5, 2006. Garcia stipulated to misconduct in three matters. In the first, she commingled personal and client funds in her client trust account and wrote checks against insufficient funds in the account. In another matter, Garcia admitted she maintained an unjust action by filing a lawsuit — and continuing to prosecute it — without investigating whether there was a legal basis for the case. Knowing her client and her client’s neighbor had a dispute over some trees and that her client detested the neighbor, Garcia sued the neighbor, claiming that he abducted two of her client’s cats. She pursued the case through a jury trial and then filed and partially pursued an appeal. There was little evidence the neighbor acted improperly. Among other things, Garcia:
Garcia and her client were sanctioned $77,720, but she didn’t report the sanction to the bar. Although Garcia had personal and financial conflicts of interest in appealing the case, she represented her client in connection with the neighbor’s successful attempts to satisfy the judgment. When the client ultimately wanted out of the case, the neighbor would not release her unless Garcia withdrew her appeal. The client ultimately released Garcia and had to satisfy the entire judgment for sanctions. Garcia contributed nothing toward the judgment. Both opposing counsel and Garcia’s client complained about her to the State Bar. She stipulated that she did not report the sanction, did not provide her client of written disclosure of her conflicts of interest in the appeal, committed an act of dishonesty and failed to perform legal services competently. In a parole revocation proceeding, Garcia’s client said he would accept a 12-month incarceration if he could be guaranteed placement in a drug treatment program. Without the client’s permission, Garcia purported to accept 11 months behind bars, without a drug treatment placement, by signing a form on her client’s behalf without his knowledge. She stipulated that she failed to perform legal services competently or keep a client informed of developments in his case. KENNETH BRYAN BROCK [#158311], 45, of Visalia was suspended for 18 months, stayed, placed on three years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Nov. 5, 2006. Brock stipulated to two counts of misconduct. He pleaded guilty in both 2005 and 2006 to misdemeanor DUIs, one with a prior and the other with two priors. The convictions do not involve moral turpitude but do warrant discipline. In mitigation, Brock has no prior record of discipline, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and he quickly pleaded guilty in both cases. PHIL MARTIN [#55100], 60, of San Francisco was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Nov. 6, 2006. Martin stipulated to four counts of misconduct, all involving his client trust account: he failed to maintain funds in trust by issuing checks against insufficient funds in the account and by issuing checks using funds belonging to other clients; he failed to deposit client funds in trust and he commingled personal and client money. The commingling involved more than 90 transactions. In mitigation, Martin has no previous record of discipline, no clients were harmed, he was under severe financial stress and he demonstrated good character and cooperated with the bar’s investigation. ELLEN MAFRED ROLLINS [#96626], 50, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on four years of probation and was ordered to prove her rehabilitation and take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Nov. 6, 2006. Rollins did not comply with probation conditions attached to a 2000 disciplinary order. She was required to make restitution to a former client and to the Client Security Fund. However, she failed to make any monthly payments to the client and did not pay the full amount to the CSF by the deadline. She ultimately made full payment. Rollins has been disciplined four times previously. In 1992, she was privately reproved following a conviction for driving without a license. Two years later, she was disciplined for failing to comply with probation conditions and for failing to provide competent legal representation to a client or refund unearned fees. She was disciplined in 1996 for violating probation and again in 2000 for failing to make restitution to the same client. In mitigation, she has continuing financial hardship, made good faith efforts to get a better job, she submitted quarterly probation reports and she cooperated with the bar’s investigation. ALAN VICTOR THALER [#101438], 51, of Fountain Valley was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Nov. 12, 2006. Thaler stipulated to misconduct in five matters, all involving commingling personal and client funds in his client trust account, which he used to pay office and personal expenses. In mitigation, he has no prior discipline record and he suffered both emotional and physical problems as a result of diabetes. While waiting to obtain new medical insurance, he had unexpected surgery and was left with a $40,000 medical bill. HAROLD T. ROSS [#58168], 61, of Thousand Oaks was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for 30 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the 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 Nov. 12, 2006. In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Ross committed four acts of misconduct: he failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients, return client files or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. He was hired to represent a couple in a personal injury matter but performed no work and did not respond to their voicemail messages. When they hired a new lawyer, Ross did not provide the clients’ file despite two requests. In mitigation, Ross has practiced without discipline for many years. STEVE I. KAPLAN [#71418], 57, of Manhattan Beach was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a nine-month actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE, comply with rule 955 and prove his rehabilitation. Credit toward the actual suspension was given for a period of interim suspension that began April 10, 2006. The order took effect Nov. 17, 2006. Kaplan stipulated to misconduct in three matters. In 1999, Kaplan’s real estate development company suffered financial setbacks and he dissolved the company, later filing for bankruptcy. He failed to pay bar dues and was not entitled to practice for 18 months. During that time, he was hired to handle an unlawful detainer action, but failed to follow through and a default judgment was entered against his client. Kaplan also did not respond to his client’s phone calls, so the client reported him to law enforcement. Kaplan was arrested and charged with grand theft and unlawful legal practice, both misdemeanors, to which he pleaded guilty. The client also sued him for malpractice, and Kaplan agreed to pay him more than $30,000, an amount he paid. He stipulated that the criminal conduct involved moral turpitude. In a second matter, Kaplan was to process documents with the city of Los Angeles to convert an apartment complex to condominiums. He was to notify the tenants of the conversion in writing as well as submit the conversion application to the city. The client provided $7,400 in checks payable to the city for the application fee and paid another $5,000 as his legal fee. After a year, when Kaplan had not filed anything or communicated with the client, the client complained to the State Bar. Kaplan apologized to the client and refunded his legal fee. In the third matter, Kaplan was retained to seek a variance from the city of Manhattan Beach regarding adjoining properties. He didn’t file the application or respond to his clients’ inquiries and after six months, he was fired. The clients received a fee refund and their file only after complaining to the bar. He stipulated in two matters that he failed to perform legal services competently, respond to his client’s status inquiries or refund unearned fees. In mitigation, Kaplan has no prior discipline record, he presented strong character references and he said his business and financial setbacks led to depression, for which he is treated intermittently. SERGIO A. WHITE [#146830], 43, of Anaheim was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on probation for two years and was ordered to take the MPRE and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Nov. 17, 2006. White stipulated to misconduct in two cases. He authorized creation of a misleading advertisement that was published in a Spanish-language newspaper. The ad said he had 20 years of experience when he had been in practice less than 15 years. In a divorce proceeding, White and the opposing counsel agreed the proceeds from the sale of the couple’s home would be held in an interest-bearing trust account until agreement by the parties or further order of the court. White held the money in his client trust account but did not provide opposing counsel with bank statements, despite three requests. The other lawyer filed a motion to compel production of the bank statements, but White did not appear at a hearing, where the judge ordered the money transferred to opposing counsel and set a hearing for sanctions against White. He gave the funds to the other lawyer, but did not appear at the sanctions hearing and was sanctioned $1,200. White appeared at a subsequent hearing to account for the proceeds of the sale of the residence; the court accepted the accounting and reduced the sanctions to $900. White stipulated that he violated a court order and failed to render accounts to a third party for whom he was a fiduciary. In mitigation, White has no prior discipline record and he cooperated with the bar and now teaches high school. ROSEMARY RODRIGUEZ [#64529], 61, of El Cajon was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on one year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Nov. 17, 2006. Rodriguez handled two legal matters while she was suspended for non-payment of bar dues. She also responded to an ad in a legal newspaper, representing herself in a cover letter and on her resume as an active attorney during a time when she was not entitled to practice. In mitigation, Rodriguez was overwhelmed by her children’s problems and allowed them to cloud her judgment. She worked for another lawyer and incorrectly believed she was essentially acting as a paralegal or law clerk and was not practicing law. She has no prior record of discipline, provided references of her good character and took steps to become active again. MARTIN TIMOTHY INKMANN [#208039], 40, of Redlands was suspended for three years, stayed, actually suspended for two years and until he makes restitution, the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension and he proves his rehabilitation, and he was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Nov. 24, 2006. The State Bar Court found that in four matters, Inkmann committed 11 acts of misconduct, including failure to perform legal services competently, release a client file, communicate with a client, return unearned fees, account for client funds, report judicial sanctions or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and he improperly withdrew from employment. In the first case, Inkmann was retained to sue San Bernardino County for damages and loss of property that was seized by the sheriff’s department. When the client’s property was released, he authorized Inkmann to file a claim for damages within 100 days. Inkmann did not do so, and the client filed the claim himself. The claim was denied, and the client had six months to file a civil suit. Inkmann did not do so, nor did he return the client’s phone calls. In another matter, Inkmann was retained to represent a couple’s son in a criminal matter. After filing a motion for a new trial that was denied, he did not file an appeal or prepare a habeas corpus petition despite his assurances that he would do so. When the court appointed a new lawyer to handle the appeal, Inkmann did not respond to her requests for the file. He told the clients he would appear at arbitration hearings against their former attorneys, which he originally had been hired to do, but he did not appear nor did he tell his clients that the hearing had been scheduled. Inkmann did not refund any portion of the clients’ $5,000 advance fee. In another criminal matter, Inkmann failed to appear at seven hearings or file any papers on his client’s behalf. The court ordered sanctions of $1,500, but he did not report the sanctions to the bar, as required. In the final matter, he appeared at three hearings for his client and filed a motion to reduce the man’s bail. The client fired Inkmann and sought an accounting of the $4,000 fee as well as a refund. Inkmann did not provide an accounting or a refund. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
