State Bar of California California Bar Journal
Home Page Official Publication of the State Bar of California September2004
Top Headlines
Opinion
MCLE Self-Study
Ethics Byte
Feature
You Need to Know
Trials Digest
Contact CBJ
PastIssues

Caution! Almost 180,000 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

DISBARMENTS

MARK L. WEBER [#207644], 43, of Torrance was disbarred May 8, 2004, and was ordered to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court recommended Weber’s disbarment after finding that he stole checks from his employer, forged his signature and altered already signed checks to make them payable to himself or others. His actions constituted moral turpitude.

Weber worked as an associate at the law offices of Christopher Dolan, who was the only signatory for his office’s general business account. While reviewing his account in 2001, Dolan discovered six checks, each written to a current client, that had been negotiated by Weber.

After initially denying he stole and wrote the checks, Weber admitted his actions. He denied his behavior was the result of substance abuse. He signed a statement acknowledging his wrongdoing and agreed to certain conditions, such as restitution and not handling any of the firm’s money, and Dolan gave him another chance.

Despite Dolan’s efforts to prevent Weber from taking any more checks, Weber later converted to his own use a check for $203, made out to Alameda Superior Court for filing fees. Dolan discovered that check and three others and again confronted Weber, who begged Dolan to give him another chance to redeem himself.

Weber again denied his actions were related to substance abuse, although he said his girlfriend had a drug problem.

Dolan agreed to give Weber one more chance and had money taken from his paycheck to make restitution.

About a month later, Dolan’s bookkeeper was notified by the office landlord that she had received a check for $5,800 for “back rent.” The bookkeeper said Weber told her Dolan had written the check for him, but it had been altered in at least four places and the bank refused to honor it. Dolan’s records indicated the check originally was written to a client’s lienholder, a hospital, for $2,800.

Dolan fired Weber, but allowed him to remain until he was replaced. Dolan warned all his employees to safeguard the firm’s checks.

Nevertheless, Weber obtained three blank checks that he made out to himself; each bore a forged version of Dolan’s signature. Weber was arrested and charged with grand theft, embezzlement and forgery.

Even after the arrest, Weber negotiated a check stolen from Dolan’s office, this time $275 from his client trust account.

Weber explained his conduct by saying he had bills to pay and he felt his $100,000-plus salary was inadequate and he deserved a raise. The 14 stolen or forged checks totaled more than $11,000.

In recommending Weber’s disbarment, State Bar Court Judge JoAnn Remke noted that he engaged in serious misconduct since his 2000 admission to the bar. “Not only did he steal from his employer but he disregarded the interests of clients and lienholders,” Remke wrote. “His employer gave him several opportunities to rehabilitate himself and he did not do so . . . He offered no explanation that might render disbarment inappropriate.”


CONSUELO T. ANCOG [#178642], 47, of Huntington Beach was disbarred May 14, 2004, and was ordered to comply with rule 955.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Ancog committed misconduct in two matters.

She did not comply with probation conditions attached to a 2001 discipline order, and she mishandled her client trust account, committing acts of moral turpitude.

The 2001 suspension was the result of failing to refund unearned fees or cooperate with the bar’s investigation and for allowing the balance in her trust account to fall below the required amount. Ancog did not comply with probation conditions — she did not file any quarterly probation reports or attend ethics school or client trust accounting school.

In the second matter, she deposited and withdrew funds from her client trust account that were unrelated to any clients, she commingled funds in the account and used it for personal and business expenses. She also wrote checks against insufficient funds in the account, committing acts of moral turpitude.

Ancog did not cooperate with the bar’s investigation.

In recommending Ancog’s disbarment, Judge Pat McElroy noted that her misconduct began four years after she became a lawyer. She said the first discipline “had no rehabilitative effect” and her failure to participate in the disbarment proceedings left the court “without an understanding as to the underlying cause or causes for (her) misconduct or from learning of any mitigating circumstances.”


RICHARD RALPH MURPHY [#28734], 75, of Susanville was disbarred May 14, 2004, and was ordered to comply with rule 955.

The Supreme Court denied Murphy’s request for review.

In July 2003, State Bar Court Judge Pat McElroy found that Murphy committed 26 acts of misconduct. In two cases, the trial court set aside convictions of Murphy’s clients, finding that he rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. He did not report the judgment reversals to the bar. He failed to perform competently in at least two other cases, McElroy said, and maintained an unjust action in another matter.

In addition, he has shown “a pattern of failing to appear at hearings, conferences and even trials on a timely basis,” said the judge. Murphy was found in contempt of court and sanctions were imposed, and he failed to report the sanctions to the bar.

In recommending Murphy’s disbarment, McElroy said he “has blamed virtually all of his problems upon the individual reaction of two local judges. He appears to take no responsibility for taking criminal cases where he does not possess the minimum expected degree of learning and competence.”


SUSPENSION/PROBATION

MEREDITH M. CHANG [#148986], 43, of Sacramento was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 150-day suspension and until he pays a $500 fine, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect April 11, 2004.

Although Chang reached a settlement with the State Bar, he failed to sign the stipulation and did not communicate further. The court approved the stipulation and the recommended discipline.

The misconduct involved four consolidated cases. Chang did not comply with conditions of a 2000 private reproval imposed for failure to perform legal services competently or respond to client inquiries and for improperly withdrawing from representation; he did not attend ethics school, take the MPRE or submit quarterly probation reports.

In a misdemeanor jury trial in which his client was convicted, Chang failed to appear at two hearings, pay a $500 fine, file an opening brief in his appeal of the conviction or seek relief from default when the appellate court served him with a notice of default.

Chang wrote at least 11 checks against his client trust account for personal and non-client expenses, made 165 transactions involving the trust account, using the funds for personal expenses, made ATM withdrawals or payments against insufficient funds, and allowed the balance to drop below zero.

Chang was placed on inactive status in 2002, but practiced law while not entitled by appearing in Yolo County Court on behalf of a criminal defendant.

Under the findings of the stipulation, Chang violated court orders, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and failed to perform legal services competently, properly maintain his client trust account or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.

In mitigation, Chang had family problems at the time of the misconduct.


CAROLYN S. JANZEN [#102998], 55, of El Centro was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within a year. The order took effect April 11, 2004.

Janzen stipulated that she wrote checks against her client trust account for personal or business expenses, maintained personal funds in the account and commingled personal and client funds.

In mitigation, she has no prior record of discipline and no clients were harmed by her misconduct.


FRANK SARRO [#129780], 49, 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 April 11, 2004.

Sarro stipulated that he failed to return a client’s file when requested and he did not render a complete accounting of client funds coming into his possession.

He represented a client in a sexual harassment claim against her employer. The client accepted a settlement offer for $85,000 and asked for an accounting of costs. Instead of providing the accounting, Sarro complained the client owed him $550 for copying her file and another $100 for unspecified costs. The client asked for an accounting four more times.

When Sarro responded, he revealed he had received $97,000 on the client’s behalf, including $12,000 in exchange for dropping an attorney’s fees motion.

A new attorney demanded the client’s file, but Sarro refused to provide it without a $1,000 payment to pay for copying. He said he would refund any unused portion of the money. The attorney requested the file two more times and informed Sarro he had a duty to provide the file to the client.

The client complained to the bar and eventually entered into a civil settlement with Sarro.

In mitigation, Sarro has no prior record of discipline.


DEEPAK SADASHIV PARWATIKAR [#187683], 39, of Los Angeles was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a one-year actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect April 11, 2004.

Parwatikar was employed as the chief financial officer for Nurse Providers Staffing Services Inc. in 1996. A year later, when he became a lawyer, Parwatikar became the company’s general counsel.

While still employed at Nurse Providers, Parwatikar started a competing company that provided the same services. He also obtained customer hospital lists and nurse employee lists and used that information to contact employees for potential business at his competing company.

In 1999, Nurse Providers filed a civil action against Parwatikar alleging unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of confidential relationship, intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage and civil conspiracy. A jury found he was liable for intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage and that he acted with fraud, malice or oppression in breaching his fiduciary relationship with Nurse Providers. Judgment was entered against him in the amount of $15,976 in damages and $4,300 in punitive damages.

In a second lawsuit against Parwatikar, Nurse Providers alleged breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice and embezzlement. Judgment was entered against Parwatikar in the amount of $9,444.

Parwatikar did not report the judgments to the State Bar, as required.

He stipulated that he committed acts of moral turpitude, failed to avoid an interest adverse to his client and failed to preserve the secrets of a client.

In mitigation, Parwatikar paid both judgments prior to the bar’s involvement.


LAWRENCE A. MERRYMAN [#28984], 73, of Newport Beach was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on probation for one year with an actual 90-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect April 11, 2004.

Merryman did not comply with probation conditions attached to a 2002 stipulation — he did not file quarterly probation reports. The stipulation was reached because Merryman did not comply with probation conditions attached to a private reproval imposed in 2000 for failing to perform legal services competently, promptly refund unearned fees and maintain complete records of client funds.

In mitigation, Merryman moved to Arizona and did not keep his membership records up-to-date with the bar. As a result, he did not receive letters reminding him of the terms and conditions of his probation. He also was suffering from severe memory loss due to stress and heart medication


ROBERT KEITH LONG [#103344], 51, of Costa Mesa was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for one year and until he makes restitution, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect April 11, 2004.

In two consolidated default cases, the State Bar Court found that Long failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients, maintain client funds in trust, notify a client of receipt of funds, cooperate with the bar’s investigation or keep his address current with the bar. He also committed acts of moral turpitude.

In the first matter, a client hired Long to represent her in a personal injury case that resulted from an automobile accident. After filing a complaint, Long settled the case and signed the client’s name on a release of all claims without her knowledge or consent. He also signed a request for dismissal of the complaint, again without her knowledge, and sent it to the opposing party, who then filed it.

Long received a settlement check for $12,500 but did not deposit the money in a client trust account.

He did not respond to his client’s many phone calls and e-mails. It was not until the client contacted opposing counsel that she learned of the settlement and dismissal one year earlier.

In the second case, Long substituted in to a civil case in Riverside County, but 16 months later filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. He failed to appear at two hearings on the motion, nor did he appear at a hearing on the opposing party’s motion to strike the clients’ second amended complaint. The hearing was continued twice, but Long did not appear, so the case was dismissed.

The client never was able to locate Long, who moved his office and disconnected his telephone.

In another matter, Long filed a civil action for his client, but again failed to appear at three conferences or hearings. The client was unable to locate him.

In mitigation, Long has no record of discipline in 19 years of practice.


SUZANNE KAWASE [#188936], 41, of Monterey Probation was revoked, the stay of suspension was lifted and she was actually suspended for one year and until she makes restitution, and she was ordered to comply with rule 955. Credit will be given for a period of involuntary inactive enrollment that began Dec. 22, 2003. The order took effect April 15, 2004.

Kawase was disciplined and placed on probation in 2003, but she did not file three quarterly probation reports or provide proof of restitution. In that matter, Kawase stipulated to six counts of misconduct in connection with her role as attorney of record in the probate of her clients’ son’s estate. She failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with her clients or return their file, misrepresented the facts to her client, committing an act of moral turpitude, received illegal fees and improperly withdrew from representation.


VICTOR DAHAN [#137121], 43, of Newport Beach Probation was revoked, the stay of suspension was lifted and he was suspended for six months, stayed and placed on two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension. The order took effect April 15, 2004.

Dahan did not comply with probation conditions attached to a 2002 discipline: he did not file quarterly probation and financial reports on time, nor did he complete ethics school and client trust accounting school on time. The discipline was imposed after Dahan stipulated that he used his client trust account as a personal account.

In mitigation, Dahan demonstrated remorse for his actions.


JAMES KASMIR O’BRIEN [#168485], 43, of Marina Del Rey Probation was revoked, the stay of suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for 24 months and was ordered to comply with rule 955. Credit will be given for a period of involuntary inactive enrollment that began Dec. 25, 2003. The order took effect April 15, 2004.

O’Brien did not submit quarterly probation reports on time, nor did he provide evidence of attendance at eight AA, NA or The Other Bar meetings. He also did not submit to random drug testing, as requested by the probation department.

O’Brien was suspended and placed on probation in 2002 for trust accounting violations, making misrepresentations and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in five client matters and failing to perform legal services competently, return unearned client funds or comply with rule 955.

He also was disciplined in April 2001 for failing to comply with the conditions of a 1998 discipline order.


STEVEN J. RIGGS [#147745], 45, of Irvine was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect April 21, 2004.

Riggs stipulated to misconduct in four consolidated matters.

In the first case, Riggs agreed to represent a man convicted of first degree murder in federal proceedings. He reached a verbal agreement to represent the man for $25,000, but the fee agreement was never signed. Eventually, Riggs received $16,500 in legal fees before being terminated.

He did not provide an accounting of his charges, return the transcripts that had been provided to him and did not refund any part of the fee.

In a second case, Riggs was hired to file a habeas petition for a woman who was criminally convicted on federal charges. The petition was to be based on alleged perjured testimony by the government’s main witness. The client paid Riggs $10,000.

On the last day to file the petition, Riggs or someone on his behalf filed a motion to vacate or set aside judgment, but did not provide any substantive factual basis for doing so. Instead, the petition stated that an amended petition containing the necessary information would be filed within 30 days. Nothing was filed and the petition was dismissed.

The client sought a return of her file and a refund of the fee. Riggs did not refund any money.

In another matter, Riggs was hired to represent a couple who were being investigated by the U.S. Attorney, IRS and U.S. Postal Service. They paid him $7,500, but there was no written fee agreement. He notified the prosecutor he was representing the couple, but a couple of months later, the clients dismissed him and asked for a refund. Riggs did not provide an accounting or refund any money.

Riggs also did not comply with the terms of a public reproval issued in 2001. He failed to file a quarterly probation report, attend ethics school, complete the MPRE or complete six hours of MCLE.

All together, Riggs stipulated to failure to refund advance fees, return client papers and property, perform legal services competently, cooperate with the bar’s investigation, provide a complete accounting of legal services rendered or comply with probation conditions.


KATHLEEN JILL SMITH [#182929], 55, of Vineburg 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 April 21, 2004.

A family law specialist, Smith initially refused to represent a client who had a personal injury claim. Later, however, she caused the client to believe she had assumed full representation. Smith had her paralegal prepare a complaint that listed the client in pro per and gave Smith’s law firm address as the client’s address. The complaint sought damages of $22,500.

The court said the summons filed in the matter did not match the complaint and contained an incomplete proof of service. She was ordered to correct and resubmit the proof of service, but Smith never served the defendant after the complaint was filed.

She did not attend an early mediation status conference or tell the client she was not going.

The case was dismissed when neither Smith nor the client appeared at an order to show cause hearing. As a result, the client did not receive compensation for injuries suffered in connection with her personal injury claim. Smith claimed she was trying to contact the defendant’s insurance company when in fact the case had been closed because the statute of limitations expired.

The client finally learned the status of her claim by contacting the court.

Smith stipulated that she failed to perform legal services competently, keep a client apprised of the status of her case, respond to status inquiries or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.


JUDITH ANN FINCH [#114851], 68, of Walnut Creek was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension. The order took effect April 21, 2004.

Three people hired Finch in 1999 to represent them in a legal malpractice action against their previous lawyer. Over a one-year period, Finch made more than 20 interest-free loans that she characterized as advances, totaling almost $150,000, to the clients. She did not disclose the terms of the loans in writing, advise the clients to seek independent counsel or obtain their written consent to the terms of the loans.

In another matter, Finch stipulated to misconduct and was given an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to satisfy a judgment against her. While she was suspended and without her knowledge, Finch’s legal assistant faxed three messages about a pending case to opposing counsel.

She stipulated that she recklessly failed to supervise her assistant.

Finch was suspended in 2000 after stipulating to three acts of misconduct relating to entering into business agreements with a client.

In mitigation, no clients were harmed by her misconduct.


PATRICIA OSHITA [#120148], 54, of Beverly Hills 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 April 21, 2004.

Oshita stipulated that she mishandled her client trust account by using it to pay personal expenses and by writing checks against insufficient funds in the account.

In mitigation, Oshita has no prior record of discipline, she cooperated with the bar’s investigation, and she attended client trust accounting school. Due to the press of personal and professional business, Oshita did not devote adequate attention to the trust account. No client funds were involved and no client was harmed by the misconduct.


JAMES V. DOIRON [#128944], 43, of Claremont 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 April 21, 2004.

Doiron stipulated that he practiced law while suspended for failing to pay his bar dues. He appeared in court for a sentencing hearing twice, appeared at a hearing to request a motion to withdraw his client’s plea, filed a motion to withdraw a plea and then appeared to argue the motion. All the appearances, which occurred over three months, involved one client.

In mitigation, Doiron cooperated with the bar’s investigation.


ROBERT LOUIS GUEVARA [#80971], 55, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to make restitution. The order took effect April 21, 2004.

Guevara stipulated that in a probate matter, he failed to perform legal services competently, respond to his clients’ reasonable inquiries or refund unearned fees.

He was hired by a brother and sister who paid a $3,500 fee to represent them in a probate matter for their father’s estate. He also received $500 from the sister to cover the cost of newspaper advertisements.

Despite his promises to resolve the estate matter, he never settled it in more than three years. The client also had to pay another $264 to satisfy a delinquent notice from the newspaper; that money should have been paid from the $500.

Guevara did not provide the executor of the estate with status updates despite numerous requests.

Guevara was privately reproved in 2003 for failing to report sanctions to the State Bar.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation.


DONALD LIONEL BIERMAN JR. [#157130], 52, of Fremont was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for 60 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to end the suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE, comply with rule 955 and prove either that he made restitution or owes no money to a client. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect May 8, 2004.

In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Bierman committed 10 separate acts of misconduct in four matters. For two years, he provided legal services through a group legal services plan; most of his clients were referred by their employers as part of the plan.

After accepting referrals, Bierman did not complete the work but instead stopped working for the clients without notice and did not communicate with them.

He was retained to handle the probate of his client’s mother’s estate, and also agreed to draft and complete a living trust and to transfer title of a property the client inherited.

Although Bierman completed the living trust and the final distribution of the estate, he did not finish the title transfer for 11 months and stopped communicating with his client. The client finally executed a quit claim deed in order to sell the property.

In a second matter, Bierman represented a client in a divorce and received an advance fee of $400. Although the client provided him with financial information and he filed a response in the action, he did no further work and did not respond to her phone calls or an e-mail. The client eventually hired another lawyer.

Bierman sent her an itemized bill that the client claims contains several errors, including time charged for drafting a marital settlement agreement she never received.

In a third case, a client hired Bierman to file a bankruptcy petition. He stopped working on the case, did not return the client’s phone calls and did not respond to a letter the client received from a creditor. When she fired him and sought a refund of her fee, Bierman sent her an e-mail indicating he had sent her file to the bankruptcy court, although there is no evidence he ever filed a bankruptcy petition.

In another divorce matter, he filed a petition for dissolution but never filed the settlement agreement and essentially abandoned the case.

The bar court found that Bierman failed to perform legal services competently, return client papers, communicate with clients, refund unearned fees or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and he improperly withdrew from representation.

The court gave him some mitigation for nine years of practice without discipline.


NANCY JANE BILLINGS [#182479], 42, of Orangevale was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an actual 18-month suspension and until she proves her rehabilitation, and she was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect May 8, 2004.

Billings stipulated to 17 counts of misconduct in five cases.

She did not comply with probation conditions attached to a 2001 agreement in lieu of discipline; she did not provide two quarterly probation reports or provide evidence of restitution.

She was sanctioned in another case, but did not pay the sanctions.

In a sexual harassment and false imprisonment case in which Billings represented the plaintiff, she did not provide an accounting for $2,500 in fees, respond to her client’s inquiries or inform the client about a mandatory settlement conference. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and awarded them nearly $68,000 in fees and costs. Billings never informed her client.

In another matter, Billings admitted she did not perform legal services competently in an age discrimination and wrongful termination case against her client’s former employer. Although she filed a complaint, she did not interview the main witnesses or complete their depositions prior to the discovery cutoff date.

Her client’s deposition was taken but was continued so Billings could produce additional documents. The client provided the documents, but Billings never gave them to opposing counsel.

She did not participate in a meet-and-confer with opposing counsel, as required by local rules, failed to participate in a settlement conference or file a pretrial conference order or an exhibit list, and ultimately failed to respond to an order to show cause. The case was dismissed. Billings did not notify her client about the dismissal or advise her about her right to appeal.

In the final matter, Billings failed to appear at three status conferences or an order to show cause hearing. The case was dismissed, but she did not notify the client.

In mitigation, Billings was confined to bed during pregnancy and when she returned to work, she learned her law partner had neglected to properly handle about 50 cases. The partnership dissolved when the other attorney had a nervous breakdown. Billings opened her own office but could not afford a support staff. Her computer crashed, destroying her accounting and file management systems.

She also was dealing with several family medical issues, was involved in a serious head-on collision that resulted in numerous subsequent medical problems, and her husband left her. She had no prior record of discipline.


ANITA MARIE CIONNI [#147723], 54, of Las Vegas was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension and until she proves her rehabilitation, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, she must prove her rehabilitation. The order took effect May 8, 2004.

Cionni was disbarred in Nevada in 2002 for mishandling an estate. She failed to adequately bill or provide an explanation for fees she had taken, failed to seek prior court approval of $18,751 in attorney’s fees she had taken and did not complete and file an annual accounting. She also failed to follow the orders of the probate commissioner and was unaware of various legal requirements imposed on the executor of the estate. Her actions left the estate in disarray.

Her conduct amounted to violations of California’s Rules of Professional Conduct: she failed to perform legal services competently, improperly withdrew from representation and committed an act of moral turpitude by converting funds belonging to the estate.

Cionni did not participate in the California proceedings.


JOHN JACK MAVREDAKIS [#66738], 55, of Santa Rosa was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation and take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect May 8, 2004.

Mavredakis stipulated that he failed to promptly pay out client funds and committed an act of moral turpitude by taking $15,779 of the client’s funds for his personal use by grossly mismanaging his client trust account.

The misconduct occurred in Mavredakis’ handling of a personal injury case in which he represented the plaintiff. The case settled for $183,722, of which his client was entitled to just over $77,000. Within two months, Mavredakis gave her $60,000 and still owed $17,304.

Because he mishandled his client trust account funds, the balance fell to $1,524. Mavredakis took $15,779 of his client’s money.

He later sent the client a check for $6,000 and then another check for more than $11,000. He eventually paid the client her full settlement. In mitigation, Mavredakis has no prior record of discipline and he made full restitution to the client.


TERRENCE McGUIRE [#90675], 57, of Sylmar was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect May 8, 2004.

McGuire stipulated to misconduct in three consolidated cases.

He sought review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of an immigration case, but failed to disclose a decision that was controlling. As a result, he was ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous petition and for failing to disclose controlling legal authority to the court. He did not respond to the order and was sanctioned $500 that he did not pay.

In a personal injury case McGuire settled for $15,000, he allowed the balance in his client trust account to fall below the required amount and therefore did not pay two of his client’s doctors for more than 26 months.

The third matter also involved his trust account; he repeatedly allowed the balance to fall below the required amount over a nearly one-year period. The account was insolvent for 267 of 356 days.


DOUGLAS BRIAN KANE [#92752], 54, of Santa Maria was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for one year and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to end the suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation, and he was ordered to comply with rule 955. The order took effect May 8, 2004.

Kane was convicted of being under the influence of methamphetamine, a misdemeanor. The bar court found that his misconduct did not involve moral turpitude but did warrant discipline.

Kane also was convicted of possession of methamphetamine in 2000, for which the bar suspended him for six months. He did not participate in the most recent proceedings.


H. GREIG FOWLER [#37462], 67, of San Francisco was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to comply with rule 955 and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect May 8, 2004.

Fowler did not comply with rule 955, as required by a 2003 disciplinary order. He filed the necessary affidavit late.

The discipline was imposed after the State Bar Court found that Fowler committed multiple acts of misconduct, including misrepresenting the existence of a trial date, failing to perform competently or refund unearned fees, improperly withdrawing from employment and improperly using his trust account.

In mitigation, Fowler had no clients when he was suspended so no clients were harmed, and he cooperated with the bar’s investigation.


GREGORY EVAN MANTLE [#69153], 57, of McKinleyville Probation was revoked, the stay of suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for one year and was ordered to comply with rule 955. Credit will be given for the period of involuntary inactive enrollment that began Dec. 29, 2003. The order took effect May 13, 2004.

Mantle failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 2002 discipline — he did not submit three quarterly probation reports or evidence of compliance with psychological treatment conditions. He also did not update his telephone number and address with the State Bar.

Mantle has been disciplined three times — the 2002 suspension and two private reprovals, in 2001 and 1997.


Contact Us Site Map Notices Privacy Policy
© 2019 The State Bar of California