State Bar of California California Bar Journal
Home Page Official Publication of the State Bar of California August2007
Top Headlines
Opinion
MCLE Self-Study
Interim Suspension, Resignations, Public Reprovals and Charges Pending
Ethics Byte
Feature
You Need to Know
Trials Digest
Contact CBJ
PastIssues

Caution! More than 200,000 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

MARGARET E. WATKINS [#175240], 54, of Riverside was disbarred March 23, 2007, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court, formerly rule 955.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Watkins did not comply with rule 955, as required in a 2006 disciplinary order. She did not submit to the bar court an affidavit stating she notified her clients, opposing counsel, courts or other interested parties of her suspension from practice. The underlying discipline was imposed for failure to perform legal services competently, account for client funds, return unearned fees or cooperate with the bar's investigation.

Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment.


JUVENAL FEDERICO AGRAVANTE [#169950], 49, of Long Beach was disbarred April 5, 2007, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20.

Agravante violated the terms of a 2006 disciplinary order requiring him to comply with rule 955 (now renumbered as rule 9.20). He failed to submit to the State Bar Court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel, courts and other interested parties of his suspension from practice. Failure to comply with the rule is grounds for disbarment.

The underlying discipline was imposed for Agravante's failure to perform legal services competently, respond to client inquiries or cooperate with the bar's investigation and for committing acts of moral turpitude by lying to his client and concealing from her the fact that he had not done the work he was hired to do.

He did not participate in the disbarment proceeding and his default was entered.


JAMES LEONARD MORIARTY [#72012], 56, of San Francisco was disbarred April 5, 2007, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20.

Moriarty violated a 2005 disciplinary order that he comply with rule 955 (now rule 9.20); he did not submit to the State Bar Court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel, courts or other interested parties of his suspension. The underlying misconduct included improperly withdrawing from representation and failing to maintain a current address with the bar.

His default was entered when he did not participate in the disbarment proceedings.


THOMAS MICHAEL WEEMS JR. [#63457], 60, of Long Beach was disbarred April 5, 2007, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20.

Weems failed to comply with rule 955 (now rule 9.20), as required by a 2005 disciplinary order. He did not submit to the State Bar Court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension.

The underlying misconduct included improper withdrawal from representation, failure to cooperate with the bar's investigation and committing an act of moral turpitude. He did not participate in the disbarment proceedings and his default was entered.


DAVID EUGENE ROBERTS [#51430], 68, of Fresno was disbarred April 5, 2007, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20.

In three consolidated cases, the State Bar Court found that Roberts engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, violated probation conditions and failed to comply with rule 955 (now rule 9.20).

Roberts was suspended for 120 days and placed on two years of probation in 2005. As part of the order, he was required to comply with rule 955 and file with the State Bar Court an affidavit showing compliance. He submitted a declaration stating that he had not taken steps to return client files, that there was one case in which there were unearned fees and that "in most cases," he hand-delivered a notice of his suspension rather than providing notice by registered or certified mail as required.

The bar's probation office asked for clarification and asked Roberts to refile his declaration to comply with rule 955. In response, he wrote that he had not engaged in the practice of law but had received phone calls from former clients and answered their legal questions. He later filed another declaration in which he indicated he had not properly notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension.

In addition to violating rule 955 and practicing law while suspended, the bar court found that Roberts committed acts of moral turpitude by holding himself out as entitled to practice and providing legal advice knowing he was suspended.

The court also found that he did not file two quarterly probation reports, attend ethics school or client trust accounting school and he did not maintain a current phone number with the bar.

Roberts has been disciplined three times previously. In 1990, he was suspended following a conviction for failing to file two income tax returns. In 2004, he stipulated to misconduct in six matters, including aiding another in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to promptly pay a client settlement funds, perform legal services competently or appear in court, and he wrote checks against insufficient funds. In 2006, he was found in violation of probation requirements from that discipline because he did not notify the bar that he'd been charged with felony possession of a controlled substance.


JACK RAYMOND COONEY JR. [#63980], 63, of Livermore was disbarred April 13, 2007, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20.

Cooney appealed a State Bar Court hearing judge's recommendation that he be disbarred, but the review department upheld the recommendation.

He stipulated in 2001 that he misappropriated about $15,000 of client funds, and as a result was suspended for two years and placed on four years of probation with a requirement that he comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court (now renumbered as rule 9.20). At the time, Cooney presented as mitigating evidence his 25-plus years of practice without discipline, marital difficulties, serious illness and resulting financial difficulties leading to the loss of his home and cars.

The hearing judge found that Cooney failed to comply with rule 955, misrepresented a fact in the stipulation, failed to file five probation reports and did not refund unearned fees to three former clients.

In attempting to comply with rule 955, he submitted a qualified declaration stating that he had refunded all unearned fees "or made arrangements to refund such fees." In fact, the review department found he had not done so. He also stated in the declaration that he filed a copy of his suspension notice with all courts in pending litigation "or will immediately file" the notice. Cooney never filed a corrected declaration.

In the underlying disciplinary case, he falsely stated he had deposited money in his trust account to cover disputed lien claims by his client's former attorney. The hearing judge concluded that his misconduct constituted moral turpitude.

Cooney's request for more time to comply with rule 955 was denied. He argued that disbarment was excessive in view of his financial hardship and the bar's long delay in bringing the disciplinary proceeding against him.

The review department said non-compliance with rule 955 alone was grounds for disbarment, but added that Cooney's "added misconduct, especially his dishonest attempt to obtain an advantage in his prior disciplinary stipulation, merely builds incontrovertible support for the hearing judge's recommendation . . . The public deserves the protection of a successful and formal reinstatement proceeding before [Cooney] is again allowed to practice law."


ROBERT WILLIAM ROLAND [#203087], 36, of San Francisco was summarily disbarred April 27, 2007, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20.

Roland, a former deputy district attorney in San Francisco, was convicted last year of four felonies: two counts of possession of a controlled substance (Ecstasy), one count of possession with intent to distribute and one count of using a telephone to aid in the commission of a felony.

In imposing summary disbarment, the State Bar Court considered only one of the felonies, possession with intent to distribute. Because the crime is a felony involving moral turpitude, it meets the requirements for summary disbarment.


ROBERT MICHAEL NUSBAUM [#149672], 44, of Lancaster ROBERT MICHAEL NUSBAUM [#149672], 44, of Lancaster was disbarred April 28, 2007, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20, formerly rule 955.

Nusbaum failed to comply with rule 955, as required by a 2005 disciplinary order. He did not file with the State Bar Court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his suspension from practice. Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment.

Nusbaum has a record of four prior disciplines. In the underlying matter, he stipulated to 10 counts of misconduct in four cases, including failing to deposit client funds in a trust account, perform legal services competently, render an accounting to clients or promptly refund client funds.

In 2001, he was suspended and placed on probation for failing to perform legal services competently, communicate with his client or subsequent counsel, refund unearned fees or cooperate with a State Bar investigation. In 2004, he stipulated to six counts of misconduct in three divorce cases, including failing to deposit client funds in a trust account, perform legal services competently, render an accounting to clients or promptly refund client funds. When he failed to comply with probation conditions in the 2004 matter, his probation was revoked.

In recommending Nusbaum's disbarment, Judge Richard A. Honn wrote that he "has demonstrated an unwillingness or an inability to comply with his professional obligations and the rules of conduct imposed on lawyers. . . .  It would undermine the integrity of the disciplinary system and damage public confidence in the legal profession if (Nusbaum) were not disbarred."


SUSPENSION/PROBATION

SCOTT KENDRICK HILDEBRANDT [#142892], 47, of Corona was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for 90 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect March 16, 2007.

The bar court found in a default proceeding that Hildebrandt violated the terms of a 2005 public reproval by filing three probation reports late, not filing two reports, and he failed to make restitution.

The reproval was imposed for Hildebrandt's failure to perform legal services competently or account for client funds in his possession.


G. BRUCE SPENCE [#139100], 54, of Ukiah was suspended for three years, stayed, actually suspended for two years and until he proves his rehabilitation and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension, and he was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect March 16, 2007.

In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Spence committed four acts of misconduct, including failure to communicate with a client, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, committing an act of moral turpitude and failing to cooperate with the bar's investigation.

Spence was suspended in 2005 for failure to pay bar dues or comply with MCLE requirements, but continued to handle an ongoing personal injury matter for the spouse of a client who died.

He also was disciplined in 2002 for pursuing a case without merit and attempting to mislead a court.


NANCY WILSON REID [#131796], 61, of San Diego was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for 30 days and until the State Bar Court terminates the suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE. If the actual suspension exceeds 90 days, she must comply with rule 9.20; if it exceeds two years, she must prove her rehabilitation. The order took effect March 16, 2007.

The bar court found that in an uncontested divorce matter, Reid withdrew from representation without protecting her clients' interests, and she failed to cooperate with the bar's investigation or keep her contact information current with the bar.

After hiring Reid, a married couple had difficulty contacting her. She did send them some documents to sign and filed the documents with the court, but then moved to Louisiana without informing the clients or telling them to find a new lawyer. The couple eventually paid a paralegal to help them complete the dissolution.

In mitigation, Reid had no record of discipline in 17 years of practice. She did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings and her default was entered.


ROBERT E. REIMER [#94337], 51, of Beverly Hills was suspended for one year, stayed, place on two years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect March 16, 2007.

Reimer stipulated that he committed two acts of moral turpitude in his handling of a personal injury case. Originally the matter was handled by another lawyer. Reimer settled, received five checks totaling almost $30,000 and deposited the checks in his client trust account, although they were payable to both him and the other lawyer.

The other lawyer asserted a lien for almost $4,000 but when Reimer gave him only $157.23 for costs, he sued and won a judgment for $2,374.64. Reimer satisfied the judgment.

When the State Bar investigated the case, Reimer provided false information.

He stipulated that making the false statement was an act of moral turpitude, as was depositing settlement checks that were not signed by the other lawyer.

In mitigation, Reimer has practiced since 1980 without any discipline.


WALTER JAMES ROBERTS IV [#225339], 44, of Los Angeles was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MRE within one year. The order took effect March 16, 2007.

Roberts was retained to file a motion to set aside the dismissal of a lawsuit. However, he failed to substitute in immediately after he was employed and failed to file the motion within the six-month time limit or appear at a hearing. He also did not tell his client that he lost the original substitution of attorney form the client had signed, nor did he tell him that he filed the motion late and didn't go to the hearing.

In addition, Roberts' actions occurred while he was on disciplinary probation; his misconduct violated a rule of professional conduct. The discipline was imposed for his failure to perform legal services and for requiring a client to withdraw a bar complaint in exchange for agreeing to represent her.

In mitigation, Roberts cooperated with the bar's investigation.


KENNETH A. SATIN [#56068], 61, of Irvine was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 120-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within a year and comply with rule 9.20 (formerly rule 955).

Satin stipulated to five counts of misconduct in five matters.

In two cases, he had his clients sign substitution of attorney forms when they hired him, without explaining that by doing so, he could withdraw at any time and without prior notice. In both matters, he withdrew when hearings were pending; both cases were lost. Satin's actions amounted to a failure to perform legal services competently.

In a personal injury case in which he represented the plaintiff, Satin obtained a $32,395 judgment against the defendants but did not inform his clients.

In a dog bite case, Satin continued to represent his client after he was terminated and asserted a lien on the $65,000 settlement his client obtained on his own. He told his client his fees would not exceed $5,000 and said he would agree to have the insurance company release about $60,000 directly to the client if either the client or the insurer gave him a check for $5,000. He agreed to hold the money in trust until the fee dispute was resolved.

The insurance company sent a check for $5,000; Satin was required to hold it in trust pending a resolution of the fee dispute.

He instructed an employee to deposit the money in his trust account; instead the check was cashed and used to pay office expenses. Satin refunded $3,200 to the client after the dispute was settled.

He stipulated that he failed to deposit client funds into his trust account.

In the fifth matter, Satin failed to keep complete records of client funds, resulting in an overdrawn client trust account.

Satin was privately reproved in 1997.

In mitigation, he demonstrated remorse, reduced his caseload and dismissed members of his staff whose performance was not adequate. He has performed a wide variety of community service, teaches law through the California State University system and other agencies and has hosted radio and television programs about the law.


JEREMIAS FLORES VALDEZ [#177675], 46, of Los Angeles was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on five years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20 (formerly rule 955). The order took effect March 17, 2007.

Valdez stipulated that he failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 2002 disciplinary order. He filed quarterly probation reports and certified public accountant reports late and did not file two CPA reports at all.

The underlying discipline was imposed for misconduct involving Valdez' client trust account. A 2004 discipline was issued for failure to comply with probation conditions or supervise his employees and for practicing while suspended.

In mitigation, Valdez had prolonged financial hardship and personal problems as a result of domestic obligations, judgments, liens and IRS levies. His infant daughter died and he and his wife separated. He took steps to demonstrate remorse for his misconduct.


STEPHEN WAYNE JOHNSON [#97281], 58, of Huntington Beach was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of probation with a 90-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect March 23, 2007.

Johnson violated the terms of a 2005 public reproval by filing five quarterly probation reports late and by attending ethics school and client trust accounting school late. The discipline was imposed for failing to maintain client funds in a trust account or cooperate with the bar's investigation.

He also was disciplined in 2006 for committing acts of moral turpitude by practicing law while suspended for non-payment of bar dues.


ROBERT HENRY STOVER [#202725], 50, of Hanford Probation of was extended for one year for a total of three years on March 23, 2007.

Stover stipulated to five counts of misconduct in 2006, was placed on probation and was ordered to submit quarterly reports and comply with the terms of the Lawyer Assistance Program by calling in for drug and alcohol tests in a specified manner. He missed two tests and did not file one probation report on time.

Stover contends that he has submitted to random testing and has not tested positive, and says his LAP case manager told him his failure to call in was "no big deal." However, he has initiated a stricter call-in regimen.

The underlying discipline involved his failure to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients or cooperate with the bar's investigation.

Stover also was publicly reproved in 2004.


CYNTHIA A. THOMAS [#96180], 51, of Elk Grove was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on one year of probation with a 30-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect March 23, 2007.

Thomas was appointed to represent a defendant who wished to appeal a state prison sentence of 25 years to life. She sent her client a copy of the appeal, in which she did not raise an issue the client wished to pursue because her research revealed it did not apply to his case. At the time, Proposition 66, which would have narrowed California's three strikes law, was before the voters. Thomas told her client if it passed, she would file a supplemental brief with the court and if it failed, she would file a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Although the measure was rejected by voters, Thomas did no further work on her client's matter. She did not communicate with him or provide the attorney general's response to her petition or any other materials the client requested.

When the client tried to file a supplemental brief on his own, it was rejected because he was represented by counsel. Thomas did not tell the client that the court of appeal affirmed his sentence or advise him of his legal options. When he tried to file a pleading with the Supreme Court, it was rejected because the deadline had passed.

Thomas stipulated that she failed to communicate with the client or provide his file.

In mitigation, she has no discipline record in 26 years of practice and at the time of the misconduct, she was involved with medical and emotional problems associated with the hospitalization of her mother.


MICHAEL A. CARTELLI [#88932], 52, of La Mirada was placed on probation for two years with a 90-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect March 23, 2007.

Cartelli stipulated that he failed to promptly pay out client settlement funds in a personal injury case. He settled his client's claim for $8,500, took his fee and provided money to his client, but did not pay her medical bills for more than three years.

In mitigation, Cartelli had personal problems at the time.


FRANCIS JOSEPH McGREW [#122523], 50, of Oakland was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an actual 18-month suspension and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect April 5, 2007.

McGrew stipulated to misconduct in two matters. He failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 2004 discipline — he failed to submit a quarterly probation report, submit to drug testing on two occasions, provide drug test results to the bar's probation office, pay restitution in a timely fashion or take the MPRE. He also was required to attend Alcoholics Anonymous or similar therapy and report his attendance, but he did not do so, submitted a false drug screening report to the probation office and submitted two quarterly probation reports late. Providing a false drug test result constituted moral turpitude.

In a criminal matter in which he represented the defendant, McGrew did not notify the judge he would be unable to appear for a month because he was to be suspended. Instead, he said he would be unavailable for a variety of other reasons. He admitted that he misled a judge.

The original discipline was imposed for McGrew's failure to refund an unearned fee and for failing to comply with conditions attached to a 2002 private reproval.


ROBERT MICHAEL BALL [#138482], 49, of Beverly Hills was suspended for 60 days, stayed, placed on one year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect April 5, 2007.

Ball stipulated to three acts of misconduct in two matters.

In the first, he failed to appear at two status conferences, admitting that he failed to perform legal services competently.

The second was a wrongful termination case he took over from an associate at his law firm. Over several months, he twice told the client he would consult with a specialist in civil service matters and would call her back. He never called the client back.

He stipulated that he failed to respond to a client's reasonable status inquiries and did not cooperate with the bar's investigation.

In mitigation, Ball has no record of discipline in 18 years of practice, has received many public service awards and said his cases have received wide press attention.


RUTH CECILIA ROSE [#145887], 64, of Los Angeles 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 28, 2007.

After Rose failed to appear at two hearings in a juvenile dependency matter, the court set a hearing on an order to show cause. She missed that hearing as well and was sanctioned $500. She did not pay the sanctions despite two court orders.

She stipulated that she failed to obey court orders.

In mitigation, Rose has no prior discipline record.


ROBERT JAMES SKOUSEN [#135104], 50, of San Bernardino was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 120-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect April 28, 2007.

Skousen stipulated to six counts of misconduct in handling the probate of an estate and two wills.

Three children — Alice, Albert and Robert — whose parents were deceased met with Skousen and asked him to probate one of their mother's two wills. Both wills, dated 1991 and 1996, were set up to place the majority of the family's assets into a trust for Robert, who is disabled. Skousen did not take adequate steps to make clear to Robert that he did not represent him. The siblings all believed Skousen represented Robert and as a result, Skousen established an attorney-client relationship with Robert.

When Skousen filed a petition to probate the 1991 will, he also filed a "disclaimer," signed by Robert, that disclaimed his interest in the estate. Skousen did not advise Robert to seek independent legal advice before signing the statement. A short time later, Alice, who was the executor, sold some property belonging to the estate, including some furniture purchased by Skousen.

Eventually, Albert became unhappy with Alice and asked Skousen to probate the 1996 will and petition to appoint Albert as the executor of the estate. Skousen substituted out of representation on the first will and filed a petition to suspend Alice's powers as executor. She was removed by the probate court and ordered to post a bond of $132,000 pending determination of Albert's petition.

The court eventually removed both Albert and Alice as personal representatives of their mother's estate and removed Albert as trustee of the trust. Albert was ordered to deliver all trust and estate assets to an independent trustee appointed by the court.

In a letter to the State Bar responding to allegations of misconduct concerning the purchase of property from the estate, Skousen falsely said he had not purchased anything.

Skousen stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, represented clients with adverse interests, failed to provide written disclosure to Robert describing his professional relationship with Albert and Alice, improperly purchased property at a probate sale while he represented the estate, and he committed an act of moral turpitude by denying his involvement in purchasing the property.

In mitigation, Skousen has no discipline record in 18 years of practice and he performed significant community service.


RUSSELL H. TAKASUGI [#118792], 52, of Simi Valley was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation, and he was ordered to take the MPRE. The order took effect April 28, 2007.

Takasugi did not respond to inquiries from two State Bar investigators about allegations of misconduct. After disciplinary charges were filed, he provided the relevant documentation and information.

Takasugi stipulated that he failed to cooperate with a bar investigation.

He has a record of discipline: in 1996, he was privately reproved and in 2001, he received a public reproval. In mitigation, he demonstrated remorse.


THOMAS LEIGH UPHOLT [#67868], 63, of Sacramento Probation was revoked, the previous stay of suspension was lifted and he was suspended for one year and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. Credit will be given for a period of involuntary inactive enrollment that began Dec. 7, 2006. The order took effect April 28, 2007.

Upholt failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 2005 disciplinary order: he did not file two quarterly probation reports or schedule a meeting with his assigned probation deputy to discuss the terms of the order. He did not participate in the proceeding.

In the underlying discipline, Upholt stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, keep his address current with the bar or cooperate with the bar's investigation, and he improperly withdrew from representation and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.


WOLFGANG FRANZ HAHN [#61385], 58, of La Jolla was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect April 28, 2007.

Following convictions in 2003 for misdemeanor driving under the influence and fleeing from a police officer, Hahn was accepted into the State Bar's alternative discipline program for attorneys with substance abuse or mental health problems. He had earlier entered a long-term participation agreement with the Lawyer Assistance Program.

He successfully completed the ADP, where the court found he was an "exemplary participant."

Hahn has three previous convictions for alcohol-related driving offenses.


MICHAEL JOHN GUGLIELMINO [#104484], 53, of San Francisco was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on four years of probation and was ordered to make restitution and take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect April 28, 2007.

Guglielmino stipulated to 10 counts of misconduct in four matters, including failing to account for client funds, perform legal services competently, keep a client informed about developments in a case, provide a client file, refund an unearned fee or maintain complete records of client property in his possession, and he disobeyed a court order and failed to pay sanctions.

In the first matter, Guglielmino did not provide the accounting his client requested after paying $3,500 for representation in a criminal matter. Guglielmino made court appearances and successfully negotiated a plea agreement in the case.

In a personal injury matter, he filed a lawsuit but did no further work, failed to appear, was sanctioned on four occasions, and disobeyed court orders to respond to various matters. He also was suspended for failing to pay membership fees, but did not notify his client about that or about the hearings and sanctions. The client hired a new attorney, who could not obtain the file from Guglielmino.

In another case, he was hired to provide a second opinion on a marital settlement agreement, which he agreed to do within two weeks. He never provided the analysis or any other services and did not refund the client's fee or account for her money.

Guglielmino also did not keep good records of his client trust account and overdrew the account and commingled funds.

In mitigation, he had no prior discipline record, no clients were harmed and he had severe family problems at the time of the misconduct.


TODD C. DAVIS [#186531], 41, of Riverside was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for 30 days and until he makes restitution and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension, and he was ordered to take the MPRE. If the suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 9.20; if it exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect April 28, 2007.

In a default proceeding, the bar court found Davis committed four acts of misconduct. In a marital dissolution matter for which he received $2,500 in fees, he performed no legal services, moved from his office without notifying the client and did not return any of the client's many phone calls. The client handled the matter in pro per.

The bar court found that Davis failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with his client, refund unearned fees or cooperate with a bar investigation.


JOHN H. BRAMLETT [#171763], 45, of Blue Jay was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for 45 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension, and he was ordered to take the MPRE. If the actual suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 9.20; if it exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect April 28, 2007.

In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Bramlett committed two acts of misconduct in a single matter. While working part time for an attorney who was scheduled to have major surgery, he agreed to take on more work, including preparing an amended complaint in a federal case. Bramlett did no work on the case and did not return the client's phone calls.

The bar court found that he failed to perform legal services competently or cooperate with the bar's investigation.


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