[ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE]

Lawyers' Professional Liability Insurance Program
FREE ONLINE MCLE PROGRAM -- Click here for details and to register!
Approved by:
The State Bar of California
Administered by:
Kirke-Van Orsdel Specialty
Underwritten by:

Caution!

More than 156,435 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the same names.

All discipline reports should be read carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers. Attorneys must report address changes within 30 days.


Suspensions/Probation

RICHARD MARK GARBER [#102688], 40, of North Hollywood was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 30-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Sept. 13, 1997.

Garber advised two clients to misrepresent their addresses in bankruptcy petitions and then knowingly filed the petitions.

Although both clients were residents of San Bernardino County, Garber filed their bankruptcy petitions in Los Angeles, using his business address in an attempt to achieve better results for his clients in a different venue. One of the clients previously had filed a Chapter 7 petition in San Bernardino County to save her house. Garber converted that petition to a Chapter 13 proceeding.

However, his client had only enough money to "cure" the house and pay taxes on it, but not enough to pay her credit card obligations. While such "0 percent" plans are commonly approved in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara bankruptcy courts, the San Bernardino court requires debtors to file a "Chapter 20" proceeding. That involves two bankruptcy filings — a Chapter 7 filing to discharge unsecured creditors and a Chapter 13 filing to save real property and pay taxes.

Garber told the State Bar Court he views Chapter 20 proceedings as a waste of resources because they involve two filing fees and double fees to the attorney representing the debtor.

In addition, the time lapse for action on the two petitions creates a possibility of foreclosure on the debtor’s home. Neither of Garber’s clients had a phone and contacting them about the sale of their homes would have been difficult.

When Garber could not persuade the San Bernardino judge about his views on Chapter 20, he advised his clients to file for bankruptcy in Los Angeles. He said he engaged in the subterfuge to protect his clients.

When the discrepancy in addresses was discovered by the Los Angeles court, it dismissed the petitions. Garber returned to the San Bernardino County Court to file the Chapter 20 plans. Neither client suffered any harm and both actually paid less in attorney fees, according to Garber.

The bar had also charged that Garber advised his clients to commit perjury. However, the bar court found no direct or circumstantial evidence that Garber knew he was committing a crime.

In mitigation, Garber practiced for 12 years with an unblemished record. He presented numerous character witnesses, including several attorneys and the rabbi at the temple he attends.

The court also found that Garber was not motivated by personal gain, his conduct was aberrational and he demonstrated candor and cooperated with the bar.

HAROLD PETER YOUNG [#43805], 54, of Los Angeles was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on probation for one year and was ordered to take the MPRE within a year. The order took effect Sept. 13, 1997.

Young was found guilty of contempt of court by the Supreme Court after he requested 20 time extensions to file an opening brief in a death penalty appeal case.

About a year after his 1986 appointment to represent a Death Row inmate, Young filed a motion for augmentation of the 18,000-page record with the expectation that the record augmentation and briefing would be completed in 1988.

The record was not certified until 1993, more than five years after Young’s motion was filed. As a result, Young sought and was granted numerous extensions to file an opening brief.

Once the record was certified, Young sought additional extensions because the record now amounted to 25,000 pages. He also was in poor health and lacked funds to hire a lawyer, secretary or paralegal to assist him.

In July 1994, the court denied Young’s motion for compensation for the 335 hours he spent re-reading the record. In November, the court ordered him to file an opening brief by Dec. 5. He did not do so, instead requesting another extension.

In January 1995, the court issued a notice to show cause why Young should not be held in contempt and ordered him to file an opening brief by March 1, 1995. The court ultimately found that Young violated two orders, held him in contempt and sentenced him to five days in the Los Angeles County jail. He stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently and disobeyed the court’s orders.

In mitigation, Young suffers from a chronic lung disease and was seriously ill during part of the time in question. He is a sole practitioner and did not have the financial resources to handle a death penalty appeal. He did not try to withdraw from the case because he believed he could not find an attorney willing to replace him, as required by court rule.

THOMAS MICHAEL BANKS [#44416], 33, of Santa Monica was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on probation for two years with an actual 120-day suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Sept. 19, 1997, but the period of actual suspension was temporarily stayed until Nov. 1, 1997.

Banks represented two clients, one of whom was his law clerk, in a breach of contract matter involving a real estate purchase. The case was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. Banks and his employee entered into a written fee agreement under which Banks represented the clients at a rate valued at $150 per hour in exchange for three hours of work by the law clerk, valued at $50 per hour.

Due to the nature of the arrangement, Banks never submitted accountings or billing statements to his clients.

Banks tried and won the case and submitted a motion for attorney’s fees amounting to more than $18,000. In his declaration, he indicated he billed his clients at a rate of $250 an hour. At the judge’s request, he submitted a fee agreement and 11 billing statements, all false. The court awarded attorney’s fees to Banks’ clients totaling $18,312.50.

Some time later, after he was substituted out of the case by the client who was now an attorney, Banks tried to collect attorney’s fees from the former law clerk, because she had not provided the law clerk services pursuant to their fee agreement. Banks sued her in the Santa Monica Superior Court, alleging actual damages of more than $11,000. He arrived at that figure by using his $150 an hour fee.

The judge hearing the case noticed the discrepancy between Banks’ hourly rates in the two cases, and also determined that Banks’ clients had never seen the fee agreement or the 11 bills Banks submitted in the first matter. In addition, the clients’ signatures were forged on the fee agreement.

Banks stipulated that he misled the court by making false statements and committed acts of moral turpitude.

In mitigation, he has no prior record of discipline since his admission to practice law in 1969, he did not harm clients, and was candid and cooperated with the bar.

JAY WESLEY DONATO [#153301], 35, of Bakersfield was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on one year of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and until he makes restitution. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove rehabilitation. He also was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and to comply with rule 955. The order took effect Sept. 19, 1997.

The case was submitted as a default matter. In a contract action, Donato failed to perform legal services competently, take steps to protect his client, or respond to his client’s status requests.

Hired to handle a contract dispute, Donato failed to respond to discovery requests and motions and did not appear or notify his client of several court hearings. He and his client were sanctioned three times and the case was ultimately dismissed.

JOSEPH GELLMAN [#52402], 53, of Beverly Hills was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual suspension of 45 days and until he proves rehabilitation, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Sept. 19, 1997.

The case against Gellman involved misconduct charged in 23 separate cases, consolidated for stipulation as to facts and disposition.

Gellman’s misconduct included failure to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients, return files, report sanctions, pay medical liens, return unearned fees, pay settlements to clients, account for funds, appear at hearings, or cooperate with the bar’s investigations.

He allowed a five-year statute of limitations to lapse in a personal injury matter, even though an earlier arbitration award was rendered in favor of Gellman’s clients and the suit was dismissed. Gellman failed to report entry of a default judgment against him in a malpractice suit filed by the clients.

He commingled personal and client funds, withdrew from representation without protecting his clients’ interests, and in a fee dispute with a client, did not pay the amount awarded the client until after a bench warrant was issued for Gellman’s arrest.

In one matter, a contract dispute, Gellman did not respond to motions or make appearances. As a result, a default judgment of $50,000 was entered against his client.

Gellman was involuntarily enrolled inactive from 1990-95. He returned to active status with requirements that he report quarterly to the bar, take required medications and that his reports include a statement from his psychiatrist. He did not fully comply with the requirements.

He also engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while on inactive membership status, permitting a worker’s compensation client to believe he was entitled to practice.

In mitigation, Gellman is under treatment for bipolar and anxiety disorder. Although he had no prior record of discipline, the seriousness of the conduct made the lack of a record inapplicable as mitigation.

ERNEST PORRAS [#72281], 46, of South Pasadena 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 Sept. 19, 1997.

Porras was placed on disciplinary probation in 1994 with conditions that he attend ethics school and complete six hours of continuing education in law office management. His failure to do so led to the current discipline.

At the time of these failures, Porras was suffering from a severe kidney disease, which affected his practice and caused significant financial difficulties.

Originally, he was disciplined for failing to keep a client informed about the status of her case, which was dismissed, failing to perform legal services competently, and withdrawing from employment without protecting his client’s interests.

He was publicly reproved in 1991 for failing to pay a medical lien promptly.

FREDERICK ARMAND ROMERO [#92423], 49, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on three years of probation. He must prove his rehabilitation before being reinstated. The order took effect Sept. 19, 1997.

Romero was disciplined in 1995 when he did not fulfill the requirements of a public reproval stemming from his conviction for two counts of battery on a custodial officer. The 1995 disciplinary order required him to attend ethics school and take the CPRE as part of his probation.

His failure to do so led to the current discipline order.

In mitigation, he suffers from depression.

GEORGE JOHN RONIS [#58152], 55, of Chula Vista 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 Sept. 19, 1997.

Ronis stipulated to misconduct in six consolidated matters, all involving his sloppy handling of funds. He failed to maintain the required balance in his client trust account and misappropriated funds, did not promptly pay his client’s medical provider, and did not promptly inform another client of settlement funds and delayed payment to her. He also failed to keep a client apprised of developments in his case.

In mitigation, Ronis practiced law since 1973 without any discipline. When his law firm dissolved in 1991, the firm’s trust accounting responsibilities were shifted to an office employee who was unable to handle the job properly. Ronis’ misconduct was the result of his unfamiliarity with accounting practices. He has since hired a CPA to manage the account and repaid all funds owed his clients. He had good character references, was cooperative with the bar and took immediate corrective action upon learning of the management problems.

ROBERT CRAIG WOLL [#39945], 56, of Hemet was suspended for six months, 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 955. The order took effect Sept. 19, 1997.

In 1995, Woll was publicly reproved for his 1994 conviction of one count of failing to file an income tax return. Conditions of the reproval included requirements that he take the professional responsibility exam, attend ethics school, file quarterly probation reports and comply with all conditions of probation or parole imposed on him in the tax case.

In this matter, he failed to file one quarterly report or comply with other conditions of the reproval.

The probation of DWIGHT G. HICKS [#52468], 69, of Whittier was revoked and he was suspended for 120 days, stayed, and placed on two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension. The order took effect Sept. 20, 1997.

In 1995, Hicks was given a stayed one-year suspension, 30 days of actual suspension and was placed on two years of probation with conditions, including attendance at ethics school and the client trust account record-keeping course. He did neither.

His original discipline resulted from failure to perform legal services competently and maintain client funds in trust.

In mitigation, prior to 1995, Hicks had practiced for 23 years without any discipline.

LEWIS E. NOTRICA [#24374], 72, of Encino 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 Sept. 20, 1997.

In preparing a dissolution order based on agreed terms for a marital dissolution, Notrica made two separate errors to the detriment of his client. His attempts to correct the dissolution order failed when the opposing party refused to sign a stipulation for modification.

Notrica stipulated that his actions constituted failure to perform legal services competently. He also did not respond to his client’s status inquiries.

Notrica was publicly reproved in 1996 and placed on a year’s probation after he misplaced a client’s file and then failed to pursue a case or communicate with the client.

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

MICHAEL ERIC WOOTEN [#89907], 49, of Camarillo was suspended for 24 months, stayed, and placed on 18 months of probation with an actual 24-month suspension and until he proves rehabilitation. Credit toward the actual suspension will be given for an interim suspension which began Sept. 18, 1994. He also was ordered to take the MPRE. The order took effect Sept. 20, 1997.

Wooten was convicted of felony grand theft in 1994 after falsely telling a lender for a real estate development that a general contractor would be working on the project for a fee of $16,000. At the time, unknown to the lender, Wooten intended to supervise the project himself and keep the general contractor payments. The named contractor turned over to Wooten the $10,000 he received from the lender. Wooten and his partner used these funds for business purposes.

After the payment to Wooten was discovered, he tried to entice the contractor to lie about his role in the project and his payment to Wooten.

Wooten stipulated that his conviction, which was reduced to a misdemeanor prior to sentencing, constituted moral turpitude. His criminal conviction was expunged in 1996.

Wooten was privately reproved in 1995 for making a campaign contribution under a different name.

In mitigation, his conduct did not cause any financial harm to the lender and the work contracted for was performed. Wooten cooperated with the bar’s investigation and presented extensive testimony about his good character. He also cooperated with a grand jury’s investigation of the matter.

ALYSA B. ROSEN [#146010], 34, of Woodland Hills was suspended for 90 days, stayed, and placed on probation for one year, effective Oct. 3, 1997. She also was ordered to pass the MPRE.

Rosen stipulated to misconduct involving three clients and including failure to communicate, perform legal services, keep clients informed of their case status, promptly release client papers, properly withdraw from employment and cooperate with the bar’s investigation.

In one matter, attorney Wilson A. Quinley [#147397], 39, of Agana, Guam (see next page), was hired by a woman in 1991 to represent her in a medical malpractice case.

In December 1992, the client received a letter on law office stationery from "Quinley & Rosen" but in August 1993 Rosen told the client that she had "fired" Quinley.

The client agreed to let Rosen continue with her case upon Rosen’s representation that she would take prompt action. In September 1993, interrogatories were forwarded to the client at her home in New Mexico.

The client promptly sent her answers to Rosen who then informed her she would be searching for a medical expert for the case. However, other than responding to defense requests for depositions and interrogatories, no discovery requests or demands were sent by Rosen on behalf of the client. Nothing further was done by Rosen to prosecute the case.

Because she was disabled and did not have a telephone, the client requested that Rosen send her periodic written case status updates.

When Rosen did not comply with her request, the client spoke with her on the telephone once a month for three months. However, Rosen subsequently failed to keep several telephonic appointments.

In July 1994, a staff member at Rosen’s office told the client that Rosen was out ill and that if the attorney was unable to locate a medical expert in 30 days, she would not be willing to proceed with the case.

The client then hired another attorney to continue her case in August 1994. The new attorney requested the client’s file from Rosen, but only received a partial file in October. None of the requested items, such as transcripts, medical records and photographs were sent to the client’s new counsel. However, the client’s fee statement reflected a bill for ordering a transcript of her deposition.

In 1996, a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute the case was filed against the client, but the motion had not been heard by the time the State Bar filed its notice of disciplinary charges.

In aggravation, Rosen’s misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, Rosen cooperated with the office of the bar’s chief trial counsel after investigations were completed.

JAMES DAVID WAGNER [#95532], 45, of Rancho Mirage was suspended for three years and until he makes restitution and has provided proof of his fitness to practice. The suspension was stayed, and he was placed on probation for three years on the condition that he is actually suspended for one year and provides proof of restitution.

Should the period of actual suspension exceed two years, he will remain suspended until he has shown proof of his rehabilitation and fitness to practice.

In addition, he was ordered to pass the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order was effective Oct. 3, 1997.

Effective July 19, 1993, Wagner was placed on inactive status for failure to comply with MCLE requirements, making him ineligible to practice law.

However, Wagner accepted representation of a client in a personal injury matter in October 1993, without informaing her of his inactive status.

A $2,000 insurance settlement check was made out to Wagner and his client, which Wagner accepted and negotiated, forging his client’s endorsement. He did not promptly inform his client of the receipt of the funds.

Wagner falsely told his client the check was for only $1,400. He kept the additional $600.

His misrepresentation of the amount of the check involved moral turpitude. In addition, Wagner did not participate in the bar’s investigation.

In aggravation, Wagner’s misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing occurring over a significant period of time and caused significant harm to his client and the administration of justice. His continued failure to make restitution to his client demonstrated his indifference and lack of atonement.

In addition, Wagner’s failure to appropriately participate in State Bar Court proceedings prior to the entry of default was given moderate weight.

Because of the serious nature of his misconduct, only moderate weight was given in mitigation to his prior discipline-free record. Wagner was admitted to the bar in 1980. No other mitigating circumstances were found.

VICTOR LAWHORN [#83596], 44, of Oakland was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on probation for two years on condition that he is actually suspended for 30 days, effective Oct. 8, 1997. He was ordered to pass the MPRE.

Lawhorn’s misconduct involved failure to perform competent legal services, respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries and return the client’s file.

Lawhorn was employed by a 69-year-old woman to obtain compensation for injuries she received after falling in a gas station.

Lawhorn was informed that the company would reimburse his client’s medical expenses up to $5,000 without proof of liability and that he should submit proof of medical expenses.

However, he neglected to comply and the statute of limitations expired.

Lawhorn eventually told his client of his error, then filed a lawsuit, but did not serve the complaint. He did not respond to numerous letters and telephone calls from the client’s daughter, requesting an opportunity to discuss the status of the case.

A few months later, the client hired another lawyer to file a malpractice suit against Lawhorn. He did not respond to requests for the client’s file from new counsel, maintaining that he returned the files to the client’s daughter.

In aggravation, Lawhorn has a prior record of discipline. In 1985, he received a two-year actual suspension for negligent misappropriation of client funds.

In addition, his misconduct significantly harmed his client, who was financially insecure, when she lost her cause of action.

WILSON A. QUINLEY [#147397], 39, of Agana, Guam, was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on probation for two years with 90 days of actual suspension. He was ordered to pass the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order was effective Oct. 8, 1997.

Quinley stipulated to eight counts of misconduct involving four client matters.

In one matter, Quinley was hired by a client to handle a civil action in October 1991. A year later, he formed a new law partnership with Alysa Rosen [#146010], 34, of Woodland Hills (see previous page), who subsequently participated in a settlement conference with Quinley’s client, which resulted in a $65,000 settlement.

In May 1993, $50,000 was deposited into the firm’s client trust account labeled "Quinley & Associates" and in August $15,000 was deposited into a separate "Quinley & Rosen" client trust account.

The client agreed that the funds due to him amounted to $30,000, but he requested that the firm hold the money in trust.

In August 1993, the balance in the Quinley & Associates client trust account fell below the $30,000 amount held for the client. In September 1993, Rosen transferred all client funds from the Quinley & Rosen trust account to her own client trust account.

Quinley learned of the transfer a week later, but took no action.

In November 1993, the client unsuccessfully requested the disbursement of his entitled funds. By January 1994, he was forced to retain new counsel in order to obtain his money.

In other instances of misconduct, Quinley stipulated to failure to perform legal services competently, respond to reasonable case status inquiries, properly withdraw from a case and cooperate with the bar’s investigation.

In aggravation, Quinley’s misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing.

Quinley’s prior discipline-free record was not applicable in mitigation due to the serious nature of his misconduct. However, accepted as mitigating circumstances were the difficulties which arose in his law partnership, which was eventually dissolved. In addition, Quinley experienced personal and emotional difficulties from November 1992-94.

MICHAEL EVAN STERES [#62900], 48, of Fallbrook was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on probation for three years, with one year actual suspension, effective Oct. 8, 1997. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

Steres failed to meet the conditions of disciplinary probation imposed in a 1995 disciplinary order. At that time, Steres received a two-year stayed suspension and three years probation.

As a condition of probation, he was ordered to make restitution of $689.50 to a client by July 28, 1996. He failed to provide proof of restitution during the required time period and proof of his attendance at the bar’s ethics school, as required.

Steres’ 1995 stayed suspension was considered a factor in aggravation and his misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, Steres eventually completed restitution payments to his client.

JEFFREY HANS LEO [#71640], 46, of Los Angeles was suspended for four years and until he has provided proof of his fitness to practice. The suspension was stayed, and he was placed on four years of probation with a nine-month actual suspension, effective Oct. 8, 1997.

Credit for the period of actual suspension was given for the period of interim suspension from Sept. 16, 1994, to July 7, 1995. He was ordered to pass the MPRE.

Leo was caught in an undercover narcotics operation in September 1991 when he attempted to purchase six rocks of cocaine from a police officer posing as a drug dealer.

After pleading not guilty to a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code §653f(d), solicitation for consideration of a purchase of cocaine, diversion was granted in March 1992, but Leo was unable to complete the rehabilitation program within the required six months.

Leo was allowed additional time to complete the program, but again failed to do so and criminal proceedings were reinstated.

In February 1994, the court found him guilty and ordered him placed on summary probation for 24 months, to pay a fine of $810, to avoid illegal drugs and obey all laws.

In June 1994, his probation was revoked after the check he wrote to cover the $810 fine bounced. Leo was unaware there were insufficient funds in his account and his probation was reinstated in August, the fine deleted and he was ordered to serve 10 days in jail, with credit for five served.

In November 1996, the case was dismissed in the interests of justice.

In March 1993, Leo also was charged with three misdemeanor violations after he left a substance abuse program without permission and threatened a taxi driver with a pick-ax during an argument.

He re-entered the substance abuse program and was released from the hospital in June.

In January 1994, two of the charges were dismissed and he pleaded no contest to brandishing a weapon.

He was placed on summary probation for 36 months, sentenced to 30 days in county jail and ordered to spend 20 days cleaning up graffiti, make restitution of $175 to the victim, not possess dangerous weapons and attend AA meetings. He was allowed to perform community service in lieu of jail time.

In August 1996, after attending AA meetings and obtaining psychotherapeutic treatment, he was discharged from probation six months early and his case was ultimately dismissed.

It was stipulated that the facts and circumstances surrounding his arrests did not involve moral turpitude, but did involve other misconduct warranting discipline.

Leo also failed to file an affidavit of compliance with rule 955 after he was placed on interim suspension by the bar.

In aggravation, Leo’s misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. In addition, while on disciplinary probation and with criminal proceedings pending, Leo was arrested for possession of cocaine and placed in a diversion program.

However, the impact of his arrest as an aggravating circumstance was given limited consideration due to Leo’s rehabilitation efforts.

Because of the serious nature of Leo’s misconduct, his prior discipline-free record was not accorded any weight in mitigation.

However, in mitigation, Leo made significant steps in his rehabilitation and considerable time has passed since his misconduct.

In addition, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and has not practiced law since July 1994.

SHELDON M. KAUFMAN [#30532], 63, of Chatsworth was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on probation for three years with 60 days actual suspension, effective Oct. 8, 1997. He also was ordered to pass the MPRE.

Kaufman wrote four personal checks on his client trust account and all were returned for insufficient funds.

In aggravation, Kaufman has a prior record of discipline. He received a 90-day actual suspension in 1989 and a 30-day actual suspension in 1990. However, because the misconduct took place nearly ten years ago, it was given little weight in aggravation.

In mitigation, no clients were harmed. In addition, Kaufman reimbursed all payees of the four checks in a timely manner, including payment of all service charges.


Interim Suspension

LAURA ELIZABETH WILSON [#165504], 45, of Sun Valley was placed on interim suspension Sept. 23, 1997, following her misdemeanor conviction for giving false identification to a peace officer. She was ordered to comply with rule 955.

RICHARD DANA WILLIAMS [#92376], 44, of San Jose was placed on interim suspension Sept. 24, 1997, following his felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance and possessing drug paraphernalia. He also was ordered to comply with rule 955.

GARY KEITH SALOMONS [#126280], 36, of Encino was placed on interim suspension Sept. 24, 1997, following his felony conviction in federal court for aiding and abetting the structuring of a transaction to evade reporting requirements. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

RUSSELL EUGENE HLYWA [#123780], 40, of Fullerton was placed on interim suspension Oct. 6, 1997, following his conviction for violating Penal Code §488, petty theft, a crime involving moral turpitude. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

DARRYL JEROME BILLUPS [#65216], 49, of Richmond was placed on interim suspension Oct. 10, 1997, following his conviction for violating Vehicle Code §23152(a), driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs with four admitted priors, a felony. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

JAMES STEWART MAULE [#52621], 61, of Arcadia was placed on interim suspension Oct. 14, 1997, following his conviction for violating Penal Code §664/211, attempted robbery, second degree, a crime involving moral turpitude. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.


Resignation/Charges Pending

FRED WYNNE OWEN [#24864], 69, of Bakersfield (Sept. 13, 1997)


Reinstatement

CARL GARRETT JOSEPH [#68577], 49, of Los Angeles (Aug. 14, 1997)


Public Reproval

JAMES S. REED [#37651], 59, of Mammoth Lakes (March 29, 1997)

LUIS RENE VALDEZ [#153865], 36, of Santa Ana (June 15, 1997)

BARRY CHARLES SCHECK [#62646], 48, of New York (July 24, 1997)

[CALBAR JOURNAL]