May I search your vehicle, sir/madam? [Archive]

=> Vox Populi ©

07-06-2003, 12:04 PM

"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote in message
news:3f0581f4.305363@news.sf.sbcglobal.net... foggytown@aol.com (Mike Girouard) wrote: ************************************************** *************** * Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy * * * * BRETT WEISS, P.C. * * Attorneys at Law * * Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars * * lawyer@erols.com * * http://www.erols.com/lawyer * * * * Small Business Estates & Estate Planning * ************************************************** *************** The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with your state's laws who can review *all* of the facts and the law applicable to your situation. ************************************************** ***************Hey, Brett ol' buddy. Is there just the skinniest chance that theabove might be construed as advertising - the practice of which istotally contrary to the protocol of these NGs?I note the ad says "small business". Is it so small you're reduced totrolling NGs for scraps?FoggyTown You're an idiot, froggywits. Brett's sig is within bounds of law

Are you sure?
and doesn't violate any group "protocol",

It violates accepted Usenet protocol for sigs.
it serves the important purpose of giving notice that he is a lawyer, identifies his subject and geographical area of practice, provides information allowing easy verification that he is who he says and signals to the rest of us that his comments are to be given greater weight

Greater weight? Because he's a lawyer? Here are some lawyers you can
fawn over and worship too ...

BRYAN RAY KAZARIAN [#152804], 39, of Santa Ana was summarily disbarred Feb. 14,
2003, following a conviction for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute
methamphetamine and cocaine. He was ordered to comply with rule 955 of the
California Rules of Court.

Kazarian's misconduct met the two criteria for summary disbarment: he was
convicted of a felony and his crime involved moral turpitude

MIGUEL GADDA [#64832], 60, of San Francisco was disbarred Feb. 21, 2003, and was
ordered to comply with rule 955.

The State Bar Court's review department upheld a hearing judge's recommendation
that Gadda be disbarred for multiple acts of misconduct, including failing to
perform legal services competently 10 times, refund unearned fees, communicate
with clients or return their files, and for commingling funds and committing
acts of moral turpitude by issuing trust account checks against insufficient
funds.

He sought review, arguing that because he practices immigration law only, the
State Bar has no jurisdiction over him. He also contended that the disciplinary
proceeding was an attempt by the state to regulate the practice of law in
federal courts.

The review department acknowledged that neither the Supreme Court nor the State
Bar Court could restrict Gadda's federal practice. However, it said it is
through his California license, granted by the Supreme Court, that he is
eligible to practice in California.

Gadda had an immigration practice with a caseload of 500 to 600 cases. Clients
were seen at his office on a first come, first served basis, often waiting
several hours for a 10 to 20 minute appointment.

Immigration judges who testified at Gadda's trial said he frequently missed
court appearances and often seemed unprepared. Gadda often hired other attorneys
to appear for him and he gave a signature stamp to another attorney. Between
1998 and 2000, he worked mostly at home, due to illness, and came to his office
two days a week.

The hearing judge found that Gadda committed 17 acts of misconduct in eight
client matters and a trust account matter. Five of his clients were deported in
absentia due to his actions.

Gadda also was disciplined previously for similar misconduct.

"Under the circumstances reflected by this record," wrote Judge Madge Watai, "we
.. . . doubt that any discipline less than disbarment can adequately protect the
public against future acts of misconduct of the type which respondent has
repeatedly committed . . . .

"There is no evidence that (Gadda) is cognizant of the seriousness of his
misconduct. Instead, (he) continues to rationalize his conduct by blaming
others. He refuses to take responsibility for his conduct."

NEWLAND CHENOWETH SHEPARD [#132824], 47, of Long Beach was disbarred Feb. 23,
2003, and ordered to comply with rule 955.

Shepard was disciplined in 2001 with an order that included a requirement that
he comply with rule 955 by notifying his clients and other pertinent parties of
his suspension and then submitting to the Supreme Court an affidavit stating
that he had done so.

He did not file the required affidavit.

Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment.

In the underlying discipline, the State Bar Court found in a default proceeding
that Shepard failed to communicate with a client or cooperate with the bar's
investigation and he improperly withdrew from employment.

CHRISTOPHER COGLEY [#79263], 55, of Phoenix was disbarred Feb. 23, 2003, and was
ordered to comply with rule 955.

Cogley did not comply with rule 955, as required by a 2001 discipline order.

That discipline was imposed because Cogley did not comply with conditions
attached to a private reproval. The reproval was based on discipline imposed in
Arizona.

KRISTOPHER ADAM HOLLANDS [#170714], 39, of Mission Hills was summarily disbarred
Feb. 23, 2003, and was ordered to comply with rule 955.

He was convicted in 2002 of one count of mail fraud. Because the conviction
entailed a felony and an element of the offense was the intent to deceive,
defraud, steal or suborn perjury, it met the requirements for summary
disbarment.

DARICK WAYNE HOLT [#117879], 48, of Los Angeles was disbarred Feb. 23, 2003, and
was ordered to comply with rule 955.

Holt did not comply with rule 955, as required by a 2001 discipline order.

He was disciplined as a result of misconduct in five client matters, including
failing to perform legal services competently, return client files, refund
unearned fees, deposit client funds in a trust account, communicate with clients
or cooperate with the bar's investigation. He also was convicted of felony
possession of rock cocaine.

JOHN COLLIER PYLE [#98212], 56, of Lodi was disbarred Feb. 23, 2003, and was
ordered to comply with rule 955.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Pyle committed numerous
acts of misconduct, including engaging in the unauthorized practice of law,
collecting an illegal fee, making misrepresentations to two clients, and failing
to perform legal services competently, communicate with a client or cooperate
with the bar's investigation. He committed multiple acts of moral turpitude, the
court said.

Pyle held himself out to be an attorney despite being ineligible to practice law
since 1999.

He represented a defendant in a criminal matter and received advance fees of
$1,000. At the time he collected part of the fee, he knew he had been enrolled
as an inactive lawyer. At 6 p.m. on a Friday evening before a Monday hearing, he
told the client he could not represent him. He never refunded the unearned fee.

In another case, he represented the defendant in a civil action that began in
1994. The client paid him fees of $4,180 and, for two years, he actively pursued
the case. Beginning in 1996, however, he essentially abandoned the case and the
court entered a judgment against his client for nearly $13,000 and fees and
costs of more than $2,700. The court also ordered the client to vacate her
property.

Pyle told the client he had filed a motion to vacate the order and gave her a
future court date. He had filed no such motion and the client was forced from
her home.

Pyle was disciplined three times previously.

SUSPENSION/PROBATION

HERBERT DAVID WHITE [#163930], 49, of Stanton was suspended for four years,
stayed, placed on four years of probation with an actual two-year suspension and
was ordered to prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Feb. 5, 2003.

White failed to comply with a 2001 disciplinary order by not filing with the
Supreme Court an affidavit attesting that he notified his clients and other
pertinent parties of his suspension.

The underlying discipline was the result of his failure to perform legal
services competently, promptly refund unearned fees, communicate with clients or
cooperate with the bar's investigation. He was ordered to comply with rule 955
as part of his probation.

In mitigation, White took steps to close his law office in 1999, but there is no
evidence the State Bar ever received a change of address. He never received one
of the disciplinary notices and when he eventually learned his default had been
entered, he took no further action, believing he had no remedy.When he finally
was in touch with the bar, he filed a responsive pleading and his 955 affidavit
and has been cooperative.

FRANK DENNY WINSTON [#28599], 69, of San Francisco a former member of the State
Bar Board of Governors was suspended for two years, placed on two years of
probation with a five-month actual suspension and was ordered to comply with
rule 955. The order took effect Feb. 5, 2003. The actual suspension was delayed,
and began April 20.

Winston stipulated to misconduct in four consolidated matters.

In the first, a client hired Winston to re-evaluate his non-immigrant visa and
get an extension of his authorized stay with the INS. The client paid $3,000 in
two installments, both deposited by Winston in his personal checking account.
Four years later, the client hired a new attorney.

Winston never filed the necessary papers, did not truthfully answer the client's
questions about the status of his case, and did not refund unearned fees for
more than four years.

In another INS matter, Winston sent a letter to the agency inquiring about his
client's green card application. However, he did not respond to the client's
phone calls and letters.

In another matter, Winston wrote checks against insufficient funds in his client
trust account.

Winston was disciplined in 2000, but failed to comply with a rule 955
requirement. He was granted a stay of his actual suspension by the State Bar
Court review department, and was ordered again to comply with rule 955, but he
filed the required affidavit late.

Winston also was privately reproved in 1994 for improperly withdrawing from
employment, and he was suspended in 2000 for failing to return client files,
refund unearned fees or respond to client inquiries and he withdrew from
employment improperly.

In mitigation, he contracted with a San Francisco law firm in the management of
his trust account, he is receiving ongoing medical treatment for diabetes and he
is involved with a wide range of legal and general community organizations.

LAWRENCE MARK GOTLIEB [#165462], 38, of Beverly Hills was suspended for 24
months, stayed, placed on 24 months of probation with a 12-month actual
suspension, and was ordered to make restitution, take the MPRE and comply with
rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his
rehabilitation. The order took effect Feb. 5, 2003.

Gotlieb represented a client in a personal injury case on a contingency fee
basis. The client had received more than $11,000 from her own insurer; the
carrier was to be indemnified out of any settlement funds received on a property
damage claim. The client also owed two doctor bills for $4,400 and $750.

Gotlieb settled the case for $9,000, but let the balance in his trust account
fall below the required amount. He contacted his client's insurance company,
informing them of his receipt of settlement funds and inviting them to negotiate
the amount sought. The company never responded and Gotlieb made no further
effort to make contact. Nor did he disburse any money to his client or her
doctors.

When the client was contacted by a collection agency, Gotlieb wrote a $300 check
as partial payment of a medical lien. He made no further effort to pay the
balance or negotiate a reduced lien. He did negotiate a reduced lien for the
other doctor and paid that amount.

He never gave the client any money.

Gotlieb stipulated that he misappropriated client funds and failed to
communicate with a client, perform legal services competently or maintain client
funds in a trust account.

In mitigation, he has no record of discipline in nine years of practice, he
cooperated with the bar's investigation, he was having financial difficulties at
the time and he now works as an in-house counsel and has no clients of his own.

LEO BENSON WILKES [#114253], 48, of Mountain View was suspended for two years,
stayed, placed on five years of probation with a one-year actual suspension, and
was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 955. The order took effect
Feb. 5, 2003.

Wilkes stipulated to misconduct in two cases.

In the first, he represented a client in a federal lawsuit, but other than
filing the action, he did not actively prosecute the case or conduct any
discovery. The defendant successfully moved for summary judgment and then was
awarded attorneys' fees and sanctions totaling $5,000.

Wilkes did not appear at the hearing on the motions for summary judgment,
sanctions and fees. The court found the case was baseless, that Wilkes pursued
it after it was clear the lawsuit had no merit, that he failed to diligently
pursue the case and that he showed disrespect for the judicial process.

He never paid the defendant and did not report the sanction to the bar.

Wilkes was suspended in 2001, but he continued to represent his clients in a
lawsuit. He also was privately reproved in 1996.

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

LEE ALLEN McCOY [#153631], 39, of Santa Barbara 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 Feb. 7, 2003.

McCoy practiced law while suspended for non-payment of bar dues. He represented
a client in a criminal matter.

Although McCoy paid his bar fees, he owed an additional penalty fee of $86.25.
He was suspended for about seven weeks.

In mitigation, he was managing his office without a secretary or support staff
and although he intended to pay the penalty fee, he was preparing for a trial.
He has no record of prior discipline and he cooperated with the bar's
investigation.

BRADFORD ERIC HENSCHEL [#141888], 58, of Los Angeles was suspended for five
years, stayed, placed on five years of probation with an 18-month actual
suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE, comply with rule 955 and prove his
rehabilitation. The order took effect Jan. 15, 2003.

Henschel stipulated to misconduct in four matters, including practicing law
while suspended, violating a court order and failing to perform legal services
competently, return client files or take steps to avoid prejudice to a client.

He filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition for a client that was dismissed
because he had not filed some required schedules. The court barred Henschel's
client from filing another petition for 180 days.

Henschel advised the client to file a joint Chapter 7 petition with his wife;
the couple agreed and Henschel filed the petition three months after the first
one was dismissed. The court did not accept the petition because the money order
for filing fees named the wrong payee.

However, Henschel knew the client was barred from filing the matter. He
stipulated that he committed an act of moral turpitude.

During the course of the case, Henschel was suspended from practice, but he
continued to negotiate with one of his client's creditors without notifying the
party of his suspension.

In another bankruptcy matter, Henschel failed to appear for four hearings. His
client called him repeatedly to notify him of the dates of the hearings, but
Henschel did not return the phone calls. The court ordered Henschel to refund
$700 of the $800 advance fee, but he didn't do so.

Henschel also represented a couple, who paid him $5,000, in a proceeding to
determine whether a debt listed in their previously filed bankruptcy matter was
dischargeable. He filed an opposition to a motion for summary judgment late and
then failed to appear at a hearing. The motion for summary judgment was granted.
Henschel failed to return his clients' file when requested.

In another matter, Henschel represented a woman and her son in a personal injury
case. He eventually sent a letter to the clinic that treated the woman saying he
no longer represented her or her son. He stated that the clients had determined
they were not injured in the accident and did not need further treatment, which
was not true.

In mitigation, Henschel had financial problems which led to depression, and he
changed his law office practices.

DAVID ROSS OLICK [#72152], 61, of Benicia was suspended for two years, stayed,
placed on two years of probation with a nine-month actual suspension, and was
ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order
took effect Feb. 14, 2003.

Olick appealed the findings of a hearing court judge, but the review department
upheld the findings and increased the recommended discipline.

Olick substituted in to a wrongful death suit. After he amended the suit, the
previous law firm intervened to protect its claim for attorney fees. Olick then
accused the firm of breach of fiduciary duty and infliction of emotional
distress.

Although he agreed to distribute most of the $100,000 settlement to his minor
clients upon approval of their compromise, he did not effect the compromise for
30 months. He filed two more actions in different counties against the law firm
that previously represented his clients. One was dismissed and Olick was
sanctioned $15,000, and Olick himself dismissed the second.

The review department found that Olick failed to perform legal services
competently by not completing the original case and filing a cross-complaint on
behalf of litigants who had no standing. The court also found he pursued an
unjust action.

In a second matter, an individual who had been fired from his job consulted with
Olick about an agreement the employer wanted him to sign in order to receive
severance payment. He provided documents to Olick.

The client also met with an agent for the state Department of Fair Employment
and Housing, who wanted to speak to Olick before deciding whether to issue a
"right to sue" letter. Ten months later, on the last possible day to file suit,
Olick called the agent and simultaneously told the client he didn't want to
handle his case. He did not return what he said was the client's file until the
client contacted a radio consumer affairs reporter. The file consisted of a
single sheet of paper bearing the man's name and phone number.

The review department said Olick failed to communicate with the client, act
competently or return his papers.

In a third matter, he also failed to return a client's papers.

In mitigation, Olick practiced since 1976 without any discipline and he
performed community service activities.

RICHARD MICHAEL ELINSKI [#112892], 53, of Camarillo was suspended for six
months, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a six-month actual
suspension and was ordered to comply with rule 955. The order took effect Feb.
23, 2003.

Elinski failed to comply with the terms of a 2000 probation: he did not attend
ethics school or the client trust account school on time and he failed to
provide seven required reports from a certified public accountant.

The underlying discipline was the result of commingling funds in his trust
account and committing acts of moral turpitude by writing checks against
insufficient funds.

In mitigation, no clients were harmed, Elinski demonstrated remorse, he had
financial problems and he cooperated with the bar's investigation.

STEPHEN E. LAWTON [#25705], 77, of Congress, Arizona was suspended for one year,
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 Feb. 23, 2003.

Lawton stipulated that he willfully disobeyed a court order by not refunding
$7,500 in unearned fees to a client.

He was retained to represent a defendant in several criminal matters and
demanded a $16,000 advance payment. The client's father paid the fee.

Although he and his law partner asked to be relieved as attorneys of record,
their request was denied three months prior to a scheduled jury trial. The day
the trial was to begin, the judge ordered Lawton and his partner to refund
$7,500 before being relieved as counsel. When they didn't refund the money, the
court refused to relieve them.

The client hired a new attorney and the court then relieved Lawton and his
partner as counsel, again ordering them to refund the money. Lawton's partner
eventually did so. Lawton said he didn't comply with the court order because he
believed it was invalid.

In mitigation, Lawton has no prior record of discipline, he suffered from
physical difficulties at the time of the misconduct and he cooperated with the
bar's investigation.

STEPHEN PAUL WAINER [#156197], 37, of Bakersfield was suspended for one year,
stayed, placed on three years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension, and
was ordered to make restitution, take the MPRE within one year and comply with
rule 955. The order took effect Feb. 23, 2003.

Wainer stipulated to two counts of misconduct: failing to perform legal services
competently and committing acts of moral turpitude by falsifying pleadings and
other documents, executing documents on behalf of others without their
knowledge, making repeated misrepresentations to his employer and client, and
fraudulently affixing superior court filing stamps and case numbers to
pleadings.

Wainer was a junior partner with a Bakersfield firm when in 1999 he was assigned
to work on a matter involving water rights. He was to draft and file a
complaint, achieve service, consolidate the matter with a complaint filed by
another client and to initiate discovery.

He drafted but did not file the complaint. He then told his employer and the
client that he had filed the complaint, put a fabricated case number on the
papers he drafted using an unauthorized Kern County Superior Court file stamp,
prepared a fabricated summons and placed the documents in the client's file.

Wainer also sent a memo to the firm's partners indicating that the case was
progressing as they wished and prepared fictitious answers and letters which had
not been mailed. He also indicated he had circulated a stipulation in the case
to consolidate it with another action.

When the partners learned Wainer had not done the work, he resigned. The firm
credited the client for the work that had been billed on Wainer's behalf. Wainer
wrote to the State Bar of his own accord to inform it of his actions.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation, he has no record of
discipline in 10 years, he was suffering from depression due to pressures at
work and the illness of his mother-in-law, and he has sought counseling.

ANN LONERGAN SMITH [#94331], 75, of Van Nuys was suspended for one year, 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 Feb. 23, 2003.

Smith stipulated to misconduct in two matters.

She settled a personal injury case for $7,000 and deposited the check in her
client trust account. Smith wrote a check for $2,800 to the client, who because
of illness did not cash the check for two months. It bounced twice, and Smith
paid the client in cash.

Smith allowed the balance in her trust account to fall below the required amount
at least 18 times over a two-month period. She also commingled personal and
client funds.

In a second case, she represented the defendant in a dog bite case. The client
gave her $750 to settle the matter, but when the plaintiff tried to cash the
check, it bounced. Smith issued a cashier's check for $770, providing $20 to
cover the bank charges incurred by the plaintiff.

Smith also was disciplined last year for failing to perform legal services
competently or pay court-ordered sanctions.

In mitigation, Smith's husband of more than 30 years died shortly before the
misconduct. Her husband also was an attorney who handled all the business and
law firm account records. Smith is taking office management courses and enrolled
in the bar's client trust accounting school.

DANIEL FREDERICK ORTNER [#67045], 57, of Burson was suspended for five years,
stayed, actually suspended for two years and until he makes restitution, proves
his rehabilitation and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the
actual suspension, and he was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955.
The order took effect Feb. 23, 2003.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Ortner committed
misconduct in five cases, including failing to perform legal services
competently, respond to clients' status inquiries, return unearned fees, return
client papers or deposit money for costs in a client trust account, and he
improperly withdrew from employment and committed an act of moral turpitude.

In one matter, his clients paid an advance fee of $825 for Ortner to prepare
wills, trusts, a related deed and durable powers of attorney for health care.
When the clients met with him a month later, the documents he had prepared were
replete with errors and he had not prepared the transfer deed of trust. Despite
his assurances to the contrary, he never corrected the errors or prepared the
transfer deed.

When he did not return the clients' numerous phone calls, they asked for a
refund, but Ortner did not return any of the advance fee.

In another matter, Ortner agreed to prepare a dissolution of marriage and
accepted $535 in advance fees and costs. The client signed various papers, but
Ortner never filed the dissolution petition. He did not return more than 50
phone calls or respond to the client's request for her file.

The client eventually sued Ortner in small claims court, winning a judgment for
$535 plus $50 in costs.

He abandoned three other clients, accepting advance fees but not performing the
work he was hired to do.

EDWARD STUART LEVINSON [#61886], 54, of Oakland was suspended for two years,
stayed, actually suspended for 90 days, 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 Feb. 23, 2003.

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

In a civil lawsuit in which the plaintiff obtained a default judgment against
Levinson's client, he moved to set aside the judgment. The court agreed on
condition that Levinson's client pay the plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney
fees.

Levinson did not notify the client of a trial date, ignored interrogatories,
ignored the plaintiff's motion to compel answers to the interrogatories, and did
not notify his client that she had been ordered to pay $450 to the plaintiff as
attorney fees.

The client was sanctioned and ordered to pay $1,240, but Levinson did not notify
her.

She did not appear for trial and judgment was entered against her for $22,896
plus $156 in costs. She learned about the judgment when her bank told her her
account had been attached. Levinson did not return her phone calls.

A new lawyer succeeded in setting aside the default judgment, but the client was
ordered to pay attorney fees and costs of $4,258 to the plaintiff.

In a second matter, Levinson represented a client in a guardianship proceeding
in which he sought custody of his two minor children. He appealed an order
granting guardianship to the children's grandparents.

Levinson did not take adequate steps to provide the appellate court with the
superior court reporter's transcript, so the appellate court did not have an
adequate record to assess the client's claims. The court ruled in favor of the
grandparents.

The bar court found that Levinson failed to perform legal services competently,
keep a client informed of developments in a case or cooperate with the bar's
investigation.

W. THOMAS NOTHERN [#82542], 58, of Sherman Oaks was suspended for one year,
stayed, and was actually suspended for 60 days and until the State Bar Court
grants a motion to terminate the suspension. If the actual suspension exceeds 90
days, he must comply with rule 955; if it exceeds two years, he must prove his
rehabilitation. The order took effect Feb. 23, 2003.

In a default proceeding, the bar court found Nothern practiced law while
suspended, sought to mislead a judge and his clients about his eligibility to
practice, and failed to maintain a current address with the bar or cooperate
with the bar's investigation.

Nothern was suspended Sept. 10, 1999, for failing to pay his 1999 bar dues and
has remained suspended ever since. In 2001, he appeared in Sacramento Superior
Court on behalf of two defendants in an unlawful detainer action.

In mitigation, he has no prior discipline in 22 years of practice.

IRA SYLVESTER BRACKENS [#79807], 55, of Fresno was suspended for three years,
stayed, placed on four years of probation with an 18-month actual suspension and
was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect
Feb. 23, 2003.

Brackens stipulated to three counts of misconduct, but then sought review of a
hearing judge's recommendation that he be suspended. Brackens argued that a
public reproval would be appropriate.

The review department increased the hearing judge's recommendation of a
six-month suspension to an 18-month suspension.

Brackens stipulated that between 1996 and 1998, he wrote at least 177 checks
against insufficient funds in his client trust account for personal and
non-client related business expenses. He also admitted commingling client and
non-client funds.

Although he testified that he assumed there were funds in the trust account when
he wrote the checks, the hearing judge found he abdicated his responsibility to
control his trust account, which constituted an act of moral turpitude.

Brackens was suspended in 1996 and submitted quarterly probation reports
representing under penalty of perjury that he complied with all ethical rules
governing his practice. However, he was violating those rules by using his trust
account as his personal account. He stipulated that his actions constituted acts
of moral turpitude.

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

RAYMOND KIRK KOLTER [#152579], 40, of Los Angeles was revoked, the stay of
suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for two years, placed on
probation for two years and was ordered to make restitution and pay certain
medical liens. The order took effect Feb. 23, 2003.

Kolter was suspended and placed on probation in 2001. In a probation revocation
hearing that Kolter did not participate in, the bar court found he failed to
submit two quarterly probation reports and an affidavit showing proof of payment
of medical liens to three doctors.

The underlying discipline involved eight client matters and included failure to
perform services competently, communicate with clients, maintain in his trust
account funds received for the benefit of clients or promptly pay lienholders
and clients the funds they were owed, and he committed acts of moral turpitude.

BETTYE JEWEL BARNARD [#65129], 56, of Inglewood was suspended for six months,
stayed, placed on one year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within
one year. The order took effect Feb. 23, 2003.

A client paid Barnard $1,500 to obtain a qualified domestic relations order
(QDRO) to grant her a share of her former husband's military pension. She
prepared and filed the pleadings, but was unable to serve the former husband,
who lives in South Carolina.

The hearing was continued and the client gave Barnard $150 to pay for service
costs. The hearing was continued a second time so Barnard could serve the
ex-husband.

On the date of the hearing, Barnard asked the court to take the matter off
calendar, and she reset the hearing four months later. Barnard failed to appear
at the hearing and the case was never completed.

Barnard stipulated that she failed to perform legal services competently and
improperly withdrew from employment.

In mitigation, Barnard has no record of discipline, was under a doctor's care at
the time for bladder cancer and was working part time.

PAUL ERIC GOLD [#105457], 46, of Redondo Beach was suspended for 18 months,
stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within
one year. The order took effect Feb. 23, 2003.

Gold filed and settled a personal injury lawsuit for $35,000, guaranteeing his
client a net of $20,000, leaving him $15,000 for attorney fees and outstanding
third party costs. He negotiated a $1,150 medical bill down to $400, and when it
was not paid, the doctor contacted Gold three times. Gold did not respond, so
the doctor billed the client for the original amount. Gold assured her he would
pay. When he did not, the client called him at least 10 times and visited his
office and sent several letters.

Gold did not respond to the letters, but finally sent the client a check for
$1,000. Sixteen months passed between the time of settlement and Gold's payment.

He stipulated that he failed to respond to a client's inquiries or promptly pay
out client funds.

Gold also was privately reproved in 1996.

In mitigation, Gold underwent two major surgeries and his subsequent
convalescence disrupted his practice. He also moved his office and had
difficulty receiving mail and telephone messages.

ROBERT TODD SUMMA [#147141], 42, of St. Louis, Mo. was suspended for two years
and was ordered to make restitution, prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and
comply with rule 955. He must remain suspended until the State Bar Court grants
a motion to end the suspension. The order took effect March 3, 2003.

Summa was disbarred in Missouri for misconduct in four cases. He either did not
do any of the work he was hired to do or did only a partial job, he didn't
respond to his clients' requests for information, and he misrepresented the
status of one case, telling the client his claim had been filed when it had not.

In a default proceeding in California in which bar prosecutors sought Summa's
disbarment here, the bar court determined that his acts, had they been committed
in California, would entail failing to provide competent legal services,
communicate with a client, refund unearned fees, or cooperate with the bar's
investigation, and he would have improperly withdrawn from employment and
committed an act of moral turpitude.

H. GREIG FOWLER [#37462], 66, of San Francisco was suspended for two years,
stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 90-day suspension and
was ordered to make restitution, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the
actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order
took effect March 2, 2003.

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.

Fowler represented an elderly man who filed a lawsuit to recover money another
individual had taken from his checking account. When the other individual filed
for bankruptcy, the lawsuit was automatically stayed. Fowler and his client
agreed that he would perform preliminary work on the bankruptcy matter without
charge, and he filed a claim against the other individual.

He later met with the client and the client's cousin, who agreed to pay another
$4,500 to complete the case.

When the bankruptcy was dismissed, Fowler did not file any more documents in the
original lawsuit and took no further action. He was diagnosed with diabetes and
had financial and personal problems.

When contacted by his client's cousin, he falsely told him a trial date had been
set in the original case. A few days before the purported trial date, Fowler
informed the client he'd taken the matter off calendar due to his health
problems. He then stopped communicating with his client and essentially
abandoned the case. He filed for bankruptcy a few months later.

When the client sought a refund of $4,475 in fees, Fowler sent the letter back,
unopened, and said he did not think it was appropriate for them to communicate.

In another matter, he commingled personal and client funds in his trust account
and used the account for personal and non-client related expenses.

In mitigation, Fowler practiced for 32 years without any discipline and has
extensive involvement in bar and legal community activities. He has been a
speaker at continuing education programs, was president of the trial lawyers bar
on both a local and statewide level and served on the boards of the Bar
Association of San Francisco and the San Francisco Lawyers Club.

He also suffered extreme emotional difficulties due to health and financial
problems.

BRIAN L. BUCKLEY [#116705], 48, of Los Angeles was suspended for one year,
stayed, actually suspended for 30 days and until the State Bar Court grants a
motion to terminate the suspension, and he was ordered to take the MPRE. If the
suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 955; if it exceeds two
years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect March 2, 2003.

In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Buckley failed to perform
competently, communicate with a client or promptly return a client file.

He represented a client in a wrongful termination lawsuit that settled for
$600,000. One quarter was to be attorney fees. Fowler agreed to dismiss the suit
after full satisfaction of payment, which was to be delivered in installments.

Once Buckley received his fee, he was to execute the necessary documents so the
remaining payments would go directly to his client's family attorney. However,
he did not do so, and instead continued to receive settlement checks without
notifying his client. He eventually delivered 20 checks to his client, but one
bounced.

Buckley received four final installments without notifying the client, dismissed
the lawsuit before the client was paid, and waited another year to give the
client the full settlement.

He did not return his client's numerous phone calls or release his file to the
client's new lawyer. After several months, he provided a portion of the file to
the other attorney.

GREGORY HARPER [#146119], 46, of Berkeley was suspended for one year, stayed,
placed on two years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was
ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order
took effect March 8, 2003.

Harper stipulated to misconduct in three cases. He commingled funds in his
client trust account, failed to adequately supervise an employee who was able to
steal $10,000 of entrusted client funds and he failed to deliver funds to a
client for nearly six years.

In the first matter, two checks issued against his client trust account were not
honored due to insufficient funds. Harper deposited non-trust funds into his
trust account, which he used to write personal and general office expense
checks.

In the second case, an employee forged endorsements of both Harper and his
client on a settlement check and deposited the money in Harper's general
account. Harper filed a police report accusing the employee of stealing $10,000
in entrusted funds. After two years, the client complained to the State Bar that
he never received any settlement funds. Harper received another settlement check
from the insurance company and the client received the funds the following year.

In a third matter, another client hired Harper to collect on an unsecured
promissory note. He and the client agreed Harper would keep one-third of any
funds collected. However, it took him nearly six years to give the client the
balance of the funds Harper received.

Harper stipulated to similar misconduct in a 1994 discipline case.

than nutwits like yourself. In addition, everybody but you, the group social and mental debilitate, knows how to trim the sig in reply. If you want to run the world, go start your own moderated group,

Is that how one "runs the world" ? Think how much less damage the idiot
GW Bush could do if we just gave him his own moderated NG ...
alt.soc.pinwits.moderated and elect yourself president for life. Then you can run things the way you like. However, I, for one, would appreciate YOUR continured use of the "Foggytown" sig advertising your presence, so as to permit me to identify and give due regard to the comments you make. -Merlin

Still a sock-puppeting sidekick, eh Merlin?

--
"the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian
Religion"
-- US Treaty of Tripoli 1797