1. THOMAS PATRICK GIORDANO
2. ZACHARY IAN GONZALEZ
3. STANLEY GOUMAS HILTON
4. LUANN MARIE KELLEY
5. THOMAS CRAIG NELSON
6. PHILIP ALLEN PUTMAN
7. PIOTR GABRIEL REYSNER
8. KENT C. WILSON
9. VINCENT LEE GOODWIN
10. JOHN FRANKLIN MORKEN
11. JOSEPH ARTHUR BERNAL
12. RICHARD DAVID CORONA
13. HENRY RICHARD GAXIOLA
14. MOHAMED FOUZI HAFFAR
15. MOSES SHELDON HALL

THOMAS PATRICK GIORDANO [#155548], 52, of Irvine was disbarred June 16, 2012, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Giordano stipulated to 43 counts of misconduct, most involving his failure to perform legal services for his clients. In the majority of cases, he was hired to file a bankruptcy petition; some of the matters involved loan modifications or bankruptcy petitions to avoid foreclosure on the clients’ property. He demonstrated a pattern of accepting fees but failing to perform legal services. He dissolved his law office but failed to provide refunds totaling more than $267,000. He acknowledged in the stipulation that he owes 38 clients $220,965 and agreed to make restitution.

In one matter, his client agreed to hold Giordano harmless from any claims or lawsuits stemming from a loan modification. He stipulated that he did not tell the client to seek independent legal advice. He didn’t notify another client until the day before a trustee’s sale that his loan modification was denied. In a personal injury case, Giordano stipulated he committed acts of moral turpitude by failing to pay his client’s liens, totaling more than $13,000, although he told the client he had done so. He failed to refund an unearned fee despite his client’s request.

He did refund $26,039 to a couple who hired him to file a chapter 11 petition to save several properties from foreclosure. However, he did no work of value for two other clients who paid him $30,800 and $25,000 respectively to handle their bankruptcies. He owes other clients amounts including $17,000, $14,200, $11,774 and $16,800.

In mitigation, Giordano cooperated with the bar’s investigation and stipulated to disbarment.

ZACHARY IAN GONZALEZ [#259663], 32, of West Covina was disbarred June 16, 2012, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Gonzalez stipulated to 43 counts of misconduct in 14 cases involving his failures to provide competent legal services in bankruptcy and loan modification matters. In 12 matters, he became ineligible to practice law and as a result could not complete his clients’ cases. However, he did not refund unearned fees and in some cases the clients’ bankruptcies were dismissed. Two matters were dismissed because Gonzalez didn’t file 13 required documents. In two other cases, he was not permitted to prepare and file the required documents. He also violated California law by twice agreeing to negotiate a loan modification and collecting advance fees before the work was completed. Gonzalez also did not return his clients’ files.

He was suspended and placed on probation in 2011 for failing to refund unearned fees or account for advance fees, forming a partnership with a person who is not a lawyer, splitting legal fees with a non-lawyer, soliciting prospective clients with whom he had no family or professional relationship and committing acts of moral turpitude. In mitigation, he stipulated to disbarment.

He agreed to make restitution totaling $60,855 to the clients in the 14 disciplinary matters.

STANLEY GOUMAS HILTON [#65990], 63, of San Francisco was disbarred June 16, 2012, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

State Bar Court Judge Lucy Armendariz found that Hilton committed five acts of misconduct in two matters, and he was convicted of reckless driving.

He represented a client who paid an advance $13,000 fee for two civil actions with contingency fee agreements. Hilton did not account for the fee and was ordered by the bar court to participate in fee arbitration, where he agreed to keep $1,994.25 in costs and refund $11,005.74 to the client. He stipulated that he neither accounted for the advance fee or refunded any money to the client.

In a second matter, Hilton practiced law while suspended by accepting a $1,000 fee to handle a foreclosure matter. He told the client he was on inactive status because he was taking a sabbatical to write a book, but he advised the client what pleadings he should file and agreed to prepare them. He then prepared several legal documents. The client believed he was hiring a lawyer and Armendariz found that Hilton engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, collected an illegal fee and committed an act of moral turpitude by lying to the client.

Hilton also pleaded no contest in 2011 to reckless driving. The court found the circumstances surrounding the conviction do not constitute moral turpitude but do warrant discipline.

In mitigation, Hilton stipulated to disbarment. He also was diagnosed as bipolar and participated in the State Bar’s Lawyer Assistance Program and the Alternative Discipline Program. He was terminated from the ADP after committing further misconduct.

He was suspended and placed on probation in 2011 after stipulating to 27 acts of misconduct in eight matters and also was convicted of using offensive words in public likely to provoke a violent reaction, a misdemeanor. He falsely reported to police that his estranged wife had threatened to kill their three children.

Armendariz said she was concerned about Hilton’s “continuous course of misconduct” since 2005 as well as his violation of the previous suspension order. He “does not appear to understand the gravity of his misconduct and . . . put his interests above those of his clients,” she wrote.

LUANN MARIE KELLEY [#131841], 61, of San Diego was disbarred June 16, 2012, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Kelley stipulated that she failed to account for client funds and misappropriated thousands of dollars from a family trust. Kelley represented the trustee, who transferred $80,000 of trust assets to Kelley, who in turn deposited the money in her client trust account. The balance the account dropped to $3,950.75 and later to zero.

Although Kelley believes she is entitled to $27,123 of the $80,000 for attorney fees and costs, she did not obtain a required order concerning fees and costs from the probate court. The court ordered her to refund $80,000 to the trust, along with an additional $115,752.98 in damages, by May 13, 2010. Kelley contends the issue of her claim to attorney fees and costs remains open with the probate court.

In mitigation, she had no prior discipline record, provided evidence of her good character, suffered from depression and cooperated with the bar’s investigation.

THOMAS CRAIG NELSON [#82506], 58, of San Diego was disbarred June 16, 2012, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Nelson stipulated to nine counts of misconduct in three matters. He represented two couples who had disputes with their mortgage lenders, agreed to file chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions to stop pending trustee sales of their homes and then to initiate litigation against the mortgage lenders. One couple paid Nelson $20,700 in advance fees and the other gave him $25,500. Although he filed bankruptcy petitions for both couples, they were dismissed and Nelson never initiated litigation. He stipulated that in both matters he failed to perform legal services competently, account for client funds or refund unearned fees.

He represented another couple, who paid an advance fee of $20,000, to pursue a loan modification and to sue their lender if unsuccessful. Nelson did little to secure a loan modification, never filed a lawsuit and eventually filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition that was dismissed. The clients hired a new lawyer after their lender sued them. Nelson admitted he provided no legal services of value to the couple, nor did he account for or refund their advance fee.

Nelson was suspended and placed on probation in 2011 for failing to perform legal services competently, refund unearned fees or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and he committed acts of moral turpitude. He also was disciplined in 2002 for failing to maintain entrusted funds in a trust account and misappropriating $38,000 in client funds, an act of moral turpitude.

In mitigation, he stipulated to disbarment.

PHILIP ALLEN PUTMAN [#51368], 77, of Huntington Beach was disbarred June 16, 2012, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Putnam stipulated to ten counts of misconduct in three matters.

In the first, he submitted false billing statements to his client after instructing his billing clerk to alter the statements in order to change the paralegal rate  of $100 per hour to the $300 per hour attorney rate. He also told the clerk to “white out” the paralegals’ initials on a billing report. He created a second billing reflecting the higher rates as well as new charges. In total, he claimed $392,397.50 in attorney’s fees. The client, who had paid $11,700, fired Putnam and hired a new lawyer.

In addition, Putnam charged the client for work done when he had said he was unavailable. The stipulation asserts the fees also were unconscionable “considering the time and labor required to complete the tasks,” such as “$600 (2 hours) to prepare, file and serve a one-sentence notice of ruling” and a charge of $2,100 (7 hours) to deliver exhibits to a copy shop.

The court ruled that the attorney fees Putnam claimed were unreasonable and should total $40,000. Although the client paid that amount, Putnam claimed in subsequent complaints filed with the courts that the client had made no payments.

Putnam separately sued the client for $685,500 in fees, costs and punitive damages, claiming approximately $474,500 were attorney fees. Although a jury awarded Putnam $405,050 in damages, the court found the award excessive. Among other things, the court said Putnam had submitted unreliable “if not fraudulent” billing statements and suggested he committed criminal acts.

Putnam also received settlement checks for his client, totaling $8,000, from two financial institutions, but generated billing statements that credited the client with only part of the money.

He stipulated that he committed acts of moral turpitude, charged unconscionable fees, failed to account for client funds and misappropriated funds.

While representing a couple who were defendants in a civil case, Putnam did not file a timely response on their behalf or refund their unearned fee. The plaintiff won a default judgment of $40,468.57 against Putnam’s clients.

In the third matter, Putnam represented a woman in three separate cases, including a legal malpractice action. He stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently: he failed to properly draft the complaint or first and second amended complaints, properly serve all the defendants, provide notice of a case management conference, provide proper discovery responses, file opposition to various motions to compel, or appear at two hearings. He also did not plead the facts properly or provide a basis for his client’s claim to attorney’s fees. He stipulated that he disobeyed court orders.

Putnam was privately reproved in 1995 and in 2000, was suspended and placed on probation for violating the terms of the reproval and for failing to comply with a court order or report sanctions to the State Bar.

PIOTR GABRIEL REYSNER [#210937], 37, of Sacramento was disbarred June 16, 2012, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Reysner stipulated to 49 counts of misconduct in 12 cases. He stipulated that in five matters, he committed acts of moral turpitude by habitually demanding and accepting advanced attorney fees and then failing to perform legal services agreed upon or to refund the advanced fees. He also did not account for client funds, respond to client inquiries or inform them of developments in their cases, or take steps to avoid prejudice to his clients when he stopped representing them.

In a bankruptcy matter, for example, he advised the client that she could sue the credit union that held the mortgage on her ranch. Doing so would lead to a loan modification, he said. Although Reysner filed a bankruptcy petition, he didn’t appear at a scheduled creditors meeting. He didn’t file suit in the predatory lending matter for 10 months and didn’t make any scheduled court appearances. He falsely told the client the matter had been taken off calendar. The client was unable to reach Reysner after she learned she faced a deadline for filing an amended complaint. Both the bankruptcy petition and the predatory lending suit were dismissed.

Another client hired Reysner to sue her lender in an effort to address her impending foreclosure. After receving $5,000 from the client, Reysner did no work of value, and didn’t show up for meetings with the client, respond to status inquiries, return her file or refund the unearned fee.

While representing the wife in a divorce, he missed two conferences and the client fired him. She  was unable to negotiate on her own behalf because Reysner did not sign the substitution of attorney form until nearly a year later, when the client went to his office unannounced and obtained the form.

KENT C. WILSON [#58652], 66, of San Diego was disbarred June 16, 2012, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Wilson stipulated to 30 counts of misconduct in nine cases. Most of the cases involved loan modifications or potential lawsuits against lenders. He did not do the work he was hired to do, closed his office without notifying his clients and did not account for or refund their unearned fees.

In September 2010, Wilson informed the federal court he had tried to resign from the State Bar but the resignation was not accepted because it was not in a form required by bar rules. At the time, Wilson had 49 matters pending in the southern district but did not seek permission from the court to withdraw from any of the matters. He also didn’t tell his clients he was withdrawing as their lawyer. He stipulated that he failed to take steps to avoid prejudice to his clients.

In mitigation, Wilson has no prior discipline record, cooperated with the bar and tried to resign from practice when he was overwhelmed by work. He agreed to make restitution totaling $32,600.

VINCENT LEE GOODWIN [#158570], 54, of Mission Viejo was disbarred June 17, 2012, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Goodwin stipulated to 12 counts of misconduct in six matters.

He received $175,500 on behalf of his client in a divorce matter but allowed the balance in his client trust account to drop to $1,502.39. More than a year later, he disbursed $100,059 to his client, but stipulated that he misappropriated at least $98,557. He also admitted he failed to properly maintain client funds or respond to his client’s status inquiries. Goodwin ultimately repaid $100,059.73.

Although he attempted to obtain a modification of child custody and visitation and support orders in another case, he didn’t complete the work or return the client’s file. Another case was dismissed when Goodwin didn’t provide discovery responses. He also didn’t provide a divorce client’s file to her new attorney, and he missed a hearing in another case in which a default judgment was issued against his client. The judgment was set aside and the client hired a new lawyer.

Goodwin filed a legal malpractice action for another client, but failed to appear at an order to show cause hearing for failure to file a proof of service. He also did not respond to his client’s numerous voicemail messages and emails. The client hired a new lawyer.

In mitigation, Goodwin stipulated to disbarment, demonstrated remorse, has no prior discipline record and suffered from severe health issues and depression. He was unable to adequately supervise his trust account, but the misappropriation did not involve intentional dishonesty. Goodwin tried to organize and repair the damage to his practice and has reorganized his office.

JOHN FRANKLIN MORKEN [#153979], 47, of Tiburon was disbarred June 17, 2012, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Morken failed to comply with a 2008 disciplinary order that required him to participate in the State Bar Lawyer Assistance Program for attorneys with substance abuse or mental health issues. Although he enrolled in the program, he voluntarily withdrew in 2011 and stipulated that he “has failed and refused to comply with any of the conditions of his LAP participation agreement.”

The underlying discipline was imposed for Morken’s failure to maintain client funds in trust, commingling personal and client funds, misappropriating client funds and thus committing an act of moral turpitude and for a conviction for battery. He was publicly reproved in 2005 after a DUI conviction and was suspended the following year for not submitting monthly blood or alcohol screening samples.

JOSEPH ARTHUR BERNAL [#119448], 55, of Pasadena was disbarred June 21, 2012, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Bernal stipulated to four counts of misconduct while representing a client who hired him to enforce a judgment in a post-dissolution matter. Six months after he was hired, he had not initiated any court proceedings, which included removing the ex-husband’s name from the title on the client’s house. He failed to file anything for three years or respond to his client’s emails and letters. When she hired a new lawyer, Bernal did not provide the client file for six months and he did not promptly account for the client’s funds.

Although she had paid an advance fee of $5,000, the new lawyer asked for a refund of $3,665. Bernal claimed he had earned $4,176 and sent her a check for $824.

Bernal stipulated that he failed to provide legal services competently, respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries, release a client file, account for client funds or promptly provide a refund of unearned fees.

In mitigation, Bernal stipulated to disbarment, is involved in numerous charitable activities and suffered from depression as the result of the end of his marriage. He had been disciplined three times. He was publicly reproved in 2003, placed on probation in 2006 for failing to meet probation conditions and in 2011, he was suspended for failing to maintain client funds in trust or pay out client funds promptly, and for committing acts of moral turpitude.

RICHARD DAVID CORONA [#56795], 64, of El Cajon was disbarred June 21, 2012, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Corona failed to comply with rule 9.20, as ordered in a 2007 discipline. Although he filed a late affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension, the affidavit was rejected. A later affidavit was accepted. Failure to comply with rule 9.20 is grounds for disbarment.

The underlying discipline was imposed following Corona’s conviction for conspiring to defraud the government by impeding the Internal Revenue Service, a felony.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar by stipulating to disbarment.

HENRY RICHARD GAXIOLA [#138498], 52, of Fontana was disbarred June 21, 2012, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Gaxiola stipulated to 12 acts of misconduct in four matters, including misappropriating almost $24,000 from one client and more than $42,000 from another.

In one of those matters, he filed a lawsuit against an adult daycare facility for assault on his client’s sister. The suit settled for $175,000 and although he should have kept $51,576.24 in his client trust account for the special needs victim, he used the money to pay third party loan processing fees, other clients’ judgments and settlements and for other personal uses. He allowed the balance in the account to fall below $9,000. He deposited two personal checks in his trust account to bring the balance to the required amount after the court appointed a probate attorney.

He stipulated that he failed to maintain client funds in trust, misappropriated at least $42,699.39, committing acts of moral turpitude, and he commingled personal and client funds.

In a divorce case, he received $40,000 for his client as part of the proceeds from the sale of the family home. Although he deposited the funds in a client trust account and apparently made some court-ordered distributions, he misappropriated $23,921. When the court ordered the distribution of that amount to the opposing party and her attorney, he did not pay any money until after various orders to show cause for contempt were issued. Gaxiola stipulated that he failed to maintain client funds in trust, misappropriated client funds, committing an act of moral turpitude, and he disobeyed a court order.

He failed to perform legal services competently by not filing a motion to set aside his client’s default in another matter, and did not provide the client’s file to a new lawyer or refund any of a $2,500 advance fee.

He also did not perform competently in another case in which his client won a judgment of $12,000. Gaxiola did not prepare a statement of decision, as requested by the court, nor did he respond to the opposing counsel’s offer to settle the case for $6,000 and a dismissal of the action without a judgment. He didn’t tell his client about the offer.

After he provided a draft statement eight months late, the opposing counsel said the delay was grounds for a mistrial. He later offered to settle for $5,000. Gaxiola never responded and did not provide the terms of the offer to his client in writing.

He stipulated that he failed to communicate with his client or respond to reasonable status requests.

Gaxiola was privately reproved in 2006 and placed on two years probation in 2011 for failing to perform legal services competently, return client files, promptly refund unearned fees, communicate with clients or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. In mitigation, he stipulated to disbarment.

MOHAMED FOUZI HAFFAR [#235731], 33, of San Diego was disbarred June 21, 2012, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Haffar stipulated to 36 counts of misconduct in nine loan modification cases. He entered into an agreement with Michael Nazarinia, president of R.E.S.T. Report Matters Inc. (REST), a group of non-lawyers who provide loan modification processing and administrative support services. Haffar agreed to pay Nazarinia from the fees collected from clients who signed up with Haffar after solicitation from REST employees. Nazarinia and REST would provide the loan modification servicing to the clients. Haffar stipulated that he formed a partnership with a non-lawyer.

In the nine matters that resulted in admissions of wrongdoing, Haffar variously failed to provide competent legal services or refund unearned fees, he improperly solicited prospective clients with whom he had no family or prior professional relationship, he violated a state law that prohibits payment of advance fees in loan modification matters, and he helped non-lawyers engage in the unauthorized practice of law by allowing them to give legal advice.

In a typical matter, Haffar solicited the representation of a couple whom he said qualified for a home loan modification; his office, he said, could get their monthly payment lowered and obtain a 3 percent interest rate on their loan. The couple hired him and paid an advance fee of $3,500. Haffar did not obtain a loan modification and the clients demanded a refund. They were never able to speak directly with Haffar, who allowed the non-attorney REST staff to give them legal advice.

In mitigation, Haffar cooperated with the bar’s investigation and agreed to disbarment without a trial. Had he testified, he would have stated that he only started to practice law in 2008 and found himself overwhelmed by loan modification matters. He also had financial problems and as a condition of marrying his wife, had to obtain Syrian citizenship, requiring extensive travel and time-consuming appointments.

MOSES SHELDON HALL [#153759], 56, of Fullerton was disbarred June 21, 2012, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Hall stipulated to nine counts of misconduct in three loan modification matters. In each case, he advised his clients to stop making mortgage payments and they lost their homes to foreclosure. All the clients were current on their mortgage payments when they hired Hall.

He instructed one client, who paid him a flat fee of $3,495, to stop making payments on her mortgages because lenders were only approving loan modifications on mortgages of delinquent borrowers. Instead, he told her to send monthly payments that he calculated at $779.42 — based on a presumed loan modification — and he would hold the money in his client trust account. The client followed his advice and her home was sold at foreclosure. Hall did not refund any of the $11,507.46 he was supposed to hold in trust.

He calculated monthly payments of $1,987.93 for another client, who also sent the money to him instead of her lender. Her home also was sold in foreclosure and Hall misappropriated the $15,903.44 the client gave him. That client also paid Hall a $3,000 fee.

A couple who paid $1,500 of a flat fee gave Hall monthly payments he calculated at $2,023.82; their house was sold at foreclosure. He misappropriated the $22,262.02 the couple gave him to hold in trust.

Hall stipulated in each matter that he failed to perform legal services competently or maintain client funds in trust and he misappropriated client funds, committing acts of moral turpitude.

Hall was publicly reproved in 1993.

 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.