1. WILLIAM C. SNEED JR.
2. KEVIN ANDREW SPEIR
3. HOYT MICHAEL TORREY
4. WAYNE BUNCH
5. JULIE HELENA RARIDAN
6. STACEY ANNETTE MATRANGA

WILLIAM C. SNEED JR. [#173576], 55, of Sacramento was disbarred March 26, 2010, and he was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Sneed committed five acts of misconduct in a matter in which he filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition for his client. The case ultimately was dismissed after the trustee filed several motions based on Sneed’s failure to confirm a Chapter 13 plan.

When he told the client her petition was dismissed, he said he’d been ill and as a result had been unable to finalize the bankruptcy. He then filed a second bankruptcy petition that the trustee again objected to, based on five identical deficiencies.

In the meantime, Sneed didn’t pay bar dues and was suspended for three weeks. He didn’t notify the bankruptcy court or his client of his suspension. He also filed a motion to modify the plan while suspended; the case was dismissed later anyway. He didn’t provide updates to the client or respond to her numerous phone calls.

Judge Pat McElroy found that he failed to perform legal services competently, respond to client inquiries, keep clients informed of developments in their cases or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and he practiced law while suspended, committing an act of moral turpitude.

Sneed has been disciplined three times previously, including suspensions in 2004 and 2005 and a private reproval in 2001, for misconduct similar to that in the most recent case. “Viewed individually, each of (Sneed’s) disciplinary matters, including the present, do not warrant disbarment,” McElroy wrote. “However, viewed collectively, the disciplinary record shows that (he) is simply unwilling or unable to comply with his professional obligations.” She also said Sneed has been committing misconduct or facing discipline charges for 10 of the 15 years he has practiced.

KEVIN ANDREW SPEIR [#119044], 55, of Hemet was disbarred April 10, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

The State Bar Court found that Speir committed acts of moral turpitude by misappropriating more than $40,000 from four clients and he never deposited additional settlement funds in his trust account for a fifth client.

In one matter, for example, Speir misappropriated $9,000 from a personal injury client. He settled the matter for $12,500, endorsing the settlement check with his client’s name and depositing the check in his trust account. He made no disbursements to the client or her doctors. Although he admitted he withdrew the client’s money for his own purposes, he said he did so only after the client agreed to loan him money for “a couple of weeks.” Judge Donald Miles said Speir’s testimony was not “credible or convincing.” 

He misappropriated more than $25,000 from a client he represented in her divorce. He received almost $30,000 from opposing counsel from the sale of the home the client owned with her ex-husband Although he deposited the money in his client trust account, he did not disburse any funds to the client and made four cash withdrawals from her funds.

Again, Speir testified that the client loaned him the money in exchange for his agreement not to charge her any additional fees. The client said she never agreed to such an arrangement.

In mitigation, he had no prior discipline record, cooperated with the bar’s investigation and he repaid his clients prior to disciplinary charges.

In recommending Speir’s disbarment, Miles said the mitigation was not significant enough to outweigh “the significant nature and magnitude of the misconduct and the substantial aggravating factors. . . . The protection of both the public and the profession dictate that an order of disbarment be imposed.”

HOYT MICHAEL TORREY [#224045], 45, of Mountain View was disbarred Oct. 21, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

The State Bar Court ordered the disbarment in a default proceeding in which Torrey faced charges in 10 consolidated matters. He claimed that he operated a 10-lawyer law firm in Mountain View, that he had relationships with loan processors and underwriters and that he maintained loan processing and loan underwriting departments. In reality, however, he was the only lawyer, relied on his girlfriend and others to help with his business and had no relationships with loan underwriters. The Mountain View address was a virtual office; in fact, Torrey worked out of his townhouse in Henderson, Nev.

He offered a variety of business funding agreements that offered loans in exchange for an upfront fee, including a 90-day business funding agreement (BFA), a premium business funding agreement and a “Super Corp” business funding agreement. The fees ranged from $2,000 to $37,500, and Torrey promised loans that could fund venture projects.

With a Super Corp BFA, for example, he said the party who paid the fee would receive an unsecured business line of credit/loan without proof of income or personal assets. The product, he said, came fully documented and with financials. The start-up fee of between $30,000 and $37,000 was to cover the costs “to purchase a lender preferred/full doc corporation that will have the necessary, strong financial and D&B [Dunn and Bradstreet] scores to quickly fund [the party’s] business venture project” with funding of more than $1 million.

In one case, an individual entered into a Super Corp BFA for a $33,500 upfront free and he was promised a $1,185,000 loan. The buyer was told Torrey purchased a corporation for him for which he would receive a loan. Torrey strung the client along, promising that payment of the funds was imminent. He also promised a refund of the fee if funding was not forthcoming. According to the bar charges, Torrey knew the client would never receive any funds and he had no intention of returning the fee.

Even when the client said his credit was ruined, Torrey continued to make promises and he never refunded any fees.

The bar accused him of 11 counts of moral turpitude for misappropriating fees, taking no action to facilitate any loans and making numerous misrepresentations. As a result of his conduct, one client was defrauded of more than $400,000, two people’s credit ratings were harmed, one made late mortgage payments and another borrowed money from her IRA for the fees and incurred a penalty for not repaying it within 90 days. Another client borrowed the upfront fee from a line of credit on his credit card and was charged 29 percent interest on the outstanding balance. Because that client did not receive a loan from Torrey’s business, his wife threatened to leave him. All the clients were strung along over a period of time with regard to obtaining their funds or refunds of their fees.

In recommending Torrey’s disbarment, Judge Lucy Armendariz said his “disregard of his clients’ interests is habitual and . . . his misconduct evidences a pattern of acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption. [Torrey’s] matter is devoid of mitigation which could justify a discipline recommendation short of disbarment.” Armendariz ordered Torrey to make restitution of almost $650,000 plus 10 percent interest to 10 parties.

WAYNE BUNCH [#103093], 63, of San Mateo was disbarred Oct. 21, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court determined that Bunch did not comply with rule 9.20, as ordered in a 2009 discipline. He did not file with the court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his suspension. Failure to comply with rule 9.20 is grounds for disbarment.

The underlying discipline was imposed for Bunch’s failure to perform legal services competently, communicate with a client, account for funds or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and he improperly withdrew from employment and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

In recommending his disbarment, Judge Pat McElroy said Bunch’s “unexplained failure to file a rule 9.20(c) compliance affidavit strongly suggests a conscious disregard for this court’s and the Supreme Court’s efforts to fulfill their respective responsibilities to oversee the practice of law in the State of California.”

JULIE HELENA RARIDAN [#195857], 44, of Smartsville was disbarred Oct. 28, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Raridan stipulated to misconduct in nine matters in 2009. She had financial and marital problems and due in part to her emotional state she accepted clients but was unable to complete their work. When they sought refunds, she was unable to reimburse her clients.

Raridan filed her 9.20 affidavit late, and it was rejected by the probation department because she was unable to state she had refunded all unearned fees. She also made electronic payments from her client trust account against insufficient funds and commingled personal funds by using the trust account to pay personal expenses. The bar received additional complaints similar to the original complaints even after Raridan stipulated to the original discipline, and she admitted in the new cases that she failed to perform legal services competently, refund unearned fees and committed an act of moral turpitude by “habitually disregarding the interests of her clients.”

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

STACEY ANNETTE MATRANGA [#204308], 43, of Ontario was disbarred Oct. 28, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Matranga committed 17 acts of misconduct in seven matters. Among other things, Matranga misappropriated $21,000 of client funds without any explanation for five months. She also “flagrantly breached her fiduciary duties in seven client matters,” State Bar Court Judge Richard Honn found, and she abandoned clients, did not comply with a court order, and failed to perform legal services competently, return client files, communicate with clients, promptly return client funds and account for or maintain client funds. She also she commingled funds in her trust account and committed acts of moral turpitude.

In one matter, Matranga represented a couple in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy matter in which they agreed to pay $30,000 to the bankruptcy trustee. The clients provided a check for that amount payable to Matranga, who deposited it in her client trust account. At the time, it had a balance of $43.27. She was required to maintain $30,000 in her trust account but allowed the balance to fall below that amount on several occasions. She wrote 15 checks to her law office totaling $20,700; 12 checks indicated her bankruptcy clients’ names in the memo portion.

Matranga deposited $23,460 of her own funds into the trust account. She stipulated that $21,235 of those funds was needed to replenish the amounts taken from the trust account. The State Bar Court found that she misappropriated that amount, committing an act of moral turpitude.

In a dissolution in which she represented the wife, Matranga told the court she would reimburse the opposing party’s counsel for reasonable attorney’s fees. However, when the parties were unable to reach an agreement, the court ordered Matranga to pay opposing counsel $10,000. She did not do so.

Although Matranga asked only to be suspended, Honn recommended her disbarment. “The misappropriation of client funds is a grievous breach of an attorney’s ethical responsibilities, violates basic notions of honesty and endangers public confidence in the legal profession,” he wrote. “In all but the most exceptional cases, it requires the imposition of the harshest discipline — disbarment.”

 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.