- MARK STEVEN WILLIAMS
- STEVE SEHAENG KWON
- STEPHEN LEE BURNS
- RICHARD ALLAN WHITE
- DANIEL SCOTT BROWN
- BRIAN IRVING GLICKER
- COLLEEN MARIE QUINN
- FRANK JOSEPH FERRIS
- LAWRENCE EDWARD WEITZMAN
- RICARDO LOPEZ MENDOZA
- PAUL ETAN FISHER
- ROGER JAMES AGAJANIAN
- DAVID G. RONQUILLO
- JOSEPH MEIR RIBAKOFF
- MARK MITCHELL GEYER
MARK STEVEN WILLIAMS [#177754], 58, of Menlo Park was disbarred May 13, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Williams violated an earlier rule 9.20 order by failing to submit to the court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. Although he filed a declaration of compliance three months late, failure to comply with the rule is grounds for disbarment.
The underlying discipline, imposed in 2008, followed misdemeanor convictions for trespassing and fleeing from a park ranger. The bar court’s review department found that neither conviction involved moral turpitude and reduced a disbarment recommendation to a suspension.
Williams, who is both a lawyer and a doctor, was disciplined again in 2010 for three acts of misconduct — he committed acts of moral turpitude by make false and misleading statements on applications for hospital privileges, did not notify the State Bar of disciplinary action taken against him by the medical board, and he failed to uphold the law. His medical license was revoked in 1999 and he was subsequently employed by a law firm, where he represented himself as a doctor, without notifying his employer that his license had been revoked.
In recommending disbarment, Judge Richard Honn wrote that Williams “has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys although he has been given opportunities to do so.”
STEVE SEHAENG KWON [#222338], 47, of Diamond Bar was disbarred May 13, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
Kwon stipulated that he violated an earlier rule 9.20 order by failing to submit to the court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. He filed a declaration of compliance about five weeks late. He also did not meet with the probation department by the required deadline.
He was disciplined in 2009 for failing to perform legal services competently and committing acts of moral turpitude, and again in 2010 for failing to comply with probation conditions.
In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and demonstrated remorse.
STEPHEN LEE BURNS [#113371], 60, of Burbank was disbarred May 13, 2011, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
Burns stipulated to 16 counts of misconduct in five matters, including three instances of misappropriating client funds.
In one matter, for example, he settled a personal injury case for his minor client for $15,000. He was sanctioned twice for not obeying court orders and the court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice for Burns’ failure to prosecute. Although the court set aside the dismissal, it warned Burns that the case would be dismissed again if he failed to resolve his client’s compromise. When that did not happen, the court sanctioned Burns again and took over jurisdiction of the case.
The court issued a series of orders, but Burns did not follow through on obtaining settlement funds. He therefore never deposited any funds in an interest-bearing account for the minor’s benefit. He allowed the balance in his trust account to fall below the required amount and stipulated that he misappropriated $3,123.59. He also admitted that he failed to obey court orders, disburse client funds promptly or perform legal services competently.
Burns misappropriated $15,000 from a couple who were injured in an automobile accident, and $4,725 from another client without telling her that he’d settled her claim.
He stipulated that his misconduct “was surrounded by dishonesty, concealment and an inability to account to his clients.” Burns also was disciplined in 2005 for misconduct in five personal injury cases, most involving misusing his client trust account and/or failing to perform legal services competently.
RICHARD ALLAN WHITE [#78566], 64, of Palmdale was disbarred May 14, 2011, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
White stipulated to eight counts of misconduct in four cases, including two misappropriations totaling $20,967. He deposited the proceeds of a sale of a community residence, totaling $18,510, in his client trust account, but a levy by the California Tax Franchise Board reduced the balance to $10,829. White then wrote a check for $10,000 that he deposited in his personal bank account.
In a second matter, he misappropriated almost $2,500 he should have used to pay his client’s doctors.
He used his client trust account to pay business and personal expenses and instead of withdrawing attorney’s fees from 15 settlements, he left those fees in the account.
In mitigation, White cooperated with the bar’s investigation.
DANIEL SCOTT BROWN [#158025], 48, of Danville was disbarred May 14, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Brown practiced law while not entitled and he failed to comply with the requirements of a previous disciplinary order.
Brown was placed on inactive status in 2009 for failing to respond to disciplinary charges filed against him. He appeared in court on behalf of two clients and otherwise participated by phone when he was not entitled to practice. By holding himself out as eligible to practice, he also committed acts of moral turpitude.
Brown also failed to comply with rule 9.20, a requirement of a suspension imposed for his failure to comply with probation conditions attached to a 2008 public reproval. The reproval was imposed for his failures to comply with court orders. Failure to comply with 9.20 is grounds for disbarment.
In recommending his disbarment, Judge Lucy Armendariz said Brown “has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys although he has been given opportunities to do so.”
BRIAN IRVING GLICKER [#165866], 52, of Sherman Oaks was disbarred May 21, 2011, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
The State Bar Court found that Glicker committed seven counts of misconduct in two matters, including misappropriating $185,000 from a trust. In that matter, he represented a client who was the trustee for a family trust in an action against her son. As part of a settlement, the son was to pay the trust $235,000.
Glicker received a check from the son for $50,000 that he deposited in his client trust account, which had a balance of $195.64. He subsequently transferred $20,000 to his general office account and wrote a $30,000 check to a client whose case was unrelated to the trust matter.
The son later made a wire transfer of $172,850.38 to Glicker’s trust account; he transferred $50,000 to his bank account, and later made two more transfers of $20,000 and $25,000. When the son made his final payment, Glicker was holding $185,000 belonging to the trust. When he was asked to distribute the funds and provide an accounting, Glicker wrote a check against his office account, but when the son tried to cash the check, he found that Glicker had stopped payment.
Judge Donald Miles found that Glicker failed to maintain client funds in trust or account for funds and he misappropriated client funds.
In a second matter, Glicker received a $35,000 settlement check on behalf of a client and after distributing $15,809 to the client, indicated he was withholding the remainder to pay two medical liens. He made no further distributions for more than three years, but when the client threatened to complain to the bar, Glicker said he’d settled the liens and the client could come to his office to receive the remaining funds. In fact, the liens were never paid and Glicker continued to hold $3,880.60 that was still owed to the client.
Miles found that Glicker misappropriated that amount and his misrepresentations about the medical liens amounted to moral turpitude. He also failed to cooperate with the bar’s investigation of either case.
In recommending disbarment, Miles wrote that Glicker “intentionally misappropriated substantial funds from two clients. He continues to withhold those funds and has demonstrated absolutely no remorse for his conduct. Instead he continues to make up stories and arguments to seek to justify his misconduct. The protection of both the public and the profession dictate that an order of disbarment be imposed.”
COLLEEN MARIE QUINN [#87608], 58, of San Jose was disbarred May 21, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Quinn violated an earlier rule 9.20 requirement by failing to submit to the court an affidavit attesting that she notified her clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of her suspension. Failure to comply with the rule is grounds for disbarment.
She also did not submit a quarterly probation report or a lab screening report, as required by probationary conditions attached to a 2010 discipline. That matter involved Quinn’s three felony and one misdemeanor convictions involving a DUI and obtaining a controlled substance through fraud, as well as misconduct in three client matters and practicing without authorization.
FRANK JOSEPH FERRIS [#40793], 69, of Sacramento was disbarred May 21, 2011, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
Ferris stipulated to seven counts of misconduct in three matters, including borrowing $55,000 from two clients and misappropriating $10,000 from a third.
While representing the defendant in a civil suit, he spent the $10,000 she gave him to settle the matter. Because Ferris did not pay the plaintiff, an $80,000 judgment was issued against his client. He did not tell the client about the judgment and made a series of misstatements about the $10,000, including several promises to transfer the funds back to her.
Ferris stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, properly handle client funds or communicate significant developments to his client and he committed acts of moral turpitude.
Another client paid him $30,000 to represent her as both a plaintiff and a defendant in separate matters. She also gave Ferris a $5,000 loan by writing a check against her credit card; Ferris promised to repay her the following week. Two years later, he wrote the client a check that bounced. The client won a small claims judgment of $5,000 plus costs, but when Ferris failed to appear at a hearing, a bench warrant for his arrest was issued. He has since made payments to satisfy the judgment.
Ferris stipulated that he committed acts of moral turpitude and he entered into a transaction with a client without advising her to seek independent legal advice.
In a third matter, Ferris borrowed $50,000 from a client, and when, nearly two years later, he wrote a check to repay the client, the check bounced. His account held a negative balance at the time. Ferris stipulated that the terms of the loan were not fair, he did not advise the client to seek independent legal advice and the client did not consent in writing to the terms of the loan.
Ferris was disciplined in 2003 for matters involving misuse of his client trust account.
LAWRENCE EDWARD WEITZMAN [#43778], 67, of Rescue was summarily disbarred May 27, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
Weitzman was convicted in 2009 of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Because the crime is a felony that involves moral turpitude, it meets the criteria for summary disbarment.
RICARDO LOPEZ MENDOZA [#129356], 54, of Oxnard was disbarred May 27, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
The State Bar Court review department upheld a hearing judge’s recommendation that Mendoza be disbarred for misappropriating more than $16,000 from five clients. It rejected Mendoza’s assertion that the discipline is excessive and that he was not given enough mitigation by the hearing judge.
In total, the hearing judge found that Mendoza committed 19 counts of misconduct in six different cases involving 13 clients. A personal injury case was dismissed because he failed to respond to discovery requests and motions, and he did not attend five court hearings. For a year and a half, he did not respond to his clients’ numerous requests for information.
He settled another personal injury case, but misappropriated $6,174 in settlement funds and did not pay his clients’ medical liens. He misappropriated another $9,994.67 from a client by writing 86 checks to himself against his client trust account, leaving a balance of $5.33. He deposited three settlement checks in his trust account that were written to him and a previous lawyer. Mendoza offered $650 to settle the other lawyer’s lien, but no agreement was reached and he did not pay the other attorney. On review, Mendoza attached to his opening brief a copy of a letter and $650 check to the other lawyer eight months after trial before the hearing judge ended.
Mendoza filed a complaint in another personal injury case, but he did not complete an alternative dispute resolution form, respond to discovery requests, and appear at two hearings. The court dismissed the complaint and ordered Mendoza to pay sanctions of $250. He took no steps to set aside the dismissal, and did not pay the sanctions until three years later.
Mendoza was suspended and placed on probation in 2001 for the unauthorized practice of law.
In recommending his disbarment, the review panel noted that he misappropriated a significant amount of money and said the extent of his misconduct “is of paramount concern.” Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge JoAnn Remke said, "When we consider the totality of his misconduct starting with his prior record, we find that his offenses have become increasingly more serious with the passage of time.”
PAUL ETAN FISHER [#125309], 51, of Newport Beach was summarily disbarred Nov. 4, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
Fisher pleaded guilty in 2009 to rape by intoxication, oral copulation by intoxication, intercourse with a minor under 16 and committing a lewd act on a child. All four crimes are felonies that involve moral turpitude and thus meet the criteria for summary disbarment.
ROGER JAMES AGAJANIAN [#55393], 65, of Lake Forest was disbarred Nov. 4, 2010, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
The State Bar Court found that Agajanian committed 18 acts of misconduct in three client matters as well as extensive trust accounting violations. The misconduct included charging an illegal fee of $28,000, failing to maintain client funds, obey a court order or communicate with clients, perform services competently, commingling funds in his trust account, misappropriating $28,600, improper withdrawal from employment, seeking an agreement to withdraw a State Bar complaint, and committing multiple acts of moral turpitude and dishonesty.
Agajanian has been disciplined three times in the last 23 years, resigned with charges pending in 1994 and was reinstated in 2001. “Given (his) history of recidivism . . . the recommended degree of discipline in this matter leaves no room for debate,” wrote Judge Richard Platel.
In a conservatorship, Agajanian accepted a fee of $28,000 without obtaining the required court permission. He failed to return $25,000 to the client despite a court order, misappropriated that amount, commingled funds in his client trust account, which he used to pay personal and business expenses, and he made misrepresentations to the court, including claims that he was owed $23,950 in attorney’s fees and had not received any fees prior to that time. He also conditioned a settlement agreement on a party withdrawing his complaint about Agajanian to the State Bar.
In a personal injury case he took on a contingency basis, Agajanian misappropriated $3,600 of the $6,000 settlement check he received, allowing the balance in his trust account to fall to a negative amount.
Agajanian handled a construction defect matter through trial, and a judgment was entered against his client. He filed a notice of appeal, but it was dismissed because he failed to timely deposit costs for preparation of the record on appeal. He did not notify his client of the dismissal or take any steps to avoid prejudice to the client. She didn’t learn about the dismissal for six months and hired a new lawyer when Agajanian didn’t return her phone calls. The new lawyer was able to reinstate the appeal, but Agajanian never provided court reporter’s transcripts.
Agajanian was first disciplined in 1990 after convictions on two counts of criminal contempt for making misleading statements to the court. He was sentenced to 90 days in federal prison. After two more suspensions, and with four disciplinary matters pending, Agajanian resigned in 1994.
In recommending disbarment, Platel said Agajanian “had repeatedly committed misconduct during 23 of the 37 years of his practice,” said he was concerned the misconduct would recur.
DAVID G. RONQUILLO [#67318], 65, of Vista was disbarred Nov. 12, 2010, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
The State Bar Court review department upheld a hearing judge’s findings that Ronquillo committed five acts of misconduct, including misappropriation of $124,065 in trust funds from two clients. The panel rejected Ronquillo’s assertion that the judge abused his discretion in excluding the testimony of five character witnesses after Ronquillo failed to file a required pretrial statement.
Ronquillo obtained a settlement of $235,606 on behalf of a client who was seriously injured in an automobile accident that killed his wife and the uninsured driver of the other car, who was liable. Ronquillo deposited the settlement money into his client trust account and the next day withdrew the entire amount to repay a third party who had advanced monies to Ronquillo to cover office and other litigation expenses unrelated to automobile accident. After taking his fee, Ronquillo owed the client $115,065, and the court found he misappropriated that amount.
He misappropriated $9,000 of another client’s advanced $10,000 fee. The court found he earned only $1,000 and used the rest of the money to pay his office expenses.
Both the hearing judge and the review panel said Ronquillo did not establish convincing evidence in mitigation. He also was suspended in 2004 for misusing his trust account to pay personal and law office expenses.
JOSEPH MEIR RIBAKOFF [#146573], 55, of Long Beach was disbarred Nov. 12, 2010, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
The State Bar Court found that Ribakoff committed three acts of misconduct while defending a client in a civil case and he failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 2002 discipline order.
A client wrote him a check for $3,000 and a second check for $296.20 for costs after he drove to her house at 10:45 p.m. Ribakoff deposited the checks in a credit union account that he designated as a client trust account, even though it was not a true trust account. Although he prepared an answer and cross-complaint, he did not file either pleading and the client fired him. She hired a new lawyer and asked Ribakoff to refund the unearned fees.
He billed the client for $1,530; when she objected he suggested fee arbitration. The client later demanded $2,696.29; because of the dispute, Ribakoff was obliged to retain that amount in a trust account, but he didn’t do so. He obtained a money order for the client for an amount less than the balance in his account but he never sent the money to her.
The bar court found that Ribakoff failed to deposit or maintain client funds in a trust account, and he failed to refund unearned fees.
In a second matter, he did not comply with the requirements of a disciplinary probation imposed in 2002. He did not file three quarterly reports, make restitution to two individuals or complete continuing education courses.
In mitigation, he helped with various worthy causes, including working for human rights organizations, during his career.
In recommending Ribakoff’s disbarment, Judge Richard Honn noted his “extensive” disciplinary record as well as a matter pending in the Alternative Discipline Program. “In particular,” Honn wrote, “the court notes that (Ribakoff) again failed to promptly return unearned fees although he had previously been disciplined twice for such misconduct. Furthermore, the court is particularly troubled by the fact that (Ribakoff) engaged in misconduct while on probation for earlier misconduct.”
MARK MITCHELL GEYER [#64122], 61, of Calabasas was disbarred Nov. 12, 2010, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Geyer committed seven acts of misconduct in two matters. Coupled with four prior disciplines, Judge Richard Honn recommended his disbarment.
In the first matter, he sued multiple defendants on behalf of a couple who faced claims arising from their purchase of residential real estate. They paid him an advance fee of $50,000. One defendant sought arbitration and won an award as well as $29, 238.50 in attorney’s fees. He did not respond to discovery requests by two defendants; one won a summary judgment motion and both were awarded sanctions against Geyer. He never informed his clients of those developments. At one point, he prepared a response by his client to a request for admissions without informing her and signed her name to a document without her knowledge (an act of moral turpitude).
Geyer repeatedly assured his clients they were well-represented, but about a week before the trial was scheduled to start, he told them they needed to find a new lawyer. He did not earn at least $27,500 of their advance fee. The new lawyer filed a declaration with the court from Geyer in which he acknowledged that he had failed to respond to discovery or motions, did not prepare for trial and failed to inform the clients about the orders in their case.
In the second matter, he represented the wife in a divorce and received the proceeds from the sale of their home ― $133,522.88 ― which he deposited in his client trust account. In the meantime, his client’s mother-in-law obtained a judgment of approximately $180,000 against the couple based on allegations that they failed to repay a loan she made during their marriage. At one point, Geyer told the court that $122,232.88 remained in his trust account, when in fact it held about $37,500. Geyer failed to appear for a debtor’s examination required by the mother-in-law’s lawyer, and the court issued a bench warrant. When he did appear, he wrote a check to the mother-in-law for $122,232; the balance in his account was $332.15. The court found that he misappropriated $122,232.88, an act of moral turpitude.
It also found he failed to competently perform legal services, communicate with clients, return unearned fees or maintain client funds in a trust account.
Geyer also did not comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court as required by a 2008 disciplinary order. He did not submit to the bar court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. Failure to comply with the rule is grounds for disbarment.
Geyer was privately reproved in 1993, public reproved the following year, suspended and placed on probation in 1998 and again in 2008. In recommending Geyer’s disbarment, Honn said he “repeatedly committed misconduct during 20 of the 35 years of his practice. This is (Geyer’s) fifth disciplinary proceeding. He has been given multiple opportunities to reform and to rehabilitate. Probation and suspension have proven inadequate to prevent continued misconduct.”
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.