Share

Share this on Twitter Share this on Facebook Share this on Linked In Share this by Email
 
Disbarments
  1. DOUGLAS JACK HAYCOCK
  2. KATHIE JEANNE SIMMONS
  3. KRIS PATRICK THOMPSON
  4. BRUCE STEVEN WEINER
  5. MOHAMMAD R. NADIM
  6. WALTER CORTRIGHT APPLING
  7. DOUGLAS WILLIAM DAVIS
  8. WILLIAM JOSEPH HAMILTON
  9. LON BARRY ISAACSON
  10. HARRY TOM MILLER
  11. GARY D. OLIVE
  12. BENJAMIN LOUIS PENNACCHIO
  13. JERRY ALONZO STEVENSON
  14. CHARLES DAVID TREJO
  15. ANTHONY ALLEN BROCK
  16. TIMOTHY CLARENCE BRYSON
  17. WILLIAM ARTHUR CLOUGH
  18. DENNIS REID HOPTOWIT
  19. EDWARD SUNKU LEE
  20. MARGARET JO LOWRIE
  21. JEANNE M. ROWZEE
  22. RODNEY LYNN DYCHE
  23. JAN MORTON HEGER
  24. ROBERT ANDREW KARPUK
  25. MARC RUSSELL LEVINE
  26. DANIEL JAY WHITE
  27. SARAH JO DAVIS 

DOUGLAS JACK HAYCOCK [#95071], 60, of Sacramento was disbarred April 25, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Haycock’s default was entered in 2011 after he failed to respond to charges that he committed misconduct in three client matters. Under rule 5.85 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure, a lawyer can be disbarred if he or she does not have the default set aside within 180 days. In addition, the charges are deemed admitted.

In one of the matters Haycock was disciplined for, he violated a court order by failing to appear at nine separate hearings as ordered by a superior court judge and for failing to pay five court-ordered sanctions totaling $2,850. He also failed to perform legal services with competence because he did not obtain his client’s signature on a settlement agreement.  In one of the other matters, he failed to notify a client he was terminating his employment agreement and stopped working on the client’s lawsuit, even though it was ongoing.

KATHIE JEANNE SIMMONS [#129727], 63, of Santa Rosa was disbarred April 25, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and to complete restitution she had been previously ordered to pay in her two prior discipline cases.

Simmons stipulated to misconduct including failing to perform legal services with competence, seeking to mislead a judge, making misrepresentations to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, collecting advanced costs and failing to deposit them in her client trust account, failing to report to the State Bar judicial sanctions imposed against her and failing to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation. Among other misconduct, she filed bankruptcy applications on  behalf of 20 clients stating that they needed to pay court filing fees in installments because of their financial situation. At the time the applications were filed the clients had already advanced Simmons the filing fees.

Simmons also violated the conditions of a 2011 private reproval for failing to perform legal services with competence. She failed to  file quarterly probation reports, provide proof of passage of the MPRE, attend State Bar Ethics School and Trust Accounting School and timely pay restitution.

Simmons was also disciplined in 2012. She was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on two years of probation with conditions including $1,000 restitution. She was disciplined for failure to perform legal services competently, respond to clients’ reasonable status inquiries, refund unearned fees and cooperate with the bar’s investigation.

KRIS PATRICK THOMPSON [#154866], 55, of San Diego was disbarred April 25, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Thompson’s default was entered in 2012 after he failed to appear at trial. Because he made no effort to vacate the default within 90 days, as required by rule 5.85 of the bar’s rules of procedure, he was disbarred and the charges against him were deemed admitted.

Thompson was charged with violating two conditions of the disciplinary probation imposed on him in 2007, failing to comply with rule 9.20 and violating two of the conditions of the disciplinary probation imposed on him in 2010.

In 2007, he received a public reproval following a conviction for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol with a prior conviction for the same offense. His 2010 disciplinary probation was for not abiding by the terms of the earlier public reproval.

BRUCE STEVEN WEINER [#78533], 61, of Cerritos was disbarred April 25, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and to make restitution.

The State Bar Court found that Weiner committed 51 counts of misconduct in 15 loan modification matters. Ten of the cases were undertaken in states where Weiner was not authorized to practice law.

Weiner was the owner of and an attorney for Novation Law Center, the All State Law Group and the Realty Law Center, companies that were set up to circumvent a law that prevents attorneys from receiving compensation in loan modification matters until all the services they were hired to perform have been completed.  As such, Weiner used fee agreements that attempted to divide the services his companies provided into prequalification services and post-qualification services. Several of the fee agreements required that clients pay in full following the completion of prequalification services, which consisted of rudimentary tasks like interviewing the client or setting up a file.

“This creative division of labor, however, did not alleviate the requirement that Respondent perform each and every service contracted prior to receipt of compensation,” State Bar Court Judge Donald F. Miles wrote in his decision.

One client paid Weiner $3,250 in advanced attorney fees despite language in All State’s contract that stated specifically that the company did not accept advanced fees. The woman then paid another $1,500 in advanced fees to Weiner to perform loan modification services for a rental property she owned. Miles found that Weiner never performed any services on the client’s behalf yet failed to return the unearned fees.

Weiner was found culpable of failing to perform legal services with competence, violating loan modification provisions, failing to return unearned fees, failure to account, collecting illegal fees, failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation and the unauthorized practice of law in another jurisdiction. Weiner accepted clients in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Illinois, Georgia, Connecticut, New York, North Carolina and Colorado. He was ordered to pay $41,052.50 in restitution, plus interest.

He had a record of three prior disciplines. In 1998, he received a one-year stayed suspension and two years of probation for accepting an illegal fee, failing to refund an unearned fee and failing to promptly release client funds. The following year, he received a one-year stayed suspension with 120 days of actual suspension after stipulating to four counts of misconduct including engaging in the practice of law while suspended. In 2001, Weiner was suspended for conduct that included engaging in the authorized practice of law, charging an illegal fee and failing to return unearned fees.

MOHAMMAD R. NADIM  [#129366], 65, of Van Nuys was disbarred April 26, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and to make restitution.

Nadim sought review of a State Bar Court hearing judge’s recommendation that he be disbarred. The hearing judge found Nadim culpable of 21 counts of misconduct including misappropriating more than $23,000 from two clients, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, aiding another in the unauthorized practice of law and entering into a partnership with a non-lawyer. Nadim disputed his culpability and blamed his former cocaine abuse for much of his misconduct.

A three-judge panel of the State Bar Court upheld the disbarment recommendation, finding that: “Nadim’s testimony was contradicted by documentary evidence, which supports the hearing judge’s finding that Nadim lacked credibility.”

In one of the matters that led to his discipline, Nadim failed to show up for key hearings in a client’s civil matter which led to the case being dismissed, then refused for months to return her case file and filed a motion on her behalf despite having been fired. In another matter, Nadim entered into an agreement with a company called Debt Barter and its CEO, a non-lawyer, to provide loan modification services to clients, resulting in Debt Barter’s unauthorized practice of law. Nadim was also ordered to pay $38,044.41 in restitution, plus interest.

Nadim was previously disciplined in 2003 for misconduct in three cases including improperly withdrawing from  a labor case. He received one year of suspension, stayed, and two years of probation.

WALTER CORTRIGHT APPLING [#53078], 72, of Arcadia was disbarred May 10, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Appling’s default was entered in 2011 because he failed to respond to a notice of disciplinary charges alleging that he did not comply with rule 9.20 in connection with an earlier discipline case that resulted in his suspension. Because he made no effort to vacate the default within 180 days, as required by rule 5.85 of the bar’s Rules of Procedure, he was disbarred and the charges against him were deemed admitted.

Appling was previously suspended for not complying with the conditions attached to a 2009 private reproval.  

DOUGLAS WILLIAM DAVIS [#132620], 53, of Malibu was disbarred May 10, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Davis failed to meet the requirements of a 2010 disciplinary order that required he pay restitution and file quarterly reports to probation. Davis failed to file complete quarterly reports on three occasions and did not provide proof of having made $1,000 monthly payments toward restitution with three quarterly reports.

Davis was previously suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on three years of probation for failing to comply with the terms of a 2006 disciplinary order by not timely filing quarterly reports with probation and not making full restitution payments. In the underlying discipline, he was suspended for committing four acts of misconduct while representing a client in a breach of contract and discrimination case.

WILLIAM JOSEPH HAMILTON [#92688], 64, of Santa Monica was disbarred May 10, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

The State Bar Court found Hamilton culpable of misconduct in a single client matter, failing to avoid interests adverse to a client. Hamilton took an oil painting as payment to represent a client in a trust dispute matter but did not disclose the terms of the transaction in writing in a reasonably understandable manner, did not advise the client she had the right to seek the advice of an independent lawyer or give her the opportunity to seek that advice.

Hamilton had five prior disciplines including a 2001 suspension for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and failing to comply with the terms of a disciplinary probation. Before that, in 1998, he was suspended for failing to promptly return part of an unearned fee.

LON BARRY ISAACSON [#64838], 63, of Los Angeles was disbarred May 10, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Isaacson sought review of a State Bar Court hearing judge's recommendation that he be disbarred for failing to maintain more than $88,000 in client funds in his client trust account. The judge found that Isaacson misappropriated the money and that his conduct constituted moral turpitude. Isaacson argued that there was not misconduct and that he maintained adequate funds for all of his clients in multiple trust accounts which he treated as one “umbrella” trust account.

A three-judge panel upheld the judge’s disbarment recommendation, finding that Isaacson’s conduct rose to the level of moral turpitude “due to the grossly negligent manner in which he managed his trust accounts and that Isaacson knowingly gave false testimony….”

Isaacson repeatedly dipped into $88,477 that he was supposed to be holding on behalf of a client, money that came from a settlement in a legal malpractice case he was hired to handle. Isaacson eventually repaid the money by writing checks from his general operating account.

Isaacson had three prior records of discipline. In 1995, he received a one-year stayed suspension for failing to comply with the terms his probation in a 1993 discipline order. In that case, Isaacson stipulated to 16 counts of misconduct including failure to render appropriate accounts to clients, failure to report court-ordered sanctions and failure to promptly return client files. In 1986, he was publicly reproved for failing to return unearned fees.

HARRY TOM MILLER [#104709], 77, of San Francisco was disbarred May 10, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Miller’s default was entered in 2011 after he did not respond to the notice of disciplinary charges filed against him for failing to comply with the terms of a disciplinary probation. He did not move to have the default set aside within 180 days and was disbarred under rule 5.85 of the bar’s Rules of Procedure. As a result, the charges are deemed admitted.

Miller was charged with violating or disobeying a court order that he comply with rule 9.20. He was disciplined on two prior occasions. In 2011, his probation was revoked after he violated the terms of his 2007 probation by not scheduling a meeting with the probation office in a timely fashion and by failing to submit six quarterly reports on time and filing three others late. The underlying discipline was for failing to maintain legal actions and for aiding his client in the unauthorized practice of law.

GARY D. OLIVE [#176748], 53, of Los Angeles was disbarred May 10, 2013 and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and to pay restitution.

Olive stipulated to misconduct in six client matters including failure to perform legal services with competence, failure to promptly return unearned fees, failure to cooperate with a State Bar investigation, unauthorized practice of law and violating the terms of his probation.

In one of the matters, Olive filed a late and meritless motion on behalf of a couple hoping to reopen their legal matter and apply for asylum. Despite providing no services of value, Olive failed to refund any portion of the $2,150 the couple paid him. Olive also failed to respond to letters a State Bar investigator sent him inquiring about a complaint the couple filed against him. He was ordered to pay $3,600 in restitution, plus interest.

Olive had one prior record of discipline. In 2011, he stipulated to 39 counts of misconduct in 20 client matters, most of which involved loan modification activities in which he failed to perform legal services competently. Olive also stipulated that he split fees with non-lawyers in many of those cases. He was suspended for three years, stayed, with an actual two-year suspension and until he made restitution and proved his rehabilitation.

BENJAMIN LOUIS PENNACCHIO [#252242], 32, of Downey was disbarred May 10, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Pennacchio was convicted in 2010 of contact with a minor for a sexual offense. In a separate proceeding, he was charged with failing to comply with rule 9.20. Pennacchio then failed to participate in disciplinary proceedings against him and his default was entered in 2012. Under rule 5.85 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure, a lawyer can be disbarred if he or she does not have the default set aside within 180 days. The charges are also deemed admitted.

JERRY ALONZO STEVENSON [#262798], 43, of San Diego was disbarred May 10, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and to make restitution.

Stevenson stipulated to misconduct in 11 client matters, the majority of which involved home loan modification services. Practicing law using the business names Platinum Law Center, Platinum Law Group, Principal Law Group and La Brea Law Group, Stevenson mailed out letters to homeowners offering loan modification services that sought to confuse, mislead or deceive the public, took advanced fees from 10 clients before performing all the loan modification services he agreed to, failed to return unearned fees, failed to perform legal services with competence, shared fees with a non-lawyer, and failed to respond to reasonable inquiries from clients about their cases, among other misconduct. Stevenson also stipulated to similar misconduct in a case he handled on behalf of a woman seeking to restructure her credit card debts. He was ordered to pay more than $26,000 in restitution, plus interest.

Stevenson had a prior record of discipline. In 2012, he was suspended for two years, stayed, and was placed on three years’ probation with an actual six-month suspension for conduct similar to the charges outlined in the more recent stipulation.

In mitigation, Stevenson submitted testimony of his good character, and has been recognized with several awards from the San Diego Bar Association, the United States Marine Corps, and the United States Navy for years of service in the legal assistance program and consumer aid. He also helped numerous pro bono clients during his career and cooperated with the State Bar by entering into a stipulation before the filing of disciplinary charges.

CHARLES DAVID TREJO [#187529], 52, of Los Angeles was disbarred May 10, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Trejo stipulated that he violated the terms of his disciplinary probation by submitting one incomplete quarterly report to probation and failing to submit two others.

In the underlying case, Trejo was suspended for two years, stayed, and was placed on probation for two years with an actual 45-day suspension in 2010 after stipulating that he had failed to perform legal services competently or keep a client informed and that he violated a court order to pay sanctions and misled his client in a business partnership dissolution. Trejo was also disciplined on two other occasions after that for violating the terms of his probation.

ANTHONY ALLEN BROCK [#149768], 51, of Los Angeles was disbarred May 10, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Brock’s default was entered in 2012 after he failed to respond to charges that he did not comply with rule 9.20, as required by a 2011 disciplinary order. Because no effort was made to vacate the default within 180 days, the charges were deemed admitted as required by rule 5.85 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure. In respondent's first disciplinary matter, Brock was found culpable of 13 acts of misconduct in three cases, including practicing law while he was suspended for nonpayment of bar dues and concealing his status from clients. He also misappropriated funds from each client.

TIMOTHY CLARENCE BRYSON [#140798], 61, of San Diego was disbarred May 10, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and to make restitution.

Bryson’s default was entered after he failed to respond to charges of misconduct in a matter involving four clients. Because he did not attempt to have the default vacated within 180 days, the charges were deemed admitted as required by rule 5.85 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure. Bryson was found culpable of accepting an advanced fee and failing to provide adequate notification in a loan modification matter, failing to deposit and maintain funds in trust, improperly withdrawing disputed funds from trust, failing to promptly disperse or return client funds, failing to account, failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation, failing to perform legal services with competence, charging an illegal fee and misappropriation. He was ordered to pay $13,320 in restitution, plus interest.

Bryson was disciplined on three prior occasions, for failing to comply with the conditions of his probation, failing to perform legal services competently, respond to client inquiries or maintain a current address and phone number with the bar and failing to adequately supervise a paralegal.

WILLIAM ARTHUR CLOUGH [#114319], 56, of Auburn was disbarred May 10, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Clough’s default was entered in 2012 after he did not respond to charges that he failed to perform legal services with competence, engaged in malicious prosecution and failed to obey a court order. Under rule 5.85 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure, an attorney can be disbarred if they do not move to have their default vacated within 180 days. The charges are also deemed admitted.

In the matter he was disciplined for, Clough filed an appeal and designated the clerk’s transcript, rather than the reporter’s transcript, when he knew he could not prevail using the clerk’s transcript. He also disobeyed a court order by failing to pay court-ordered sanctions and to report those sanctions to the State Bar.

DENNIS REID HOPTOWIT [#61544], 66, of Chico was disbarred May 10, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Hoptowit’s default was entered in 2012 after he did not respond to charges that he failed to release a client file and failed to participate in a disciplinary investigation. Under rule 5.85 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure, the State bar will file a petition requesting the court recommend disbarment when an attorney fails to have default set aside or vacated within 180 days. The charges are also deemed admitted.

Hoptowit had been disciplined on three prior occasions. In 2012, his probation was revoked after he violated the terms of a 2011 disciplinary order. In the 2011 case, Hoptowit failed to return client files or cooperate with the bar's investigation, commingled personal funds in trust, and he was convicted of driving under the influence. He also was disciplined in 1999 for commingling personal funds in trust, failing to deposit client funds in a trust account or communicate with a client, and he pleaded no contest to driving under the influence with a prior conviction.

EDWARD SUNKU LEE [#213775], 45, of Rancho Cucamonga was disbarred May 10, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Lee’s default was entered in 2012 after he did not appear at trial on charges that he failed to perform legal services with competence, failed to inform clients of significant developments, failed to promptly release client files, failed to plead a viable cause of action on behalf of his client and failed to cooperate in a State Bar investigation. Under rule 5.85 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure, a lawyer can be disbarred if he or she does not seek to have the default set aside within 90 days. Also, the charges are deemed admitted.

MARGARET JO LOWRIE [#202253], 60, of Berkeley was disbarred May 10, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and make restitution.

Lowrie’s default was entered in 2012 after she failed to respond to the notice of disciplinary charges filed against her.  Under rule 5.85 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure, an attorney can be disbarred if he or she does not move to have the default set aside or vacated within 180 days. Also, the charges are deemed admitted.

Lowrie failed to perform any work of substantive value in a client’s bankruptcy case, aided in the unauthorized practice of law by having her paralegal handle all aspects of a client’s case and failed to return a client’s file. She also failed to return unearned fees and committed an act of moral turpitude by signing her paralegal’s name to a declaration to the State Bar after the paralegal refused to do so.

Lowrie was also ordered to pay $1,500 plus interest in restitution to a former client.

JEANNE M. ROWZEE [#141784], 54, of Burtonsville, Maryland was summarily disbarred May 10, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Rowzee pleaded guilty in 2012 to two felony counts of forgery and one felony count of grand theft. Both crimes involved moral turpitude, so they met the criteria for summary disbarment.

RODNEY LYNN DYCHE [#246847], 48, of Tyler, Texas was disbarred May 12, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and to make restitution.

Dyche’s default was entered in 2011 after he did not respond to allegations that he failed to return $7,000 in unearned legal fees, failed to promptly return a client’s file and failed to participate in a State Bar investigation. Under rule 5.85 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure an attorney can be disbarred if he or she does not move to have the default set aside within 180 days. The charges are also deemed admitted.

Dyche was ordered to pay $7,000 in restitution, plus interest, to his former client, the Truckee Fire Protection District.

JAN MORTON HEGER [#87441], 70, of Irvine was disbarred May 12, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Heger was disbarred after his default was entered for failing to respond to charges that he did not comply with rule 9.20 as required by a 2011 disciplinary order. Under rule 5.85 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure, an attorney can be disbarred if they do not move to have the default set aside within 180 days. The charges are also deemed admitted.

Heger was previously suspended following a conviction for making a false statement in a passport application and using a passport secured by a false statement, both felonies.

ROBERT ANDREW KARPUK [#93322], 61, of Malibu was disbarred May 12, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Karpuk entered into a stipulation following his 2012 conviction for misdemeanor petty theft, which occurred while on disciplinary probation following a conviction for the same crime. The more recent conviction stemmed from an incident in which Karpuk stole a bottle of vitamins from a Rite Aid in Thousand Oaks.

Karpuk had two prior records of discipline. In the more recent of the two, Karpuk was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on three years of probation with an actual one-year suspension after pleading no contest to misdemeanor theft charges after taking seven CDs from a Fry’s electronics store in 2008.

MARC RUSSELL LEVINE [#113671], 53, of Palm Desert was disbarred May 12, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Levine failed to comply with the terms of a 2011 disciplinary order that required he comply with rule 9.20. He was required to submit to the State Bar Court a declaration that he notified clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. Failure to submit an affidavit showing compliance is grounds for disbarment.

In the underlying case, Levine stipulated to 19 counts of misconduct in seven matters including failures to respond to reasonable client inquiries, perform legal services competently and refund unearned fees. He also practiced while suspended and entered into an improper transaction with a client.

In mitigation, Levine had been recovering from substance abuse and emotional problems and expressed remorse for his conduct.

DANIEL JAY WHITE [#126482], 54, of Placerville was disbarred May 12, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

White’s default was entered in 2012 after he failed to appear at trial. Because he made no effort to vacate the default within 90 days as required by rule 5.85 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure, he was found culpable of failing to perform legal services with competence and improper withdrawal from employment.

SARAH JO DAVIS [#258014], 36, of Hayward was summarily disbarred May 12, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Davis was convicted in North Dakota in 2012 of one count of burglary. Because the crime is a felony that constitutes moral  turpitude, it met the criteria for summary 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.