Share

Share this on Twitter Share this on Facebook Share this on Linked In Share this by Email
 
Disbarments
  1. DAVIDE GOLIA
  2. JOHN MARK HEURLIN
  3. JAC FRANCOIS POULIOT
  4. RANDALL KEMP RUPP
  5. WADE ROWLAND SANDERS
  6. JOHN ST. JOHN
  7. EIRENE ALVAREZ ANTHONY
  8. PETER JASON CABBINESS
  9. JOHN HAYS GRIFFIN
  10. WOLODYMYR Y. DOZORSKY
  11. DANIEL PATRICK WILLSEY
  12. THOMAS JAMES WALLACE
  13. JENNIFER JO BEERMAN
  14. ALBERT FRANCIS QUINTRALL
  15. LISA YVONNE GOLDSTEIN 

DAVIDE GOLIA [#118464], 52, of Los Angeles was summarily disbarred Jan. 9, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In 2012, Golia pleaded guilty in federal court in Nevada to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Because the crime is a felony that involves moral turpitude, it meets the criteria for summary disbarment. He had been on interim suspension in California since Aug. 17, 2012.

JOHN MARK HEURLIN [#119899], 55, of Tustin was disbarred Jan. 9, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Heurlin sought review of a State Bar Court hearing judge’s recommendation that he be disbarred in his fourth disciplinary matter. The judge found that Heurlin held himself out as entitled to practice law while he was suspended. A three-judge review panel upheld the hearing judge, finding “no merit” to Heurlin’s “procedural and substantive challenges.” State Bar prosecutors agreed with the hearing judge as well.

Heurlin, who was admitted to practice in 1985, formed FairWageLaw with two other lawyers in 2004 in order to prosecute wage and hour class action lawsuits against large national corporations. Each lawyer was a one-third shareholder of FairWageLaw.

Heurlin was suspended in 2005 for misconduct stemming from prosecuting a frivolous appeal arising from a fee dispute with a former client. His partners only learned of his suspension from opposing counsel in a class action filed by FairWageLaw. Although Heurlin initially denied his status, his partners voted to dissolve FairWageLaw and remove Heurlin as a director. While suspended, Heurlin filed a lien notice in which he identified himself as an attorney. When the court ordered that Heurlin be excluded as a payee, he wrote to the opposing attorney twice on letterhead from his law offices and signed “John M. Heurlin, Esq.” The other lawyer did not know if Heurlin was still suspended. An appellate court twice referred him to the State Bar because he continued to represent himself as an attorney.

The bar court’s review panel found five specific instances that Heurlin improperly held himself out as entitled to practice. Heurlin said he was permitted to do so because he represented himself,  and he argued that the word “Esquire” has many meanings, “including that of property owner and subscriber to the magazine Esquire.”

The panel rejected his claims that he did not receive a fair trial because his due process rights were violated, and because the hearing judge committed procedural errors and made various evidentiary rulings in error. Indeed, Heurlin said, the hearing judge “singlehandedly violated every precept of due process” in the disciplinary proceedings and committed “serial error.”

The review panel found no mitigation and said Heurlin continues to hold himself out as entitled to practice and engaged in a pattern of “litigation abuse” and disregard for the courts that provided the bases for three prior disciplines. He was privately reproved in 1998 for failing to pay a $1,000 sanction for filing meritless pleadings. When he did not comply with the conditions of the reproval, he was privately reproved again in 2001. The following year, the court of appeal sanctioned Heurlin $6,000 for prosecuting a frivolous appeal arising from a fee dispute with a former client. The court described his conduct as “litigation abuse” and “disgraceful,” and said  he had “followed a path of artifice and deceit with single-minded determination.”

Heurlin was then suspended in 2005 after he stipulated that he charged an unconscionable fee, filed an appeal in order to cover up his deceit and committed acts of moral turpitude.

“This is not a lone instance of inadvertently holding oneself out as entitled to practice,” wrote Judge Judith Epstein for the review panel. “Rather, Heurlin repeatedly and consciously flouted the authority of the courts of record by continuing to file pleadings misrepresenting himself as a licensed attorney in good standing and entitled to practice law when clearly he is not.”

JAC FRANCOIS POULIOT [#62431], 71, of San Diego was disbarred Jan. 9, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Pouliot was convicted in 2011 of assault with a deadly weapon but failed to participate in disciplinary proceedings before the State Bar and his default was entered. Because he did not respond either to the notice of a hearing on conviction or attempt to have the default vacated within 180 days, he was disbarred under rule 5.85 of the bar’s Rules of Procedure.

The conviction was the result of an altercation with two neighbors; Pouliot pointed a gun and a red laser at neighbors who were having a party and whose dog he accused of barking incessantly. Pouliot was arrested by police officers who recovered a small red laser in one of his pockets and two loaded guns (a 9mm semi-automatic pistol and a .357 magnum revolver) in his home. The laser fit the loaded 9mm pistol.

RANDALL KEMP RUPP [#165774], 62, of Camarillo was disbarred Jan. 9, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Rupp’s default was entered when he did not respond to charges that he failed to comply with rule 9.20 as part of a 2011 disciplinary order. When he then failed to participate in disciplinary proceedings or seek to have the default vacated within 180 days, he was disbarred under rule 5.85 of the bar’s Rules of Procedure.

Rupp was disciplined twice previously and the Client Security Fund paid out claims against him totaling $10,376.96. He was suspended and ordered to make restitution in 2009 for seven acts of misconduct involving two clients. He was suspended again in 2011 for seven additional acts of misconduct and for filing a rule 9.20 compliance declaration late.

In the current matter, he did not file with the bar court a declaration stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension.

WADE ROWLAND SANDERS [#58212], 71, of San Diego was disbarred Jan. 9, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

He failed to file a proper declaration of compliance with rule 9.20; the rule requires that a suspended lawyer notify clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his or her suspension. A second declaration was filed and accepted nearly three years later.

Sanders was convicted in 2009 of possession of child pornography. He had in his computer more than 600 images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. He was suspended and ordered to comply with rule 9.20.

In  mitigation, Sanders had no prior discipline record, cooperated with the bar by stipulating to disbarment and submitted to the court 80 letters of recommendation, including one from Sen. John Kerry, attesting to his good character.

JOHN ST. JOHN [#54642], 65, of San Rafael was disbarred Jan. 9, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

St. John’s default was entered in 2011 when he did not respond to charges that he violated rule 9.20. He did not file with the State Bar Court a declaration that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. When he made no effort to have the default vacated within 180 days, he was disbarred under rule 5.85 of the bar’s Rules of Procedure.

St. John was disciplined in 2010 for misconduct in two matters, including failures to notify his clients of significant developments or perform legal services competently. When he did not comply with probation conditions, he was suspended again in 2011 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20. It was his failure to do so that led to the disbarment.

EIRENE ALVAREZ ANTHONY [#107511], 69, of Los Angeles was disbarred Jan. 9, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Anthony did not respond to charges filed against her in connection with one client matter and her default was entered. When she made no move to have the default vacated within 180 days, she was disbarred under rule 5.85 of the bar’s Rules of Procedure.

She was accused of four counts of misconduct in a single matter; the charges are deemed admitted. She failed to perform legal services competently, account for client funds or refund unearned fees and she improperly withdrew from representation.

Anthony was ordered to repay her client $2,500.

PETER JASON CABBINESS [#185376], 44, of Clovis was disbarred Jan. 9, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Cabbiness did not respond to charges of misconduct filed against him in six matters and and his default was entered. When he made no move to have the default vacated within 180 days, he was disbarred under rule 5.85 of the bar’s Rules of Procedure. According to the State Bar, Cabbiness has 12 other disciplinary matters pending against him and there are seven claims pending before the Client Security Fund.

The charges, which are deemed admitted, include failures to pay court-ordered sanctions, perform legal services competently, inform a client of significant developments in her case, promptly refund fees, comply with probation conditions or cooperate with the bar’s investigations, he improperly withdrew from employment, collected an illegal fee and held himself out as entitled to practice when he was suspended.

Cabiness was ordered to make restitution to one client, a federal court and the Client Security Fund.

He was suspended and placed on probation in 2010 for for failing to perform competently, keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments, promptly refund unearned fees/costs, return promptly client papers or respond to reasonable status inquiries, and he held himself out as entitled to practice law when he was not an active member and entered into an improper business transaction with a client.

JOHN HAYS GRIFFIN [#220368], 49, of El Cerrito was disbarred Jan. 9, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Griffin’s default was entered because he did not participate in disciplinary proceedings after being charged with failing to comply with conditions of a 2011 probation. When he made no move to have the default vacated within 180 days, he was disbarred under rule 5.85 of the bar’s Rules of Procedure.

The underlying matter also was a default proceeding in which the bar court found that Griffin violated the terms of a 2009 public reproval by not scheduling a meeting with the probation office on time, submitting two quarterly probation reports late and not submitting a third, and by not attending ethics school or taking the MPRE. The reproval was imposed for misconduct in one client matter.

Griffin also was suspended and placed on probation earlier in 2011 for failing to perform legal services competently, refund unearned fees, return client files, communicate with a client or comply with probation conditions, and he held himself out as an attorney when he was not entitled to practice.

WOLODYMYR Y. DOZORSKY [#98515], 63, of Irvine was disbarred Jan. 11, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

The State Bar Court found that Dozorsky committed nine counts of misconduct in two matters and recommended his disbarment based on their serious nature and extent, three prior disciplines and  extensive aggravating circumstances.

In the first matter, the court found that Dozorsky aided the unauthorized practice of law by allowing a paralegal, J. Robert Lopez, to run an office Dozorsky subleased to him. Dozorsky was to supervise Lopez, who was to refer prospective clients to Dozorsky. Lopez handled administrative matters, had access to a bank account and worked independently on legal matters. He filed pleadings and supervised the work of associate attorneys in the office.

In another matter, a client met with Lopez regarding a case against a lender. The client subsequently was unable to contact Dozorsky for six months. His office eventually filed a complaint for her, and although the papers purportedly bore Dozorsky’s signature, he had never met the client and did not sign the complaint.

He did not file a proof of service or appear at five hearings, he was sanctioned $3,500 and the case was dismissed. He never spoke to the client, who appeared at one hearing.

The court found that Dozorsky did not keep a client informed of significant developments, report sanctions (two counts) or obey court orders (five counts).

Dozorsky has a record of three previous disciplines, in 1993, 1998 and 2001 for misconduct that included failures to maintain client funds in trust or pay out client funds, commingling funds, practicing law while suspended and making misrepresentations.

In addition to a lack of mitigation and indifference to court orders, Judge Richard Honn recommended that Dozorsky be disbarred. “Undeterred by his two previous disciplines involving practicing law while suspended, (Dozorsky) willfully aided Lopez’ ability to engage in the unauthorized practice of law,” Honn wrote. There was little justification, he said, “to recommend a level of discipline short of disbarment.”

DANIEL PATRICK WILLSEY [#143772], 52, of La Crescenta was disbarred Jan. 18, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Willsey stipulated to five counts of misconduct in three matters, including a conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, leading to a sentence of six years in state prison. In that matter, he was charged with seven felonies after colliding with a deputy sheriff who died after his car went over an embankment. Willsey, who had crossed into oncoming traffic, was under the influence of a controlled substance and had a small bindle of methamphetamine and a loaded and cocked 12-gauge shotgun in his car.

As part of the resulting interim suspension, Willsey was required to comply with rule 9.20. However, he did not timely submit to the State Bar Court a declaration that he had notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension; he filed a declaration about six weeks late.

In a second matter, he commingled funds in his client trust account, failed to properly maintain client funds in his trust account and did not cooperate with the bar’s investigation.

Willsey was disciplined in 1998 and 1999. He received limited mitigation for entering into a stipulation with the bar.

THOMAS JAMES WALLACE [#220396], 39, of Bakersfield was disbarred Jan. 18, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Wallace did not respond to disciplinary charges filed against him in 2011 and his default was entered. Because he made no effort to set aside the default within 180 days, he was disbarred under rule 5.85 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure.

He misused his client trust account by failing to withdraw client funds at the earliest possible time and he used the account to pay personal expenses. He also did not cooperate with the bar’s investigation.

JENNIFER JO BEERMAN [#207877], 40, of La Quinta was disbarred Jan. 30, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Beerman stipulated to four counts of misconduct stemming from misuse of client funds, including misappropriation of more than $30,000. While representing the wife in a divorce, Beerman received $85,041 from the sale of the couple’s home. She gave $10,000 each to her client and the client’s husband and should have kept $65,041 in her client trust account. However, she allowed the account balance to fall below that amount. She told her client someone had hacked the bank’s accounts, including her client trust account. The balance in her account eventually fell to zero.

Beerman did not repay her client for more than eight months.

She stipulated that she failed to properly maintain client funds in trust or promptly pay out client funds, and she committed acts of moral turpitude by misappropriating funds and falsely stating that her account had been hacked.

Beerman received some mitigation for discipline-free practice since 2000.

ALBERT FRANCIS QUINTRALL [#58066], 66, of San Diego was disbarred Jan. 30, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Quintrall stipulated to eight counts of misconduct in three matters, including misappropriating nearly $28,000 from a client.

He did not comply with a rule 9.20 requirement that was part of a 2011 discipline imposed for three counts of misconduct in three matters, including misappropriating client funds. Although he filed the required declaration on time, he falsely stated that he had notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. His actions constituted moral turpitude.

In another matter that was consolidated with related litigation, Quintrall violated a court order by failing to pay sanctions totaling $2,777.78. He also did not notify the bar that he had been sanctioned.

In the third matter, he was hired to collect money owed to his client. He settled the matter for $27,935, which was paid to him in three installments. However, he did not notify his client about the settlement or the payments and misappropriated the entire amount. When his client inquired about the status of the case, Quintrall repeatedly said he had been unable to reach a settlement.

About 10 months after the actual settlement, Quintrall told the client he had settled the matter for $27,935 and the defendant was to make payments of $5,000 in monthly installments. Quintrall’s statements were false.

Quintrall stipulated that he misappropriated client funds, failed to maintain client funds in trust or keep his client informed of significant developments in his case, and he made false statements. His actions involved moral turpitude and he has not made restitution.

In addition to the 2011 suspension, Quintrall was publicly reproved in 2005.

LISA YVONNE GOLDSTEIN [#220669], 50, of Livermore was disbarred Jan. 30, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Goldstein did not respond to five disciplinary charges filed against her in 2011 and her default was entered. Because she made no effort to set aside the default within 180 days, she was disbarred under rule 5.85 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure.

All five charges were deemed admitted. Goldstein improperly withdrew from employment and failed to communicate with her client, account for client funds, obey a court order or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.

. 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.