Share

Share this on Twitter Share this on Facebook Share this on Linked In Share this by Email
 
Disbarments
  1. JOHN HERMAN FEINER
  2. GREGORY FULTON STANNARD
  3. ANDREW H. LUND
  4. CLIFFORD K. MAU
  5. ROY CHESTER DICKSON
  6. JOHN GILBERT PLATT
  7. ERIK STEVEN GUNHEIM
  8. AFTON LENORE HARRINGTON
  9. WARREN DAVID CAMP
  10. EUGENE WELLINGTON MATTHEWS
  11. MARSHA NOREEN HONDA
  12. STEPHEN CHARLES HOLLINGSWORTH
  13. PATRICIA MADDEN CULLEN  

JOHN HERMAN FEINER [#89201], 61, of Aliso Viejo, was disbarred July 18, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Feiner stipulated that he failed to meet a deadline to file a declaration of compliance with rule 9.20, as required by an earlier discipline order. Feiner was previously suspended in 2012 after stipulating to eight counts of misconduct in six matters. Five of the six matters involved criminal law. Feiner admitted in most of the cases that he failed to refund unearned fees and agreed to repay $92,234 to six clients.

GREGORY FULTON STANNARD [#108674], 56, of Los Angeles, was disbarred July 18, 2013 and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Stannard’s disbarment stems from two separately filed cases in which he misappropriated more than $68,000 from three clients between 2008 and 2011. The State Bar sought review of the hearing judge’s suspension recommendation in one of the cases, while Stannard sought review of another judge’s disbarment recommendation in the other matter.

Considering the two cases together, a three-judge panel found that Stannard’s misconduct warranted disbarment, noting that he failed to prove that “the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominated in this case.” Among other things, the panel found him culpable of failing to pay client funds promptly, failing to maintain client funds in trust, committing moral turpitude by misappropriating settlement funds, failing to perform competently and failing to respond to client inquiries.

In one matter that led to his discipline, Stannard delayed paying a client most of the money she was due from a $140,000 personal injury settlement, despite the fact that she desperately needed the money. Stannard eventually paid her. He was supposed to keep some funds to pay her medical liens but delayed doing so for nearly three years. During that period he was required to hold $16,962 on his client’s behalf, but instead allowed the balance in his client trust account to dip down to a negative amount. As a result, the client’s medical providers reported her to credit agencies, and one credit agency garnished $2,700 from her wages.

In another matter, Stannard misappropriated $41,700 from a client’s personal injury claim and used it for his personal expenses.

In appealing the hearing judge’s order, Stannard argued the disbarment was extreme because his “psychological disorder caused aberrational misconduct.” Among other problems, Stannard was experiencing marital problems, financial problems and trouble coping with the death of several family members during the time of his misconduct. The review panel found Stannard’s emotional problems to be a significant factor in mitigation. However, it concluded that his misconduct was too significant.

“Although we do not discount Stannard’s emotional difficulties or his other factors in mitigation, these factors are not sufficiently compelling and do not predominate when weighed against his serious misconduct and the aggravating factors,” the panel wrote.
“During the course of legal practice, many attorneys may experience financial and emotional difficulties comparable to Stannard’s.”

ANDREW H. LUND [#130209], 54, of Beaver Dam, Wis., was disbarred July 24, 2013 and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and to pay restitution.

Lund stipulated to misconduct in 11 client matters, all of which involved failure to return unearned fees. He was also found culpable of failing to take steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to his clients, seeking to mislead a judge, failing to render appropriate accounts to a client and failing to release client files. In many of the cases, clients were left without representation after Lund suddenly closed his law practice in May 2012. He was ordered to pay $31,980.33 plus interest in restitution.

Lund has three prior disciplines. In 1998, he received a private reproval for commingling funds in his client trust account. In the second discipline, he stipulated to failing to comply with the terms of the 1998 reproval, failing to perform legal services competently, obey a court order and failing to maintain the respect due to the courts. He was also suspended in 2010 for misconduct in seven matters: for failures to perform legal services with competence, to refund unearned fees, to promptly return client files, to communicate with clients or to protect client interests when his employment was terminated. He also disobeyed court orders.

CLIFFORD K. MAU [#164305], 52, of Honolulu, was disbarred July 24, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Mau was convicted of six felonies and two misdemeanors in the state of Hawaii for breaking into lockers at a gym and stealing personal property. Although Mau and the State Bar initially entered into a stipulation, the California Supreme Court returned the matter to the State Bar for further consideration of the recommended discipline.

According to  State Bar Court Judge Lucy Armendariz’s decision recommending Mau’s disbarment, Mau began battling drug addiction in 1991, and in 1997 and 1998 sought treatment and voluntarily enrolled himself as inactive. All of the thefts took place at a 24 Hour Fitness gym in 2004 and involved Mau’s then boyfriend, now husband. After his arrest, Mau did not enter a treatment program but attended a court-ordered 12-step program and was subject to random urine tests.

In 2007, Mau was arrested for driving under the influence, a charge to which he later pleaded no contest. He failed to report the thefts and DUI convictions to the State Bar until 2011.

In her decision, Armendariz wrote that Mau had not proven that he had been rehabilitated by “clear and convincing” evidence, noting that he had not participated in any drug and programs since his misconduct.

“While respondent’s ‘self treatment’ and lack of criminal convictions over the past six years are encouraging, it is unclear whether he is truly rehabilitated or simply has been fortunate enough not to experience a triggering circumstance or event,” Armendariz wrote. “Respondent’s failure to participate in a consistent program of addiction counseling or therapy gives the court cause to believe that it may be the latter.”

In mitigation, Mau had no discipline prior to the conduct that led to his disbarment, cooperated with the State Bar by entering into the stipulation and presented evidence at trial of his good character. Mau also suffered from financial and emotional difficulties which included being shunned by his family for his sexual orientation and being forced into litigation with his mother, who defrauded him of all of his assets.

ROY CHESTER DICKSON [#105583], 65, of Santa Ana, was disbarred July 26, 2013 and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and to pay restitution.

Dickson was found culpable of multiple counts of misconduct in three client matters: moral turpitude, misrepresentation, failing to perform legal services with competence, improper withdrawal from employment, failure to communicate and failing to return unearned fees.

In one of the matters that led to his disbarment, in 1999 Dickson filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on behalf of a client when he had no intention of reorganizing under Chapter 11. Once the client’s home was saved, Dickson used two false documents in support of his motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. As a result, the bankruptcy court imposed sanctions against Dickson and his client totaling $88,421.17.

At the time, Dickson was also representing the client in a RICO action which had been stayed while the bankruptcy case proceeded. When the stay was lifted in 2000, Dickson was ordered to comply with discovery requests. When he still had not complied by April 2004, the district court ordered compensatory damages against Dickson’s client and the other defendants for $678,318.17 and an additional $2,034,954.51 under RICO. Dickson then falsely claimed his client had not been subject to the order compelling discovery because he was still in bankruptcy proceedings at the time. To support the fabrication, Dickson submitted an altered docket sheet made to look like the stay in his client’s bankruptcy case was lifted months later than it actually was.

Dickson was ordered to pay $7,000 plus interest in restitution.

Dickson has four prior disciplines. In 1998, he received a private reproval for failing to act competently, promptly return files and property to a client, respond to a client, cooperate in the investigation and maintain his official membership records address. In 2001, he was suspended after stipulating to misconduct in two matters, including two counts of incompetence and two counts of failing to respond to clients or keep them apprised of significant developments. He received another suspension in 2005 for misconduct in three matters involving trust account mismanagement and failing to support the laws of California. In 2011, he was suspended for one year for the unauthorized practice of law while suspended.

JOHN GILBERT PLATT [#224628], 67, of Shingle Springs, was disbarred July 26, 2013 and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and to pay restitution.

Platt was disbarred after his default was entered for failing to respond to the notice of disciplinary charges filed against him. The bar moved to disbar him under rule 5.85 of the Rules of Procedure because he made no move to set aside the default within 180 days.

The charges were deemed admitted: Platt engaged in acts involving moral turpitude and failed to maintain client funds in a trust account, render accounts of client funds maintain records of client funds or participate in a State Bar investigation.

Platt was ordered to pay $2,933.25 plus interest in restitution.

ERIK STEVEN GUNHEIM [#136486], 54, of Penngrove, was disbarred July 26, 2013 and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Gunheim was disbarred after his default was entered for failing to respond to the notice of disciplinary charges against him. Rule 5.85 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney can be disbarred if he or she does not move to have the default vacated or set aside within 180 days. The charges are also deemed admitted.

Gunheim was found culpable of nine counts of misconduct in three client matters. In each of the matters, he failed to follow through with work that his clients hired him to do. In one case, Gunheim failed to pursue a client’s personal injury action, then failed to return the client’s phone messages or to return the client’s file. In another matter, he failed to cooperate with an insurance adjuster and to prosecute the personal injury lawsuit.

AFTON LENORE HARRINGTON [#155095], 57, of Roseville, was disbarred July 26, 2013 and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Harrington was disbarred after her default was entered for failing to appear at her State Bar Court trial. Under rule 5.85 of the Rules of Court, an attorney can be disbarred if he or she does not move to have the default set aside within 180 days. In addition, the charges are deemed admitted.

Harrington failed to comply with the terms of a 2011 disciplinary order by not timely filing a declaration confirming that she had complied with rule 9.20 and for failing to comply with probation conditions of quarterly reporting, medical conditions, Ethics School and Client Trust Account School.

In the underlying case, Harrington stipulated to eight counts of misconduct in three matters. Among other misconduct, she did no work and did not refund $5,100 in unearned fees from a client who hired her to obtain a domestic violence restraining order and to help her file for divorce.

WARREN DAVID CAMP [#152527]  49, of Toronto, Canada, was summarily disbarred July 18, 2013 and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Camp pleaded guilty in 2012 to one count of making a false statement in a passport application. Because the crime is a felony involving moral turpitude, it meets the criteria for summary disbarment.

EUGENE WELLINGTON MATTHEWS [#161396], 49, of Los Angeles, was disbarred Aug. 9, 2013 and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Matthews failed to comply with the conditions of a 2011 disciplinary order, including: failing to file two quarterly probation reports, failing to meet multiple deadlines to file documents certifying that he had complied with the State Bar’s Trust Account Record Keeping Standards or to file psychiatric/psychological treatment reports, failing to meet a deadline to attend Ethics School and Client Trust Accounting School and failing to file proof of restitution payments.

Noting Matthews’ history of emotional problems, a hearing judge initially recommended that Matthews be suspended for three years and until he proves his rehabilitation. But in its order recommending his disbarment, a three-judge review panel concluded that Matthews had not proven his “emotional difficulties were directly responsible for his misconduct and that he no longer suffers from those difficulties.

“Matthews’s avoidance of his professional and ethical responsibilities appears to be chronic, if not habitual,” the panel wrote.

In mitigation, Matthews was cooperative in the State Bar proceedings and has volunteered extensively with community service organizations.

Matthews has two prior disciplines. The first in 2008 resulted from his misconduct in eight client matters, including his failure to communicate with clients, cooperate with the State Bar’s investigations, competently provide legal services, maintain client funds in trust and return unearned fees. He also improperly withdrew from employment and shared legal fees with a non-attorney.

In his second disciplinary proceeding, Matthews stipulated to similar misconduct in six client matters from August 2007 to July 2010, including failing to provide legal services competently, cooperate with the State Bar’s investigation, maintain client funds in trust or comply with multiple court orders, including an order pursuant to rule 9.20.

MARSHA NOREEN HONDA [#100894], 56, of Fort Walton Beach, Fla., was disbarred August 8, 2013 and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Honda was disbarred after her default was entered for failing to respond to charges that she had violated the conditions of her probation and failed to comply with a court order. Rule 5.85 of the Rules of Procedure allows the State Bar to seek to disbar an attorney if he or she does not move to set aside the default within 180 days. Also, the charges are deemed admitted.

Honda failed to submit specified quarterly reports to probation and failed to declare compliance with her underlying criminal probation in those quarterly reports.

Honda has two prior cases of discipline. In 2009, she was suspended following her conviction for  carrying a concealed firearm, which stemmed from an incident in which she discharged a firearm at an inhabited dwelling. The following year, her probation was revoked after she did not obtain an examination of her mental and physical condition with respect to her mental health issues from a qualified practitioner provide the probation office with the necessary waivers and access to her medical records.

STEPHEN CHARLES HOLLINGSWORTH [#200609], 47, of Los Angeles, was disbarred August 9, 2013 and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Hollingsworth was disbarred after his default was entered for failing to respond to the notice of disciplinary charges filed against him. 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.

Hollingsworth was charged with violating rule 9.20, which he was required to comply with because of a 2011 disciplinary order. In the underlying discipline, Hollingsworth stipulated to six counts of misconduct in four matters, which included a misdemeanor conviction for battery of a cohabitant and failing to perform legal services competently.

PATRICIA MADDEN CULLEN [#202477], 69, of Acton, was disbarred August 2, 2013 and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Cullen was disbarred after her default was entered when she failed to file a response to the notice of disciplinary charges against her. Under rule 5.85 of the bar’s rules of procedure, an attorney may be disbarred if he or she does not move to have the default vacated or set aside with 180 days. The charges are also deemed admitted.

Cullen has been disciplined on two prior occasions. In 2011, she was suspended after stipulating to 10 counts of misconduct in five matters including failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to communicate, failing to return unearned fees and improper withdrawal. The following year, her disciplinary probation was revoked after she was found culpable of failing to file her first quarterly report and failing to submit proof of her quarterly restitution payment.

. 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.