Raul Carl
Galaz,
State Bar #136989, San Antonio, TX (March 18, 2008).
Galaz, 45, received a summary disbarment after his conviction for mail fraud, a felony involving moral turpitude.
The order took effect April 17, 2008
Bernard Moroko
Laufer,
State Bar #103741, Los Angeles (March 18, 2008).
Laufer, 54, received a summary disbarment after his conviction for conspiring to commit insurance fraud, a felony involving moral turpitude.
The order took effect April 17, 2008
Ashok Shantilal
Shah,
State Bar #183921, Los Angeles (March 18, 2008).
Shah, 48, received a summary disbarment after his convictions for money laundering and conspiring to commit bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud, all felonies involving moral turpitude.
The order took effect April 17, 2008
Philip Maximus
Van Aelstyn,
State Bar #220844, Auburn (March 18, 2008).
Van Aelstyn, 43, was disbarred for failing to notify clients and opposing counsel of his conviction in a motor-vehicle case.
In February 2007 Van Aelstyn was placed on interim suspension after his conviction for possessing motor vehicles with serial numbers or motor numbers defaced, a felony involving moral turpitude. Conditions required Van Aelstyn to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court by notifying clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and filing an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. He failed to do so.
In aggravation, Van Aelstyn demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct. Also, he failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default. In mitigation, the State Bar Court gave little weight to Van Aelstyn’s lack of prior discipline, because he was in practice for just more than four years at the time of his misconduct.
The order took effect April 17, 2008
Actions From Previous Issues
James Joseph
Bagrowicz,
State Bar #49253, Santa Rosa (January 10, 2008).
Bagrowicz, 66, was disbarred for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law; engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; and failing to comply with conditions to a previous discipline.
In January 2006 Bagrowicz was suspended for six months and placed on four years of probation for failing to avoid interests adverse to a client. After the suspension took effect, Bagrowicz continued to represent a corporate client by providing legal advice in unlawful-detainer actions.
With the approval of another attorney, Bagrowicz signed unlawful-detainer documents using that attorney’s name, forging the client’s agent’s signature on verifications, and filing eight complaints between February and March 2006.
In aggravation, Bagrowicz had a record of prior discipline. In 1997 he was suspended for 90 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to avoid interests adverse to a client and failing to communicate. In 2006 the underlying matter occurred. The misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that took place while Bagrowicz was on suspension. He also failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default, and he demonstrated a contemptuous attitude toward disciplinary proceedings by failing to comprehend his duty as an officer of the court.
The order took effect February 9, 2008
David
E
Brockway,
State Bar #75442, Marina Del Rey (November 30, 2007).
Brockway, 60, was disbarred for failing to notify clients and opposing counsel of his suspension.
In October 2006 Brockway was suspended for two years and placed on five years of probation in a Review Department decision after being found culpable in 14 counts of attorney misconduct in four client matters. They included failing to competently perform legal services, improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to provide an accounting, seeking an agreement to settle a fee dispute in exchange for the client withdrawing a disciplinary complaint, failing to return unearned fees, and failing to return a client file.
Conditions to the discipline required Brockway to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court by notifying clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and filing an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. He failed to file his affidavit and failed to provide an explanation to the State Bar for his noncompliance.
In aggravation, Brockway had a record of prior discipline. In 1991 he was suspended for three months for misappropriating $500 from a client and for acquiring an interest in property that was adverse to the client’s interest. In the underlying matter, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to his clients.
The order took effect December 30, 2007
Michael
A
Giulianti,
State Bar #237078, Hollywood, FL (February 13, 2008).
Giulianti, 37, received a summary disbarment in a Review Department decision after being found culpable of forgery in Florida and disciplined by the Florida State Bar. In California the parallel violation is Penal Code section 476, a felony involving moral turpitude. The Review Department found that the violation met the criteria for summary disbarment.
The order took effect March 14, 2008
James
E
Goodfellow,
State Bar #133082, San Francisco (November 30, 2007).
Goodfellow, 47, was disbarred for failing to notify clients and opposing counsel of his suspension.
In January 2007 Goodfellow was suspended for one year after his conviction for possessing a controlled substance, a misdemeanor. Conditions to the discipline required him to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court by notifying clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and filing an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. He failed to promptly file the affidavit and failed to provide an explanation to the State Bar for his noncompliance.
In aggravation, Goodfellow had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. He demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct by failing to comply with the conditions to his suspension. Also, he failed to cooperate with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings before entry of his default.
The order took effect December 30, 2007
Michael
E
Manning,
State Bar #149757, Covina (November 30, 2007).
Manning, 46, was disbarred for failing to notify clients and opposing counsel of his suspension.
In October 2006 Manning was suspended for four months and placed on three years of probation for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and failing to notify a client about his inactive status. Conditions to the discipline required him to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court by notifying clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and filing an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. He failed to file the affidavit and failed to provide an explanation to the State Bar for his noncompliance.
In aggravation, Manning had a record of prior discipline. In October 2003 he was placed on two years of probation for failing to competently perform legal services and failing to provide an accounting to the beneficiaries of an estate he was representing.
Between May and June 2005 Manning was placed on involuntary inactive status and was not entitled to practice law. Between October 2004 and December 2005 he was the attorney of record in a family law case and continued to actively represent the client by filing a request for trial, mailing correspondence on his letterhead, and responding to interrogatories. He failed to notify the client when he was not entitled to practice law.
In November 2005 Manning’s previous order of probation was revoked, and he was suspended for 90 days for failing to comply with conditions to the 2003 probation. In October 2006 the underlying matter occurred. In the current discipline, he demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct by failing to comply with the conditions to his suspension. Also, he failed to cooperate with the State Bar during its investigation and proceedings prior to entry of his default.
The order took effect December 30, 2007
Patrice
A
Reitz,
State Bar #82606, Fresno (January 10, 2008).
Reitz, 56, was disbarred for failing to notify clients and opposing counsel of her suspension.
In October 2006 Reitz was suspended for six months for failing to perform legal services competently, failing to keep a client informed about developments in the client’s case, failing to respond to status inquiries, and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation.
Conditions to a 2003 suspension required Reitz to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court by notifying clients and opposing counsel of her suspension within 30 days and filing an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. She failed to timely file the affidavit and failed to provide an explanation to the State Bar for her noncompliance.
In aggravation, Reitz had a record of prior discipline. In April 2005 she was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation for failing to supervise a suspended attorney, failing to obey a court order, failing to perform legal services competently, and failing to inform clients about significant developments in their cases. In October 2006 the underlying matter occurred. In the three disciplinary matters, Reitz failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings prior to entry of her default.
The order took effect February 9, 2008
Brent William
Schindler,
State Bar #186703, Midland, MN (January 10, 2008).
Schindler, 48, was disbarred after being disciplined in Michigan for nine counts of misconduct.
Under California law, Schindler was found culpable of failing to maintain respect due the courts, making false statements to the district court of Michigan, making false statements to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, engaging in law practice while suspended, failing to return unearned fees, failing to pay a money judgment, falsely advertising his law firm as a limited liability partnership, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.
Schindler also was found culpable of failing to maintain client funds in trust, misappropriating funds, entering into an unfair business transaction with a client, failing to advise a client of his right to seek independent counsel in the business matter, failing to reduce the business matter to writing, failing to disclose the terms of the business matter to the client, and failing to respond to inquiries from the Michigan grievance administrator. In addition, he was ordered to make restitution of $11,538 to four clients.
In aggravation, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing that caused significant harm to clients. Schindler also demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his misconduct by failing to return unearned fees and failing to respond to notices of disciplinary charges filed against him by the California State Bar.
The order took effect February 9, 2008
Felix
Torres, Jr.,
State Bar #135480, Laguna Hills (December 20, 2007).
Torres, 58, was disbarred for failing to comply with conditions to a previous order of discipline, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude.
In September 2000 Torres was suspended for three years and placed on five years of probation for attorney misconduct that involved one client. Before 2000, Torres had represented a client in a medical malpractice case. After Torres gave the client incorrect legal advice, the client lost the case and was ordered to pay the defendant doctor $10,000 in costs.
Later, Torres began receiving hang-up telephone calls, which he assumed were from the client. In retaliation, he placed about 100 late-night telephone calls to the client. The State Bar Court found that Torres had maliciously oppressed, harassed, and inflicted emotional distress on the client.
The client then sued Torres for malpractice, harassment, and both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The client won a $308,000 jury award, but it was never paid because Torres was indigent, supporting himself through public and private disability payments.
Conditions to the 2000 discipline required Torres to file quarterly probation reports. He failed to file the reports for five quarters, from October 2004 to August 2005. He had written to the State Bar that his June 2004 probation report would be his last, stating that he was not required to file any further reports.
In a second matter, after September 2000 Torres filed seven lawsuits in U.S. district court against the California Supreme Court, the California State Bar Court, the State Bar, and individuals, alleging discrimination and civil rights violations.
Between September 2000 and February 2005, while he was on suspension, Torres filed 24 pleadings in federal lawsuits, in which he identified himself as an attorney at law and wrote letters on his letterhead identifying himself as an attorney. Between September 2000 and June 2003, also while on suspension, Torres filed two lawsuits and 18 pleadings in state court, alleging medical malpractice against a doctor, a hospital, and several individuals.
In aggravation, Torres had a record of prior discipline, the September 2000 discipline. In the current matter, the misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. He also demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for his misconduct.
The order took effect January 19, 2008
John
F
Wanvig,
State Bar #120390, Pullman, WA (February 21, 2008).
Wanvig, 55, was disbarred for failing to notify clients and opposing counsel that he was suspended from the practice of law.
In May 2006 Wanvig was suspended for 60 days for failing to competently perform legal services; engaging in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption; and making misrepresentations to the State Bar. Conditions to the discipline required him to comply with rule 9.20 of the Rules of Court by notifying clients and opposing counsel of his suspension within 30 days and filing an affidavit of compliance within 40 days. He failed to file his affidavit and failed to provide an explanation to the State Bar for his noncompliance.
In aggravation, Wanvig had a record of prior discipline, the underlying matter. He failed to participate in the State Bar proceedings before entry of his default. He also demonstrated a contemptuous attitude toward disciplinary proceedings and failed to comprehend his duty as an officer of the court by failing to participate in the State Bar Court proceedings.
The order took effect March 22, 2008
John
F
Watkins,
State Bar #44678, Glendora (November 30, 2007).
Watkins, 67, received a summary disbarment in a Review Department decision after his conviction for conspiracy to obstruct justice, conspiracy to stalk, and perjury, felonies involving moral turpitude. His conviction was upheld on appeal, becoming final. The Review Department found that Watkins’s conviction met the criteria for summary disbarment.
The order took effect December 30, 2007
The listings here are summaries of disciplinary action taken by the state Supreme Court or
the State Bar Court for the dates noted and are provided by the State Bar Court.
The summaries are comprehensive for the time period and do not reflect subsequent
miscellaneous orders by the courts that may affect these matters. The date of the
court's action is in parentheses. For more complete information on disciplinary proceedings,
contact theSan Francisco Daily Journal.
