DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
Contact the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel at (512) 453-5535, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals at (512) 475-1578 or txboda.org, or the State Commission on Judicial Conduct at (512) 463-5533.
JUDICIAL ACTIONS
To read the entire public sanctions, go to scjc.texas.gov.
On July 12, 2016, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition and order of additional education to David Glickler, judge of County Court at Law No. 2 in San Marcos, Hays County. Glickler violated Canons 2A and 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
On July 18, 2016, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand to James B. Scales III, municipal court judge in Bridge City, Orange County. Scales violated Canons 2A, 3B(2), 3B(4), and 6B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
REINSTATEMENTS
Julie Flores Marquez [#13012400], 73, of San Antonio, filed a petition in the 73rd Judicial District Court of Bexar County for reinstatement as a member of the State Bar of Texas. Cause No. 2016-CI-11803.
Joseph Angel Silva Jr. [#18351450], 66, of El Paso, filed a petition on August 5, 2016, in the 346th Judicial District Court of El Paso County for reinstatement as a member of the State Bar of Texas. Cause No. 2016-D-CV-3012.
BODA
On July 19, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed an agreed judgment of suspension against Henderson, Nevada, attorney Byron L. Landau [#00789970], 62, suspending Landau from the practice of law in Texas for three years, beginning July 19, 2016, and ending on July 18, 2019. Landau was suspended from the practice of law for three years by the Supreme Court of Illinois in a matter styled, In re: Byron Lee Landau, Attorney-Respondent, No. 3121895, Supreme Court No. M.R. 27635; Commission No. 2014PR00174. Landau was found to have failed to consult with a client as to the means by which the objectives of his representation were to be pursued, failed to act with reasonable diligence, failed to promptly inform the client concerning circumstances with respect to which the client’s informed consent was required, failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from a client, failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit an informed decision, failed to prepare and maintain complete trust account records, failed to protect a client’s interests, failed to promptly refund an unearned fee, failed to supervise non-lawyer employees, and assisted in the unauthorized practice of law in another jurisdiction—violations of the following Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.2(a); 1.3; 1.4(a)(1) through 1.4(a)(4); 1.4(b); 1.5(a)(1) through 1.5(a)(8); 1.16(d); 5.3(a); and 5.5(a). BODA Cause No. 57697.
On July 25, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed an agreed judgment of suspension against Round Rock attorney John William Tinder II [#24003060], 44, suspending Tinder from the practice of law in Texas for one year and one day, beginning on July 25, 2016, and ending on July 26, 2017. Tinder was suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day by the Supreme Court of Colorado in a matter styled, Complainant: The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent: John William Tinder, #39915, Case No. 15PDJ 082. Respondent violated the following Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.1 failed to provide competent representation to a client; 1.2(a) failed to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation; 1.3 did not act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; l.4(a)(3) did not keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; 1.4.(a)(4) did not promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; 1.16(d) upon termination of representation, he did not take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests; 3.4(c) he knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists; 3.4(d) he made a frivolous discovery request or failed to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party; and, 8.4(c) he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. BODA Cause No. 57703.
On July 26, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed an agreed interlocutory order of suspension against Austin attorney Patrick Lanier [#11933500], 67. On March 25, 2015, Lanier was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and 1349, 13 counts of wire fraud in violation of l8 U.S.C. § 1343, one count of harboring and concealing a person from arrest in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071, and one count of assisting a federal offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3, intentional crimes as defined in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, in the case styled, United States of America v. Patrick Lanier, Cause No. 4:10CR00258-004, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. Lanier was sentenced to 204 months in prison on each of the wire fraud counts and 22 months on the remaining counts to run concurrently and ordered to pay restitution of $37,544,944.16. After his release from prison, he will be on supervised release for three years. Lanier has appealed his criminal conviction. The board retains jurisdiction to enter a final judgment when the criminal appeal is final. BODA Cause No. 57700.
On August 1, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed a default interlocutory order of suspension against Houston attorney Stephen Young Kang [#24007465], 47. Although properly cited and noticed, Kang did not answer or appear. On April 6, 2016, Kang pleaded guilty to wire fraud and tax evasion, intentional crimes as defined in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, in the case styled, United States of America v. Stephen Young Kang, Cause No. 15-478(A)-GW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and by an amended judgment and probation/commitment order he was sentenced to 63 months in prison. After his release from prison, Kang will be under supervised release for three years. He was also ordered to pay restitution of $8,765,834.24. Kang has appealed his criminal conviction. The board retains jurisdiction to enter a final judgment when the criminal appeal is final. BODA Cause No. 57701.
On August 1, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed a default judgment of disbarment against Round Rock attorney Martin Cantu Jr. [#03767440], 59. Although properly cited and noticed, Cantu did not answer or appear. On December 16, 2015, Cantu was found guilty of conspiracy to commit securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 78ff] and securities fraud aiding and abetting in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 78ff [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, 18 U.S.C. § 2], intentional crimes as defined in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, and was sentenced to 35 months in prison and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $423,938.66 in the case styled, United States of America v. Martin Cantu, Case No. 3:13-CR-00347-K(02), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. After his release from prison, Cantu will be on supervised release for a term of one year. His conviction is final. BODA Cause No. 57698.
On August 1, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed a default judgment of disbarment against Church Point, Louisiana, attorney Malcolm Brasseaux [#02911000], 73. Although properly cited and noticed, Brasseaux did not answer or appear. Brasseaux’s request for permanent resignation in lieu of discipline was granted by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in a matter styled, In re: Malcolm Brasseaux, Case No. 2015-OB-1654. Brasseaux was found to have violated the following Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.4(c), 1.8(e), and 8.4(a). In accordance with the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, Brasseaux is disbarred in Texas. BODA Cause No. 57702.
On August 1, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed a default judgment of disbarment against New Orleans attorney Michael Stephen Sepcich [#24056843], 46. Although properly cited and noticed, Sepcich did not answer or appear. Sepcich was disbarred, retroactive to July 9, 2010, by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in a matter styled, In re: Michael S. Sepcich, Case No. 2015-B-0709. Sepcich admitted violating Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c). In accordance with the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, Sepcich is disbarred in Texas. BODA Cause No. 57696.
On August 1, 2016, after hearing oral argument, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals affirmed the evidentiary panel amended modification of the modified default judgment to reduce the term of active suspension against Houston attorney Jon Phillip Thomas [#24037593], 38, signed on August 28, 2015, by the evidentiary panel of the District 4-6 Grievance Committee in Case No. 201301356. Thomas remains suspended from the practice of law. BODA Cause No. 56721.
DISBARMENTS
On July 14, 2016, John David Herrick [#24000478],
46, of San Antonio, was disbarred. The 57th Judicial District Court of
Bexar County found that Herrick committed professional misconduct in
violation of Rules 1.01(a)(1) [accepting or continuing employment in a
legal matter which the lawyer knew or should have known was beyond the
lawyer’s competence], 1.01(b)(2) [failing to carry out completely the
obligations owed to a client], 1.03(a) [failing to keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply
with reasonable requests for information], 1.03(b) [failing to explain a
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make
informed decisions], 1.15(d) [failing, upon termination of
representation, to reasonably protect a client’s interests, give notice
to the client to seek other counsel, or surrender papers and property
that belong to the client], and 8.04(a)(7) [violating any disciplinary
or disability order or judgment].
Herrick was ordered to pay $5,495.01 in attorneys’ fees and direct
expenses.
RESIGNATIONS
On August 31, 2016, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the
resignation in lieu of discipline of Elias V. Lorenzana
Jr. [#00794191], 49, of Round Rock. At the time of Lorenzana’s
resignation, 10 disciplinary cases were pending against him.
Lorenzana neglected his clients’ legal matters, failed to keep clients
reasonably informed about the status of a matter, and failed to promptly
comply with reasonable requests for information. He failed to properly
maintain funds in his trust account and represented a client when the
representation reasonably appeared to be limited by his own interests.
Lorenzana failed to return unearned fees and disclosed confidential
information to a prohibited person. He shared legal fees with a
non-lawyer and formed a partnership with a non-lawyer when the
activities of the partnership consisted of the practice of law. He
further practiced in the form of a professional association authorized
to practice law when a non-lawyer owned an interest therein and was a
corporate director or officer thereof. Lorenzana repeatedly failed to
timely furnish a written response to the Office of Chief Disciplinary
Counsel.
Lorenzana violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.06(b)(2), 1.14(a),
1.14(b), 1.05(b)(1)(ii), 1.15(d), 5.04(a), 5.04(b), 5.04(d)(1),
5.04(d)(2), 8.04(a)(1), and 8.04(a)(8).
On August 31, 2016, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the
resignation in lieu of discipline of Christopher J.
Tome [#20117000], 65, of Cedar Park. At the time of Tome’s
resignation, a disciplinary matter was pending against him. Tome was
hired to handle the purchase of property on behalf of the complainant.
Tome was given $72,000 to place in escrow, $12,000 of which was to go to
the seller and the balance was to be used to pay off the existing
mortgage and to cover Tome’s legal fees. Tome did not pay off the
existing mortgage. Later, foreclosure proceedings were initiated against
the seller, wherein the bank effectively sought to evict the complainant
from his home. The complainant notified Tome of the legal action against
the seller. Tome filed an application for temporary restraining order
and was granted the same by the court. Thereafter, despite being noticed
for various hearings in the foreclosure case, Tome performed no further
legal work and failed to respond to the complainant’s repeated attempts
to communicate with him about the status of the case. The home was
foreclosed upon and the complainant had to move out of the home. Tome
further failed to furnish a written response to the complaint as
directed.
Tome violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.14(b), 1.14(c), and
8.04(a)(8).
SUSPENSIONS
On August 1, 2016, Daniel Lucius Brown [#03108300],
62, of San Antonio, accepted a six-month fully probated suspension
effective August 1, 2016. The District 10 Grievance Committee found that
Brown failed to keep his client reasonably informed and failed to
promptly deliver funds and render a complete accounting of funds when
requested.
Brown violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.03(b), and 1.14(b). He was ordered to
pay $14,312.50 in restitution and $2,400 in attorneys’ fees and direct
expenses.
On June 13, 2016, Frank A. Denena II [#00785815], 57,
of Franklin, received a two-year partially probated suspension effective
June 9, 2016, with the first six months actively suspended and the
remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance
Committee found that Denena neglected the complainant’s family law
matter. In addition, Denena failed to keep the complainant reasonably
informed about the status of her legal matter and respond to her
reasonable requests for information. Upon termination of the
representation, Denena failed to refund any advance payments of fees
that had not been earned.
Denena violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.15(d). He was ordered
to pay $2,750 in restitution and $2,713 in attorneys’ fees and direct
expenses.
On July 29, 2016, William Eric Hulett [#00796797], 51,
of Dallas, agreed to a 24-month partially probated suspension effective
August 1, 2016, with the first 10 months actively served and the
remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance
Committee found that in representing the complainant in his divorce
proceeding, Hulett neglected the legal matter entrusted to him.
Furthermore, Hulett failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed
about the status of his legal matter and failed to promptly comply with
reasonable requests for information. Upon termination of representation,
Hulett failed to refund advanced payments of fees that had not been
earned. Hulett further failed to timely furnish his response to the
grievance filed with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and he
did not in good faith assert a privilege or other legal ground for his
failure to do so.
Hulett violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He
was ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution and $225 in attorneys’ fees and
direct expenses.
On July 1, 2016, Robert M. Jones [#10951000], 71,
of Duncanville, received a three-year active suspension beginning March
1, 2018, and ending February 28, 2021. An evidentiary panel of the
District 6 Grievance Committee found that Jones failed to keep fees in a
separate trust account. On February 13, 2014, Jones was actively
suspended from the practice of law for one year beginning February 11,
2014, and ending February 10, 2015. After accepting and agreeing to the
judgment of a partially probated suspension, Jones appeared in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of a client
while he was actively suspended. He further accepted attorneys’ fees for
representation on a separate matter in Dallas County while under the
same suspension. Jones violated a disciplinary judgment by engaging in
the practice of law while actively suspended.
Jones violated Rules 1.14(a), 8.04(a)(7), and 8.04(a)(11). He was
ordered to pay $1,500 in restitution and $1,450 in attorneys’ fees and
direct expenses.
On August 30, 2016, Bruce A. Lipshy [#12413000],
74, of Austin received an agreed judgment of probated suspension
beginning April 1, 2017, and ending March 31, 2018. The 345th Judicial
District Court of Travis County found that Lipshy violated Rule 1.14(c)
[disbursing funds to persons not entitled to receive them].
Lipshy was ordered to pay $3,358.31 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.
On June 22, 2016, Frederick L. McGuire [#24001190],
67, of Houston, accepted a 15-month fully probated suspension effective
March 1, 2017. The 164th Judicial District Court of Harris County found
that McGuire violated Rule 1.04(f) [arranged for a division of fees
between lawyers not in the same firm without obtaining the client’s
written consent] and Rule 1.04(g) [sought fees beyond the value of the
services provided when a referral was not made in compliance with
1.04(f)].
McGuire was ordered to pay $1,930 in attorneys’ fees and direct
expenses.
On August 18, 2016, Refugio Rafael Perez
[#24051893], 38, of Corpus Christi, accepted an 18-month fully probated
suspension effective September 1, 2016. The District 11 Grievance
Committee found that Perez failed to keep the client reasonably informed
and failed to respond to the grievance.
Perez violated Rules 1.03(a) and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay
$6,000 in restitution and $1,500 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.
On August 2, 2016, Daniel Armando Sandoval
[#24075521], 35, of San Antonio, agreed to a 27-month partially probated
suspension effective August 20, 2016, with the first 30 days actively
served and the remainder probated. The District 10 Grievance Committee
found that Sandoval neglected client matters, failed to keep clients
reasonably informed, failed to refund unearned fees, and failed to
respond to grievances in a timely manner.
Sandoval violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and
8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $800 in attorneys’ fees and direct
expenses.
On August 17, 2016, Samuel Adjei Sarfo [#24071896],
53, of Austin, received a one-year partially probated suspension
effective October 1, 2016, with the first 15 days actively served and
the remainder probated. The 98th Judicial District Court of Travis
County found that Sarfo violated Rules 1.01(a) [a lawyer shall not
accept or continue employment in a legal matter which the lawyer knows
or should know is beyond the lawyer’s competence] and Rule 1.01(b)(1)
[in representing a client, a lawyer shall not frequently fail to carry
out completely the obligations that the lawyer owes to a client or
clients].
Sarfo was ordered to pay $15,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.
Sarfo has filed a notice of appeal.
PUBLIC REPRIMANDS
On August 11, 2016, Chad Aubrey Norcross
[#24039513], 49, of McKinney, received an agreed judgment of public
reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 1 Grievance Committee
found that Norcross was hired to represent the complainant in a civil
matter. Norcross failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed
about the status of his civil matter and failed to comply with
reasonable requests for information.
Norcross violated Rule 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $750 in
restitution and $3,100 in attorneys’ fees and direct
expenses.TBJ
