March 2026

DISBARMENT

Thaddeus Julian Culpepper

State Bar #220194, Perris (January 9, 2026)

Culpepper was summarily disbarred after the State Bar Court received finality of his felony convictions for theft of government property (18 U.S.C. § 641) and passing U.S. Treasury checks bearing forged endorsements (18 U.S.C. § 510(a)(2)).

Both violations involved moral turpitude per se.

Dermot D. Givens

State Bar #194571, Beverly Hills (January 16, 2026)

Givens was disbarred after being found culpable of six of the seven counts of professional misconduct with which he had been charged--all related to mishandling client funds.

His wrongdoing included: failing to inform his client of settlement funds received on her behalf, failing to maintain records of these funds, failing to distribute client funds promptly, failing to maintain his client's funds in trust--and then misappropriating them, which is misconduct involving moral turpitude. A sixth count--falsely maintaining that his client's funds were safeguarded when he knew they had been spent--also involved moral turpitude.

In the underlying matter, Givens had a "personal and professional relationship" with a woman. He perceived himself as her parental figure or mentor; she frequently sought assistance from him in both legal and personal matters.

The woman was represented by the public defender in a charge involving sexual abuse of a minor, and ultimately convicted and sentenced to serve a prison term until March of 2033. Givens did not substitute into that case or enter a fee agreement, but provided limited help in securing witnesses.

The woman had also been involved in an earlier workers' comp case. She was represented by counsel, but had difficulty contacting that attorney from prison, so sought help from Givens in communicating with the attorney and retrieving forms related to the case for her to execute. In an initial communique, Givens falsely represented to the attorney that he was representing the woman in a criminal case--giving a fabricated case number. The attorney settled the workers' comp case for $45,000, and the woman directed Givens to open a bank account for her, naming a friend as signatory, and deposit half of that amount in it.

Givens received a settlement check for $38,500 (the settlement amount minus attorney's fees), payable to the woman. He deposited it into his client trust account without her signature and without informing her he had received it--later making transfers and withdrawals to and from the account that caused the balance to dip to an impermissible level. Givens continued to claim to her that he had not yet received any settlement funds.

At the woman's request, Givens deposited a total of $700 into her prison books for food, hygiene products, and a television; she believed he would deduct those amounts from the settlement money she was slated to receive. The woman eventually became suspicious about Given's handling of her funds--and learned he had actually received the settlement check more than a year ago. He then stopped communicating with the woman and her family members.

At trial, Givens claimed he and the woman had modified their oral agreement to provide that he was entitled to the full settlement amount as repayment for loans he had made to her over the years. The State Bar Court found that claim lacked credibility, noting "the complete absence of supporting documentation."

In aggravation, Givens had a prior record of discipline, committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the present case that significantly harmed his client, who was highly vulnerable due to being incarcerated--and failed to make restitution to her. He also showed indifference to his misconduct "demonstrating a troubling lack of insight and an unwillingness to accept responsibility," as well as a lack of candor in his trial testimony.

Givens did not offer any evidence in support of mitigation.

Qiang Ma

State Bar #176834, San Marino (January 16, 2026)

Ma was disbarred after stipulating to committing eight acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter.

The wrongdoing included: failing to render an accounting of funds received, as well as two counts each of failing to promptly notify the client of funds received in which he had an interest and failing to promptly distribute client funds. An additional three counts involved moral turpitude: one count of making false and misleading statements to a State Bar investigator, and two counts of intentionally misappropriating client funds.

Ma resigned as incorporator of a company, but remained a signatory on the business bank accounts. He then entered into two fee agreements to handle various immigration matters for a client and his family members--including a petition related to a visa for an intracompany transferee, which also required Ma to prepare corporate documents for the client to obtain a controlling interest in the company that Ma had previously incorporated.

The client gave Ma a check for $850,000 to buy into the company, which he deposited into the company account. When a company officer found out that Ma was still a signatory, the CEO instructed him to return $700,000 to the client. However, Ma negotiated a check in that amount to a company owned by his own son. Years later, after the client's petition for alien workers was revoked, he was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The client's wife refused to enter into another fee agreement with Ma to pursue a release from ICE, and hired another attorney to do so.

Ma then received a $60,000 check from the company he had incorporated that was payable to his law firm; the company CEO directed Ma to issue the check to the client as a partial return for his investment, but Ma deposited it into his law firm's trust account and made no payment to the client. The client eventually hired new counsel, who sued to prompt return of the client file and requested a return of the investment money the client had paid.

The client also filed a lawsuit seeking to be recognized as a shareholder with a controlling interest in the company; a default in that matter entitled the client to receive 60% of the company shares and he ultimately sued to recoup his investment and brought another legal action alleging conversion. Those cases were dismissed after Ma issued a check to reimburse the client--including 10% in accrued interest.

During the course of a probe into the matter, Ma told State Bar investigators that the $60,000 check received earlier was "for the reimbursement of another owner of the company"--a statement he knew to be false.

The matter was ultimately settled, with Ma paying an additional $50,000 to the client for the total of $760,000 he had misappropriated in the matter.

In aggravation, Ma committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed his client who was highly vulnerable due to an uncertain immigration status, and demonstrated indifference by failing to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his acts.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation and was allotted "some" mitigating weight for having practiced law discipline-free for approximately 24 years--the weight lessened because of the seriousness of the charges and lack of showing that the misconduct was aberrational.

SUSPENSION

Leticia Aguirre

State Bar #178077, Los Angeles (January 16, 2026)

Aguirre was suspended for three years and placed on probation for three years. She had earlier been accepted to participate in the State Bar Court's Alternative Discipline Program (ADP) and its Lawyer Assistance Program (LAP) after submitting evidence establishing a nexus between her substance abuse and mental health issues and the professional misconduct she was alleged to have committed.

The State Bar Court eventually initiated an order to show cause why Aguirre should not be terminated from the ADP based on her noncompliance with the program's terms and conditions. She opposed the termination, but failed to meet the deadline to re-enroll in the LAP to avoid being terminated from the ADP.

Aguirre had stipulated to committing misconduct in two matters, consolidated in the present case.

In one, she aided the unauthorized practice of law, shared fees with a nonlawyer, failed to perform legal services with competence, failed to return unearned advanced fees, failed to render accounts of client funds, failed to inform clients of significant case developments, and disobeyed a court order.

In another matter, she was convicted of one misdemeanor count of concealing a principal to a felony (Cal. Penal Code § 32)-and stipulated that the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense involved moral turpitude.

In aggravation, Aguirre was found to have committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that substantially harmed her client--who had to hire new counsel to complete her case, and failed to make restitution for the unearned advanced fees due her client.

In mitigation, she had practiced law discipline-free for more than 20 years ad suffered significant emotional and physical difficulties--including alcohol abuse, depression, and the effects of dealing with an abusive relationship.

Because Aguirre was terminated from the ADP, the State Bar Court recommended that she receive the higher level of discipline contained in the confidential statement of alternative dispositions and orders to which she had earlier agreed.

James Bickford

State Bar #206437, San Diego (January 16, 2026)

Bickford was suspended from practicing law for one year and placed on suspension for two years after he stipulated to committing 17 acts of professional misconduct related to three separate client matters.

His wrongdoing included: failing to practice law with competence and diligence, failing to inform a client of significant case developments, failing to promptly release the clients' papers and property after terminating representation, seeking to mislead a judge, and disobeying a court order; two counts each of practicing law when he was suspended and not entitled to do so and failing to promptly refund unearned advanced fees; and three counts each of failing to maintain client funds in a trust account and failing to render an accounting of client funds. He was also culpable of two counts involving moral turpitude: holding himself out as entitled to practice law when he was not and making false representations to a court.

Bickford represented a client in a criminal case and domestic violence restraining order matter. They executed an "attorney retainer agreement" covering a flat fee of $8,500 to cover representation at an arraignment and two trial readiness conferences, with a provision that Bickford would be entitled to fees of $500 per hour if representation was terminated and the client was due a refund.

Bickford did not have a client trust account, nor did he inform the client of her right to have the flat fee she paid held in trust. During the representation, Bickford was suspended due to his failure to pay bar dues, but he continued to represent the client--at one point, seeking a continuance based on a false claim that he had not viewed videos that were to be entered as evidence.

The court ultimately awarded sole custody of the client's children to their father and issued a three-year restraining order against her; she then terminated Bickford's representation. He failed to respond to her new attorney's requests for her client file, an accounting, and a refund of fees paid. After Bickford failed to refund her unearned fees, the client sought an arbitration finding, which resulted in an award of $4,516; Bickford eventually paid.

In the second client case, Bickford was hired to represent a client in two criminal matters--again executing a fee agreement covering an arraignment and trial readiness conferences. He again deposited the flat fee into his operating account. After a few weeks, the client terminated Bickford's representation after being informed that no criminal charges would be filed. Bickford then ignored requests for a refund of unearned fees, the matter went to fee dispute arbitration, and the client ultimately filed a civil suit to recover the $8,400 in fees awarded. After he was placed on involuntary inactive status due to the failure to pay the award, Bickford paid the judgment.

The third client matter involved representation in a DUI and felony hit and run charges. Bickford failed to appear at an initial arraignment hearing, and while on inactive status due to his failure to respond to previous disciplinary charges, he continued to represent the client--though he did not inform her of the need to attend hearings scheduled in her case. A public defender was eventually appointed to represent her, and Bickford was relieved as her counsel.

In aggravation, Bickford had two prior records of discipline and committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the present case.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

Arne J. Nelson

State Bar #152375, El Cerrito (January 28, 2026)

Nelson was suspended from the practice of law for one year and placed on probation for two years.

He earlier entered into a stipulation admitting culpability for 24 separate acts of ethical violations related to four client matters.

His misconduct included: failing to provide an accounting of settlement funds received, failing to promptly communicate a settlement offer received to his client, failing to promptly release a client's papers and property upon terminating employment, failing to comply with a court order, and accepting clients in joint representation without informing them of foreseeable adverse consequences or obtaining their written consents. He was also culpable of two counts each of failing to keep clients informed of significant case developments and failing to perform legal services with competence; three counts of failing to participate in the State Bar's investigation of the wrongdoing alleged; and four counts each of improperly terminating representation, failing to represent his clients diligently, and failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries.

In one case, Nelson represented four clients--all of whom were injured in a car collision: one was the driver, the other three passengers. He did not inform them that the driver's potential liability for the accident might affect all the clients' interests. He filed a complaint on behalf of the clients but did not serve it or inform the clients, nor did he take any additional action in the case. After he failed to appear at the order to show cause hearing, the court dismissed the action. The clients then filed a malpractice action against Nelson; he failed to respond and a default was entered against him. He did not pay the judgment of $30,000 to the clients as ordered.

The three additional cases also involved clients involved in auto accidents. In one, Nelson received a settlement check for $15,000, withdrew $5,000 as his fee, then failed to pay the client or to respond to numerous requests for an accounting and case update. In another, he failed to appear in court for a case management conference and order to show cause hearing, to serve responses to interrogatories and a demand for production, or to respond to the motion to compel he had received. And in the third case, Nelson failed to do any substantive work after he was hired.

Nelson had been administratively suspended since July 2, 2024 for his earlier failure to comply with Client Trust Account Protection Program requirements.

In aggravation, Nelson committed multiple acts of misconduct over several years of representation which significantly harmed his clients.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and had been practicing law discipline-free for more than 27 years before committing his first instance of misconduct.

Anthony Patrick Radogna

State Bar #261859, Winchester (January 18, 2026)

Radogna was suspended from practicing law for six months and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing two acts of professional discipline--both related to violating conditions imposed in earlier disciplinary orders.

He was culpable of disobeying a court order by failing to file a declaration of compliance as mandated by an order of the California Supreme Court (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.20). In addition, he failed to comply with several probation conditions in a timely manner--including failing to schedule and participate in an initial meeting with the State Bar's Office of Case Management and Supervision and failing to submit a quarterly written report and declaration attesting to reviewing the rules of Professional Conduct and Business and Professions Code.

In aggravation, Radogna had a prior record of discipline and committed multiple acts of misconduct in the present case.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and caused no harm to clients as he was not actively practicing law when obligated to comply with the probation conditions imposed.

Richard Roger Roy

State Bar #90066, San Diego (January 16, 2026)

Roy was suspended from the practice of law for 60 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing three acts of professional misconduct--all related to mismanaging his client trust account.

Specifically, he was culpable of failing to maintain client funds in trust, commingling personal funds in his client trust account, and misappropriating client funds--misconduct involving moral turpitude.

Roy was retained to represent a client in a personal injury matter, which settled for $100,000. He received the settlement payment in two installments. He deposited the first payment check of $84,083 into his client trust account, and made a payout to the client of $5,000--but thereafter, failed to maintain a sufficient balance to cover medical liens and expert witness fees.

He subsequently received a second and final payment check--fully payable to the client and her lienholders. However, the balance in his client trust account again declined to an impermissible level. He also commingled funds by making two deposits totaling $7,500 into the account.

Roy eventually paid the client and lienholders.

In aggravation, Roy committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for nearly 46 years, and provided letters from eight individuals attesting to his good character. The State Bar Court also found he suffered from health difficulties requiring an extensive hospital stay, surgery, and a lengthy recovery period. He was also allotted limited mitigating weight for making restitution to his client--initiated after the State Bar began investigating the matter.

PROBATION

Andrea Alicia Alarcon

State Bar #319536, Palmdale (January 28, 2026)

Alarcon was placed on probation for two years after she stipulated to pleading nolo contendere to driving under the influence of alcohol (Cal. Vehicle Code § 23152(a)), with an admitted special allegation of having prior DUI convictions. The offense is a criminal misdemeanor.

She had been stopped by police officers who had observed her driving unsafely. At the scene, she admitted to feeling the effects of drinking "one glass of wine," but was unable to successfully perform the field sobriety tests--and a test revealed a blood alcohol content of .23%.

The State Bar Court determined that Alarcon did not appeal her conviction, which became final, and that the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense did not involve moral turpitude, but did warrant imposing discipline.

In aggravation, Alarcon had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation, submitted evidence of performing community service, and provided letters from eight individuals taken from a range in the legal and general communities--all of whom attested to her good character.

Jesse Lewis Halpern

State Bar #37962, Agoura Hills (January 28, 2026

Halpern was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing six counts of professional misconduct related to two client matters.

He was culpable of: withdrawing disputed funds from his client trust account and failing to promptly disburse settlement funds to a medical lienholder, as well as two counts each of failing to promptly notify clients of settlement funds received, and failing to maintain a sufficient balance in his client trust account.

The facts in both client cases were substantially similar. Halpern took on representation of clients in personal injury cases; the clients signed medical liens directing Halpern to pay medical providers directly from settlement funds received to protect the providers' interests. The medical providers then continued providing services to the clients.

Halpern received settlement funds for both cases, depositing the money in his client trust account, and then made payments to himself, his clients, and others, but failed to inform the medical lienholders that the settlement funds had been received or to satisfy their liens--and failed to maintain the required balance in his account.

Halpern satisfied payments to the medical lienholders--one, after the provider won a default judgment against him, the other after a State Bar complaint had been lodged against him.

In aggravation, Halpern committed multiple acts of misconduct.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law discipline-free for more than 53 years without a record of discipline before engaging in the present wrongdoing.

Matthew Ray Rungaitis

State Bar #150929, Santa Clarita (January 16, 2026)

Rungaitis was placed on probation for one year.

He stipulated to being culpable of three counts of professional misconduct related to a single matter: failing to disclose to his clients that he did not have professional liability insurance, failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing the clients, and failing to inform the clients of significant developments in their case.

Rungaitis represented a client and his company in a contract dispute. No retainer agreement was executed, and Rungaitis did not inform the clients that he did not have professional liability insurance when hired. After the case was removed to federal court, Rungaitis failed to respond to discovery requests or produce his clients for depositions or to inform them of the need to respond nor did he file a response to the order to show cause for failing to file an opposition to the motion to compel attendance at the depositions. After that failure to respond, the court granted the motion to compel--ordering Rungaitis's clients to appear for their depositions and to pay $9,559.50 in costs and attorney's fees; the order included a warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal. The clients were not informed of these developments.

Rungaitis ultimately filed a motion to continue the trial in the matter, along with an explanation that he, and not his clients, was solely at fault for their failure to comply with discovery obligations. The court dismissed the action with prejudice. The client paid the sanctions ordered, and Rungaitis withdrew from representation shortly after that.

The client filed a malpractice action against Rungaitis, which resulted in a default judgment against him in the amount of $35,599.78. The client spent $10,000 on legal fees in attempting to collect the judgment, eventually securing a lien on Rungaitis's property.

The parties ultimately settled the matter for $33,712, which Rungaitis paid.

In aggravation, Rungaitis committed multiple acts of misconduct, significantly harming his client, who suffered dismissal of the case, imposition of sanctions, and costs in hiring new counsel for the malpractice action.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 29 years, suffered emotional difficulties due to personal and family matters, provided evidence of performing extensive community service, and demonstrated recognition of and remorse for his wrongdoing.