April 2026

DISBARMENT

Todd Phillip Coulston

State Bar #205261, Rancho Santa Margarita (February 6, 2026)

Coulston was disbarred after he entered into a stipulation admitting culpability for 18 counts of professional misconduct related to five separate client matters.

His wrongdoing included: engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to obey a court order, failing to disburse client funds when required to do so; two counts of failing to promptly render appropriate accountings of client funds; and seven counts of failing to maintain client funds in a trust account. Four additional counts related to client matters also involved moral turpitude: one count of practicing law while knowingly not entitled to do so, and three counts of misappropriating client funds. Coulston also pled guilty to two counts of money laundering (Cal. Penal Code § 186.10(a))--a felony involving moral turpitude.

Several of the client matters involved similar fact patterns: Coulston represented clients in marital dissolutions in which the court entered a stipulation that real estate proceeds would be held in his trust account and withdrawn only by the parties' mutual written agreement or a court order. Coulston deposited the proceeds received, but then failed to maintain an adequate balance in the trust account--effectively misappropriating the funds.

In one case, he concealed the misappropriation by initially refusing to provide an accounting, and opening a new trust account into which he transferred his personal funds to cover the required disbursements. In another, he fashioned a false invoice and other documentation to conceal his misappropriation; the case was resolved by a default judgment against Coulston of nearly $266,500. In a plea bargain related to a criminal proceeding in the case, which involved two other similarly aggrieved clients, Coulston pled guilty to two counts of money laundering; additional counts were dismissed based on his agreement to make full restitution.

In an additional client matter, Coulston prosecuted a contempt case against a former spouse who failed to pay spousal support. He received the funds related to the support payments and deposited them in his business account, issuing checks from it to pay the client. Separately, the court ordered Coulston to hold funds received from the sale of the couple's real property into his trust account--after which the balance dipped to a legally impermissible level.

During that period, Coulston was on voluntary inactive status while the criminal prosecution described earlier was proceeding. However, he failed to communicate his inactive status to the client, and appeared in court seeking a continuance and claiming a breakdown in client communications; he failed to inform the court of his inactive status at the time, and misrepresented that he was holding the client's funds in a trust account.

In aggravation, Coulston committed multiple acts of wrongdoing--some of which he knowingly concealed, and failed to account for improperly using client funds.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for 19 years, and received nominal mitigating weight for providing good character reference letters from five individuals--none of whom were fully aware of the extent of his misconduct.

Alex Holguin

State Bar #271861, Los Angeles (February 6, 2026)

Holguin was disbarred by default. Though he appeared remotely at an initial status conference in his disciplinary matter, at which two cases were consolidated, he did not file a response to the notices of disciplinary charges or to the motions for default--nor did he move to have the default entered in the case set aside or vacated.

The State Bar Court found that the factual allegations in the charges supported the conclusion that Holguin was culpable of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and of holding himself out as entitled to practice while he was not authorized to do so--misconduct involving moral turpitude.

He was also culpable of three counts of violating court-mandated duties imposed on suspended attorneys (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.20) by failing to file a declaration of compliance with the State Bar Court, and by failing to notify his clients and opposing clients in pending matters of his suspension.

Holquin had one prior record of discipline before he was disbarred in the instant matter.

Jack Howard Karpeles

State Bar #134478, San Pedro (February 21, 2026)

Karpeles was disbarred by default. Though he and his counsel appeared at several status conferences in the matter, Karpeles failed to file a response to the notice of disciplinary charges against him.

Several days after the Office of Chief Trial Counsel filed a motion for entry of a default, Karpeles filed a response stating that he did not object to its entry. The State Bar Court received evidence that he did not move to have the default entered in the case set aside or vacated and that the factual allegations in the charge supported the conclusion he was culpable of all 20 counts.

His wrongdoing included: failing to promptly communicate a settlement offer to his client, failing to seek the client's consent before rejecting a settlement offer, failing to perform legal services with diligence and competence, failing to maintain records of his client trust account, maintaining an unjust action, attempting to maintain proceedings based on a corrupt motive, as well as two counts each of failing to inform his client of significant case developments and failing to account for client funds. He was also culpable of three counts of failing to comply with court orders and an additional two counts of failing to report related judicial sanctions imposed.

In addition, he failed to support the law, charged an unconscionable fee, intentionally and wrongfully held himself out as entitled to practice law and provided legal services to clients in a jurisdiction where he was not licensed--an act involving moral turpitude.

And finally, he failed to comply with several conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order--most of them involving failing to submit timely written reports and failing to pay and submit proof of paying restitution as ordered.

Karpeles had two prior records of discipline before he was disbarred in the instant case.

Matthew B. Smith

State Bar #230648, Green Cove Springs, Florida (February 21, 2026)

Smith was disbarred after a jury found him guilty of committing three criminal misdemeanors: one count of battery (Cal. Penal Code § 242) and two counts of sexual battery (Cal. Penal Code § 243(e)(1).

The offenses occurred while Smith was attending a private party held at a yacht club. During the event, he entered the club's kitchen multiple times, where three teenagers--two girls and a boy--were helping prepare food. He touched the two girls and caressed their backs and buttocks. He castigated the boy for not doing his job well--aggressively grabbing his arms and patting him "firmly" on the back.

During the criminal trial in the matter, the prosecution introduced testimony regarding three previous instances of sexual assault that Smith had committed while at the same yacht club.

The State Bar Court concluded that the facts and circumstance surrounding the violations in the present case involved moral turpitude and warranted imposing discipline.

In aggravation, Smith caused significant harm to his victims, who were highly vulnerable due to their young ages.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law discipline-free for 18 years--though the mitigating weight of that was diminished due to the fact that Smith had engaged in similar misconduct several times earlier.

Navpreet Kaur Thandi

State Bar #319008, Yuba City (February 6, 2026)

Thandi was disbarred after she stipulated to pleading nolo contendere to numerous acts of professional misconduct related to seven separate client matters.

Her wrongdoing included: failing to promptly release the client's file after terminating employment; two counts each of failing to return unearned advanced fees and failing to pay court-ordered sanctions; three counts of failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigations of the wrongdoing alleged; four counts of failing to inform clients of significant case developments; five counts of failing to perform legal services with reasonable diligence; and seven counts of failing to perform legal services with competence.

An additional eight counts involved moral turpitude: knowingly making false statements to clients and to State Bar investigators.

The client cases followed substantially similar fact patterns: Thandi undertook representation of immigration clients, then failed to file the requisite applications, petitions, and other documents, or to attend court appearances in their cases. In several matters, she failed to inform the clients that their cases had been closed or to respond to the eventual inquiries from State Bar investigators.

In its opinion, the State Bar Court took special note of the misrepresentations that were directly related to Thandi's law practice. In one matter, she led a client to believe an asylum petition had been filed on his behalf when the filing deadline had in fact passed. She lied to three other clients, assuring them applications and motions in their cases had been filed when she had not done so. And in another case, she falsely claimed to the Office of Chief Trial Counsel that she had paid sanctions the court had ordered due to her failures to appear, when in fact she had not paid.

In aggravation, Thandi committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed the administration of justice and of her clients--most of whom had to hire other counsel and who were also highly vulnerable due to their uncertain immigration status, and showed an indifference toward rectifying her actions and their consequences.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation.

Claire Jacqueline White

State Bar #310771, Suisun City (February 14, 2026)

White was disbarred after she stipulated to pleading nolo contendere to 36 counts of professional misconduct related to 10 client matters and three additional ones. The parties requested the court to dismiss an additional six counts originally filed against her in the interest of justice.

White was culpable of: practicing law when she was not legally entitled to do so, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, seeking to mislead a judicial officer, and commingling personal and client funds in her trust account; two counts each of failing to render accountings of fees advanced by clients, and failing to release clients papers and property after terminating representation; three counts of failing to promptly return unearned advanced fees; four counts of failing to perform legal services with diligence; seven counts of accepting fees from a third party without obtaining clients' prior written consent; and eight counts of failing to hold client funds in a trust account.

An additional six counts involved moral turpitude: three counts of misappropriating client funds, and three counts of making false statements--to a client, to opposing counsel, and in a written declaration filed with the court.

In the 10 client matters, White took on representation of individuals who were facing serious criminal charges; several of them were incarcerated at the time she was hired. In most of the cases, she accepted payment of retainers and legal fees directly from the clients' family members or other loved ones without securing a prior written consent from the individual clients. And in all cases, she deposited the accepted fees into her personal account rather than a trust account. The State Bar Court noted that in at least one instance, the balance in that account dipped to an impermissibly low level--and recounted that White made numerous purchases from it to DoorDash, Starbucks, Ikea, and other retail stores.

The gravamen of the complaints against White was that she simply failed to deliver the services she had promised--in one case, failing to attend nine scheduled court appearances without informing the client. Clients also complained about White's failure to communicate, the difficulty in reaching her, and her failure to return unearned advanced fees. In one case, an arbitrator ultimately ordered White to repay $15,000 in fees, though she did not do so.

She also made multiple false representations related to the practice of law. She told a client she had hired a private investigator to assist in his defense, and later repeated that falsehood in a written declaration filed with the court. In another instance, she told opposing counsel she had been "pulled" from work and on a medical leave when in fact she was making personal appearances in another case at the time.

The State Bar Court was particularly focused on the counts against White that involved moral turpitude, noting that her misconduct was "dishonest, repeated, and serious, the amount misappropriated (more than $16,300) is not insignificant," and that her wrongdoing was "compounded by her multiple misrepresentations."

In aggravation, White committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that constituted a pattern of misconduct and significantly harmed the administration of justice as well as her clients, who faced serious criminal charges and were vulnerable due to their incarceration. In addition, she failed to demonstrate candor or to cooperate in the State Bar's investigations of the wrongdoing alleged.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation. She was also allotted limited mitigating weight for good character letters submitted by 13 individuals--several of whom lacked knowledge of the totality of her misconduct and had no recent contact with her; minimal weight for evidence of emotional difficulties without evidence of rehabilitation; and nominal weight for having practiced law discipline-free for approximately four years before the misconduct occurred.

SUSPENSION

David William Clark

State Bar #264125, Honolulu, Hawaii (February 6, 2026)

Clark was suspended from practicing law for two years and placed on probation for three years after he stipulated to being convicted of four criminal misdemeanors--all of them involving moral turpitude, as well as disobeying a court order by failing to file a declaration of compliance as mandated in a previous disciplinary matter (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.20).

The four convictions--criminal trespass (Cal. Penal Code § 602), being under the influence of a controlled substance (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 115500(a), and two counts of shoplifting (Cal. Penal Code § 459.5)--involved separate incidents related to theft from department stores.

In aggravation, Clark committed multiple acts of wrongdoing in the present consolidated case.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had no prior record of discipline in approximately four years of practice, suffered from substance abuse issues during the time of the misconduct for which he sought rehabilitation, and has actively maintained a record of good conduct since the convictions at issue occurred. He was also allotted diminished mitigating weight for providing good character reference letters from seven individuals who did not represent a range in the legal and general communities.

Todd James Hilts

State Bar #190711, San Diego (February 21, 2026)

Hilts was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing three acts of professional misconduct: failing to obey a court order, failing to act with reasonable diligence, and failing to keep clients informed of significant case developments. The wrongdoing was related to two separate client matters.

In one case, Hilts sought removal of a family law real property lien attached to his client's property. The lienholder objected and sought sanctions in the amount of $9,415 representing the fees in opposing the motion. The court determined that there was "no credible evidence that there was an equitable reason to reduce let alone remove" the lien, and ordered Hilts to pay the $9,415 within 60 days. He made the payment 239 days after the court's original order, 121 days after the lienholder served him with a file-stamped Findings and Order After Hearing requesting payment, and two weeks after receiving a letter from the State Bar regarding his failure to make the payment.

In the second matter, Hilts represented a family of immigrants appealing removal orders. He initially sought and was granted an extension to file an opening brief in the case, but did not file it, despite the court's warning that failing to comply with the briefing schedule would result in an automatic dismissal of the appeal. After the case was dismissed, Hilts filed two motions for relief from default--both of which were denied. He failed to inform his clients of his inactions, which ultimately left them subject to removal proceedings.

In aggravation, Hilts had a prior record of discipline and committed multiple acts of misconduct in the instant matter.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and provided letters from five individuals taken from a range in the community--all of whom vouched for his good character.

Tara E. Latus

State Bar #263163, Colorado Springs, Colorado (February 6, 2026)

Latus was suspended from practicing law for two years and placed on probation for three years after she stipulated to committing six acts of wrongdoing that constituted professional misconduct in another jurisdiction. All those actions related to a single client case.

Latus's law license was administratively suspended by the Colorado Supreme Court as a result of a stipulation she entered in a disciplinary matter there. Her culpability in that case included: engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and doing so knowingly--misconduct involving moral turpitude, as well as failing to deposit client funds in trust and failing to promptly refund unearned advanced fees. Two additional counts also involved moral turpitude: misappropriating the client funds and making a dishonest claim to them.

In the underlying matter, Latus provided legal services to three Colorado clients while knowing that her license there had been suspended--a fact the clients did not learn until after they had terminated her services. While suspended, Latus accepted advanced fees as a retainer for future work--instructing that the clients make payment into her husband's Venmo account. Those funds were not placed in a client trust account; he transferred them into his personal account.

One day later, the clients terminated Latus's services, dissatisfied with her performance. Latus then promised to calculate time spent in their matter, and to return the remainder of the retainer. Two months later, however, she informed the clients that the funds had been transferred to her trust account--which was a falsehood--and that her husband had stolen them. She requested an agreement that would allow her to reimburse them by making weekly payments of $200, so that the debt would not be extinguished in a planned bankruptcy proceeding. They refused the arrangement, and Latus repaid them, with interest, about a year later.

In aggravation, Latus committed multiple acts of misconduct that the State Bar Court noted had a "dishonest and selfish motive."

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 13 years, and suffered from emotional difficulties stemming from domestic abuse and a dissolution of her marriage during the time of her misconduct.

Mario Gilberto Valencia

State Bar #235749, Bakersfield (February 6, 2026)

Valencia was suspended for 90 days and placed on probation for two years after he successfully completed the Alternative Discipline Program (ADP), including participating in the Stated Bar's Lawyer Assistance Program (LAP).

The Office of Chief Trial Counsel had filed three cases against Valencia, which were consolidated, and he submitted nexus statements for all three establishing a connection between his substance abuse and misconduct.

Her stipulated to being culpable of 11 counts of misconduct related to client matters, which involved: failing to provide an accounting of client funds, failing to promptly refund unearned advanced fees, and failing to perform with competence; two counts of improperly withdrawing from representation; and three counts each of failing to perform legal services with diligence and failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries.

In a separate matter, Valencia was convicted of making criminal threats (Cal. Penal Code § 422) following a phone argument with his ex-wife about child visitation. He then called his former mother-in-law--threatening to harm his ex-wife, her current husband, and their child, before taking his own life. He was arrested when he arrived at the ex-wife's home later that evening; no weapons were found on him.

In aggravation, Valenica had a prior record of discipline and committed multiple acts of misconduct in the current case that significantly harmed a client.

In mitigation, the State Bar Court considered his successful completion of the ADP--and recommended the discipline of 90 days of actual suspension, which he has already served while participating in the program.

PROBATION

John Easton Cowan

State Bar #168110, San Francisco (February 6, 2026)

Cowan was placed on probation for one year--that term slated to run consecutively to the six months of actual suspension ordered in a previous discipline case.

In the instant matter, he stipulated to committing four acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter: failing to act with reasonable diligence in his representation, failing to keep his client reasonably informed of case developments, improperly withdrawing from employment, and terminating employment without taking reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to his client.

Cowan was paid an advanced fee of $4,000 to represent a client in a malpractice action against a veterinarian. However, he did not send a demand letter to the defendant or attempt a settlement of the matter before filing a lawsuit a few days before the statute of limitations was set to expire. He then effectively abandoned the case and did not provide the client with explanations or status updates. The case was dismissed for lack of prosecution--and could not be refiled because the statute of limitations had run.

Cowan refunded $2,472 to the client, claiming he had earned the rest of the advanced fee. However, he refunded the remainder of the fee before executing the stipulation in the present case.

In aggravation, Cowan had a prior record of discipline and caused significant harm to his client, who lost her cause of action due to his misconduct.

In mitigation, he entered a prefiling stipulation.

Steven John Moore

State Bar #186179, Santa Cruz (February 6, 2026)

Moore was placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to being culpable of one count of professional misconduct: engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

In accord with a discipline order imposed earlier, Moore was suspended from practicing law for 60 days and placed on probation for two years; the stipulation in the case also required him to pay $3,489 in costs--which was deemed a condition precedent to returning to active practice.

Moore did not pay the specified costs, but returned to work--and, under the mistaken belief that he was entitled to practice law when his suspension period ended, "made dozens of court appearances" in criminal matters in his role as assistant district attorney.

He paid the costs due after the D.A's office informed him of the importance of doing so, and was returned to active status.

In aggravation, Moore had two prior records of discipline--one of them also involving the unauthorized practice of law.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, suffered from documented emotional difficulties during the time of the present misconduct, submitted six letters from a range of individuals who vouched for his good character, and demonstrated remorse and a recognition of his wrongdoing. He was also afforded mitigating weight because the State Bar Court found his misconduct "caused no harm or prejudice to the courts, the public, or the administration of justice."

# # # #