June 2026

DISBARMENT

Katherine Ngoc Nguyen

State Bar #216869, Westminster (April 10, 2026)

Nguyen was disbarred after she stipulated to committing 17 acts of professional misconduct--most of which involved moral turpitude related to mishandling client funds.

Her wrongdoing included: failing to maintain adequate records of client funds and two counts of commingling personal and client funds in his client trust account, as well as 14 counts involving moral turpitude: maintaining personal funds in her client trust account to avoid tax levies; two counts of making false statements in her self-assessment certification of compliance that she maintained records and verifications of her client funds; and 11 counts of misappropriating client funds for her own purposes.

Over a nine-year period, Nguyen issued more than 800 checks from her client trust account to pay personal and business expenses--including payments for home remodeling, office rent, car insurance, water delivery, and cable internet services--all unrelated to client matters. Because these checks were issued before clients were paid their shares of settlement funds, Nguyen's client trust account often contained a shortfall. She kept a stack of client files on her desk of those she had not yet paid--which the State Bar Court found to be evidence of knowing misappropriation. Its opinion detailed similar misappropriations of funds belong to 11 separate clients.

In addition, Nguyen was required to comply with the requirements of the State Bar's Client Trust Account Protection Program, which required her to attest under oath that she had kept account records for each client, despite knowing those statements were false and misleading

In aggravation, Nguyen committed multiple acts of misconduct constituting a long-lasting pattern of misconduct that significantly harmed the public's trust in attorneys and the legal profession.

In mitigation, she entered into a prefiling stipulation.

James R. Thompson

State Bar #136954, Santa Monica April 25, 2026

Thompson was disbarred by default. Though he filed a belated response to the notice of disciplinary charges against him and attended an initial status conference and a settlement conference related to his disciplinary proceeding, he failed to appear for trial.

The State Bar Court found that all procedural requirements, included adequate notice, had been met in the case, and that there is an adequate factual basis to impose discipline for his professional misconduct. It also noted that Thompson did not move to have the default order ultimately entered against him set aside or vacated.

He was found culpable of all 17 counts charged which involved four client matters as well as client trust account violations. His wrongdoing included: failing to promptly release client files after terminating his employment; two counts of failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigations of the wrongdoing alleged; three counts each of failing to render accountings of client funds and failing to maintain client funds in a trust account; and four counts of commingling personal and client funds in his trust account. An additional four counts alleging intentional misappropriation of client funds involved moral turpitude.

At the time he was disbarred in the present case, there was an additional disciplinary investigation pending against him.

Ronen Zargarof

State Bar #295853, Beverly Hills (April 10, 2026)

Zargarof was disbarred by default after he failed to participate in the original disciplinary action in which he was charged with 21 counts of professional misconduct. All charges related to a single client matter.

The State Bar Court determined that all procedural requirements had been met in the case, that there was an adequate factual basis for disciplinary misconduct, and that Zargarof did not move to set aside or vacate the entry of the default ordered against him.

He was found culpable of all counts charged--including failing to maintain client funds in a trust account, failing to render an accounting of advanced legal fees and costs, entering into a business transaction with a client without informing her in writing that she could seek other independent legal advice in the matter, seeking to have the client withdraw a State Bar complaint against him, and failing to cooperate in the State Bars investigation of the wrongdoing alleged.

An additional 16 counts all involved moral turpitude: seven counts of making false and misleading statements in a client matter and nine counts of intentionally misappropriating advanced fees and costs paid

SUSPENSION

Thomas Michael Bundy

State Bar #297889, Rancho Cucamonga (April 10, 2026 )

Bundy was suspended from practicing law for six months and placed on probation for two years after a one-day trial. He had earlier stipulated to the supporting facts in the case and to culpability to 24 of the counts charged; the Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar moved to dismiss one additional count at the outset of trial.

Given Bundy's stipulation to the facts and culpability, the primary issue at trial was the level of discipline to be imposed--though the State Bar Court found that six of the counts were not chargeable violations, and dismissed them with prejudice. The wrongdoing involved ethical violations in six client matters and one reportable action.

He was found culpable of: making an agreement improperly characterized as a retainer, failing to promptly release a client file after terminating employment, and failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries; two counts each of failing to maintain records of client funds, failing to render accountings of client funds, and failing to report judicial sanctions imposed; and three counts each of failing to deposit client funds in a trust account, failing to obey court orders, and failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigations of the wrongdoing alleged.

In one case, Bundy was sanctioned by a court for filing a frivolous motion, but failed to report those sanctions to the State bar in writing as required. In another, he accepted $3,000 from a client seeking help with a child custody matter and deposited it into his operating account; he failed to provide the client with an accounting of unearned fees after the attorney/client relationship ended.

In aggravation, Bundy committed multiple acts of misconduct in the instant matter, and was given limited aggravating weight for demonstrating indifference to atoning for the consequences of his actions.

In mitigation, he entered into a thorough stipulation, presented reference letters from five individuals who also testified at trial as to his good character, and was allotted limited mitigating weight both for expressing some remorse and for having practiced law discipline-free for approximately 8 1/2 years before the current misconduct began.

PROBATION

James Patrick Armstrong

State Bar #193257, La Jolla (April 3, 2026)

Armstrong was placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to committing five acts of professional misconduct as adjudicated in another jurisdiction.

The California State Bar Court determined that misconduct also demonstrated violations of California law, including: failing to perform with competence in two civil lawsuits, failing to inform his clients of a significant development in their case, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, failing to promptly return the clients' papers and property after being requested to do so, and filing and maintaining a meritless appeal.

In the underlying matter, Armstrong represented an Arizona couple in several legal matters over the course of nine years--two of which are germane to the instant proceeding. In one of them, an appeal from an adverse ruling by an administrative law judge, a court granted the opposition's motion to dismiss as well as attorney's fees and costs citing multiple findings of fact including that the appeal was materially defective when filed, and maintained to harass and expand an existing dispute with the other party. As a result of that action, the clients were sanctioned to pay fees and costs in the amount of $4,657 and their bank account was garnished for that judgment.

In the second matter at issue, Armstrong represented the same couple in a case defending against a claim for unpaid fees, as well as their  counterclaim alleging poor workmanship by a roofing company. After a year, he filed a third party complaint naming additional defendants to the counterclaim and seeking an enlargement of time to effectuate service. The court denied the enlargement and granted a motion to dismiss, noting that "the failure to timely serve is a litigation/settlement strategy which is not compelling." The case was eventually dismissed for lack of prosecution, though Armstrong did not notify the clients; he had failed to respond to their inquiries for 10 months, while also failing to tender the client file as requested or to refund unearned fees.

In aggravation, Armstrong committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed his clients.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for more than 17 years, submitted letters from 11 individuals representing a wide range in the community who attested to his good character and community service and pro bono work, and suffered from emotional difficulties due to various family stressors as verified by both a forensic psychologist and a clinical social worker.

Mark Andrew Nelson

State Bar #204905, Vista (April 10, 2026)

Nelson was placed on probation for after he stipulated to committing 13 acts of professional misconduct related to three separate client matters.

He was culpable of failing to refund unearned advance fees and failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries; three counts each of failing to tender a written accounting of advance fees paid when requested to do so and failing to maintain advance records of advance fees paid; and five counts of failing to deposit clients' advance fees in a trust account.

In one matter, Nelson accepted advance fees of $4,000 after agreeing to represent a client in a marital dissolution but did not deposit it in a trust account. He filed a petition in the case, and then requested and received an additional $4,000, which again, he did not deposit in a trust account. When the client hired new counsel who demanded a detailed invoice for services Nelson had provided, he was unable to do so, as he had not kept records of time and money spent on the case.

In a second case, Nelson accepted an advance fee of $3,500, agreeing to draft a restatement of trust for a client. He did not deposit the fee into a client trust account, and weeks after being hired, Nelson informed the client he was unable to complete the work. The client requested a $2,500 refund, and submitted a complaint to the State Bar. After disciplinary proceedings were commenced, Nelson paid the client $2,000--which the client accepted.

And in the third matter, Nelson agreed to represent a client in an action seeing to modify child custody and visitation. The client paid two installments of $3,500 and one of $500, which Nelson deposited into his operating account. After the court tentatively ruled that the against his client's position, Nelson filed an ex parte application requesting that the court set aside its order; the application was denied. He prepared a subsequent regularly noticed motion as directed, but it was never filed with the court. After the State Bar instituted a disciplinary investigation into the matter, Nelson admitted he was unable to provide an accounting because he had not kept track of the tie spent on the case or otherwise maintain an accounting.

Following the initiation of the third disciplinary investigation, Nelson completed the State Bar Client Trust Accounting School.

In aggravation, Nelson committed multiple acts of wrongdoing,

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 22 years, and submitted letters from six individuals drawn from the legal and general communities--all of whom attested to his good character.

--Barbara Kate Repa