August 2026

DISBARMENT

Lawrence Albert Cline

State Bar #206521, Mahwah, New Jersey (June 5, 2026)

Cline was summarily disbarred. He had earlier entered a guilty plea to conspiring to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1349)--a felony involving moral turpitude.

He did not appeal his conviction, and it became final, fulfilling the requirements for ordering summary disbarment.

Carlos A. De La Paz

State Bar ##290166, Los Angeles (June 5, 2026)

De La Paz was disbarred by default after he failed to participate, either in person or through counsel, in the disciplinary proceeding in which he was charged with 15 ethical violations.

He was charged with: failing to perform legal services with diligence, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, failing to obtain court permission to withdraw from representation, and improperly withdrawing from employment; two counts of commingling personal funds into his client trust account, and four counts of failing to maintain client funds in a trust account. An additional five counts involved moral turpitude: one of making a material misrepresentation to a client, and four of misappropriating 340,000 in client funds.

The State Bar Court determined that the notice of disciplinary charges had been properly served on De La Paz, that reasonable diligence was used to provide notice of the proceeding, and that a default was subsequently properly entered. It also found that the factual allegations in the charges supported the finding that there were violations involved that warranted the imposition of professional discipline.

There was one additional disciplinary matter pending against De La Paz when he was disbarred in the instant case.

Reshma Kamath

State Bar #333800, Oakland (June 26, 2026)

Kamath was disbarred after she failed to appear on the fourth day of the trial of the disciplinary charges against her and the court entered a default.

The State Bar Court subsequently determined that the default had been entered properly, that all other procedural requirements had been satisfied in the case, and that there was an adequate factual basis to impose discipline.

After considering the factual allegations adopted from the notice of disciplinary charges, as well as additional evidence gleaned from witness testimony at trial, the court found Kamath culpable of 25 of the 26 counts of misconduct originally charged.

Her wrongdoing included: failing to comply with the law and improperly withdrawing from employment; two counts each of failing to report judicial sanctions imposed and failing to cooperate in State Bar investigations of the misconduct alleged; six counts of failing to obey court orders; and nine counts of failing to maintain the respect due to a court. An additional four counts involved moral turpitude: one count of practicing law when she knew she was not authorized to do so, and three of making material misrepresentations in court filings.

In aggravation and deemed "relevant to any future inquiry into qualifications to practice law," the court considered uncharged misconduct that had been proven by clear and convincing evidence: two incidents in which Kamath failed to maintain the respect due judicial officers--uttering insults and falsehoods about judges presiding over cases in which she was involved.

Eight of the counts of misconduct were related to the first case that Kamath tried. In that matter, she failed to file a timely answering brief on behalf of her clients and was also sanctioned for failing to appear at a settlement conference--then claiming, without evidence, that the sanction order was "a product of racism and misogyny." She also falsely claimed that an in-person settlement conference was scheduled to be held on Zoom, failed to obey the order to attend in person, and made false and misleading statements that she didn't have notice of the sanctions imposed. In addition, Kamath did not pay or report the sanctions--and, in separate counts of misconduct, repeatedly accused the court of racism and bigotry.

Misconduct detailed in additional counts focuses on her failures to obey multiple court orders and repeated failures to maintain respect due to judicial officers--charging them with racism, bigotry, and stupidity in letters, pleadings, and filings.

There were 30 investigations pending against Kamath when she was disbarred in the instant case.

Ania Monica Lowenthal

State Bar #192990, Ladera Ranch (June 12, 2026)

Lowenthal was summarily disbarred.

She earlier entered a plea of guilty to three counts of subscribing a false personal tax return (26 U.S.C. § 7206.1). The offense is a felony involving moral turpitude.

Lowenthal did not appeal the conviction within the statutory time period, and it became final; following her interim suspension, the State Bar Court then recommended disbarment.

Melvin Neal

State Bar #153936, Los Angeles (June 12, 2026)

Neal was disbarred after he stipulated to committing 16 counts of misconduct related to three distinct client matters.

His wrongdoing included: failing to promptly notify a client of funds received on his behalf, seeking to mislead a judicial officer, failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, and failing to participate in the State Bar's investigation of the misconduct alleged, as well as five counts of failing to maintain the required balance in his client trust account. Numerous additional charges involved moral turpitude: two counts of making false and misleading statements in a court filing and to his client, and five counts of misappropriating client funds.

All three client cases involved probate matters.

In one, Neal represented an individual who was appointed executor of his brother's estate. Neal received the net proceeds of $110,611 from the sale of the decedent's real estate and deposited them into his client trust account. A court subsequently authorized distribution of the estate to the decedent's three heirs--awarding Neal approximately $20,511 in fees and costs. Approximately six months later, Neal falsely represented to his client that the case was not yet finalized, and instructed him to forward an additional $21,592 from the decedent's bank account. Neal received the money and also deposited it into his client trust account, then causing the balance to dip to less than $5. Though an attorney on behalf of the client and heirs sent Neal a letter inquiring about the case handling and demanding an accounting, he did not respond.

In a second case, Neal represented another estate administrator who agreed that he should be the escrow holder for the sale of the decedent's real property. He received $868,291 and deposited into his client trust account depleting the account balance. He later falsely represented to the court that he had the estate cash on hand and that he had not received any compensation from the estate; both statements were false. A court eventually issued an order approving disbursal of the funds to the administrator and third parties to whom she had assigned her interests. By that time, Neal had spent all the funds he had received on the client's behalf. The assignees filed motions to compel the distributions; Neal failed to appear at the court-ordered hearings and was sanctioned. He failed to pay the sanctions or to pay the clients additional funds owed to her; the case is ongoing. The assignees also sued the client for funds due them; that case is also ongoing.

And in the third case, Neal received a total of $412,402 from the sale of real estate related to an estate administrator he represented and deposited it into his trust account. When the court eventually ordered a final distribution in the matter, Neal had depleted the account balance to less than $5. He then failed to respond to three letters from the State Bar inquiring into the matter.

In aggravation, Neal committed multiple acts of misconduct that significantly harmed his clients and failed to make restitution to his clients totaling $1,093,597.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and was allotted limited mitigating weight for having practiced law discipline-free for nearly 27 years--that weight lessened "given the egregious nature" of Neal's misconduct and his "lack of accountability."

Majid Safaie

State Bar #185129, Los Angeles (June 26, 2026)

Safaie was summarily disbarred. He earlier pled guilty to conspiring to commit a crime (Cal. Penal Code § 182(a)(1)) and seven counts of grand theft (Cal. Penal Code § 487(a))--crimes involving moral turpitude.

He did not appeal his conviction within the statutory time period, so it became final--completing the requirement for imposing summary disbarment.

Terry Reed Spencer

State Bar #155146, Syracuse, Utah (June 26, 2026)

Spencer was disbarred by default after he failed to appear, either in person or through counsel, in the disciplinary proceeding in which he was charged with two counts of professional misconduct: failing to comply with several conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order and disobeying a court order by failing to file a timely declaration of compliance while suspended as directed (Cal. Rules of Ct. rule 920).

The probation conditions Spencer violated included: failing to timely schedule and participate in an initial meeting with the Office of Probation, failing to attest to reading the California Rules of Professional Conduct and specified sections of the Business & Professions Code, failing to submit four quarterly written reports, and failing to submit evidence of completing the State Bar Ethics School and passing its final exam.

Before recommending disbarment, the State Bar Court determined that all procedural requirements, including proper notice, had been satisfied and that Spencer had not responded to the petition for disbarment, nor did he move to have the default ultimately entered against him set aside or vacated.

Spencer had one previous record of discipline before being disbarred in the instant case

SUSPENSION

Lawrence Jay Cox

State Bar #147376, Rolling Hills Estates (June 26, 2026)

Cox was suspended from practicing law for 60 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to failing to comply with several conditions imposed in an earlier disciplinary order.

Specifically, Cox failed to timely schedule and participate in an initial meeting with the Office of Probation, failed to timely review the California Rules of Professional Conduct and specified sections of the Business & Professions Code as mandated, failed to submit a final quarterly written report, and failed to submit proof of passing the State Bar Ethics School.

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

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation as to facts and conclusions of law.

Rishi Dutt

State Bar #304640, Fremont (June 5, 2026)

Dutt was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation fort two years. He earlier stipulated to pleading nolo contendere to committing a battery (Cal. Penal Code § 242)--a misdemeanor. An additional charge of obstructing or resisting arrest (Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1)) was dismissed In exchange for his plea; Dutt was sentenced to 30 days in jail and one year of criminal probation, with conditions.

The State Br Court determined that the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense did not involve moral turpitude, but did warrant imposing discipline.

Facts relevant to this disciplinary proceeding are that Dutt approached a neighbor at the extended stay hotel where he was residing and told her to get out of her room "because she was going to die." When she resisted, he pulled her body, scratched her, and tore out a clump of her hair. Dutt also injured the woman's boyfriend, who came to her aid--and told responding officers that the previous night, Dutt had been walking up and down the hallway of the property--claiming he had a gun "and was going to start shooting people." After he was arrested, Dutt told the officers that he would assault the woman again once he was released. He also admitted to using methamphetamine that day. He continued to be combative while being arrested--threatening officers that he would kill them if they took him to jail.

In mitigation, Dutt entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law approximately 10 years without a record of discipline.

Nyall Scott Engfield

State Bar #295387, Estoril, Portugal (June 12, 2026)

Engfield was suspended from practicing law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to entering a settlement of a disciplinary matter with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) in which he admitted culpability for eight acts that violated the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct. He agreed to discipline that included a public reprimand and six months of probation in that jurisdiction.

His wrongdoing included: failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to perform legal services with diligence, failing to keep clients reasonably informed about their case status, failing to explain legal matters sufficiently to enable clients to make informed decisions, and failing to adhere to practices necessary to ensure conduct compatible with professional obligations. He was also culpable of engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and failing to keep clients reasonably informed about developments in their cases, as well as making numerous negligent misrepresentations to the USPTO--misconduct involving moral turpitude.

The law provides that all foreign-domiciled applicants and registrants must be represented before the USPTO by an attorney who is licensed to practice in the United States, and that all signatures on trademark documents must conform to a number of specific verifying requirements.

Engfield, who is licensed to practice both in California and before the USPTO, entered an agreement with an intellectual property agency registered and headquartered in China. In it, Engfield committed to appoint the China entity as the exclusive agency to deal with all U.S. trademark business and the agency agreed that Engfield would be the exclusive licensed attorney in those matters--paid on a per filing basis. Over five years, Engfield completed 7,210 trademark matters per this agreement, and was paid $278,519 for doing so.

However, Engfield failed to comply with USPTO signature requirements--resulting in hundreds of trademark documents, including declarations, that were filed in contravention of the rules, with his signature impermissibly attached. He failed to make efforts to monitor the agency's procedures to ensure they comported with the law. sIn addition, Engfield failed to timely notify the USPTO of the deficient signatures, and failed to notify his clients of the actual or potential harm the signature violations might cause for them.

In aggravation, Engfield committed multiple acts of misconduct.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and presented 12 character letters from individuals representing a range in the legal and general communities who have known him for a lengthy period and were aware of the extent of his wrongdoing. He was also allotted a "little" mitigating weight for having practiced law discipline-free for five years.

Aldo Arturo Flores

State Bar #224239, Ontario (June 26, 2026)

Flores was suspended for two years and placed on probation for three years after he was found culpable of 46 of the 48 counts of professional misconduct with which he was originally charged.

The wrongdoing, which spanned eight client matters, included: failing to reasonably consult with his client, failing to promptly release client files after being requested to do so, failing to render an accounting of client fees, and failing to support the law; two counts each of failing to respond to reasonable client inquiries, improperly withdrawing from representation, and knowingly making false and misleading statements in a court filing and to a client--misconduct involving moral turpitude; three counts each of failing to inform clients of significant case developments and failing to obey court orders; five counts of failing to cooperate in the State Bar's investigations of the misconduct alleged; and nine counts of charging improper fees.

In addition, Flores was found culpable of eight counts each of failing to perform with diligence and failing to perform with competence--though in all those instances, the State Bar Court noted that the identical misconduct formed the basis of both of those counts which were then weighted as a single violation for the purpose of determining the appropriate level of discipline to be imposed.

In one client case involving the wrongful death of the client's teenage son, Flores ignored 26 communiques the client sent over a year's time, then--without consulting with the client--filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed by the opposition. He failed to give notice that he was terminating his services, and tendered the client files more than two months after being requested to deliver them.

In another matter, Flores served the wrong defendant in an employment case, and was sanctioned for his failure to appear as a case management conference in the matter.

In the numerous client cases involving charges of failure to perform with competence and diligence, the facts show that Flores simply failed to attend court-ordered hearings, and in one case, appeared but was unprepared to proceed. In others, he failed to respond to conduct and respond to discovery matters.

And in the many cases involving improper fees, Flores entered agreements with clients that specified payment of "fixed, nonrefundable fees," which were not in fact true retainers.

In one of the charges involving moral turpitude, Flores declared to a court that he "unaware of any ending motions or subsequent court orders" in a case when in fact he had attended previous hearings in which the court had made the requests clear. In the other, he told a client there was an upcoming court date in his case when he knew the case had actually been dismissed and that a judgment had been entered against the clients.

In aggravation, Flores committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed several of his clients, and demonstrated a lack of remorse and failure to appreciate the seriousness of the misconduct involved.

In mitigation, he was allotted moderate mitigating weight for having practiced law without a record of discipline for 16 years with the State Bar Court noting that his misconduct occurred over a span of more than five years, giving rise to the concern that it may recur.

Christopher Michael Hanks

State Bar #255712, Alexandria, Virginia (June 5, 2026)

Hanks was suspended from the practice of law for 90 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing acts of misconduct in another jurisdiction--failing to act with reasonable diligence in 21 matters.

Hanks was licensed to practice law in California and in Virginia--where he was appointed to serve as conservator for 20 incapacitated individuals, as well as administrator of the estate of another incapacitated person. While Hanks was serving in these fiduciary capacities, three bar complaints were submitted by Virginia's county commissioners of accounts due to his failure to timely submit the required inventories and accountings in all 21 matters. In all cases, the required documents and documentation were deficient or fled late, and in several cases, he was removed as conservator due to his failure to perform.

In aggravation, Hanks committed multiple acts of misconduct involving people who were highly vulnerable due to their legally incapacitated status.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and was experiencing emotional difficulties during the time of the misconduct due to marital and family strife.

Yosef Adam Mahmood

State Bar #295976, Los Angeles (June 26, 2026)

Mahmood was suspended from practicing law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to being culpable of making multiple false representations related to a deposition for which he was responsible--misconduct involving moral turpitude.

While employed as a deputy city attorney, Mahmood was lead counsel in a civil matter against a large corporation. His employment required him to prepare and provide weekly written task lists, which included status reports on various actions required for trial preparation. Over the course of several months, Mahmood met with his supervisor and submitted numerous task lists, making at least 11 misstatements and misrepresentations about material matters--including scheduling, taking, and completing depositions in the corporate case.

After Mahmood left the city attorney's office, and another attorney was assigned to the case, Mahmood admitted his misconduct in providing false information about the status and reality of the litigation preparations.

In aggravation, Mahmood committed multiple acts of misconduct that substantially harmed the administration of justice by requiring an unnecessary consumption of court time and resources.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for approximately eight years, submitted letters from 19 individuals who vouched for his good character, and offered evidence of performing substantial community service and pro bono work. In addition, he was allotted mitigating weight for suffering from emotional distress due to various family matters and was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder that a medical professional testified had a nexus to his misconduct in the instant case.

Kristoffer Steven Mayfield
State Bar #241093, Running Springs (June 12, 2026)

Mayfield was suspended for one year and placed on probation for two years after he stipulated to failing to comply with the conditions attached to a disciplinary probation order imposed earlier.

Specifically, he failed to submit timely and compliant quarterly reports, abstinence reports, abstinence program meeting reports and alcohol/drug use monthly testing results to the Office of Probation, and also failed to attend the State Bar Ethics School and submit proof of completing its course as required.

Mayfield stipulated to the facts related to the instant case. Approximately two years after being accepted into the Alternative Discipline Program (ADP), he made an unopposed oral motion to self-terminate from the program. One month later, the State Bar Court's hearing department issued its recommendation that Mayfield should be placed on probation for two years and actually suspended for the first 90 days in addition to mandating numerous other requirements including testing and treatment for drug and alcohol use and abuse. Mayfield was apprised of the probation conditions and due dates by a letter from his probation case coordinator that he received and reviewed. He did not respond to later letters notifying him of his failure to comply with various terms and conditions imposed.

He belatedly submitted proof of completing the State Bar Ethics School and quarterly and abstinence compliance reports, as well as negative results on alcohol and drug use test.

In aggravation Mayfield had a prior record of discipline and committed multiple acts of misconduct in the instant case.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation.

Kristina L. Thornton

State Bar #169233, Sacramento (June 12, 2026)

Thornton was suspended from practicing law for three years and placed on probation for three years after she stipulated to committing five acts of professional misconduct in her capacity as an escrow agent.

Her wrongdoing included failing to support the laws and constitution, failing to properly account for funds held, and failing to promptly disburse funds as required. An additional two counts involved moral turpitude: misappropriating nearly $100,000 in escrow funds, and making false and misleading material misrepresentations to individuals to whom she owed a fiduciary duty.

Thornton agreed to act as an escrow in an oil and gas transaction after being asked to do so by a former client who claimed to have experience with such transactions. The matter at issue involved an agreement she drafted for the sale and purchase of 2,000,000 barrels of jet fuel from a company based in Kazakhstan to another based in Albania. One provision specified that a deposit of $1,000,000 was to be held, purportedly to reimburse the seller for the costs of tank storage for five days--those funds to be deposited into Thornton's client trust account, with no escrow funds to be released until the company's power of attorney issued an official letter of authorization.

Thornton subsequently received an email message authorizing the funds to be released purportedly sent by the authorized agent; however, the communique was fabricated. However, relying on it, Thornton transferred $100,000 of the funds to a commercial bank and an additional $40,000 to her own checking account as compensation for her services. The State Bar Court determined that Thornton's belief of the authenticity of the email was unreasonable for several reasons--including typos and differences from the alleged sender's usual messages. In response to queries from  counsel and a company principal, Thornton falsely implied that she still held the funds, which she did not return after being requested to do so.

In aggravation, Thornton committed multiple acts of wrongdoing that significantly harmed the individuals who were deprived of their funds, and failed to make any restitution.

In mitigation, she entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for nearly 34 years, and presented evidence of performing substantial community service as well as character references from five individuals--all of whom had known her for a substantial period of time.

Darren Singh Veracruz

State Bar #294575, Orange (June 12, 2026)

Veracruz was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to earlier entering a plea of no contest to one misdemeanor count of "injuring a spouse, cohabitant, finace, boyfriend, girlfriend, or child's parent" (Cal. Penal Code § 273.5).

In the underlying matter, law enforcement responding to a call of a male hitting a female in a white Tesla arrived on the scene to find Veracruz and a woman with whom he had a two-year dating relationship involved in a scuffle. The woman's two minor children were in the vehicle; Veracruz had arrived at the location by Uber. The woman attempted to back up the vehicle, but struck a parking structure. When she exited the vehicle, Veracruz entered and sat in the driver's seat. At one point, Veracruz threw the family's pet hamster at one of the youngsters, who was in the backseat. The two adults continued to scuffle, with Veracruz shoving and punching the woman--eventually shoving her out of the car. She sustained scratches and red marks on her body, and complained of pain in her shoulders and neck.

The State Bar Court determined that the facts and circumstances surrounding the conviction did not involve moral turpitude, but did involve misconduct warranting professional discipline.

In aggravation, Veracruz had a prior record of discipline.

In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation and presented letters from eight individuals who attested to his good character--all of whom had known him for at least 10 years and were aware of the extent of his misconduct.

Jonathan Noah Zweig

State Bar #285058, Los Angeles (June 26, 2026)

Zweig was suspended for 30 days and placed on probation for one year. He stipulated that he earlier pled guilty to one count of being involved in a hit and run accident causing injury (Cal. Veh. Code § 20001(a)). He was originally charged with two felony counts, but one count was dismissed and the other reduced to a misdemeanor when Zweig entered his plea.

The State Bar Court determined that the facts and circumstances surrounding the conviction involved moral turpitude.

In the underlying matter, Zweig was driving down the freeway, and struck a motorcyclist when he was making a lane change. The impact caused the motorcycle to veer forward and strike another car; the passenger on the motorcycle was partially ejected, her body in a lane of the freeway. Zweig stopped his vehicle for about five seconds after the impact, but drove away. A nearby motorist took a picture of the rear of Zweig's vehicle as it left, and medical aid was summoned to the scene. The motorcyclist and passenger were treated for injuries, and eventually settled with Zweig's insurer for $80,000. Investigating officers found Zweig at home approximately 1 1/2 hours after the incident; he had not summoned 911 or contacted his insurer during that time.

In mitigation, Zweig entered into a pretrial stipulation, had practiced law approximately 11 1/2 years without a record of discipline, submitted 18 letters from members of the legal and general communities vouching for his good character, presented evidence of performing pro bono and community work, and was suffering from stress and anxiety related to family issues during the time of the misconduct.

PROBATION

Amir Mostafavi

State Bar #282372, Pacific Palisades (June 26, 2026)

Mostafavi was placed on probation for one year after he stipulated to committing two acts of professional misconduct related to a single client matter: failing to perform legal services with competence and filing legal documents that contained fabrications--wrongdoing involving moral turpitude.

In the underlying matter, Mostafavi represented a client in an appeal of a summary judgment in an employment case. In furtherance of the matter, he signed and filed an opening brief and a reply brief.

Mostafavi had used artificial intelligence (AI) tools to help prepare them. The appellate court found both documents were "replete" with internal citations and quotes from nonexistent decisions, and contained language that did not support the propositions for which they were offered. It concluded the appeal he had filed was frivolous as it "rested on negligible legal foundation was peppered with fabricated legal citations and cited to cases that do not exist>' It imposed a sanction of $10,000 against Mostafavi.

In the present case, the State Bar Court noted that he had "failed to take reasonable steps to acquire, and so did not possess, the requisite learning a skill regarding the benefits and risks of using AI tools," and as a result, "was not aware of the risks in using AI tools in legal research and writing and that a robust validation process was necessary to ensure the accuracy of case citations generated by AI tools."

In aggravation, Mostafavi caused significant harm to the administration of justice and to the public by wasting judicial time and resources.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation, had practiced law discipline-free for more than 10 years, acknowledged and expressed remorse for his conduct and implemented changes to prevent it from reoccurring, and provided letters from nine individuals taken from a range in the legal and genera communities--all of whom vouched for his good character.

Bijal Mahendra Patel

State Bar #191622, Dublin (June 5, 2026)

Patel was placed on probation for one year after being found culpable of one count of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

In the underlying matter, Patel became city attorney of Tracy, California--acting as legal advisor to the city council, the mayor, and other city departments. She stipulated that she had received timely notification of her duty to pay annual dues and report compliance of fulfilling her MCLE requirement. She submitted a payment for the annual dues, but failed to pay the $75 late fee associated with her failure to timely comply with the MCLE reporting requirement, and was placed on "not eligible to practice" status. However, while inactive, Patel attended and participated in open and closed sessions of the city council, as well as offering legal advice and counsel to city government officials, while failing to notify them of her ineligibility to practice law.

With the matter of culpability for unauthorized practice settled, the issue in the present case was whether Patel's misconduct involved moral turpitude. The State Bar Court determined that she held an honest belief--"albeit it unreasonable"--that paying the late fees would have a retroactive effect the inactive status order, and found no moral turpitude was involved.

In aggravation, Patel committed multiple acts of wrongdoing.

In mitigation, she entered into a pretrial stipulation and had practiced law discipline-free for approximately 26 years. She was also afforded moderate weight for evidence of good character and some weight for performing volunteer services as supported by the testimony of four witnesses and letters y an additional five witnesses.

--Barbara Kate Repa