BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS
Shasta Marie Nolte (Mesa, Arizona)
On January 5, 2021, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed an agreed judgment of probated suspension for Mesa, Arizona, attorney Shasta Marie Nolte [#24071455], 43. On or about August 4, 2021, the State Bar of Arizona entered an agreement for discipline by consent in a matter styled In the Matter of a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Shasta Marie Nolte, Bar No. 030368, in Case No. PDJ 2020 9064, and suspended Nolte from the practice of law for two years for her violation of Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 42, specifically ER 1.2 (scope of representation and allocation of authority between client and lawyer), ER 1.3 (diligence), ER 1.4 (communication), ER 1.5(b) (fees), ER 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions), ER 5.1 (responsibilities of lawyers with ownership interests or who are managers or supervisors), and ER 8.4(d) (misconduct). BODA Cause No. 65078.
SUSPENSIONS
Roland M. Ferguson Jr. (Sulphur Springs)
On December 7, 2020, Roland M. Ferguson Jr. [#00786425], 65, of Sulphur Springs, received a 24-month partially probated suspension effective July 15, 2023, with the first 18 months actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 1 Grievance Committee found that starting in June 2013, the complainant retained Fergurson for various representations of herself, her son, and her son’s common-law wife. In representing the son, Fergurson neglected the legal matters entrusted to him by failing to file a petition for divorce or for modification of custody and by failing to enter appearances in criminal matters. Fergurson also failed to communicate with the complainant.
Fergurson represented the complainant and her son in a substantially related matter adverse to his former client. Fergurson failed to hold funds belonging to the complainant that were in Fergurson’s possession in connection with the representation separate from his own property. Fergurson also failed to keep funds in a separate trust account. Upon termination of representation, Fergurson failed to surrender papers and property to which the complainant was entitled. Upon termination of representation, Fergurson failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned.
Fergurson also engaged in the practice of law when his right to practice had been suspended. Fergurson violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.09(a)(3), 1.14(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(11). He was ordered to pay $15,500 in restitution and $3,193.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Charles E. Hammond III (Houston)
First Violation
On January 8, 2021, Charles E. Hammond III [#00793128], 57, of Houston, accepted a three-year partially probated suspension (six months active and 30 months probated) effective February 1, 2021.
In two of the cases, an evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Hammond neglected a legal matter entrusted to him. In all of the cases, the committee found that Hammond failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of the clients’ legal matters and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
Hammond also upon termination of representation failed to surrender papers and property to which his clients were justly entitled and refund any advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Lastly, Hammond failed to timely respond to the grievances filed against him without asserting a privilege or other legal ground for his failure to do so.
Hammond violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $26,500 in restitution and $2,750 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Charles E. Hammond III (Houston)
Second Violation
On January 8, 2021, Charles E. Hammond III [#00793128], 57, of Houston, accepted a three-year partially probated suspension (six months active and 30 months probated) effective February 1, 2021. In all of the cases, an evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Hammond neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of the clients’ legal matters, and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
Hammond also upon termination of representation failed to surrender papers and property to which his clients were justly entitled and refund any advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Lastly, Hammond failed to timely respond to the grievances filed against him without asserting a privilege or other legal ground for his failure to do so.
Hammond violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $40,100 in restitution and $2,750 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Byron William Hatchett (Abilene)
On December 29, 2020, Byron William Hatchett [#00785948], 65, of Abilene, agreed to a six-month fully probated suspension effective January 15, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 14 Grievance Committee found that on or about October 12, 2018, Hatchett was appointed to represent the complainant in a criminal case. In representing the complainant, Hatchett neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by failing to complete any work on the case. Hatchett failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of his case and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant.
Hatchett violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $250 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
John Victor Mastriani (Houston)
First Violation
On January 8, 2021, John Victor Mastriani [#13184375], 61, of Houston, accepted a 24-month judgment of partially probated suspension effective February 15, 2021, with the first three months actively suspended and the remainder probated.
An investigatory panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that while representing four clients, Mastriani neglected the legal matters entrusted to him, failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned, and failed to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
Mastriani violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $5,750 in restitution and $2,987.68 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.
John Victor Mastriani (Houston)
Second Violation
On January 8, 2021, John Victor Mastriani [#13184375], 61, of Houston, accepted a 24-month judgment of partially probated suspension effective February 15, 2021, with the first three months actively suspended and the remainder probated.
An investigatory panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that while representing four clients, Mastriani neglected the legal matters entrusted to him, failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned to three clients, and failed to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
Mastriani violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $4,160.14 in restitution and $2,042.14 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.
Juan R. Molina (Weslaco)
On January 8, 2021, Juan R. Molina [#14256550], 58, of Weslaco, accepted a three-year fully probated suspension effective February 7, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 12 Grievance Committee found that Molina failed to communicate with a client, failed to hold a client’s funds in a trust account separate from his own property, failed to provide accounting of a client’s funds, and failed to timely disburse funds.
Molina violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.14(a), and 1.14(b). He agreed to pay $1,300 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Jerome Neal Stein (Dallas)
On January 4, 2021, Jerome Neal Stein [#19128290], 62, of Dallas, received an 18-month partially probated suspension effective May 1, 2021, with the first six months actively served and the remainder probated. An investigatory panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that starting in August 2015, the complainant hired Stein to represent him in a divorce case. Stein failed to hold funds belonging in whole or in part to the complainant that were in Stein’s possession in connection with the representation separate from his own property. During Stein’s representation of the complainant, Stein became actively suspended from the practice of law. Stein failed to notify the complainant of his suspension as required. Stein also failed to respond to the grievance.
Stein violated Rules 1.03(b), 1.14(a), 8.04(a)(7), 8.04(a)(8), and 8.04(a)(10). He was ordered to pay $1,125 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Greggory Allen Teeter (Corpus Christi)
On January 8, 2021, Greggory Allen Teeter [#24033264], 51, of Corpus Christi, agreed to a 47-month fully probated suspension effective January 21, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 11 Grievance Committee found that Teeter failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions, failed to hold funds in trust, failed to promptly notify and deliver funds to the client and to the health care provider, failed to render candid advice to the client, and represented a client where the representation reasonably appeared to be or became adversely limited by the interests of Teeter and/or Teeter’s law firm.
Teeter also agreed to a four-month active suspension effective May 1, 2022. An investigatory panel of the District 11 Grievance Committee found that Teeter violated the terms of a prior disciplinary judgment.
Teeter violated Rules 1.14(a), 1.14(b), 1.06(b)(2), 1.03(b), 2.01, and 8.04(a)(7).
PUBLIC REPRIMANDS
Jeffrey Mark Anapolsky (Bellaire)
On December 29, 2020, Jeffrey Mark Anapolsky [#24038742], 49, of Bellaire, received a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Anapolsky brought or defended a proceeding, or asserted or controverted an issue therein, where there was no basis for doing so that was not frivolous.
Anapolsky also accepted employment as an advocate before a tribunal in a pending adjudicatory proceeding when he knew or believed that he was or would be a witness necessary to establish an essential fact on behalf of his client.
In representing his client, Anapolsky communicated about the subject of the representation with a person he knew to be represented by another lawyer regarding that subject. Anapolsky did not have the consent of the other lawyer to make the communication and was not authorized by law to make the communication. Lastly, Anapolsky used means that had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or used methods of obtaining evidence that violated the legal rights of such a person.
Anapolsky violated Rules 3.01, 3.08(a), 4.02(a), and 4.04(a).
Glenn Deutsch Levy (San Antonio)
On January 5, 2021, Glenn Deutsch Levy [#12264925], 56, of San Antonio, accepted a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 10 Grievance Committee found that Levy neglected clients’ matters and failed to keep clients reasonably informed.
Levy violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.03(b). He agreed to pay $1,200 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Ivan Trifonov Nalbantov (Dallas)
On January 4, 2021, Ivan Trifonov Nalbantov [#24085491], 32, of Dallas, agreed to a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that on January 6, 2020, Nalbantov entered a plea for the complainant in a misdemeanor criminal case without the complainant’s knowledge or approval.
The plea was entered into the court record in the complainant’s criminal case. Nalbantov failed to explain the criminal matters to the complainant to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Nalbantov violated Rules 1.02(a)(3) and 1.03(b). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
John William Stickels (Arlington)
On January 15, 2021, John William Stickels [#19225300], 63, of Arlington, received a public reprimand.
An investigatory panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee found that in April 2016, Stickels was hired to represent the complainant in a criminal appeal. Stickels neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by failing to correct and resubmit a writ of certiorari petition that the Supreme Court rejected for inadequacies. Additionally, Stickels failed to explain the legal matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Further, Stickels failed to hold funds in connection with the representation belonging in whole or in part to the complainant separate from Stickels own property.
Stickels violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(b), and 1.14(a). He was ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution and $500 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
Daniel Robert Thering (Austin)
On January 8, 2021, Daniel Robert Thering [#24042023], 44, of Austin, accepted a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that in April 2017, the complainant hired Thering to represent her in a personal injury and workers’ compensation claim, resulting from a March 2017 vehicular accident that the complainant was involved in while working. In July 2018, the complainant endorsed a $50,001 settlement check at Thering’s request. After which, Thering ceased to provide the complainant any meaningful updates on her case. The panel found that Thering neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by failing to promptly settle the complainant’s case.
Additionally, the panel found that Thering failed to adequately communicate with the complainant and deliver to the complainant her portion of the settlement funds. Further, the panel found that Thering failed to notify the complainant that his license to practice law had been suspended, during his representation of the complainant, as required by Rule 13.01 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Conduct.
Thering violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.14(b), and 8.04(a)(10) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Article X, Section 9, State Bar Rules.
John David West Jr. (Beaumont)
On December 21, 2020, John David West Jr. [#24029898], 46, of Beaumont, received a public reprimand.
An investigatory panel of the District 3 Grievance Committee found that West failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, failed to comply with reasonable requests for information, failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned, and failed to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
West did not, in good faith, timely assert a privilege or other legal ground for failure to do so.
West violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) , 1.03 (a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a) (8). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and costs.