Beury Donald 141733 California State Bar Discipline Binder4

kwiktag ~ 018 041 794
FILED
.JAN 0 7 2011
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL STATE BAR COURT CLERK’S OFFICE
JAMES E. TOWERY, No. 74058 SAN FRANCISCO
CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
RUSSELL G. WEINER, No. 94504
4 DEPUTY CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
LAWRENCE J. DAL CERRO, No. 104342
5 ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
DONALD R. STEEDMAN, NO. 104927
6 SUPERVISING TRIAL COUNSEL
7 ROBIN B. BRUNE, No. 149481
DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL
8 MANUEL JIMENEZ, No. 218234
ASSIGNED DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL
9 180 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94105-1639
10 Telephone: (415) 538-2218
11
12
STATE BAR COURT
13
HEARING DEPARTMENT - SAN FRANCISCO
14
15
16 In the Matter of." Case Number 09-O-16604

10-O-07557
17 DONALD D. BEURY,
No. 141733, NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES
18
A Member of the State Bar
19
20 NOTICE - FAILURE TO RESPOND!
21 IF YOU FAIL TO FILE A WRITTEN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICE

WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER SERVICE, OR IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT
22 THE STATE BAR COURT TRIAL:
23
(1) YOUR DEFAULT WILL BE ENTERED;
24 (:Z) YOUR STATUS WILL BE CHANGED TO INACTIVE AND
25 YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW;
(3) YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE
26 FURTHER IN THESE PROCEEDINGS UNLESS YOU
MAKE A TIMELY MOTION AND THE DEFAULT IS SET
27
ASIDE, AND;
28
-1-
(4) YOU SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL DISCIPLINE.
1 SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU FAIL TO TIMELY MOVE TO
2 SET ASIDE OR VACATE YOUR DEFAULT, THIS COURT
WILL ENTER AN ORDER RECOMMENDING YOUR
3 DISBARMENT WITHOUT FURTHER HEARING OR
PROCEEDING. SEE RULE 5.80 ET SEQ., RULES OF
4 PROCEDURE OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA.
5
6 The State Bar of California alleges:
7 JURISDICTION
8 1. Donald D. Beury ("respondent") was admitted to the practice of law in the State
9 of California on September 29, 1989, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is
10 currently a member of the State Bar of California.
11 COUNT ONE
Case Number 10-0-7557
12 Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A)
[Failure to Perform with Competence]
13
2. Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), by
14
intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failing to perform legal services with competence, as
15
follows:
16
3. On or about October 11, 2009, Van Fields (hereinafter, "Fields") hired respondent
17
to represent him in his divorce proceedings, Fields vs. Fields, Case Number FL-09-0001860.
18
Fields was the defendant, his spouse had filed a petition for dissolution on or about September
19
25, 2009. Fields paid respondent the sum of $1,500, including a $355 filing fee.
20
4. Respondent did not file a response to the divorce petition.
21
5. On or about May 11, 2010, respondent submitted to the Court an at issue
22
memorandum, request for court trial, and declaration regarding service of declaration of
23
disclosure and income and expense declaration.
24
6. On or about May 13, 2010 the court clerk ~alled respondent and notified him that
25
he needed to file a response to the divorce petition for the court to accept the at issue
26
memorandum and other documents.
27
7. Respondent took no further action in response to the court’s notice.
28
-2-
1 8. On or about June 3, 2010, the court clerk called respondent’s office again, and
2 again advised respondent to file a response to the divorce.
3 9. Respondent took no further action on behalf of Fields to correct the error in his
4 pleadings.
5 10. On or about June 9, 2010, the Court struck the at-issue memorandum due to
6 respondent’s failure to file a response to the divorce petition.
7 11. The documents respondent submitted to the Court on May 11, 2010 included a
8 Declaration Regarding Service of Declaration of Disclosure and Income and Expense
9 Declaration. In this pleading,I respondent stated, under penalty of perjury, that he had filed a
10 preliminary declaration of disclosure and Income and Expense Declaration on the plaintiffs
11 attorney on or about December 9, 2009.2
12 12. One of the underlying disclosure documents, "Schedule of Assets and Debts" that
13 respondent prepared, and stated, under penalty of perjury, that he had provided to opposing
14 counsel on or about December 9, 2009, bore the purported signature of Fields, allegedly signed
15 on October 11, 2010. In fact, Fields had not seen nor reviewed this document, nor had he signed
16 this document. Respondent also wrote on the top of this document "by Don, 12/8/09". It was
17 not clear, therefore, on the face of this document, whether or not the client, Fields, had in fact
18 reviewed, signed, and agreed to the Schedule of Assets and Debts, under penalty of perjury, or
19 whether the "by Don, 12/8/09" negated the signature purported to be made by the client, on the
20 document.
21 13. On or about June 9, 2010, Fields terminated respondent and substituted in
22 attorney Raquel M. Silva on his behalf.
23 14. By failing to correct the defect in his pleadings (by failing to file a response to the
24 divorce petition) so that the court would file, and respond to his at-issue memorandum and
25 request for trial; and by failing to assure that his client had read, reviewed, and signed, under
26
i This document was rejected by the court, as noted in paragraph 10.
27 2 Respondent sought to file only the declaration regarding the disclosures, and not the disclosures themselves, with
the Court.
28
-3-
1 penalty of perjury, the Schedule of Assets, before conveying them to opposing counsel and
2 notifying the Court that he had done so, respondent willfully, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to
3 perform, in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
4 COUNT TWO
Case Number 10-O-7557
5 Business & Professions Code § 6068(b)
6 [Failure to Maintain Respect to the Court]
15. Respondent willfully violated Business & Professions Code § 6068(b), by failing
7
to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, as follows:
8
16. The allegations of Count One are hereby incorporated by reference.
9
17. By submitting to the Court a Declaration Regarding Service of Declaration of
10
Disclosure and Income and Expense Declaration, and by stating in this pleading, under penalty
11
of perjury, that he had filed a preliminary declaration of disclosure and Income and Expense
12
Declaration on the plaintiff’s attorney on or about December 9, 2009, when in fact the documen
13
he provided, a "Schedule of Assets and Debts" lacked the required signature of the client,
14
respondent misrepresented to the Court that he had complied with the disclosures when he in facl
15
had not appropriately complied.
16
18. By misrepresenting to the Court that he had appropriately prepared these
17
documents, when, in fact, the document lacked his client’s signature, respondent failed to
18
maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, in willful violation of
19
Business & Professions Code § 6068(b).
20
COUNT THREE
21
22 Business & Professions Code § 6068(d)
[Employing Means Inconsistent with Truth]
23 [Seeking to Mislead a Judge]
24 19. Respondent willfully violated Business & Professions Code § 6068(d), by
25 employing, for the purposes of maintaining the causes confided in him, means which are
26 inconsistent with truth, and by seeking to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or
27 false statement of fact or law, as follows:
28
-4-
1 20. The allegations of Counts One and Two are hereby incorporated by reference.
2 21. By misrepresenting to the Court that he had appropriately prepared the Schedule
3 of Assets and Debts, when, in fact, the document lacked his client’s signature, respondent
4 employed, for the purposes of maintaining the causes confided in him, means which are
5 inconsistent with truth, and sought to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or false
6 statement of fact or law, in willful violation of Business & Professions Code § 6068(d).
7 COUNT FOUR
8 Business & Professions Code § 6068(m)
9 [Failure to Inform Client of Significant Development]
22. Respondent willfully violated Business & Professions Code § 6068(m), by failing
10
to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which respondent
11
had agreed to provide legal services, as follows:
12
23. The allegations of Counts One, Two and Three are hereby incorporated by
13
reference.
14
24. On or about October 12, 2010, Fields met with respondent for his initial
15
consultation. At that time, respondent advised Fields that he would file an Answer On behalf of
16
Fields and that he needed $355 for the filing fee. At this time, Fields gave respondent a check
17
for $500.
18
25. At no time thereafter did respondent inform Fields that he had not filed an Answe~
19
on Fields behalf.
20
26. On or about May 10, 2010, respondent sent Fields a "Bill and Request to
21
Replenish Retainer". The bill indicated that respondent had incurred a $355 cost for a filing fee.
22
The bill also charged Fields with an "Initial consultation and draw up a response to Petition."
23
These billing statements, coupled with respondent’s statement to Fields during the initial
24
consultation on October 12, 2010, amounted to a representation to Fields that respondent had
25
filed an Answer on Fields behalf. In fact, respondent had not filed an Answer on behalf of Fields
26
and had not incurred a $355 filing fee. Respondent’s bill misrepresented that a filing fee (cost)
27
had been incurred when in fact no cost had been incurred.
28
-5-
1 27. At no time did respondent tell Fields that no Answer had been filed and no $355
2 cost had been incurred. Fields learned about the fact that no Answer had been filed (and no cost
3 incurred) when he contacted the Court directly in or about June 2, 2010.
4 28. By failing to advise Fields that he did not file an Answer on Fields behalf, and did
5 not incur a $355 filing fee on his behalf, and by falsely representing to Fields that he had filed
6 such an Answer and incurred a filing fee, respondent failed to keep his client informed of
~7 significant developments in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services, in
willful violation of Business & Professions Code § 6068(m).
9 COUNT FIVE
10 Business & Professions Code § 6106
11 [Moral Turpitude]
29. Respondent willfully violated Business & Professions Code § 6106, by
!2
committing an act involving moralturpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows:
13
30. The allegations of Counts One through Five are hereby incorporated by reference.
14
By misrepresenting to Fields that he had filed an Answer and that he had incurred a $355
15
filing fee on Field’s behalf, when he in fact had not filed an Answer and had not incurred a $355
16
filing fee, respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, in
17
willful violation of Business & Professions Code § 6106.
18
COUNT SIX
19
20 Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2)
[Failure to Refund Unearned Fees]
21
31. Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2),
22
by failing to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, as
23
follows:
24
32. As previously noted, on or about May 10, 2010, respondent provided Fields with
25
a bill for services. The bill included a charge for $355 for a filing fee. In fact, respondent had
26
filed no documents on behalf of Fields and had not incurred any filing fee on behalf of Fields.
27
The representation that respondent had incurred a filing fee on behalf of Fields was false.
28
-6-
1 33. Respondent also charged Fields with 3.5 hours to prepare interrogatories and
2 disclosure forms at the rate of $200 per hour. Respondent did not permit the client to read,
3 review, and sign the Schedule of Assets as noted in Count One. It purported to bear his
4 signature, but the client did not sign it. The date on the document was noted as "10-11-10" yet
5 respondent provided this document to the client on or about May 10, 2010. Because the client
6 did not review and approve this discovery, it was of no value to the client.
7 34. Respondent’s services were of no value to the client and a full refund is owed.
8 35. By failing to refund the $355 in costs which he never incurred, and by failing to
9 refund the remaining $1,145, upon the termination of his services, respondent failed to refund
10 promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, in willful violation of Rules
11 of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).

12 COUNT SEVEN
14 [Failure to Perform with Competence]
15
16
follows:
17
37. On or about May 30, 2008, Peter Turchyn (hereinafter, "Turchyn") hired
18
respondent to represent him in his ongoing divorce matter, Elizabeth Turchyn vs. Peter Turchyn,
19
Case Number FL04-2398, filed in Superior Court, County of Yolo. The parties executed an
20
Attorney Client Fee Agreement for an hourly rate and Turchyn paid respondent the sum of
21
$4,000 as an advanced fee.
22
38. On or about July 24, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for Modification of Child
23
Support on Turchyn’s behalf. The matter came to hearing on October 10, 2008. On that date,
24
the Court issued rulings on child support. Respondent was ordered by the Court to prepare and
25
file the order after hearing (OAH).
26
39. Respondent failed to complete and submit that order to the Court until on or aboul
27
28 April 15, 2009, a delay of six months.
-7-
1 40. On or about January 8, 2009, the matter again came to hearing on issues of child
2 custody and child support. The Court issued its rulings and again ordered respondent to prepare
3 the OAH.
4 41. Respondent did not submit the OAH to the Court on the January 8, 2009 hearing
5 until on or about February 24, 2010, a delay of one year.
6 42. By failing to submit the OAH’s to the Court in a timely fashion, respondent
7 intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in
8 willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
9 COUNT EIGHT
[Failure to Obey a Court Order]
11
43. Respondent willfully violated Business & Professions Code § 6103, by wilfully
12
disobeying or violating an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected witl
13
or in the course of respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to do or forbear, as
14
follows:
15
44. The allegations of Count Seven are hereby incorporated by reference.
16
45. On or about May 5, 2009, in related proceedings, Turchyn vs. Turchyn, Case
17
Number FSD 2-~82515, the Court found that respondent failed to prepare an OAH for the
18
January 8, 2009 hearing. The Court ordered "Father is to send 1-8-2009 order to DCSS
19
3
immediately." The Court further ordered that respondent to file appropriate papers.
20
46. By failing to timely file the OAHs, respondent willfully disobeyed or violated
21
orders of the Court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of
22
respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to do or forbear, in willful violation of
23
Business & Professions Code § 6103.
24
25
26 3 The Court’s minute order of 5/5/2009 states: "Court finds that Attorney Donald Beury is still counsel for father anc
father Is to contact Attorney Beury to clarify his role, formally sub out as counsel Of record, and file appropriate
27 papers. Copy of minutes to be sent to Attorney Beury stating Court’s Order for Counsel to file out as counsel of
Record."
28
-8-
NOTICE - INACTIVE ENROLLMENT!
1
2 YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF THE STATE BAR

COURT FINDS, PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
3 SECTION 6007(c), THAT YOUR CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIAL
THREAT OF HARM TO THE INTERESTS OF YOUR CLIENTS OR TO
4 THE PUBLIC, YOU MAY BE INVOLUNTARILY ENROLLED AS AN
INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR. YOUR INACTIVE
5 ENROLLMENT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO ANY DISCIPLINE
6 RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT.
7 NOTICE - COST ASSESSMENT!

8 IN THE EVENT THESE PROCEDURES RESULT IN PUBLIC
DISCIPLINE, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTS
9
INCURRED BY THE STATE BAR IN THE INVESTIGATION, HEARING
10 AND REVIEW OF THIS MATTER PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.10.
11
12
13 Respectfully submitted,
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
14 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
15
16
Dated: January 7, 2011
17 Robin B. Brune
Deputy Trial Counsel
18
19
20 Manuel Jimenez
Assigned Deputy Trial Counsel
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY CERTIFIED & REGULAR MAIL
1
2 CASE NUMBERS: 09-0-16604 & 10-O-07557
3 I, the undersigned, over the age of eighteen (18) years, whose business address and place
of employment is the State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, California
4 94105, declare that I am not a party to the within action; that I am readily familiar with the State
Bar of California’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the
5 United States Postal Service; that in the ordinary course of the State Bar of California’s practice,
correspondence collected and processed by the State Bar of California would be deposited with
6
the United States Postal Service that same day; that I am aware that on motion of party served,
7 service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope or
package is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit; and that
8 in accordance with the practice of the State Bar of California for collection and processing of
mail, I deposited or placed for collection and mailing in the City and County of San Francisco,
9 on the date shown below, a true copy of the within
10 NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES
11
in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing as certified mail - return receipt requested
12 Article Number 7160 3901 9848 6630 4476, and in an additional sealed envelope as regular
mail, at San Francisco, on the date shown below, addressed to:
13
Donald D. Beury
14 423 F Street, Suite 104
Davis, California 95616
15
16 in an inter-office mail facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed to:
17 N/A
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California, on the date shown below.
19
20
21 Dated: January 7, 2011

Carmen Arevalo
22 Declarant
23
24
25
26
27
28
kwikt~ e 018 040 OOg

PUBLIC MATTE
JAMES E. TOWERY, No. 74058
2 CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
3
DEPUTY CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
FILED
LAWRENCE J. DAL CERRO, No. 104342 SEP g 1 2010
DONALD R. STEEDMAN, No. 104927 STATE BAR COURT CLEI~’S OFFICE
5 SUPERVISING TRIAL COUNSEL SAN FRANCISCO
ROBIN BRUNE, No. 149481
6 DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL
TAMMY M. ALBERTSEN-MURRAY, No. 154248
7 180 Howard Street
8 Telephone: (415) 538-2218
9
10
STATE BAR COURT
11
12
13
In the Matter of: Case No. 07-O-11606; 07-0-14061;
14
DONALD BEURY, NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES
15 No. 141733,
16
17
NOTICE - FAILURE TO RESPOND!
18
IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN THE
19 TIME ALLOWED BY STATE BAR RULES, INCLUDING EXTENSIONS,
OR IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE STATE BAR COURT TRIAL, (1)
20 YOUR DEFAULT SHALL BE ENTERED, (2) YOU SHALL BE
ENROLLED AS AN INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR AND
21 WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNLESS THE
DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE ON MOTION TIMELY MADE UNDER THE
22 RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE STATE BAR, (3) YOU SHALL NOT
BE ¯ PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE FURTHER IN THESE
23 PROCEEDINGS UNLESS YOUR DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE, AND (4) YOU
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL DISCIPLINE.
24
STATE BAR RULES REQUIRE YOU TO FILE YOUR WRITTEN
25 RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS AFTER
SERVICE.
26
IF YOUR DEFAULT IS ENTERED AND THE DISCIPLINE IMPOSED BY
27 THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS PROCEEDING INCLUDES A PERIOD
OF ACTUAL SUSPENSION, YOU WILL REMAIN SUSPENDED FROM
28
-1-
THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR AT LEAST THE PERIOD OF TIME
1 SPECIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT. IN ADDITION, THE ACTUAL
SUSPENSION WILL CONTINUE UNTIL YOU HAVE REQUESTED,
2 AND THE STATE BAR COURT HAS GRANTED, A MOTION FOR
TERMINATION OF THE ACTUAL SUSPENSION. AS A CONDITION
3 FOR TERMINATING THE ACTUAL SUSPENSION, THE STATE BAR
COURT MAY PLACE YOU ON PROBATION AND REQUIRE YOU TO
4 COMPLY WITH SUCH CONDITIONS OF PROBATION AS THE STATE
BAR COURT DEEMS APPROPRIATE. SEE RULE 205, RULES OF
5 PROCEDURE FOR STATE BAR COURT PROCEEDINGS.
8 JURISDICTION
9 Donald Beury ("Respondent") was admitted to the practice of law in the State of
10 California on September 29, 1989, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is
12
COUNT ONE
13
Case No. 07-O-11606
15
1. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), by
16
17
follows:
18
2. Kirk and Carolyn Blanchard hired respondent in July, 2006 to obtain legal
19
guardianship of their minor grandchildren. Kirk and Carolyn Blanchard paid respondent the sun
20
of $1,500 for the representation.
21
3. Respondent also represented the Blanchard’s daughter, Angelita Griffin, who was the
22
mother of the Blanchard’s grandchildren related to the guardianship.
23
4. On or about July 20, 2006, respondent filed for dissolution on behalf of Angelita
24
Griffin, entitled, Angelita Griffin v. Michael Griffin, case no. 06FL05374, filed in Superior
25
Court, County of Sacramento. On this date, respondent also filed a Declaration Under Uniform
26
i Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) in which he identified himself as
27
attorney for Angelita Griffin and Kirk and Carolyn Blanchard.
28
-2-
1 5, On or about December 14, 2006, respondent sent the Blanchards a Petition for
2 Appointment of Guardian of Minor, and directed them to sign the documents and return them to
3 him. Respondent identified himself as counsel for the Blanchards in the petition. The
4 Blanchards obtained the signatures of both parents, consenting to the guardianship, in or about
5 December 25, 2006.

6 6. Kirk Blanchard spoke to respondent in or about January, 2007, and respondent ~
7 them that the matter woul~d be filed promptly.
8 7. Thereafter, respondent took no action to complete the guardianship.
9 8. The Blanchards terminated respondent’s services in or about March 6, 2007.

10 9. By failing to complete the guardianship on behalf of the Blanchards, respondent failed
11 to perform with competence, in willful, reckless and repeated violation of Rules of Professional
12 Conduct, rule 3-110(A).

13
COUNT TWO
14
Case No. 07-O-11606
15 Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-310(C)( 1 )
[Potential Conflict - Representing Multiple Clients]
16
17 10. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-310(C)(1), by
18 accepting representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the clients
19 potentially conflicted without the informed written consent of each client, as follows:
20 11. The allegations of Count One are hereby incorporated by reference.
21 12. The interests of the Blanchards and Angelita Griffin potentially conflicted. The
22 Blanchards, by seeking guardianship of their grandchildren, would, in effect, be curtailing
23 Angelita Griffin’s parental rights. Angetita Griffin signed her consent to the guardianship, but
24 this did not obviate the potential conflict.
25 13. Respondent did not obtain the informed written consent of the Blanchards, and/or
26 Angelita Griffin, to the potential conflict.
27
28
-3-
1 14. By failing to obtain the informed written consent of the Blanchards and Angelita
2 Griffin to the potential conflict, respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rul~
3 3-310(C)(1).
4
COUNT THREE
5
Case No. 07-0-11606
7
8 15. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2), by
9 failing to refund promptly any part of a feepaid in advance that has not been earned, as follows:
11 17. On or about March 9, 2007, Kirk Blanchard called respondent’s office and spoke to
12 both respondent and respondent’s wife and informed him of their request for a refund of their
13 fee. Respondent was aware of the Blanchard’s request for a refund.
14 18. Respondent’s fees in the Blanchard matter were not earned. He did not file the
15 guardianship papers. Any work he performed was preliminary in nature and provided no benefit
16 to the client.
17 19. Respondent failed to refund $1,500 to the Blanchards.
18 20. By failing to refund the $1,500 to the Blanchards, respondent failed to refund

21
COUNT FOUR
22
Case No. 07-0-14601
24
25 21. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), by

26 intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failing to perform legal services with competence, as
27 follows:
28
-4-
1 22. In or about April, 2005, Kathleen Noblet (hereinafter, "Noblet") hired respondent to
2 negotiate her shares of ownership of Professional Dynamics Company, who was then also her
3 employer. Respondent filed suit on her behalf, entitled Noblet v. Anders, Professional Dynamics,
4 Inc., case no. 06AS00005, filed in Superior Court, County of Sacramento. Respondent rmmed
5 seven causes of action in the suit, including allegations that Professional Dynamics failed to pay
6 Noblet one half of all the profits as promised; that Prbfessional Dynamics failed to make
7 payments into a 401K plan for Noblet ros promised; that Noblet purchased a ten percent interest
8 in the corporation and was entitled to dividends; and constructive termination of Noblet.
9 23. Respondent failed to perform on behalf of Noblet by actions including, but not
10 limited to, the following:
11 i) respondent failed to follow Noblet’s express instructions, given to him on or aboul

12 August 10, 2007, that he, respondent, not submit additional materials and/or
13 pleadings to the Court or the opposing counsel without first obtaining Noblet’s
14 consent; respondent sent a Motion to Confirm Settlement Agreement and
15 Conditional Settlement Agreement to the opposing counsel, Mary Farrell, on or
16 about August 20, 2007 in contravention to his client’s instructions;
17 ii) respondent interfered with his client’s settlement negotiations when he filed, in or
18 about October 4 2007, on his own behalf, an Opposition to Motion to Revise
19 Settlement, which was in direct contravention to the settlement agreement because
20 he requested that the settlement funds be issued to himself and his client jointly,
21 when the written settlement obtained on July 10, 2007 specified that the monies be
22 issued soley to the client. This was an effort, on respondent’s part, to use the
23 pending litigation to address his own fee dispute with his client. Nobler had
24 terminated respondent’s services in August, 2007, and respondent had signed a
25 substitution of attorney on or about September 7, 2007;
26 iii) respondent failed to protect his client’s interests in the settlement proceeds,
27 because he negotiated a settlement which called for Nobler to convey to the
28
-5-
1 defendants a Release of All Claims and Dismissal with Prejudice of the action
2 within ten days, but the payment of the stated settlement amount was paid over
3 time, with $200,000 paid at the rate of $10,000 at signing and $5,000 per month
4 thereafter. There was no specification of any method of enforcement or remedy if
5 Professional Dynamics failed to make the agreed upon payment.

6 24. By failing to appropriately designate an expert for trial; by failing to abide by his
7 client’s instructions regarding communication to the opposing counsel; by interfering with his
8 client’s completion of the case by filing self-serving pleading in the case after he was terminated.
9 and by failing to protect Noblet’s enforcement of the settlement agreement, respondent failed to
10 perform with competence, in willful, reckless, and repeated violation of the Rules of
11 Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A),

12
COUNT FIVE
13
Case No. 07-0-14601
14 Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-300
[Acquiring Interest Adverse to Client]
15
16 25. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-300, by entering
17 into a business transaction with a client knowingly acquiring a possessory and pecuniary
18 interest adv_erse to a client without complying with the requirements that the transaction or
19 acquisition and its terms were fair and reasonable to the client; the client was advised in writing
20 that the client may seek the advice of an independent lawyer of the client’s choice and the client
21 was given a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice; as follows:

22 26. The allegations of Count Four are hereby incorporated by reference.
23 27. On or about April, 2005, the parties executed a fee agreement for an hourly fee of
24 $200.
25 28. Respondent’s fee agreement specified that he "has a right to lien and take personal
26 property that is inthe attorney’s possession for unpaid fees." The fee agreement specified that
27
28
-6-
1 "the client is advised that she has the right to consult with an independent outside attorney and
2 expressly waives the right to seek advice from independent counsel on the issue of liens."
3 29. Respondent did not give Noblet a reasonable opportunity to seek advice from
4 independent counsel before agreeing that respondent could have a lien against the personal
5 property in his possession.
6 30:Respondent’s fee agreement was not fair and reasonable because he specified that
7 Noblet was waiving her right to a Rule of Professianal Conduct, rule 3-300(B).
8 31. By failing to give Noblet a reasonable opportunity to seek advice from independent
9 counsel, but instead stating that she was waiving that right; and by seeking to have Noblet waive
10 a provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, respondent willfully violated Rules of
11 Professional Conduct, rule 3-300(A) and (B).

12
COUNT SIX
13
Case No. 07-0-14601
14 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(e)
[Failure to Maintain Confidentiality]
15
16 32. Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(e), by
17 failing to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve
18 the secrets, of his or her client, as follows:
19 33. The allegations of Counts Four and Five are hereby incorporated by reference.
20 34. In his Opposition to Motion to Revise Settlement, filed on or about October 2, 2007,
21 respondent stated that Nobler was satisfied with the settlement; Nobler refused to pay her
22 attorney’s fees of $22,445.00; Noblet refused to pay outstanding costs of $4,962.44; and Noblet
23 instructed respondent to prepare a motion which included instructions that the settlement checks
24 would be payable directly to Noblet.
25 35. By including, in his pleadings, information about the confidential attorney-client
26 relationship between himself and Nobler, respondent failed to maintain inviolate the confidences
27 of his client, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(e).
28
-7-
COUNT EIGHT
3 Case No. 07-0-14601
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a)
4 [Failure to Comply With Laws]
5 36. Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a), by
6 failing to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, as follows:
7 37. The allegations of Counts Five through Seven a~e hereby incorporated by reference.
8 38. Respondent owes a common law fiduciary duty of loyalty to Noblet.
9 39. Respondent’s fee agreement did not give him a possessory right to the settlement
10 funds in the Noblet matter. These funds were not in his possession. Respondent had an hourly
11 fee agreement, not a contingency fee.
12 40. On or about July 10, 2007, respondent negotiated, and executed, a Stipulation for
13 Settlement which specified that Professional Dynamics shall pay $200,000 to Noblet. The words
14 "and to his/her attorney" were crossed out, as inapplicable to the settlement agreement. The
15 settlement agreement that respondent negotiated and agreed to on behalf of his client did not
16 include a payment of the settlement monies from the defendant to himself.
17 41. In respondent’s Opposition to Motion to Revise Settlement Agreement to Extinguish
18 Attorney Lien, respondent requested that the court segregate $27,407.44 in a separate interest
19 bearing account, in contravention to the settlement agreement that respondent executed on behalt
20 of Noblet. Respondent was motivated by an effort to secure payment of his own attorney’s fees,
21 contrary to his fee agreement and the settlement agreement that he signed on behalfofNoblet.
22 42. Respondent’s actions were contrary to, and interfered with, his former client’s
23 settlement negotiations, which were still in progress.
24 43. By filing pleadings in Noblet’s case, attempting to re-negotiate the settlement to his
25 own personal advantage, respondent violated his duty of loyalty to Noblet, and thereby failed to
26 support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, in willful violation of
27 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a).
28
-8-
1
2
YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF THE STATE BAR
3 COURT FINDS, PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
SECTION 6007(c), THAT YOUR CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIAL
4 THREAT OF HARM TO THE INTERESTS OF YOUR CLIENTS OR TO
THE PUBLIC, YOU MAY BE INVOLUNTARILY ENROLLED AS AN
5 INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR. YOUR INACTIVE
ENROLLMENT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO ANY DISCIPLINE
6 RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT. SEE RULE 101(c), RULES OF
PROCEDURE OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA.
7
NOTICE - COST ASSESSMENT!
8
IN THE EVENT THESE PROCEDURES RESULT IN PUBLIC
9 DISCIPLINE, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTS
PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.10. SEE RULE 280, RULES OF
12
Respectfully submitted,
13
14
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
15
16
DATED: September 17, 2010
17
Robin Brune
18 Deputy Trial Counsel
19 Assigned Deputy Trial Counsel:

Tammy M. Albertsen-Murray
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY CERTIFIED MAlL
2
CASE NUMBER: 07-0-11606; 07-0-14061
3
I, the undersigned, over the age of eighteen (18) years, whose business address and place o:
4 employment is the State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, California 94105,
declare that I am not a party to the within action; that I am readily familiar with the State Bar ot
5 California’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United
States Postal Service; that in the ordinary_ course of the State Bar of California’s practice,
6 correspondence collected and processed by the State Bar of California would be deposited with
7 service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope ot
package is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit. That in
8 accordance with the practice of the State Bar of California for collection and processing of mail.
I deposited or placed for collection and mailing in the City and County of San Francisco, on th~
9 date shown below, a true copy of the within
I0
Notice of Disciplinary Charges
ii in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing as certified mail, return receipt requested,
Article No.: 7160 3901 9848 6630 4100 at San Francisco, on the date shown below, addressec
12
to:
13 Daniel W. Hager
351 California St., Ste~ 900
14
San Francisco, CA 94104
16
N/A
17
18
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing i:
19
true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California, on the date shown below.
20
21
DATED: ~/,)[//~’ SIGNED:
athleen N. Kehoe
22
Declarant
23
24
25
26
27
28
kwiktag ~ 018 041 794
FILED
.JAN 0 7 2011
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL STATE BAR COURT CLERK’S OFFICE
JAMES E. TOWERY, No. 74058 SAN FRANCISCO
CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
4 DEPUTY CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
LAWRENCE J. DAL CERRO, No. 104342
DONALD R. STEEDMAN, NO. 104927
6 SUPERVISING TRIAL COUNSEL
7 ROBIN B. BRUNE, No. 149481
DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL
8 MANUEL JIMENEZ, No. 218234
ASSIGNED DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL
9 180 Howard Street
10 Telephone: (415) 538-2218
11
12
STATE BAR COURT
13
14
15
16 In the Matter of." Case Number 09-O-16604

10-O-07557
17 DONALD D. BEURY,
No. 141733, NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES
18
19
20 NOTICE - FAILURE TO RESPOND!
21 IF YOU FAIL TO FILE A WRITTEN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICE

WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER SERVICE, OR IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT
22 THE STATE BAR COURT TRIAL:
23
(1) YOUR DEFAULT WILL BE ENTERED;
24 (:Z) YOUR STATUS WILL BE CHANGED TO INACTIVE AND
25 YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW;
(3) YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE
26 FURTHER IN THESE PROCEEDINGS UNLESS YOU
MAKE A TIMELY MOTION AND THE DEFAULT IS SET
27
ASIDE, AND;
28
-1-
(4) YOU SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL DISCIPLINE.
1 SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU FAIL TO TIMELY MOVE TO
2 SET ASIDE OR VACATE YOUR DEFAULT, THIS COURT
WILL ENTER AN ORDER RECOMMENDING YOUR
3 DISBARMENT WITHOUT FURTHER HEARING OR
PROCEEDING. SEE RULE 5.80 ET SEQ., RULES OF
5
7 JURISDICTION
8 1. Donald D. Beury ("respondent") was admitted to the practice of law in the State
9 of California on September 29, 1989, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is
11 COUNT ONE
13
14
15
follows:
16
3. On or about October 11, 2009, Van Fields (hereinafter, "Fields") hired respondent
17
to represent him in his divorce proceedings, Fields vs. Fields, Case Number FL-09-0001860.
18
Fields was the defendant, his spouse had filed a petition for dissolution on or about September
19
25, 2009. Fields paid respondent the sum of $1,500, including a $355 filing fee.
20
4. Respondent did not file a response to the divorce petition.
21
5. On or about May 11, 2010, respondent submitted to the Court an at issue
22
memorandum, request for court trial, and declaration regarding service of declaration of
23
disclosure and income and expense declaration.
24
6. On or about May 13, 2010 the court clerk ~alled respondent and notified him that
25
he needed to file a response to the divorce petition for the court to accept the at issue
26
memorandum and other documents.
27
7. Respondent took no further action in response to the court’s notice.
28
-2-
1 8. On or about June 3, 2010, the court clerk called respondent’s office again, and
2 again advised respondent to file a response to the divorce.
3 9. Respondent took no further action on behalf of Fields to correct the error in his
4 pleadings.
5 10. On or about June 9, 2010, the Court struck the at-issue memorandum due to
6 respondent’s failure to file a response to the divorce petition.
7 11. The documents respondent submitted to the Court on May 11, 2010 included a
8 Declaration Regarding Service of Declaration of Disclosure and Income and Expense
9 Declaration. In this pleading,I respondent stated, under penalty of perjury, that he had filed a
10 preliminary declaration of disclosure and Income and Expense Declaration on the plaintiffs
11 attorney on or about December 9, 2009.2
12 12. One of the underlying disclosure documents, "Schedule of Assets and Debts" that
13 respondent prepared, and stated, under penalty of perjury, that he had provided to opposing
14 counsel on or about December 9, 2009, bore the purported signature of Fields, allegedly signed
15 on October 11, 2010. In fact, Fields had not seen nor reviewed this document, nor had he signed
16 this document. Respondent also wrote on the top of this document "by Don, 12/8/09". It was
17 not clear, therefore, on the face of this document, whether or not the client, Fields, had in fact
18 reviewed, signed, and agreed to the Schedule of Assets and Debts, under penalty of perjury, or
19 whether the "by Don, 12/8/09" negated the signature purported to be made by the client, on the
20 document.
21 13. On or about June 9, 2010, Fields terminated respondent and substituted in
22 attorney Raquel M. Silva on his behalf.
23 14. By failing to correct the defect in his pleadings (by failing to file a response to the
24 divorce petition) so that the court would file, and respond to his at-issue memorandum and
25 request for trial; and by failing to assure that his client had read, reviewed, and signed, under
26
i This document was rejected by the court, as noted in paragraph 10.
27 2 Respondent sought to file only the declaration regarding the disclosures, and not the disclosures themselves, with
the Court.
28
-3-
1 penalty of perjury, the Schedule of Assets, before conveying them to opposing counsel and
2 notifying the Court that he had done so, respondent willfully, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to
3 perform, in violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
4 COUNT TWO
5 Business & Professions Code § 6068(b)
6 [Failure to Maintain Respect to the Court]
15. Respondent willfully violated Business & Professions Code § 6068(b), by failing
7
to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, as follows:
8
16. The allegations of Count One are hereby incorporated by reference.
9
17. By submitting to the Court a Declaration Regarding Service of Declaration of
10
Disclosure and Income and Expense Declaration, and by stating in this pleading, under penalty
11
of perjury, that he had filed a preliminary declaration of disclosure and Income and Expense
12
Declaration on the plaintiff’s attorney on or about December 9, 2009, when in fact the documen
13
he provided, a "Schedule of Assets and Debts" lacked the required signature of the client,
14
respondent misrepresented to the Court that he had complied with the disclosures when he in facl
15
had not appropriately complied.
16
18. By misrepresenting to the Court that he had appropriately prepared these
17
documents, when, in fact, the document lacked his client’s signature, respondent failed to
18
maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, in willful violation of
19
Business & Professions Code § 6068(b).
20
COUNT THREE
21
22 Business & Professions Code § 6068(d)
[Employing Means Inconsistent with Truth]
23 [Seeking to Mislead a Judge]
24 19. Respondent willfully violated Business & Professions Code § 6068(d), by
25 employing, for the purposes of maintaining the causes confided in him, means which are
26 inconsistent with truth, and by seeking to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or
27 false statement of fact or law, as follows:
28
-4-
1 20. The allegations of Counts One and Two are hereby incorporated by reference.
2 21. By misrepresenting to the Court that he had appropriately prepared the Schedule
3 of Assets and Debts, when, in fact, the document lacked his client’s signature, respondent
4 employed, for the purposes of maintaining the causes confided in him, means which are
5 inconsistent with truth, and sought to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or false
6 statement of fact or law, in willful violation of Business & Professions Code § 6068(d).
7 COUNT FOUR
8 Business & Professions Code § 6068(m)
9 [Failure to Inform Client of Significant Development]
22. Respondent willfully violated Business & Professions Code § 6068(m), by failing
10
to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter in which respondent
11
had agreed to provide legal services, as follows:
12
23. The allegations of Counts One, Two and Three are hereby incorporated by
13
reference.
14
24. On or about October 12, 2010, Fields met with respondent for his initial
15
consultation. At that time, respondent advised Fields that he would file an Answer On behalf of
16
Fields and that he needed $355 for the filing fee. At this time, Fields gave respondent a check
17
for $500.
18
25. At no time thereafter did respondent inform Fields that he had not filed an Answe~
19
on Fields behalf.
20
26. On or about May 10, 2010, respondent sent Fields a "Bill and Request to
21
Replenish Retainer". The bill indicated that respondent had incurred a $355 cost for a filing fee.
22
The bill also charged Fields with an "Initial consultation and draw up a response to Petition."
23
These billing statements, coupled with respondent’s statement to Fields during the initial
24
consultation on October 12, 2010, amounted to a representation to Fields that respondent had
25
filed an Answer on Fields behalf. In fact, respondent had not filed an Answer on behalf of Fields
26
and had not incurred a $355 filing fee. Respondent’s bill misrepresented that a filing fee (cost)
27
had been incurred when in fact no cost had been incurred.
28
-5-
1 27. At no time did respondent tell Fields that no Answer had been filed and no $355
2 cost had been incurred. Fields learned about the fact that no Answer had been filed (and no cost
3 incurred) when he contacted the Court directly in or about June 2, 2010.
4 28. By failing to advise Fields that he did not file an Answer on Fields behalf, and did
5 not incur a $355 filing fee on his behalf, and by falsely representing to Fields that he had filed
6 such an Answer and incurred a filing fee, respondent failed to keep his client informed of
~7 significant developments in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services, in
willful violation of Business & Professions Code § 6068(m).
9 COUNT FIVE
11 [Moral Turpitude]
29. Respondent willfully violated Business & Professions Code § 6106, by
!2
committing an act involving moralturpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows:
13
30. The allegations of Counts One through Five are hereby incorporated by reference.
14
By misrepresenting to Fields that he had filed an Answer and that he had incurred a $355
15
filing fee on Field’s behalf, when he in fact had not filed an Answer and had not incurred a $355
16
filing fee, respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, in
17
willful violation of Business & Professions Code § 6106.
18
COUNT SIX
19
21
31. Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2),
22
by failing to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, as
23
follows:
24
32. As previously noted, on or about May 10, 2010, respondent provided Fields with
25
a bill for services. The bill included a charge for $355 for a filing fee. In fact, respondent had
26
filed no documents on behalf of Fields and had not incurred any filing fee on behalf of Fields.
27
The representation that respondent had incurred a filing fee on behalf of Fields was false.
28
-6-
1 33. Respondent also charged Fields with 3.5 hours to prepare interrogatories and
2 disclosure forms at the rate of $200 per hour. Respondent did not permit the client to read,
3 review, and sign the Schedule of Assets as noted in Count One. It purported to bear his
4 signature, but the client did not sign it. The date on the document was noted as "10-11-10" yet
5 respondent provided this document to the client on or about May 10, 2010. Because the client
6 did not review and approve this discovery, it was of no value to the client.
7 34. Respondent’s services were of no value to the client and a full refund is owed.
8 35. By failing to refund the $355 in costs which he never incurred, and by failing to
9 refund the remaining $1,145, upon the termination of his services, respondent failed to refund

12 COUNT SEVEN
14 [Failure to Perform with Competence]
15
16
follows:
17
37. On or about May 30, 2008, Peter Turchyn (hereinafter, "Turchyn") hired
18
respondent to represent him in his ongoing divorce matter, Elizabeth Turchyn vs. Peter Turchyn,
19
Case Number FL04-2398, filed in Superior Court, County of Yolo. The parties executed an
20
Attorney Client Fee Agreement for an hourly rate and Turchyn paid respondent the sum of
21
$4,000 as an advanced fee.
22
38. On or about July 24, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for Modification of Child
23
Support on Turchyn’s behalf. The matter came to hearing on October 10, 2008. On that date,
24
the Court issued rulings on child support. Respondent was ordered by the Court to prepare and
25
file the order after hearing (OAH).
26
39. Respondent failed to complete and submit that order to the Court until on or aboul
27
28 April 15, 2009, a delay of six months.
-7-
1 40. On or about January 8, 2009, the matter again came to hearing on issues of child
2 custody and child support. The Court issued its rulings and again ordered respondent to prepare
3 the OAH.
4 41. Respondent did not submit the OAH to the Court on the January 8, 2009 hearing
5 until on or about February 24, 2010, a delay of one year.
6 42. By failing to submit the OAH’s to the Court in a timely fashion, respondent
7 intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in
8 willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
9 COUNT EIGHT
[Failure to Obey a Court Order]
11
43. Respondent willfully violated Business & Professions Code § 6103, by wilfully
12
disobeying or violating an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected witl
13
or in the course of respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to do or forbear, as
14
follows:
15
44. The allegations of Count Seven are hereby incorporated by reference.
16
45. On or about May 5, 2009, in related proceedings, Turchyn vs. Turchyn, Case
17
Number FSD 2-~82515, the Court found that respondent failed to prepare an OAH for the
18
January 8, 2009 hearing. The Court ordered "Father is to send 1-8-2009 order to DCSS
19
3
immediately." The Court further ordered that respondent to file appropriate papers.
20
46. By failing to timely file the OAHs, respondent willfully disobeyed or violated
21
orders of the Court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of
22
respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to do or forbear, in willful violation of
23
Business & Professions Code § 6103.
24
25
26 3 The Court’s minute order of 5/5/2009 states: "Court finds that Attorney Donald Beury is still counsel for father anc
father Is to contact Attorney Beury to clarify his role, formally sub out as counsel Of record, and file appropriate
27 papers. Copy of minutes to be sent to Attorney Beury stating Court’s Order for Counsel to file out as counsel of
Record."
28
-8-
1
2 YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF THE STATE BAR

COURT FINDS, PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
3 SECTION 6007(c), THAT YOUR CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIAL
THREAT OF HARM TO THE INTERESTS OF YOUR CLIENTS OR TO
4 THE PUBLIC, YOU MAY BE INVOLUNTARILY ENROLLED AS AN
INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR. YOUR INACTIVE
5 ENROLLMENT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO ANY DISCIPLINE
6 RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT.
7 NOTICE - COST ASSESSMENT!

8 IN THE EVENT THESE PROCEDURES RESULT IN PUBLIC
DISCIPLINE, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTS
9
PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.10.
11
12
13 Respectfully submitted,
15
16
Dated: January 7, 2011
17 Robin B. Brune
Deputy Trial Counsel
18
19
20 Manuel Jimenez
Assigned Deputy Trial Counsel
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY CERTIFIED & REGULAR MAIL
1
2 CASE NUMBERS: 09-0-16604 & 10-O-07557
3 I, the undersigned, over the age of eighteen (18) years, whose business address and place
of employment is the State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, California
4 94105, declare that I am not a party to the within action; that I am readily familiar with the State
Bar of California’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the
5 United States Postal Service; that in the ordinary course of the State Bar of California’s practice,
correspondence collected and processed by the State Bar of California would be deposited with
6
7 service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope or
package is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit; and that
8 in accordance with the practice of the State Bar of California for collection and processing of
mail, I deposited or placed for collection and mailing in the City and County of San Francisco,
9 on the date shown below, a true copy of the within
10 NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES
11
in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing as certified mail - return receipt requested
12 Article Number 7160 3901 9848 6630 4476, and in an additional sealed envelope as regular
mail, at San Francisco, on the date shown below, addressed to:
13
Donald D. Beury
14 423 F Street, Suite 104
Davis, California 95616
15
17 N/A
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California, on the date shown below.
19
20
21 Dated: January 7, 2011

Carmen Arevalo
22 Declarant
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Do not write above this line.)
State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department
San Francisco
ACTUAL SUSPENSION
Counsel For The State Bar Case Number(s): For Court use only
07-0-11606
Manuel Jimenez 07-0-14061
State Bar of Califomia 09-0-16604
180 Howard Street 10-O-07557
(415) 538-2288 FILED
APR 1 1 ZOll
Bar# 218234 8TAI~ BAR COURT CLERK’S 0FRCE
BAN FRANCISCO
In Pro Per Respondent
Donald D. Beury
423 F. Street
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 757-7125
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND

Bar# 141733 DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
In the Matter of:

ACTUAL SUSPENSION
Donald D. Beury
[] PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Bar# 141733
A Member of the State Bar of California

(Respondent)
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the
space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts,"
"Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
A. Parties’ Acknowledgments:
(1) Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted September 29, ] 989.
(2) " The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or
disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.
(3) All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by
this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The
stipulation consists of ] 5 pages, not including the order. kwiktag ~ 018 038 940
(Effective January 1,2011)

Actual Suspension
(4) A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included
under "Facts."
(5) Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of
Law".
(6) The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading
"Supporting Authority."
(7) No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any
pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
(8) Payment of Disciplinary CostsmRespondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 &
6140.7. (Check one option only):
[] Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless
relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
[] Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 20! 2,
20] 3, ond 20] 4.. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of
Procedure.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the
State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
[] Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
[] Costs are entirely waived.
B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for
Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances
are required.
(1) [] Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]
(a) [] State Bar Court case # of prior case
(b) [] Date prior discipline effective
(c) [] Rules of Professional Conduct/State Bar Act violations:
(d) [] Degree of prior discipline
(e) [] If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below.
(2) [] Dishonesty: Respondent’s misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty,
concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct.
(3) [] Trust Violation: Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account
to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or
property.
(4) [] Harm: Respondent’s misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

Actual Suspension
2
(5) [] Indifference: Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the
consequences of his or her misconduct.
(6) [] Lack of Cooperation: Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her
misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings.
(7) [] MultiplelPattern of Misconduct: Respondent’s current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing
or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct. The instant misconduct involves ] ] counts of professional
misconduct, affecting four clients.
(8) [] No aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances:
C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigating

circumstances are required.
(1) [] No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled
with present misconduct which is not deemed serious. Respondent has been licensed to practice law
since ]989. He has been discipline-free during the entire time. The first charged misconduct
started in 2005.
(2) [] No Harm: Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the misconduct.
(3) [] Candor/Cooperation: Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims of
his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings.
(4) [] Remorse: Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and
recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her
misconduct.
(5) [] Restitution: Respondent paid $ on in restitution to without the threat or force of

disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.
(6) [] Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is not attributable to
Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.
(7) [] Good Faith: Respondent acted in good faith.
(8) [] Emotional/Physical Difficulties: At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct
Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would
establish was directly responsible for the misconduct. The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of
any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer
suffers from such difficulties or disabilities. Respondent’s mother passed away in 2007.
(9) [] Severe Financial Stress: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress
which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and
which were directly responsible for the misconduct.
(10) [] Family Problems: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her
personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature.

Actual Suspension
3
(11) [] Good Character: Respondent’s good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal
and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.
(12) [] Rehabilitation: Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred
followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.
(13) [] No mitigating circumstances are involved.
Additional mitigating circumstances:
Respondent’s conduct is mitigated by the fact that he contacted and conferred with the Ethics
Hotline provided by the State Bar. He was given a published decision, Epstein v. Abrams, 57 CaI.App.4th
1159, which he relied on as authorization for the his conduct in the 07-0-14601 (Noblet) matter.
D. Discipline:
(1) [] Stayed Suspension:
(a) [] Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (]) year.
i. [] and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and
present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard
1.4(c)(ii) Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
ii. [] and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to
this stipulation.
iii. [] and until Respondent does the following:
(b) [] The above-referenced suspension is stayed.
(2) [] Probation:
Respondent must be placed on probation for a period of three (3) years, which will commence upon the
effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter. (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court)
(3) [] Actual Suspension:
(a) [] Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period
of Sixty (60) days.
i. [] and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and
present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard
1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct
ii. [] and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to
this stipulation.
iii. [] and until Respondent does the following:
E. Additional Conditions of Probation:

Actual Suspension
4
(1) [] If Respondent is actually suspended for two years or more, he/she must remain actually suspended until
he/she proves to the State Bar Court his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the
general law, pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
(2) [] During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of
Professional Conduct.
(3) [] Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the
State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of
information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar
purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.
(4) [] Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation
and schedule a meeting with Respondent’s assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and
conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the
probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must
promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.
(5) [] Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10,
July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state
whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all
conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there
are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number and
current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be
submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.
In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than
twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.
(6) [] Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and
conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance.
During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested,
in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must
cooperate fully with the probation monitor.
(7) [] Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any
inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are
directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has
complied with the probation conditions.
(8) [] Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of
Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given
at the end of that session.
[] No Ethics School recommended. Reason:
(9) [] Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and
must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office
of Probation.
(10) [] The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:
[] Substance Abuse Conditions [] Law Office Management Conditions
[] Medical Conditions [] Financial Conditions
F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

Actual Suspension
(1) [] Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination: Respondent must provide proof of passage of
the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National
Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation during the period of actual suspension or within
one year, whichever period is longer. Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without
further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) &
(E), Rules of Procedure.
[] No MPRE recommended. Reason:
(2) [] Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court: Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20,
California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30
and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court’s Order in this matter.
(3) [] Conditional Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court: If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90
days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and
perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 120 and 130 calendar days,
respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court’s Order in this matter.
(4) [] Credit for Interim Suspension [conviction referral cases only]: Respondent will be credited for the
period of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual suspension. Date of
commencement of interim suspension:
(5) [] Other Conditions:

Actual Suspension
6
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS~ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: Donald D. :Beury
CASE NUMBER: 07-O-11606 [07-0-14061; 09-0-16604; 10-O-07557]
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the
specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 07-0-11606 (Blanchard Matter)
Kirk and Carolyn Blanchard ("Blanchards") hired respondent in July, 2006 to obtain legal
guardianship of their minor grandchildren. They paid him $1,500 as advanced fees. Respondent also
represented the Blanchard’s daughter, Angelita Griffin ("Griffin"), to handle her divorce. Griffin is the
mother of the Blanchard’s grandchildren related to the guardianship. The interests of the Blanchards
and Angelita Griffin potentially conflicted. Respondent did not obtain the informed written consent of
the Blanchards, and/or Angelita Griffin, to the potential conflict.
On July 20, 2006, respondent filed for dissolution on behalf of Angelita Griffin, in case entitled,
Angelita Griffin v. Michael Griffin, case number 06FL05374, filed in Superior Court, County of
Sacramento. On this date, respondent also filed a Declaration Under Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Respondent subsequently took a default judgment in the matter. In
November, 2006, respondent filed a judgment in the matter, which included a proposed order to award
custody of Anelita Griffin’s children to the Blanchards. The court rejected the judgment, informing
respondent that it did not have the authority to award custody to a non-parent through a divorce
proceeding. Respondent informed the Blanchards that they would need to for guardianship.
On December 14, 2006, respondent sent the Blanchards a Petition for Appointment of Guardian
of Minor, and directed them to sign the documents and return them to him. On December 25, 2006, the
Blanchards signed the documents and returned them to respondent.
The Blanchard spoke to respondent in January, 2007, and respondent assured them that the
matter would be filed promptly. Thereafter, respondent took no action to complete the guardianship.
The Blanchards terminated respondent’s services on March 6, 2007. Respondent failed to complete the
Guardianship on behalf of the Blanchards.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to complete the guardianship on behalf of the Blanchards, respondent failed to

perform with competence, in willful, reckless and repeated violation of Rules of Professional Conduct,
rule 3-110(A).
Page #
By failing to obtain the informed written consent of the Blanchards and Angelita Griffin to the
potential conflict, respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-310(C)(1).
By failing to refund the $1,180 to the Blanchards, respondent failed to refund promptly any part
of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct,
rule 3-700(D)(2).
Case No. 07-0-14601 (Noblet Matter)
In April, 2005, Kathleen Noblet (hereinafter, "Nobler") hired respondent to negotiate her shares
of ownership of Professional Dynamics Company, which was then also her employer. In April, 2005,
the parties executed a fee agreement for an hourly fee of $200. Respondent filed suit on her behalf,
entitled Noblet v. Anders, Professional Dynamics, Inc., caseno. 06AS00005, filed in Superior Court,
County of Sacramento.
In July, 2007, Noblet and respondent attended a settlement conference. He had filed no
settlement conference statement and was unprepared for the conference. The on that date there was a
proposed settlement for $200,000, payable to Noblet, solely. Noblet was unhappy with the settlement,
feeling it was compromise because of respondent’s negligence. From the date of the proposed
settlement until October 4, 2007, Noblet continued negotiating the details of the proposed settlement.
On August 10, 2007, Noblet emailed respondent and told him not to file any documents or enter
into any agreements with the opposing side without first consulting with her and her other attorney
James Hodges. On August 30, 2007, Noblet emailed respondent in which she stated, in part, "...I am
instructing you not to file any motion or pleading with the court on my behalf. Later that same day,
Noblet sent respondent another email, instructing him that he was no longer authorized to act or
represent her. On September 4, 2007, Noblet sent respondent a correspondence dismissing him as her
attorney.
On August 20, 2007 respondent sent a Motion to Confirm Settlement Agreement and
Conditional Settlement Agreement to the opposing counsel, Mary Farrell, in contravention to his client’s
instructions of August 10, 2007;
October 4 2007, with no authority from Noblet, and subsequent to his termination, respondent
filed an Opposition to Motion to Revise Settlement. In his motion, respondent sought an order that the
settlement proceeds be paid to himself and Noblet, jointly. This motion contradicted the terms of the
settlement because the July 10, 2007 settlement agreement specified that the settlement funds were to be
paid to Noblet solely.
In his Opposition to Motion to Revise Settlement, filed on October 4, 2007, respondent included
confidential attorney client information, including that Noblet was satisfied with the settlement; Noblet
refused to pay her attorney’s fees of $22,445.00; Noblet refused to pay outstanding costs of $4,962.44;
and Nobler instructed respondent to prepare a motion which included instructions that the settlement
checks would be payable directly to Noblet.
Conclusions of Law
8
Page #
By failing to abide by his client’s instructions regarding communication to the opposing counsel;
by interfering with his client’s completion of the case by filing self-serving pleading in the case after he
was terminated, respondent failed to perform with competence, in willful, reckless, and repeated
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
By including, in his pleadings, information about the confidential attorney-client relationship

between himself and Nobler, respondent failed to maintain inviolate the confidences of his client, in
willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(e).
By filing pleadings in Noblet’s case, attempting to re-negotiate the settlement to his own
personal advantage, respondent violated his duty of loyalty to Noblet, and thereby failed to support the
Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, in willful violation of Business and
Professions Code, section 6068(a).
Case No. 09-0-16604 (Turchyn Matter)
On May 30, 2008, Peter Turchyn (hereinafter, "Turchyn") hired respondent to represent him in
his ongoing divorce matter, Elizabeth Turchyn v. Peter Turchyn, Case Number FL04-2398, filed in
Superior Court, County of Yolo. The parties executed an Attorney Client Fee Agreement for an hourly
rate and Turchyn paid respondent the sum of $4,000 as an advanced fee. On July 24, 2008, respondent
filed a Motion for Modification of Child Support on Turchyn’s behalf. The matter came to hearing on
October 10, 2008. On that date, the Court issued rulings on child support. Respondent was ordered by
the Court to prepare and file the order after hearing (OAH). Respondent failed to complete and submit
that order to the Court until April 15, 2009, a delay of six moflths.
On January 8, 2009, the matter again came to hearing on issues of child custody and child
support. The Court issued its rulings and again ordered respondent to prepare the OAH.
Respondent did not submit the OAH to the Court on the January 8, 2009 hearing until February 24,
2010, a delay of one year.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to submit the OAH’s to the Court in a timely fashion, respondent intentionally,
recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in willful violation of Rules
of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
By failing to timely file the OAHs, respondent willfully disobeyed or violated orders of the Court
requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of respondent’s profession which he
ought in good faith to do or forbear, in willful violation of Business & Professions Code section 6103.
Case No. 10-0-07557 (Fields Matter)
On October 11, 2009, Van Fields ("Fields") hired respondent to represent him as the defendant
in a divorce proceeding, Fields v. Fields, Case Number FL-09-0001860. Fields paid respondent $1,000
9
Page #
as advanced fees. On October 12, 2010, respondent advised Fields that he would file a Response to the
Divorce Petition on behalf of Fields and that he needed $355 for the filing fee. Fields gave respondent a
check for $500.
Respondent did not file a Response to the divorce petition. On May 11, 2010, respondent
submitted to the Court an At-Issue Memorandum, Request for Court Trial, and Declaration Regarding
Service of Declaration of Disclosure and Income and Expense Declaration. On May 13, 2010 the court
clerk informed respondent that he needed to file a Response to the Divorce Petition for the court to
accept the at-issue memorandum and other documents. Respondent took no further action in response to
the court’s notice. Respondent failed to inform Fields that no Response had been filed, and no $355 cost
had been incurred.
On May 10, 2010, respondent sent Fields a "Bill and Request to Replenish Retainer." The bill
included a charge for $355 for a filing fee. In fact, respondent had not filed any documents on behalf of
Fields and had not incurred any filing fee. The representation that respondent had incurred a filing fee
on behalf of Fields was false.
On June 3, 2010, the court clerk called respondent’s office and again advised respondent to file a
Response to the Divorce Petition. Respondent took no action to file a Response. On June 9, 2010, the
Court struck the At-Issue Memorandum due to respondent’s failure to file a Response to the divorce
petition. On June 9, 2010, Fields terminated respondent and substituted in attomey Raquel M. Silva on
his behalf. Respondents work was of no value to Fields. Respondent did not refund either the unused
filing fee the unearned advanced fees.
Conclusions of Law
By failing to file a Response to the Divorce Petition so that the court would file his At-Issue
Memorandum and Request for Trial, respondent willfully, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform, in
violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
By failing to advise Fields that he did not file a Response, and did not incur a $355 filing fee, and
by falsely representing to Fields that he had filed such a Response and incurred a filing fee, respondent
failed to keep his client informed of significant developments in a matter in which respondent had
agreed to provide legal services, in willful violation of Business & Professions Code § 6068(m).
By failing to refund the $355 in costs which he never incurred, and by failing to refund the
remaining $1,145, upon the termination of his services, respondent failed to refund promptly any part of
a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule
3-700(D)(2).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A (7), was February 24, 2011.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL
10
Page #
Because respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation,
respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion
of State Bar Ethics School.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent
that as of February 24, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $ 5,182.00. This does not include
other causes related to the prosecution of the instant matter. Respondent further acknowledges that
should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this
matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standards:
Standard 2.4(b) states, "Culpability of a member of wilfully failing to perform services in an individual
matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of wilfully failing
to communicate with a client shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the
misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
Standard 2.6 states, "Culpability of a member of violation of...[section 6068] of the Business and
Professions Code shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or
the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in ~
standard 1.3.
Standard 2.8 states, "Culpability of a member of a wilful violation of rule 3-300, Rules of Professional
Conduct, shall result in suspension unless the extent of the member’s misconduct and the harm to the
client are minimal, in which case, the degree of discipline shall be reproval.
Standard 2.10 states, "culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and
Professions Code not specified in these standards or of a wilful violation of any Rule of Professional
conduct not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity
of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline
set forth in standard 1.3"
Case Law:
Martin v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 717; A respondent, with no prior discipline in 28 years of practice,
was suspended for two years, stayed, one year, actual, for misconduct. In six separate matters,
Respondent failed to perform, failed to communicate and knowingly misrepresented the status of the
case to the client.
Lavin v. State Bar (1975) 15 Cal.3d 973; A respondent, with no prior discipline, was suspended for
three months and until restitution was made. In four matters, respondent failed to pay out money he
collected on behalf of a client, failed to keep advanced filing fees in trust, failed to refund unearned and
unused advanced fees and costs, failed to communicate and failed to perform services.
Lester v. State Bar (1976) 17 Cal.3d 547; A respondent, with no prior discipline, was suspended for two
years, stayed, six months actual for misconduct. Respondent willfully failed to perform legal services in
four matters in which he was retained, failed to communicate, made misrepresentations to his client,
]1
Page #
and failed to refund all or any portion of the advanced fees until required to do so by either court order
or the pendency of a disciplinary hearing.
Matter of Valinoti (Review Dept. 2002) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 498; An attorney’s fiduciary duty to
develop and maintain adequate management and accounting procedures for proper operation of his
law office is fundamental to fulfillment of duties, including to competently perform legal services,
adequately communicate with clients, protect client confidential information, and properly handle and
account for client funds and other property.
Matter of Nees (Review Dept. 1996) 3 Cal. State. Ct. Bar Rptr. 459; A respondent, with no prior
discipline, was actually suspended for six month and until he completed restitution. The Review
Department focused on respondent’s reckless and protracted failure to perform legal servies for an
incarcerated client. The respondent failed to respond to reasonable status inquiries, failed to provide
competent legal services, failed to turn over the client’s file promptly and failed to refund unearned,
advanced fees.
12
Page #
In the Matter of: Case Number(s):

Donald D. Beury 07-0-11606 [07-0-14061; 09-0-16604; 10-0-
07557]
Financial Conditions
a. Restitution
[] Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the
payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund ("CSF") has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all
or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the
amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
Payee Principal Amount Interest Accrues From

Kirk and Carolyn Blanchard $1180.00 July, 2006
Van Fields $1500.00 October, 2009
[] Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of
Probation not later than
b. Installment Restitution Payments
Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent
must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or
as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of
probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete
the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
PayeelCSF (as applicable) Minimum Payment Amount Payment Frequency
[] If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court,
the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
c. Client Funds Certificate
If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly
report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified
public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of
California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated
as a "Trust Account" or "Clients’ Funds Account";

Page 13
b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:
A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. ~the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such
client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,
each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any
differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the
reasons for the differences.
c~ Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that
specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period
covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the
Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the
accountant’s certificate described above.
3. The requirements of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of
Professional Conduct.
d. Client Trust Accounting School
Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of
Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School,
within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
(Effective January 1,2011 )

Page 14
In the Matter of: Case number(s):

Donald D, Beury 0?-O-11606 [07-O-14061; 09-O-16604; 10-O-07557]
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the
recitations and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition.
March.-’~/, 2011 ~. Donald D. Beury

Date Respondent’s Signature . Print Name
Date Responde.nt’s Counsel Signature Print Name
MarchZ 9, 201 ! , / Manuel Jimenez

Date Del~ty Trial (Z’~unse|’s Signature Print Name

Signature Page
Page 15
In the Matter of: Case Number(s):

Donald D. Beury 07-O- 11606 [07-O- 14061; 09-O-16604; 10-O-
07557]
ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the
requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any, is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the
Supreme Court.
The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the
DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
[] All Hearing dates are vacated.
On page 4 of the stipulation, box (3)(a) box should be checked re 60 days actual suspension.
On page 13 of the stipulation, Dates re interests accrue, the exact date is missing. The dates should be July
1, 2006 and October 12, 2009.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stiPulation, filed
within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved
stipulation. (See rule 5.58(E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date
of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days af.ter file date. (See~ rule 9.18(a), California Rules of
Court.) dge~of he e~Ba.r~
Date Ju Stat urt
LUCY ARMENDARIZ

Actual Suspension Order
Page
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California¯ I am over the age of eighteen
and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and
County of San Francisco, on April 11,2011, I deposited a true copy of the following
document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND

ORDER APPROVING
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal
Service at San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
DONALD D. BEURY
LAW OFFICES OF DONALD D BEURY
423 F ST STE 104
DAVIS, CA 95616
by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal
Service at , California, addressed as follows:
[--] by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:
by fax transmission, at fax number ¯ No error was reported by the fax machine that I
used.
By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly

labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge
of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California
addressed as follows:
Manuel Jimenez, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct¯ Executed in San Franciscg0galifornia, on
April 11, 2011. /./"
Case Ad~6inistrator
State Bar Court
STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR CLER.K’S USE ONLY:
F|LED'4j$/ '
HEARING DEPARTMENT 359 24 2013

STATE BAR COURT
CLERK'S OFFICE
LOS ANGELES
845 S. Figgroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90017
In the Matter of: Case No(s). 17-O-01111-CV
DONALD DENNIS BEURY,

ORDER ENTERING DEFAULT AND ORDER
Member No. 141733, ENROLLING INACTIVE (RULE 5.80 —
FAILURE TO FILE TIMELY RESPONSE)
A Member of the State Bar.
ORDER ENTERING DEFAULT:
As respondent DONALD DENNIS BEURY (Respondent) failed to timely file a written response after
service of the State Bar’s motion for entry of default, Respondent’s default is entered in this proceeding,
effective upon the filing of this order. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.80(D).) All previously scheduled court
dates are vacated. The court takes judicial notice of Respondent’s official membership records.
Respondent is notified that:

Because you did not timely a response to the notice of disciplinary charges filed in this
file
proceeding, the court has entered your default and deemed the facts alleged in the notice of
disciplinary charges admitted. Except as ordered by the court, you may participate in
these proceedings only if the court sets aside your default. If you fail to timely move to set
aside your default, this court will enter an order recommending your disbarment without
further hearing or proceeding. (See Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.80 et seq.)
ORDER ENROLLING INACTIVE:

As the conditions of Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (e)(1), are met,
Respondent is enrolled as an inactive member of the State Bar of California under Business and Professions
Code section 6007, subdivision (e). The inactive enrollment is effective three (3) days after service of this
order. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.250.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September ,2018 CYN%HIA VALENZUELA

Judge of the State Bar Court
kwiktag 0 241 o7o 144
def_5 80_inact_enrl__fail__rspns (201 80224)

.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § l013a(4)]
I am a Court Specialist of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and
not a party to the within proceedi Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County
.
of Los Angeles, on September 2

2018, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
,
ORDER ENTERING DEFAULT AND ORDER ENROLLING INACTIVE

(RULE 5.80 — FAILURE TO FILE TIMELY RESPONSE)
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
E] by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal
Service at , California, addressed as follows:
XI by certified mail, No. 9414 7266 9904 2111 0317 94, with return receipt requested,
through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
DONALD D. BEURY
1501 INDIA STREET
APT 103-101
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
E] by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:
El by fax transmission, at fax number . No error was reported by the fax machine that
I used.
I:] By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly
labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge
of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:
IX] by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California
addressed as follows:
PATRICE VALLIER-GLASS, Enforcement, Los Angeles
(j
Ihereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California on
septembeagt, 2018
I
Paul Songco
Court Specialist
State Bar Court
kwikt~ e 018 040 OOg

PUBLIC MATTE
JAMES E. TOWERY, No. 74058
2 CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
3
DEPUTY CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
FILED
LAWRENCE J. DAL CERRO, No. 104342 SEP g 1 2010
DONALD R. STEEDMAN, No. 104927 STATE BAR COURT CLEI~’S OFFICE
5 SUPERVISING TRIAL COUNSEL SAN FRANCISCO
ROBIN BRUNE, No. 149481
6 DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL
TAMMY M. ALBERTSEN-MURRAY, No. 154248
7 180 Howard Street
8 Telephone: (415) 538-2218
9
10
STATE BAR COURT
11
12
13
In the Matter of: Case No. 07-O-11606; 07-0-14061;
14
DONALD BEURY, NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES
15 No. 141733,
16
17
NOTICE - FAILURE TO RESPOND!
18
IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN THE
19 TIME ALLOWED BY STATE BAR RULES, INCLUDING EXTENSIONS,
OR IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE STATE BAR COURT TRIAL, (1)
20 YOUR DEFAULT SHALL BE ENTERED, (2) YOU SHALL BE
ENROLLED AS AN INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR AND
21 WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNLESS THE
DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE ON MOTION TIMELY MADE UNDER THE
22 RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE STATE BAR, (3) YOU SHALL NOT
BE ¯ PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE FURTHER IN THESE
23 PROCEEDINGS UNLESS YOUR DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE, AND (4) YOU
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL DISCIPLINE.
24
STATE BAR RULES REQUIRE YOU TO FILE YOUR WRITTEN
25 RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS AFTER
SERVICE.
26
IF YOUR DEFAULT IS ENTERED AND THE DISCIPLINE IMPOSED BY
27 THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS PROCEEDING INCLUDES A PERIOD
OF ACTUAL SUSPENSION, YOU WILL REMAIN SUSPENDED FROM
28
-1-
THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR AT LEAST THE PERIOD OF TIME
1 SPECIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT. IN ADDITION, THE ACTUAL
SUSPENSION WILL CONTINUE UNTIL YOU HAVE REQUESTED,
2 AND THE STATE BAR COURT HAS GRANTED, A MOTION FOR
TERMINATION OF THE ACTUAL SUSPENSION. AS A CONDITION
3 FOR TERMINATING THE ACTUAL SUSPENSION, THE STATE BAR
COURT MAY PLACE YOU ON PROBATION AND REQUIRE YOU TO
4 COMPLY WITH SUCH CONDITIONS OF PROBATION AS THE STATE
BAR COURT DEEMS APPROPRIATE. SEE RULE 205, RULES OF
5 PROCEDURE FOR STATE BAR COURT PROCEEDINGS.
8 JURISDICTION
9 Donald Beury ("Respondent") was admitted to the practice of law in the State of
10 California on September 29, 1989, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is
12
COUNT ONE
13
Case No. 07-O-11606
15
1. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), by
16
17
follows:
18
2. Kirk and Carolyn Blanchard hired respondent in July, 2006 to obtain legal
19
guardianship of their minor grandchildren. Kirk and Carolyn Blanchard paid respondent the sun
20
of $1,500 for the representation.
21
3. Respondent also represented the Blanchard’s daughter, Angelita Griffin, who was the
22
mother of the Blanchard’s grandchildren related to the guardianship.
23
4. On or about July 20, 2006, respondent filed for dissolution on behalf of Angelita
24
Griffin, entitled, Angelita Griffin v. Michael Griffin, case no. 06FL05374, filed in Superior
25
Court, County of Sacramento. On this date, respondent also filed a Declaration Under Uniform
26
i Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) in which he identified himself as
27
attorney for Angelita Griffin and Kirk and Carolyn Blanchard.
28
-2-
1 5, On or about December 14, 2006, respondent sent the Blanchards a Petition for
2 Appointment of Guardian of Minor, and directed them to sign the documents and return them to
3 him. Respondent identified himself as counsel for the Blanchards in the petition. The
4 Blanchards obtained the signatures of both parents, consenting to the guardianship, in or about
5 December 25, 2006.

6 6. Kirk Blanchard spoke to respondent in or about January, 2007, and respondent ~
7 them that the matter woul~d be filed promptly.
8 7. Thereafter, respondent took no action to complete the guardianship.
9 8. The Blanchards terminated respondent’s services in or about March 6, 2007.

10 9. By failing to complete the guardianship on behalf of the Blanchards, respondent failed
11 to perform with competence, in willful, reckless and repeated violation of Rules of Professional
12 Conduct, rule 3-110(A).

13
COUNT TWO
14
Case No. 07-O-11606
15 Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-310(C)( 1 )
[Potential Conflict - Representing Multiple Clients]
16
17 10. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-310(C)(1), by
18 accepting representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the clients
19 potentially conflicted without the informed written consent of each client, as follows:
21 12. The interests of the Blanchards and Angelita Griffin potentially conflicted. The
22 Blanchards, by seeking guardianship of their grandchildren, would, in effect, be curtailing
23 Angelita Griffin’s parental rights. Angetita Griffin signed her consent to the guardianship, but
24 this did not obviate the potential conflict.
25 13. Respondent did not obtain the informed written consent of the Blanchards, and/or
26 Angelita Griffin, to the potential conflict.
27
28
-3-
1 14. By failing to obtain the informed written consent of the Blanchards and Angelita
2 Griffin to the potential conflict, respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rul~
3 3-310(C)(1).
4
COUNT THREE
5
Case No. 07-0-11606
7
8 15. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2), by
9 failing to refund promptly any part of a feepaid in advance that has not been earned, as follows:
11 17. On or about March 9, 2007, Kirk Blanchard called respondent’s office and spoke to
12 both respondent and respondent’s wife and informed him of their request for a refund of their
13 fee. Respondent was aware of the Blanchard’s request for a refund.
14 18. Respondent’s fees in the Blanchard matter were not earned. He did not file the
15 guardianship papers. Any work he performed was preliminary in nature and provided no benefit
16 to the client.
17 19. Respondent failed to refund $1,500 to the Blanchards.
18 20. By failing to refund the $1,500 to the Blanchards, respondent failed to refund

21
COUNT FOUR
22
Case No. 07-0-14601
24
25 21. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), by

26 intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failing to perform legal services with competence, as
27 follows:
28
-4-
1 22. In or about April, 2005, Kathleen Noblet (hereinafter, "Noblet") hired respondent to
2 negotiate her shares of ownership of Professional Dynamics Company, who was then also her
3 employer. Respondent filed suit on her behalf, entitled Noblet v. Anders, Professional Dynamics,
4 Inc., case no. 06AS00005, filed in Superior Court, County of Sacramento. Respondent rmmed
5 seven causes of action in the suit, including allegations that Professional Dynamics failed to pay
6 Noblet one half of all the profits as promised; that Prbfessional Dynamics failed to make
7 payments into a 401K plan for Noblet ros promised; that Noblet purchased a ten percent interest
8 in the corporation and was entitled to dividends; and constructive termination of Noblet.
9 23. Respondent failed to perform on behalf of Noblet by actions including, but not
10 limited to, the following:
11 i) respondent failed to follow Noblet’s express instructions, given to him on or aboul

12 August 10, 2007, that he, respondent, not submit additional materials and/or
13 pleadings to the Court or the opposing counsel without first obtaining Noblet’s
14 consent; respondent sent a Motion to Confirm Settlement Agreement and
15 Conditional Settlement Agreement to the opposing counsel, Mary Farrell, on or
16 about August 20, 2007 in contravention to his client’s instructions;
17 ii) respondent interfered with his client’s settlement negotiations when he filed, in or
18 about October 4 2007, on his own behalf, an Opposition to Motion to Revise
19 Settlement, which was in direct contravention to the settlement agreement because
20 he requested that the settlement funds be issued to himself and his client jointly,
21 when the written settlement obtained on July 10, 2007 specified that the monies be
22 issued soley to the client. This was an effort, on respondent’s part, to use the
23 pending litigation to address his own fee dispute with his client. Nobler had
24 terminated respondent’s services in August, 2007, and respondent had signed a
25 substitution of attorney on or about September 7, 2007;
26 iii) respondent failed to protect his client’s interests in the settlement proceeds,
27 because he negotiated a settlement which called for Nobler to convey to the
28
-5-
1 defendants a Release of All Claims and Dismissal with Prejudice of the action
2 within ten days, but the payment of the stated settlement amount was paid over
3 time, with $200,000 paid at the rate of $10,000 at signing and $5,000 per month
4 thereafter. There was no specification of any method of enforcement or remedy if
5 Professional Dynamics failed to make the agreed upon payment.

6 24. By failing to appropriately designate an expert for trial; by failing to abide by his
7 client’s instructions regarding communication to the opposing counsel; by interfering with his
8 client’s completion of the case by filing self-serving pleading in the case after he was terminated.
9 and by failing to protect Noblet’s enforcement of the settlement agreement, respondent failed to
10 perform with competence, in willful, reckless, and repeated violation of the Rules of
11 Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A),

12
COUNT FIVE
13
Case No. 07-0-14601
14 Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-300
[Acquiring Interest Adverse to Client]
15
16 25. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-300, by entering
17 into a business transaction with a client knowingly acquiring a possessory and pecuniary
18 interest adv_erse to a client without complying with the requirements that the transaction or
19 acquisition and its terms were fair and reasonable to the client; the client was advised in writing
20 that the client may seek the advice of an independent lawyer of the client’s choice and the client
21 was given a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice; as follows:

22 26. The allegations of Count Four are hereby incorporated by reference.
23 27. On or about April, 2005, the parties executed a fee agreement for an hourly fee of
24 $200.
25 28. Respondent’s fee agreement specified that he "has a right to lien and take personal
26 property that is inthe attorney’s possession for unpaid fees." The fee agreement specified that
27
28
-6-
1 "the client is advised that she has the right to consult with an independent outside attorney and
2 expressly waives the right to seek advice from independent counsel on the issue of liens."
3 29. Respondent did not give Noblet a reasonable opportunity to seek advice from
4 independent counsel before agreeing that respondent could have a lien against the personal
5 property in his possession.
6 30:Respondent’s fee agreement was not fair and reasonable because he specified that
7 Noblet was waiving her right to a Rule of Professianal Conduct, rule 3-300(B).
8 31. By failing to give Noblet a reasonable opportunity to seek advice from independent
9 counsel, but instead stating that she was waiving that right; and by seeking to have Noblet waive
10 a provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, respondent willfully violated Rules of
11 Professional Conduct, rule 3-300(A) and (B).

12
COUNT SIX
13
Case No. 07-0-14601
14 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(e)
[Failure to Maintain Confidentiality]
15
16 32. Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(e), by
17 failing to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve
18 the secrets, of his or her client, as follows:
19 33. The allegations of Counts Four and Five are hereby incorporated by reference.
20 34. In his Opposition to Motion to Revise Settlement, filed on or about October 2, 2007,
21 respondent stated that Nobler was satisfied with the settlement; Nobler refused to pay her
22 attorney’s fees of $22,445.00; Noblet refused to pay outstanding costs of $4,962.44; and Noblet
23 instructed respondent to prepare a motion which included instructions that the settlement checks
24 would be payable directly to Noblet.
25 35. By including, in his pleadings, information about the confidential attorney-client
26 relationship between himself and Nobler, respondent failed to maintain inviolate the confidences
27 of his client, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(e).
28
-7-
COUNT EIGHT
3 Case No. 07-0-14601
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a)
4 [Failure to Comply With Laws]
5 36. Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a), by
6 failing to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, as follows:
7 37. The allegations of Counts Five through Seven a~e hereby incorporated by reference.
8 38. Respondent owes a common law fiduciary duty of loyalty to Noblet.
9 39. Respondent’s fee agreement did not give him a possessory right to the settlement
10 funds in the Noblet matter. These funds were not in his possession. Respondent had an hourly
11 fee agreement, not a contingency fee.
12 40. On or about July 10, 2007, respondent negotiated, and executed, a Stipulation for
13 Settlement which specified that Professional Dynamics shall pay $200,000 to Noblet. The words
14 "and to his/her attorney" were crossed out, as inapplicable to the settlement agreement. The
15 settlement agreement that respondent negotiated and agreed to on behalf of his client did not
16 include a payment of the settlement monies from the defendant to himself.
17 41. In respondent’s Opposition to Motion to Revise Settlement Agreement to Extinguish
18 Attorney Lien, respondent requested that the court segregate $27,407.44 in a separate interest
19 bearing account, in contravention to the settlement agreement that respondent executed on behalt
20 of Noblet. Respondent was motivated by an effort to secure payment of his own attorney’s fees,
21 contrary to his fee agreement and the settlement agreement that he signed on behalfofNoblet.
22 42. Respondent’s actions were contrary to, and interfered with, his former client’s
23 settlement negotiations, which were still in progress.
24 43. By filing pleadings in Noblet’s case, attempting to re-negotiate the settlement to his
25 own personal advantage, respondent violated his duty of loyalty to Noblet, and thereby failed to
26 support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, in willful violation of
27 Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a).
28
-8-
1
2
YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF THE STATE BAR
3 COURT FINDS, PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
SECTION 6007(c), THAT YOUR CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIAL
4 THREAT OF HARM TO THE INTERESTS OF YOUR CLIENTS OR TO
THE PUBLIC, YOU MAY BE INVOLUNTARILY ENROLLED AS AN
5 INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR. YOUR INACTIVE
ENROLLMENT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO ANY DISCIPLINE
6 RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT. SEE RULE 101(c), RULES OF
PROCEDURE OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA.
7
NOTICE - COST ASSESSMENT!
8
IN THE EVENT THESE PROCEDURES RESULT IN PUBLIC
9 DISCIPLINE, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTS
PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.10. SEE RULE 280, RULES OF
12
Respectfully submitted,
13
14
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
15
16
DATED: September 17, 2010
17
Robin Brune
18 Deputy Trial Counsel
19 Assigned Deputy Trial Counsel:

Tammy M. Albertsen-Murray
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY CERTIFIED MAlL
2
CASE NUMBER: 07-0-11606; 07-0-14061
3
I, the undersigned, over the age of eighteen (18) years, whose business address and place o:
4 employment is the State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, California 94105,
declare that I am not a party to the within action; that I am readily familiar with the State Bar ot
5 California’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United
States Postal Service; that in the ordinary_ course of the State Bar of California’s practice,
6 correspondence collected and processed by the State Bar of California would be deposited with
7 service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope ot
package is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit. That in
8 accordance with the practice of the State Bar of California for collection and processing of mail.
I deposited or placed for collection and mailing in the City and County of San Francisco, on th~
9 date shown below, a true copy of the within
I0
Notice of Disciplinary Charges
ii in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing as certified mail, return receipt requested,
Article No.: 7160 3901 9848 6630 4100 at San Francisco, on the date shown below, addressec
12
to:
13 Daniel W. Hager
351 California St., Ste~ 900
14
16
N/A
17
18
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing i:
19
true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California, on the date shown below.
20
21
DATED: ~/,)[//~’ SIGNED:
athleen N. Kehoe
22
Declarant
23
24
25
26
27
28

Beury Donald 141733 California State Bar Discipline Binder4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beury Donald 141733 California State Bar Discipline Binder4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

kwiktag ~ 018 041 794

16 In the Matter of." Case Number 09-O-16604

20 NOTICE - FAILURE TO RESPOND!

21 IF YOU FAIL TO FILE A WRITTEN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICE

6 The State Bar of California alleges:

10 currently a member of the State Bar of California.

2 again advised respondent to file a response to the divorce.

6 respondent’s failure to file a response to the divorce petition.

8 Declaration Regarding Service of Declaration of Disclosure and Income and Expense

11 attorney on or about December 9, 2009.2

21 13. On or about June 9, 2010, Fields terminated respondent and substituted in

22 attorney Raquel M. Silva on his behalf.

3 incurred) when he contacted the Court directly in or about June 2, 2010.

willful violation of Business & Professions Code § 6068(m).

11 of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).

5 until on or about February 24, 2010, a delay of one year.

7 intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence, in

8 willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).

2 YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF THE STATE BAR

7 NOTICE - COST ASSESSMENT!

2 CASE NUMBERS: 09-0-16604 & 10-O-07557

21 Dated: January 7, 2011

1 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

11 currently a member of the State Bar of California.

5 December 25, 2006.

8 7. Thereafter, respondent took no action to complete the guardianship.

9 8. The Blanchards terminated respondent’s services in or about March 6, 2007.

12 Conduct, rule 3-110(A).

20 11. The allegations of Count One are hereby incorporated by reference.

22 Blanchards, by seeking guardianship of their grandchildren, would, in effect, be curtailing

24 this did not obviate the potential conflict.

26 Angelita Griffin, to the potential conflict.

10 16. The allegations of Count One are hereby incorporated by reference.

13 fee. Respondent was aware of the Blanchard’s request for a refund.

17 19. Respondent failed to refund $1,500 to the Blanchards.

20 of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2).

25 21. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), by

11 i) respondent failed to follow Noblet’s express instructions, given to him on or aboul

18 about October 4 2007, on his own behalf, an Opposition to Motion to Revise

19 Settlement, which was in direct contravention to the settlement agreement because

5 Professional Dynamics failed to make the agreed upon payment.

11 Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A),

21 was given a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice; as follows:

5 property in his possession.

10 a provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, respondent willfully violated Rules of

11 Professional Conduct, rule 3-300(A) and (B).

18 the secrets, of his or her client, as follows:

24 would be payable directly to Noblet.

25 35. By including, in his pleadings, information about the confidential attorney-client

19 Assigned Deputy Trial Counsel:

16 In the Matter of." Case Number 09-O-16604

20 NOTICE - FAILURE TO RESPOND!

21 IF YOU FAIL TO FILE A WRITTEN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICE

6 The State Bar of California alleges:

10 currently a member of the State Bar of California.

2 again advised respondent to file a response to the divorce.

6 respondent’s failure to file a response to the divorce petition.

8 Declaration Regarding Service of Declaration of Disclosure and Income and Expense

11 attorney on or about December 9, 2009.2

21 13. On or about June 9, 2010, Fields terminated respondent and substituted in

22 attorney Raquel M. Silva on his behalf.

3 incurred) when he contacted the Court directly in or about June 2, 2010.

willful violation of Business & Professions Code § 6068(m).

11 of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1).