The California State Bar Court Review Department has proposed a 15-month suspension

One count involved filing mechanics liens

Even though McCann was unfamiliar with the mechanic’s lien process and had doubts as to the propriety of the liens, he took almost no steps to learn whether Comer’s demands to record the four liens were legally justified. “The purpose of a mechanic[’s] lien is to prevent unjust enrichment of a property owner at the expense of laborers or material suppliers.” (Basic Modular Facilities, Inc. v. Ehsanipour (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1483 [discussion of prior mechanic’s lien provisions].) None of the filed liens served such a purpose. Further, McCann knew ownership of the Pocket Road property was in dispute between Comer and Mojonnier and that Comer possibly wanted to cloud the title of the property. Section 6068, subdivision (c)  requires more of McCann than acting as a scribe for an insistent and demanding client. McCann was also on notice following Evers’s letters that he did not comply with the applicable Civil
Code provisions. Yet, McCann took no corrective action. He simply let Mojonnier incur costs for the improvidently and improperly filed liens.

We also note the superior court judge held that the mechanic’s liens were unenforceable as a matter of law due to McCann’s failure to give Mojonnier the statutorily required preliminary notice. In addition, McCann, Dillard, and Comer did not meet the statutory professions that entitled them to file a lien, as found by the superior court. We give a strong presumption of validity to a superior court’s findings when supported by substantial evidence. (Maltaman v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 924, 947.) Here, the evidence on which the superior court relied and on which we rely is essentially the same: the liens themselves. Notably, McCann did not contest Mojonnier’s petition and did not appeal the ruling, which indicates to us that both he and Comer understood by the time of the superior court hearing that the liens were not warranted under the law. Finally, contrary to McCann’s repeated arguments, the ownership of the Pocket Road property did not insulate him from providing notice, because Civil Code section 8200, subdivision (a)(1), also refers to reputed owners, which would include Mojonnier. The mechanic’s liens McCann recorded simply did not comply with the statutory framework. Clear and convincing evidence exists in the record to conclude that McCann is culpable as charged.

But not grossly negligent or dishonert

We find the record demonstrates McCann held an honest and sincere, but mistaken and unreasonable, belief that the mechanic’s lien process allowed him to claim his attorney fees and the Dillard loan as services because the dollar amounts were related to the Pocket Road property. Thus, his actions do not rise to moral turpitude.