Third Time No Charm
The California State Bar Court Review Department has recommended disbarment for unauthorized practice in federal court
This is respondent Lenore LuAnn Albert’s third discipline matter since she obtained her law license in December 2000. Her first discipline occurred in 2018 and resulted in a 30-day actual suspension. The second discipline matter resulted in a six-month actual suspension issued in 2019. Both suspensions continued until April 2021, once all costs associated with each suspension were paid. The instant matter involves Albert’s actions, while suspended by the California Supreme Court, in two cases pending in the United States District Court (USDC) for the Eastern District of California (EDCA). Albert was charged in six counts that alleged failure to comply with the EDCA Local Rules, the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) in both California and the EDCA, and UPL as moral turpitude. The hearing judge found culpability on all counts, except moral turpitude. The hearing judge further determined that even though this is Albert’s third discipline matter with disbarment presumed, disbarment was not warranted as Albert presented sufficiently compelling mitigation that clearly predominated. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, tit. 4, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, std. 1.8(b).) The hearing judge recommended an actual suspension of 18 months.
Both Albert and the Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar (OCTC) appeal the hearing judge’s decision. OCTC seeks disbarment. Albert argues for a dismissal of all counts or, in the alternative, no actual suspension and a probationary period of six months. Alternatively, she seeks a reproval or an admonition. Both parties challenge various determinations regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances. After an independent review of the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.12), we find Albert culpable on all six counts, and that mitigation does not substantially outweigh aggravation. We find Albert’s disbarment is called for under our disciplinary standards and applicable case law, and we so recommend.
Findings
While suspended in both Albert I and Albert II, Albert held herself out as being entitled to practice law in the Kilgore litigation, in violation of section 6126. Between August and November 2019, Albert electronically filed multiple Kilgore litigation pleadings she drafted with Westmoreland. Albert listed herself as an attorney, used “Esq.” following her name, and listed herself above Westmoreland. She used her State Bar number. Albert signed pleadings as counsel of record, and her signature line was above Westmoreland’s. These are all clear signals she held herself out as an attorney on the matter. This course of conduct violated section 6126.
And
The record clearly and convincingly supports the section 6126 UPL charge in count four.
Albert held herself out as being entitled to practice law in the Avalos litigation while suspended. She electronically filed the Grewals’ answer to the complaint, identified herself as an attorney, and she used “Esq.” and her State Bar number following her name. Albert also listed herself in the caption above Westmoreland. Albert signed the pleading as counsel of record, and her signature line was above Westmoreland’s. Albert electronically filed the answer, not Westmoreland, and therefore knew the answer contained indicia that she was an attorney. The unexplained asterisk next to Albert’s State Bar number on pleadings does not alter the reasonable conclusion that she held herself out as an attorney entitled to practice law. In addition, Albert made affirmative statements that she represented the Grewals beyond filing the answer. Namely, in her correspondence with Magistrate Judge McAuliffe, R. Gonzalez, and V. Gonzales, Albert stated she and Westmoreland represented the Grewals and she referred to herself and Westmoreland as co-counsel. Hence, Albert held herself out as entitled to practice law when she was not.
(Mike Frisch)