A Small Claim
The California State Bar Court Review Department has recommended disbarment of an attorney for misconduct in a small claim matter
This disciplinary proceeding originated with Pamela Gayle Lacher’s refusal to pay a judgment stemming from an action in small claims court. After multiple motions, appeals, and imposed sanctions, what began as a judgment for a few thousand dollars has now climbed to over $160,000, and culminated in a judgment of contempt against her. Throughout this entire process, occurring over an 18-year period, she has remained intransigent and determined to use her knowledge of the legal system to delay and to avoid payment of any amount of the sanctions and costs ordered by the court. She has progressed from the small claims court through the superior courts, and into the court of appeal, often making frivolous claims.
This is now her third disciplinary proceeding. She is charged with failing to obey court orders, failing to maintain respect due to the courts, maintaining unjust actions, encouraging actions from a corrupt motive, failing to report judicial sanctions, and commingling funds from a client trust account (CTA). The hearing judge found culpability under all nine alleged counts and recommended Lacher be actually suspended for nine months and until the superior court judgment is paid.
On review, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar (OCTC) argues Lacher should be disbarred. Lacher asserts she is not culpable of any of the nine counts, but argues that if culpability is affirmed, then the 90-day actual suspension imposed in a prior discipline is “more than sufficient.” After an independent review of the record, (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.12), we find it appropriate to dismiss subpart (a) of counts one and two, and counts three, four, and five. We find culpability as charged for the remaining allegations. Even though we find fewer counts of misconduct than the hearing judge, Lacher’s pattern of misconduct merits a more serious discipline. Considering the standards, relevant case law, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we recommend Lacher’s disbarment.
The claim
Much of the alleged misconduct in this matter stems from a dispute between East County,Investigations (ECI) and Lacher, beginning in 2001, and lasting for over 18 years. (East County Investigations v. Lacher (Super. Ct. San Diego County, No. SE007689.) ECI sued Lacher in small claims court for services it had rendered to Lacher, and the court awarded judgment to ECI. Lacher appealed. On January 11, 2002, the superior court awarded ECI a judgment of $2,793.85, costs of $85, attorney’s fees of $150, and interest. In retaliation, Lacher filed an action in superior court in June 2002 (Super. Ct. San Diego County, No. GIC791012). The superior court granted ECI’s demurrer and anti-SLAPP motion. The court awarded judgment against Lacher and her mother for $7,687.90. Numerous appeals followed.
Sanction
Lacher’s lack of remorse and argument that she is not culpable for violating any court order is troubling. She has fought against ECI relentlessly for 18 years and the courts have repeatedly told her she is wrong, yet she refuses to listen. In addition, courts have found that she has pursued her causes only to harass or delay payment of what she owes. She has shown an unwillingness to conform to ethical responsibilities. The mitigating circumstances pale in comparison to the aggravation and the harm that Lacher has caused. Public protection requires that Lacher be disbarred.
An earlier sanction recommendation is linked here. (Mike Frisch)