No Hearing In Reciprocal Discipline Matter

The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board ordered reciprocal disbarment based on a sanction imposed in California, described by the California State Bar Court Review Department

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.

Here

The panel denied respondent’s motion to expand the record and request for a hearing finding that respondent was afforded due process in the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the California State Bar, and that it would not be clearly inappropriate to impose comparable discipline in Michigan.

(Mike Frisch)