“MORAL TURPITUDE” – New Revised Bar Complaint Against DA candidate Lenore Albert!


 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

.

.

.

If you’re interested in Lenore Albert, go look at this PDF: .  The Cal Bar seems to have reinstated her — but it may be only so that they can have jurisdiction over her as a member of the bar, so they can bring an even stronger charge against her (see Count 7 in the pdf.)  Or it could be something else — we’ll find out!

[Note: there’s chatter out there that Lenore’s license is no longer suspended — retroactive to late March — as the State Bar seems no longer to be sure that she has to repay the penalties assessed against her for, among other things, ripping off her clients due to her bankruptcy filing.  Read the VOC story by Tho Vo for one attorney’s doubting that they can even do that without an order from the State Court.

Why they did so just before the election isn’t clear, but it would be consistent with a settlement with Lenore that gives her a short-term pre-election boost in exchange for more long-term pain.

What IS clear is that the State Bar has came out with a new amended complaint against Lenore, now accusing her of MORAL TURPITUDE!  (Look at Count 7.)  And, as the first lines of the complaint call her “a member of the bar” it’s also plausible that she has been reinstated so that they will continue to have jurisdiction over her for the amended complaint!

It’s also notable that even if she could discharge the OLD penalties assessed against her through her bankruptcy, any further penalties assessed for non-cooperation would not be discharged by the existing bankruptcy!  Again, saving some pain before the election in exchange for MUCH MORE PAIN afterwards.

Here’s a cut and paste of the raw PDF — unfortunately including pagination and coming from uncorrected OCR that we’ll clean up later. I was not going to post this before the primary because it seems like it would be beating a dead horse — but if the horse is claiming not to be dead, and the walrus agrees, then I suppose that it’s newsworthy after all.]

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
FILED STEVEN J. MOAWAD, No. 190358 CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
MELANIE J. LAWRENCE, No. 230102 DEPUTY CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
RIZAMARI C. SITTON, No. 138319  CLERK’S OFFICE ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL LOS ANGELES
ANTHONY J. GARCIA, No. 171419 SUPERVISING ATTORNEY
TIMOTHY G. BYER, No. 172472 DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL

845 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90017-2515
Telephone: (213) 765-1325
STATE BAR COURT HEARING DEPARTMENT – LOS ANGELES
In the Matter of LENORE LUANN ALBERT
A Member of the State Bar. )
Case Nos. 16—O—12958, 16-0-10548)
FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF No. 210876, ) DISCIPLINARY CHARGES
NOTICE – FAILURE TO RESPOND!
IF YOU FAIL TO FILE A WRITTEN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER SERVICE, OR IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE STATE BAR COURT TRIAL:
(1) YOUR DEFAULT WILL BE ENTERED;
(2) YOUR STATUS WILL BE CHANGED TO INACTIVE AND YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW;
(3) YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE FURTHER IN THESE PROCEEDINGS UNLESS YOU MAKE A TIMELY MOTION AND THE DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE, AND;
(4) YOU SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL DISCIPLINE. SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU FAIL TO TIMELY MOVE TO SET ASIDE OR VACATE YOUR DEFAULT, THIS COURT WILL ENTER AN ORDER RECOMMENDING YOUR DISBARMENT WITHOUT FURTHER HEARING OR PROCEEDING. SEE RULE 5.80 ET SEQ., RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA.

The State Bar of California alleges:

JURISDICTION

1. Lenore Luann Albert (“respondent”) was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on December 5, 2000, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.

COUNT ONE
Case No. 16-O-12958

Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A)
[Failure to Perform with Competence]
2. On or about October 17, 2014, Nira Schwartz-Woods employed respondent to
perform legal services, namely to represent her in a prospective patent infringement litigation, and to associate with other counsel in furtherance of the patent litigation, which respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform with competence, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A), by failing associate with other counsel in furtherance of the patent litigation and failing to take any other action on the client’s behalf to advance her legal interests.
Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3)
[Failure to Render Accounts of Client Funds]
3. On or about October 17, 2014, respondent received on behalf of respondent’s
client, Nira Schwartz-Woods, the sum of $20,000 as advanced fees for legal services to be performed. Respondent thereafter failed to render an appropriate accounting to the client regarding those funds following the c1ient’s request for such accounting or refund upon the termination of respondent’s employment on or about April 5, 2016, in willful violation of the
COUNT TWO
Case No. 16-O-12958
Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4—100(B)(3).

COUNT THREE
Case No. 16-O-12958
Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2)
[Failure to Refund Unearned Fees]
4. On or about October 17, 2014, respondent received advance fees of $20,000 on
behalf of a client, Nira Schwartz-Woods, to represent her in a prospective patent infringement litigation, and to associate with other counsel in furtherance of the patent litigation. Respondent failed to perform the legal services she agreed to perform for the client, and therefore did not cam any of the advanced fees paid. Respondent failed to refund promptly, upon respondent’s termination of employment on or about April 5, 2016 any part of the $20,000 fee to the client,

in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3—700(D)(2).
COUNT FOUR
Case No. 16-O~12958
Business and Professions Code section 6068(i)
[F ailure to Cooperate in State Bar Investigation]

5. Respondent failed to cooperate and participate in a disciplinary investigation
pending against respondent by failing to provide a substantive response to the State Bar’s letter of June 3, 2016, which respondent received, that requested respondent’s response to the allegations of misconduct being investigated in case number 16—O—12958, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(i).

COUNT FIVE
Case No. 16-0-1295 8
Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1)
[Failure to Release File]

6. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1), by
failing to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property, as follows: On February 11, 2016, and on July 1, 2017, respondent’s client, Nira Schwartz-Woods, instructed respondent to release her file materials and documentation to her. To date, respondent has not released to Schwartz—Woods her papers and property.

7. By not releasing Schwartz-Woods’s papers and property to her at SchwartzWoods’s
request, respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the
client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property.

COUNT SIX
Case No. 16-0-12958
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(d)
[Seeking to Mislead a Judge]

8. Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(d), by
seeking to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law, as follows: on or about November 4, 2016, respondent attached as “Exhibit E” to her “Motion to Quash Subpoena for Non—Trust Fund Banking Records” which she filed with the State Bar Court in State Bar Case No. 16-O-12958, a document which she falsely declared under the penalty of perjury to be a “true and correct copy of my retainer with Nira Woods for $20,000.00” which she knew to be a false document at the time she made the declaration and provided it to the State Bar Court.

9. By filing with the State Bar Court a document which she knew to be false, and by
falsely declaring under the penalty of perjury that it was a “true and correct copy of my retainer with Nira Woods for $20,000.00,” respondent sought to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.

COUNT SEVEN
Case No. 16-0-12958
Business and Professions Code, section 6106
[Moral Turpitude: Misrepresentation to State Bar]

10. Respondent intentionally violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106,
by committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows: on or about November 4, 2016, respondent attached as “Exhibit E” to her “Motion to Quash Subpoena for Non-Trust Fund Banking Records” which she filed with the State Bar Court in State Bar Case No. 16-O-12958, a document which she falsely declared under the penalty of perjury to be a “true and correct copy of my retainer with Nira Woods for $20,000.00” which she knew to be a false document at the time she made the declaration and provided it to the State Bar Court.

11. By providing to the State Bar Court a document falsely purporting to be “true and
correct,” which respondent knew to be false at the time she made the declaration and provided it to the State Bar Court, respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.

12. A violation of section 6106 may result from intentional conduct or grossly negligent conduct. Respondent is charged with committing intentional misrepresentation. However, should the evidence at trial demonstrate that respondent committed misrepresentation as a result of gross negligence, respondent must still be found culpable of violating section 6106 because misrepresentation through gross negligence is a lesser included offense of intentional misrepresentation.

COUNT EIGHT
Case No. 16-O-10548
Business and Professions Code, section 6103

[Failure to Obey a Court Order]
13. Respondent disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring respondent to do
or forbear an act connected with or in the course of respondent’s profession which respondent
ought in good faith to do or forbear by failing to comply with the c0urt’s minute order dated
February 10, 2015 , which required that respondent pay a sanction of $875 in the case entitled
Bonnie L. Kent and Teri Sue Kent Love in their capacity as Joint Trustees of the James Kyle
Kent, Jr. “Spousal Trust” et al. v. Fin City Foods, Inc., et al., Orange County Superior Court
case number 30-2014—O0713792—CU-MC—CJ C within 30 days of service of notice of ruling, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6103.
\\\
\\\
\\\
DATED: May 14, 2018 By:

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
G. Byer


About Greg Diamond

Somewhat verbose worker's rights and government accountability attorney, residing in northwest Brea. General Counsel of CATER, the Coalition of Anaheim Taxpayers for Economic Responsibility, a non-partisan group of people sick of local corruption. Deposed as Northern Vice Chair of DPOC in April 2014 when his anti-corruption and pro-consumer work in Anaheim infuriated the Building Trades and Teamsters in spring 2014, who then worked with the lawless and power-mad DPOC Chair to eliminate his internal oversight. Occasionally runs for office to challenge some nasty incumbent who would otherwise run unopposed. (Someday he might pick a fight with the intent to win rather than just dent someone. You'll know it when you see it.) He got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012 and in 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002. None of his pre-putsch writings ever spoke for the Democratic Party at the local, county, state, national, or galactic level, nor do they now. A family member co-owns a business offering campaign treasurer services to Democratic candidates and the odd independent. He is very proud of her. He doesn't directly profit from her work and it doesn't affect his coverage. (He does not always favor her clients, though she might hesitate to take one that he truly hated.) He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)