.
.
.
Suspension (not of Lenore, but this was one of the few public domain photos of “suspension” that this blog considered printable in this context. This blog advises against looking up images of “suspension” generally.)
An opinion by the California State Bar in the disciplinary matter of public figure and candidate for CDP Chair Lenore Albert found her culpable on six of eight charges and ordered recommended (among other things) that she face one year of actual suspension, to begin once a Supreme Court order comes out approving of its ruling. That would come after an internal appeal, if Lenore wishes. (We’re not asking Lenore whether she is going to appeal; we simply presume that she will.) At that point, the case will go to the Supreme Court for disposition. They seem to accept such recommendations pretty routinely, but presumably Lenore will fight being suspended so long as any flesh remains on her bones.
Page 1 of opinion outlining charges and sanctions.
Lenore Albert (she is apparently no longer using the surname Sheridan, at least here) was charged with misconduct in two client matters, one involving Dr. Nira Schwartz-Woods (where she was ordered to make restitution of $20,000 of fees in a patent case) and one involving Fin City Foods (where she was found to have defied a court order regarding paying damages to an opposing party.)
Of the charges visible in the graphic above, the court found no culpability on Charges 6 and 7, which involve her submitting to the court a putative retainer agreement that the client denied ever having received or signed. The court declared that it could not conclude that it had clear and convincing evidence that this was an intentional attempt to defraud the court.
Suspension terms recommended to California Supreme Court.
The full opinion may be found at this link: 16-O-12958.
Note that neither of these charges involve Lenore’s involvement in representing victims of foreclosure.
Note that, presuming that the California Supreme Court follows the State Bar Court’s recommendations, Lenore remains suspended until she makes restitution of $20,000 in client fees (plus interest). The specific wording is that “Respondent makes restitution” of that amount to her former client. I don’t know how this interacts with her personal bankruptcy. The language would seem to rule out simply having someone else make that restitution (which is after all supposed to require some sacrifice on her part to serve as a sanction. As I read it, it seemingly requires that she have possession of that money — and the moment she takes possession of money from anyone else, absent a contrary court order (which I presume she would seek), it belongs to the bankruptcy trustee, not to her. She could presumably argue that she needs to have an income in order to raise the money both to pay bankruptcy creditors and to pay restitution here, presuming that (unlike the amounts levied against her her previous disciplinary case) this assessment will not be erased by the bankruptcy itself, as it comes after it. But the trustee will have to judge whether she will be able to make much money as an attorney anyway after two attorney suspensions.
I do not expect this to much affect her race for California Democratic Party Chair, however, if only because there simply aren’t that many positive integers lower than “eight.”
*OK, in other news: Remember Lost Angels, Wild Angels and all the other Outlaw Biker Movies of the 60’s and 70’s like Billy Jack and Trial of Billy Jack. Well, NOW they want to take away the logo of the famous 2nd banana Mongols? What kind of nonsense is that? What about the Pagans? Or Hells Angels? Good grief, pretty soon it won’t be cool to even wear a Che Guevara hat or T-shirt anymore! Anyway, we protest! How many deaths have been attributed to which Biker Gangs? We need stats! Do the Mongols really have more deaths on their record than anyone else…. or does the Hell’s Angels, just pay off politicians better? We are confused! Heck, whatever happened to Huey Newton and the Black Panther party? Didn’t they have a motorcycle club too? Oh well, what can you do….it’s all progress right? We are going to miss seeing their colors on the freeways of California however! Now, all we have are a bunch of fat old guys on Harley’s carrying American or MIA Flags on the 4th of July! We still miss seeing those Biker babes with the Plumber butt low-rider jeans, riding on the back! With only their Jean vests and no bra! Pretty exciting! Least we forget “Born Losers” and “Biker Zombies from Detroit”!
Here is what I don’t get. Lenore Albert prior to this had a fine of like $5k plus interest…why not borrow 5k or 8k or even 25k. Given all her self proclaimed success stories she ought a have that kind of money, or at least some people who loan it to her.
Then work out a payment arrangement with the Bar and she would be back practicing tomorrow.
She must not want to have an active license, and she must want to go through bankruptcy for some reasons. I refuse to believe the face story which would have us believe she is so inept that she couldn’t figure this out on her own.
She presumably hoped that bankruptcy would wipe out the $20,000 debt owed to Nira Woods (discussed in the opinion), and (depending on debtor priority) other judgments against her as well. She wants both to enjoy the benefits of bankruptcy AND to have an active license. When the State Bar reinstated her and vacated its earlier orders of punishment, it arguably took the debt to Woods (as a judgment debtor) out of bankruptcy protection The argument that it didn’t would presumably depend on whether one credits the Supreme Court acceptance of that recommendation, pre-bankruptcy (if memory serves), as having successfully established the debt. Lenore argued strenuously (and in ways that would probably bind her from switching her position) that it was not an effective order. If it wasn’t, then this order requiring restitution to Woods, which comes after the bankruptcy filing, is at a minimum more likely to be upheld against future earnings. She knows much more about bankruptcy law that I do — I’ve never had to know — but it may be that some of what she thinks she knows is incorrect.
I actually tried to warn her that she was screwing herself over by challenging the legitimacy of the Supreme Court ruling, for this very reason. (I don’t know why I was being so nice by doing that, but at any rate she did not take it as a kindness.)
As I think I mention in my comments, there is some question as to whether one can satisfy the requirement that pay off a debt, prior to reinstatement to active status, with borrowed money — for pretty much the same reason that one cannot pay to have someone else serve one’s time in jail on one’s behalf. The purpose is to make the person committing an offense suffer the consequences personally. Letting her practice while she supposedly pays off someone else’s loan arguably doesn’t serve justice — for one reason because she may renege on that arrangement — and certainly doesn’t protect the public from an attorney who might take advantage of them. (Whether Lenore falls into that category I leave to the judgment of those who have read through that entire PDF.)
Without trying to fathom either bankruptcy law or Lenore Albert’s wishful interpretations of it – common sense says you might be able to get rid of some debts through bankruptcy. And also, that even if you can, a professional licensing board (especially one for attorneys and especially if the debt is a result of a licensing board ruling) has still the right to insist it be paid if you want to have the license.
So, if you want to discharge such a debt and then make a living writing books or doing stand up comedy, then great, that may be possible.
Just speaking common sense.
And come to think of it, Ms. A has some great material for the beginnings of a comedy act or as a writer of improbable and unrealistic legal fiction.
Another stellar member of the Irvine Trolls inner circle.
I mean do you ppl have nothing better to do than sit around and bash this woman? My Lord the trouble you go through to dig up anything you can get your claws into, then actually get together with other paid off trolls to expose it as far and wide as you can? Normal people has lives, jobs, families, households to maintain, but you folks are certainly dedicated to your agenda, that is for sure. More than your average person out seeking justice, infact even more than a wronged client, or competitor, or scorned woman.
Someone is getting paid pretty well to make ruining this womans career such a priority. It takes time to care so much. And where there is time spent, there is always money. Enjoy it will be short lived for you and whoever is running you trolls.
LOL. Giving you the great courtesy of not assuming you are HER or in her pay, then you just don’t know the malicious damage she’s done, in the Democratic Party and on the left in general, and would continue to do if we didn’t get the word out.
HAVE A NICE DAY.
This is most likely not true. If you look around the country you will see that when any lawyer successfully defends homeowners they are either suspended or disbarred on “trumped up charges” by the banks own hands, political and financial influences. I can give you names: Mark Stopa, Bill Butler, Wendy Nora, Bruce Jacobs, Lenore Alpert, Alan Bolonos are just a few names and there are more…way more.. all facing some sort of legal problem for doing their job. They are doing what attorney’s are supposed to be doing, helping those that can’t help themselves and are being retaliated against.
I am a law student that noticed this pattern/practice and I hope that we can all do something to help these Defense Attorney’s. They defend homeowners, borrower’s and consumer’s alike but who is defending them?
The banks are nothing more than modern mafia mob types. Once they get their claws in you, you will wish you were dead!
Tasha, I’m not going to ask you where you go to law school and how you know the names of so many anti-foreclosure lawyers, because you’re entitled to your semi-anonymity. But I would like to know more about the instances you raise and how you reach your conclusions bout them.
Where are you getting your information? Is it from publicly available sources?
As for Lenore’s own case, what do you understand to be the basis for the charges that were brought against her, and why do you dismiss them?
I am no fan of the banks and recognize their power. But most of Lenore’s alleged misconduct doesn’t stem from foreclosure cases, and when it does it mostly involves failing to follow through on promises to clients. This suggests a fairly benign, though still sanctionable, basis for her own initial difficulties: that she just got in over her head. It happens.
Have you actually looked over the papers in her case? Or have you only been exposed to her answers to them? Have you talked to any of the complainants? If you’re in law school, you’ll eventually learn about the importance of doing such things.
Tasha – “They defend homeowners, borrower’s and consumer’s alike but who is defending them?”
If you’re considering going into this niche upon graduation from law school, bear in mind that most lawyers are defended by malpractice counsel; a regular cost of doing business as a lawyer. Lawyers are not exactly one of the groups likely to be unable to obtain representation.
“The banks are nothing more than modern mafia mob types.”
I would still recommend against bringing a RICO claim against them, at least not until you have evidence.