Overview

Lisa D. Copren was disciplined following a default proceeding in which she failed to participate. The State Bar Court found misconduct arising from a single client matter involving incompetent performance in a bankruptcy filing, improper solicitation, moral turpitude, failure to refund unearned fees, and failure to cooperate with the State Bar.

The Review Department granted summary review to modify the discipline recommendation to require compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 955 if the actual suspension exceeded 90 days.

Facts

In April 2003, Copren sent an “Advisory Letter” to a homeowner offering to stop foreclosure by filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The letter included guarantees and predictions about the results of representation.

The client paid $750 in advanced fees. Copren provided blank bankruptcy forms for signature and later filed the petition without verifying the accuracy of income and expense information. The bankruptcy filing contained inaccuracies.

Copren failed to file a required “Class 1 Checklist,” failed to appear at a dismissal hearing, and failed to provide required authorization forms to the trustee. The client terminated the representation and requested a refund. No refund was issued.

Copren also failed to respond to State Bar investigative letters and did not participate in the disciplinary proceeding, resulting in default.

Violations Found

• Rule 3-110(A) – Failure to perform competently
• Business & Professions Code § 6106 – Moral turpitude (filing inaccurate bankruptcy petition)
• Rule 1-400(E)(1) – Improper solicitation / misleading guarantees
• Rule 3-700(D)(2) – Failure to refund unearned fees
• Business & Professions Code § 6068(i) – Failure to cooperate with State Bar

Aggravation

• Multiple acts of misconduct
• Harm to the client (loss of funds)
• Indifference toward rectification (no refund)
• Failure to participate in disciplinary proceedings (default)

Mitigation

• No prior discipline (9 years of practice)

Simplified Sanctions

Rule 955 Analysis

The Review Department emphasized the protective purpose of Rule 955 — ensuring that courts, clients, and opposing parties are notified of an attorney’s suspension and that client property and unearned fees are returned.

Although the hearing judge imposed only a 60-day actual suspension, the court recognized that failure to make restitution or file a Rule 205 motion could extend the suspension beyond 90 days. In that event, compliance with Rule 955 would be mandatory.