IN THE MATTER OF ROMANO (Review Dept.2015) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 391

State Bar Defense Attorneys Published Cases IN THE MATTER OF ROMANO (Review Dept.2015) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 391
0 Comments
In the Matter of Lynne Margery Romano (2015) | California State Bar Court

In the Matter of Lynne Margery Romano (2015)

5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 391  |  Filed Apr. 30, 2015  |  Review Department

Result: Disbarment for filing 82 fraudulent bankruptcy petitions, aiding unauthorized practice of law, and engaging in a long-term pattern of intentional dishonesty.
Attorney: Lynne Margery Romano (Admitted 1986)
Case No.: 12-J-15277
Panel: Epstein, J. (opinion); Honn, Acting P.J.; McElroy, J. (concurring)

Overview

Attorney Lynne Margery Romano was disbarred for abusing the bankruptcy system to delay foreclosures through a large-scale scheme of filing 82 fraudulent bankruptcy petitions between 2008 and 2012. She repeatedly filed petitions for sham corporations and aided her paralegal in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). The Review Department concluded her misconduct demonstrated moral turpitude, intentional dishonesty, and a pattern of fraud requiring disbarment to protect the public and the courts.

Background

  • Romano, a real estate attorney, collaborated with paralegal Joseph Quartell to file 82 Chapter 7 petitions designed solely to delay foreclosure rather than obtain relief for clients.
  • She caused clients to transfer fractional property interests to sham corporations, most of which were non-existent or suspended, and then filed bankruptcy petitions for those entities.
  • Most petitions were incomplete, contained false information, and were dismissed.
  • Romano admitted she failed to review filings prepared by her paralegal, who acted independently and signed her name on documents.
  • The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California found she engaged in abusive, bad-faith filings and suspended her indefinitely with no reinstatement before five years.

State Bar Proceedings

The State Bar brought reciprocal discipline under Bus. & Prof. Code §6049.1. The hearing judge recommended a two-year suspension and proof of rehabilitation. On appeal, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) sought disbarment. The Review Department agreed, finding the magnitude and repetition of dishonesty demanded the most severe sanction.

Violations

  • Rule 3-110(A): Failure to perform with competence – she recklessly failed to supervise or review her paralegal’s filings.
  • Rule 1-300(A): Aiding unauthorized practice of law – allowed her paralegal to prepare and file bankruptcy petitions.
  • Section 6106: Moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption – intentional scheme to mislead the court and defraud creditors.
  • Section 6068(d): Seeking to mislead a judge – dismissed as duplicative of §6106 charge.

Aggravation

  • Multiple acts and pattern of misconduct: 82 fraudulent filings over three and a half years.
  • Significant harm: Wasted judicial resources and undermined the integrity of bankruptcy proceedings.
  • No finding of indifference: Statements claiming she acted “to help scared clients” were not clear proof of denial of wrongdoing.

Mitigation

  • Discipline-free record: 22 prior years in practice, but given minimal weight due to intentional and prolonged misconduct.
  • No mitigation for emotional difficulties: Issues arose years after misconduct began.
  • Limited cooperation: Stipulated to basic facts late in proceedings.
  • Good character: Five witnesses (husband, two attorneys, librarian, realtor); limited range.
  • Remorse: Moderate weight for apology and disgorging $18,500 in fees per court order.

Disciplinary Analysis

The Review Department emphasized that Romano’s conduct—intentional fraud upon the court—was directly related to her practice of law and persisted for years. Citing Lebbos v. State Bar (1991) 53 Cal.3d 37, 45, the court held that multiple acts of dishonesty and moral turpitude require disbarment. Her actions mirrored, but exceeded in scope, prior suspension cases like In the Matter of Valinoti and In the Matter of Lybbert.

Sanctions Table

Violation Statute / Rule Key Conduct Aggravation Mitigation Final Discipline
Moral Turpitude Bus. & Prof. Code §6106 Filing 82 sham bankruptcy petitions to delay foreclosures Pattern, multiple acts, harm to courts Limited: cooperation, remorse Disbarment
+ Rule 9.20 compliance
+ Costs under §6086.10
Failure to Supervise Rule 3-110(A) Did not review filings prepared by paralegal; reckless oversight Pattern, duration Minimal
Aiding UPL Rule 1-300(A) Allowed paralegal to act independently and file pleadings Same Same

Disposition

  • Disbarred from the practice of law in California.
  • Ordered to comply with Rule 9.20 (client and court notification).
  • Costs assessed under §6086.10, enforceable as a money judgment.
  • Involuntary inactive enrollment effective three days after service of opinion.

Key Takeaways

  • Filing fraudulent bankruptcy petitions constitutes moral turpitude and justifies disbarment.
  • Failure to supervise non-lawyer staff can result in serious discipline if misconduct occurs under one’s name.
  • Intentional misuse of court procedures for delay or deception gravely undermines judicial integrity.
  • Even long discipline-free careers offer little mitigation for patterns of dishonesty.

Facing State Bar charges involving moral turpitude or bankruptcy misconduct?
East Bay Law P.C. defends attorneys before the California State Bar Court.
Contact us today for confidential representation.

Categories:
In the Matter of Jeffrey Jason Olin (Review Dept. 2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 166
In the Matter of Jeffrey Jason Olin Review Department (2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct.
In the Matter of Gregory Daniel Trimarche (Review Dept. 2025) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 145
In the Matter of Gregory Daniel Trimarche Review Department (2025) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct.
In the Matter of Rossana Pilar Mitchell (Review Dept. 2025) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 135
In the Matter of Rossana Pilar Mitchell Review Department (2025) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct.
In the Matter of Respondent EE (Review Dept. 2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 127
In the Matter of Respondent EE Review Department (2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.
In the Matter of Linda Darlene Lucero (Review Dept. 2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 101
In the Matter of Linda Darlene Lucero Review Department (2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct.
In the Matter of Respondent DD (Review Dept. 2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 90
In the Matter of Respondent DD Review Department (2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.
In the Matter of Anthony Aanand Patel (Review Dept. 2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 84
In the Matter of Anthony Aanand Patel Review Department (2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct.
In the Matter of Elana Thibault (Review Dept. 2023) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 64
In the Matter of Elana Thibault Review Department (2023) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.
In the Matter of George Martin Derieg (Review Dept. 2023) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 46
In the Matter of George Martin Derieg Review Department (2023) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct.
In the Matter of Respondent CC (Review Dept. 2023) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 36
In the Matter of Respondent CC Review Department (2023) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.