Overview

Attorney Judson D. Lilley, admitted to the California Bar in 1974, was found culpable of abandoning a client, failing to notify the State Bar of his change of address, and failing to cooperate in the Bar’s investigation. The misconduct arose from his representation of the administrator of a decedent’s estate. Following his abandonment of the client and his law office, the hearing department concluded that Lilley violated Business and Professions Code sections 6002.1, 6068(a), 6068(i), 6068(m), and 6103, as well as former Rules of Professional Conduct 2-111(A)(2) and 6-101(A)(2).

Facts of the Case

In February 1983, Lilley was retained by David Reed to handle legal matters related to a decedent’s estate for which Reed served as administrator. For several years, Lilley performed necessary probate work. By early 1987, he agreed to finalize the estate’s report and accounting within two weeks after being reminded by the estate’s church beneficiary of the urgency of the distribution for renovation purposes.

Beginning around May 1, 1987, Reed’s efforts to contact Lilley were unsuccessful. Lilley had disconnected his office phone and vacated his Long Beach address without forwarding information. His home and other phone lines were also disconnected. He failed to file a change of address with the postal service or with the State Bar. The client ultimately hired another attorney to complete the estate work, causing delay and financial harm to the church beneficiary that depended on timely distribution of funds for its renovation project.

In June 1988, a State Bar investigator attempted to reach Lilley, but he ignored correspondence sent to both his office and residence. Four months after abandoning his office, he was suspended for nonpayment of dues. Although reinstated more than a year later, he still failed to cooperate with the investigation or respond to Bar inquiries.

Charges and Violations

The hearing referee found Lilley culpable of abandoning a client, failing to perform legal services, and failing to turn over client files. He was also found to have failed to cooperate with the Bar’s investigation and to update his official address, violating multiple provisions of the Business and Professions Code. Initially, the referee found additional violations of sections 6068(a) and 6103; however, upon review, the Review Department—citing Baker v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 804—concluded that sections 6068(a) and 6103 should not automatically be applied to every Rules violation and are limited in scope, primarily covering violations of court orders or duties outside other specific provisions.

Legal Reasoning

The Review Department emphasized that duplicative charges under sections 6068(a) and 6103 serve little purpose when the same conduct violates a more specific rule or statute. The opinion clarified that while the Rules of Professional Conduct are binding on attorneys, they are not equivalent to statutes and cannot independently trigger disbarment under sections 6068(a) or 6103. Discipline for a willful violation of the Rules is limited to suspension under section 6077 unless accompanied by statutory violations such as moral turpitude or contempt of court.

The court further explained that section 6068(a) applies only when an attorney violates laws not otherwise disciplinable under the State Bar Act, such as unauthorized practice, non-attorney statutory violations, or pre-1987 failures to communicate that predated section 6068(m).

Aggravation and Mitigation

Aggravating factors: Harm to the client and the estate’s beneficiary, both financially and procedurally, due to abandonment. The church incurred additional expense and delay.
Mitigating factors: Lilley had practiced for 13 years without prior discipline, which weighed in mitigation.

Outcome

The Review Department adopted most of the hearing department’s findings with modifications, rejecting culpability under sections 6068(a) and 6103. Lilley’s misconduct warranted a one-year suspension, stayed, with thirty days of actual suspension and one year of probation. He was required to complete a law office management course and to take and pass the California Professional Responsibility Examination. The court deemed the discipline sufficient to protect the public while acknowledging his prior unblemished record.

Sanctions Table