In the Matter of David M. Lybbert

Facts

David M. Lybbert committed the underlying misconduct while he was a law student attending Western State University College of Law. Beginning in November 1987, Lybbert and his wife applied for and received public assistance from the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services.

During a fifteen-month period, Lybbert worked as a paid law clerk and earned approximately $7,400. Despite his legal obligation to report all income, Lybbert signed fifteen monthly welfare eligibility forms under penalty of perjury that failed to disclose his earnings. The undisclosed income resulted in cash and food-stamp overpayments exceeding $10,000.

Lybbert testified that he routinely signed the eligibility forms in blank and allowed his wife to complete and submit them. The hearing judge rejected this explanation, finding it implausible that a law student would sign sworn declarations without ensuring their accuracy. In September 1990, Lybbert pleaded guilty to misdemeanor welfare fraud in violation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 10980(c).

Shortly after his admission to the California Bar, Lybbert was placed on interim suspension based on the conviction. He cooperated fully with welfare authorities and the State Bar, expressed remorse, and made substantial restitution despite severe financial hardship.

Charges

• Discipline based on a criminal conviction involving moral turpitude.
• Whether the nature and circumstances of the conviction warranted disbarment or lengthy suspension.

Because the conviction occurred after Lybbert’s admission, the State Bar proceeded under statutory authority to discipline him as an attorney.

Defenses

Lybbert argued that he lacked actual knowledge of the false information submitted by his wife and that his role was limited to signing blank forms due to exhaustion and family pressures while attending law school. He also contended that his misconduct was mitigated by extraordinary personal hardship, financial desperation, and the need to feed a large family.

In mitigation, Lybbert emphasized his immediate candor once the fraud was discovered, full cooperation with investigators, near-complete restitution, extensive community service, and strong character testimony from attorneys, employers, and religious leaders.

Court’s Ruling

The Review Department rejected Lybbert’s claim that he lacked knowledge of the fraud, holding that his guilty plea conclusively established participation in conduct involving dishonesty. Signing sworn statements in blank was not mitigating; rather, it was deemed equally culpable as knowingly signing false statements.

Nevertheless, the court declined to impose disbarment. It distinguished Lybbert’s conduct from more egregious fraud cases, noting the absence of client harm, his immediate cooperation, genuine remorse, and substantial mitigation. The court emphasized that discipline must consider the totality of the circumstances, not merely the elements of the crime.

Applying the Standards for Attorney Sanctions, the Review Department concluded that a minimum two-year actual suspension was appropriate for a crime of moral turpitude, but credited Lybbert with the time he had already served on interim suspension. The court also required a showing of present fitness and rehabilitation before reinstatement.

Sanctions

Key Takeaways

• Criminal convictions occurring before admission can still justify post-admission discipline.
• Signing sworn statements in blank does not mitigate dishonesty.
• Interim suspension time is credited against actual suspension.
• Strong mitigation can avert disbarment even in moral turpitude cases.