In the Matter of Linda Darlene Lucero

Review Department (2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 101

Overview

This decision underscores a fundamental principle of attorney discipline: honesty and fiduciary integrity are non-negotiable.

In her first disciplinary matter, Linda Darlene Lucero faced 33 counts across multiple client matters involving:

• Failure to deposit client funds into trust
• Intentional misappropriation
• Failure to account and refund client funds
• Failure to perform with competence
• Improper withdrawal and failure to release client files
• Repeated misrepresentations to clients and to the Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC)

The hearing judge found her culpable on 32 counts. The Review Department independently affirmed 31 counts and imposed disbarment.

Procedural Challenges Rejected

Lucero argued the trial was “unfair,” claiming:

• The court failed to provide ADA accommodations sua sponte.
• Ex parte communications occurred between the judge and OCTC.
• The judge demonstrated bias.

The Review Department rejected each argument. The record showed:

• No formal ADA accommodation request was ever made.
• No evidence supported ex parte communication allegations.
• The judge’s questioning was proper and aimed at clarifying testimony.

These findings reinforce that unsupported procedural claims will not overcome a record supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Amir Matter: Misappropriation and Deceit

Background

Lucero represented the Amir family in a medical malpractice action. The family paid $3,000 for expert costs. Lucero deposited the funds into her business account rather than a client trust account.

She retained an expert service (AMFS), but after paying $2,575, $425 remained unused. Later, AMFS refunded an additional $950. Lucero kept both amounts.

Misappropriation Findings

The court found intentional misappropriation of:

• $425 in unused cost funds
• $950 refunded expert fees

She never returned the funds, never deposited them into trust, and never provided an accounting despite repeated client requests.

Misrepresentations to OCTC

Lucero falsely claimed:

• She advanced her own funds before receiving the client’s payment.
• She paid $3,325 in expert fees (inflated figure).
• Additional expert charges were requested.

These statements were demonstrably false. Intentional deception during a State Bar investigation constitutes moral turpitude under Business & Professions Code §6106.

The Johansen Matter: Competence and Abandonment

Lucero agreed to pursue a medical malpractice claim for Edward Johansen, who had suffered catastrophic medical injury.

She:

• Sent a 90-day intent-to-sue letter.
• Requested medical records.
• Then stopped working on the case.

She failed to file suit before the statute of limitations expired.

She later falsely claimed she “dropped” the case in December 2018, but continued communicating with the client as though she remained counsel.

Violations Included

• Failure to perform with competence (Rule 1.1)
• Constructive termination without protecting client rights (Rule 1.16(d))
• Failure to release client file (Rule 1.16(e))
• False statements to OCTC

The Review Department emphasized that failure to act can constitute improper withdrawal and that attorneys must affirmatively protect client interests upon termination.

The Oren Matter: Failure to Refund Unearned Fees

Lucero accepted $6,755 in advanced fees. The client terminated representation within weeks and demanded a refund.

Lucero:

• Failed to refund promptly.
• Entered two settlement agreements to repay.
• Defaulted on both agreements.
• Falsely told OCTC she had repaid the client when she had not.

Refund did not occur until November 2020 — more than two years after termination.

The Aviles Matter: Complete Failure to Act

Lucero accepted representation in two matters:

• A personal injury case arising from assault
• A malpractice claim related to hand surgery

She sent “welcome letters,” signed medical liens, and referred the client for treatment — yet later claimed she never represented him.

She performed no legal work, filed no lawsuit, and then denied representation in written responses to OCTC.

Aggravation vs. Mitigation

Aggravating Factors

• Multiple acts of wrongdoing
• Significant client harm
• Pattern of misconduct
• Bad faith obstruction (false statements to OCTC)
• Lack of candor at trial

Mitigation

• No prior discipline

The court found mitigation minimal compared to extensive aggravation.

Sanctions Table

Why Disbarment Was Appropriate

The court emphasized that intentional misappropriation and repeated dishonesty strike at the heart of fitness to practice law.

Even though this was Lucero’s first disciplinary case, the scope and severity of misconduct — across multiple clients — demonstrated a pattern incompatible with continued licensure.

Key Lessons for Attorneys

• Misappropriation almost always results in disbarment.
• False statements to OCTC dramatically increase discipline.
• Failure to refund or account for client funds compounds liability.
• Abandoning a case before limitations expire is professional suicide.
• Credibility at trial matters — lack of candor is powerful aggravation.