In the Matter of Richard Allen Lenard (Review Dept. 2013) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 250

Court: State Bar Court, Review Department

Filed: April 15, 2013

Judges: Presiding Judge Remke, with Judges Epstein and Purcell concurring

Overview

Attorney Richard Allen Lenard was disbarred after the Review Department found he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) in nine states while performing contract work for consumer debt-settlement companies. This was Lenard’s fourth disciplinary proceeding, following three prior suspensions for trust account mismanagement, failure to supervise staff, and probation violations. The court concluded that his pattern of cross-state misconduct, deceptive representations, and prior record demonstrated an inability to conform to ethical obligations, leaving disbarment as the only adequate sanction to protect the public and the legal profession.

Factual Background

Lenard was admitted to the California Bar in 1991 and was not licensed in any other state. Between 2008 and 2009, he entered into contracts with three California-based consumer debt settlement companies—Freedom Financial Management, Beacon Debt Service, and Pathway Financial Management—to provide “legal services” for clients nationwide. These companies advertised in multiple states, collecting high retainer fees and monthly payments from clients while marketing access to “legal counsel.”

Under these agreements, Lenard permitted the companies to send clients a document titled Attorney-Client Legal Service Agreement on the letterhead of the “Law Offices of Richard A. Lenard.” The agreements promised representation in debt negotiations and advised clients not to speak with creditors, stating that “Law Firm will contact creditors and take appropriate legal action.” None of these materials disclosed that Lenard was licensed only in California.

Cease-and-Desist Letters and Misleading Conduct

Lenard authorized staff to send hundreds of cease-and-desist letters to creditors across states such as Wisconsin, New York, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and others. These letters, sent on his “Law Office” letterhead, informed creditors that he represented the clients and warned of potential legal action if contact continued. He also reviewed client files to determine whether they should file for bankruptcy—despite admitting that he was not licensed to handle bankruptcies outside California and lacked knowledge of local debt collection laws.

Clients were told to stop communicating with creditors, but Lenard provided no further legal assistance and rarely responded when they faced lawsuits or continued collection efforts. Several clients requested refunds and received disengagement letters advising them to “immediately seek local counsel.” The Review Department found these actions constituted multiple acts of unauthorized practice and misrepresentation.

Jurisdiction and Legal Basis

The Review Department reaffirmed that under Rule 1-300(B) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, a California lawyer may not practice law “in a jurisdiction where to do so would violate professional regulations in that jurisdiction.” The court therefore reviewed the laws of each affected state.

• Wisconsin and New York: Lenard held himself out as authorized to settle debts and give legal advice—activities both states define as the practice of law.
• Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Kentucky, and South Dakota: Lenard’s conduct violated each state’s version of ABA Model Rule 5.5(b), which prohibits establishing a presence or holding oneself out as admitted in another jurisdiction.

The court rejected Lenard’s defense that his work was “temporary” or “reasonably related” to his California practice, finding no substantial connection between his California licensure and the out-of-state matters. His actions did not fall within the safe harbor provisions of Model Rule 5.5(c) for multijurisdictional practice.

Aggravation and Mitigation

Aggravating Factors

• Three prior disciplines: Lenard had previously been suspended three times between 2003 and 2010 for client trust account violations, failure to supervise, and probation breaches.
• Pattern of misconduct: Twelve acts of UPL in nine states showed a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• Bad faith and dishonesty: Lenard’s use of deceptive legal agreements and misleading letterhead falsely implied multistate licensure and legal authority, endangering clients who relied on his representations.

Mitigating Factors

The only mitigation was limited cooperation with the State Bar through stipulations of fact, though Lenard continued to deny culpability. This factor was given minimal weight.

Court’s Analysis

Applying Standard 1.7(b) (disbarment after two or more prior disciplines unless compelling mitigation predominates), the Review Department found that disbarment was required. The court emphasized that Lenard’s record reflected a “disturbing repetitive theme” of ethical noncompliance spanning 15 years. His conduct in exploiting his California license to market “legal” services nationwide placed the public at risk and demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to conform to ethical standards.

The court cited the purpose of attorney discipline—to protect the public and preserve confidence in the profession—and concluded that Lenard’s pattern of misconduct, lack of candor, and absence of rehabilitation left no alternative to disbarment.

Disposition

The Review Department recommended that Richard Allen Lenard be disbarred and his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys. He was also ordered to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.20 and to pay disciplinary costs under Business & Professions Code §6086.10. His inactive enrollment under §6007(c)(4) was continued pending Supreme Court action.

Key Takeaways

• California attorneys cannot provide or market legal services in other states without local admission.
• Using “Law Offices” letterhead and implying multistate practice constitutes holding out as licensed and violates Rule 1-300(B).
• Debt-settlement or bankruptcy-related advice for non-California clients is unauthorized practice unless permitted by federal or local law.
• Multiple prior disciplines with ongoing misconduct will almost always result in disbarment under Standard 1.7(b).

Call to Action: Attorneys facing unauthorized practice or multijurisdictional discipline investigations should contact East Bay Law P.C. for confidential representation and guidance.