Lucinda Kay Moreno was admitted to the California Bar 7th December 1988, but has since been disbarred. Lucinda graduated from UCLA SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Lucinda Kay Moreno |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 7 December 1988 (36 years, 5 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 136850 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 626-279-1444 |
Schools
| Law School | UCLA SOL (Los Angeles CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of California at Los Angeles (CA) |
Address
| Current Address | PO Box 4819 El Monte, CA 91734 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 12 January 2012 | Disbarred (13 years, 3 months ago) Disbarment 10-O-04747 |
|---|---|
| 6 August 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 9 months ago) Ordered inactive 10-O-04747 |
| 20 April 2011 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 10-O-04747 (14 years ago) |
| 20 November 2002 | Active (22 years, 5 months ago) |
| 11 November 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years, 5 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 00-O-13321 |
| 30 September 2001 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 00-O-13321 (23 years, 7 months ago) |
| 18 May 1996 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 94-H-17758 (28 years, 11 months ago) |
| 30 March 1995 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 94-H-17758 (30 years, 1 month ago) |
| 25 August 1994 | Private reproval, public disclosure 92-O-12693 (30 years, 8 months ago) |
| 9 December 1993 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 92-O-12693 (31 years, 5 months ago) |
| 7 December 1988 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (36 years, 5 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
January 12, 2012 LUCINDA KAY MORENO, 55, of El Monte was disbarred Jan. 12, 2012, and ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Moreno stipulated to three counts of misconduct, admitting that while she was trustee for a client trust, she used trust funds for personal expenses, secured a loan with the client's home without telling the client and allowed the loan to go into default. The client is negotiating with the bank to avoid foreclosure. Although she repaid $15,160 on the loan, it is again in default.Moreno has a record of three prior disciplines. She was privately reproved in 1994 and suspended in 1996 and 2001. The misconduct included failures to comply with probation conditions, perform legal services competently, respond to client inquiries, provide client files to new lawyers or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.In mitigation, she stipulated to disbarment and that her common law husband had medical problems at the time of the misconduct.September 30, 2001 LUCINDA MORENO [#136850], 55, of Rosemead was suspended for six months, stayed, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Sept. 30, 2001. Hired to handle both a Social Security disability matter and a workers’ compensation claim, Moreno stipulated that she failed to respond to her client’s inquiries about medical appointments, the return of medical files and the general status of the cases.After meeting with her client in June 1997, Moreno did not communicate with him again until March of the following year, despite several phone calls and faxes seeking information about the status of the case. At the March meeting, she admitted she had done no work on either case, but said she would schedule doctor appointments for her client. In July, she promised again to schedule the doctor appointments, which finally were set in September.An administrative law judge ruled in January 1999 that the client was not entitled to disability insurance benefits. The client asked Moreno to appeal. Moreno mailed the request for review before the required deadline, but the hearing department said the postmark was illegible and since the request was received after the deadline, it was rejected. Notice of the rejection, however, was not sent for more than a year.In the interim, the client contacted his congressman for help with his case. Moreno did not respond to any efforts by either the congressman’s office or the client to reach her for one year. Finally, the client fired her. The client eventually won review of his case.Moreno has been disciplined twice: She was privately reproved in 1994 for failing to perform competently or communicate with clients in six cases, and she was suspended in 1996 for failing to perform competently or respond to client inquiries in one matter.In mitigation, a staffing shortage contributed to Moreno’s law office management problems and she cooperated with the bar’s investigation.May 18, 1996 LUCINDA K. MORENO [#136850], 39, of Rosemead was suspended for six months, stayed, and placed on probation for two years. The order took effect May 18, 1996. Moreno was privately reproved in 1994 for failing to communicate with clients, promptly transfer files to new counsel and cooperate with the bar's investigation. In this matter, she admitted that she failed to meet five conditions attached to the reproval. In another matter, she allowed a client's workers' compensation claims to lapse and says she never received notices that the claims were inactive.However, her client attempted without success to contact Moreno between September 1994 and June 1995. No further work was done on the case.In mitigation, Moreno was suddenly required to vacate her office in 1994 because her landlord rented the space in violation of municipal codes. In addition, she developed complications during pregnancy and her baby was born prematurely.The California Supreme Court denied a petition for review from JOHN NASH [#40985], 72, of San Francisco and suspended him for four years, stayed, placed him on four years of probation with an actual 18-month suspension, and ordered him to take the CPRE within one year and comply with Rule 955. The order took effect May 18, 1996.Nash was disciplined in two consolidated case.The first case included three counts. The State Bar Court found in the first count that Nash failed to perform legal services competently. He sued a San Francisco hospital for medical malpractice, but did virtually no work on the case before it was dismissed for lack of prosecution. In a second count, he was sanctioned $8,500 for filing a frivolous appeal, but neither paid the sanctions nor reported them to the bar.In the third count, he removed disputed funds from his client trust account and when he was ordered by a court to return the funds to his client's wife, he failed to do so.In the second case, Nash filed a wrongful death suit on behalf of a client. As a result of subsequent disagreements with his client, including her refusal to pay for an "expert" witness who was in fact not an expert, Nash did no further work on the case. However, he remained attorney of record and the case was dismissed. When the expert witness, a psychiatrist who had been convicted of grand theft, later sued Nash's client in small claims court, Nash gave the psychiatrist legal advice. He therefore represented clients with adverse interests.In mitigation, Nash has been discipline-free since his 1967 admission to the bar, with the exception of a private reproval in 1984. But the court noted that despite his good character references, the bar presented substantial evidence of Nash's poor reputation in the legal community.In aggravation, his fee agreement with two clients exceeded limits set by the Business & Professions Code, and his misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing and harmed his clients. |