Marilu Moreno-Schlicht is an active member of the California Bar and was admitted 16th December 1980. Marilu graduated from Western State University.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Marilu Moreno-Schlicht |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 16 December 1980 (44 years, 4 months ago) |
| Status | Active |
| Bar Number | 94563 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 323-300-8899 |
| Fax Number | 323-500-4198 |
Schools
| Law School | Western State University (CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | See Registration Card |
Address
| Current Address | Law Offices of Marilu Moreno-Schlicht, 6 Centerpointe Drive, 7th Floor La Palma, CA 90623 |
|---|---|
| Map | |
| Previous Address | Attorney at Law 8504 Firestone Blvd Ste 225 Downey, CA 90241 |
| Previous Address | Attorney at Law 6 Centerpointe Drive 7th Floor La Palma, CA 90623 |
History
| 18 October 2011 | Active (13 years, 6 months ago) |
|---|---|
| 1 July 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 23 May 2004 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 03-O-00004 (20 years, 11 months ago) |
| 24 August 2002 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 96-O-02390 (22 years, 8 months ago) |
| 16 December 1980 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (44 years, 4 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
May 23, 2004 MARILU MORENO-SCHLICHT [#94563], 59, of Montebello was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to make restitution. The order took effect May 23, 2004. Moreno-Schlicht stipulated to misconduct in two cases stemming from sharing an office with a non-attorney who ran a debt consolidation and loan modification business. Moreno-Schlicht did not have procedures in place to ensure the non-lawyer followed instructions and kept her informed about clients coming into the office. She also did not make sure he gave her all mail, messages and money from clients.She was retained by two clients to negotiate with their mortgage lender since they were behind on payments. One of the clients gave more than $16,000 to the businessman in Moreno-Schlicht’s office, who introduced himself as her legal assistant.Moreno-Schlicht did not negotiate with the mortgage lender and the clients received a three day notice to quit. When the clients sought a refund, the businessman sent only $2,870, leaving a balance of $13,200 still owed.In the second case, a client hired Moreno-Schlicht to file a bankruptcy petition. The client made several cash payments totaling $3,175 to the businessman. Moreno-Schlicht did not appear at a meeting of creditors and did not use the money to make the client’s mortgage payments. She never refunded the money.Moreno-Schlicht stipulated that she failed to perform legal services competently, properly supervise a staff member or return unearned fees or client money.She also was disciplined in 2002 for failing to perform legal services competently, pay out client funds or communicate with clients.In mitigation, she cooperated with the bar’s investigation.August 24, 2002 MARILU MORENO-SCHLICHT [#94563], 58, of Montebello was suspended for 30 days, stayed, placed on one year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Aug. 24, 2002. Moreno-Schlicht stipulated to misconduct in two matters.She settled a personal injury case for $9,591, but her staff prepared a settlement distribution sheet which mistakenly reported a settlement of $7,000. The client executed various documents believing the settlement to be $7,000. When he later learned the true amount, he contacted Moreno-Schlicht and she gave him a check for the correct amount.She stipulated that by failing to properly supervise her staff, she did not promptly disburse client monies.Moreno-Schlicht settled a second personal injury case for two clients without obtaining their consent. She stipulated that she failed to advise her clients of significant developments in their case.In mitigation, she has no record of discipline, the clients in the second matter ultimately agreed to the settlement amount, and in the first matter, there is evidence that the distribution sheet was based on an incorrect document provided by the insurance company. |