Look at
People v. Lebbos, H030422
California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
February 14, 2008
I’m not sure what point it is that you wish to make by referencing this unreported case. A whole lot more conduct by the defendant was involved than just using JD and ESQ after her name. It was the totality of her conduct, and most notably that she was a disbarred attorney
who was actually conducting a business that offered legal services that did her in. The court stated:
Count 1 alleged that defendant advertised or held herself out as authorized to practice law during the period February 1, 2000 through March 7, 2001. Witnesses Rosman, Domingo, Kissinger, and Glassey each testified that defendant provided services to them during the pertinent time period. For the reasons described in the preceding section, their testimony was evidence of defendant's holding herself out as authorized to practice law. Defendant argues that all of the witnesses who contacted her for assistance in State Bar proceedings, except for Kissinger, testified that they knew defendant was a disbarred attorney. The argument misrepresents the evidence. Only Halperin testified that he learned that defendant was a disbarred attorney, and then only after asking her directly about her background.
Other evidence to support the count 1 conviction is found in defendant's use of the title, “Esq.” on the title page of the Lawyer, Defend Yourself books. As Ross, Halperin and Bohrn testified, “Esq.” is commonly used as an honorific for attorneys. Defendant's brochures contained statements such as: “We do your briefs and answer your questions for you,” “Out source professional responsibility issues. Bring in an expert to assist you,” and “Only two attorneys have been exonerated of all charges in nine years. Attorney Richard Murphy is one of the two attorneys. Lawyer, Defend Yourself prepared his strategy, pleadings, approach, and Lawyer, Defend Yourself structured his result.” The services advertised involve the practice of law. (See Crawford v. State Bar, supra, 54 Cal.2d at pp. 667-668.) None of the advertisements stated that the services were not provided by an attorney or that they were rendered under the supervision of an attorney. Thus, the brochures alone implied that defendant, doing business as Lawyer, Defend Yourself, was authorized to practice law.
Count 2 alleged conduct occurring in the period between August 20, 2002 and June 3, 2004. Evidence to support this count was supplied by Bohrn, who created the Lawyer, Defend Yourself Web site, which was available on the Internet by August 20, 2002. The title bar of the site, “Lawyer defend yourself-expert legal advice on CA State Bar ethics issues,” expressly advertised that Lawyer, Defend Yourself offered legal advice. Furthermore, the language in the title bar reflected what Bohrn thought the company's message should be based upon his interpretation of defendant's brochures and Bohrn's talks with defendant. In effect, therefore, defendant had held herself out to Bohrn as authorized to practice law.
In sum, the evidence was sufficient to support a guilty verdict on both counts.
People v. Lebbos, No. H030422, 2008 WL 391241, at *9–10 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2008).
