1 Estevan R.

Lucero
1333 8th Avenue, Apt. 201
2 San Diego, CA 92101
619-436-7097
3 [email protected]
4 Respondent In Pro Per
5
6
7
8 THE STATE BAR COURT
HEARING DEPARTMENT – LOS ANGELES
9
In the Matter of ESTEVAN R. LUCERO (SBN Case No.: SBC-20-O-30906
10 298076), a member of the STATE BAR OF
CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
11 DISMISS PROCEEDING BARRED BY
STATUTE OF LIMITATION PURSUANT
12 TO CAL BAR RULES OF PROCEDURE
NOS. 5.123, 5.124 and 5.333.
13
14
15
16
17 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
18 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that at a date and time set by this Court, Respondent, ESTEVAN
19 R. LUCERO, will and hereby does move to dismiss this proceeding with prejudice pursuant to Cal
20 Bar. Rules of Procedure Nos. 5.123, 5.124 and 5.333 The motion will be based on this Notice, the
21 attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Estevan R. Lucero, and such
22 other oral and documentary evidence that may be submitted at the hearing.
23 Dated: January 19, 2021
24 /s/ Estevan R. Lucero
_____________________________
Estevan R. Lucero
25 Respondent in Pro Per
26
27
28

1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
 1 Estevan R. Lucero
1333 8th Avenue, Apt. 201
2 San Diego, CA 92101
619-436-7097
3 [email protected]
4 Respondent In Pro Per
5
6
7
8 THE STATE BAR COURT
HEARING DEPARTMENT – LOS ANGELES
9
In the Matter of ESTEVAN R. LUCERO (SBN Case No.: SBC-20-O-30906
10 298076), a member of the STATE BAR OF
CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
11 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS PROCEEDING
12 BARRED BY STATUTE OF LIMITATION
PURSUANT TO CAL BAR RULES OF
13 PROCEDURE NOS. 5.123, 5.124 and 5.333.

14
15
16
17 I. INTRODUCTION
18 Statutes of limitations serve important purposes: they motivate the OCTC to act diligently and
19 protect respondents from having to defend against stale claims. They promote justice by preventing
20 surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost,
21 memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared. Wood v. Elling Corp., 20 Ca.3d 353, 362 (Cal.
22 1977). As the Supreme Court noted, "the right to be free of stale claims in time comes to prevail over
23 the right to prosecute them." (Telegraphers v. Ry. Express Agency (1944) 321 U.S. 342, 349; see also
24 Burnett v. New York Central R. Co. (1965) 380 U.S. 424, 428.
25 In this case, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel has filed disciplinary charges against the
26 respondent alleging that a declaration of Rule 9.20 compliance was untimely filed or was defective
27 in form. As of the filing, it has been over 300 days since the Respondent filed his compliance
28 declaration. Pursuant to State Bar Rule of Procedure Rule No. 5.333, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel

1
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
 1 is barred from filing disciplinary charges relating to Rule 9.20 compliance unless the Court permits a
2 later filing for good cause shown. The Respondent recognizes the role that tolling statutes has in our
3 system: it allows courts to exercise their inherent equitable powers to excuse parties' failure to comply
4 with technical deadlines when justice so requires. To appropriately balance these two competing ends,
5 the OCTC must make a showing of lack of prejudice to the defendant, and reasonable and good faith
6 conduct before they are entitled equitable tolling. Given that the statute of limitation has run by 211+
7 days, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel cannot make such a showing.
8 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
9 Respondent’s Rule 9.20 Declaration was originally due on December 26, 2020, during a
10 period that Respondent was participating in an inpatient rehabilitation program. Lucero Decl., Exh.
11 1. Due to Respondent’s participation in the program, this matter was abated on January 13, 2020 and

12 the Court set continued due dates for Respondent’s response to the Notice of Conviction. Lucero
13 Decl., Exh. 2. Respondent filed his Rule 9.20 declaration on February 24, 2020 during the period of
14 time that this matter was abated. Lucero Decl., Exh. 3. On September 15, 2020, Respondent received
15 a letter of inquiry from the Office of Chief Trial Counsel the Respondent for a “written response as
16 to why [his] Compliance Declaration was submitted untimely, along with any supporting
17 documentation.” Lucero Decl., Exh. 4.
18 On September 22, 2020, the Respondent submitted his response to the letter of inquiry, noting
19 both the strange timing of the inquiry letter and the expiration of the statute of limitations:
20 “I am in receipt of this inquiry letter dated September 15, 2020. The inquiry
alleges an untimely filing of the Rule 9.20 Declaration, a defect in form not substance.
21 In the week before receiving this inquiry, I received a signed stipulation as to facts and
conclusions of law in the conviction proceeding but was not notified of this
22 investigation in violation of the State Bar Rules of Procedure. It appears this inquiry
was commenced in retaliation for the objection I filed alleging several ethical
23 violations and systematic abuse of power by Ms. Ramirez, only two hours before this
inquiry was originated. This bad-faith inquiry represents yet another example of Ms.
24 Ramirez's poor judgment and unfair treatment of me during these proceedings. It is
clear that she is willing to abuse these proceedings in order to gain an unfair advantage
25 over me. Pursuant to Rule 585, the State Bar is barred from pursuing a Rule 9.20
violation after 90 days has passed unless the Court makes a ruling that good cause
26 exists for it to do so. Retaliating for well-founded allegations is not good cause. If your
office plans to pursue this matter, it first must make an affirmative showing of good
27 cause to the Court. Absent such a showing, the 90-day statute of limitations has
expired. On that basis, I object to this inquiry letter. I also object to the Office of Chief
28 Trial Counsel's further involvement in all matters involving myself because of an
apparent conflict of interest. Please indicate your plan moving forward in order that I
2
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
 1 may determine whether to move for relief from the court prior to the indicated due
date. Additionally, please take steps to preserve all communications between you and
2 Ms. Ramirez relating to this inquiry and all other investigations you are involved in
involving me. Your records will be demanded in litigation proceedings in state or
3 federal court and are relevant to the causes of actions I anticipate asserting.”
4 Lucero Decl., Exh. 5.
5 On December 9, 2020, the Respondent received the OCTC’s “Notice of Intent to File
6 Disciplinary Charges.” Lucero Decl., Exh. 6.
7 III. ARGUMENT
8 A. PURSUANT TO RULE 5.333, THE OCTC IS BARRED FROM PURSUING A
RULE 9.20 COMPLIANCE ACTION WITHOUT MAKING AN AFFIRMATIVE
9 SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE TO THIS COURT
10 Pursuant to State Bar Rule of Procedure No. 5.333: Any notice of disciplinary charges alleging
11 that a declaration of compliance was untimely filed or was defective in form must be filed within 90

12 days after the declaration is served on the Office of Probation, unless the Court permits a later filing
13 for good cause shown.
14 B. THE OCTC CANNOT DEMONSTRATE GOOD CAUSE
15 Our courts have emphasized how tolling can advance "important [public] policy
16 considerations," effectively offering the kind of narrowly drawn flexibility for unusual situations that
17 allows the Legislature to preserve strict default rules. Saint Francis Memorial Hospital v. State
18 Department of Public Health, 9 Cal.5th 710 (2020). Statutes of limitation "are, of necessity, adamant
19 rather than flexible in nature,” and are "upheld and enforced regardless of personal hardship.” Chas.
20 L. Harney, Inc. v. State of California (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 77, 91; see also, Lobrovich v. Georgison
21 (1956) 144 Cal. App.2d 567, 575 [301 P.2d 460].) While the State Bar Court has not ruled on what
22 constitutes “good cause,” within the meaning of Rule 5.33, other Courts ruling on administrative
23 actions have ruled that that an interpretation of "good cause" must take account of "real circumstances,
24 substantial reasons, objective conditions, palpable forces that operate to produce correlative results,
25 adequate excuses that will bear the test of reason, just grounds for action, and always the element of
26 good faith...." Cal. Portland Cement Co. v. Cal. Unemp. Ins. Appeals Board (1960) 178 Cal. App.2d
27 263, 272-273. When a limitation statute provides for an extension of the limitation period on a
28 showing of good cause, it has been interpreted as the equivalent to a showing under Cal. Code of Civ.

3
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
 1 Pro. 473. Kupka v. Board of Administration (1981) 122 Cal. App.3d 791. “Where the statute lacks an
2 explicit provision for extension, "... it must be inferred the Legislature did not intend to permit relief
3 on grounds of good cause or under section 473.” Id.
4 Therefore, whether or not the OCTC can bring this disciplinary action depends on their
5 demonstration of good cause within the meaning of California Civil Code Section 473. As the
6 California Supreme Court has explained, statutes of limitations may be tolled only "occasionally and
7 in special situations." Saint Francis Memorial Hospital v. State Department of Public Health, 9
8 Cal.5th 710 (2020). This Court must “carefully examine the facts of each case to determine whether
9 "justice and fairness" demand that the limitations period be tolled.” Id. (Citing Lambert v.
10 Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1072, 1081.) In this case, there is no good reason
11 why the statute should be tolled by seven months.

12 An application for relief must be brought "within a reasonable time. . . ." (Code Civ. Proc., §
13 473, subd. (b).) "[I]t is firmly settled that showing due diligence is . . . a prerequisite to granting relief
14 under section 473. . . ." (DeMello v. Souza (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 79, 86.) ". . . [T]he determination of
15 reasonableness is largely for the trial court. . . .' [Citation.]" Cannon v. American Hydrocarbon Corp.
16 (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 639, 6522. Here, the OCTC has been aware for quite some time about the missed
17 filing deadline, yet they have taken no affirmative steps to obtain relief. Instead, the OCTC has lay in
18 wait until a time that they could use the procedures of this Court against the Respondent. Application
19 for the relief contemplated under Section 473 must occur within a reasonable time, in no case
20 exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken." (§ 473, subd.
21 (b).) It has been 7 months since the expiration of the limitations period.
22 In this case, there is no justifiable reason to extend relief to the OCTC. Equitable tolling
23 applies only in extraordinary circumstances. It does "not extend" to "garden variety claim[s] of
24 excusable neglect." Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, supra, 498 U.S. 89, 96; Tannhauser v.
25 Adams (1947) 31 Cal.2d 169, 178 [equitable tolling not applicable in a case involving attorney
26 "neglect"]; Lewis v. Superior Court, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d at p. 378. Nor does it generally apply to
27 cases involving "[a]ttorney miscalculation" (Lawrence v. Florida (2007) 549 U.S. 327, 336) or "delay
28 due to attorney neglect." (Bonifield v. County of Nevada (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 298, 306, overruled

4
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
 1 on another ground in City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern (2014) 59 Cal.4th 618, 634; Todd v.
2 County of Los Angeles (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 661, 666 [no relief for "`excusable neglect'" because of
3 attorney's failure to timely act].) Moreover, an attorney's mistake is not a ground for relief where the
4 attorney does not file within the statute of limitations period. Maynard v. Brandon (2005) 36 Cal.4th
5 364, 372; Alliance for Protection of Auburn Community Environment v. County of Placer (2013) 215
6 Cal.App.4th 25, 31-32; Castro v. Sacramento County Fire Protection Dist. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th
7 927, 933; Hanooka v. Pivko (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1563; Kupka v. Board of Administration
8 (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 791, 794-795.) "[A]n attorney acting within his or her professional capacity
9 ... may not be excused by section 473 from errors occurring during the discharge of strictly
10 professional duties." (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 684 [68 Cal.Rptr.2d 228].) "The
11 inadvertence contemplated by the statute does not mean mere inadvertence in the abstract. If it is

12 wholly inexcusable it does not justify relief."' Henderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2010) 187
13 Cal.App.4th 215, 230 [113 Cal.Rptr.3d 692].)
14 Absent sufficient facts to show the reasonableness of counsel's actions, how the delay was
15 excusable, or why it took so long to bring the case, the OCTC cannot meet their burden of showing
16 excusable neglect. Transit Ads, Inc. v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 275, 280.)
17 Excusable neglect "is not shown by the mere failure to discover a fact until it is too late." People ex
18 rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 39, 44; Greene v. State of
19 California (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 117, 122 [attorney's five-month delay was not excusable neglect].)
20 Counsel claimed it was an inadvertent omission. But "`[n]either inadvertence nor neglect will warrant
21 judicial relief unless it [is] . . . the excusable variety upon a sufficient showing.'" (Marcotte v.
22 Municipal Court (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 235, 239.) The failure to take "precautions" to "avoid missing"
23 time limitations "does not constitute excusable neglect." Ayala v. Southwest Leasing & Rental, Inc.,
24 supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 45.
25
26
27
28 / / /

5
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
 1 IV. CONCLUSION
2 For all of the above reasons, this Court should dismiss this matter with prejudice.
3 Dated: January 19, 2021
4 /s/ Estevan R. Lucero
_____________________________
Estevan R. Lucero
5 Respondent in Pro Per
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
 1 ESTEVAN R. LUCERO
1333 8TH Avenue, Apt. 201
2 San Diego, CA 92101
Tel.: 619-436-7097
3 Email: [email protected]

4 Respondent, In Pro Per

8 THE STATE BAR COURT

HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES
9
In the Matter of ESTEVAN R. LUCERO (SBN CASE NO. SBC-20-O-30906
10 298076), a member of the STATE BAR OF
CALIFORNIA DECLARATION OF ESTEVAN R.
11 LUCERO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
DISMISS
12
Judge: Hon. Dennis G. Saab
13 Dept: Courtroom C
Action Filed: December 23, 2020
14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23 I, ESTEVAN R. LUCERO, DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

24 1. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge, except where stated on

25 information and belief, and if called to testify in Court on these matters, I could do so

26 competently. I am the Respondent in this Matter and I make this declaration in support

27 of my Motion to Dismiss.

28

-1-
DECLARATION IN SUPORT MOTION TO DISMISS
 1 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of: Order setting the due date for

2 9.20 Declaration.

3 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of this Court’s January 13, 2020

4 Order of Abatement.

5 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of: Respondent’s 9.20 compliance

6 declaration.

7 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the September 15, 2020 letter

8 of inquiry from the Office of Chief Trial Counse.

9 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Respondent’s September 22,

10 2020 response to the letter of inquiry

11 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of December 9, 2020 “Notice of

12 Intent to File Disciplinary Charges.”

13 8. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

14 DATED: January 19, 2020

15 /s/ Estevan R. Lucero

Estevan R. Lucero
16 Respondent, In Pro Per

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-
DECLARATION IN SUPORT MOTION TO DISMISS
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2
STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA F‘" C‘e'k’s ”5° 0'1'3’5

FILED
HEARING DEPARTMENT
JAN 1 3 2020
?.E '

STATE B'AR COURT

s OFFICE
845 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90017 I
In the Matter of: Case No(s). SBC-l9-C-30500-CV

ESTEVAN R. LUCERO
STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER

State Ba! No- 298076 Date: Januar113, 2020 Time: 10:00 a.m.
APPEARANCES:
Office of Trials by: Named Party by: Named Party’s Counsel by:
ANDREW J. VASICEK ESTEVAN R. LUCERO
VERONIKA BARSEGYAN D
In Person D Person
In

E In Person X Telephone U Telephone

D Telephone D No Appearance D No Appearance
D No Appearance
TRIAL:
I I
This matter is set for date(s) certain for trial on: Culpability/Discipline:

PRETRIAL:
E Further Status Conference: In person D Telephonic March 3, 2020 at 9:45 a.m. (Resnondent max
a earb tele hone
D PretrialConference: Inperson D Telephonic I

PretrialStatement/Proposed Exhibits Due days before Pretrial Conference pursuant to 5.101 .1 and 5.101 .2,
Rules ofProcedure ofthe State Bar of California. The State Bar must use numbers to designate its exhibits beginning with
001; and Respondent/Applicant/Petitioner must use numbers beginning with 100].

SETTLEMENT:
I I
Counsel shall meet and confer in person or by telephone and report on the possibility of compromise at the next
conference.
The parties waive their ri ht to have the settlement conference heard by ajudge other than the trial judge.
D Settlement Conference: In Person D Telephonic
An original and one copy of settlement position statements in letter form are due five days prior to the settlement
conference.
D Stipulation to be filed by

OTHER ORDERS:
1. Respondent’s response to the Notice of Hearing on Conviction is due January 27, 2020.

2. For good cause shown, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel’s unopposed oral Motion to Abate is GRANTED.

W
3. This matter is abated effective January 13, 2020.

D Service ofthis order is waived.

1T Is

Dated: January
so ORDERED.

l
3 ,
2020
MW Vwfl
CYNTfiIA VALENZUELA
Judge of the State Bar Court
 CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE

[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 101 3a(4)]

l am a Court Specialist of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen
and
not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard coult practice, in the City and County
of Los Angeles, on January 13, 2020, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER

in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:

E by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal
Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

ESTEVAN R. LUCERO
3636 4TH AVE STE 202
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103-4237

K4 by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California
addressed as follows:

ANDREW J. VASICEK, Enforcement, Los Angeles

Ihereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct.

3APaul Barona
W
Executed in Los Angeles, California, on

Court Specialist
State Bar Court
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 4
 The State Bar OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
of California
845 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-765-1049 [email protected]

September 15, 2020

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

DELIVERED VIA MY STATE BAR PROFILE

Estevan R. Lucero
1333 8th Avenue, Unit 201
San Diego, CA 92101

Re: Case Number: 20-O-06386

Dear Mr. Lucero:

This letter is sent to you based upon information that you are not currently represented by
counsel in this matter. If this is incorrect, please advise me within five days so that future
communications may be directed to your counsel.

On February 24, 2020, you filed a Rule 9.20 Compliance Declaration (copy attached) with the
State Bar Court related to pending Case No. SBC-19-C-30500. In this Compliance Declaration,
you stated that you notified all clients and co-counsel in matters pending on the date upon
which the order to comply was filed, and that you delivered to all clients any papers or other
property to which the clients were entitled. However, you also stated that as to notifying all
opposing counsel or adverse parties not represented by counsel, you did not represent any
clients in pending matters. Furthermore, your Compliance Declaration was due by December
28, 2019.

Your written response as to why your Compliance Declaration was submitted untimely, along
with any supporting documentation, is requested. If possible, please forward your written
response as an attachment to an email addressed to the undersigned at
[email protected]. All documents that you send to the State Bar, whether
copies or originals, become State Bar property and are subject to destruction. In addition to
your written response, please provide the information requested below and legible copies of
referenced documents:
San Francisco Office Los Angeles Office
180 Howard Street 845 S. Figueroa Street
San Francisco, CA 94105 www.calbar.ca.gov Los Angeles, CA 90017
Estevan Lucero

Page 2

1. All notices sent to all clients being represented in matters pending on the date upon
which the order to comply with Rule 9.20 was filed.

2. All notices sent to all co-counsel in matters pending on the date upon which the order to
comply with Rule 9.20 was filed.

3. All return receipts for notices sent to all clients by certified or registered mail.

4. All return receipts for notices sent to all co-counsel by certified or registered mail.

5. A detailed explanation of your delivery to all clients of all papers or other property to
which your clients were entitled. Specify the names of clients, what was delivered, and
on what date(s).

6. A detailed explanation as to how there were no opposing counsel or adverse parties in

pending matters to notify of your suspension.

In addition, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6086.10, you may be subject to
a cost assessment for the expenses incurred by the State Bar if this matter results in public
discipline.

We must receive your written response and the documents requested, if any, by September 29,
2020. Please be reminded that Business and Professions Code Section 6068(i) states that it is
the duty of an attorney to cooperate with and participate in any State Bar Investigation.

Upon request, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel will consider granting you additional time within
which to submit a written response to the allegations and the requested information and
documents. A request for an extension of time must be in writing and state good cause as to
the specific constraints on your practice which are claimed to necessitate the additional time.
Any request for extension of time must be received by the undersigned on or before
September 29, 2020.

Please feel free to call me at 213-765-1049 if you have any questions.

Estevan Lucero

Page 3

Sincerely,

Whitney McCaskill
Investigator
EXHIBIT 5
 Monday, December 21, 2020 at 09:48:06 Pacific Standard Time

Subject: Re: SBN 298076 Le/er of Inquiry -- Office of Chief Trial Counsel, The State Bar of California
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 8:17:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Steve Lucero <[email protected]>
To: McCaskill, Whitney <[email protected]>
CC: Ramirez, Sandy <[email protected]>

Ms. McCaskill,

I am in receipt of this inquiry le/er dated September 15, 2020. The inquiry alleges an unXmely filing of the Rule 9.20
DeclaraXon, a defect in form not substance.

In the week before receiving this inquiry, I received a signed sXpulaXon as to facts and conclusions of law in the
convicXon proceeding but was not noXfied of this invesXgaXon in violaXon of the State Bar Rules of Procedure. It
appears this inquiry was commenced in retaliaXon for the objecXon I filed alleging several ethical violaXons and
systemaXc abuse of power by Ms. Ramirez, only two hours before this inquiry was originated.

This bad-faith inquiry represents yet another example of Ms. Ramirez's poor judgment and unfair treatment of me
during these proceedings. It is clear that she is willinng to abuse these proceedings in order to gain an unfair
advantage over me.

Pursuant to Rule 585, the State Bar is barred from pursuing a Rule 9.20 violaXon a]er 90 days has passed unless the
Court makes a ruling that good cause exists for it to do so. RetaliaXng for well-founded allegaXons is not good cause.

If your office plans to pursue this ma/er, it first must make an affirmaXve showing of good cause to the Court. Absent
such a showing, the 90 day statute of limitaXons has expired.

On that basis, I object to this inquiry le/er. I also object to the Office of Chief Trial Counsel's further involvement in all
ma/ers involving myself because of an apparent conflict of interest.

Please indicate your plan moving forward in order that I may determine whether to move for relief from the court
prior to the indicated due date.

AddiXonally, please take steps to preserve all communicaXons between you and Ms. Ramirez relaXng to this inquiry
and all other invesXgaXon your are involved in involving me. Your records will be demanded in liXgaXon proceedings
in state or federal court and are relevant to the causes of acXons I anXcipate asserXng.

Thank you.

Estevan Lucero

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 2:53 PM McCaskill, Whitney <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Estevan R. Lucero,

The Office of Chief Trial Counsel has prepared a le/er of inquiry and posted it on your “My State Bar Profile.”
Please immediately log on to your a/orney profile on the State Bar’s website at h/p:/members.calbar.ca.gov to
review, download and print the le/er. Business and Professions Code, secXon 6068, subdivision (i), states that it is
the duty of an a/orney to cooperate with and parXcipate in any State Bar invesXgaXon. If you have quesXons
regarding issues raised in the le/er of inquiry, you may contact the assigned invesXgator at the telephone number
provided in the le/er of inquiry.

If you are not registered in your profile, or if you need assistance with your profile password, contact A/orney

Page 1 of 2
RegulaXon & Consumer Resources at 1-888-800-3400, Monday through Friday 8:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (PST). The
State Bar of California is closed on court holidays. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel cannot assist you with your
State Bar Profile account.

Whitney McCaskill

Investigator | Office of Chief Trial Counsel

The State Bar of California | 845 S. Figueroa Street | Los Angeles, CA 90017

Tel: 213-765-1049 | Email: [email protected]

Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 6
 The State Bar OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
of California
845 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-765-1004 [email protected]

December 9, 2020

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

DELIVERED VIA MY STATE BAR PROFILE

Estevan R. Lucero
1333 8th Avenue, Unit 201
San Diego, CA 92101

Re: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES

Case Number: 20-O-06386
Complainant: Probation Referral

Dear Mr. Lucero:

This letter is sent to you based upon information that you are not currently represented by
counsel in this matter. If this is incorrect, please advise me within five days so that future
communications may be directed to your counsel by completing the enclosed “Notice of
Designation to Receive Service” form.

The filing of a NDC commences formal, public disciplinary proceedings against you before the
State Bar Court. If public discipline is imposed, disciplinary costs will be assessed against you
pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6086.10. If the discipline includes an actual
suspension or disbarment, or if you resign with charges pending, monetary sanctions could also
be imposed pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6086.13 and rule 5.137 of the
Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.

In evaluating the allegations of misconduct and recommending a level of discipline, our office
takes into consideration the relevant Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional
Misconduct (Standards), including both aggravating and mitigating circumstances as reflected in
Standards 1.5 and 1.6 respectively, and case law. Each party must prove any applicable
aggravating or mitigating circumstances by clear and convincing evidence. If you believe
San Francisco Office Los Angeles Office
180 Howard Street 845 S. Figueroa Street
San Francisco, CA 94105 www.calbar.ca.gov Los Angeles, CA 90017
Estevan R. Lucero
December 9, 2020
Page 2

mitigating circumstances apply in your matter, please submit any supporting mitigation
evidence for consideration at the earliest possible time. You can find out more information
about the relevant procedural rules that govern disciplinary proceedings in the State Bar Court,
including the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, which contain the Standards, at
the State Bar Court website, http://www.statebarcourt.ca.gov/Procedures-Programs-and-Rules.

If you are interested in resolving this matter before disciplinary charges are filed, you may
request an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENEC”) conducted by a State Bar Court Judge.
A copy of Rule 5.30, Rules of Procedure, is enclosed. To request an ENEC, you must return the
enclosed form to the Court within ten calendar days from the date of this letter and provide me
with a copy of your ENEC request. To ensure timely receipt of your ENEC request, please fax
the enclosed form to the State Bar Court using the fax number on the form.

The Court will conduct the ENEC within 15 days of the request. If you do not request an ENEC
with the Court within 10 days, I will assume that you are not requesting an ENEC and
disciplinary charges may be filed without further notice to you.

You may have access to, and an opportunity to copy, all non-privileged materials and any
exculpatory evidence within the State Bar’s investigation file(s). If you want copies of these
documents, you must also request them within ten days of the date of this letter to have them
available before the ENEC. If you do not request an ENEC but want copies of these documents,
you will be provided with copies in a timely fashion.

Finally, as you may be aware, the State Bar of California now has a Lawyer Assistance Program
(“LAP”) to assist attorneys who have drug, alcohol or mental health conditions. The toll free
number is (866) 436-6644; a LAP brochure is enclosed for your information and review. The
State Bar Court also has a program to address misconduct that arises from drug, alcohol or
mental health problems. (Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, at rules 5.380-5.389; see also
www.calbar.ca.gov, at hyperlinks: Attorney Resources, State Bar Court - Procedures, Programs
& Rules). We provide this information to all respondents in disciplinary proceedings, in the
event it may be useful to them, and do not intend to imply that you have need of these
programs.

If you wish to discuss this matter informally with me either instead of or prior to the ENEC, my
direct dial number is noted at the top of this letter. Please note that you must still submit a
Estevan R. Lucero
December 9, 2020
Page 3

request for an ENEC (on the enclosed form) to preserve your right to an ENEC even if you wish
to discuss this matter with me informally.

Sincerely,

Sandy A. Ramirez
Deputy Trial Counsel

Enclosures
Notice of Designation to Receive Service
Rule 5.30
ENEC Request form
LAP information
Rule 5.30 Pre-filing, Early Neutral Evaluation Conference

(A) Early Neutral Evaluation Conference. If the Office of Chief Trial Counsel and the member cannot
agree on the resolution or disposition of a matter before disciplinary charges are filed, either party may
request an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference. A State Bar Court hearing judge must conduct the
conference within 15 days of the request.

(B) Judicial Evaluation. At the conference, the judge must give the parties an oral evaluation of the
facts and charges and the potential for imposing discipline. If the parties then resolve the matter in a
way that requires Court approval, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel must document the resolution and
submit it to the Evaluation judge for approval or rejection.

(C) Evidence. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel must submit a copy of the draft notice of disciplinary
charges to the judge prior to the conference. Each party may submit documents and information to
supports its position.

(D) Confidentiality. The conference is confidential. A party may designate any document it submits for
in camera inspection only.

(E) Trial Judge. Unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, the Early Neutral Evaluation judge cannot be
the trial judge in a later proceeding involving the same facts.
 STATE BAR COURT HEARING DEPARTMENT
GUIDELINES FOR SCHEDULING AND CONDUCTING
EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION CONFERENCES (ENEC)
RULE 5.30, RULES OF PROCEDURE
Effective May 31, 2019

Scheduling:

• Use court-approved form and submit to proper venue by facsimile or mail. All requests must be
on the latest version of the form dated May 31, 2019. Requests on any other form will be
returned and accompanied by a request to resubmit the new form.
• Supply multiple dates agreed to by opposing counsel. In order to schedule the ENEC within
15days, the court may not be able to accommodate requested dates.
• Court Specialists will notify requestor of the assigned ENEC Judge and ENEC date.
• Requestor to notify opposing counsel – no written notice will be given by the court.
• The parties may not request a specific ENEC Judge.

Preparation for the conference:

• In addition to the required draft notice of disciplinary charges, the court requests the parties
submit a brief statement of the case, including their settlement positions.
• A party requesting consideration of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, as reflected in
Standards 1.5 and 1.6 respectively, should submit all available supporting evidence or a proffer
of what such evidence would show. Copies should be served on the court and opposing counsel
in advance of the ENEC for consideration at the conference.
• Documents should be submitted as early as possible, but no later than three (3) court days in
advance of the ENEC. The ENEC may be rescheduled if the ENEC Judge is not provided sufficient
time to review the material.
• In order to increase productivity, the court encourages the parties to exchange documents prior
to the ENEC.

Conduct of the Conference:

• The parties should be prepared to discuss the facts, the proposed charges and the potential for
the imposition of discipline.
• The ENEC Judge will address settlement of the case, and therefore, the parties should be
prepared to discuss settlement positions and should have settlement authority.
• In camera inspection of documents is permissible. While this may be necessary in some cases,
the final evaluation may be based on information only available to one side which may lessen
the opportunity for settlement.

Conclusion:

• If a settlement is reached, all material terms should be agreed upon at the ENEC. If a
stipulation is to be filed, it should be directed to the ENEC Judge. If the Stipulation is not filed
by an agreed upon date, the ENEC Judge may schedule a continued ENEC prior to the filing of
 the notice of disciplinary charges.
• If no settlement is reached, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel may file a notice of disciplinary
charges and should advise the opposing counsel when it will be filed.
• More than one ENEC may be necessary. Upon request of the parties, the ENEC Judge may
permit a short continuance – the 15 day period set forth in Rule 5.30(a) will not apply.
• The ENEC Judge will not be the Trial Judge unless both parties consent. The ENEC Judge may
serve as the Settlement Judge.
 STATE BAR COURT
HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES

REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION CONFERENCE

CASE NUMBERS: 20-O-06386

List all numbers; attach additional sheets as needed

Requesting party:

Office of Chief Trial Counsel Attorney Counsel for Attorney Both Parties

Requesting party MUST fill in the following information:

Both parties have mutually agreed to the available dates listed below

Deputy Trial Counsel: Sandy A. Ramirez State Bar No.: 311516

Email Address: [email protected] Telephone No.: 213-765-1004
Fax No.:

Attorney: Estevan R. Lucero State Bar No.:

Email Address: Telephone No.:
Fax No.:

Counsel for Attorney

(if applicable): State Bar No.:
Email Address: Telephone No.:
Fax No.:
Joint availability dates of parties: [Please provide the Court with a minimum of two dates including available times]
Date Time Date Time

Please return this request form to:

State Bar Court
845 South Figueroa St., 3rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2515
Fax No. (213) 765-1568

(For State Bar Court Use Only)

ENEC Judge assigned: Requesting party notified of ENEC date/time on:

Date Assigned: By:

ENEC date/time: Court Specialist

ENEC Request - 5/301/2019
 LAWYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
TOLL FREE:

LAWYER ASSISTANCE 877-LAP-4HELP

PROGRAM
877-527-4435 LAWYER ASSISTANCE
213-765-1190
The mission of the State Bar of California [email protected] PROGRAM
Lawyer Assistance Program is to support www.calbar.ca.gov/LAP
law students, bar applicants, inactive, active,
and former attorneys in their rehabilitation LOCATIONS: Helping law students,
and competent practice of law, enhance 180 Howard St. bar applicants, and attorneys
public protection, and maintain the integrity San Francisco, CA 94105
of the legal profession. live well everyday
865 S. Figueroa St.
Los Angeles, CA 90017

www.calbar.ca.gov/LAP
Contact the Lawyer Assistance Program
to see if financial assistance is available Confidential Hotline
for your particular situation.
877-LAP-4HELP
 Lawyer Assistance Program
Services
The practice of law is demanding
It demands your time, your energy, and your “This is the first time Short-Term Counseling
» Two free one-on-one short-term counseling
attention. Whether you are preparing to enter the
profession, already practicing, or winding down
since I was 22 years old sessions with a local therapist
for retirement, your responsibilities to others often that I can look towards » Two free career counseling sessions for career
require you to forsake your own well-being in order
to achieve success. Over time, this can exact a toll a future—any future— dilemmas/decisions
» No long-term commitment
on your mental and physical health.
with confidence rather
Are you: than fear and worry.” Orientation & Assessment
» Feeling that things are not quite right or could be » Free professional mental health assessment
going better? —Lawyer Assistance Program
participant
» No long-term commitment to the program
» Struggling to keep up personally and » Confidential appointment with a Clinical
professionally? Rehabilitation Coordinator (CRC)
» Having problems with sleep, appetite, Support
concentration, and/or procrastination?
Be proactive when facing life’s » Weekly group with other participants
» Drinking or using drugs or engaging in other
» Support of a qualified mental health
unhealthy behaviors to cope? challenges professional
» Willing to reach out and get the help you Research confirms that legal professionals suffer » Voluntary and confidential program
deserve? from mental health issues and addiction at much
higher rates than the general population. » Fee for group participation
Substance use and mental health disorders are Monitoring
not moral issues, but are treatable illnesses whose
effects result in deterioration of moral and ethical » Specific monitoring or verification requirement
practices. imposed by:
– State Bar Office of Chief Trial Counsel
The stigma is not having an illness, but in failing to
The Lawyer Assistance seek treatment once its presence is recognized.
– State Bar Committee of Bar Examiners
– State Bar Court
Program Can Help
The Lawyer Assistance Program » Long-term structure
is confidential » Weekly support group
www.calbar.ca.gov/LAP » Support of a professional CRC
Confidentiality is absolute unless waived by you.
» Individual therapy, if applicable
Confidential Hotline Information cannot be disclosed as part of a civil
proceeding, a disciplinary proceeding, or a public » Lab testing if applicable
877-LAP-4HELP records request (Business & Professions Code
section 6234). » Fees for services
» No disclosure without prior written
authorization