Faked Exam Puts Lawyer in Rare Plea to Justices

In an unusual lawyer-discipline case, the California Supreme Court was urged Tuesday not to disbar a brilliant young attorney even though she adopted a disguise to fraudulently take and pass the State Bar exam for her husband.

A lawyer representing Laura Beth Lamb, 33, pleaded for leniency for Lamb on grounds that she had suffered from extreme emotional and physical problems--including a life-threatening pregnancy--and that her husband had vowed to kill her, their unborn child and himself had she refused to join in the scheme.

“We’re not asking you to excuse what happened, but to understand what happened and why,” said Lamb’s attorney, Tom Low of San Francisco. “There is not a shred of evidence that she is an unethical person or an evil person. . . . This was a one-in-a-million thing.”

But Diane Yu, counsel for the State Bar, argued that disbarment is necessary to deter conspiracies that could foist an unqualified attorney such as Lamb’s husband on an unknowing public.

Lamb had ample opportunity but chose not to alert authorities to the scheme after taking the exam and giving birth to a healthy child, Yu noted. The husband, Morgan Anthony Lamb, previously had failed the test, scoring in the bottom 20% of the applicants.

“This was a premeditated and deliberate plot,” Yu said. “She had the brains in the family. She took the exam and placed ninth among over 4,000 who took it. She was an outstanding actress and carried it off beautifully, all the time knowing it was wrong.”

The justices heard arguments in Los Angeles in a case that clearly raised a troublesome issue for the court. While questions from jurists reflected sympathy for Lamb and her dilemma, they also showed concern for protecting against fraud in the legal profession.

If she is disbarred, she cannot apply for reinstatement as a practicing lawyer for at least five years. As an alternative, the court also could order her suspension for a period of time or hold that she should not be punished at all. A ruling is due within 90 days.

According to the Bar, Lamb, then an attorney for the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, wore a man’s shirt, pulled her hair back and penciled thick eyebrows on her forehead in order to pose as her husband when identification photos were taken before the July, 1985, exam. She signed her husband’s name to the application and deliberately smudged a thumbprint used to identify test-takers, the Bar said.

After an anonymous tip led to an investigation four months later, Laura Lamb was arrested and eventually pleaded no contest to two felony counts of false impersonation that later were reduced to misdemeanors. She was fined $2,500, placed on probation and ordered to perform community service. Meanwhile, she and her husband were divorced in 1986.

Last year, Morgan Lamb was found guilty of three felony counts of forgery and false impersonation and was placed on probation and ordered to perform community service.

The State Bar subsequently brought disciplinary proceedings against Laura Lamb and asked the high court to prohibit her from practicing law. Attorneys for Lamb urged against her disbarment, saying a less harsh punishment is warranted by the unique circumstances of the case. The lawyers portrayed the woman as the victim of an abusive husband who intimidated her into taking the exam in his behalf, even though she was undergoing a severely complicated pregnancy and was in danger of losing her eyesight from diabetes.

In Tuesday’s hearing, attorney Low told the court that during her pregnancy, Lamb had suffered so badly her skin had cracked and bled from bodily swelling and that she had vomited uncontrollably. Nonetheless, her husband “demanded she take care of him,” Low said, and a worn-down Laura Lamb “just plain gave in.” After she took the Bar exam, she was rushed to the hospital and remained in intensive care before giving birth, Los said.

During questioning, Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas said it was “astonishing” that Lamb scored so high in the exam when she was under such heavy physical and mental strain.

“She’s brilliant,” replied the attorney--to which Justice Allen E. Broussard interjected, “And even brilliant people have problems.”

Justice Stanley Mosk questioned Low on his assertion that Lamb had “no option” but to cooperate with her husband in the scheme. “Her option was to say no, wasn’t it?” Mosk asked.

“She could have said no,” responded Low, “but she might not be here today, alive, and her child might not have been alive.”

Yu, appearing for the Bar, was closely questioned by Justice Marcus M. Kaufman, who, among other things, asked why suspension, with accompanying supervision by the Bar, was not preferable to disbarment.

The Bar attorney replied that Lamb’s “premeditated fraud,” involving a series of acts to further the scheme, warranted the harshest punishment the court may impose on errant lawyers. Lamb’s physical difficulties largely ceased to exist after she took the exam and her child was born, the attorney said.

“At this point, she might have shown remorse and turned herself in,” Yu said. “But she didn’t do it.”

Lamb herself watched the proceedings from a seat at the rear of the courtroom. Afterward, she expressed optimism about the outcome.

“The questions seemed favorable to our side,” said Lamb, who is currently working as a legal secretary in Los Angeles. “I think the Supreme Court realizes the unusual set of circumstances in the case and that an ethical person can find herself in such circumstances and make the wrong choice.”