Estate Attorney Under Investigation Files Suit : Litigation: Lloyd G. Copenbarger, accused of impropriety in a contested probate case, is suing a court-appointed lawyer who made allegations against him.

A prominent estate lawyer under investigation by the State Bar of California has sued a court-appointed attorney who leveled a host of malpractice allegations against him in one of the county’s most contested probate cases.

Lloyd G. Copenbarger of Irvine filed the lawsuit last week in Orange County Superior Court against Michael D. Pursell of Santa Ana and other defendants to be named later, charging that Pursell engaged in fraudulent activity to thwart the wishes of Copenbarger’s client, the late Hazel I. Maag of Anaheim.

The suit further contends that Pursell did not act in Maag’s best interest after he was appointed in 1990 by a Superior Court judge as an independent attorney for the elderly widow because of questions raised about Copenbarger’s role in handling her $24-million estate.

“The acts of the defendant(s) and each of them is despicable,” states Copenbarger’s lawsuit, which seeks unspecified monetary damages. “Each of the defendant(s) acted with oppression, fraud, malice, and with the intent to injure Maag. . . .”

Pursell declined to discuss the lawsuit because he had not yet been formally served with a copy. In general, he said, “I’ve got nothing to hide. I can’t imagine what I did for the court that would lend any legitimacy to a lawsuit like this.”

Copenbarger, who has called Pursell’s court appointment an enormous waste of time and money, also declined to comment in detail about the action.

“I think the lawsuit speaks for itself,” he said. “We aren’t going to try this thing in the newspaper. We are, however, taking steps to protect the Maag estate. The facts speak for themselves.”

Hired by Maag in late 1986 as her estate lawyer, Copenbarger helped rewrite her will, create a living trust and execute documents that by January, 1987, gave him power of attorney over her affairs as well as exclusive control of her trust if she became incapacitated. Virtually all of her estate was earmarked for the Hazel I. Maag Foundation, a charitable organization that Copenbarger directs.

Copenbarger’s work on behalf of Maag later became controversial in the probate division of Superior Court. Maag’s relatives successfully fought to stop Copenbarger from becoming her conservator when she was determined to be no longer competent to handle her affairs, and two court-appointed attorneys, one of them Pursell, have repeatedly criticized the handling of her assets.

In February, The Times reported that Copenbarger’s actions in the Maag estate had been the subject of a State Bar investigation for almost two years. Bar officials have refused to comment on the inquiry because of confidentiality rules.

Copenbarger has denied any impropriety, saying that he is the target of unfounded allegations by people motivated by self-interest. He said his handling of the estate reflects exactly what Maag wanted done with her money, stock and property upon her death last year.

After Maag’s relatives raised questions about Copenbarger in 1989, the Orange County Superior Court appointed Pursell in October, 1990, to act as Maag’s attorney and provide some independent oversight.

In a report to the court within days of Maag’s death in May, 1992, Pursell alleged that Copenbarger hired his own relatives at estate expense, misused client funds, billed the estate exorbitant amounts of money for fees and expenses, and took unfair advantage of an elderly woman who did not understand what was happening to her assets.

According to Pursell, there is substantial indication that Maag was mentally incompetent when she hired Copenbarger in 1986. He cited the sworn statements of at least six people who said that Maag had difficulty conducting her personal affairs--even understanding a simple bank transaction--when Copenbarger became her attorney.

In addition, five people have said in court depositions that the estate plan prepared by Copenbarger, leaving Maag’s assets to a charitable foundation under Copenbarger’s control and with no designated beneficiaries, was hard to reconcile with Maag’s past decision to leave the bulk of her estate to relatives.

In his report, Pursell noted that there were potential conflicts of interest and “ample evidence” of wrongdoing to warrant a thorough investigation of the estate and to remove Copenbarger as trustee.

Pursell also questioned Copenbarger’s role in several other multimillion-dollar estates in Orange and Riverside counties, including one in which he allegedly used an outdated property appraisal to sell a 243-acre ranch well under market value.

Copenbarger has denied any wrongdoing in the handling of those estates. He contends that the allegations contained in Pursell’s report stem from an inadequate investigation as well as an appalling lack of knowledge about Maag’s wishes.

Times staff writer Mark I. Pinsky contributed to this report.