Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. LaCour

Citation: 2001-Ohio-245

Docket Number: 20001563

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-03-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. LaCour, 91 Ohio St.3d 154, 2001-Ohio-245.] 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LACOUR. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. LaCour (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 154.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Twenty-four-month suspension with final 
eighteen months of suspension stayed on condition — Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice — Engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Entering into an 
agreement for, charging, or collecting a clearly excessive fee — Failing to 
carry out contract of employment — Prejudicing or damaging client 
during course of professional relationship — Failing to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 00-1563 — Submitted October 17, 2000 — Decided March 7, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-12. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In September 1988, several, but not all, of the plaintiffs in a 
pending case in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 
engaged respondent, Louis Bernard LaCour of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0032494, to replace their original counsel.  Under his agreement 
with those plaintiffs, respondent received $18,000 as an advance against fees and 
expenses, and was to receive a total fee of one-third of the plaintiffs’ gross 
recovery.  In addition, the plaintiffs were each to pay an additional $300 to 
respondent to finance the case. 
 
In February 1991, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case, finding 
that, even after several extensions of time, they had failed to comply with 
discovery orders.  When the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider, 
respondent filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 
Circuit.  On July 17, 1992, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
The plaintiffs contend that respondent did not inform them of the 
dismissal when he met with them in March 1991.  In fact, respondent sent a letter 
to the plaintiffs on July 26, 1991, stating that he had filed an appeal in the case 
and that he expected a “scheduling order for the submission of briefs shortly.”  
Respondent continued to meet with representatives of the group through 1997, 
even hiring, in 1995, another attorney to aid in exploring possible causes of 
action. 
 
In September 1997, a number of the plaintiffs, who had discovered that 
their case had been dismissed, confronted respondent, and he then admitted to that 
fact. 
 
During the course of his employment, respondent received approximately 
$48,000 from his clients, $29,329.65 of which was used to pay expenses of the 
case.  Respondent took approximately $20,000 as legal fees during his 
representation. 
 
On April 5, 1999, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a two-
count complaint alleging that the conduct of respondent violated several rules of 
the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent answered, and the matter 
was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“board”).  In addition to respondent’s actions and failures to act, the 
panel found that respondent did not cooperate with relator’s efforts to investigate 
the complaints filed against him by the various plaintiffs. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) 
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-
102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-
102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on the fitness to practice 
law), 2-106(A) (entering into an agreement for, charging, or collecting a clearly 
excessive fee), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract entered into with a 
client), 7-101(A)(3) (prejudicing or damaging a client during the course of a 
January Term, 2001 
3 
professional relationship), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a 
disciplinary investigation). 
 
The panel heard evidence in mitigation and noted respondent’s remorse, 
his contributions to the community during a long legal career, the fact that no 
prior disciplinary actions had been brought against him, and his agreement to 
return $20,000 in legal fees to his clients.  The panel recommended that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for twenty-four months with the 
final eighteen months of the suspension stayed on condition that during the first 
six months of this suspension respondent fulfill his agreement to return the 
$20,000.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the panel. 
 
We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board.  
Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for twenty-four months 
with the final eighteen months of the suspension stayed on condition that during 
the first six months of this suspension respondent fulfill his agreement to return 
the $20,000 to his clients.  Failure to satisfy this condition will result in 
reinstatement of the stayed portion of respondent’s suspension.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., 
concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent and would, 
instead, impose a more stringent sanction in this case.  Respondent’s conduct and 
deceitfulness, and the immense harm to his many clients as a result of the 
dismissal of their case merits a more serious sanction. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
I would suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of 
twenty-four months with twelve months stayed (to which relator and respondent 
had originally stipulated).  I would require respondent to refund the entire amount 
of money that he accepted from his clients, not just his fee.  His neglect and 
inaction resulted in dismissal of his clients’ claims.  They should not be penalized 
for his failures and should at least be refunded all the monies they paid to 
respondent, including reimbursement for expenses incurred. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and John K. McManus, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
__________________